with us so I came to give it a look. I’m definitely enjoying the information. I’m

book-marking and will be tweeting this to my followers!

Excellent blog and brilliant design.

I stand by my comment.

“I think we should applaud those who are open minded enough to explore beyond the conventional”

Why? When the “conventional” approach is based in evidence is there a need to. I think your attraction to holistic health is more of a motivation against the notion of convention and conservatism. Calling medicine conventional is inaccurate too, medicine is based on the scientific method which is always subject to change based on new evidence. It is the most open minded way of looking at things, calling it conventional marks it as being stuck which makes it something for people to react against. Alternative medicine is actually more conventional as it resists new information, doesn’t change and often prides itself on remaining static. Science based medicine and healthcare meanwhile embraces change as new evidence based ( peer review not one persons opionion ) information comes to hand.

As for your quote about all truth passing through three stages, that kind of implies an endless circular logic where all things could be considered and never criticised. I heard it put well recently – they may have laughed at galileo but remember they also laughed at bobo the clown.

She said ‘are challenging you’, not: ‘challenging to you’. Forgive me if I’m wrong but to me what she has said reads as though she is referring to the challenging of one’s beliefs, rather than a reference to Heather’s mental capacity. But I can see how misreading the sentence as you did could have it appear that way. As for your statement regarding health quackery and the like, I don’t really think there’s any need for such a comment, I think we should applaud those who are open minded enough to explore beyond the conventional; always remember: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

“If these ideas are challenging to you..”- my god what a snide and condescending thing to say. Instead of considering your position or taking on board what the person has said you assume that the fault lies with this posters ability to accept the information you are putting forward. It’s like the old “closed minded” ad homonym attack.

You seem to have almost zero understanding of how science works, one scientists opinion is not science. Peer review and double blind trials are what give us worthwhile information everything else is theoretical until it has passed though these doors. your blog and Jessica’s blog do give a good sample of the current trends in health quackery though.

This is called confirmation bias – you also said that you were exposed to the failures of medicine. This is also confirmation bias. Science is not about one persons theory no matter how credentialed they may be it’s about peer review and repeatable results through objective testing. I think you are closed minded to any points of view beyond your ideology.

Hi Emily,

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I feel there is just so much information on the other side of the fence, I have an obligation as an alternative health practitioner to deliver this different point of view. To be honest, I’m constantly exposed to the failure of medicine – that’s not to say it doesn’t have a place, but if fails when we don’t support the body as a whole. I do understand what you are saying – I also think it really is up to the individual person to gather as much information as possible to make informed choices.
I absolutely appreciate your opinion. I’m delighted you take the time to read and share.

x

I havent listened to the interview yet so at this stage Im just responding to your comments above. If you only set out to find people who support your views are you not presenting a biased view? I am interested in your perspective but when you only repect the evidence that supports your point of view you are not able to be objective about anything. I am a big believer that we are huge influencers in our own lives but we have to be careful not to get too caught up in magical thinking. I have done more exploration in this area recently, as it applies directly to cancer. The research indicates that the people who have the greatest fear of cancer are actually the people who have survived it. There are also other people who have irrational fears and phobias (and other mental heath conditions) which never suffer the things they fear most because their thoughts dont 100% determine their reality. And thank God for that!! The truth is that it is well known that thoughts can influence our experience, our feelings and our behaviour but thoughts on their own, without any other action are just thoughts. There is a lot of supporting evidence for this view from mindfulness theory taken directly from the ancient and spiritual buddhist traditions. There is also a lot of current scientific research in the area which finds it can be very helpful for mental health and well being not to place too much emphasis on the idea of thoughts solely creating reality. I don’t think anyone has all the answers to any of these questions regardless of the persons profession. We are all growing, learning and evolving and we have to be really careful not to rule out other perspectives just because they are different than our own. Isnt that why you are here to get people questioning? If that is truly your intent then it would be great to interview people who see things from a range of different perspectives not just those that fit with your existing beliefs. In my view that is what really challenges people to think for themselves.

Thanks for keeping this topic alive and the debate flowing. I agree with your view that it is defintely a debate worth having.