Helping you make better health choices

In shops now or delivered to your home from only £3.50 an issue!

Subscribe!

Criticism of john diamond needed public airing; was diamond's cancer f

MagazineNovember 2001 (Vol. 12 Issue 8)Criticism of john diamond needed public airing; was diamond's cancer f

* Congratulations for having the courage to write about John Diamond (WDDTY vol 12 no 5)

* Congratulations for having the courage to write about John Diamond (WDDTY vol 12 no 5). There may well be others who will seek to vilify you, but a publicly expressed view needed to be said and you did it well!- U.R.D., Stafford


* Like you, I kept my counsel during the 'death watch', as I felt John Diamond needed something to vent his anger on. However, I once wrote that an initial sensitisation could have come from the formaldehyde in his father's lab which he mentions sniffing, in his earlier 'C' book, as a happy memory.- P.J., by fax


*To use your own words, I think it would have been better if you had 'kept your mouth uncharacteristically shut'. An editorial in this tone does harm to a minority publication and can detract from the worthiness of its cause.

I do not know exactly what your mission statement is, but I assume it is to report scientifically on both orthodox and complementary medicine, thereby giving the reader the information to make their own choice. That is what John Diamond did.

By detailing his illness so graphically, he did a tremendous amount to remove the taboo about cancer and also to enlighten the medical profession on the patient's perspective. I have no doubt that some of the advice he received from advocates of non-orthodox approaches was not what you would wish to feature in your magazine. Not all non-orthodox practices are helpful to patients. We cannot therefore be surprised that a witty journalist would use this to his advantage.

I found your statement 'he killed himself' particularly offensive. We all know that some non-smokers develop cancer, just as some heavy smokers do not. Again, that is one of the life choices that people make in the knowledge that they will have to face the consequences.

I suppose that the majority of the population shares his view of medicine as 'a stark either-or choice'. I believe that when representing minority views, it is a waste of energy and somewhat undignified to go on the attack. (I say this as a teetotal vegan).

It might be helpful to consider the stance of the Vegetarian Society, whose aim is to sell vegetarianism. This does not include attacking factory farming, etc. Surely a positive aim is desirable? People will read your magazine and the wider media, and make their own informed choices.- L.B., Bournemouth


Dietary changes lower high blood pressure

Avoid salicylates to get rid of nasal polyps

You may also be interested in...

Sign up for free today

Sign up now to get your FREE 17-point Plan to Great Health

Free membership gives you access to our latest news reports, use of our community area, forums, blogs, readers' health tips and our twice-weekly
e-news letter.

WDDTY Recommends

Latest Tweet

About

Since 1989, WDDTY has provided thousands of resources on how to beat asthma, arthritis, cancer, depression and many other chronic conditions.

Start by looking in our fully searchable database, active and friendly community forums and the latest health news.

Positive SSL Wildcard

Facebook Twitter

Most Popular Health Website of the Year 2014

© 2010 - 2016 WDDTY Publishing Ltd.
All Rights Reserved