WDDTY: An Apology

Sometimes when you’re a skeptic the only word you can possibly use is sorry. Sometimes an apology is the only correct response.

Lynne McTaggart (@LynneMcTaggart) framed calls to remove What Doctors Don’t Tell You (WDDTY) from supermarkets as a free speech issue, then deleted commentary by critics – however polite, however reasonable – from her Facebook pages.

Skeptics characterised this as hypocrisy.

She claimed that a piece in The Times criticising WDDTY for inaccuracies was itself inaccurate.

Skeptics pored through the content of the journal and proved this was false (example, example). One tracked down the author of a study cited by WDDTY and was told that the results had been “misquoted and misinterpreted – I believe on purpose”.

Several of us deconstructed her “Top 10 Dirty Tricks” commentary.

Some have analysed her past work. Skeptics’ reviews of her published books are… not favourable.

Lynne claims to have written on the “new physics”, but it appears that what she has actually written about is quantum flapdoodle.

But have skeptics cruelly wronged someone who is merely explaining a different way of knowing? Is Lynne really a respected, intellectually honest proponent of treatments that are likely to work but fall outside of the current medico-scientific paradigm? Is she blazing a Kuhnian trail to a new horizon from which we will all look back and see what fools we were?

I come back to the subject of this post. An apology. The word sorry.

And to answer my own rhetorical question above:


WDDTY is a sorry excuse for a health magazine and represents a public danger. Following its advice can lead to harm, and when it s correct it is either because nobody can be wrong all the time or because some parts of SCAM are and always have been mainstream health advice – like good diet and moderate exercise. There is nothing remotely alternative or controversial about these.

And Lynne McTaggart an apology for a science journalist. A kook, a crank, a hypocrite, a believer in nonsense that is plainly contradicted by the best evidence, a serial manipulator of facts, who ignores conflicts of interest and rampant profiteering in the SCAM sector while criticising it in the medical sector, who has fallen for the naturalistic fallacy and every other rhetorical abuse of the SCAM sector in order to become a propagandist and to make claims for woo which the peddlers cannot make themselves for fear of prosecution – an accomplice, and apparently a willing one, to health fraud on a massive scale.

6 thoughts on “WDDTY: An Apology”

  1. Just to refute your nonsense and bigotry this is what you stated about Gonzalez…….

    “Gerson and Gonzalez (which are similar) not only don’t work, patients following these protocols fare significantly worse than those receiving standard of care alone”

    The truth just happens to be…………

    Gonzalez has treated a number of cancers with success at his clinic since 1990. He even took part in a preliminary Clinical Trial when his nutritional Therapy (which involves a tailor made package of supplements and pancreatic enzymes) was tested using pancreatic cancer patients. Gonzalez wrote, “We did complete a trial of our therapy with patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, supervised by the National Cancer Institute and funded by Nestle. The results of that study were published in the peer reviewed journal Nutrition and Cancer and reported the best results ever in the treatment of the disease.
    As a result of that data, our US National Cancer Institute funded a large-scale clinical trial, which turned out to be, unfortunately, a nightmare of mismanagement. A paper was published a year ago without our knowledge claiming our therapy didn´t work, but the paper was a complete misrepresentation of the large scale clinical trial. I have written a lengthy rebuttal of the recently published article on our website at: http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/jco_rebuttal.htm.”

    Now Gonzalez has gone further; he has written a book: ‘What went wrong – The Truth Behind the Clinical Trial of the Enzyme Treatment of Cancer’.

    Dr Paul J Rosch, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New York Medical School writes about the book of the trial as follows:

    ‘This book is about a $1.4 million grant awarded by the National Cancer Institute in 1998 to do a controlled clinical trial comparing the chemotherapeutic drug Gemzar to Dr Gonzalez enzyme approach in the treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer. Dr Gonzalez documents how the study was mismanaged, how he had no control over the selection of patients, and how the protocol was violated in numerous ways that were subsequently confirmed by regulatory authorities. Nevertheless, a misleading article was published without his knowledge and none of the responsible parties were (sic) ever admonished or held accountable. This tragic tale tends to support a growing suspicion that the cancer cartel of organizations, government agencies and vested interests is devoted more to preserving their enormous profits and reputations than to the prevention and cure of cancer’.

    1. As always, Chris, you support your advocacy of quackery with citations to quack websites selling the quackery.

      As always, you rely on belief, not evidence.

      A properly conducted test of the Gonzalez protocol showed that patients fared worse than the controls. Shame, but that’s how it goes. Science is all about floating a hypothesis, testing it, and following the evidence.

      Or, in the case of quacks, continuing to assert it in spite of the evidence.

      To balance your quack advocacy, one polemical source (quackwatch) and one balanced one (Wikipedia).

      But do come back when there is a properly published study (as opposed to a quack website).

      Would you like to guess, by the way, why an investigator might not give the proponent of a therapy control over the trial, and might follow the documented protocol rather than allowing the proponent to fiddle with things?

      No, wait, you’d call it conspiracy. Because you’re a loon.

      Oh, and Chris? Learnt he difference between refute and repudiate some time will you? Thanks awfully.

Comments are closed.