EXTRA!

MAY 28, 2003

SECOND OPINION

COLLECTIVE AMNESIA AND HEALTH

By RFD Editor, Nicholas Regush

Today’s column is especially for those who write to me and declare that I am hostile towards "alternative" medicine. Why am I made out to be hostile? For example, because I sometimes take a shot at supplement manufacturers and also voice my concerns about "alternative" theories of how the body works (and that applies often to diets).

The last two weeks have brought an unusual amount of such mail, probably because I recently violated the agenda of some people who think that all supplements are always manufactured with quality control. Well, think again, if that’s what you think.

And every time I even hint at the possibility that the Atkins Diet may not be entirely the wonder of the world, I get blasted by low-carb or no-carb groupies who think they have all the answers to bodily mysteries. Good grief!

Let’s get one thing straight. I have no health agenda that I’m aware of, except for one: to try to keep the door open to new discoveries about life’s wonders. That’s enough of a challenge for me. This is why I could never be opposed to something called "alternative," because to me, the real meaning of that term suggests an ongoing revision of what is novel and important. "Alternative" to me does not mean getting stuck on personal health preferences which are counter to conventional ones, and health marketing strategies that promise more "natural" treatments. Unfortunately, what is often viewed as "alternative" can be merely one step away from the dumbing down of thought, a process that infects much of what is considered "conventional" medicine.

As far back as I can remember, I’ve taken a great dislike to the "permanence" of ideas and the ongoing "political construction of history," whatever the subject matter. But that’s what I see, again and again in the health arena. More empire building, more heroes and gurus (in both the "conventional" and "alternative" camps). More theory masquerading as fact. More status-seeking than open inquiry. More obnoxious expression of self-importance than humility and compassion.

I’m opposed to what I call collective amnesia. Many professionals in the health sphere suffer from this very serious malady. It has two components: one is history loss; the other is reification distress.

History loss is a deeply rooted tendency to make statements about individuals (e.g. the best diet, the best natural products for menopause, the best heart surgery, etc) without attempting to place events in historical perspective and understanding that histories are constructs. History loss suggests the danger that an analysis of health problems (along with suggestions for remedies) may be conducted entirely within the LIMITS of a dominant agenda (e.g. conventional medicine or alternative medicine).

Reification distress is probably a deadlier symptom. To reify something means to convert a concept into a material reality. The word, "alternative medicine," for example, is itself a concept; unfortunately, many people who claim to practice "alternative medicine" treat this term as though it were an entity with natural and material properties. Reification distress, in this situation, suggests that people may act and get stuck within well-defined agenda boundaries.

The malady of "collective amnesia" contributes heavily to the lack of imaginative work in the overall health field and drags down innovation, in one form or another.

What is passed off as new and radical often is merely a new-style production of an old-style script.

A lot of what I try to do as a columnist/writer/producer and editor of RFD is target collective amnesia, which, to me, at least, is much like a computer virus on a rampage.

**

NICHOLAS REGUSH-UNPLUGGED! A 60-Minute Taped Interview

GET A BIG BLAST OF FRESH AIR FROM AN AWARD-WINNING, FREE-SPEAKING, VETERAN HEALTH JOURNALIST WHO SHOOTS FROM THE HIP AND DOESN’T HOLD BACK ON ANY TOPIC!

ACT NOW FOR 33% SAVINGS!

SEE DETAILS