Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations

In the book Diamond sets out to prove that the protagonists of alternativism are, at best, gullible and misguided, at worst, con-merchants and quacks. The uncompleted book ends with the words: "Let me explain." Unfortunately, he wasn't given the chance. The remainder of the book is made up from a selection of Diamond's articles and columns, which, edited by brother-in-law Dominic Lawson, were chosen on "the basis of his humour rather than his tumour". As a freelancer, Diamond wrote about anything for anyone. Consequently, the "preoccupations" cover every subject under the sun, including soggy bread, middle age , donor cards, first dates and bottled water: " ... the perfect accompaniment to good food and fine wines, it can even be served as a refreshing drink in its own right". But, post diagnosis, it's Diamond's columns for The Times which hit home hardest. As his condition progresses, Diamond remains stoically reflective without ever sounding resentful; always moving, but never maudlin, his insouciant prose conveys a humbling bravery. John Diamond may have considered journalism to be a transitory art form, but as this collection of his work shows, his writing makes an indelible impression. --Christopher Kelly

Reader Reviews:

A skeptic replies (0/0 people found this helpful)

Tony Dougan - all Prof. Dawkins is asking is whether some of the huge profits generated by these "therapies", which have no scientific basis, could be put back into testing whether or not they actually work. Unreasonable?

This book is a fair, thorough and, in the circumstances, poignant examination of so-called "alternative medicine". It is sadly unfinished, but garnished admirably with a collection of John Diamond's newspaper work covering a range of topics, including his own ill-health. Funny, honest and always engaging.

BRAVE BUT DELUDED (3/18 people found this helpful)

I recently read Richard Dawkins' foreword to John Diamond's recently published book 'Snake Oil And Other Preoccupations'. I have to say that as the manager of a complementary therapy charity that saw over 1200 individuals last year and as manager of forty therapists I found his allusions to us as vultures, distasteful incorrect and offensive.
Of course it is feasible that all those 1200 individuals in the throes of extreme distress are ignorant weak minded fools who seek solace in delusion and romanticised myth at best It is feasible that my colleagues who work day in and day out with cancer patients and their families to support and enable their survival or support them to a conscious dignified death or support and sustain their bereaved relatives are, as you put it, vultures. But it does seem unlikely that we are all labouring under a delusion while Richard Dawkins is the one holder of the Truth. Or is it perhaps more likely that in this particular area Mr Dawkins doesn't really know what he is talking about? Not that that seems a disincentive to him. I have noticed him ranging from religion to politics to social theory to literature and philosophy over the years yet I doubt his polymath status because when he speaks about things I know about he largely spouts ideas that are ill thought through, poorly informed and rooted in prejudice. Stephen Jay Gould he ain't. It is my view that he doesn't actually research his ideas about religion or spirituality, he simply spouts what is in his head at the time.
Initially wheeled out regularly as a kind of rent-a-atheist he could be reliably chosen to engage in half baked debate about whether God exists or not. I recall him interviewing Francis Crick some years ago who said scientists thought only stupid people believed in God and they both chuckled knowingly. Gee that was smart and thought through.
Even lately he was invited to comment along with other movers and shakers in the Guardian on 11th October and while others seek to draw wisdom and meaning out of the terrible events of September 11th he says `...we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!'
I would wish we would stop being so respectful of views like his rooted in some burning anger and, I suspect, emerging out of some background of intense possibly oppressive religious experience in early family life.
Personally I think he is a talented writer who is able to express complex ideas about Darwinian theory with some excitement. It is clear he is insatiably curious about the world. However I feel he only sees half a picture. By denying the wisdom traditions of the World he has no access to the other arguments. By ignoring the perennial philosophy he ends up half blind, blinkered and partial. His notion of memes as carriers of cultural norms and predominating values I find ludicrous. Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are all part of a kind of tradition of intellectual thatcherism of which he is a key player. Not so much science as scientism. He seems to wish to drive a relentless juggernaut of intellectual materialism over all that stands in its way. Like a spoilt insolent child of the enlightenment he dismantles all that fails to correspond to his dry as dust paradigms. Double-blind in so many ways.
Clearly he is unaware of the huge range of research currently being undertaken in the field of complementary therapy. It is available widely and easy for a scientist such as yourself to understand.

I f he is convinced that all complementary therapists are charlatans I would like to invite him to talk to some of our therapists and look carefully at the work we do. We would be delighted to introduce him to some of our patients who have so courageously battled against this terrible scourge and found so much help and benefit from their use of complementary therapy. Perhaps face to face he might not be so ready to call them misguided fools or to regard us as vultures. That is why it is a good idea for professors to come out of their ivory towers Richard.

poignant but padded (14/16 people found this helpful)

Having just read those terse words on page 82- 'let me explain' followed by the terminal silence, it is difficult to be critical. Only 10 pages earlier the author had admitted it would be a miracle if he were to finish the book, and one is often given pause for thought as to what motivated him to struggle on as the hooded gentleman with the scythe hove into view from the middle distance.
Diamond showed huge moral courage in rejecting the solace given by comfortable lies, the 'credo consolans' upon which outmoded therapies and equally outmoded alternatives to rationality thrive. His final broadside against the various hucksters, quacks and fools that peddle their snake oils to the vulnerable is cut off in mid flow, but nevertheless makes many telling and unanswerable points. He was maybe half way through an onslaught which may have saved his fellow man much unnecessary suffering, but now we must await the next great populariser to pick up the baton and show defiance in the face of the inevitable. Otherwise the public distrust of scientists in general and doctors in particular will allow the alternativists to continue their pernicious trade indefinitely.
Unfortunately, the publishers have filled a further 200 pages with articles generally unrelated to the central thesis of the book rather than, say, commissioning fresh material from other rational opponents of quackery, bringing the whole squalid truth into public view. Now that would have been a fitting epitaph to a remarkable life.

Something important to say (14/15 people found this helpful)

John Diamond's unfinished book about alternative medicine is excellent and a much-needed antidote to the ubiquitous newspaper columns which tell you how selenium, avocado oil, echinacea, aromatherapy, colonic irrigation and all the rest of the phoney alternative treatments will make you well and keep you healthy, provided you have total faith and are willing to comply with the associated rituals.

I am tempted to say that it is a pity that many of the essays and articles with which the book is padded out, are of inferior quality. But on reflection, I think that is all to the good. Frivolous articles written by Diamond from one week to another, intended for momentary amusement only, gradually give way to his profound and moving articles on the subject of his cancer. It all makes you think about what sells newspapers and what's worth reading. Should you enrich your life with a jokey article about a boring hotel room, or a harrowing article about having your tongue removed? Crystal therapy or chemotherapy? By offering us logic and reason, Diamond may strike some readers as pessimistic and negative. For those who want to know the truth, however painful, his book is a valuable tonic. By the end of his life, when his tongue had been removed, Diamond had at last truly found his voice and he had something important to say.

Read this especially if you work in the Health Service (16/19 people found this helpful)

I am so pleased I read this book. I work in audit and research in the Health Service and I found that I have been asked to an awful lot of 'complementary medicine' groups in recent years, attended and run mainly by apparently orthodox nurses. I was beginning to worry that I was old-fashioned in demanding some sort of evidence base for these so-called 'alternative' therapies. John Diamond has brought me soundly back to earth to the extent that I felt angry today to note that our hospital library devotes more shelf space to homeopathy and other 'alternative' practices than it does to child abuse. Some mistake, surely, and I will not go along with this any more!

Meantime John Diamond acknowledges the common sense that a massage and nice smells may well help you to feel better but these are not healing or curative per se.

I do feel that tis book should not have included pieces of work on subjects other than complementary medicine and his cancer. On the other hand, his writing is such a delight that I can hardly be sorry - his story of the Yiddish computer repairer, for example, was excellent!

Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations

John Diamond

Editorial Review: