In general, the argument, in favour of population wide healthcare measures based on statistical and empirical findings, is a good one. However, what I find problematic is that many of those defending this position feel the need to define everyone else in some adversarial framework (“good vs bad”, “cult”, “believer”, etc), so that a war of words can be indulged in. The result is that the spoils of the war (the attitude of the general public) is sacrificed, as they are forced to take sides, and they often choose the side that at least pretends to understand their issues.

Thus parents, who are not out to deny science or statistics, but are nonetheless faced with a world of science and technology that is at once incomprehensible and untrustworthy, have the heavy and solitary burden of making the choices for their children (solitary because the purveyors of the technology — in this case, paediatricians — often have little personal or scientific interest in the questions that arise, but are merely clerical in their execution of conventional wisdom in their discipline, or worse the received notions of their education many decades ago). To them, the doctor who invariably values his or her time over yours, and is often nakedly concerned only about his or her insurance or BMW payment, seems a poorer choice than some religious quack who pretends to sympathise with their condition.