Short answer, yes on plant medicine .. psychedelic medicine is still a matter of doing more research. My January article will address what some people call 'alternative' treatments, so you may find that helpful. While there are some peer-reviewed studies concerning the efficacy of psychedelic medicine for severe stress, severe PTSD, and moderate to severe major depressive disorders, the usage for Ménière's disease does not have as many studies. I will include what I find in the January article. If you need information about that before the January article, let me know.
As for the potential of 'healing' Ménière's, that is also questionable. Some people claim they've been cured of Ménière's, even though ENTs, Neurologists, and other specialists who work with Ménière's patients say the disease is incurable. I can't physically verify the claims of people I don't know personally, but I will say that everyone is unique. I know of at least ten people in my family who have now or had (prior to their death) Ménière's. Because they are family, I had the opportunity to observe or learn about their medical condition in a more personal way. One of my cousins says her ENT says she has 'Ménière's light,' meaning it's not too bad. Other members of my family have experienced a more progressive and difficult type of Ménière's. Everyone is a laboratory of one, so we do a lot of learning, experimenting, and praying.
Hi, Neil. I reported the 'facts' as I 'know' them, not as I 'see' them. My reporting is based on decades of interviews and discussions with doctors and scientists of many different disciplines. I reported from their expertise, not mine.
As for the reader who thought my reporting was 'somewhat odd,' please ask them to contact me directly by commenting here. I will be glad to clarify any aspect of the report that concerns them. I would also want to know what parts of the report they believe are 'incorrect' based on scientific evidence they can share with me. I will gladly 'correct' anything they can prove to be incorrect. I find it odd that they would think my listing dictionary definitions of 'medicine' to be odd. Defining terms is a basic of personal and mass communication.
The quotes you shared from them are opinions, not facts. I know as a journalist that readers and viewers will have varying opinions about reports. They have a right to their opinions, even if their opinions are not based on facts. They accused me of railing against modern medicine and taking a "strong "anti-medicine" stance." That is untrue and borders on being a libelous statement. I will want to hear their proof, their factual evidence that my article was 'anti-medicine' and a railing against modern medicine. I am not now nor never have been 'anti-medicine.' I quoted from the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Mount Sinai Hospital, Stanford Health Care, Saint Luke’s Health System, Pharmacy Times, The National Library of Medicine, Menieres.org.uk, Vestibular.org, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Does that sound 'anti-medicine' to you? I don't think so.
You accused me, again, of not being neutral in reporting facts concerning this topic. You wrote - "the article does not succeed and is may come across as attempting to scare people away from use of medicinal treatments." Is that your opinion or are you making a truth claim? If it is your opinion, then I will simply disagree with your opinion. However, if you are making a truth claim then I will want to see your evidence that my intention in writing the article is to 'scare' people away from using medicinal treatments. I have used medicine prescribed by doctors to help in the management of my Meniere's attacks for years, so I am not anti-medicine. I also read all of the information provided by medical providers, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical companies for each medicine I use. They all include indepth 'warnings' about potential 'side effects' from using the drugs and the importance of checking into potentially bad interactions with other drugs a person is using. The first part of my article include warnings from medical providers, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical companies. Those were not my personal warnings. They came from the experts who prescribe, fill, and manufacture drugs. Why would you or any member of your FB group have a problem with that? I would expect an honest journalist to report on those types of facts.
You also repeated an earlier accusation that I used "a hackneyed pejorative used in much material that rails against modern medicine." Is that your opinion or are you making a truth claim. If truth claim, what is your evidence? It would appear that you are also accusing me of railing 'against modern medicine.' That is untrue. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.
If I have misread or misunderstood your comments, please let me know so I can respond appropriately. Thanks
One other note, Neil. Your 'reader' said that "triggers never seem to have made it into the article it seems." The title of my article, 'Triggers and Treatments (Part Six),' is a clue that it is part of an on-going series. I dealt with the 'Triggers' aspect of Meniere's earlier in the series. They might want to begin at the beginning and see how I developed the series before commenting out of context without prior investigation. Here's a link you can share with them - https://markmcgee4.substack.com/p/triggers-and-treatments-part-one
Absolutely right and a complete misreading on my part. My sincere apologies - I'll look forward to reading what you find out about triggers at a later date.
Hi Mark - it begins to feel as if this exchange is causing you a degree of upset and annoyance that surprises me but indicates it may be unwise to continue. I can now see why you wouldn't want this in the Facebook group - I was hoping that a polite exchange of views (yes they are views) might be possible, and also that as an author you might be interested in feedback from one of the people (obviously me) who has read every word of everything you have written on Meniere's so far on this blog. I've politely praised and given feedback on various elements and attempted as much as possible to make it clear that I'm operating in good faith. However the escalation in tone and emotion I'm sensing makes it feel like feedback is more irritating than helpful, so for our mutual benefits maybe we should stop here. Only you can know what you intended with your writing and only I can know how it came across to me. Both bases are now thoroughly covered. I appreciate the interaction - conversation is always worthwhile.
Hi, Neil. I have participated in Meniere's forums for many years .. many of them outside of FaceBook. I've shared many researched answers to members' questions during that time and received positive feedback. That gave me the idea for establishing a Meniere's section to my Substack. I already write multiple blogs and eBooks and teach martial arts classes during the week, so adding the Substack MD section adds more time to my already full schedule. I did it to help people, not promote myself. As you may have noticed, subscribing to the MD section is free - as are all of my writings (except paperback books sold on Amazon and other bookseller sites - my publisher doesn't give those books away for free).
I started Real Journalism, the name of my primary Substack section, to continue helping journalists and communication specialists consider ways to do their jobs better. Adding the Meniere's and Women's Self Defense sections came later as a way to help people interested in those topics.
I spend much of my day researching and writing on a wide variety of topics, in addition to teaching and talking with my students privately, so my time for 'interaction' on social media is limited. However, I do visit each of the Meniere's groups as often as I can, and answer questions and share thoughts with other members of the groups. I ask permission of the group admins before posting my Meniere's newsletter in their group to make sure it is okay with them. If an admin asks me not to share the newsletter, I won't.
I was surprised when you accused me of only joining MD groups to promote the newsletter. I don't find accusations respectful or helpful. A better approach, I think, would have been to ask me if that's the 'only' reason I had joined your group. I would have said 'no,' but would have then asked if you preferred that I not share it. I follow the direction of the admins and moderators. I have been an admin and moderator for many online groups through the years and understand the need for things to be done decently and in order.
I can't remember if your group has this rule, but many do: "What's shared in the group should stay in the group." That's a copy/paste from one of the Ménière's disease FB groups. I think it's a good rule to have and follow. If people share in a private FB group, then see their names and comments shared in other groups or online sites it can lead to a lack of trust and openness in sharing. Does your group have that rule? If not, you may want to consider it.
I do share my personal perspectives in articles about martial arts and journalism because I have expertise in both areas. I have been involved in martial arts since 1961 (teaching since 1964) and in journalism since 1967 (starting as a radio reporter and anchor). Years of teaching and managing have given me the right, I think, to share my thoughts on the philosophies and practices of both.
Ménière's disease is another matter. I am not a doctor or research scientist. I'm a journalist. However, I have personal experiences with MD through my own illness and family members dealing with the disease. If I share a personal or family experience with MD, I will identify it as such. If I state my personal opinion in one of my articles, it should be obvious. I use phrases like - 'in my opinion,' or 'my concern is,' or 'I personally think that,' or 'when I have an attack,' or 'my doctors told me,' etc. Otherwise, I'm presenting information gathered from medical experts in their various fields.
My purpose in writing articles about Ménière's disease is not to share my personal opinions. As I said, I'm a journalist, not a doctor. That's why I quote from doctors, hospitals, scientists, clinicians, researchers, etc. I look to them for their expert knowledge. I usually add a link to the article with the quote so people can read the full article if they desire. It's up to the reader to do with the information what they want. I'm not attempting to 'push' people in any particular direction other than to have access to available information.
Thanks for your views on how best to manage the Facebook forums. I'm only a moderator, not the admin, but I'll feed them back. Regarding the accusations I made about your motivations for being a member of many groups which you mention again, you may have missed my unreserved retraction of that, in which case consider it repeated here.
Thanks for clarifying your intentions regarding tone and content. I understand your intention was to be entirely neutral and report the facts (as you see them). Maybe you'd be interested in the experience of at least one reader of the content. The title was "Triggers and Treatments". The first section was title "A Word of Caution" - this felt somewhat odd, and seeing an attempt at defining "medicine" felt stranger still (but at least we know then that we are talking about medicine rather than treatments more generally - triggers never seem to have made it into the article it seems). However, the very first substantive bullet point begins with "Chemical Medications" at which point alarms were going off for this reader. That phrase is a hackneyed pejorative used in much material that rails against modern medicine - and I carefully took the trouble to check with you what you meant by it. The rest of the section goes into more detail of the hazards and dangers of medicine. Never any balancing mention of the wonders that modern medicines have achieved, the lives saved and suffering eased. At this point, this reader at least is given the sense of an overwhelmingly strong "anti-medicine" stance - before we get into the rest of the article.
In summary if the intention was to appear a neutral reporter of the facts, I'd suggest the article does not succeed and is may come across as attempting to scare people away from use of medicinal treatments.
HI, Neil. I left your Facebook group out of respect for you as the Moderator. My only desire is to help fellow Meniere's sufferers. Responding to you in your group may not have been helpful to your members or to you. However, since you have commented on my Substack I will respond here.
I have been interviewing doctors, scientists, and medical researchers from many disciplines for more than 55 years. They do not all agree with each other, which is part of my job as a journalist to cover all sides of a story. My articles include information I have gathered, confirmed, and reported from those experts. What I report is not my 'opinion.' I report what experts in their fields have demonstrated to have medical and scientific value.
Every point in the article is supported by various members of the medical and scientific community. In fact, most of the article includes direct quotes from those experts. The beginning of the article includes information I've gathered from experts through the years that I believed would be helpful to anyone interested in Meniere's.
Your comment that my article 'begins with a lot of opinion and without basis in science' is not true, which is why I respectfully left your group rather than continue what some of your members might view as being argumentative and distractive to the purpose of the group. I don't see how that type of exchange would be helpful to your members. You might see it as a 'discussion' that I was afraid to have with you, but I saw it as causing a distraction to people who are looking for help.
Your statement that I joined your group 'only to use as a vehicle for promoting this newsletter' is also not true. I learn from every Meniere's group I join. If I can help people with information I've gained during decades of research, then I am glad to help. That is my purpose.
You are the Moderator of your group, so it's your decision. If you want to me to rejoin your group and 'discuss' this with you further, let me know.
Thanks for taking the time to reply - appreciated. There is a lot to unpack and many ways to go from here - I usually find progress is best made sticking to one point at a time so I'll try to do that, but before hand I'll just address the accusation I made about your reasons for joining the many Meniere's groups on Facebook. I based it on the posts I'd seen from you and the seeming lack of other interaction in the groups. However, if you say your reasons went beyond just researching and promoting your newsletter, I'll accept that and retract the accusation without reservation.
To pick one point to focus on, maybe I'd start with whether the writing is intended to be, and the result ended up being, neutral and not coloured by your opinions. From what you replied, it seems you feel that is the case - would that be correct?
(This is a copy of a comment I posted on a Facebook thread where this article was promoted - I initially carefully checked with Mark what he intended by use of "chemical medicine" before posting the comment to be sure I understood) -
"This is all rather disappointing though. Your series seemed to be a reasonably neutral detailed reporting of aspects of Meniere's. But this latest article is something else entirely. It begins with a lot of opinion and without basis in science, and speaks to an agenda which hitherto had not been evident. There is no "medicine" and "alternative medicine" - there is medicine that has been shown to work, and treatments that have not been shown to work. The use of "chemicals" as a pejorative is not up to your usual standards of journalism - everything around us is made of molecules governed by chemistry (as you allude to in your subsequent answer) Many of the successful treatments have their origins in plants - and what science allowed us to do was remove the damaging or poisonous parts and isolate what helped. There seems a fair bit of "naturalistic fallacy" about all this - that somehow what occurs in nature must somehow be better. It takes very little thought to realise that is not true. None of this is to suggest that you can't have your own opinions on these matters, but it feels disingenuous to present those opinions as if they were some neutral reporting of the "facts" of Meniere's and medicine in general."
Sadly rather than discuss the topic, or defend the position, Mark decided to leave the Facebook group which previously he had appeared only to use as a vehicle for promoting this newsletter.
Short answer, yes on plant medicine .. psychedelic medicine is still a matter of doing more research. My January article will address what some people call 'alternative' treatments, so you may find that helpful. While there are some peer-reviewed studies concerning the efficacy of psychedelic medicine for severe stress, severe PTSD, and moderate to severe major depressive disorders, the usage for Ménière's disease does not have as many studies. I will include what I find in the January article. If you need information about that before the January article, let me know.
As for the potential of 'healing' Ménière's, that is also questionable. Some people claim they've been cured of Ménière's, even though ENTs, Neurologists, and other specialists who work with Ménière's patients say the disease is incurable. I can't physically verify the claims of people I don't know personally, but I will say that everyone is unique. I know of at least ten people in my family who have now or had (prior to their death) Ménière's. Because they are family, I had the opportunity to observe or learn about their medical condition in a more personal way. One of my cousins says her ENT says she has 'Ménière's light,' meaning it's not too bad. Other members of my family have experienced a more progressive and difficult type of Ménière's. Everyone is a laboratory of one, so we do a lot of learning, experimenting, and praying.
Thanks! Mark
Hi, Neil. I reported the 'facts' as I 'know' them, not as I 'see' them. My reporting is based on decades of interviews and discussions with doctors and scientists of many different disciplines. I reported from their expertise, not mine.
As for the reader who thought my reporting was 'somewhat odd,' please ask them to contact me directly by commenting here. I will be glad to clarify any aspect of the report that concerns them. I would also want to know what parts of the report they believe are 'incorrect' based on scientific evidence they can share with me. I will gladly 'correct' anything they can prove to be incorrect. I find it odd that they would think my listing dictionary definitions of 'medicine' to be odd. Defining terms is a basic of personal and mass communication.
The quotes you shared from them are opinions, not facts. I know as a journalist that readers and viewers will have varying opinions about reports. They have a right to their opinions, even if their opinions are not based on facts. They accused me of railing against modern medicine and taking a "strong "anti-medicine" stance." That is untrue and borders on being a libelous statement. I will want to hear their proof, their factual evidence that my article was 'anti-medicine' and a railing against modern medicine. I am not now nor never have been 'anti-medicine.' I quoted from the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Mount Sinai Hospital, Stanford Health Care, Saint Luke’s Health System, Pharmacy Times, The National Library of Medicine, Menieres.org.uk, Vestibular.org, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Does that sound 'anti-medicine' to you? I don't think so.
You accused me, again, of not being neutral in reporting facts concerning this topic. You wrote - "the article does not succeed and is may come across as attempting to scare people away from use of medicinal treatments." Is that your opinion or are you making a truth claim? If it is your opinion, then I will simply disagree with your opinion. However, if you are making a truth claim then I will want to see your evidence that my intention in writing the article is to 'scare' people away from using medicinal treatments. I have used medicine prescribed by doctors to help in the management of my Meniere's attacks for years, so I am not anti-medicine. I also read all of the information provided by medical providers, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical companies for each medicine I use. They all include indepth 'warnings' about potential 'side effects' from using the drugs and the importance of checking into potentially bad interactions with other drugs a person is using. The first part of my article include warnings from medical providers, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical companies. Those were not my personal warnings. They came from the experts who prescribe, fill, and manufacture drugs. Why would you or any member of your FB group have a problem with that? I would expect an honest journalist to report on those types of facts.
You also repeated an earlier accusation that I used "a hackneyed pejorative used in much material that rails against modern medicine." Is that your opinion or are you making a truth claim. If truth claim, what is your evidence? It would appear that you are also accusing me of railing 'against modern medicine.' That is untrue. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.
If I have misread or misunderstood your comments, please let me know so I can respond appropriately. Thanks
One other note, Neil. Your 'reader' said that "triggers never seem to have made it into the article it seems." The title of my article, 'Triggers and Treatments (Part Six),' is a clue that it is part of an on-going series. I dealt with the 'Triggers' aspect of Meniere's earlier in the series. They might want to begin at the beginning and see how I developed the series before commenting out of context without prior investigation. Here's a link you can share with them - https://markmcgee4.substack.com/p/triggers-and-treatments-part-one
Absolutely right and a complete misreading on my part. My sincere apologies - I'll look forward to reading what you find out about triggers at a later date.
Hi Mark - it begins to feel as if this exchange is causing you a degree of upset and annoyance that surprises me but indicates it may be unwise to continue. I can now see why you wouldn't want this in the Facebook group - I was hoping that a polite exchange of views (yes they are views) might be possible, and also that as an author you might be interested in feedback from one of the people (obviously me) who has read every word of everything you have written on Meniere's so far on this blog. I've politely praised and given feedback on various elements and attempted as much as possible to make it clear that I'm operating in good faith. However the escalation in tone and emotion I'm sensing makes it feel like feedback is more irritating than helpful, so for our mutual benefits maybe we should stop here. Only you can know what you intended with your writing and only I can know how it came across to me. Both bases are now thoroughly covered. I appreciate the interaction - conversation is always worthwhile.
Hi, Neil. I have participated in Meniere's forums for many years .. many of them outside of FaceBook. I've shared many researched answers to members' questions during that time and received positive feedback. That gave me the idea for establishing a Meniere's section to my Substack. I already write multiple blogs and eBooks and teach martial arts classes during the week, so adding the Substack MD section adds more time to my already full schedule. I did it to help people, not promote myself. As you may have noticed, subscribing to the MD section is free - as are all of my writings (except paperback books sold on Amazon and other bookseller sites - my publisher doesn't give those books away for free).
I started Real Journalism, the name of my primary Substack section, to continue helping journalists and communication specialists consider ways to do their jobs better. Adding the Meniere's and Women's Self Defense sections came later as a way to help people interested in those topics.
I spend much of my day researching and writing on a wide variety of topics, in addition to teaching and talking with my students privately, so my time for 'interaction' on social media is limited. However, I do visit each of the Meniere's groups as often as I can, and answer questions and share thoughts with other members of the groups. I ask permission of the group admins before posting my Meniere's newsletter in their group to make sure it is okay with them. If an admin asks me not to share the newsletter, I won't.
I was surprised when you accused me of only joining MD groups to promote the newsletter. I don't find accusations respectful or helpful. A better approach, I think, would have been to ask me if that's the 'only' reason I had joined your group. I would have said 'no,' but would have then asked if you preferred that I not share it. I follow the direction of the admins and moderators. I have been an admin and moderator for many online groups through the years and understand the need for things to be done decently and in order.
I can't remember if your group has this rule, but many do: "What's shared in the group should stay in the group." That's a copy/paste from one of the Ménière's disease FB groups. I think it's a good rule to have and follow. If people share in a private FB group, then see their names and comments shared in other groups or online sites it can lead to a lack of trust and openness in sharing. Does your group have that rule? If not, you may want to consider it.
I do share my personal perspectives in articles about martial arts and journalism because I have expertise in both areas. I have been involved in martial arts since 1961 (teaching since 1964) and in journalism since 1967 (starting as a radio reporter and anchor). Years of teaching and managing have given me the right, I think, to share my thoughts on the philosophies and practices of both.
Ménière's disease is another matter. I am not a doctor or research scientist. I'm a journalist. However, I have personal experiences with MD through my own illness and family members dealing with the disease. If I share a personal or family experience with MD, I will identify it as such. If I state my personal opinion in one of my articles, it should be obvious. I use phrases like - 'in my opinion,' or 'my concern is,' or 'I personally think that,' or 'when I have an attack,' or 'my doctors told me,' etc. Otherwise, I'm presenting information gathered from medical experts in their various fields.
My purpose in writing articles about Ménière's disease is not to share my personal opinions. As I said, I'm a journalist, not a doctor. That's why I quote from doctors, hospitals, scientists, clinicians, researchers, etc. I look to them for their expert knowledge. I usually add a link to the article with the quote so people can read the full article if they desire. It's up to the reader to do with the information what they want. I'm not attempting to 'push' people in any particular direction other than to have access to available information.
I hope this answers your question. Thanks.
Thanks for your views on how best to manage the Facebook forums. I'm only a moderator, not the admin, but I'll feed them back. Regarding the accusations I made about your motivations for being a member of many groups which you mention again, you may have missed my unreserved retraction of that, in which case consider it repeated here.
Thanks for clarifying your intentions regarding tone and content. I understand your intention was to be entirely neutral and report the facts (as you see them). Maybe you'd be interested in the experience of at least one reader of the content. The title was "Triggers and Treatments". The first section was title "A Word of Caution" - this felt somewhat odd, and seeing an attempt at defining "medicine" felt stranger still (but at least we know then that we are talking about medicine rather than treatments more generally - triggers never seem to have made it into the article it seems). However, the very first substantive bullet point begins with "Chemical Medications" at which point alarms were going off for this reader. That phrase is a hackneyed pejorative used in much material that rails against modern medicine - and I carefully took the trouble to check with you what you meant by it. The rest of the section goes into more detail of the hazards and dangers of medicine. Never any balancing mention of the wonders that modern medicines have achieved, the lives saved and suffering eased. At this point, this reader at least is given the sense of an overwhelmingly strong "anti-medicine" stance - before we get into the rest of the article.
In summary if the intention was to appear a neutral reporter of the facts, I'd suggest the article does not succeed and is may come across as attempting to scare people away from use of medicinal treatments.
HI, Neil. I left your Facebook group out of respect for you as the Moderator. My only desire is to help fellow Meniere's sufferers. Responding to you in your group may not have been helpful to your members or to you. However, since you have commented on my Substack I will respond here.
I have been interviewing doctors, scientists, and medical researchers from many disciplines for more than 55 years. They do not all agree with each other, which is part of my job as a journalist to cover all sides of a story. My articles include information I have gathered, confirmed, and reported from those experts. What I report is not my 'opinion.' I report what experts in their fields have demonstrated to have medical and scientific value.
Every point in the article is supported by various members of the medical and scientific community. In fact, most of the article includes direct quotes from those experts. The beginning of the article includes information I've gathered from experts through the years that I believed would be helpful to anyone interested in Meniere's.
Your comment that my article 'begins with a lot of opinion and without basis in science' is not true, which is why I respectfully left your group rather than continue what some of your members might view as being argumentative and distractive to the purpose of the group. I don't see how that type of exchange would be helpful to your members. You might see it as a 'discussion' that I was afraid to have with you, but I saw it as causing a distraction to people who are looking for help.
Your statement that I joined your group 'only to use as a vehicle for promoting this newsletter' is also not true. I learn from every Meniere's group I join. If I can help people with information I've gained during decades of research, then I am glad to help. That is my purpose.
You are the Moderator of your group, so it's your decision. If you want to me to rejoin your group and 'discuss' this with you further, let me know.
Thanks for taking the time to reply - appreciated. There is a lot to unpack and many ways to go from here - I usually find progress is best made sticking to one point at a time so I'll try to do that, but before hand I'll just address the accusation I made about your reasons for joining the many Meniere's groups on Facebook. I based it on the posts I'd seen from you and the seeming lack of other interaction in the groups. However, if you say your reasons went beyond just researching and promoting your newsletter, I'll accept that and retract the accusation without reservation.
To pick one point to focus on, maybe I'd start with whether the writing is intended to be, and the result ended up being, neutral and not coloured by your opinions. From what you replied, it seems you feel that is the case - would that be correct?
(This is a copy of a comment I posted on a Facebook thread where this article was promoted - I initially carefully checked with Mark what he intended by use of "chemical medicine" before posting the comment to be sure I understood) -
"This is all rather disappointing though. Your series seemed to be a reasonably neutral detailed reporting of aspects of Meniere's. But this latest article is something else entirely. It begins with a lot of opinion and without basis in science, and speaks to an agenda which hitherto had not been evident. There is no "medicine" and "alternative medicine" - there is medicine that has been shown to work, and treatments that have not been shown to work. The use of "chemicals" as a pejorative is not up to your usual standards of journalism - everything around us is made of molecules governed by chemistry (as you allude to in your subsequent answer) Many of the successful treatments have their origins in plants - and what science allowed us to do was remove the damaging or poisonous parts and isolate what helped. There seems a fair bit of "naturalistic fallacy" about all this - that somehow what occurs in nature must somehow be better. It takes very little thought to realise that is not true. None of this is to suggest that you can't have your own opinions on these matters, but it feels disingenuous to present those opinions as if they were some neutral reporting of the "facts" of Meniere's and medicine in general."
Sadly rather than discuss the topic, or defend the position, Mark decided to leave the Facebook group which previously he had appeared only to use as a vehicle for promoting this newsletter.