Interesting article on the coming New Zealand tour in todays NZ Sunday Star Times. What did you make of it if you read it? My work is based on Lifestyle Medicine which is the basis of what we can do for our own health, healing and wellbeing via what we eat and drink, whether we smoke or exercise, how our emotional and mental health is and our spiritual life. Everyone knows that our lifestyle is so important to our future health, and so important when we are trying to recover from illness. And there is so much we can learn to manage stress, avoid illness and to be really well. That is what I have been doing these last 30 years - helping people through teaching them how to help themselves - aiming to provide accurate up-to-date information and then helping people to work out how to put it into practice. I have seen so many people transform their lives doing this. So it continues to surprise me that In the first paragraph of an article that could be really helpful, and does in fact go on to be quite useful, the words so-called cancer healer, controversial and alternative therapies are used. Maybe the reporter feels a need to create an atmosphere of controversy thinking that will help people to read her article. Thirty years ago, the press was very supportive of this work. That support continued up until a few years ago, when the notion of controversy took a firmer hold. Maybe journalism generally is becoming more sensationalised, more tabloid. I look forward to the days when again the press can be as excited and positive about people learning to help themselves as they are about supposed new medical drug breakthroughs. What is your impression of this?
Posted on: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 00:50:11 +0000