by Dr Rachel Hall B.Ch.D (Uni Leeds), LDSRCS(Eng), MACNEM, Member IAOMT, Dental Surgeon, Brisbane, Australia
Re: “New age ‘medicine’ of Serge Benhayon leaves trail of broken families”
Josh, I find it incredulous that after having spent an hour in my company where I was very honest, open and candid, that you and your paper still chose to run with the cult angle and daub me as a follower of Serge Benhayon. That implies that I am brainwashed and incapable of making decisions for myself based on my own free will. As you know, I talked to you at length about health, science, research and statistics which show that certain foods impact detrimentally on health and wellbeing and that, based on my knowledge, background, education and understanding I had already before meeting Serge Benhayon, I had started to implement many lifestyle changes so as to ensure my own health and vitality and to be able to better care for my patients from all walks of life whom I care about deeply.
You missed a great opportunity to present facts and the truth because instead, which I knew was always a possibility, you chose to go for a story so as to be able to sensationalise what was presented and sell newspapers. Very very disappointing.
I made a decision to put my neck and my reputation on the line as I know that medicine does not have all the answers to illness or disease as neither do alternative therapies. What if what Universal Medicine has to offer can provide people with a way of living that can support them to be more self responsible, caring and gentle with themselves? Why is it that reputable doctors, specialists and GP’s refer their patients to UniMed? Is it because they too sense that there is more to health than meets the eye and that indeed what UniMed offers makes a difference? Now, that would have been an interesting angle for you to follow.
As for relationship breakdowns, let’s look at the statistics – according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics one in three marriages ends in divorce. Thus, for a group containing 2000 plus people, the separation rate, if it were reflecting society, would end in more relationships that failed than on average – if UniMed were responsible for splitting up families. So why then are there only allegedly 42 relationship breakdowns, if according to the statistics it should be 46 based on 2.3% divorce rate per 1000 head of population – with more women filing for divorce than men. Is it accurate to say then that UniMed is causing relationship breakdown when the figures simply do not stack up?
After reading your ‘so called’ article, which was simply a rehash of other reports, it’s disappointing that you are not allowed to think for yourself but have to “follow” what your editor wants. I also feel it is important to ask you, do you actually believe it is ok for anyone to touch another person sexually without their permission, as this is what you imply when you state “after breast massage clients told ….. not to allow their partners to touch them without permission”? This is suggesting that a woman should just give in to a partner’s advances even if she doesn’t want them and it also takes us back to the age when women were seen as their husband’s property to do with as he wished. This statement is very harmful and denigrating to women and condones abuse within relationships.
Would I be open to further interviews with the media? My answer without hesitation is of course “yes”, as there is a story to be told – but it is not the one you were angling for and hence, why you were unable to portray me in a poor light and your paper had to resort to labelling me as something I most certainly am not. As you would have realised, I am a independent, strong, intellectual woman who definitely knows her own mind.
And as my mother said without even seeing the article “you can’t believe what you read in the papers, we all know it is twisted to sell a story and should be taken with a massive pinch of salt”.
And I definitely did not misquote her or try and make it look like she said something she hadn’t or have it taken out of context, which seems to be the predominant ‘skill’ that was chosen in this article – one which many modern day journalists choose to use – at the tremendous expense of, and with disrespect to the public.