The topical press does not assist the layman to distinguish between the various unorthodox systems. Now and then some newspaper columnist, knowing that most readers mildly question current medical practice, tries to suggest that although medicine may be overburdened with stupidity and professional dignity and is a pawn of big business, unorthodox healers are a hundred times worse. A fairly typical specimen appeared recently in one of the national dailies. The writer was at pains to make it clear that he would not dream of suggesting that any other unorthodox people he met were either fools or knaves, and yet he was equally careful to imply that their activities were suggestive of those who are slightly dizzy, or mainly concerned with money-making. But then, that incisive Chestertonian definition of a journalist—"a man who writes of the backs of advertisements"—is painfully true. If there were no advertisements—and those of the drug group (including the tobacco firms) are more numerous than any other—the poor journalist would be out of a job. So most editors require that any publicity given to unorthodox healing must leave a derogatory general impression. A tolerant amusement is always safe and effective. Another time-honoured method is to take up all the rubbish to be found, however unrelated and inapplicable, heap it over the object of attention and then ask "How can any one respect that?"