{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019287833827893175, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0019782393669634025, 'mean_word_length': 4.635097493036212, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A response to Margaret Denton

MARGARET DENTON highlights six points in my 1997 article which she claims are misconceptions. Having read them and given them my consideration, I would advance the notion that Denton's and my disagreement is based not on questions of Kenny, but on wider questions of history, historical truth and the role of interpretation in history, specifically the history of medicine. I see these key concerns as: the interface of medical 'science' and the task of the historian of medicine; the 'either/or' view of history-writing; and the multifaceted nature of historical situations, in which interpretation is perhaps the only key to advancing understanding. Denton opens with a lengthy discussion of two important issues which I have not taken into account. If she re-examines my article, she will see that in fact a discussion of the pathophysiology of poliomyelitis is outside the scope of the article. I chose instead to focus on the political manoeuvering and the professional boundary-riding which I saw in action as I examined the archival and documentary evidence surrounding the Kenny affair. I hope that Denton will devote time to a full scholarly article on what she identifies as a lacuna in the literature on the Kenny affair. Denton claims that I argue that a comparison of the two forms of treatment is not only possible, but necessary. I have not done this in my article. What I have presented en passant is the argument that the 'orthodox' form of treatment was often cruel, painful and ultimately fruitless. There is ample anecdotal evidence to support this. I have at no time advanced the argument that it was always cruel, painful and fruitless. Nor have I at any stage advanced the argument that Kenny's treatment was always successful. Denton argues that the only valid way to compare the two treatments is to conduct a controlled clinical trial. It is here that she and I begin to part company. I could just as easily argue that a valid way of comparing treatments is to look