Science accuses BBC of medical quackery
www.religionnewsblog.com/14094
Times Online, UK
Mar. 26, 2006
Lois Rogers, Social Affairs Editor
www.timesonline.co.uk
Some of Britain’s leading scientists have accused the BBC of “quackery” by misleading viewers in an attempt to exaggerate the power of alternative medicine .
The criticisms centre on Alternative Medicine , a series broadcast on BBC2 in January, in which some of the most memorable scenes included open-heart surgery apparently carried out using acupuncture as an anaesthetic.
In another episode, brain images of patients undergoing acupuncture were claimed to show that the procedure had an effect on the parts of the brain that experience pain.
This weekend scientists turned on the programme’s producers, accusing them of distorting science in an attempt to present an unjustifiably positive image of complementary therapies. “They are peddling quack science,” said David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology at University College London.
The most serious accusation concerns the BBC’s presentation of the anaesthetic powers of acupuncture. A heart patient underwent surgery in a Chinese hospital with a number of acupuncture needles stuck into her body.
Critics say that the needles could be credited with little real effect because the patient was also receiving three powerful conventional sedatives — midazolam, droperidol and fentanyl — along with large volumes of local anaesthetic injected into her chest.
Simon Singh, a scientist who has produced BBC Tomorrow’s World and Horizon programmes, condemned the exercise as a memorable bit of television which was “emotionally powerful but scientifically meaningless”.
The series was viewed by 3.8m people and presented by Kathy Sykes, professor of public understanding of science at Bristol University. During the acupuncture episode, Sykes said: “We’ve got to be scientific and rigorous and plan it really carefully,” adding later: “The bit of the brain that helps us decide whether something is painful, we think perhaps is being affected by acupuncture.”
The key critics include two scientific advisers to the series: Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University; and George Lewith, director of the centre for the study of complementary medicine at Southampton University.
Lewith, an expert on the effects of acupuncture, said in an interview yesterday: “The experiment was not groundbreaking; its results were sensationalised. It was oversold and over-interpreted. Proper scientific qualifications that might suggest alternative interpretations of the data appear to have been edited out of the programme.”
It was made in conjunction with an Open University alternative medicine course, prompting scientists to complain that a wave of “anti-science” is affecting not only the BBC but many universities as well.
Ernst yesterday released the contents of a letter that he has written to Martin Wilson, the series producer, criticising him for promoting “US-style anti-science”.
He said he felt “abused” by the programme makers: “It was as if they had instructions from higher up that this had to be a happy story about complementary medicine without any complexity, and they used me to give a veneer of respectability.”
Ernst also said: “The BBC decided to do disturbingly simple story lines with disturbingly happy endings.”
Two other programmes in the series — discussing faith healing and herbalism — were also criticised.
“It was the programme on herbal medicines which really got me going most,” said Colquhoun. “It is as if evidence-based medicine and reason started to go out of fashion in the 1970s and 1980s and mysticism came in. We have to bring reason back.”
Colquhoun also warned that an unproven herbal treatment for Aids called sutherlandia is being promoted on the internet after it was featured in a programme discussing alternative herbal medicines.
He added that a gathering of members of the Royal Society, Britain’s most prestigious scientific body, is to be convened next month to promote the merits of conventional science.
The scientists will call on Lord Rees, the society’s president, to take a leading role. They will raise concerns that more than 50 universities now offer three-year bachelor of science degrees in alternative medicine.
“This is no longer a fringe game played by new age people,” said Colquhoun. “It is beginning to erode intellectual standards at real universities.”
Despite the criticisms, the BBC is understood to be in the process of commissioning a further series.
A spokesman said yesterday: “We take these allegations very seriously and we strongly refute them. We used two scientific consultants for the series, Professor Ernst and Jack Tinker, dean emeritus of the Royal Society of Medicine, both of whom signed off the programme scripts. It seems extremely unusual that Professor Ernst should make these comments so long after the series has aired.”
The spokesman said Tinker had indicated he remained happy with the tone and content of the films, stating: “Fellow medics at the Royal Society, including one eminent professor, said it was the best medical series they had seen on television.”__________________________________________________
Alternative treatments under scientific scrutiny
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article354149.ece
From osteopathy to fish oils, may alternative treatments are finally coming under scientific scrutiny. Are we right to trust any of them? Jane Feinmann examines the latest evidence
Published: 28 March 2006
Fish oil for the heart
The claims
Research over 30 years convinced the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and British Heart Foundation (BHF) to recommend oily fish or fish oil capsules, the richest sources of omega-3 fatty acids. One 2002 trial by Dr Michael Burr of the University of Wales College of Medicine raised doubts. “The Burr study shouldn’t be ignored, but it is out of step,” says Phillip Calder, professor of nutritional immunology at Southampton University. “It goes against a plausible, well-tested explanation of the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids.”
The criticisms
A new statistical analysis of the 48 best trials that investigated whether fish oil cuts the risk of dying from heart disease or stroke has found “little evidence” of benefit – and suggests that fish oil capsules may actually increase the risk. The researchers from the University of East Anglia acknowledge that the analysis, published in last Friday’s BMJ, was “significantly influenced” by the Burr study. Lead author Dr Lee Hooper, lecturer in the university’s School of Medicine and Health Policy, says advice to the public to eat more oily fish should continue, but adds that further reviews are needed on whether it is appropriate to recommend a higher intake of omega-3 fats for people with heart disease.
The truth
This was a controversy waiting to happen after the Burr study, sponsored by Seven Seas, appeared. The BHF and FSA recommendations were made while both were fully aware of the Burr findings. Research is now looking into the value of omega-3 supplements for people with heart disease (anyone with concerns should talk to their GP). The BMJ paper does not affect the evidence that fish oil protects against arthritis, or the growing evidence that it helps behavioural problems in children and protects against depression.
Acupuncture for pain
The claims
The development of sham needles (that work in a similar way to stage daggers) has enabled proper clinical trials of the traditional therapy, used for several thousand years in the East and increasingly popular in the West. “Considerable research activity is now under way and the first results are very positive, with scientific evidence that acupuncture is effective in treating osteoarthritis of the knee (Annals of Internal Medicine, Dec 2004) as well as migraine (Journal of the American Medical Association in May 2005),” says Day Post, assistant coordinator of the Acupuncture Research and Resource Council in Ealing. He says the confidence in acupuncture is reflected in the fact that it is due to become a registered practice in the UK later this year.
The criticisms
There is still room for scepticism over what happens during acupuncture. While the osteoarthritis trial found that acupuncture needles, applied to specific points on the leg, provide great pain relief and improved function, the migraine trial was less conclusive. While sufferers treated with acupuncture needles had around half the number of migraines compared to before treatment, so did those treated with sham needles – suggesting that it’s the expectation of success that works. Henry McQuay, professor of pain relief at Oxford University, says: “The great bulk of randomised controlled trials to date do not provide convincing evidence of pain relief over placebo.”
The truth
The disagreement may simply reflect the continuing problems in trying to pin down the clinical impact of a therapy that works in diverse ways – and which has most success with difficult-to-treat long-term problems where the symptoms vary between individuals. The Migraine Action Association continues to recommend acupuncture for sufferers while emphasising that the condition does not have a “one-size-fits-all” treatment.
Homeopathy for long-term health
The claims
This gentle, holistic therapy with roots in ancient Greece uses very dilute, “potentised” remedies, prescribed after the practitioner has taken a full history of both emotional and physical symptoms. A six-year study by the NHS Bristol Homeopathic Hospital (one of five NHS homeopathic hospitals), published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine in November 2005 found that 70 per cent of 6,500 patients treated over the last six years reported positive or very positive benefits for a wide range of chronic health problems including eczema, asthma, irritable bowel syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome.
The criticisms
A statistical analysis of 110 homeopathy trials, published in The Lancet in August 2005, reported no benefits beyond the placebo effect, warning that one favourable study by the World Health Organisation was “little more than pro-homeopathy propaganda”. The Lancet concluded that doctors should be: “Bold and honest with their patients about homeopathy’s lack of benefit, and with themselves about the failings of modern medicine to address patients’ needs for personalised care.”
The truth
If you are one of the 30 million Europeans who are regular users of homeopathy, you are unlikely to be impressed by accusations that the therapy lacks an evidence base or goes against all known physical laws. After all, “real life” studies, such as that carried out in Bristol, persistently show the value of homeopathy for patients. Just don’t expect your GP to be supportive.
Spinal manipulation for back pain
The claims
The therapy, popularly known as “cracking the spine”, is carried out tens of thousands of times every day in Britain by chiropractors and osteopaths (who have been registered practitioners since 2001). It involves a high-velocity thrust to a joint to achieve maximum painless movement. A trial, funded by the Medical Research Council and published in the BMJ in 2004, showed that spinal manipulation, as provided by osteopaths and chiropractors, is an effective and cost-effective therapy for back pain within a larger package of care, pain control and advice.
The criticisms
A review of 16 studies conducted over the past five years, appearing in next month’s issue of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, has found no benefit in using spinal manipulation to treat general or menstrual pain, and that it is no better than exercise in treating back pain. The lead author, Professor Edzard Ernst, says he is concerned at the lack of continuing research into osteopathy and chiropractic since the practices became registered. “They seem to think they are home and dry. They are not, and people should be aware of that.”
The truth
Trials of “universally poor quality” have failed to show that spinal manipulation relieves acute or chronic back pain, with any improvements disappearing within three months, according to the authoritative, evidence-based website Bandolier (www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/Bandolier/)
Soya
The claims
The nutritious soya bean has kept Asia healthy for 3,000 years, and there is a large base of evidence that it lowers cholesterol (backed by the US Food and Drug Administration and the UK Joint Health Claims Initiative), eases menopausal symptoms and provides significant protection against osteoporosis, heart disease and hormone-related cancers, including breast and prostate cancer.
The criticisms
There is little evidence that consuming soy products is effective in managing hot flushes. Research suggesting that soya consumption may contribute to both male and female infertility has been published over the last two years.
The truth
Substantial evidence exists to show that daily soya consumption reduces cholesterol and the risk of osteoporosis. There is a continuing interest in its role in preventing some cancers, not least because prostate and breast cancers are virtually unknown in countries where soya is a major component of daily diet. But don’t rely on it to manage the menopause – and cut it out entirely if you’re trying for a baby.
Echinacea
The claims
Echinacea purpurea, a member of the daisy family, is a native American remedy (often used to treat snake bites); it is also now the top-selling herbal remedy for colds in the US and Europe. An analysis of 16 controlled clinical trials, published by the Cochrane Library in January this year, found that the herb is effective in alleviating cold symptoms (although it warned of considerable variation in the quality of products on sale). A second study published in Clinical Therapeutics last month, using the leading brand Echinaforce (which is made from freshly harvested, organic plants that are holistically standardised), showed that the tincture prevents 55 per cent of colds and speeds up recovery if the bug does strike.
The criticisms
The quality and efficacy of different products vary considerably, and there is a shortage of good-quality trials. Even Michael McIntyre, the chairman of the European Herbal Practitioners Association, has admitted that “echinacea’s popularity is due to word of mouth, not credible science”.
The truth
Trials show that echinacea does reduce the misery of winter colds – although it’s not clear whether it can also prevent them. With herbal remedies, be prepared to buy the best, as the herbs used vary from poorly tended plants stored for months to carefully tended organic produce processed with no expense spared to maximise potency.
forwarded by
Zeus Information Service
Alternative Views on HealthAll information, data and material contained, presented or provided herein is for general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinion of Zeus Information Service.
Subscribe Free/Unsubscribe: info@zeusinfoservice.com
feel free to forward far and wide....
