Scientists say BBC2 Alternative Medicine “flawed and hyped”

[Blue Wode]

A groundbreaking experiment ... or a sensationalised TV stunt?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1739354,00.html

[antihippy]

Sensationalised TV stunt.

I was extremely disappointed by the series.

[Mojo]

Prof Ernst says: "I see the impact of the programmes on the public because a lot of them write to me and want to be operated on by acupuncture anaesthesia because they think it is a realistic possibility, which it is not."Perhaps if they were to allow some of these people to actually be operated on with only acupuncture as anaesthesia the whole idea would be quietly dropped. Well, maybe not quietly.

[Zep]

I was about to say the same thing, except that the people who made the extraordinary claims will be the ones on the table.

[Asolepius]

I am most puzzled by Lewith's volte face. I already knew about Ernst's concerns. I think the programme makers have a point WRT these comments emerging very late, but as usual there will be more to this than meets the eye. For the MRI `study', what I objected to most was that this was presented as `ground-breaking', when even a cursory PubMed search finds at least 11 previous studies, with disparate findings. I would love to know who the Royal Society medics were. That's an idea - perhaps a Freedom of Information request might be in order? David - what do you think?

[pjh]

We used two scientific consultants for the series, Prof Ernst and Dr Jack Tinker, dean emeritus of the Royal Society of Medicine, both of whom signed off the programme scripts. It seems extremely unusual that Prof Ernst should make these comments so long after the series has aired."

The spokesman said Dr Tinker said 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."

Who is Dr Tinker?

How on earth could someone in his position hold such an opinion?

[Blue Wode]

I already knew about Ernst's concerns. I think the programme makers have a point WRT these comments emerging very late, but as usual there will be more to this than meets the eye.

Indeed, there seems to be.

Prof. Ernst clarified the matter in a letter to The Guardian yesterday:

I made my criticism in writing two months before the programme was broadcast. The reason why I reiterated them when I did was simply because Simon Singh interviewed me in my capacity as adviser to the BBC. Extremely unusual? Long after? I don't think so.

Unfortunately, his letter was followed by a letter from the other scientists who were involved as consultants or contributors to the series. Unbelievably, it contained these concluding comments:

Far from feeling dissatisfied with the final outcome, we feel the series seemed well balanced and informative, doing full justice to the subject matter it addressed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1744370,00.html

Let’s hope these scientists won’t be called upon to lend their expertise to the second series which, as we know, is in the pipeline.

[Cynric]

Let’s hope these scientists won’t be called upon to lend their expertise to the second series which, as we know, is in the pipeline.

Are you kidding? They'll be at the head of the queue. In fact, they may have been jostling for position in writing the letter.

[Deetee]

Unfortunately, his letter was followed by a letter from the other scientists who were involved as consultants or contributors to the series.

Yeah, the list includes luminaries in the field such as:

Liz Williamson (Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy specialist)
Brian Berman (Integrative medicine) [Quackwatch (http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/IOM/berman.html) even devotes a whole section to him]
Andrew Vickers (Assistant Attending Research Methodologist in Integrative Medicine)
Dr James Warner (Consultant in Old Age Psychiatry)
Dr Mike Cummings (British Medical Acupuncture Society)

[CFLarsen]

Prof Ernst, an experienced TV consultant, was disappointed by several sections of the series. The low point for him came last November, when he complained three times about the programme on faith healing, which he felt was creating a false impression. Having been ignored, he wrote to Martin Wilson, the series producer: "With any other subject this would simply be a false impression and an orgy in pseudo science, but with healing this cuts much deeper. Here we are touching on a very fundamental issue of rationality. If your programme undermines rationality in that unfortunate way, it does an enormous disfavour far beyond healthcare and promotes US-style anti-science."

Ouch. Take that, you damned yankees!

[c4ts]

You mean there's faith healing outside America?

[Blue Wode]

Yeah, the list includes luminaries in the field such as:

Liz Williamson (Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy specialist)
Brian Berman (Integrative medicine) [Quackwatch (http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/IOM/berman.html) even devotes a whole section to him]
Andrew Vickers (Assistant Attending Research Methodologist in Integrative Medicine)
Dr James Warner (Consultant in Old Age Psychiatry)
Dr Mike Cummings (British Medical Acupuncture Society)

Thank you for that information, Deetee.

Another of one the contributors, Jack Tinker, is also chair of the Dr Foster Ethics Committee – a capacity in which he recently wrote:

Any credible venture concerning the communication and documentation of information relies on valid data acquired by the highest standards of research.

http://www.drfoster.co.uk/ethics/chairmansReport.asp

How odd, then, that his view of the BBC2 programme was that it “seemed well balanced and informative, doing full justice to the subject matter it addressed” despite the subsequent revelation that the patient who received “acupuncture anaesthesia” for open heart surgery was also receiving three powerful conventional sedatives — midazolam, droperidol and fentanyl — along with large volumes of local anaesthetic injected into her chest.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2104024,00.html

[Blue Wode]

Yet more intrigue:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#bbc3

[richardm]

Yet more intrigue:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#bbc3
Blimey. If that's true, it's downright scandalous :eye-poppi

[Deetee]

Yet more intrigue:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#bbc3

Hmmm.........
Disturbing to say the least.

[Dark Jaguar]

The only thing I have to say about this is Dr Tinker is, frankly, the most ADORABLE name I've ever heard!

[Deus Ex Machina]

Yet more intrigue:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#bbc3


great site - thanks!

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It seems David Colquhoun is onto something.

What needs to be repeated is just how false was the impression given by the acupuncture sequence involving surgery on a girl loaded to her eyeballs with narcotics and filled up with local anaesthetic. For the sake of the signatories of that Grauniad letter, I damn well hope that the more respectable ones did not know its contents before it was published- otherwise they really would be setting their name to the following statement "we feel the series seemed well balanced and informative, doing full justice to the subject matter it addressed.", which they should find even more embarrassing.

[David Colquhoun]

Thanks very much to DeeTee for the link to Berman's quackwatch page. I added that to my commentary (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#bbc3) on the Tinker letter.
Incidentally, there is no doubt that the letter was written originally by the BBC, That was admitted by the executive producer of the series to whom I spoke at length yesterday.

[Deetee]

Just a wee note, Prof........ a few typos have crept into your commentary.

[David Colquhoun]

Uhuh looks as though a second signature was essentially falsified.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#bbc3

Deetee (or anybady alse) please email me about typos. I'm trying to fit in all this stuff with my day job

[richardm]

Has anyone told all this to the Guardian? From the sound of things they ought to be very cross about this.

[David Colquhoun]

Well I've told the Guardian and so has Simon Singh. So far they haven't taken much interest.

On a slightly different matter, m attempt to follow up the magnetic bandage affair by a Freedom of Info Act request to the Dept of Health was met with a complete refusal to reveal anything whatsoever (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#foi2). This Act seems to be a bit of a farce (though I did have a bit more success with the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, the costs of which are gradually emerging).

[brettDbass]

...the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, the costs of which are gradually emerging).
Ooh, if you can point me in the direction of where to find that kind of info I'd be highly appreciative.

[John Jackson]

There's some info here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#rlhh1

If you get any more info David could you let me know too please. This is an issue I want to look into.

John