The TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION (THE) reported yesterday that the British School of Osteopathy (BSO) has won university college title, meaning that it could be on the road towards full university status. University college title, awarded by the Privy Council on the advice of the Department for Education (DfE) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is usually seen as a step towards full university status. The London-based BSO already secured degree-awarding powers and access to Hefce public teaching and research funding in 2015. The BSO will be known, from September, as the University College of Osteopathy.
The THE quoted me saying “Osteopathy is based on implausible assumptions, and there is no good evidence for its effectiveness. Yet osteopaths regularly make all sorts of therapeutic claims. These facts make the BSO not a candidate for becoming a university; on the contrary, such a move would significantly downgrade the credibility of UK universities and make a mockery of academia and evidence-based healthcare.”
Charles Hunt, the BSO principal, responded: “We recognise that for some of the things that some osteopaths are doing, there is very limited evidence [to demonstrate their effectiveness], and we need to gain more for that. But within medicine, there’s a lot of things that also do not have evidence for them, but some medical practitioners are doing [them anyway].”
The BSO principal should offer a course on logical fallacies and enlist as the first student in it, I thought when reading his response.
Anyway, having stated that “osteopaths regularly make all sorts of therapeutic claims”, I better provide some evidence. Perhaps another occasion for a slide-show?
Here are a few images I found on Twitter that are relevant in this context.[please click to see them full size]
Alternative medicine differs from conventional medicine in numerous ways. One important difference is that patients often opt to try this or that product without consulting any healthcare professional at all. In such cases, the pharmacist might be the ONLY professional who can advise the patient who is about to purchase such a product.
This is why the role of the pharmacist in alternative medicine is crucial, arguably more so than in conventional medicine. And this is why I am banging on about pharmacists who far too often behave like shop-keepers and not like ethical healthcare professionals. A new review addresses these issues and provides relevant information.
Pharmacists from the University of Macau in Macau, China conducted a literature review to extract publications from 2000 to 2015 that related pharmacist to alternative medicine products. 41 publications which reported findings from exploratory studies or discussed pharmacists’ responsibilities towards such products were selected for inclusion.
Seven major responsibilities emerged:
- to acknowledge the use of alternative medicine products;
- to be knowledgeable about such products;
- to ensure safe use of such products;
- to document the use of such products;
- to report ADRs related to such products;
- to educate about such products;
- to collaborate with other health care professionals in respect to such products.
One point that is not directly covered here is the duty of pharmacists to comply with their own ethical codes. As I have pointed out ad nauseam, this would mean in many instances to not sell alternative medicine products at all, because there is no good evidence to show that they are generating more good than harm and thus are potentially harmful as well as wasteful.
Some pharmacists have realised that there is a problem. Some pharmacists are trying to initiate discussions about these issues within their profession. Some pharmacists are urging to change things. Some pharmacists are well-aware that healthcare ethics are being violated on a daily basis.
All this has been going on now for well over a decade.
And has there been any noticeable change?
Not as far as I can see!
Perhaps it is time to realise that not merely the sale of bogus medicines by pharmacists is unethical, but so is dragging one’s feet in initiating improvements.
Quackademia is an apt term for the teaching or promotion of quackery in universities. Sadly, this is a serious problem, and we have therefore discussed it already several times (see here, here and here). If you have read my memoir, you know that I had my fair share of quackademia ‘hands-on’, so to speak. This article from Australia has more on the subject:
START OF QUOTE
Friends of Science in Medicine have complained that alternative practitioners who speak at events were then using the names and logos of universities on their promotional material. Edith Cowan University recently cancelled a workshop promoting pranic crystal healing — which claims to use crystals to energise and heal the body — after complaints from FSM that it had no scientific basis. The university also cancelled Brisbane-based nutrition author Christine Cronau, who was due to promote her low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet on June 25. In response to a website petition calling on the university to cancel Cronau’s seminar, ECU said it rejected the booking because “it does not align with our evidence-based approach to dietetics teaching and research”.
The talk has been moved to Murdoch University, which, despite being lobbied to cancel the booking, said in a statement this week that it would go ahead. Murdoch said it promoted critical thinking and learning through discussion, debate and exposure to alternatives points of view. “One way to achieve this is to welcome other voices on campus in the form of guest speakers or visiting lecturers,” the statement said. “The university takes a common sense approach to the debate of controversial issues and we encourage respectful and insightful debate of thought- provoking topics.”
FSM president John Dwyer said universities should review the content of external health seminars before they hired out their venues. “We don’t have an issue with free speech, but some of the material is just not scientific,” Professor Dwyer said. “Often universities don’t know about the nature of the pseudo-scientific events they are hosting.”
Cronau said she was disappointed ECU had cancelled her talk but her faith in common sense had been restored by Murdoch University. “My approach has actually become a lot less controversial, so I don’t know why it has generated such comments,” she said.
END OF QUOTE
I find this story interesting. It reveals several things:
- Quacks love to infiltrate universities; this gives them a veneer of respectability, they think.
- This discloses their schizophrenic attitude to the ‘scientific establishment’ in an exemplary fashion: they often are fiercely against science but, at the same time, they are only too happy to jump at opportunities of decorating themselves with scientific feathers.
- Universities are run like businesses these days. They tend to take the money where they can get it. Issues like scientific credibility rarely figure high on the agenda.
- When challenged, universities claim they are favouring free speech, open-mindedness and respectful debate.
- This usually is but a lame excuse.
I remember protesting while at Exeter against a weekend course of pure quackery which the organisers were advertising under the logo of my university. My protest fell on deaf ears, and my peers pretended to favour free speech, open-mindedness and respectful debate. After I had retired, the University of Exeter even allowed quacks to infiltrate and made this surprising announcement: Our complementary therapists will be offering 15-20 minute taster sessions in our complementary therapies yurt. The therapy taster sessions on offer will include: shaitsu bodywork, reflexology, indian head Massage, seated back massage and much more. To take advantage of these free taster sessions just pop along to the yurt on the day of the festival.
But the Australian events also offer a glimmer of hope in this usually bleak situation. Sometimes our protests do have an effect! I therefore urge everyone to not give up. Quackademia is a pest, and for the sake of future generations, we must not allow it to infest our universities.
Yes, it’s hard to believe, but it’s true: this is the 1000th post on this blog.
Form the outset, I intended to critically comment on as many alternative modalities (treatments and diagnostic methods) as I can. This is the (probably not totally complete) list of what we covered:
Bach flower remedies
Chinese herbal medicine
Copper chloride biocrystallisation
Emotional freedom techniques
Evening primrose oil
Mindfulness-based stress reduction
St Johns Wort
In addition, we discussed all sorts of general issues which are not directly related to one specific modality. Most importantly, we had plenty of discussions and debates – not always as well-mannered as I had hoped (my mistake entirely) but usually instructive and interesting. Today, there were almost 30 000 comments!!!
The comments are the most important feature of this blog, I feel. And because they are so crucial, I would like to say to all commenters: MANY THANKS, WITHOUT YOU THIS WOULD NOT BE HALF AS MUCH FUN!
And here is my promise on this day of celebration: I will continue to do my best to amuse, entertain and inform you with my comments, rants and ramblings. As the subject of alternative medicine is not going to disappear in a hurry, I am not worried to run out of exciting material.
…and now, let’s find the champagne bottle!
Currently, over 50 000 000 websites promote alternative medicine, and consumers are bombarded with information not just via the Internet, but also via newspapers, magazines and other sources. This has the potential of needlessly separating them from their cash or even seriously harming their health. As there is little that protects us from greedy entrepreneurs and over-enthusiastic therapists, we should think about protecting ourselves. Here I will provide five simple tips that may fortify you against fake news in the realm of alternative medicine.
Imagine you read somewhere that the condition you are affected by is curable (or at least improvable) by THERAPY XY. It is only natural that you are exited by this news. Before you now rush to the next health shop or alternative medicine centre, it is worth asking yourself the following questions:
- Is the claim plausible? As a rule of thumb, it is fair to say that, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. Not so long ago, UK newspapers reported that a herbal mixture called ‘CARCTOL’ had been discovered to be an efficacious and safe cancer cure (before that, it was Essiac, shark cartilage, Laetrile and many more). I only needed a minimal amount of research to find that the claim had no basis in fact. Come to think of it, it is not plausible that any alternative therapy will ever emerge as a miracle cure for any condition, particularly a serious disease like cancer. It is also not plausible that a herbal mixture would ever prove to be a cure for a wide range of different cancers. The very idea of such ‘cures’ is a contradiction in terms. If an alternative therapy ever did turn out to be efficacious, it would become mainstream even before the clinical tests to prove its efficacy are fully concluded. The notion of an alternative cure presumes that conventional scientists and clinicians reject a treatment simply because it originated from the realm of alternative medicine. There is no precedent that this has ever occurred, and I am sure it will never happen in future.
- What is the evidence for the claim? In the case of CARCTOL, the claim was based on a UK doctor apparently observing that, in several patients, tumours had been melting like butter in the sun after they took this herbal mixture. One particularly irresponsible headline read: “I’ve seen herbal remedy make tumours disappear, says respected cancer doctor.” This, however, is no evidence but mere anecdotes, and we confuse the two at our peril. Remember: the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence. With anecdotes, we can never be sure about cause and effect. Therapeutic claims must be based on good evidence, e.g. controlled clinical trials.
- Who is behind the claim? In the UK, the CARCTOL claim emerged around 2004 and originated mainly from Dr Rosy Daniel. In the above newspaper article, she was called ‘a respected cancer doctor’. Personally, I do NOT ‘respect’ someone who makes claims of this nature without having good evidence. And a ‘cancer doctor’ is usually understood to be an oncologist; to the best of my knowledge, Dr Daniel is NOT an oncologist. In fact, she now calls herself a ‘Lifestyle and Integrative Medicine Consultant’. Faced with an important new health claim, one should always check who is behind it. Check out whether this person is reputable and free of conflicts of interest. An affiliation to a reputable university is usually more convincing than being a director of your own private heath centre.
- Where was the claim published? The CARCTOL story had been published in newspapers – and nowhere else! Even today, there is only one Medline-listed publication on the subject. It is my own review of the evidence which, in 2004, concluded that “The claim that Carctol is of any benefit to cancer patients is not supported by scientific evidence.” *** If important new therapeutic claims like ‘therapy xy cures cancer’ are reported in the popular media, you should always check where they were first published (or simply dismiss it without researching it). It is unthinkable that such an important claim is not made first in a proper, peer-reviewed article in a good medical journal. Go on ‘Medline’, conduct a quick search and find out whether the new findings have been published. If the claim does not come from peer-reviewed journals, forget about it. If it has been published in any journal that has alternative, complementary, integrative or similar terms in its name, take it with a good pinch of salt.
- Is there money involved? In the case of CARCTOL, the costs were high. I was called once by a woman who had read my article telling me that she was pursued by the doctor who had treated her husband. Tragically, the man had nevertheless died of his cancer, and the widow was now pursued for £8 000 which she understandably was reluctant to pay. Many new treatments are expensive. So, high costs are not necessarily suspicious. Still, I advise you to be extra cautious in situations where there is the potential for someone to make a fast buck. Financial exploitation is sadly rife in the realm of alternative medicine.
A similar checklist originates from a team of experts. Researchers from Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Norway, and England, worked to identify the most important ideas a person would need to grasp thinking critically about health claims. They came up with excellent points:
- Just because a treatment is popular or old does not mean it’s beneficial or safe.
- New, brand-name, or more expensive treatments may not be better than older ones.
- Treatments usually come with both harms and benefits.
- Beware of conflicts of interest — they can lead to misleading claims about treatments.
- Personal experiences, expert opinions, and anecdotes aren’t a reliable basis for assessing the effects of most treatments.
- Instead, health claims should be based on high-quality, randomized controlled trials.
Alternative medicine can easily turn into a jungle or even a nightmare. Before you fall for any dubious claim that THERAPY XY is good for you, please go through the simple sets of questions above. This might protect you from getting ripped off or – more importantly – from getting harmed.
*** After this article had been published, I received letters from layers threatening me with legal action unless I withdrew the paper. I decided to ignore them, and no legal action followed.
The website of BMJ Clinical Evidence seems to be popular with fans of alternative medicine (FAMs). That sounds like good news: it’s an excellent source, and one can learn a lot about EBM when studying it. But there is a problem: FAMs don’t seem to really study it (alternatively they do not have the power of comprehension to understand the data); they merely pounce on this figure and cite it endlessly:
They interpret it to mean that only 11% of what conventional clinicians do is based on sound evidence. This is water on their mills, because now they feel able to claim:
THE MAJORITY OF WHAT CONVENTIONAL CLINICIANS DO IS NOT EVIDENCE-BASED. SO, WHY DO SO-CALLED RATIONAL THINKERS EXPECT ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES TO BE EVIDENCE-BASED? IF WE NEEDED PROOF THAT THEY ARE HYPOCRITES, HERE IT IS!!!
The question is: are these FAMs correct?
The answer is: no!
They are merely using a logical fallacy (tu quoque); what is worse, they use it based on misunderstanding the actual data summarised in the above figure.
Let’s look at this in a little more detail.
The first thing we need to understand the methodologies used by ‘Clinical Evidence’ and what the different categories in the graph mean. Here is the explanation:
So, arguably the top three categories amounting to 42% signify some evidential support (if we decided to be more rigorous and merely included the two top categories, we would still arrive at 35%). This is not great, but we must remember two things here:
- EBM is fairly new;
- lots of people are working hard to improve the evidence base of medicine so that, in future, these figures will be better (by contrast, in alternative medicine, no similar progress is noticeable).
The second thing that strikes me is that, in alternative medicine, these figures would surely be much, much worse. I am not aware of reliable estimates, but I guess that the percentages might be one dimension smaller.
The third thing to mention is that the figures do not cover the entire spectrum of treatments available today but are based on ~ 3000 selected therapies. It is unclear how they were chosen, presumably the choice is pragmatic and based on the information available. If an up-to date systematic review has been published and provided the necessary information, the therapy was included. This means that the figures include not just mainstream but also plenty of alternative treatments (to the best of my knowledge ‘Clinical Evidence’ makes no distinction between the two). It is thus nonsensical to claim that the data highlight the weakness of the evidence in conventional medicine. It is even possible that the figures would be better, if alternative treatments had been excluded (I estimate that around 2 000 systematic reviews of alternative therapies have been published [I am the author of ~400 of them!]).
The fourth and possibly the most important thing to mention is that the percentage figures in the graph are certainly NOT a reflection of what percentage of treatments used in routine care are based on good evidence. In conventional practice, clinicians would, of course, select where possible those treatments with the best evidence base, while leaving the less well documented ones aside. In other words, they will use the ones in the two top categories much more frequently than those from the other categories.
At this stage, I hear some FAMs say: how does he know that?
Because several studies have been published that investigated this issue in some detail. They have monitored what percentage of interventions used by conventional clinicians in their daily practice are based on good evidence. In 2004, I reviewed these studies; here is the crucial passage from my paper:
“The most conclusive answer comes from a UK survey by Gill et al who retrospectively reviewed 122 consecutive general practice consultations. They found that 81% of the prescribed treatments were based on evidence and 30% were based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A similar study conducted in a UK university hospital outpatient department of general medicine arrived at comparable figures; 82% of the interventions were based on evidence, 53% on RCTs. Other relevant data originate from abroad. In Sweden, 84% of internal medicine interventions were based on evidence and 50% on RCTs. In Spain these percentages were 55 and 38%, respectively. Imrie and Ramey pooled a total of 15 studies across all medical disciplines, and found that, on average, 76% of medical treatments are supported by some form of compelling evidence — the lowest was that mentioned above (55%),6 and the highest (97%) was achieved in anaesthesia in Britain. Collectively these data suggest that, in terms of evidence-base, general practice is much better than its reputation.”
My conclusions from all this:
FAMs should study the BMJ Clinical Evidence more thoroughly. If they did, they might comprehend that the claims they tend to make about the data shown there are, in fact, bogus. In addition, they might even learn a thing or two about EBM which might eventually improve the quality of the debate.
It has been pointed out that many of the discussions we have on this blog are like pigeon chess. The term comes from a comment made by Scott D. Weitzenhoffer about Evolution vs. Creationism: An introduction: “Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”
Debating a fan of alternative medicine is frequently just like that: ignorant of the basics of science and logic, he nevertheless insists on playing with you, knocks over the pieces, defecates on the board, flies back to his flock to boast of victory, only to come back a little later to start over again.
The sequence of events is comically stereotypical: in order to start this game, the evangelist of alternative medicine does his best to appear rational and interested in the subject. Once a discussion has commenced, he begins to make more and more irrational claims. When asked to provide evidence for them, he evades the challenge. Instead, he issues all sorts of accusations to you. Some of the favourites include:
- being not competent to discuss the issue at hand,
- having a closed mind,
- being paid by BIG PHARMA,
As the accusations continue, it can be almost impossible to remain polite. Your reminders to produce evidence for the evangelist’s irrational claims become more and more pressing. He then decides to focus on a triviality and pesters you with questions about it which are too silly to answer. Consequently, the temperature of the exchange rises until his accusations become offensive or turn into overt insults (in the past I have sometimes deleted insulting comments and I intend to continue doing this on hopefully rare occasions). The aims of the evangelist are 1) to arrive at a point where you lose your temper and 2) to distract from the fact that he is unable to provide any evidence for his outlandish claims. Eventually your patience is exhausted and you finally start paying him back in the same coinage as he dispensed.
At this stage, the evangelist indignantly shouts:
- YOU HAVE INSULTED ME!!!
- YOU HAVE INSULTED ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU!!!
- THIS SHOWS WHAT A BAD, BAD PERSON YOU ARE!!!
Consequently, you give him a real piece of your mind and tell him what you really think of people who are belligerent, ignorant on their chosen subject, provocatively irrational and unable or unwilling to learn. The reaction of the evangelist is predictable: he says THAT’S IT, I AM NOT TALKING TO YOU ANYMORE, announces that he is the winner of the argument, and flies off triumphantly promising never to return.
We all give a sigh of relief. The evangelist has now returned to his fellow conspiracy theorists where he defames you the best he can. Eventually he disappoints your hope of peace and rationality by returning to the table. He pretends nothing has happened and starts over again.
So, what is the solution?
I am not sure there is an ideal way out.
Personally I intend to do the following in future (and I invite others to follow my example): before I reach the point where I lose my temper completely and regrettably, I will refer the evangelist to this blog post entitled ‘A method of ending discussions with belligerent twits’. At the same time, I will inform him (rarely it is a ‘her’) that I am about to break off the discussion with him because I fear that otherwise I might be openly rude, and perhaps even tell him: YOU ARE A FLAMING IDIOT WHO POSTS FAR TO MUCH NONSENSE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
This, I hope will get my message across without actually ever tempting me to post a rude word again.
Failing this, I will block him completely, a measure to which so far I only needed rarely to resort.
Regular readers of this blog will have noticed: when homeopathy-fans run out of arguments, they tend to conduct an ‘ad hominem’ attack. They like to do this in several different ways, but one of the most popular version is to shout with indignation: YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED!!!
The aim of this claim is to brand the opponent as someone who does not know enough about homeopathy to make valid comments about it. As this sort of thing comes up regularly, it is high time to ask: WHO ACTUALLY IS AN EXPERT IN HOMEOPATHY?
This seems to be an easy question to answer, but – come to think of it – it is more complex that one first imagines. Someone could be an expert in homeopathy in more than one way; for instance, one could be an expert:
- in the history of homeopathy,
- in the manufacture of homeopathics,
- in the regulation of homeopathy,
- in the clinical use of homeopathy in human patients,
- in the clinical use of homeopathy in animals,
- in the use of homeopathy in plants (no, I am not joking!),
- in basic research of homeopathy,
- in clinical research of homeopathy.
This blog is almost entirely devoted to clinical research; therefore, we should, for the purpose of this post, narrow down the above question to: WHO IS AN EXPERT IN CLINICAL RESEARCH OF HOMEOPATHY?
I had always assumed to be such an expert – until I was accused of being a swindler and pretender, that is. I have no formal qualifications for practising homeopathy (and never claimed otherwise), and this fact has prompted many homeopathy-fans to claim that I am not qualified to comment on the value of homeopathy. Do they have a point?
Rational thinkers have often pointed out that one does not need such qualifications for practicing homeopathy. In many countries, anyone can be a homeopath, regardless of background. In all the countries I know, one certainly can practise homeopathy, if one is qualified as a doctor. Crucially, do you really need to know how to practice homeopathy for conducting a clinical trial or a systematic review of homeopathy? Homeopaths seem to think so. I fear, however, that they are wrong: you don’t need to be a surgeon, psychiatrist or rheumatologist to organise a trial or conduct a review of these subjects!
Anyway, my research of homeopathy is not valid, homeopaths say, because I lack the formal qualifications to call myself a homeopath. Let me remind them that I have:
- been trained by leading homeopaths,
- practised homeopathy for quite some time,
- headed a team of scientists conducting research into homeopathy,
- conducted several clinical trials of homeopathy,
- published several systematic reviews of homeopathy,
- no conflicts of interest in regards to homeopathy.
However, this does not impress homeopath, I am afraid. They say that my findings and conclusions about their pet therapy cannot be trusted. In their eyes, I am not a competent expert in clinical research of homeopathy. They see me as a fraud and as an impostor. They prefer the real experts of clinical research of homeopathy such as:
- Robert Mathie
- Jos Kleinjen
- Klaus Linde
These three researchers who are fully accepted by homeopaths; not just accepted, loved and admired! They all have published systematic reviews. Intriguingly, their conclusion all contradict my results in one specific aspect: THEY ARE POSITIVE.
I do not doubt their expertise for a minute, yet have always found this most amusing, even hilarious.
Because none of these experts (I know all three personally) is a qualified homeopath, none of them has any training in the practice of homeopathy, none of them has ever practised homeopathy on human patients, none of them has even worked for any length of time as a clinician.
What can we conclude from these insights?
We could, of course, descend to the same level as homeopaths tend to do and conclude that homeopathy-fans are biased, barmy, bonkers, stupid, silly, irrational, deluded, etc. However, I prefer to draw a different and probably more accurate conclusion: according to homeopathy-fans, an expert in clinical research of homeopathy is someone who has published articles that are favourable to their trade. Anyone who fails to do likewise is by definition not competent to issue a reliable verdict about it.
CBC news (Canada) reported yesterday that, more than a decade ago, the Manitoba Chiropractic Health Care Commission had been tasked to review the cost effectiveness of chiropractic services. It therefore prepared a report in 2004 for the Manitoba province and the Manitoba Chiropractors Association. Since then, this report has been kept secret. The report makes 37 recommendations, including:
- Manitoba Health should limit its funding to “chiropractic treatment of acute lower back pain.”
- Manitoba Health should provide “limited coverage of the treatment of neck pain.” The report called the literature around the efficacy of chiropractic care for neck pain “ambiguous or at best weakly supportive” and noted such treatment carried a “not insignificant safety risk.”
- Manitoba Health should not fund chiropractic treatment anyone under 18 “as the literature does not unequivocally justify” the “efficacy or safety” of such treatment.
A Manitoba Ombudsman’s Office report from 2012 might shed some light on why the Manitoba Chiropractic Health Care Commission’s report was never made public. Someone had attempted to get a copy of the report, but large parts of it were redacted. “Access to this record was refused on the basis that disclosure would be harmful to a third party’s business interest,” the ombudsman report notes, “and harm the economic or financial interests or negotiating position of a public body.”
The report also challenged claims that chiropractic treatments can be address a wide variety of medical conditions. It stated that there was not enough evidence to conclude chiropractic treatments are effective in treating muscle tension, migraines, HIV, carpal tunnel syndrome, gastrointestinal problems, infertility or cancer, or as a preventive care treatment. It also said there was not enough evidence to conclude chiropractic treatments are effective for children.
The report urged Manitoba Health to establish a monitoring system to keep a closer eye on “the advertising practices of the Manitoba Chiropractors Association and its members to ensure claims regarding treatments are restricted to those for which proof of efficacy and safety exist.” It suggested the government should have regulatory powers over chiropractic ads.
A recent CBC I-Team investigation found Manitoba chiropractors advertising treatment for a wide range of conditions including Alzheimer’s, autism and pediatric services. The commission report contained sharp criticisms of previous reports that suggested funding chiropractic care could save the health-care system money. Dr. Pranlal Manga authored two widely cited reports which claim that by offering publicly funded chiropractic care, provinces can cut health-care costs. “The Manga study on Manitoba must be rejected as a guide to public policy,” the commission report states, “because its assumptions, methodology and costing of recommendations are all deeply flawed.” The reports states, “What limited evidence the Commission has suggests he [Manga] grossly exaggerates possible medical savings.” Dr. Manga did not respond to CBC’s repeated attempts to contact him.
The commission report also made recommendations around the use of X-ray machines by chiropractors. It suggested chiropractors not own and operate X-ray machines “Given the restrictive conditions under which X-rays are advisable, their poor correlation with low-back problems, their apparent limitation as a guide to appropriate treatment …[and] the apparent complete lack of monitoring [of] the use of X-ray by chiropractors.” Instead, it recommended consulting with radiologists when imaging is deemed necessary. “The Commission is of the view that the public interest, and even chiropractic itself, would be better served if chiropractors had access to radiologists for this service, rather than perform it themselves,” the report said.
All three report authors declined comment. Calls to Dave Chomiak, who was health minister at the time the report was prepared, were not returned. In an email to CBC, Manitoba Chiropractors Association president Perry Taylor said, “I personally have never seen this 13-year-old document and [it] pre-dates my time as President. As such I have no comment on this.” The CBC I-Team offered to go through the report with Taylor but he did not respond.
This report seems to confirm much of what we have discussed repeatedly on this blog: Chiropractic is not nearly as effective and safe as chiropractors try to make us believe. To hide this fact is certainly dishonest and unethical, but it is in some ways understandable: this knowledge would directly threaten the income of most chiropractors.
Yesterday I commented on another post: “the conflict of interest seems obvious: if homeopaths speak the truth, they are out of business. therefore, they are taught untruths from the first day of their training and eventually end up believing them. there is only one solution, as far as I can see: regulators must prevent them from making false claims. if not, this will go on for another 200 years and damage many patients’ health”. In the light of the above report, I will now re-phrase this: the conflict of interest seems obvious: if chiropractors allowed the truth to be known, they would soon be out of business. Therefore, they are taught untruths from the first day of their training and many end up believing them. There is only one solution, as far as I can see: regulators must prevent chiropractors from making false claims. If not, this abuse will go on for another 120 years and damage many patients’ health.
The ‘SOCIETY OF HOMEOPATHS’ (SoH) have published an official complaint they recently filed with the BBC. As it gives an intriguing insight into their mind-set, I could not resist reproducing it here (warts and all):
“Prompted by the interview with Simon Stevens of NHS England on the Today Programme, on 31st March, the Society of Homeopaths deplores the lack of balance in the BBC’s coverage of Homeopathy and urges you to review your approach to coverage of the subject.
During the Today interview, following wide-ranging discussion of issues around the future of the NHS, Sarah Montague suddenly threw in a question about the amount spent on Homeopathy within the NHS, evidently catching Mr Stevens unawares.
The annual budget of the NHS is approximately £110billion. Of this, £4million per year (0.0036 of the NHS budget) is spent on Homeopathy. This hardly justifies the unbalanced and hectoring approach from Sarah Montague.
We acknowledge that it is not always possible or necessary to achieve balance on a particular topic within a single programme but the BBC seems to have a consistent line across all of its platforms of opposition to, and disparagement of, Homeopathy. A recent example is a piece on the Health section of the BBC website in October 2106 by Nick Tiggle which displayed no balance at all and denigrated Homeopathy and Homeopaths with little or no space given to alternative views.
From these and other instances, it seems clear that the BBC has a biased attitude towards Homeopathy, which may be the result of relying too heavily on a small number of ‘experts’, who openly and persistently campaign against complementary and alternative medicine. These ‘experts’ operate in a similar way to climate change deniers, referring to a limited range of research, often of poor quality, to support their claims that there is ‘no evidence for homeopathy’.
We look forward to BBC programmes which fulfill its mission to explain and provide balance and coverage of the positive effects of Homeopathy.
Mark Taylor Chief Executive Society of Homeopaths”
END OF QUOTE
This hardly needs a comment – perhaps just 6 short points:
- To the best of my knowledge, the BBC has a policy of not being seen to be biased. The discussion referred to above was about the NHS stopping to pay for treatments that are either not effective (e. g. cough syrups) or cheaper to buy OTC than on prescription (e. g. paracetamol). Homeopathy is both. Therefore it would have even been biased NOT to bring homeopathy into the discussion.
- To claim the BBC-interviewer caught Stevens off guard is just silly: when you go on the radio to discuss such issues, homeopathy MUST be on your mind.
- To claim that the BBC is generally biased against homeopathy (on the basis of two anecdotes) is equally silly. The SoH should have done some systematic research on this – perhaps they did and found it failed to support their point? – this would have shown that there is plenty of (far too much) pro-homeopathy stuff on the BBC.
- To say or imply that homeopathy is of debatable or even no value to the NHS does not disclose bias; on the contrary, it is a reflection of the scientific truth which the BBC has an obligation to report.
- With their complaint, the SoH disclose an embarrassing degree of naivety and an alarming detachment from reality.
- Whichever way a rational observer might look at this, the BBC should in future become a much more outspoken defender of the scientific truth – on homeopathy and everything else!!!