Reply With QuoteAlso covered today in the Sunday Times see 'Science accuses BBC of medical quackery' here
.... good to see this BBC promoted hokum exposed for what it is!
See Simon Singh's article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...739354,00.html
My criticism of this programme was that the presentation was completely at odds with the content.
In my opinion none of the programmes told us anything we didn't already know. Acupuncture (or more accurately needling), for example, may have a small effect on pain relief. That was the actual conclusion of programme 1. The presentation however, included the ridiculous demonstration of acupuncture being used as anaesthesia in open-heart surgery when in fact it was entirely superfluous (my comments here).
The problem is that the general public will remember the sensational narration, images and presentation and forget the actual content.
Well they won't be getting expert input from the likes of Professor Ernst, so christ knows what sort of things they'll be glamorising next!Despite the criticisms, the BBC is understood to be considering commissioning a second series.
.
Also covered today in the Sunday Times see 'Science accuses BBC of medical quackery' here
.... good to see this BBC promoted hokum exposed for what it is!
If they managed to see past the wildly enthusiastic presentation to notice the content at all.Originally Posted by John Jackson
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield
I keep getting this terrible feeling of deja woo.
Professor Kathy Sykes should know better. So I propose we let the good professor know that we have seen through the nonsense, and ask her how her championing of pseudoscience contributes to the mission statement of her day job.
She holds the 'Collier Chair' at Bristol University, which is dedicated to 'Public Engagement in Science and Engineering.' Her efforts on the recent BBC television series seem to have directly contradicted this. Did her colleagues at Bristol spot this, or were they too busy doing real science to notice the hatchet job on controlled testing Prof. Sykes was perpetrating?
Here's Kathy Sykes homepage: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/ias/collier/
And here is her email address which we can use to express our dismay:
Kathy.Sykes@bristol.ac.uk
Singh seems to have been saying this sort of thing about the series for a while: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected...naccupunct.xml
A shame it seems to have taken the Grauniad and Sunday Times a month or so to catch up.
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield
I keep getting this terrible feeling of deja woo.
Another development with this topic:
From Letters to the Guardian, several scientists have stated that "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/st...744370,00.html
The actual claims that were made in the programme were nothing out of the ordinary so perhaps they feel comfortable with that, but the presentation of the programme was highly deceptive.
I wonder how many of those scientists, even those who are alternative medicine practitioners, thought that the way the 'Acupuncture as anaesthesia for open-heart surgery' item was "doing full justice to the subject matter it addressed"?
To me it looked like pure deception. I simply cannot believe that all of those scientists thought that the Acupuncture feature in China was either genuine or well balanced.
.
It's not going away this issue.
Here's the latest: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc...uack.html#bbc3
"But all is not what it seems. Contrary to appearances, this letter was actually written by the BBC who also compiled the signatories."
Just as with the presentational content of the series it seems someone at the Beeb is trying to give the impression that something is true when it's not.
.
John Lynch of the BBC has replied to Simon Singh in today's Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...755549,00.html
I haven't seen the broadcast ( anti TV Luddite), but I've read Singh's piece, and this does not look like a proper rebuttal. For example, Lynch says " The anecdotal nature of this treatment was made absolutely clear..." in reply to [ Singh paraphrased by Lynch] "...the production could not distinguish evidence from anecdote..."
I repeat that I have not seen the TV programme, but I should have expected a rebuttal to go something like this: " The anecdotal nature... was made clear: and to avoid misleading the naive, we went on to say that anecdotal evidence is no more a sort of evidence than a decoy duck is a sort of duck..."
Hmm. I'd better lay off before I get worked up.
The style as we like is the humdrum.
From the article:
That is actually true.A sequence which featured acupuncture being used instead of general anaesthetic during open heart surgery in China was alleged to be misleading by "underplaying" the use of drugs which were also administered. Not so.
The programme script was careful to say the patient was "sedated by drugs and her chest numbed". We pointed out that this did not amount to hard evidence and that there could be other explanations for what we saw.
The problem, however, was that although these things were mentioned once at the start of the sequence, the rest of it was presented to give the impression that it was acupuncture that was giving the pain relief; and indeed, that the reduced cost of the operation and the quicker recovery time for the patient were both due to the fact that acupuncture was used.
The actual claims made in this series were nothing out of the ordinary. The presentation of the unsubstantiated claims however, was sensationalist and utterly misleading.
The series was a disgrace.
.
I've copied this from Randi's forum (posted by Blue Wode):
Here’s the transcript from the start of the segment on acupuncture anaesthesia for open heart surgery:
That shows that the results of the open-heart procedure were indeed attributed to the "power of acupuncture".Kathy Sykes:
“I’m pretty sceptical about acupuncture, but we’d be crazy to write-off ancient wisdoms. We ought to question them well, but we can’t write them off especially when it appears to be able to do something astonishing. In the city’s most advanced hospital 21 year old factory worker [Chinese girl’s name] has a hole in the heart and her health is deteriorating. She’s about to have open heart surgery. Even with the best medical equipment it’s a risky operation. Her chest will be cut open and her heart stopped. But [Chinese girl’s name] will go through all of this without a general anaesthetic. Instead she’s chosen acupuncture. Although sedated by drugs and her chest numbed, she’ll be conscious throughout the whole procedure. The doctors stimulate the needles using an electrical current. As the surgeon begins, the success of the operation depends not just on his skill, but on the power of acupuncture.”
I'll be watching the second series with a beady skeptical eye.
.
I have a video (avi) clip of the "heart bit" somewhere. If anyone wants to download it give me a shout. It's about 15 min long.
Some of few of my friends/colleagues were adamant the patient only had acupuncture for the pain relief and I have used the clip to show the program did say say the patient had conventional drugs.
Without fail each person I have shown it to, immediately realizes the significance of what has been said and asks "what drugs, and what do they do?". Yet the BBC science team seemed to attach no significance to the fact the patient was on (cough) 'western drugs'.
At least this is a good example of TV not wanting to let facts get in the way of a good story.
any news on this topic?
I still heard nothing about the alleged upcoming study to be published as a result of the findings presented in the program...
mattias
For anyone who may have missed it, this was the response to the same question over on the JREF science forum:
There was just the BBC's admission of faking the open heart surgery scene. I don't know of anything further about the imaging study. Have you written to George Lewith? He was one of the medics involved in the study
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3447610&postcount=242
On the subject of the BBC and its recent uncritical coverage of some aspects of alternative medicine, it’s good to see that it has decided to remove the entire CAM section from its website:
http://www.cybermed.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17240&It emid=134
Last week the controllers of BBC Health (www.bbc.co.uk/health http://www.bbc.co.uk/health), the health section on one of the most accessed websites in the world, decided to remove all coverage of complementary medicine! They used to have substantial coverage with over 40 pages on this subject covering all the major therapies, their pros and cons, evidence for their effectiveness, how to find a qualified practitioner, etc.
However the site has in recent months been sent a deluge of letters and emails claiming that complementary therapies such as homeopathy and cranial osteopathy should be removed. As a result large chunks of this part of the site were simply removed overnight and now, following recent cutbacks, it was decided that, rather than update this part of the site, it should simply be removed altogether!
It may seem incredible that a public service site this prominent can deem complementary medicine so insignificant that it no longer warrants any coverage other than the odd news story. This is despite the fact that complementary medicine is used favourably by a significant proportion of the population (recent surveys have estimated that around 1 in 5 Britons use it at some point or other) and that increasing numbers of people are now seeking to train in these therapies.
However, as the 'quack busters' become more organised and active, evidence of the backlash against complementary medicine is appearing all over the place - such as the removal of PCT funding for homeopathy, the threatened closure of the homeopathic hospitals, many negative news stories in the press and so on.
Rather than taking a reasoned view and considering the evidence from good research studies on complementary medicine some groups seem simply hell bent on trying to 'stamp out' complementary medicine in any way possible. The BBCi removal of complementary medicine coverage (which has been in place for almost 15 years!) is one example.
Unfortunately, however, there seems to be move afoot to have it returned:
If you believe information pages on it should be returned to BBCi, please, please take just a minute to express your views using their online comment form at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/
to make your view known. As a public service company they have to listen to your views so your email will make a difference. Apparently for all the many letters and emails that they received that were against complementary medicine they only received a handful in support. Therefore if you are in support please let them know so they may revise their thinking on this subject.
Please act as soon as possible and pass on these details to anyone else you know who may also be willing to write in support of complementary medicine.
Could a little more activism from the skeptical community be in order to make sure the CAM section doesn't make a comeback?
Well I just sent a "Thanks for removing..." message through the comments section. Perhaps ask John nicely to draft a letter from UKS as well?
Defendants might as well have said: Beneficent creatures from the 17th dimension use this bracelet as a beacon to locate people who need pain relief and whisk them off to their home world every night to provide help in ways unknown to our science.
Judge Frank Easterbrook commenting on the Q-Ray bracelet
"For Gods sake you're an American! Stop thinking of the consequences and blow something up" - Stan Smith, American Dad!
I sent a similar message and have just received a reply from the BBC Information Department which basically summarised this page of its website…
…and concluded with this:BBC Health website - Complementary section disbanded
Publication date: 22 Feb 2008
Complaint
We received complaints about the Complementary section of the BBC Health website being disbanded
The BBC's response
The decision to remove the complementary medicine area of the health website was taken as part of a wider review of all the health content in order to enable the BBC to focus its efforts on creating new and exciting content.
In order to release resources for this redevelopment work, we're reviewing existing content from an editorial and value-for-money perspective.
The complementary health section was incomplete and, therefore, not of a satisfactory editorial standard.
It also represented a small proportion of traffic to the site but was disproportionately time-consuming.
Therefore, the decision to take it down was based on a combination of factors: how much work it needed to maintain to a high editorial standard, how much this cost and how popular it was with site users.
We have already removed other sections of the health site and plan to reduce or remove others.
We appreciate people are disappointed this area of the site has been removed and apologise if the decision has appeared abrupt to site users or inconvenienced other sites linking to BBC Health.
The BBC will continue to cover complementary health in other areas of its output, such as TV, radio and news programmes, and may reassess its complementary health content in future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news/2008/02/22/53034.shtml
I would like to assure you that we have registered your positive comments regarding this decision on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
So making leaving a comment seems to be well worthwhile.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks