BBC Programme to show acupuncture deactivates brain

[NeilC]

I don't find myself agreeing with Ian often but I must say some of the comments on this programme seem to me to be not skeptical but merely dismissive.

There is a non-surgeon telling us such an operation is "impossible" without no more evidence than an assumption based on limited knowledge of the subject. The thinking seems to be "I don't believe in accupucture up to this point bso therefore the whole programme must have been a fake". It goes beyond questioning into willful disbelief of anything that doesn't fit.

Seems like the sort of attitude that gives us skeptics a bad name.

I disagree that Dawkins is a moron. He's undoubtably intelligent, able to reason clearly and a good communicator. You might disagree with him but he's no moron.

 

[dogbite666]

I thought I had explained this in an earlier post, but perhaps I was assuming too much basic physiology knowledge.

Beats my crappy explanation Rolfe! You are obviosuly better equiped to cast judgement on this subject than I or most others in this forum, and indeed Kathy Sykes, have you thought about presenting a TV series!!!!

 

[andycal]

I don't find myself agreeing with Ian often but I must say some of the comments on this programme seem to me to be not skeptical but merely dismissive.

There is a non-surgeon telling us such an operation is "impossible" without no more evidence than an assumption based on limited knowledge of the subject. The thinking seems to be "I don't believe in acupuncture up to this point bso therefore the whole programme must have been a fake". It goes beyond questioning into willful disbelief of anything that doesn't fit.

Seems like the sort of attitude that gives us skeptics a bad name.

I disagree that Dawkins is a moron. He's undoubtably intelligent, able to reason clearly and a good communicator. You might disagree with him but he's no moron.

You're absolutely right, it does give skeptics a bad name when we out and out dismiss things, but many people here have at least done some (limited) research to find answers. And, although admittedly on animals, Rolfe knows her stuff enough to be able to explain a fundamental problem with the footage - there's no way that girl could have gone through open heart without GA and a vent.

By challenging the programme in this way, hopefully people with greater knowledge will take the bait and tell us where we're wrong.

 

[Rolfe]

And, although admittedly on animals, Rolfe knows her stuff enough to be able to explain a fundamental problem with the footage - there's no way that girl could have gone through open heart without GA and a vent.

I don't know who the "non-surgeon" being referred to here is. I admit I haven't practised surgery for quite some time, but I was trained as a surgeon and I have practised surgery in the past. Technically, my profession is "veterinary surgeon".

I admit I'm fairly un-clued-up about how a heart-lung bypass is fitted and operates. It's possible that someone might come along and provide a practical explanation for all this, coming from a deeper knowledge of the ultra-high-tech gadgetry available in modern operating theatres. However, coming from first principles, I simply cannot see how one could get from a conscious, spontaneously breathing patient, to a patient on a heart-lung bypass, without at any point using general anaesthesia, an endotracheal tube, and a ventilator.

I've been discussing this half the morning with my colleagues (all veterinary surgeons) and they can't figure it either. I would really appreciate some input from someone knowledgeable in human anaesthetics to confirm whether we've missed anything.

Some of the people watching last night must have been anaesthetists and respiratory physiologists and so on. Where's the outcry of incredulity? Or (if it exists) the rational explanation?

If there is indeed some hi-tech explanation for this conundrum, then why on earth wouldn't the programme makers insert a sentence or so explaining it? It seems such an obvious, glaring incongruity, and yet it simply didn't rate a mention.

Rolfe.

 

[dogbite666]

I must say some of the comments on this programme seem to me to be not skeptical but merely dismissive.

In this program the presenter has obviously not been critical enough if people on this board can quickly find simple reason to reject the claim of open heart surgery on an concious patient. Why should we now take anything she says as truth, she obviously does not possess the critical ability to discover the truth and has lost her reputation as a scientist.

What really gets my back up is when someone such as Kathy Sykes, a professor, can have the wool pulled over her eyes so easily. A good scientist is one who attempts to find an explanation for an observation by eliminating all the other possible explanations. In order to eliminate possibilties the scientist must be extremely critical so that nothing is over looked. Once eliminated the last remaining explaination is the correct one, no matter how bizzare or absurd it may seem. If people find the elimination of hypothesis' a problem or offensive then that is their problem, what matters is that we know the truth and are able to understand the world about us rather than play into the hands of charlatans. As one guy on this show said "there is no alternative science". We need to examine claims like this as critically as we can.

 

[dogbite666]

I am a computer programmer, not a surgeon. I guess that means I can only critically evaluate computer programmes and not human biology!

 

[andycal]

I just watched the proceedure again. Unfortunately, because I taped it on long-play I can't get a good still picture, but there's only one scene where they move the camera from her head to the actual operation.

In this scene there are many doctors scurring around peering into her chest, but no evidence of open heart. After that there are absolutley no shots of the surgery and the face together, it's one or the other. All the pictures of her face have her conscious and with no ventilator.

Then there are lots of shakey cut sequences with some showing a beating heart. Interestingly, they say they're about to stop the heart, but then don't show the heart being stopped or the rest of the operation.

 

[Rolfe]

I just watched the proceedure again. Unfortunately, because I taped it on long-play I can't get a good still picture, but there's only one scene where they move the camera from her head to the actual operation.

In this scene there are many doctors scurring around peering into her chest, but no evidence of open heart. After that there are absolutley no shots of the surgery and the face together, it's one or the other. All the pictures of her face have her conscious and with no ventilator.

Then there are lots of shakey cut sequences with some showing a beating heart. Interestingly, they say they're about to stop the heart, but then don't show the heart being stopped or the rest of the operation.

My main concern regarding the whole thing being a collage is that if it were, the BBC camera crew must have been in on the deception. And I really find it hard to believe that. I still think that if it were a scam, the camera crew must have been duped.

I can't wholly exclude the possibility that someone with more knowledge about what you can do with heart-lung machines might reveal that it's possible to set one up and ready, with all the connections in place, before the heart is opened. I don't actually think it is, but it's too far out of my field for me to be sure. However, even if it were possible, there are still questions of could it be done safely, and what about the breathing reflex and muscle relaxation, and how do you manage a thoracotomy with a conscious, non-muscle-relaxed patient who is incapable of not trying to breathe for herself?

But it's not me who should be standing on the outraged soapbox here, it's the entire Royal College of Anaesthetists. Not to mention every thoracic surgeon in the country. Surely at least some of them saw this show?

Rolfe.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Beats my crappy explanation Rolfe! You are obviosuly better equiped to cast judgement on this subject than I or most others in this forum, and indeed Kathy Sykes, have you thought about presenting a TV series!!!!

Dear me, there's no call to grease around her simply because she's a girl

Anyway, if this was so obviously impossible (something which I am quite unable to judge), then people should write in and complain. It is absolutely appalling that the BBC should transmit an ostensibly sensible programme at peak viewing time if something they showed is absolutely impossible.

 

[Stitch]

My main concern regarding the whole thing being a collage is that if it were, the BBC camera crew must have been in on the deception. And I really find it hard to believe that. I still think that if it were a scam, the camera crew must have been duped.

I have the prog Sky+'ed and haven't had the chance to watch it yet - but are you sure it was a BBC team and not freelanceers shooting the program and selling it on? Not sure if this happens etc, but it may provide some explanation

 

[Interesting Ian]

In this program

If you live in the uk it's programme.

 

[andycal]

I have the prog Sky+'ed and haven't had the chance to watch it yet - but are you sure it was a BBC team and not freelanceers shooting the program and selling it on? Not sure if this happens etc, but it may provide some explanation

My email to Kathy Sykes specifically asks the question: "Were you there, did you see it, who filmed it?".

 

[Interesting Ian]

In this program the presenter has obviously not been critical enough if people on this board can quickly find simple reason to reject the claim of open heart surgery on an concious patient. Why should we now take anything she says as truth, she obviously does not possess the critical ability to discover the truth and has lost her reputation as a scientist.

But she's a physicist! You cannot expect physicists to have complete knowledge of all things! Would you expect an astronomer to know? A geologist? A parapsychologist? What about a philosopher?

If she's a physicist then it is right to assume she has a good knowledge in her own subject matter. It is not reasonable to assume she should necessarily have extensive knowledge in other areas too. How much does someone like Rolfe know about physics??

 

[Interesting Ian]

I am a computer programmer, not a surgeon. I guess that means I can only critically evaluate computer programmes and not human biology!

no, but if you do not possess knowledge in human biology, it is absurd to thereby conclude you are a crap programmer. It is just crap reasoning!

 

[richardm]

Thus, the minute you open the chest, normal breathing simply isn't going to work. Something else has to be done. The usual thing is to put a tight cuffed tube down into the patient's trachea (windpipe), and attach this to an anaesthetic machine. This blows air into the lungs under positive pressure, and incidentally will deliver anaesthetic gases as well. You might dispense with the need for anaesthetic gases by using sedation and local anaesthesia, but you cannot dispense with the need for artificial ventilation. And the endotracheal tube cannot be passed in a conscious patient. The cough/gag reflex prevents it.

Could a procedure like this be the solution?

To repair most cardiac defects, the cardiothoracic surgeon requires a bloodless, motionless field in which to work. To achieve this, the motion of the heart and lungs must be stopped.
For this to occur, there needs to be a means for blood to circulate throughout the body, delivering the nutrients and oxygen necessary for life, while the heart and lungs are not functioning. This is made possible through a process known as cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

 

[andycal]

There certainly was a big machine type pumpy thing with blood in it (sorry for the none technical description).

I've just thought, there's no way this programme can win. If they used a state of the art machine that can do all this wonderful stuff, why use acupuncture?

 

[Diamond]

My wife came up to me and told me that acupuncture appeared to work! She appears to have been misled...

Am I the only person who thinks that if you want to do a proper program on unorthodox medical procedures then you should get a proper medical researcher with experience in proper experimental design?

I'm sorry, but even a PhD physicist knows about as much about medicine and the workings of the human body as I do - which isn't saying much.

 

[Rolfe]

Could a procedure like this be the solution?

Well, that's exactly what I've been wondering. I don't know enough about it to be certain it's completely impossible. However, I still have trouble figuring how you could get a machine like that all set up and ready to go, in a position to switch over the minute the chest is open. I simply can't see how. And it still leaves the question of how is it possible to do a thoracotomy on a patient who isn't muscle-relaxed and has her breathing reflexes all intact and trying to operate.

Edited to add: The text on that site confirms what I had believed to be the case.

Tubing made of clear polyvinyl chloride (PVC) contains the patients' blood as it is diverted from the body. Large bore catheters (called cannula) are placed in the right side of the heart, allowing the desaturated blood from the body to enter the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit.

My bolding. The plumbing for this machine actually goes into the heart, or the large vessels near the heart. That is, it's all connected up inside the chest cavity.

The way to achieve this is obvious. Anaesthetise the patient, intubate her, get her stable on ventilation, then do the thoracotomy while the positive-pressure ventilation is doing the breathing. This allows access to the heart, and one can start to place the catheters and so on for the bypass machine.

How the hell you can do this in a non-intubated patient I can't imagine. I was mentally speculating that it might be possible to set it up using peripheral veins and arteries rather than doing the plumbing actually in the chest, but no, the more I think about it the more impossible it seems.

We need an anaesthetist here. Calling an anaesthetist, NOW!

Rolfe.

 

[andycal]

My wife came up to me and told me that acupuncture appeared to work! She appears to have been misled...

Am I the only person who thinks that if you want to do a proper program on unorthodox medical procedures then you should get a proper medical researcher with experience in proper experimental design?

Nope, it's typical of this sort of programme and typical of what people come away thinking. And who can blame them? Someone says "I'm a scientist" all the way through and they show someone having an operation that appears to be possible with acupuncture.

Before you know it, the local acupuncture clinic has a poster saying "Scientist says acupuncture is fab, come and get some".

 

[Rolfe]

Anyway, if this was so obviously impossible (something which I am quite unable to judge), then people should write in and complain. It is absolutely appalling that the BBC should transmit an ostensibly sensible programme at peak viewing time if something they showed is absolutely impossible.

I emailed a letter to Radio Times the same evening, and have submitted a complaint to the programme via the web site that is linked to above. I'd still like to know where the scathing criticism for the surgical profesison is, though.

Rolfe.