• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

BBC Programme to show acupuncture deactivates brain

Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...

They're all busy removing needles from people who thought it would cure cancer.
 
Concerning Kathy's status as a scientist, my understanding is that she did a PhD in physics, looking at biodegradable plastics, and went into PUS (public understanding of science) pretty well immediately after, or possibly during. Web o' Science (like pubmed but covers most non-medical stuff) lists no publications on the subject (or other physics subjects) under her name, though she has a number of PUS-type publications listed. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think it qualifies her as a 'respected physicist' as one poster called her, nor has she claimed to be one. Judith Hann never claimed to be a zoologist, only a journalist, but I'd rate her as a PUS communicator. Which doesn't mean I endorse everything KS said in the programme at all.
 
I haven't had a chance to see the programme yet - I taped it and will watch it tonight.

From the coments so far I would make two observations:
  • We presumably were told in the film how mystical and wonderful eastern/holistic medicine is with its magical cures of acupuncture and the like..........//cut: Scene 1. A high tech cardiothoracic surgical theatre, with surgeons/anaesthetists/nurses running around doing major intrathoracic surgery and cardiopulmonary bypass but using borrowed "western/orthodox" surgical and high-care techniques, monitoring patients with EKGs, central lines, cardiac output monitors/oximeters etc, DC cardioversion/electrical apparatus to induce cardiac standstill, a plethora of western synthetic chemicals in use to restart the heart and regulate rhythm (oh, and some chemical analgesia augmented by acupuncture)//.......Suddenly this is hailed as a triumph of "Eastern" medicine which proves it is the equal or better than orthodox evidence-based western medicine???!!! Don't make me break rule8, for god's sake!!
If they were that fantastic, they would have cured the woman by using acupuncture and tiger bollock juice in the first place instead of subjecting her to all that nasty western surgery.




​
  • We are also "conned" by these people into believing that Western medicine is disease/symptom-focussed, with only "Eastern" practitioners capable of a holistic view and able to tackle the underlying real cause of the problems and result in long term cure.
Well excuse me, but the most they seem to have shown is that pain perception in the brain may be modulated by some needling, and that arthritis patients get relief of knee pain with acupuncture! At best it's merely a pain killer. And they dare to talk of us only treating "the symptoms" and not the patient?!! So could an acupuncturist tell me how they would treat ischaemic heart disease for example? In the West a holistic approach is employed, with treatment of the underlying problem as well as correction of the symptoms of the disease and managment of side effects and strategies to prevent recurrence/progression of disease. A lot of effort is directed to intervention and lifestyle issues (diet, exercise, weight, lipid levels, smoking, predisposing factors like blood pressure, diabetes and so on). Drug treatment is directed at relieving symptomatic coronary vasospasm, and preventive therapy given with antiplatelet drugs and lipid-lowering drugs to reduce chances of recurrence or progression/heart attack. More severe cases will have extensive tests and interventions such as angioplasty, or even bypass to restore vessels back to normally functioning coronary arteries. What has an acupuncturist to offer - his own pet version of two paracetamol? How on earth is this stuff becoming accepted as a viable alternative to orthodox evidence-based medicine????
(Don't bother answering - I won't hear you as I'm going to go puke - there's a nasty taste in my mouth and I don't think it's just bile....)



​
 
Deetee, I think you should watch the programme. It was pretty awful, certainly in my opinion, but not perhaps quite in the way you are expecting. I didn't hear anything at all which really related to your second point, frankly it wasn't that detailed. Nothing about treating the disease or the symptoms, though there was a bit about meridiens and chi. It was presented without any real comment.

In fact there seemed to be no claim for acupuncture other than that of relieving pain, whether of surgery or osteoarthritis. So the whole point of the surgery thing was just, gee whiz heap powerful medicine can prevent the need for expensive and debilitating general anaesthetic for major surgical procedure. Oh, along with heavy sedation (a colleague of mine suspected ketamine, and I think she might have been right) and local anaesthesia of course.

I really, really, pretty please, want your opinion on the whole ventilation thing. Even given a heart-lung bypass, which I think was indeed there, how could you get a patient on the bypass machine without general anaesthesia and ventilation?

Rolfe.
 
Interesting Ian said:
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?? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Which raises an interesting question: why did they hire a physicist to present an investigation of "alternative medicine"? Why not get someone more appropriately qualified?
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...

I discussed this today with a colleague who has carried out awake open heart surgery. It is done with regional anaesthesia, ie a nerve block. You would not get away with local as that only numbs the skin and outer layers. There is no need to ventilate the patient, if they are on bypass as this one was - they showed the machine and the perfusionist. The procedure does not penetrate the pleural cavity so lungs don't collapse, and the patient can continue to breathe even if they don't need to because of the bypass. The rapid recovery the BBC made so much of is a function of the lack of GA not the acupuncture. So there is nothing mysterious or magical about this procedure, or even `amazing'. It was a perfectly normal open chest operation with regional anaesthesia. The needles were a red herring. Prof Sykes was not qualified to spot any of this of course.

I have mixed feelings about this programme so far. It was very inadequate in terms of science, and came across as very `black and white'. Ridiculous to ask "So this proves that acupuncture works?". If I am developing a drug and go to the regulatory authority with just one trial that shows it works, ignoring 20 that show either that it doesn't, or which are unclear because of poor methods, will I get a marketing licence? Of course not. So we can't possibly reach a blanket conclusion on the basis of one trial. There are some intriguing findings emerging, but they remain very inconsistent. There have been some other MRI studies, about 4 according to PubMed, and although there are claims of effects on brain regions, the regions are actually quite inconsistent. I'm not sure if this is because of different methodologies, without reading all the full texts, but there just may be something going on. I was quite appalled that they didn't show the much larger German study in migraine which showed nothing at all (using sham needles).

But I do react badly to posters here who seem to be saying "But it can't possibly work, whatever they say". Apologies if I have misunderstood, but that's how it comes across. I don't think Prof Sykes is an `airhead', but she was doing a job for her client and aiming to please. She wasn't really the right person to choose, but I strongly suspect she got in because of how she comes across on TV. I just hope she doesn't go the way of Carol Vorderman. If she does, she will stop doing science and move into reality shows and makeovers, which will be a pity.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Ummm . .science is a vastsubject. You cannot expect a physiciust, or a cosmologist, or a geologist, or a social scientist or a parapsychologist etc etc to necessarily have intimate details regarding the human body and how it works.
Click to expand...

I agree with Ian on this point. I studied Physics & Maths but write softwares for a living. All my past comments and posts on JREF forum, have only been quoting Physics and Maths related topics, because those are my domain area of knowledge. I have stayed away from commenting on Biological Science related discussions, as it is not my area. I can debate and refute any paranormal claims solely on the basis of what's allowable and not allowable in Physics such as claims that seem to defy the laws of Physics. Issues, such as whether the patient is able to breath in an open surgery or not is out of my domain knowledge, so it is no comment for me there, since it is biological science.

I think, that probably Prof. Sykes was the wrong person to host the show, as she is a Physicist and a scientist herself, it does not mean she is an expert or knowledgeable in Biological Science. Perhaps the show's producer could have invited a top surgeon to host the show, since the surgeon will be much qualified in critiquing the open surgery.
 
Last edited:
Feed the Troll

Interesting Ian said:
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?? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

She also holds the chair of Professor of Public Engagment of Science and as a professor she might have felt the compulsion to do a little research into a subject on which she is about to make a television broadcast.

Richard Dawkins is a Evolutionary Biologist, ask him about sub-atomic physics and he'll go do some research and come back with a robust answear. As a Computer Programmer you can ask me about a subject I know nothing about, like the respiratory system, and I will go research it and be able to tell whether you are talking ******** or not.

Poor Ian, 6,747 posts and your still trolling!
 
dogbite666 said:
She also holds the chair of Professor of Public Engagment of Science and as a professor she might have felt the compulsion to do a little research into a subject on which she is about to make a television broadcast.

Richard Dawkins is a Evolutionary Biologist, ask him about sub-atomic physics and he'll go do some research and come back with a robust answear. As a Computer Programmer you can ask me about a subject I know nothing about, like the respiratory system, and I will go research it and be able to tell whether you are talking ******** or not.
Click to expand...
Dead right - she should have done her homework. Top judges do exactly that when they are up for a technical case. I would expect someone to get an academic chair because they are exceptional at understanding things, but sadly they all too often get it because they are good at raising grant money. I think Sykes is probably a pretty good physicist, but not a great all-rounder.
 
dogbite666 said:
She also holds the chair of Professor of Public Engagment of Science and as a professor she might have felt the compulsion to do a little research into a subject on which she is about to make a television broadcast.

Richard Dawkins is a Evolutionary Biologist, ask him about sub-atomic physics and he'll go do some research and come back with a robust answear. As a Computer Programmer you can ask me about a subject I know nothing about, like the respiratory system, and I will go research it and be able to tell whether you are talking ******** or not.

Poor Ian, 6,747 posts and your still trolling!
Click to expand...

All this is wholly irrelevant. All this suggests is that arguably she did not do her background research. This gives absolute zero evidence that she is either stupid or a creduloid.

And I've made about 15,000 posts. Ignore the post count, they keep reducing the count when the forum crashes.
 
Whether she is a crappy professor or not I couldn't help but notice how drop dead gorgeous she is. Maybe she has a rather different future on the screen!

oh! I say!
 
Interesting Ian said:
All this is wholly irrelevant. All this suggests is that arguably she did not do her background research. This gives absolute zero evidence that she is either stupid or a creduloid.
Click to expand...
She was stupid to present herself as an authority figure on an area of science she knows nothing about. If she wants to present she should, but with less of the "as a scientist" lines. However despite doing something stupid, I would not describe her as being stupid. I don't think what she did will ruin her credibility, but she has done it no favours.

My guess is that she played to the angle the producers wanted, "sceptical scientist being won over be credible evidence", she played the part very well.
 
Asolepius said:
I discussed this today with a colleague who has carried out awake open heart surgery. It is done with regional anaesthesia, ie a nerve block. You would not get away with local as that only numbs the skin and outer layers. There is no need to ventilate the patient, if they are on bypass as this one was - they showed the machine and the perfusionist. The procedure does not penetrate the pleural cavity so lungs don't collapse, and the patient can continue to breathe even if they don't need to because of the bypass. The rapid recovery the BBC made so much of is a function of the lack of GA not the acupuncture. So there is nothing mysterious or magical about this procedure, or even `amazing'. It was a perfectly normal open chest operation with regional anaesthesia. The needles were a red herring. Prof Sykes was not qualified to spot any of this of course.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that it is quite possible, indeed sensible practice, to do open-heart surgery without at any point intubating the patient? To enter the chest without any ventilation and place a heart-lung bypass?

This is not what I'm hearing from elswhere, I have to say. But I'm not close enough to the subject to be able to be certain.

I certainly got the last part of what you say there, it was just that even before remarking on that, it all looked like a deception.

I have to say that I thought Kathy Sykes came over very badly indeed in that programme. Of course, I have never seen her before. But even there, my mother was irritated by her wide-eyed marvelling at these dubious wonders that she left the room half way through the programme. She certainly did strike me as an airhead, who was only paying lip service to the odd bit of really obvious scepticism.

Rolfe.
 
Regarding the osteoartritis pain relief: As one poster mentioned before, this disease is notoriously dependent on the patients state of mind and attitude. I was involved in arthritis research many years ago and I met literally hundreds of patients suffering from this particular form of the disease.

Osteoarthritis is considered by many to be the most common disease on the planet- most people will suffer with it to some degree in their lives if they live long enough. Its cause is not known fully but there is certainly a large element of good old wear and tear going on.

I found that OA patients were always keen to tell me about their latest miracle cure. Copper bracelets, glucosamine tablets, balms, ointments and, of course, acupuncture.

They used to swear that they were getting better - right up until they had knee replacement operations...

One thing that I noticed about the MRI test at the end of the show, and I could be exposing my ignorance here, is that the insertion of a needle seemed to elicit a response in the brain. And wiggling the needle around for a while evoked a different response in the brain. Isn't that all they've 'proved'?
 
Rolfe said:
Are you saying that it is quite possible, indeed sensible practice, to do open-heart surgery without at any point intubating the patient? To enter the chest without any ventilation and place a heart-lung bypass?

This is not what I'm hearing from elswhere, I have to say. But I'm not close enough to the subject to be able to be certain.

I certainly got the last part of what you say there, it was just that even before remarking on that, it all looked like a deception.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
In short, yes - as another poster has already pointed out, and you will find if you Google `awake open heart surgery'. I was as surprised as you were until I asked the right people. It would not be done in older patients needing long procedures, eg coronary revascularisation. Considered most appropriate for young patients like this one - a quick in and out to repair an atrial septal defect. Not suitable for ventricular defects.

Mind you, the word `trickery' has been bandied about by those in the know about how this programme was made. It probably was a deception, but not quite the one you thought. In addition, my colleague says that awake procedures are extremely dependent on the state of mind of the patient. Some people can stand vastly more pain that we could imagine, and this is very well known among the Chinese who have a mystical approach to life (as the programme emphasised). There are documented cases of major surgery in the 19th century in China, without any anaesthetic, and patients were mobile straight afterwards. Are eastern minds wired differently, so that pain can be switched off? We now know that the brain is highly plastic, and culture can make significant changes to brain structure during development.

ETA: I'm happy to continue this discussion here instead of the other thread. We will need a new one for the healing episode next week, which promises to raise all our antibodies.
 
Deetee said:
We are also "conned" by these people into believing that Western medicine is disease/symptom-focussed, with only "Eastern" practitioners capable of a holistic view and able to tackle the underlying real cause of the problems and result in long term cure.
Click to expand...
I believe that if you produce a TV programme about alternative medicine and do not trot out something along those lines then you will violate a fundamental law of the Universe and everything will instantly evaporate in a puff of ozone.

In this case, the moment came when some Tai Chi exponents were onscreen around 27 minutes in. We were told:

I think that in the West we often see bodies as machines, and when one bit goes wrong we think we have to fix that one bit. With acupuncture the Chinese see the body as a whole system, and so instead of trying to fix the bit that's gone wrong they try to readjust the balances in the whole body.

I've been much more impressed by acupuncture than I expected to be.
Click to expand...
The universe is saved!
 
Rolfe said:
I really, really, pretty please, want your opinion on the whole ventilation thing.
Rolfe.
Click to expand...

As ever, I am a sucker for those who turn their soulful big blue eyes in my direction and flutter their eyelashes....

Well I have now seen the tape.

I think there is little doubt the patient featured is the one recieving open heart surgery - no cut and paste clips of someone else as far as I could see. Everything looked consistent - drapes, eqpt, docs etc.

I cannot really comment on the requirement for intubation and ventilation for this type of procedure - presumably an atrial septal defect (described as a hole in the heart by the voice-over). I will have to ask some colleagues (I don't usually mix with surgeons or gas men).
However, what Asolepius says may be true, and it could be possible without intubation/ventilation (but you wouldn't catch me recomending this). ASD operations are not particularly complex, being one of the simplest procedures. It is quite possible the patient had a spinal.

The Mayo Clinic info on ASD is here. They say even with GA, patients are in hospital no more than 4-5 days.

I don't think the patient had ketamine, unless very low dose to augment the sedation. Ketamine anaesthesia renders the patients immobile without impairing respiration/dropping BP - they are still essentially paralysed and could not talk/move their eyes as this woman tried to do.

BTW- I think Sykes was not sceptical/objective enough. She was rather contradictory, at times saying reasonable things like "acupuncture is certainly not the cure-all it is said to be" after looking at the published trials, but then appeared to go all starry-eyed at the "amazing" success of the MRI study. She seemed to accept some form of co-ownership of this trial, so no wonder she went all weak at the knees when discussing its results.

Like Asolepius, I would like to know more about the trial. Presumably this was a clinical trial which passed ethics approval. Who funded it? Why was someone with trial methodology expertise or a statistician not one of the "experts" involved in setting up the study? Why was it left to the acupuncturist to decide what the interventions should be (shallow vs deep needling) and decide where the needling should take place? Why were more controls not set up to look at other non-meridian sites and why were sham needles not also used (Sykes was gushing in her praise of these needles earlier on)?
What were the specific stated objectives of the trial and why was the investigation of needling at non-acupuncture meridian sites not one of its aims. Was this poo-pooed by the acupuncturist?
When do we get to see the trial published in a peer-reviewed journal? Will a journal be willing to publish a trial whose findings have already been placed into the public domain? etc etc......

Oh, and finally, are acupuncture needles non-ferromagnetic? :confused:
I think they are stainless steel. What might this mean when interpreting the "effect" of the needles in the tissues in a 3 tesla magnetic field?
Perhaps all we can conclude from the trial that needling triggers a neuronal response only if performed in a magnetic field strong enough to rip artificial heart valves out of your chest?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom