• 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.

Doctors skewer sCAMmers

Welcome to the forum, Bflatbob, and thank you for posting some of your feedback.

The evidence base for CAM is different from traditional medicine
Click to expand...

Double standards.

NHS Direct works closely with the National Electronic Library for Health, in developing its content, including CAM. NHS Direct is careful when presenting material on this area and always acknowledges when information is not supported by research....
Click to expand...

That’s not true. It recently had to remove its 6-page chiropractic section when it was pointed out to them that much of the information it contained was inaccurate.

Regards the use of the NHS logo, the NHS Trusts Association use it on at least three of their online documents:

http://www.nhsta.org.uk/documents/NHS Healthcare 2005 media info.pdf

http://www.nhsta.org.uk/documents/CAM Information for GPs.pdf

http://www.nhsta.org.uk/documents/CAM Newsletter jan 2005.pdf

On a positive note, at least your MP replied. I wrote to mine at the beginning of June and still haven’t heard from him.
 
David Colquhoun said:
I guess that many of us have been pestered by that tireless advocate of evidence based CAM, George Lewith. My record is six emails from him before 9 am. ANyone else who has suffered similarly may be interested in some emails from George's private clinic which suggest that he does not practice what he preaches. See http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#lewith1
Click to expand...
Professor Lewith told me, when I asked about the Vega test,

"I use it to help with homeopathic diagnoses, your next question of course is why on earth would you want to make an irrational diagnosis about a completely irrational subject."

Yes, indeed it is!
Click to expand...
Did he answer it?
 
Watch Newsnight tomorrow, Thursday. I suspect you'll enjoy it!

(PS to Mojo -no George didn't answer his own question!)
 
More on the DoH response ....

That's my first post done so for my second post I'll expand on the DoH reply to my letter. Sorry I can't post the full URLs in this message - I'm too junior (awww). Kudos to Nick Clegg, my local MP for referring the questions and passing on the reply promptly.


In para 4 they state that "Neither organisation[referring to NHS Trusts and NHS Alliance] uses the NHS logo on their materials." For an obvious refutation of this please see the url: www nhsta org uk/documents/CAM%20Information%20for%20GPs.pdf (insert dots where there are spaces) and have a look at the logo at the top. Look familiar?

I'm also surprised to see that the NHS Trusts Association has a publication called "The NHS Guide to Healthy Living" which is an advertisement-led publication (all stories are usually accompanied by an related advert) which is not an official NHS document, despite its title.

On page 2, para 1 they say that they have spoken to NICE and agreed to continue to evaluate CAM therapies "where there was an appropriate evidence base". There can't have been much evidence for CAM (!) as I can't recollect seeing much from NICE on this matter.

On page 2, para 4 they say that they are "not aware of any evidence suggesting that chiropractic therapy causes strokes". This is perhaps the most inappropriate response in the letter and demonstrates dangerous ignorance or significantly blinkered vision. See the URL: stroke ahajournals org/cgi/content/full/32/5/1054?ijkey=3ekWz.pObjVjc or just google for "chiropractic causes strokes" to see many web links on this subject.

I've sent a follow-up letter with these and other comments to my MP for his information and consideration but I haven't asked him to pursue it with the DoH.
 
Bflatbob said:
I've sent a follow-up letter with these and other comments to my MP for his information and consideration but I haven't asked him to pursue it with the DoH.
Click to expand...
As him to persue it with the DoH, the Minster has now provided misleading information to an MP, a serious matter, get him wound up enough about this and you may even get him to table a PQ.
 
Bflatbob said:
I've sent a follow-up letter with these and other comments to my MP for his information and consideration but I haven't asked him to pursue it with the DoH.
Click to expand...
I was going to say "why ever not", but I see Brodsky has beaten me to it.
 
Follow-up with DoH...

To Mojo and Brodski,

Good point and thanks. I will point this out to him. I've asked him for his own views on the subject to see how interested I might be able to get him. Being Lib Dem he might be more likely to be woo-oriented but he seems quite switched on
 
IME, lib dems are a pretty mixed lot (maybe because of the origins of the party?) In terms of woo-orientation, they seem to range from pretty rationalist economic types to believers in the social benefits of steiner schools and biodynamic muesli (OK, I am exaggerating the latter...I hope...)
 
Bflatbob said:
On page 2, para 1 they say that they have spoken to NICE and agreed to continue to evaluate CAM therapies "where there was an appropriate evidence base". There can't have been much evidence for CAM (!) as I can't recollect seeing much from NICE on this matter.
Click to expand...

Continue to evaluate CAM therapies? As far as I’m aware, no form of CAM has ever been evaluated by NICE. In fact, I wrote to them in August of last year asking them to evaluate four of the most popular CAM therapies and, although my request was acknowledged, nearly a year later there has still been no decision from them. I asked for a progress report in February of this year and received this reply:

A new topic selection process is being planned this year by the Department of Health and NICE and thus there is a delay with processing some of the topics while this new process is put in place. Your suggestion is still in the topic selection process.

We apologise for the delay in the meantime and we will let you know as soon as there is any further progress with your topic.
Click to expand...

I intend to write to them again on the first anniversary of the original request.

On page 2, para 4 they say that they are "not aware of any evidence suggesting that chiropractic therapy causes strokes". This is perhaps the most inappropriate response in the letter and demonstrates dangerous ignorance or significantly blinkered vision.
Click to expand...

Yes, it’s really quite shocking in view of the amount of data there already exists on the subject.

This from the BMJ’s Clinical Evidence website:
Harms
The systematic review did not report on harms.[31] A second systematic review assessed harms of spinal manipulation.[32] In RCTs identified by the review that used a trained therapist to select people and perform spinal manipulation, the risk of serious complications was low (estimated risk: vertebrobasilar strokes 1/20 000–1/1 000 000 people; cauda equina syndrome < 1/1 000 000 people). The subsequent RCT did not report on harms.[19]

http://www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/conditions/msd/1102/1102_I3.jsp
Click to expand...

From Physical Therapy Reviews:
Cerebrovascular Complications Associated with Spinal Manipulation

It is concluded that serious cerebrovascular complications of spinal manipulation continue to be reported. Their incidence is unknown. Large and rigorous prospective studies are necessary in order to define the risks of spinal manipulation accurately.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/ptr/2004/00000009/00000001/art00002
Click to expand...

From the Medical Journal of Australia:
Manipulation of the cervical spine: a systematic review of case reports of serious adverse events, 1995–2001

Serious adverse events after cervical spine manipulation continue to be reported. As the incidence of these events is unknown, large and rigorous prospective studies of cervical spine manipulation are needed to accurately define the risks.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/176_08_150402/ern10520_fm.html
Click to expand...

10 pages of case reports of injuries associated with neck manipulation:
http://www.neck911usa.com/vict_deta.htm?id=2585751.56094907

Further reading: http://www.chirovictims.org.uk/victims/news.html
Note that the chiropractic regulators in the UK have told this group that "There is no evidence that neck manipulation causes stroke.” Perhaps the reason for that is that there’s no independent reporting scheme in place for patients who have been injured by chiropractors.
 
jon said:
IME, lib dems are a pretty mixed lot (maybe because of the origins of the party?) In terms of woo-orientation, they seem to range from pretty rationalist economic types to believers in the social benefits of steiner schools and biodynamic muesli (OK, I am exaggerating the latter...I hope...)
Click to expand...
Mine seems to be campaigning against mobile phone masts.
 
Mojo said:
Mine seems to be campaigning against mobile phone masts.
Click to expand...

I'm never sure how many do this type of thing cause they really believe in what they're doing, and how much see it as an easy and safe way to gain more support (after all, not many people will vote against them because they oppose phone masts).

A Yes Prime Minister episode keeps coming to mind: the PM is trying to persuade an MP to let a power station be built in their constituency; MP objects, saying there's campaign groups opposing it; PM says, well, it's only a few kooks, what'll it cost, you, a hundred votes maybe; pause; MP reminds PM that their majority is 90....
 
Mojo said:
The society of Homeopaths woman said that the programme's investigation didn't provide enough evidence for them to do anything about it!

:i:

:bs:

:dl:
Click to expand...
She was in total denial wasn't she? And then she tried to argue that because the first "proving" was of an anti malarial, that homeopathy must work. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom