BBC website pushing sCAM (why am I not surprised?)

[Yahzi]

Think I'll get a response?

I did get a response (emphasis mine):

Dear Mr Yahzi

Thank you for your e-mail regarding a feature on our bbc.co.uk website. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know that our correspondents appreciate a prompt response and regret that this has not been the case on this occasion.

I note that you are critical of the feature on complementary and alternative medicine; specifically, that a particular paragraph should be reviewed by a doctor, further, that you consider certain inferences about conventional medicine are made. Additionally, I note your suggestion that the feature presents 'falsehoods' and is insulting.

Firstly, I would point out reference at the foot of the text, that is

'This article was last medically reviewed by Dr Rob Hicks in September 2005.'

With regard to your points that the focus of complementary medicine does not differ from that of conventional practitioners, I would suggest that this appraisal must be, to some extent, subjective and informed by experience of health care provision in the author's location. I note that you are writing from the United States, whereas the author's perspective might reasonably be supposed to relate to the UK system, that is, the National Health Service.

Finally, on the point that the feature offers falsehoods and insults, I can offer assurance that the bbc.co.uk website aims to provide well informed, accurate and impartial content across its output. However, your differing opinion is recognised and naturally, your dissatisfaction with this provision is regretted.

Please be further assured that I have included your comments in the daily audience log. This internal document is made available to website production teams and senior management.

Thank you for taking the time to contact BBC Information.

Regards

Anne Lavan
BBC Information

This has to be a first - the American health care system held up as more caring?

Anyway, here is my response:

Dear Ms. Lavan,

Thank you for replying. However, your reply was inadequate.


"you consider certain inferences about conventional medicine are made"

Have you actually read the page in question?

The issues I complained about appear under the heading "How is it different?" This heading is in bold-face type, to make it harder to miss. Apparently, you missed it. In the English language, asserting how something is different is claiming the thing you comparing does not have the qualities you are discussing. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary if you are unclear of the meaning of common words such as "different."

When the page asserts, "Complementary medicine is different because it does the following," then the only rational inference any reader can make is that conventional medicine does not do the following.

Your suggestion that these inferences lie in my illiteracy are not only impolite, but wholly unfounded.


"I note that you are writing from the United States, whereas the author's perspective might reasonably be supposed to relate to the UK system, that is, the National Health Service."

For a person who has just castigated me on reading "inferences," you derive a striking amount of information from my address. On what basis do you assume I have never dealt with the NHS? On what basis do you assume my knowledge of British medical practice is non-existent?

Secondly, you are now admitting the charges were made, and defending them. Could you please make up your mind - were inferences actually leveled or not? If they were not leveled, then the subjective experience of the author is irrelevant. If they were leveled, then defending them based on blanket charges against the entire NHS and my assumed ignorance of that institution is inadequate.

Finally, one author's subjective experience is hardly an adequate basis for a BBC article. Especially one dealing with health. Don't you agree?

- Yahzi

 

[Deetee]

Well done.
You correctly indicated that she said "inferences" when she meant "implications", but so obliquely that I think she may not pick up on the point.
Pity, as it must be so galling for an "American" to tell the BBC how to be grammatically correct!

 

[DreadNiK]

That page and all its subpages have been up a while. Whenever my disgust for the BBC falls below a critical level, I pop back to remind myself...

"We expect more than this from our national flag-carrying broadcaster."

You do? Really?

 

[Cuddles]

Interesting that they answer someone from America, but completely ignore me when I write from England.

 

[DreadNiK]

Arrgh!

And what's with the photo? Are they aiming the site at Asians? Why?

It is the BBC...they push their multicultural agenda PAST the point of affirmative action...

 

[DreadNiK]

Interesting that they answer someone from America, but completely ignore me when I write from England.

They're probably fed up of responding to complaints by evil nazi skeptics who want to stamp out anything to do with acceptance and tolerance of other cultures, but as for why they answered the other poster, my only guess would be so they could say 'if you're from America, why do you care?'

 

[Deetee]

The section on Boosting the Immune system wrongly states:

"Use immune-boosting herbs such as echinacea"

This has been comprehensively debunked in recent years.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The section on Boosting the Immune system wrongly states:

"Use immune-boosting herbs such as echinacea"

This has been comprehensively debunked in recent years.

The Sunday Mail has an "alternative" medicine column on the same page as their real medical advice. The first letter this week was "I have just had breast cancer surgery and am worried about the implications of Chemotherapy. Can you suggest anything?" (Paraphrased)

The answer "Arnica in 30c might help with the bruising. Take twice a day or more if needed [surely "less" would be more effective?]". That was it. Nothing about who freaking important it is to go through with the chemotherapy to avoid unpleasant side-effects of cancer like death, just take a sugar pill. I really, really hate these scum.

 

[Mojo]

The answer "Arnica in 30c might help with the bruising. Take twice a day or more if needed [surely "less" would be more effective?]". That was it. Nothing about who freaking important it is to go through with the chemotherapy to avoid unpleasant side-effects of cancer like death, just take a sugar pill. I really, really hate these scum.

Nothing about this either. Or this.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Nothing about this either. Or this.

Getting her to take a placebo won't kill her.

Convincing her that taking a placebo means she doesn't need to bother with chemotherapy could well do.

 

[Yahzi]

Well done.
You correctly indicated that she said "inferences" when she meant "implications",

Arg... I missed that.

I guess my using it correctly will have to be rebuttal enough.

 

[Yahzi]

The BBC has deigned to respond to me again:

Thank you for your e-mail which has been passed to me for reply.

I am sorry you were unhappy with my colleague's reply in response to your complaint about reference to Alternative medicine on the BBC's Health website. I raised these concerns with senior editors at the site. They explain that all BBC Health website pages are read, and updated by a doctor every six months, as is stated on the pages of the sites. It would appear that you have put a very personal interpretation on the comments made in the alternative health section.

Please be assured that we are not suggesting that conventional doctors are uncaring, indeed, our own medical team of experts are closely involved in the BBC's Health website. However, it is important for us to represent a range of topic areas that our audience are interested in.

Thank you again for contacting the BBC.




Vis Karunaratne
Divisional Advisor
BBC Information

Here is my response:

Thank you for your reply. However, I must confess it is utterly inadequate.

You state: "It would appear that you have put a very personal interpretation on the comments made in the alternative health section."

My interpretation of the word "different' is not personal. You have a section labeled, in bold, "How is it different." You then proceed to list a number of features which, according to the rules of English, must necessarily be presumed to be those features which are different.

Allow me to quote from your webpage:


"How is it different?
Complementary medicine focuses on the whole person, with lifestyle, environment, diet and mental, emotional and spiritual health often being considered alongside physical symptoms. Diagnosis aims to identify the root cause of these symptoms; treatment is then designed not only to relieve the ailment or disease but also to restore health and promote general wellbeing. There's also a strong emphasis on prevention.

Many complementary therapies are based on the idea that the body naturally strives to maintain a state of balance, known as homeostasis. Treatments aim to stimulate this natural healing ability in the body.

Taking responsibility for one's own health is regarded as an important part of healing, so patients are often actively involved in their treatment."


Now please tell me which of the above statements do NOT apply to conventional medicine? That's right - exactly one: "spiritual health."

Your list of differences is in fact a list of _similarities_.

Calling it a list of differences is misleading. It is editorially illegitimate. And castigating me for your inability to honestly and accurately label your own arguments is unprofessional in the extreme.

I realize you wish to dismiss everything I say without investigation simply because I do not share your belief system. But the use of the English language is not, presumably, subordinate to belief systems.

Your article contains statements that can only be described as misleading. However, they could also be described as dishonest. The difference between a lie and a mistake is what you do after the fact. Your dogged resistance to accepting the standard, ordinary definition of English words is beginning to suggest the later.

Please change your website so that it does not imply that conventional doctors do not care about root causes, patient well-being, prevention, or personal responsibility.

Sincerely,
Yahzi Coyote

I am absolutlely livid that these people keep insisting the problem is I can't read English.

On the other hand, they mislabel their medicines; why shouldn't they mislabel their arguments?

Seriously, though, does anyone know where I can complain about this treatment?

 

[H3LL]

Seriously, though, does anyone know where I can complain about this treatment?

Yes.

They have their own complaints process here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaints_process.shtml

The external watchdog is OFCOM, here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/

There are always MPs that you can write to. I understand they are obliged to respond.

ETA: John Whittingdale MP is very critical of the BBC and is pushing for OFCOM to regulate it. I have no idea if he would be interested or if his suggestions are valid. Just FYI.

 

[Mojo]

There are always MPs that you can write to. I understand they are obliged to respond.

Unfortunately Yahzi is in the US, and so doesn't have an MP.

Has anyone else received a reply from the BBC?

 

[H3LL]

Unfortunately Yahzi is in the US, and so doesn't have an MP.

Blair just does as Bush tells him so I just thought it would be the same for American citizens to tell the MPs what to do.

Seriously though, the other links should still be valid (I hope).

.

 

[Asolepius]

The BBC has deigned to respond to me again:



Here is my response:


I am absolutlely livid that these people keep insisting the problem is I can't read English.

On the other hand, they mislabel their medicines; why shouldn't they mislabel their arguments?

Seriously, though, does anyone know where I can complain about this treatment?

Well they have not responded to me. All I got was a holding email. You can appeal to the governors. I tried this on another matter a while ago and I formed the impression that they are just a bunch of toadies. Independent review of the BBC has been proposed and it can't come too soon. Right now it's all very cosy. Their refusal to take your complaint seriously stinks. I will have another go right now.

Oh, thanks H3LL, I had forgotten about OFCOM.

 

[Orangutan]

Has the site been changed? I can't find the "how is it different" text.

 

[Folly]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/healthy...ne/basics_whatisit.shtml#how_is_it_different?

It's still there.


Edit: if you're wondering where I found it, it's under the "What is it" link.

 

[Yahzi]

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/

I have complained to the complaints webpage again (this is #3!). I can't figure out how to use the ofcom page yet.

And sadly, I don't have an MP.

I'm just amazed that they keep telling me I can't read & write English. It's the most unprofessional response I've ever received from any organization (aside from the crazy religious ones).

 

[Yahzi]

It's still there.

So, is it just me, or do the rest of you find it strange to read that CAM cares about its patient's wellbeing and prevention under the heading, "How it is different?"