NHS takes up magic magnets cure

I have also tried to dig out something on Nyjon Eccles (at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#mag1 ).

On the Badscience site (http://www.badscience.net/?p=220) a posting appeared from a a Michael King, who appears to be from the Prescription Pricing Authority (the perpetrators of the approval of magnets). He seems to me to have been hoist by his own petard, but has not, so far, responded to my challenge to explain what he means, as posted at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#mag2.
 
Magnets and the PPA

Well I am making slow progress in trying to find out from the PPA how it is that they can judge cost-effectiveness, without knowing whether the magnets are effective or not.

Michael King of the PPA has replied to my question be email, and has been helpful on the phone.

I’ve posted what I learned so far at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#mag2

Thus far, it does not look good for the PPA.
 
The whole magnet saga is as good an example as any of double standards in the NHS.

No form of CAM has ever been referred to NICE, they tell me. The best chance of getting something done might be a NICE assessment. The decision of whether or not to recommend anything to NICE rests, unfortunately, with the Department of Health, BUT anyone can suggest a topic.

I have just suggested that homeopathy as a whole be referred to NICE. The objection is likely to be that there is not a suffciently good evidence base for NICE to deal with it. That, of course, is exactly why NICE should deliver a verdict. To say otherwise is to perpetuate the existing double-standard. I tried to counter this argument in the comment section.

The best chance of success is probably for them to get a flood of requests. I suggest you all go to http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=topicsuggest and suggest homeopathy, and get all you friends to do the same.
 
I've a mind actually to suggest magnetherapy to them.

I wonder actually whether it might be best to pick the application of homeopathy for which the evidence seems to be the ‘best’ – e.g. homeopathy for eczema, or something, any ideas? – and get as many people as possible to suggest it.

The suggestion system (and NICE as a whole) seems more geared up for investigating treatments for individual disorders. This doesn’t rule out an ‘individualised’ system like homeopathy, but does mean, I think, that unless we conform to that rule and specify the disorder, they’ll never pick it up. Impractical as it may seem, a ‘death by a thousand cuts’ (a cut for each disorder it is claimed homeopathy can be used for) might be the only way if NICE is involved.

But the trouble is with that approach, that even if NICE did pick it up for each disorder (which they probably wouldn’t), the circular logic for homeopathy proponents would be “well okay, it doesn’t work for condition X, but it does work for the others, so there’s no reason to think it won’t work for condition X too”. Plus there’s next to no research for individual disorders (it’s hard enough for the reviewers and meta-analysers to get enough to write a report on as a whole), so NICE would probably say they have nothing to work with; and if they didn’t, CAM fans would say they’ve done it on flimsy evidence, there’s not enough research because of funding problems, evil drug companies, et cetera ad nauseam.

So whilst I wish NICE would investigate homeopathy, and I’m happy to join in any campaign to try to make them, I can’t see it happening like that. I completely agree that the main point here is that NHS tax money shouldn't be spent on treatments with zero evidence, let alone keeping 5 hospitals running for the sole purpose of delivering these treatments; but if it's the remit of NICE to evaluate existing evidence rather than take note of a lack of it, then we're barking up the wrong organisation, or we should be asking them to change their remit first.

But the magnets, on the other hand, are a discrete treatment (magnets) for a discrete disorder (leg ulcers), and so I think have a much better chance of getting picked up by NICE. IMHO.
 
This was discussed on BBC Breakfast News this morning, though I missed the first bit.

They had a very strange woman come in who spoke absolute nonsense about magnets, sellotaped some to her neck to cure her sore throat, and sells them at £40 a pop. She brought with her a woman she's 'treated' who came across as more sensible (though had paid the £40 anyway) and seemed to think the magnets had cured her migraines.

The therapist woman talked about the iron in the blood being attracted to magnets (but only just enough to aid healing, not so much that your skin will go red), changing acid to alkali to aid the healing process, and observed that, as a magnet is an external energy source, it will heal the body without depleting the body's own energy.

Thankfully, the Breakfast News 'resident GP' was on - it would have been nice to see her demolish the quack's nonsense, but she did introduce a healthy scepticism, whilst acknowledging a 'shred' of evidence, which requires further investigation. She also called into question the NHS policy-making process in terms of buying in new technologies such as the magnets, and said it needed looking at closely, which was great.

Then the magnet woman made everyone go "erm..." by saying "well what's often missed is that the NHS has already been using magnets for years. In MRI machines. They're just big magnets". When it was carefully explained to her that the MRI machine is for scanning, not treating, she speculated that it might help anyway. :rolleyes:

She also mentioned "150 studies" which support magnetherapy, and added "and they can't all be wrong", thereby describing of course the very basis of scientific epistemology.
 
Oh dear ...

It wouldn't be the first time that I've complained about BBC Breakfast so they are probably glad that I had left for work when that article was on. I've searched BBC news archives looking for a mention of this and cannot find anything about today's lunacy.

I wonder if their researcher even bothered to search the BBC News site?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4582282.stm

In any case; for those that did see this, and can comment, don't forget to pursue a complaint against the BBC. I think we really need a well organised science lobbying group to really start knocking heads together. I'm rapidly losing patience with the UK and considering moving elsewhere.

How can the government, through the NHS, justify allowing this? Recent reports suggest that the NHS (specifically in England and Wales - Scotland has its own problems) has plunged significantly into the red. This has forced the NHS chief to resign; whether he was pushed is under debate. I want to see more nurses, more doctors - more health professionals - not New Age snake oil sellers in the NHS.
 
If anyone saw it and wants to complain, here's the place to do it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4000000/newsid_4008200/4008215.stm

I'm not sure if I will, I'm thinking - because although the madwoman was on, I think she probably did her cause no favours; the GP did show overt scepticism, though perhaps not having the time to refute every bit of nonsense; and in fact it was one of the interviewers, Sian (?), who pointed out that a MRI machine scans, rather than treats.

But browsing their website, I can see not a single mention of this portion of the programme - weird.
 
I have jsut read in the telegraph that NHS staff are going to be made redundant, and yet the NHS wastes money on this rubbish. I would close that complememnntary medicine centre too and redirect the cash to known scientifically proved cures.
 
Nucular said:
This was discussed on BBC Breakfast News this morning, though I missed the first bit.
Click to expand...

Nucular, can you recall what time the item was on and approximately how long it lasted? I can probably track down a copy.

Edit: On ITV1 news now: Fitness scams - quack claims at the gym. Coming up: Kate Moss & acupuncture. Yeesh.

Further edit: If anyone sees any similar items on quack claims/products/services in the future, please let me know by posting in the UK TV thread or via PM. I collect 'em for reference and research purposes and can get hold of them even after broadcast, even regional items. Ta.
 
Last edited:
The issue of NHS double standards goes beyond therapy. A couple of years ago I wrote to the President of the Royal College of which I'm a Fellow (Pathology) and asked why, if the NHS is so supportive of alternative medicine, the College doesn't accept that I can diagnose carcinomas with a pendulum and infections by feeling a patient's aura. His response expressed concern but was essentially palliative.

The NHS is the main UK employer of doctors who belong to the various Royal Colleges. The Colleges maintain very tough criteria for admission and prescribe high standards of practice for their specialist fields. Yet they stand by silently, refusing to endorse anything woo within their own domains, but making no criticism of a Health Service that panders to patient gullibility.

I guess the underlying reason is right there in the title: they are Royal colleges, therefore patronized by a genetically selected bunch of people who lack the acumen to understand the issues properly and make all their judgements by instinct and gut feeling.
 
Spiro said:
The NHS is the main UK employer of doctors who belong to the various Royal Colleges. The Colleges maintain very tough criteria for admission and prescribe high standards of practice for their specialist fields. Yet they stand by silently, refusing to endorse anything woo within their own domains, but making no criticism of a Health Service that panders to patient gullibility.
Click to expand...

With regard to those various Royal colleges that stand by silently, refusing to endorse anything woo within their own domains, would this include the Royal College of General Practitioners?

According to NHS Direct, over 40% of GPs (presumably employed by the NHS) provide access to CAM:

If you would like alternative therapy through the NHS, you will need to be referred by a doctor, usually your GP. At present, over 40% of GPs provide access to alternative or complementary therapies.
Click to expand...

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.aspx?articleID=482

Isn't providing access to alternative and complementary therapies through the NHS an endorsement of woo?
 
The Royal College of General Practitioners sits mainly on the rational side of the fence, despite the popularity of CAM among UK GPs. They have issued perfectly responsible warnings to GPs about checking for possible interactions between such things as herbal medicines and drugs such as warfarin. They emphasize the need for scientifically acceptable proof of efficacy of CAM.

It would be nice to think the Colleges could combine forces to press for the same standards of evidence for CAM as are applied to "orthodox" treatments. But with a supposedly educated public under a daily barrage of horoscopes, asinine health scares, wildly pro-CAM anecdotes (even in "responsible" newpapers and TV channels) and science journalists/celebrities who don't seem to be able to differentiate a hypothesis from a superstitious belief, the Colleges probably take the line of least resistance and say next to nothing at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom