Which? report on CAM

[Pixel42]

Are there any other Which? subscribers here who have seen their report on complementary therapies in the February edition?

It's very disappointing. I realise that reader recommendations are the backbone of most of their reports, but to include them here without explaining the placebo effect and why it renders such data meaningless is utterly irresponsible. The piece on the proven gibberish that is homeopathy was particularly disgraceful, especially the suggestion starting "people might self-medicate for minor ailments...". No recognition that one of the biggest problems with placebo therapies like homeopathy is that people who are genuinely ill with treatable conditions do self-medicate with them, instead of going to a real doctor and getting real medicine that actually works, with, in extreme cases, fatal results.

What next, a Which? report comparing the "effectiveness" of palm readers, psychics, crystal ball gazers and astrologers, as recommended by their more gullible and credulous readers, which doesn't bother to explain cold reading and subjective validation?

This report was a missed opportunity to educate their readers and stop them from getting ripped off by unscrupulous con artists, surely Which?'s raison d'etre. They should be correcting their readers' uninformed prejudices, not pandering to them.

 

[Ducky]

Since when is anything published in favor of sCAM intellectually honest?

 

[Mojo]

The point is, though, that Which is a magazine aimed at giving consumers information so they can make informed decisions about goods and services. If they found someone selling cars that didn't work properly (or indeed didn't work at all) they would be down on them like a ton of bricks. But SCAM, as ever, gets a free ride.

 

[richardm]

It is a bit unfortunate. It does say in more than one place that there isn't any credible evidence for many treatments - but then by listing some implies that there might be credible evidence for all the others.

I'm also left surprised by the promotion of acupuncture, herbalism, homeopathy et al to the title of "principal therapies", leaving aromatherapy and massage as "Complementary". Is this a new tactic?

Ooo, I can feel a letter coming on.

 

[Mashuna]

Thanks for this thread, you've reminded me that my free one month trial with Which? Online is nearly up.

Must go and cancel it now. . .

 

[Mojo]

Thanks for this thread, you've reminded me that my free one month trial with Which? Online is nearly up.

Must go and cancel it now. . .

Make sure you tell them why you're cancelling!

 

[Mashuna]

Well, realistically I'm cancelling it because I'm a cheapskate, and I'll only pay for their stuff if it's free (you know what I mean).

But yes, I'm sure I can build up my moral outrage to make the uncritical CAM article the main reason for my cancellation.

 

[Spiro]

Which? is published by the British Consumers' Association, and it gets its subscribers from people who respond to cold mail shots telling them they are about to win thousands of pounds in a lottery. This is therefore not exactly an organization of rational thinkers (with the exception of people like Mashuna, who subscribe for the three-month free period then pull out). How something pretending to be an association representing consumers can use the worst type of "pull in the gullible idiots" promotion is completely beyond me!

Previous triumphs of Which? include recommending the Sinclair Spectrum computer as a best buy because its plastic-sheet keyboard cover was resistant to coffee spills, and being disappointed by the introduction of London buses with doors because they stopped passengers jumping on and off the bus whenever it happened to stop (anybody seen the statistics for the deaths and injuries caused by this thankfully now departed practice?)

 

[Pixel42]

it gets its subscribers from people who respond to cold mail shots telling them they are about to win thousands of pounds in a lottery.

I was persuaded to take a free three month trial when I phoned up to get their free MP3 player guide, advertised in the Guardian. The February edition was my last free copy, so needless to say I've cancelled the direct debit and emailed Which? to explain why (I basically cut & pasted my opening post to this thread).

I'm not expecting a reply, but if I do get one I'll post it.

 

[Pixel42]

Well I said I'd post the reply if I got one, and I did, so here it is:

The area of complimentary therapy is one which we had received a lot of interest in, and whenever this happens we do cover the subject. The basis of the report was a reader survey, where we asked members about their experiences of the various therapies and whether they felt they had helped with their condition. The piece was intended to give an unbiased view of these treatments, reporting on the facts, and also any potential dangers. Which? are actively campaigning for improved regualtion of all health professional, mainstream of alternative, and we felt that this topic was one which we should report on.

With regards to homeopathy, we do say in the article that trials have been inconsistent (some show the therapy to be more effective than a placebo, others no more effective), and this was reflected in our members opinions.

Regards,

Jack Turner
Which?

This reply misses the point of my complaint so completely I really don't know where to start. There's obviously no point in pursuing it.