Dear Friend/Colleague

You may not be aware that last week the controllers of BBCHealth
(www.bbc.co.uk/health) , the health section on one of the most
accessed websites in the world, decided to remove all coverage of
complementary medicine!

They used to have substantial coverage with over 40 pages on this
subject covering all the major therapies, their pros and cons,
evidence for their effectiveness, how to find a qualified
practitioner, etc.

However the site has in recent months been targeted by the
self-appointed 'Quackbusters', (scientists and medics vehemently
opposed to complementary therapies such as Prof David Colquhon et
al) who sent a deluge of letters and emails claiming that
complementary therapies such as homeopathy and cranial osteopathy
were 'unscientific' and should be removed. As a result large chunks
of this part of the site were simply removed overnight and now,
following recent cutbacks, it was decided that, rather than update
this part of the site, it should simply be removed altogether!

It may seem incredible that a public service site this prominent
can deem complementary medicine so insignificant that it no longer
warrants any coverage other than the odd news story. This is
despite the fact that complementary medicine is used favourably by
a significant proportion of the population (recent surveys have
estimated that around 1 in 5 Britons use it at some point or other)
and that increasing numbers of people are now seeking to train in
these therapies.

However, as the 'quack busters' become more organised and active,
evidence of the backlash against complementary medicine is
appearing all over the place - such as the removal of NHS Trust
funding for homeopathy, the threatened closure of the homeopathic
hospitals, many negative news stories in the press and so
on. Rather than taking a reasoned view and considering the
evidence from good research studies on complementary medicine these
individuals seem simply hell bent on trying to 'stamp out'
complementary medicine in any way possible. The BBCi removal of
complementary medicine coverage (which has been in place for almost
15 years!) is one example.

If you care about complementary medicine and believe information
pages on it should be returned to BBCi, please, please take just a
minute to express your views using their online comment form at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/

to make your view known. As a public service company they have to
listen to your views so your email will make a difference.
Apparently for all the many letters and emails that they received
that were against complementary medicine they only received a
handful in support. Therefore if you are in support please let them
know so they may revise their thinking on this subject.

Please act as soon as possible and pass on these details to anyone
else you know who may also be willing to write in support of
complementary medicine.

Quote

Thanks, Ruth. I just sent this to the BBC:
"www.bbc.co.uk/health
Where have the complementary therapy pages gone? A large percentage of the population use complimentary therapies to compliment their medical treatments. Removal of the pages denies this segment of society access to such information, and given the BBC is supposed to cater to the whole of British society, it is a dereliction of your responsibilities."

Downing Street's e-petitions are being used by a wide range of people to get their case across to the establishment: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/

I'm cynical about their willingness to act, but doing nothing isn't an option.

Last edited: 23-02-2008 12:26:19 PM

Quote

It might have helped if you'd spelt complimentary with an 'e', Chris!

Thanks for letting us know about this! I've been noticing this downtrend for a while now. Shame on the BBC. The scientists & pharma companies certainly seem to be winning.

Quote

Thanks for the info Ruth. I did wonder how long it would take the BBC to turn back in on itself. 'Tis all a matter of time.

Quote

This is really disappointing to hear especially as there is plenty of room for all therapists!

I went to a networking meeting last week where the speaker was a Psychotherapist. He is working with Doctors to target MPs and trusts to show the alternative to medication. The Govt is very keen to reduce their medication bill as well as increase the number of individuals off sick benefits and back into work. One lady asked him how long the therapy was and he stated 18months [invariably a min of two sessions a week]. I know for a fact that whilst the drug companies can charge ridiculous fees, these psychotherapists are not any cheaper when you add it all up.
The other thing we can not ignore is that GPs are gods. They have a huge control over many issues. Targeting GPs, as well as MPs, and the media has to be the way forward [ie a three pronged attack] in educating re i]the cost, ii]the benefits, and iii] evidence based practise as to why it is successful [and does not take 18 months! or have side effects].

Last edited: 15-04-2008 10:57:09 PM

Quote

The plot thickens.
Two days ago BBC website headlined this article "Vitamins 'may shorten your life'
- a result of 'scientific studies'. For an excellent response to this article see www.naturalnews.com/023034.html

Today Mike Adams has posted another article that was published in the Washington Post, yesterday, and the Journal of American Medical Association saying "Drug giant Merck has been caught red-handed in a scheme to deceive the FDA and the public over the integrity of its scientific studies, say top medical authorities."

I did a search of BBC Health and cannot find any reference to it though they did publish the report in 2004 about Merck having to withdraw the drug in question - Vioxx .

Mike continues: 'According to reports that were (amazingly!) published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and detailed in the Washington Post, Merck waged a "campaign of deception" to disguise its in-house study authors as independent scientists working for universities. This scheme made the studies appear independent and unbiased, allowing them to carry more apparent credibility to FDA officials, doctors and other scientists."
For full article see http://www.naturalnews.com/023052.html

Last edited: 19-04-2008 12:31:26 AM

Quote

But I'm not surprised the BBC site hasn't got it, they usually only focus on UK stuff. OK OK - I'm making excuses for them!

Quote