Stories from the trauma bay: Busting Vaccine Myths

A brilliant post from DocBastard.



Stories from the trauma bay: Busting Vaccine Myths: Ooooooh boy. I have no idea what kind of rabbit hole I'm entering here, and this may end up being the 1) longest, 2) least read, and 3)...

Revelation TV & Dr Grady McMurtry

Dr Grady McMurtry is a big favourite of Revelation TV. He features regularly in their schedules and barely a week goes by without him making several appearances, either recorded or live. In particular, he is a regular guest (via Skype) on The Q&A Show along with Revelation TV founder and host, Howard Conder. In December 2014 Revelation TV embarked on The Q&A Roadshow which involved Conder and McMurtry visiting eight venues in various parts of the UK.

Who is Dr Grady McMurtry? He is the head of Creation Worldview Ministries based in Orlando, Florida, USA. According to his website, the organisation consists of himself and one associate. He's not a big player on the creationist scene. Creation Worldview Ministries is more Conference North than Premier League, Stockport County rather than Chelsea FC.

Get Well, Stay Well?

I've blogged before about Revelation TV and its promotion of Felicity Corbin Wheeler (here and here) but feel moved to do so again. Felicity Corbin Wheeler, who in her present incarnation is no longer described as the Reverend Doctor, has a weekly show titled 'Get Well. Stay Well'. The programme is hosted by Cyrus Fernando, a relatively new presenter on Revelation TV. Mr Fernando is no Jeremy Paxman and the format is for him to ask a series of obviously rehearsed questions which give FCW the opportunity to reel off the details of a wide-ranging number of quack therapies which, she claims, will prevent disease and/or cure disease. Most of these are diet-based with an emphasis on the supposed benefits of juicing.  To emphasise the point, Cyrus and Felicity usually have a glass of freshly prepared juice in their hands. Ironically Cyrus, being conspicuously overweight, is a poor advert for Felicity's methods,  as are many of Revelation TVs presenters.

The programme broadcast on 6th June 2014 was devoted to extolling the supposed benefits of the Gerson Therapy. This particular form of quackery has been around since 1928 and yet in all that time, "Gerson's therapy has not been independently tested or subjected to randomized controlled trials, and thus is illegal to market in the United States". Cancer Research UK says, "Available scientific evidence does not support any claims that Gerson therapy can treat cancer. In fact, Gerson therapy can be very harmful to your health."

Quacks rarely allow scientific evidence to get in the way of a marketing opportunity and Felicity Corbin Wheeler is no exception. She introduces Dr Patrick Vickers who is, it seems, the new face of the Gerson Therapy.According to his website, "Giving up careers in professional golf and entertainment, Dr. Patrick obtained his undergraduate degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Life University before going on to receive his doctorate in Chiropractic from New York Chiropractic College in 1997." He's not a dietician, a medical doctor or an oncologist, he's a chiropractor. In North America,  chiropractors can use the title Dr but in the UK they are not considered to be registered medical practitioners. Felicity Corbin Wheeler avoids making this clear.  Sense About Science has a useful summary which evaluates the evidence for the efficacy of chiropractic.

Most of the programme is taken up with Cyrus Fernando introducing YouTube videos of Patrick Vickers explaining the virtues of Gerson Therapy. As we all know YouTube videos trump peer-reviewed scientific research any day of the week. In between the videos Felicity Corbin Wheeler adds some commentary and it is interesting to note how frequently what Patrick Vickers says is in direct conflict with the advice given by Felicity Corbin Wheeler. She waves this away by saying that different doctors have different ideas.

There is no evidence that Gerson Therapy has ever cured anyone of anything. It's just another way of preying on the weak and vulnerable and separating them from their money. Revelation TV continues to promote this sort of nonsense.

Ray Comfort & The Talking Snake

Ray Comfort posted this on his Facebook page:

"This isn't a Jungle Book. Snakes don't talk.” Nick Murray

Do animals have a language? Do they communicate (talk) to each other? My dog shows me that he understands English when he obeys me, when I speak English. He also tells me (in his own language) when he wants something to eat or drink. Every night, at around 6:00 PM, he goes into the back yard and speaks with another dog a couple of doors down (in the language of dogese). The dog he speaks to him always answers. Do elephants or dolphins have a language in which they speak to each other? How about whales? Of course they do. Parrots manage to talk without vocal cords.
How ironic, that people who believe that they are animals mock the thought that any animal could talk.

The post is referring to the story in Genesis 3.1 which describes the events in the Garden of Eden which led to the Fall of Man. For Christians, especially fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, the story is of special significance. It justifies their belief in Original Sin and the need for atonement.

We have come across Ray Comfort before. He espouses a particularly aggressive form of creationism and constantly rails against atheism and evolution which he sees as responsible for all the evils in the world. Inevitably he takes up ridiculous positions as evidenced by his statement above.

• Do animals have language?  - No they don't.
• Do they communicate (talk) to each other? - Some communicate with each other but they do not talk.
• My dog shows me that he understands English when he obeys me, when I speak English. - No he doesn't. He recognises the sound of your voice.
• Do elephants or dolphins have a language in which they speak to each other? - No, they can't speak but they can communicate.
• Parrots manage to talk without vocal cords. - Parrots are mimics. They can't talk.

Is Ray Comfort ignorant or is he stupid? Animal communication is a complex area of study. Ray Comfort claims expertise in a scientific field because he has read the bible. Not for the first time - or the last.

Juicing For Health?

Sky News recently ran a news item entitled ‘Second-Rate Care’ for Heart Attack Patients. It highlighted the difference in heart attack survival rates between Sweden and the UK attributable to how quickly the heart attack victim received primary angioplasty after the event. The report was accompanied by a video which featured someone who had survived a heart attack because of the prompt treatment he received. Unsurprisingly the gentleman concerned has made changes to his lifestyle and in the video is described as a ‘paragon of healthy living’. To illustrate that point, the video includes a scene to show how his life has changed.

Those who aspire to be paragons must take up juicing it seems.

Juicing is a staple of many quack treatments and comes in a variety of forms. One extreme version is the Gerson Therapy which claims to be a cure for a wide range of diseases including cancer. Followers of this therapy are required to drink one glass of juice hourly, thirteen times a day. This, it claims, ‘ boosts the body’s own immune system to heal cancer, arthritis, heart disease, allergies, and many other degenerative diseases.’  Cancer Research UK warns that, ‘Available scientific evidence does not support any claims that Gerson therapy can treat cancer.’

Other proponents of juicing are more modest in their requirement for the volume of juice consumed but just as extravagant in the claims of health benefits. Most of these are centred around the pseudoscientific notion of detoxing, It seems that our unhealthy lifestyles cause a build up ‘toxins’ in our bodies which can only be eliminated by a juicing regime.

We believe there is fundamentally only One Disease and therefore One Solution. The body gets sick due to two basic things – Toxicity and Deficiency. If we remove the Toxicity and replace any Deficiencies, the vast majority of common ailments improve or go away completely. We believe it really is that simple.

The above quote is taken from the website of Jason Vale, the Juice Master, who is, ‘one of the UK’s leading authorities on health, addiction, and most obviously, juicing.’ Despite being a ‘leading authority’ Jason seems to be remarkably ignorant when it comes  to basic human physiology and Germ Theory. (A programme on Revelation TV featuring Felicity Corbin Wheeler alerted me to the internet presence of Jason Vale.)
Jason’s website is littered with the usual quack red flags – celebrity  endorsements, personal testimonies, anecdotes, a complete lack of evidence-based science and of course, lots of things to spend your money on.

Every food on the planet has come under some criticism with the notable exception of fruit and vegetables. These foods nourish every cell in the body, help prevent disease, flush the system of waste and contain more vitamins and minerals than you can rattle a plum at, and there isn’t a single person on the planet with any shred of common sense that could possibly argue against these magnificent foods! Jason Vale – Why Juice?

There are some people who argue against such a sweeping generalisation. David Colquhoun’s blog, Improbable Science has an excellent post entitled ‘We know little about the effect of diet on health. That’s why so much is written about it’. In it he quotes epidemiologist John Ioannidis who says,

Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome.

That would seem to rule out juicing as an answer to all our ills.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that extracted juices are healthier than whole foods.
American Cancer Society

Ray Comfort & Revelation TV

Let’s start with some background information about Revelation TV.

Revelation TV is a Christian channel broadcasting in the UK on the Sky platform which has an interesting history of Ofcom involvement. On a number of occasions the channel was in breach of Ofcom rules with regard to their views on homosexuality, Islam and abortion. In order to escape Ofcom’s ‘censorship’ Revelation TV is now has a Spanish broadcasting licence which seemingly allows it to disseminate its prejudices without the hindrance of being fair and even-handed. Most of Revelation TV’s output is centred around creationism, end times prophecies and readings from the bible and the Daily Mail.

Howard Conder is one of the founders of the station and one of the main presenters. He hosts one of the channels flagship programmes, the Q & A show, most nights of the week. This usually features an interview with a guest on a topic dear to the heart of the presenter, end times, biblical prophecy, and quite frequently, creationism. On the 18th July 2013 the guest was Ray Comfort.
Ray Comfort (aka Bananaman) was there to promote the release of his latest DVD, Evolution Vs God, a film which, according to its Facebook page promises to shake Darwinism’s foundational beliefs.

At this point it’s worth pointing out that Howard Conder’s interviewing style is mostly about feeding lines to his guests. They are generally given an easy ride. On matters of science, Howard Conder is a self-confessed ignoramus. Some years ago, he interviewed Richard Dawkins. The YouTube video is here. It is 58 minutes long but it is worth watching because Conder is so excruciatingly inept. Unfortunately, Conder learned nothing from the encounter.

The ‘interview’ with Ray Comfort followed its predictable course, with Comfort being given free rein to give an extended sales pitch for his DVD.

Ray Comfort started off by saying that he had interviewed four evolutionary scientists who ‘could not back up evolution with any scientific evidence’. He then went on to say that ‘evolution is responsible for so many of the vices we see’ and that the movie ‘debunks evolution in sixteen minutes’. We then see an excerpt from the movie, with Comfort interviewing students and challenging them to give him evidence that evolution has taken place. Most of them give the impression of being totally overwhelmed by the experience but some make a reasonable attempt to answer the question. Darwin’s Finches feature in their replies but when that is mentioned Comfort plays his trump card. Birds are still birds, evolution is about changes in kinds! Speciation doesn’t count as evolution. One of the rules of the game is that Ray Comfort gets to decide what the rules of the game are.

Creationists often talk about ‘kinds’ without ever defining what they mean. No-one apart from creationists use that term.

The next excerpt features three of the four scientists interviewed by Comfort, PZ Myers, Craig Stanford and Gail E Kennedy. They are given the same treatment as the students with Comfort rejecting their answers out of hand. There is no debate, no discussion and no exchange of ideas. PZ Myers has blogged about his experience and has accused Ray Comfort of selective editing. In the Revelation TV programme Comfort denies this charge and claims that the interview was edited with integrity. He also said he would not be releasing the unedited interviews. Craig Stanford tweeted, ‘Ray Comfort’s new creationism video does the most un-Christian thing; uses misleading editing to take an immoral and frankly sleazy low road’.

Howard Conder then gives Ray Comfort the opportunity to reel off the familiar list of creationist tropes, all recieved uncritically by the host and, I suspect, most of the audience.

• The missing link is still missing.

• Everyone has an inbuilt, innate knowledge of god.

• Evolution gets rid of moral accountability.

• Evolutionists believe that nothing created everything.

• There is observable evidence that god exists.

Inevitably, Richard Dawkins gets several mentions. According to Ray Comfort, Dawkins has ‘opened up the golden door to the delirious pleasures of sin’. Talking of delirious pleasures, the interview then moves on to discuss Christian fundamentalists second favourite topic – other people’s sex lives.

Howard Conder mentions that the Queen has recently given her royal assent to the same sex marriage bill in England and Wales. Ray Comfort is shocked that our Queen (?) should do such a thing. He has no doubt that she came under pressure from other members of the royal family who ‘don’t have a standard of righteousness’. We can add Constitutional Monarchy to the ever growing list of things that Ray Comfort doesn’t understand.

Howard Conder points out that the teaching of evolution is now being extended to the primary curriculum. Ray Comfort is appalled. Bizarrely the Queen gets the blame for that as well – she has compromised again.

The programme ends with yet another swipe at a great British institution. Howard defends the one-sided approach of the programme by informing us that the BBC spends billions of pounds promoting evolution and that Richard Attenborough is largely to blame. Yes, that’s right, Richard Attenborough.  Howard must have been thinking of Jurassic Park.

At that point the programme ended.

The sub-title of Evolution Vs God is ‘Shaking The Foundations Of Faith’. It is Ray Comforts claim that evolution is based on faith, not science. I’d guess that the scientific foundations of evolutionary theory will remain unshaken.


Links to my other blog posts about Revelation TV.

Quacking for Jesus
Revelation TV and Felicity Corbin Wheeler
Revelation TV and Felicity Corbin Wheeler Revisited

Newcastle Quayside

Revelation TV & Felicity Corbin Wheeler

In a previous blog post, I wrote about Revelation TV promoting Felicity Corbin Wheeler and her views on diet and health. I made reference to her lack of scientific background and my concern that she was advocating the use of unproven therapies and treatments for the prevention and treatment of cancer. I emailed the channel to express my concerns but, undeterred, they have broadcast two more programmes featuring the reverend doctor once again giving her a platform to tell viewers how cancer can be cured by diet. More of that later. First of all, a little more about Corbin Wheeler.
A section of her website is titled 'Scientific Research'. Purveyors of woo are always keen to legitimise their claims by using science but by so doing, they highlight their ignorance. Trying to validate the use of laetrile for cancer treatment Corbin Wheeler's website contains the extraordinary statement,

In the mid 1950’s, the American biochemist called Ernst Krebs, known to all medical students for the “Krebs Cycle”, took up the research in Nevada.  He was studying the absence of cancer in certain non-industrialised peoples.    There are tribes on earth now such as the Hunzas, who do not have cancer.   When these people start to eat a western diet, high in animal protein, they succumb like the rest of us.

The Krebs Cycle is, of course, named after Nobel Prize winning biochemist Sir Hans Krebs. Ernst Krebs was a quack. Hopefully no medical students would make such an elementary mistake.
Back to Revelation TV. The programmes were hosted by presenter Howard Conder who is quite happy to tell viewers about his lack of science education. He sets the background by declaring that the programme will look at 'both sides'. The 'other side' turns out to be reading from a print-out of the CancerResearch  UK website. Next we have the staple of 'alternative' therapies - YouTube videos. A succession of naturopaths and chiropractors give their views about cancer and diabetes being lifestyle choices. Both programmes ramble through an assortment of quack therapies but fortunately Revelation TV has provided a handy downloadable summary rather oddly called Gary Tunsky on Cells with header.(pdf) In this document Corbin Wheeler sets out the steps we need to take to prevent and treat cancer, complete with scientific explanations. Let's take a look at a few examples:

• All disease originates at the molecular and cellular level, not at the organ or system level as we're led to believe by Western medicine. This is a meaningless statement but the use of the term 'Western medicine' sets the scene for what's to come.
• We need photon light and electromagnetic energy, and our cells need photon light and electromagnetic energy. Photon light? 'Photon' is a sciencey word - that's why it's there.
• The DNA helix coils act as transmitters and receivers of cellular information in the form of electromagnetic pulse energy sent to neighbouring and distant cells, similar to a radio antenna that receives and transmits frequency messages. Absolute gibberish!
• A healthy body functions best when it's slightly alkaline. To measure the body's pH you'd have to put it through a blender first. That's not recommended. There follows a lengthy explanation of how we must have an alkaline body achievable by eating alkaline foods. This nonsense has been thoroughly debunked by Quackwatch.
• Over 90% of western population is dehydrated through over-consumption of acidic and dehydrating foods and beverages ..... . Over 90% of people have kidneys that don't function?
• It's my conclusion based on years of research that cancer and AIDS are nothing more or less than a cellular disturbance of the electromagnetic balance. This is stupidity beyond words.

So Corbin Wheeler has the answer to virtually all our health problems. It is of course, eating raw foods, a vegan diet, juicing, colonic irrigation and an alkaline diet. Scientists, oncologists, and doctors are prevented by their ignorance and the influence of the drug companies from treating us in the appropriate manner.
Howard Conder said the programmes would be looking at both sides. He obviously visited the CancerResearch UK website. He must have missed the pages which show that:

• Half of people diagnosed with cancer now survive their disease for at least five years.
• Cancer survival rates in the UK have doubled in the last 40 years.
• Almost three-quarters of children are now cured of their disease, compared with around a quarter in the late 1960s.

(Source: CancerResearch UK)
These results haven't been achieved by quack diets. They've been achieved by hardworking, dedicated scientists using evidence based medicine to relieve suffering.

The Popularity of Homeopathy

I came across Anarchic Teapot's blog post on homeopathy a few days ago. Titled "At least the title's not misleading - Impossible Cure", it's well worth a read. It deals with the claims of a proponent of homeopathy that almost everything under the sun, including autism, can be treated by this particular form of quackery. I don't need to spend any time examining the claims on the site - Anarchic Teapot does a thorough job of eviscerating the content of the website and the claims made by its author. (For those interested the site can be viewed here.)

I stumbled on the website some while ago after googling 'homeopathy and autism' and like Mr Teapot, was appalled by views expressed. Much of the content is devoted to promoting a book, 'Impossible Cure'. The website features a preview of Chapter 1, Homeopathy Revealed. Part of this deals with the'popularity' of homeopathy and contains the statement,

........ in England, 42 percent of physicans refer patients to homeopaths

Really? Almost half of the doctors in England refer patients to homeopaths? That doesn't fit with my, albeit limited, experience. I sought out the source of this statistic and found it in a paper published in the British Medical Journal. The authors were R Wharton and G Lewith. George Lewith's Wikipedia entry says he 'is a professor of complementary medicine at the University of Southampton, where he leads the Complementary and Integrated Medicine Research Unit. He is a prominent advocate of complementary medicine in the UK.' He was involved with the now defunct Prince of Wales' Foundation for Integrated Medicine and is now vice chair of the inappropriately named College of Medicine.

The full text of the BMJ paper can be viewed here (pdf). The 'research' consisted of sending a postal questionnaire to 200 general practitioners in Avon of whom 145 responded. The questionnaire was made up of twelve questions, one of which asked about referral patterns. 68 GPs (42%) of the sample reported referring patients to homeopaths.These results were published in the BMJ in 1986 and this is the source of the much vaunted claim that nearly half of the doctors in England refer patients to homeopaths. The report itself reads like a poor piece of GCSE coursework and I'm staggered that it ever reached the pages of the British Medical Journal. I can summarise it quite easily,

Over a quarter of a century ago, a shoddy piece of research found that a few GPs in a small part of England  sent a handful of patients for treatment by homeopaths.

Such is their desperation, this bogus statistic appears regularly on the websites of homeopaths. It has been used by Dana Ullman and Nancy Malik. Knowing the weakness of their position, they crave respectability and resort to Argumentum ad populum.

The reality is of course that homeopathy in the UK is in rapid decline. According to the British Homeopathic Association, in 2011 400 GPs used homeopathy in their everyday practice. That's 400 out of 41 000, or 0.98%.

0.98% is a long way short of 42%

A Burzynski Of Red Flags

In the skeptic community, the term 'red flag' is used to denote something which gives cause for alarm, a warning sign that things may not be what they seem. Science-org presents a useful guide to red flags as applied to Quackery. Note that of the sixteen featured, Burzynski has one all to himself. Short and Spiky takes it one stage further and devotes an entire blog post to the red flags raised by the Burzynski Clinic.

The shortcomings, ethical,medical and financial, of Stanislav Burzynski and his clinic, have been extensively blogged and tweeted ever since the Observer published an article about a family in the UK raising money to send their daughter for treatment to the Burzynski Clinic. This was followed by  an article in the London Evening Standard  and a feature on ITV's Daybreak programme seemingly endorsing the work of Burzynski. Anyone wishing to follow the timeline of events should go to Joesphine Jones excellent blog which has a record of posts and blogs about the issues.

Burzynski has been in business for almost thirty years. During that time he has had a number of run-ins with the authorities but nothing has stopped him exploiting the sick and vulnerable. Until now. Andy Lewis has revealed that a former patient of the Burzynski Clinic is sueing Burzynski for, amongst other things, "bilking her of nearly $100 000". The Courthouse News Service gives further details about the nature of the former patient's complaints and Peter Bowditch has posted the court filing on his site. These documents make horrendous reading and justify all the red flags raised by bloggers and tweeters over the last few months.

Can Burzynski survive? Burzynski is a last resort for the desperate and vulnerable who may not be influenced by the proceedings in a Texas Courtroom. They may be unaware of what is happening. We cannot be confident that the Observer, Evening Standard and Dr Hilary Jones will give the publicity to these latest developments that they gave to the 'pioneering researcher'. Burzynski is due to appear in front of the Texas Medical Board in April 2012 and hopefully that will seal his fate.

Edit.

The submission to the Leveson Inquiry on theCulture, Practice Ethics of the Press by the Association of Medical Research Charities, Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust contains the following paragraph:

10. Secondly, and more worryingly, it can often raise false hope among patients. This is particularly true and damaging where it concerns treatments for incurable diseases that are not proven, yet which are portrayed as “miracle cures”. This can lead patients to spend life savings on treatments that are most unlikely to work, or on occasion to eschew the most effective known therapies in favour of alternatives that are untested or disproved.

Observer, Evening Standard and Dr Hilary Jones - please take note.

I'm Offended.

This cartoon appeared on the Facebook page of University College London Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society advertising a pub social. Some people found it offensive and complained to the Students' Union. The Union responded by asking the atheist society to remove the cartoon. You can read the full story here. This in turn provoked a response from many skeptics and bloggers including Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, who came to the defence of the atheist society and free speech.

It doesn't end there. Rhys Morgan has written about the Jesus and Mo affair in his blog. If you follow the link you will see that what he has written has resulted in a flood of threats and abuse from those who feel that their religion has been affronted. For the most part those who wrote those comments are revealed to be ignorant, illiterate bullies barely capable of stringing two words together much less making a coherent  argument explaining their position. Their case seems to be, "I am offended by the cartoon. Remove it because I say so."

I am offended.

• I am offended by their wilful ignorance and stupidity.
• I am offended by their assumption that they are entitled to force their religious views on me.
• I am offended by their wish to censor what I can read and what I can think.
• I am offended by their attempts to drag this country back to the Dark Ages.
• I am offended by their readiness to resort to threats and violence.
• I am offended by their refusal to recognise that their behaviour is unacceptable in a modern, democratic society.

Worryingly, this sort of response doesn't seem to be unusual. A proposed talk about Sharia law and human rights had to be abandoned after threats of violence.

If anyone reading this is offended by what I have written, what follows is especially for you.

 

Dear Dr Hilary ................

This morning, ITV's Daybreak ran a feature on the efforts of the parents of a five-year old girl who is suffering from a rare form of brain cancer, to raise money to pay for treatment at the Burzynski Clinic in Texas. Present in the studio, along with the presenters, were the girl, her father, and Daybreak's Health Editor, Dr Hilary Jones. A YouTube clip of the interview is available here (poor sound quality unfortunately). In the interview, Dr Jones is asked for his opinion on the treatment. He describes it as 'pioneering'. He goes on to say that, "Pioneers in medicine tend to get a rough ride". He also relates an anecdote about someone he knows who is currently at the Burzynski Clinic and is receiving 'excellent treatment'.

I am left wondering what messages this interview sends out to viewers, some of whom will know of cancer sufferers. My conclusions are:

•  a treatment which is not available in the UK must be a treatment worth having.
•  a treatment which is 'pioneering' and 'experimental' is a treatment worth having.
•  a treatment which is not validated by the relevant medical authorities is a treatment worth having.
•  a treatment which demands enormous personal and financial sacrifices is a treatment worth having.
•  parents are entitled to try anything possible to find a cure for their children.

I believe none of these stand up to close scrutiny.

In my view Dr Jones has done a disservice to the sufferers of cancer and their friends and relatives. It isn't surprising when parents have an emotional response to the situation they find themselves in. It isn't surprising when the media use that emotional response to produce a piece which will grab the attention of viewers/readers.

I find it surprising that a doctor should do no more than amplify that response to the exclusion of all else. Readers of this and other blogs and followers of #Burzynski on Twitter will be well aware of the issues surrounding this 'pioneering' and 'experimental' treatment. If you need further information follow these links:

Quackometer - Dr Hilary Jones Promotes Questionable Burzynski Clinic on TV

Josephine Jones - Dear Evening Standard, it is immoral to promote the Burzynski Clinic

The 21st Floor - Burzynski: A Small Victory

The Latest From The Observer

Received this evening (3.12.2011 - 7.20 pm)

Thank you for your email. I have examined this issue closely and have
written a column on it for Sunday. Thank you for taking the trouble to
write.
Best wishes,
Stephen Pritchard
Readers' editor
The Observer

The Observer and The Burzynski Clinic

Very few people reading this blog will be unaware of the current furore involving the Burzynski Clinic. Twitter and Skeptic blogs worldwide have been active ever since this story appeared in the Observer on Sunday 20th November 2011. For many people, mention of the Burzynski Clinic was an immediate red flag. It wasn't the first time that this organisation had come to the attention of bloggers. Saul Green, writing in Quackwatch, identified problems five years ago. The reaction of tweeters and bloggers was hardly surprising - except, it seems, to the Observer. Publication of the article produced a flurry of emails to the readers' editor. Josephine Jones has recorded some of them on her blog. As you will see from the list, some eminent bloggers contacted the Observer  yet most did not receive a reply and only one was published in Readers' Letters on Sunday 27th November 2011.  It was my email which was published (heavily edited), and I also received a reply. Many people considered this response to be inadequate - Ben Goldacre described it as a 'one tiny letter'!

Why this feeble response from the Observer? It is a newspaper with a long tradition of campaigning journalism and is the oldest Sunday newspaper in the world. Along with its sister newspaper The Guardian, it has been involved in covering controversial issues such as wikileaks and phone hacking. The Burzynski Clinic would appear to be the sort of issue that the Observer/Guardian would relish covering. It has all the ingredients for an in-depth investigation.

• highly suspect science and dubious medical procedures
• exploitation of vulnerable families
• unreasonable financial costs
• threatening emails to bloggers
• attempts to limit freedom of speech

The hard work has been done for the scientifically challenged. The Josephine Jones blog has a handy list of useful sites. Yet still the Observer/Guardian sees no evil and reports no evil.

Does the reluctance of the Observer to become involved result from its inglorious past in reporting scientific controversies? They made an awful mess when reporting supposed links between autism and the MMR vaccine. Ben Goldacre takes them to task here. (The original Observer article has been removed from their archive). Perhaps the bruising they took over that issue has conditioned them to avoid the scientific arena. In today's Guardian there is a small article featuring Rhys Morgan, one of the bloggers who has been on the receiving ends of threats from the Burzynski Clinic. It has taken over a week for the Observer/Guardian to recognise the existence of a controversy which they themselves initiated.

What a strange state of affairs. The newspaper I've read for forty years ignores a big issue happening on it's own doorstep. The editorial staff would do well to take a look across the Atlantic and see how it should be done.

Update
Rhys Morgan now has a page on the Guardian's Comment is Free. One comment sums up my position perfectly:

Excellent work, Rhys. Now let us hope our professional journalists get off their collective backsides, rather than allowing the science blogosphere to do all the lifting and carrying (and the receiving of frankly sinister threats from this organisation). If Burzynski has nothing to hide, let him come forward with the complete data for peer review into the efficacy of the treatment his 'clinic' offers.

A (Very Brief) Reply From The Observer

This is The Observer’s response to my latest email:

As I wrote to you last week, we take the matter very seriously. It is now in the hands of Stephen Pritchard, our readers’ editor, who, I assure you, will examine the issues with great thoroughness.

Best wishes

Obviously this is not the response I was hoping for but I am cautiously optimistic that The Observer will fulfill its obligation to provide even-handed, well informed  journalism. For the moment I will give them the benefit of the doubt. I hope my optimism is not misplaced.

Meanwhile, anyone who has not read Rhys Morgan’s blog , “Threats from the Burzynski Clinic“, should follow the link. He details the threats he has received from Mr Marc Stephens, a spokesman for the Burzynski Clinic. Rhys asks for the support of bloggers and tweeters. If you are in a position to help, please do so.

Dear Observer Part 2 ................

Dear Observer

Thank you for publishing my letter regarding the Observer article on the Burzynski Clinic. I am grateful that you gave me the opportunity to raise some of my concerns regarding this organisation. However I am compelled to draw your attention to my concern about the level of the Observer’s response to the issues raised. You cannot be unaware of the ongoing debates on Twitter and in the blogosphere about the Burzynski Clinic. As well as consideration of the medical and ethical issues involved, some of this debate is about the responsibility of the Observer to redress the balance with regard to this matter. There is a perception that the Observer, albeit unwittingly, has given a validity and respectability to an organisation which is exploiting the vulnerable. Many individuals have contacted the Observer expressing their concern, but the printing of one letter does not reflect the disquiet felt amongst the skeptical community. Should you wish to have some measure of this disquiet I can refer you to the excellent blog of Josephine Jones who is maintaining a list of all blogs dealing with this matter. Andy Lewis, Ben Goldacre and David Colquhoun  have all made eloquent and persuasive contributions which deserve wider dissemination.

I am still hopeful that the Observer will fulfil what I believe to be its responsibility for providing its readership with an informed and balanced view of the issues raised in the original article.

Mike Warren

A Reply From The Observer

Following my email to The Observer, a reply arrived in my inbox:

Received this evening, 25.11.2011, 7.45 pm.

Dear Mr Warren
I have been passed the letter you wrote to the Reader’s Editor re. the Burzynski Clinic. We are carrying out furher research into the story and the clinic.
In the meantime, I wondered if you would be interested in having your letter published on our Letters page?
We never run notes sent to the ‘reader’ email as letters before asking the writer.

Best wishes
Robert Yates
Assistant Editor
The Observer

Dear Observer ..............

My email to The Observer in response to this article about the Burzynski Clinic.

I have had the Observer delivered each Sunday for some forty years and therefore feel entitled to describe myself as a loyal reader. I was concerned to see the article entitled, 'The worst year of my life: cancer has my family in its grip' in the 20th November edition. It is entirely appropriate for you to raise awareness of the dilemmas faced by the families of young children suffering from life-threatening conditions such as Billie Bainbridge. What concerns me is the way in which the article appears to give uncritical support to the treatment offered by the Burzynski Clinic. There is much evidence to suggest that this clinic operates on the fringes of medical practice and does little more than offer false hope at a high price. A look at the Cancer Research UK website would have confirmed this. I fear that the consequences of this article will be to raise unrealistic expectations in other cancer sufferers and their families and line the pockets of charlatans. I look to the Observer to provide balanced and informed articles. I hope therefore, that a future edition of the paper will address the issues I have raised.

The issues raised in this article were brought to my attention by Le Canard Noir and has provoked a good number of blog posts. Anarchic Teapot has listed many of these on his site.

Over at The 21st Floor there is an online petition calling on the Burzynski Clinic to release its data.

Night View

Taken on my iPhone as I walked to the Sage.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

ISIHAC

Last night I was at the Sage, Gateshead for a recording of two episodes of ISIHAC. Jack Dee in the chair, Tim Brooke-Taylor, Marcus Brigstocke, Graeme Garden and Barry Cryer were the panellists. What an excellent evening, I laughed 'til my face hurt.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad