|
Why the Beeb banned complementary medicine
29th February 2008
There's been a disturbing email going around in the last
few weeks.
It suggests further bullyboy tactics from scientists and
sceptics who want to stamp out any dialogue regarding
alternative health therapies.
The email says:
'You may not be aware that last week the
controllers of BBC Health (http://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 selfappointed '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!'
I've gone onto the BBC site and had a look for myself.
Dare ye seek out 'Forbidden' knowledge?
You can still type 'complementary medicine' or
'alternative medicine' into the search engine on the
site and get a list of related news stories.
So it's not as if they've censored all mention of these
therapies.
|
However, while reading an article, I tried to click on a n
official BBC link on the right hand side that said
'complementary medicine'. Instead of going to a page
about the subject, I was instead faced with a page that
said at the top: 'forbidden'.
FORBIDDEN? What in crikey is that all about?
So it seems that the email is not a hoax, and that there
has been some curtailing of the information on the BBC
website.
The email continues:
'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.'
I agree with this. As do many GPs, who offer alternative
therapies in combination with drug treatments. And
who also suggest that alternative therapies can be good
for maintaining a healthy body and mind, helping you
prevent disease.
The range of complimentary, natural and alternative
medicines are so wide and complex, it's ridiculous to
tarnish them all with the same brush.
And besides...
You can't stamp out ideas
These ideas have been around for millennia. A lot longer
than western science has been around. Whether we like
it or not, millions of people use alternative therapies.
They rely on them and benefit from them.
So why shouldn't we have access to the information
that's available? Why shouldn't we look into these
ideas, find out about them and think about why so
many people use them?
Whatever the scientists think, alternative health
practises and practitioners exist. You can't pretend
they're not there, or declaim everything they ever say as
wrong.
It would be terrible if, in the process of denouncing an
entire field of therapy, we ignored an avenue of
investigation that really could save lives and transform
our understanding of medicine.
We could end up throwing out the baby with the
bathwater.
But rather than accept this, and open up a dialogue
about alternative therapies, a group of arrogant control
freaks are trying to stamp it out altogether.
Do they count THIS newsletter
among 'restricted' subjects?
Every week I try to unearth interesting ways you can use
food and your dietary habits to help ward-off disease,
quickly recover from illness, heal cuts and bruises, lift
your mood, boost your energy and libido, and avoid the
many allergens and toxins of the 21st Century.
I then present the ideas to you in this newsletter,
jargon-free, so you can know all the options available to
you.
Is this wrong? Is this too 'alternative'? Do we have to
wait 20 years for official research to come out instead?
Shall we all wait for the green light from the scientists
about a natural products that grows in our fields before
we try it?
Are these guardians of all that's right and wrong going
to tell us that what we put into our bodies has nothing
to do with how we fight and cope with disease? That
we should rely entirely on their patented drugs instead?
Are people who think seriously about what they eat,
and why they eat it, 'alternative health whackos'?
Should we be dissuaded from using our diets, as well as
our mental powers of self belief and determination, to
make ourselves feel better?
If you are seriously ill and in pain, should you feel guilty
for seeking out as many ways to ease your suffering as
possible?
|
I'll leave you to answer these questions. I know what I
believe.
Why this ideological insanity has to stop
Yes, there are many unscrupulous snake oil salesmen in
the alternative health industry. Regulation is an issue
that needs to be looked at. And yes, there are many
cases of malpractice, deceit and manipulation.
Sometimes it does come down to a placebo effect,
where a sense of optimism does wonders.
I'll even go so far as to say that some members of the
alternative health crowd are part of the problem.
See, in my four years doing this newsletter, I've realised
that there's only one thing as po-faced and dogmatic as
the mainstream medical establishment. And that's the
hardcore element of the alternative health
establishment.
It's the clash of these two orthodoxies at the expense of
ordinary people that annoys me.
One side is always slagging off the other, demanding
censorship, refusing to listen. They release confusing
and scaremongering stories in the press. They take
sides and draw lines in the sand, regardless of what
suffering people feel and believe.
Some scientists demand that all mention of
complimentary therapies are wiped from websites....
while many alternative therapists refuse to address
crucial issues when their practises are questioned.
The truth is, most ordinary people don't care about
ideology.
We just want to feel better!
Most people believe there's a middle way... that you
can use conventional medicine and natural remedies in
combination, to brilliant effect.... that the act of
investigating your health and taking control is in itself a
beneficial act.... that science hasn't yet explained
everything... that you should be allowed to see what's
out there...
And that you don't have to feel guilty for doing so.
Why the complaints failed
The BBC got a flood of complaints regarding their
actions recently. Despite this outcry, they say:
In order to release resources for this
redevelopment work, we're reviewing existing
content from an editorial and value-for-money
perspective.
The complementary health section was
incomplete and, therefore, not of a satisfactory
editorial standard.
It also represented a small proportion of traffic to
the site but was disproportionately time-
consuming.
Ah, well, so it looks like the BBC have abandoned you
because 'they can't get the staff these days'. What
nonsense.
But at least you've still got The Good Life Letter, working
hard to keep you informed.
|
|
|
|
