Please do not use forums to advertise courses.
BBC HEALTH REMOVES ALL MENTION OF COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE FROM THEIR WEB SITE
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
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
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
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:
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
Here is a copy of what I have sent to them:
I have just learnt that you have removed all information from your (our public) website about Complementary Therapies. One in 5 people have used such therapies and yet as a public service operator, financed by the public you do not see fit to provide information any more. I feel I aught to go through all your pages and ask you to remove all pages that do not have an interest rating of more than 1 in 5 of the population. You have gone down considerable in my esteem. C Rowlands
Feb 21 2008 9:07AM
I have posted a copy already 'BBC, What are you doing?
There seems to be a concentrated effort to get rid of all the complementary therapy by so called professionals - HEY - what happened to ethics about being critical of other professionals???
What the BBC has done, is to remove the individuals right to choice.
Please circulate the email and ask friends, clients anyone to place their thoughts on the BBC web site for Health.
Mar 3 2008 1:19PM
|I have just sent a comment to the BBC. I think that in this day & age it is digusting that people are not able to view information for complimentary therapy on this website.
They have not considered the amount of time & money people put in to ensure standards are met.
Mar 4 2008 5:53PM
I have had a reply from the BBC. They say it is because the pages are not used very much and that they are difficult to keep up to date. Also, that they are going to be taking off other sections on the site.
I do not know where the original 'story' came from, but I had it passed to me from another Reflexologist who belongs to another association.
|Amanda Jayne Byers|
Mar 10 2008 10:22PM
|David Colquhoun, Prof of Pharmacology, you see there is the point. Pharmacology...££££££ nothing to do with money then is it!!!!|
Mar 11 2008 10:16AM
Yes I can well believe it!! http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/334/7592/507
Check this out! I googled his name and came up with this.
Mar 11 2008 10:58AM
|MMM Professor of Pharmacology .... yes not only the £££££ - be interesting to see what his financial affiliations /research affiliations are! - but his overall mindset is not letting the body work of it`s own accord but to control it with drugs. As we know the mainstream medical profession and the tremendous help they give to people, along with appropriate use of drugs - is fantastic. But a guy who has looked at the human body from such an intense and narrow perspective for so many years would be almost certain to see the body as a mechanical model. Only the wisest and biggest brains in the Pharmaceutical industry, or indeed anyone reading the research on drugs, would spot the inate flaw in his arguments.
Also the percentage of people who die as a result of wrongly prescrivbed drugs etc is never mentioned.
I`ll check out the wesite Anjela mentions - thanks :) Caroline
|Amanda Jayne Byers|
Mar 11 2008 5:54PM
|Read this...... it was on the link posted....Ha ha ha this is great....just shows how narrow minded and/or greedy people are...tragic.
Leave alternative therapists in peace 13 March 2007
John R King,
Hill Crest, Redditch, B98 7WG
Send response to journal:
Re: Leave alternative therapists in peace
David Colquhoun (“NICE should not have to evaluate alternative medicine”) makes a better case than Linda Franck et al. Space researchers do not, after all, waste time trying to disprove the beliefs of flat- earthists. Neither would it be helpful for a Nobel prizewinning chemist to stride into a church and denounce the holy water there as nothing more than H2O. There is a very large and ever expanding array of alternative treatments, some more bizarre than others, which could tie up the resources of NICE for an indefinite period. But if people want to believe in them – or in fairies or leprechauns – they should be left in peace to do so. It is no concern of scientific medicine.
David Colquhouns reply:
Fairies and leprechauns 16 March 2007
Prof of Pharmacology UCL
UCL WC1E 6BT
Send response to journal:
Re: Fairies and leprechauns
Nobody is proposing to ban fairies or leprechauns. It would be both undesirable and impossible.
There does seem to be a case, though, for not providing leprechauns at the tax payers' expense. And really all leprechauns that are sold to the public should have labels that don't make false claims for their powers. Unfortunately the MLRA (Medicines and Leprechauns Regulatory Agency) has let us down in the matter of labelling. I suspect infiltration of the Department of Health by little green men
Mar 11 2008 7:11PM
|Does this David Colquhoun not have any work to do??????????? Seems he's being paid vast sums of money to just sit and criticise complementary health care :0|