Complementary Health
The removal of the complementary health section of the Health area of bbc.co.uk has caused , resulting in several complaints and accusations flying around that we've .
In reality, it's not nearly that exciting. The fact is that we review the content on bbc.co.uk on an ongoing basis, making sure that it's both of a high editorial standard and as up-to-date and complete as possible. We'll often remove elements of the site which we feel do not meet these requirements, and where significant investment would be required to bring it up to scratch.
Some significant chunks of bbc.co.uk have disappeared in the past: we took down about 25% of the History site in November 2006, for example, and the Science & Nature site is half the size it used to be. With so many demands on funding in the 大象传媒, and particularly with so many plans in the pipeline for new products on bbc.co.uk, it's simply not possible for us to continually upgrade all elements of the site.
Obviously, we're sorry if anyone鈥檚 disappointed that this part (or indeed any of the other parts) of bbc.co.uk has closed, but be assured that there's no conspiracy. The decision does not reflect any opinion or agenda by the 大象传媒, and it certainly is not in response to any external requests. It was simply our call, made by the editorial team.
To make sure that anyone seeking the old content has access to health information, we have put up a page directing them to other sources of health-related information from the 大象传媒 and the NHS. And obviously, we'll continue to elsewhere on television, radio and .
Richard Williams is Creative Director, Vision Multiplatform Productions, 大象传媒 Vision
Comments
What a pity, I would have congratulated the 大象传媒 for removing "Complementary Health" from the Health section. Keeping it would have been to bow to a pressure group supporting a confidence trick.
Complemenentary medicine is the rump of alternative attempts to treat health issues which fail double blind trials. If they did not fail to prove their case they would cease to be complementary and be simple medicine.
Homeopathic Medicine cost the tax payer millions and deceives huge numbers of the people who need looking after in spite of failing thought experiments such as
if it has a more powerful effect, the lower the concentration then surely none is even more effective or
As some of the waste homeopathic remedies end up back in the water cycle, is not our tap water now a treatment for everything that homeopathy claims to treat
As the levels of concentration at which homeopathy works are below that which can be measured. (less than a single molecule) One cannot be sure that the water they use to start to make their mixture does not have some of the crucial essence and they are making their mixture less effective by adding something.
The 大象传媒 has a duty to educate and inform. It rightly does not give airtime to people who believe absolutely that they are Napoleon, or that the voice in their head tells them to kill particular people or that the tooth fairy exists down the garden. It should not give airtime to complementary medicine or astrology however much money the 大象传媒 can make by doing so
The complementary health pages were an embarrassment. It was like the science and technology section having a page on alchemy.
So while I'm pleased they are gone, I am a bit disappointed that they don't seem to have been taken down for the right reasons.
Well it would've been remarkable if the 大象传媒 had bowed to the demands of pressure groups over this. Homeopathy is indeed barking mad nonsense but it is also popular and many of our MPs, the NHS (to some extent) and even some of our 'universities' support it.
Furthermore, if the 大象传媒 was in the habit of bowing to pressure groups, which side do you suppose could and would've applied the most pressure? It doesn't bear thinking about ;-)
The right decision, for the wrong reason. Why not say we are the 大象传媒 and we deal in facts. I can only hope its the beginning of a saner approach to health issues from the 大象传媒. No more Panorama WI FI nonsense, or Breakfast TV
light therapy promotion, etc.
I was also ready to congratulate the 大象传媒 on its recognition of the subtle differences between real, falsifiable science and self-indulgant expensive placebos.
As a license fee payer, I would much rather my money did not go to promote the misguided beliefs of pressure groups, so I will not applaud the return of any 'Complementary Health' section unless it includes an examination of the evidence base.
What I don't get is why you have to remove the content, surely that takes more effort than signposting that this content is no longer updated or altering the navigation so its orphaned but the links still persist? I can't imagine that the History and Science and Nature content was worthless to your users even though it might not have matched your editorial standards. The 大象传媒 keeps an archive of all its TV and Radio programmes, does it also keep an archive of its websites? The 大象传媒 is starting to release its TV and Radio archive, why not its archive of websites too?
Like many others I was very upset over the 大象传媒 decision.
There is a very dangerous assumption on the part of critics of complementary health that the only way to improve peoples health is through the methods of western medicine and drugs. The equation of drugs with 'science' and 'hard facts' is clearly a misleading one.
Drugs are made and sold by pharmacutical companies for the purpose of profit making and altenative medicine is a threat to them. Is there no connection to the forthcoming Codex Alimentarius?
Should the Complementary Medicine pages have been withdrawn? Definitely not in my opinion. There is valid research on many therapies, and those who chose to look for information should treated as intelligent individuals allowed to draw their own conclusions.
Those who complain that there are no "double blind" trials give a false impression of a scientific consensus that will accept only double blind trials as valid.
However the Medical Research Council is not so sure and produced a discussion document (MRC 2000) which described some classes of interaction as complex. The MRC defined a complex intervention as being 鈥溾 built up from a number of components, which may act both independently and inter-dependently. The components usually include behaviours, parameters of behaviours and methods of organising and delivering those behaviours. It is not easy precisely to define the 鈥榓ctive ingredients鈥 of a complex intervention.鈥.
Expanding the concept of complex interventions Paterson and Dieppe (2005) pointed out that "Three assumptions underlie the design of randomized control trials:
[1] The diagnostic process takes part before the trial intervention begins.
[2] Incidental (Placebo) factors are generic and not linked to any particular Therapeutic theory.
[3] Characteristic effects and incidental effects are distinct and additive." and they go on to say "Our clinical and research experience has led us to question whether these assumptions hold true for trials of non-pharmaceutical nterventions, such as physiotherapy and Acupuncture鈥.
(Paterson C, Dieppe P. 2005 鈥淐haracteristic and incidental (placebo) effects in complex interventions such as Acupuncture鈥 BMJ Vol. 330 Pp 1202-1205).
I would add that complementary practitioners welcome research, but want to see the tools most appropriate to the intervention used. Methods developed to assess pharmaceuticals are not the most appropriate way to assess Complementary medicine. And as an aside I would like to add that most conventional medical practice has not been subjected to double blind trials, neither do such trials guarantee that an intervention is either effective or safe (see BMJ VOLUME 331 16 JULY 2005 bmj.com 155-157).
Declaration of interest: As an Acupuncturist and member of a small research group dissemination of good quality information about complementary therapies is an issue of importance to me.