Science Wooseum Revisited

Time for an update on the Science and Art of Medicine – Living Medical Traditions exhibit in the Science Museum, London!

If you’re not familiar with the backstory, do check out these posts or listen to my report in the Pod Delusion live 2nd birthday episode – go, make some tea and a sandwich while it’s on or something

Briefly, we’ve been trying to improve the Science Museum’s alternative medicine exhibit as there were some serious problems with it. It largely came across as promoting alternative treatments, even advertising practitioners and generally being worryingly uncritical, with no reference to the results of reliable studies (i.e. that most of the ‘treatments’ are no better than placebo and many carry serious risks) – and indeed no mention of the wonderous placebo effect at all.

I’ve highlighted some of the original displays and issues in this photo gallery, now with some new photos – though a lot of them are appallingly blurry, apologies – in this new set.

Important statement

We are extremely glad that the Science Museum has chosen to listen to these complaints and do something about them. To take a second look at something (that people have worked hard on and are likely proud of) with an objective eye, receive criticisms, consider them and make some changes – that is admirable, it’s scientific and what we might expect from such a great institution.

I think in summary, some very important changes have been made, which is excellent. But more could (and should) be done as it’s still far from the resource it could be (I’ll come back to this at the end*).

Proposed Changes

Last year the museum proposed some changes, based on discussions with Simon Singh and the rest of us. They decided the main sections to focus on were homeopathy and acupuncture – while I agree these were the ‘main offenders’, the whole gallery exudes quite a credulous vibe, but I am completely accepting that a total overhaul would take a lot of time and money so let’s look at these two sections for now.

Homeopathy

From the correspondence:

As you know, we are already proposing to make some changes, on the advice of trustees, to make it quite clear that we are describing specifically the Indian context. In general, as far as I can see, you share the sense of what changes out to be made. You have nonetheless expressed two concerns that we should like to address. We will therefore follow your suggestion and add a parenthetical observation:

Homeopaths believe that ‘like cures like’. This means that homeopathic practitioners will give a remedy – often highly diluted (to the point that a bioscientist would say it contains no active substance at all) – that produces the same symptoms as the illness.

I presume the focus is on India because of the resources available for the exhibit. I’m not sure why otherwise, given that homeopathy was invented in Germany and is used worldwide, to varying degrees of disaster (I’m not exaggerating – keep an eye out for Martin Robbins’ experiences of homeopaths in Africa for more in that vein).

The other strange thing here, for me, is bioscientist. What does that mean? Also, chemists, physicists and mathematicians all agree that the very idea of homeopathy is ridiculous and scientifically meaningless.

The homeopathic travel kit was proposed to be removed entirely but as you can see only the caption has gone – so now people just don’t know what it is. I suppose it would be odd if it were just an empty space? Some text has been removed from the panel and now simply describes the image of a woman preparing her ‘homeopathic treatments’ at a ‘baby clinic’ – which makes me sad in itself.

They have also, as Alex suggested, changed their wording – all cases of doctor have now been replaced with practitioner. This is a good thing.

Acupuncture

From the correspondence:

You have also raised the issue of acupuncture. Taking on board all the advice we have been given we cannot agree with David Conquhoun‘s suggestion that the advice of NICE should simply be dismissed. NICE set the national standard estabilishing whether a “clinical treatment [or set of clnical procedures] is considered highly effective, cost effective and safe, as well as being viewed as a positive experience by patients.” Whilst there may be good reasons for overturning their conclusion about the efficacy of acupuncture this process has to be achieved by debate in the public arena, and that has not yet happened.

Obviously I, and no doubt David, would dispute this, but I’ll just leave that there and move on.

The old board:

New text:

Painkillers alone just weren’t helping Stephen’s knee pain caused be osteoarthritis, so his general practitioner [GP] recommended acupuncture. Here’s his story.

Stephen is a retired clinical psychologist, but still enjoys walking and travel. His knee pain was severely restricting his day-to-day activity and he was considering a joint replacement. But he was anxious to avoid surgery of that kind because of concerns about complications and the variable success of the procedure.

His doctor recommended acupuncture – this is offered by his NHS GP surgery and administered by biomedically trained medical and nurse acupuncturists.

Fine needles were inserted into acupuncture points around Stephen’s knee and areas of local tenderness and left in place for up to 15 minutes. Each treatment led to greater and more prolonged relief of Stephen’s symptoms.

After four weekly treatments at first, Stephen now comes to the acupuncture clinic every 6-8 weeks for a ‘top-up’ which keeps his symptoms under control. Aside from reducing pain and the need for painkillers, the acupuncture has allowed Stephen greater mobility, which itself is important in managing the symptoms of osteoarthritis. As a result Stephen thinks his quality of life has improved.

The last sentence no longer says ‘…his quality of life has improved enormously‘. Finally, a new caption underneath:

Acupuncture has been rigorously tested by medical researchers for a variety of ailments. These tests have shown that acupuncture can relieve pain and this is why it is available as a treatment on the NHS. The NHS summarised its current judgement in a review published in 2010 on the internet at:

www.nhs.uk/conditions/acupuncture/pages/evidence.aspx

So osteoarthritis of the knee is cited as a condition for which positive evidence exists. Rheumatoid arthritis, on the other hand, has been shown to be unaffected by acupuncture treatments. What’s important to note is the qualification on this page:

this evidence does not allow us to draw definite conclusions…More research is needed to investigate whether acupuncture works for these conditions.

So I’m still not sure the exhibit expresses the weakness of the current evidence – but at least there’s a link.

Most pictures have been removed, as have captions suggesting GPs endorsed the treatment as effective. For some reason the (presumably fictitious) patient’s name has been changed from Ian to Stephen and he’s now suffering from osteoarthritis in the knee instead of shoulder/neck pain, presumably due to a quick read of the above link.

Mention of Stephen being a retired clinical psychologist is interesting. To me this would suggest an attempt to legitimise his choice of acupuncture as he was involved in medicine himself. Appeal to authority?

While Jonathan Freedman (top right of the old panel) no longer appears in the upper part of the new display, sadly the advertising for the St Albans clinic below remains.

Introductory Panel

Finally, another change that was accepted to be important was the wording that greets visitors on the first explanatory panel. The new is on the left (bit small, sorry) and the old on the right.

Thankfully, the following statement was added:

Contemporary research shows that many of the practices are, from a scientific point of view, ineffective.

And an important clarification has been made:

even today 40% of the population of China use Traditional Chinese Medicine clinics as their first (and often only) choice for healthcare.

Whereas before it was simply an argumentum ad populum – that loads of people use it, ergo it must work/be acceptable (bottom of the right-hand photo).

Other changes made & suggested

Most importantly, the awful interactive video display has been removed completely.

What is disappointing is that some of the things I would consider to be quite dangerous are still there. For example, this description of the herbal product Masturin, about which I can find no actual research, but oft-repeated claims of this nature:

DESCRIPTION

Uterotonic, specific for female disorders. Prepared from herbal ingredients like Saraca indica, Withania somnifera, Abroma augusta, Berberis aristata, Rauwolfia serpentina and iron acting solely on female reproductive system.

INDICATIONS

• Uterine tonic
• very effective in P.I.D.
• Relieves pain in Dysmenorrhoea

A herbal uterine tonic it tones up the nerves and ensures pain free and regular periods. Made from herbs

It worries me that this product is on display along with the claim that Joshanda ‘treats colds and flu’ – it’s this kind of uncritical exposure I take issue with. I know the anthropologists want to claim it’s about looking at culture but I really think you can do that in a safer, more informative way.

Also I was disappointed to see no changes to ‘Professor’ Shi Zaixiang’s board, relating to the claim that he was diagnosing and treating Ménière‘s disease. Also the acupuncture model at the start has not been adjusted so that it no longer claims ‘point BL-60 can be used to treat headaches‘.

*I’m not saying that it should all be a total bloodbath (which is what many ‘skeptics’ might want) but it should reflect what the research has shown – more obviously and comprehensively. It should explore negative sides to these traditions (and more recent inventions) – for example, as my friend pointed out, the devastating impact of TCM on wildlife, making many species endangered and even extinct. Also, ideally (and for me most importantly), tieing in the placebo effect with modern medicine and how the discovery and development of the randomised controlled clinical trial has revolutionised healthcare.

The main thing that drives otherwise rational and caring people to submit themselves and others to quackery when they are vulnerable is ignorance – not of the wilful kind, but most people just don’t know how medicine works. Juxtaposition of alternative ineffective treatment modalities with confirmed effective medicine is the perfect teaching tool.

I’m not trying to be patronising. I am frequently upset by hearing of parents dragging terminally ill children around the globe chasing false hopes and subjecting them to invasive, pointless treatments that often cost them their life savings and cause the child a lot of pain when they could be doing fun things and enjoying what life they have with their loved ones.

What’s a shame is that available expertise hasn’t been utilised. I find this puzzling:

The suggestion that we consult Edzard Ernst is of course a valuable one. However there seems to be little disagreement about the facts (beyond the discussion in which we turn to NICE as an authority). Instead the issue which has been very helpfully brought out in these debates is whether the exhibit can be misconstrued.

I would say that consulting an expert in alternative medicine in constructing an exhibit about alternative medicine would be useful in tackling clarity and factual issues alike.

If anything can be done to make the general public more aware of what they can and can’t trust, medicine-wise, I’m for it. I think this gallery could play a part in that – but at the moment it isn’t. To be noted is that they are planning a ‘radical overhaul’ of medicine in the museum generally so more input from funders and visitors would no doubt be useful.

—

To finish, there’s this hilarious comment in the TCM section:

You don’t have to be ill to need treatment

Well that just sums up alt med perfectly, doesn’t it!! (Also, lifestyle is important in medicine and wellbeing full-stop. Any doctor worth his salt will tell you that, and we hear it all the time; medicine IS holistic. Why do people think otherwise?!)

Burzynski

I think it’s time for me to say something on this subject. It is after all very closely related to my current… vocation (if one can call it that, being a PhD student still!) and impacting directly on some of my friends.

One of those friends is my co-host of our long-neglected podcast, Super Duper Woo-Fighting Duo (With Capes)! – Rhys Morgan.

Edit: even BoingBoing is on it this evening!

Background

Feel free to scroll down to ‘The Threats‘ and ‘Some Interesting Correspondence‘ sections if you know all this…

The subject is one Stanislaw Burzynski, based in Houston, Texas. He offers an experimental treatment (though to call it that is probably a bit generous) to cancer patients called “Antineoplaston Therapy”. These antineoplastons are claimed to be peptides (bits of protein – though they’re generally not, technically – see comment 11 for more) found in urine. When a difference between cancer patients’ and healthy individuals’ urine peptide profile was found, an assumption was made that cancer sufferers were lacking these protein chunks and therefore replacing them should be an effective cure. A list of his patents and publications can be found here. This NYT article is extensive and demonstrates the shocking wealth accumulated:

… the gross income of Dr. Burzynski and an institute he runs was $40 million from 1988 to 1994… he took home $1 million a year.

However, the theory itself is dodgy at best and years of tests have not convinced the worldwide medical community. Yet Burzynski continues to run his clinic, charging people tens of thousands of dollars with promises of efficacy and hopes of being cured – even if the patients have been given a few months or years by doctors elsewhere.

Edit: this is shocking – records show Burzynski threw random chemotherapy cocktails at people (those saying chemo kills; well, he certainly didn’t seem to do his research on it), failed to disclose pharmacy ownership conflict of interest, did not alter treatment despite scans showing no improvement... Texas Medical Board might finally be doing their job.

Also see here for his public record – makes for a disturbing read. Plus, they also have a range of ‘healthcare products’, unsurprisingly – glorious website full of scibabble nonsense words and indeed typos.

What’s happening?

Now, more and more people are starting to criticise this man and his practice and the tactics we have seen so many times before – legal threats, bullying, hoping to silence – are coming thick and fast. There is now a petition asking the clinic to release a concise, publicly-available review of all the clinical trial data it has accumulated over the years.

The turning point was this uncritical article in the Observer about a stricken family with a little girl suffering from a serious brain cancer. The family details their emotional struggle – one which many of us will sympathise wholeheartedly with – and the resulting search for hope, their sights landing on Burzynski’s clinic.

Peter Kay offered to do some benefit gigs to help towards their $200,000 funds goal for this ‘treatment’. These were on the 24th and 25th November last week, and tonight the Comedy Store in Manchester is hosting another with various acts. I also saw a tweet reporting that BBC 6 Music had run an advert for one of the money-raising events.

Many immensely generous donations have been made. It is heartening to see human kindness at work – but so very upsetting given the circumstances.

Here are some e-mails regarding the article that were not published (or at least, not fully) by the Observer – a lot of people are concerned by their endorsement and the lack of provision to challenge what was written. Obviously this is a sensitive issue, around a grief-stricken family, but many others will continue to suffer if this is not properly addressed.

Publicity around this man and his dealings has soared today, as a result of retweets from Stephen Fry, Ben Goldacre, Dave Gorman, Dara O’Briain and continuing valuable support from others such as Simon Singh.

Another friend of mine, Kat, has written a fantastic post for the Cancer Research UK blog – this is serious stuff and those of us who have watched people deal with such a terminal illness do not want to see them swindled, spending their hard-earned savings lining fraudsters’ pockets and losing precious time with their families and loved ones.

Some people who have been directly affected have set up their own website in the hope that others won’t follow in their footsteps: http://www.burzynskiscam.com/

The threats

So, regarding the bullying I mentioned. Rhys wrote a post in mid-August detailing his views of Burzynski, backed up with accounts of past occurrences – including this case:

“Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, had defrauded the plaintiff and violated the terms of the health plan.
We agree that the defendant may not trick the plaintiff into paying for an unlawful, unapproved drug. We AFFIRM.”

and how the 30+ years of trials have yielded very little to support the claims made. Check out Quackwatch from way back in 1998 for more.

He had to take the post down at the beginning of this month but he has now published all the correspondence here – please do have a read (also on Google+, and I’m pasting it below (click ‘read more’ if you’re on the blog homepage and can’t see it) because his site keeps going down!).

His silence was broken because Andy Lewis started receiving his own threats after he wrote his criticism of the Observer article, Kay’s unquestioning support and the issue as a whole. Another here for your amusement. Also read more from The 21st Floor, David Gorski, scienceblogs (good comments), Peter Harrison and Zen Buffy – Josephine Jones is compiling a kind of I Am Spartacus! list for posts on the subject.

Some interesting correspondence

A friend sent me this link to a September 2004 letter to the editor of the academic journal Integrative Cancer Therapies (who have published quite a few of Burzynski’s papers) from a researcher by the name of Andrew Vickers. He takes issue with an article by Burzynski published in the journal in March of that year:

Burzynski SR. The present state of antineoplaston research.
Integr Cancer Ther. 2004;3(1):47-58.

I’ve downloaded and saved this paper if anyone wants a copy, get in touch on Twitter or in the comments so I can e-mail you.

The article cites 73 papers and articles, 38 of which have Burzynski as first author, and a further 10 have his name as one of the first 3 authors – probably he’s in the list somewhere with the rest – plus a couple have one Burzynski B. (presumably a family member). If you search his name in PubMed, 45 articles are returned.

—

Moving on to Andrew’s letter regarding the paper cited above, it’s reasonably short – again if you want the PDF, get in touch, but I’ll paste it here with minimal commentary at intervals.

“Editor:

I read with interest Dr Burzynski’s recent review of research on his technique for treating cancer.1 I have several serious concerns about the scientific quality of his article. The first results presented by Burzynski concern glioma. It is claimed that 7% of 62 evaluable patients had a minor response. However, no fraction of 62 rounds to 7%: 4/62 is 6.45%, 8/62 is 8%*. There is also no fraction of 62 that rounds to 36%, the proportion given for objective response.”

So we can be fairly confident that he’s fiddling numbers from the get-go? * It has been pointed out that this is a mistake: 5/62 is 8%. Presume this is just a typo on Andrew’s part – the point remains.

“Burzynski goes on to report preliminary results of clinical trials on colon cancer conducted at the University of Kurume Medical School in Japan. He claims that the “survival rate of more than 5 years” on antineoplastons was 91% compared to 39% in the chemotherapy control group. Burzynski states that “the study was randomized and compared the results of treatment in 19 patients on . . . chemotherapeutics and antineoplastons [with] 56 patients who received . . . chemotherapy alone.” Yet the reference cited (reference 68) is to a case study. Moreover, a 91% survival rate for 19 patients is impossible, as it corresponds to 17.3 patients.”

 Again some weird numbers coming out, and reference to an article claimed to be about a trial, yet is in fact a study of one case.

“Burzynski also reports a single-arm study of 16 patients with liver cancer in which it is claimed that patients had longer recurrence-free intervals on antineoplastons than off. The citations supporting the claim include a case report and a lab study. Furthermore, the figure illustrating the results shows “time to recurrence [statistic not stated] in patients given antineoplaston AS2-1 after standard chemotherapy compared to control group.” This is despite there being no control group in the study.”

Again no reference to actual trials, but to a single case and lab-based work. Plus a lack of controls (so no valid comparison/conclusion can be made).

“There are several other serious shortcomings of the article. Survival data are presented in bar charts: the techniques for presentation of survival data (such as Kaplan Meier) are well established and were developed specially to deal with issues such as censored data; bar charts are unable to incorporate these features of survival data and are therefore considered inappropriate. No number presented in the text (eg, proportion surviving 5 years) is presented with a measure of uncertainty, such as a standard error or confidence intervals.”

 No reputable clinical study would discuss survival using bar charts. Kaplan-Meier curves have been standard for years. Also he’s presented no statistics for confidence in these numbers.

“I am aware that Burzynski is presenting preliminary data, and I have made no comment or criticism concerning the failure to present inference statistics. Nonetheless, even for a preliminary report, I see no excuse for the use of idiosyncratic and highly inappropriate techniques of presentation, failure to incorporate basic statistical estimates, citation of studies in support of statements when those studies have no bearing on the referring statements, inclusion of obvious mathematical errors, and citation of data for nonexistent control groups.”

He cites Burzynski’s study, to which he is referring, at the end of the letter.

—

Burzynski then wrote a reply! In the same month as Vickers’ letter was published (emphasis mine):

Reply to Vickers 

“Editor:

After reading Andrew Vickers’s letter, one may wonder  why the Assistant Attending Research Methodologist  of the prestigious Memorial Sloan-Kettering  Cancer Center would argue about 0.5% of minor  response and statistics that were not required, while  entirely missing the big picture: a proof of concept  and data on efficacy of antineoplastons in Food and  Drug Administration–supervised clinical trials involving  more than 200 patients. Vickers’s many arguments about unimportant issues obscure the realities of the data that we have presented, which indicate remarkable results in cancers for which chemotherapy and radiation are ineffective.

Publication of my article titled “The Present State of Antineoplaston Research (1)”1 occurred at the same time (March 2004) as the printing of Vickers’s article, “Alternative Cancer Cure: Unproven or Disproven?”  in the March 2004 issue of CA: A Cancer Journal  for Clinicians. In his review article in CA Cancer J Clin, he made reference to only 2 articles on antineoplastons published since 1987. He failed to cite more than 40 of our publications and approximately 300 publications by other authors on antineoplastons and their derivatives. In his letter to the editors, Vickers criticizes reporting of results of the clinical studies conducted at our clinic and also at the University of Kurume Medical School in Japan.  The criticism of our report concerns rounding out percentages to the nearest number. That is why we reported 36% of objective responses instead of 35.5% and 7% of minor responses instead of 6.5%. In the article, I also presented the actual number of patients, allowing readers to make their own calculation.

Vickers objects to my presentation of survival data in bar charts. This objection is unjustified in the context of my review. Kaplan-Meier survival probability estimates are more appropriate for detailed reports describing individual clinical trials. In my review, which describes numerous past clinical trials, there was not enough space for these estimates. Also, one should not compare apples and oranges. We can easily produce Kaplan-Meier diagrams for our studies, but, unfortunately, they were not published for comparison studies, such as Prados et al.2 If Vickers reads our recent articles describing survival in antineoplaston clinical trials, published in peer-reviewed journals between 1999 and 2003, he will indeed find Kaplan-  Meier data. Our data on the proportion of patients surviving 5 years contain no uncertainty, since they are  not estimated but true survivals. The patients are either dead or alive after 5 years. No standard error or confidence intervals are necessary.

The final reports on the studies conducted at the University of Kurume had not yet been published at the time my manuscript was submitted to Integrative Cancer Therapies. Japanese researchers have published preliminary reports and case reports; these were listed as references. The Kurume researchers presented the summary of research data directly to me with permission for publication. I described these as “preliminary results” on page 55 without making any changes.  Those researchers are now preparing the final reports for publication.

In conclusion, I believe I have sufficiently answered  Vickers’s questions regarding the clinical trials conducted  by our clinic. Further details will be provided in a number of articles that are now in preparation for  publication.”

Make of that what you will – no further correspondence noted.

—

I’ll just paste the acknowledgements from the paper in question here as these names may be of interest, and comment that the figures are generally of very poor quality, for a 2004 paper:

The studies were sponsored by the Burzynski Research Institute and supervised by its Institutional Review Board (IRB). The membership of the IRB was in agreement with the FDA. The authors [just Burzynski, for the record] express their appreciation to Lucy Rorke, MD, professor of pathology and neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, for review of pathology slides; Dieter Schellinger, MD, professor of radiology, chief, section of neuro-radiology, Georgetown Hospital, Washington, DC; and Joshua Pleasure, MD, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, for evaluation of MRI and PET scans.

The following physicians at the Burzynski Clinic (BC) participated in the study: Robert I. Lewy, Robert Weaver, Marc Bestak, Maxwell Axler, Alonzo Peters, Benjamin Saling, Barbara Burzynski, Tomasz Janicki, Jaroslaw Paszkowiak, Vishnu Alapati, Dmitri Davydov, Vsevolod Dolgopolov, Barbara Drynia, Andrzej Himmel, Wojciech Iwanowski, Gabor Jurida, Mohammad Khan, Eva Kubove, Grace Ormstein, Joseph Nguyen, Mohammed Radmard, Basel Salhoot, Barbara Szymkowski, and Marek Walczak.

The following senior scientists (PhD), microbiologists, pharmacists, and engineers at the BRI and the BC participated in basic research: Robert Waldbillig, Majciej Klimczak, Elwira Ilkowska-Musial, Leszek Musial, Anna Baranowska, Piotr Kuligowski, Ryszard Madry, Donat Manek, Mike Mokrzycki, Andrzej Wieczorek, Anna Wisniewska, Kris Wisniewski, Irma Witkowska, Dennis Wright, and Iwona Zapedowski.

—

I’ll paste Rhys’ post below in case his site is down.

Wooseum to Museum?

The saga of alternative medicine coverage in the Science Museum, London: an update!

Background

My colleague (well, ex-colleague now he’s gone and emigrated!) Alex Davenport wrote a post for my blog describing an exhibit up in the Art and Science of Medicine section of the Science Museum that he’d taken issue with.

For good reason; it was full of advertising for alt med practitioners, a complete lack of scientific examination of beliefs and traditions of alt med types they’d chosen to present – but simply reiterating the beliefs and often presenting them ambiguously in a way that could easily be misinterpreted as promotion or at least uncertainty about their efficacy.

Simon Singh had resigned from the museum’s board of trustees partly due to this exhibit – fighting a lawsuit brought by the British Chiropractic Association at the time; it’s difficult to defend your stance of calling out baseless alt med claims as ‘bogus’ when the Science Museum is giving them time and you’re apparently supporting that!!

As a result of Alex’s post, the museum issued a response.

Then, Alex and I wrote a reply on the Guardian website and David Colquhoun published his own material on the exhibit. I wrote one quick update and a longer one going over the ‘Living Medical Traditions‘ exhibit in a bit more detail, with links to photos of some of the displays.

Amazingly, after all this, the Museum invited us (myself, Alex, Simon Singh and David Colquhoun) to a meeting with their Director and a couple of his colleagues to discuss some possible changes.

This was all very encouraging, as Alex summarised in this post. The director sent some proposed corrections to the three of us, we mused on it, added our points and got back to them, but as far as I was aware there were no further developments.

Some happy news?

So today, I got a comment on the original Wooseum post and the person who had informed David of the exhibit sent him an email.

John said: Its all been removed ! Hopefully in a skip.

From David’s blog:

“Visited Science museum yesterday , wonderful news – all offensive material gone, and different ok stuff there”.

So, if this is true, excellent! However, I wonder if this is a temporary change and the rest will return when they’ve made some minor amendments?

Time will tell. For now, we celebrate!

—

Update

13/5/11 So DC visited the exhibit and apparently it is true!

3/6/11 Our good friend Jimbob had a quick look just at closing time and a lot of the stuff is actually still there – more when I can go and have a look myself. See photos 1, 2, 3 and 4.

5/7/11 Rhys checked things out on 3/7/11 and it is indeed the same, but apparently some proposed changes have been made and subsequently rejected on the grounds that they don’t go far enough. This is really positive so let’s hope for a real update meriting celebration in the near future!

‘Living Medical Traditions’

Another update to the Science Wooseum story.

I took some time to document more of the exhibit, which is indeed tucked away on the top floor, sandwiched between two very good (and bigger) displays relating to the development of modern medicine. Some really amazing pieces in there. I’ve made a web album of the photos.

Mm, appeal to tradition.

The Living Medical Traditions section is definitely worrying. It has a completely different feel.

In contrast to the display just around the corner, Living Medical Traditions are presented as credible practices simply because they are old and lots of people still subscribe to them.

There’s no educational value in this, and some of it is just wrong. Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst did a better job of researching the origins of alternative medicines (e.g. the possibility that acupuncture actually originated in central Europe) – why was Ernst not consulted*?

In the Before Modern Medicine exhibit, the practices of ‘Western’ physicians that are now discredited (such as blood-letting) are openly mocked, complete with caricatures and categorical statements that people were frauds making money out of the vulnerable. We still see plenty of that going on today.

Renaissance practices that don’t fit in with the scientific knowledge we’ve gained since (such as alchemy, astrology – which plenty of people still believe in – blood-letting and so on) are presented as ‘magic‘ and folklore. There are also some beautiful artefacts chronicling some of the medical advances borne out of closer studies of human anatomy and disease.

The tone is very detached; people used to do these things. Wasn’t that silly! Look how absurd and how far we’ve come. But then when you turn a corner, it’s completely different – everything is addressed to you, telling you what you could try and what the practitioners of these traditions could use based on your needs. It all reads like one big advert.

The advertising is far more blatant in some instances though. The whole of the ‘personal stories’ interactive panel, for example (apologies for the snide comments and shrieks of horror at the cupping – not for the faint-hearted!):

To look at a couple of the main offenders (ignoring for now the Geri DVD that had us laughing):

An e-mail address to contact the seller. Excellent.

No discussion of the conflict between hospitals and alternative practitioners, how politics, corruption and various other factors can come into these ‘choices’, the problems of herbal medicine; even if it does work, do we know why? Is it safe? Drugs that have been derived from plants and are widely-used e.g. aspirin and those that are deadly – no mention.

I can’t see this as anything other than a promotion. A commentary on how some traditions are clawing their way foil-clad into the ‘modern age’? I don’t buy it.

David Colquhoun already mentioned one of the most obvious free advertising elements; Parkbury House Surgery in St Albans probably gets a fair bit of custom out of this.

It seems Professor Shi Zaixiang wrote or at least heavily contributed to his own exhibit.

It explains that he ‘treated’ people who seemed to have Ménière’s disease, which can be serious in some cases and there is not currently a cure – though this is not mentioned on the display.

There are other concerning claims dotted around the board.

It seems that the Living Medical Traditions  gallery goes against some of the Wellcome Trust’s own proposals for how an exhibit should be put together:

1. Exhibitions should be research-led, not a form of dissemination

Research into alt med effectiveness – both the negative and positive results – is not discussed here. I overheard one girl at the acupuncture ‘interactive display’ saying “yeah this actually works doesn’t it, because these bits are sort of connected…” and later “You could probably do it at home if you had needles thin enough, right?!” – worrying.

2. A scientist should always be involved in the exhibition, a technologist if it is about technology

It doesn’t seem that any scientists were consulted here. *Professor Ernst would have been the obvious choice.

5. Never show ready-made science

Focus on the processes of science: science in the making; the triumph of discovery; the frustration and blind alleys explored along the way. Also, look at the social and cultural processes of scientific ideas becoming accepted and embedded.

For me, the exhibit doesn’t do that. It shows ideas people have just because… well, they’ve had them for a long time. It doesn’t tie in at all with the generation of evidence-based medicine or why people are questioning the ethical acceptability of these practices.

That brings me neatly to the comments from John Beddington, the government’s chief scientific adviser. Obviously it’s probably not that sensible to compare pseudoscience to racism or sexism – so it’s better to read his comments in New Scientist for a more considered piece.

It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence. We must make evidence, and associated uncertainties, accessible and explicable… We must also be confident in challenging the misrepresentation or exaggeration of evidence and the conclusions it leads to. Where significant consensus exists, it must be made obvious.

He is essentially issuing a rallying cry to challenge pseudoscience, from misplaced scepticism to deliberately misleading and fraudulent claims.

the serious public debate required to drive progress is being undermined by individuals or groups who cherry-pick facts to drive their own agenda

I believe the Science Museum’s tactic here is contrary to this; of course, my view is distorted by the circles I move in and we’re all more concerned about it than Joe Public, but I’d almost see that as another symptom of widespread ignorance of what evidence-based medicine and the scientific method actually are.

Once again, I have no issue with examining alternative medicine in a museum setting, I simply have a problem with the way this is presented; more interesting avenues have been shirked in favour of what mainly comes across as promotion largely due to the language employed.

I’m not sure what the next step is, if anything – hopefully the post and the photos give a better idea of our particular objections to this exhibit.

Links:

Zeno’s blog on the MHRA and homeopathy. Relevant, seeing as the Museum can’t even get it right when it comes to homeopathy. It’s not minute quantities, it’s nothing at all. Even the New Zealand Institute of Chemistry are joining in now.

https://picasaweb.google.com/noodlemaz/ScienceMuseum#5575163246467307730

QEDcon: Day 2

So I was going to do a couple more updates yesterday but power sockets weren’t really forthcoming so in the end I just tweeted ’til my phone died! Check out our room-mate Tom’s phonecasts for lots of exciting insights.

Marsh killing time until 10:23am!

We have just participated in the 10:23 demonstration, 2011 – we overdosed on some 31C belladonna pills (below). Sugary! Helping some with their hangovers (I think I’m on a pleasant little sugar high. Others are using the leftovers to sweeten their coffee).

Here’s a video from James, already! Edit: do see this excellent video account from Token Skeptic podcast, which has some good crowd shots, a lot of Marsh’s entertaining time-filling speech (including fantastic hatemail from homeopaths) and the big event itself.

The response to the campaign this year has been global, with people participating in some wonderfully random places (nice big Flickr set here).

An amazing achievement is that Brazil, as a direct result of the campaign, is now examining its policies on providing homeopathic treatments!

Note in particular, the individuals taking part in Antarctica (as you can see in that brilliant video above) and Hawaii!

A crowd favourite was the Spanish stunt of putting a ten23 t-shirt and hat on a statue of Samuel Hahnemann (‘founder’ of homeopathy):

I went to all of the live podcast recordings yesterday:

- InKredulous (with George Hrab, Jon Ronson, Andy Wilson, Marsh and Steve Novella)

- Pod Delusion (James O’Malley, presenting Sean Ellis, Liz Lutgendorff, Dr*T, Craig Lucas and James Thomas)

- Strange Quarks (Marsh interviewed Eugenie Scott about the problems with, and possible solutions to, creationism in education – both in the US and a bit in the UK. Good Q&A afterwards – plus Eugenie is talking this afternoon).

Yesterday also featured a lot of talks on paranormal research and I’ve heard good things about those – I’ll find some links to reviews when they appear.

George Hrab entertained us after the evening dinner with his unique brand of skeptical rock, surprisingly romantic and, at times, tear-jerking (perhaps I was just overly-emotional from fatigue!).

Apparently there was some skeptical “dancing” (quotes not optional) but many of us hid in the bar as it was comfy and relatively quiet.

Wendy Grossman has just finished her ‘Policy-based evidence-making’ talk and Simon Singh is up next to talk about the Big Bang! Looking forward to the rest of the day, providing I can find some more coffee and some food. Late train back.

Edit: Simon Singh’s talk is coming to an end but he did show us a very amusing coincidence first: he’s in room 1023, without it being orchestrated! Brilliant. Also, he’s been talking about the Great Global Warming Swindle programme; I wrote about this here if you want some examples of the kind of rubbish that was in it.

—

So far the main in-joke is the fact that it’s constantly raining here in ‘Manchestuh’ and we’ve got to know the small stretch of road between the hostel and the hotel very well indeed, but nothing else.

-

–

Photos:

From Alex Davenport (I’m in a few of those, of course)

Rob’s Flickr set.

Great photos from @gammypoofle – I spy myself blogging and things in a few of them

Pics by Richard Cooper (including Simon’s coincidental room number!)

–

Links:

Paul Jenkins has another great summary of the main events – useful!

If you want know how to set up Skeptics in the Pub (a frequent search on this blog!) or related skeptical gathering, have a listen to Token Skeptic‘s recording of the SitP workshop with Marsh and Simon Perry. See also: Birmingham Skeptics.

Prof. Bruce Hood laments the brevity of the conference – we are all doing the same.

Steven Novella discusses some weird reactions of homeopaths to 10:23.

Wendy Grossman has some thoughts.

South Yorkshire skeptics on 10:23

Milton muses on homeopaths’ mild hysteria and found this great playlist of all the 10:23 videos on Youtube so far.

Dave Gamble‘s favourite tweets (yay, made the grade both days!)

Google gets it right! Edit: Oh for god’s sake. Yes it’s fake. It’s the oldest joke since Google introduced the autocomplete feature. A fake joke about a fake medicine. Lighten up. Also, Crispian’s post. Plus it’s not that different from the actual result anyway.