Scientific data is not always straightforward
As reported on Tracy’s Shiatsu blog and on the Stone Lantern Shiatsu Blog the BBC has removed complementary therapies from its excellent Health section. This is apparently in response to lobbying by the scientific community - the “QuackBusters”.
OK there is not a lot of scientific validation that backs the benefits of therapies such as shiatsu, which is something organisations such as the Shiatsu Society are trying to rectify with the European Shiatsu Federation Research Project. It is quite right that proponents of any therapy should be able to demonstrate there effectiveness but projects take time and money and organisations such as the Shiatsu Society are not wealthy foundations with the backing of a big industry.
Just a few days after we discovered the BBC’s removal of the alternative health pages they published an article entitled Anti-depressants’ ‘little effect’. Here is a report on a study that seems to suggest one of conventional medicine’s great success stories may not be so effective after all. The pharmaceutical companies naturally disagree with this study and many users report great benefits from taking them. So the jury is out and we wait for the next study.
This story just goes to show that scientific data can be interpreted in different ways. Reports and studies are not always as straightforward as we are led to believe. That many users of the anti-depressants report great benefit from using them is proof enough for many in the medical profession.
So, why does that argument not count when used by users of complementary therapies?
Tony Brown @ February 27, 2008