Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Bravo!
- Sri S Varman (9 July 2004)
-
A Princely Riposte
- Lesley J Fallowfield (9 July 2004)
-
Where may I send fan mail?
- Luke Devey (9 July 2004)
-
We always knew he wasn't listening
- Norman J Vetter (9 July 2004)
-
A response to my predecessor the Prince of Wales
- Brian Jarman (9 July 2004)
-
Someone belled the cat
- Mangesh A Thorat (9 July 2004)
-
open mind
- Brian F Walker (9 July 2004)
-
Well done
- Harold Jacobs (9 July 2004)
-
Excellent!
- Roger Eeckels (9 July 2004)
-
Response to Michael Baum
- Mark R. Lipsman (9 July 2004)
-
In Full Agreement
- Moises Gorodezky (9 July 2004)
-
Re: Open Letter to the Prince of Wales
- Laurie A Forbes (9 July 2004)
-
My E-Mail to Prof. Baum: With Respect Prince Charles is not so Wrong!
- Bobby K. Potter (9 July 2004)
-
Partial and Parallel Truths:}}}:::::::>
- Dr.Bhalendu S Vaishnav, Dr. Smruti B. Vaishnav ,Addl. Professor, Department of Obstretics And Gynecology, P.S.Medical College. (9 July 2004)
-
Prince of Wales Chastised
- Abram Hoffer (9 July 2004)
-
In Defence Of HRH Prince Charles : An Open Invitation To Join ACAM
- Joseph . C . Obi (10 July 2004)
-
Bigotry
- John P Heptonstall (10 July 2004)
-
Challenging Baum on the scope of his methodology
- G.A. Bates (10 July 2004)
-
In the soup together
- M C Feliciello (10 July 2004)
-
With respect, Professor, you haven't got it.
- Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich (10 July 2004)
-
Baum's misdirected criticism: blames the drowning for clutching at straws.
- Steve A Hawkins (10 July 2004)
-
Perhaps we should shoot the messenger
- Andrew N Bamji (10 July 2004)
-
plus ca change
- Geoffrey C Rivett (10 July 2004)
-
Which emporer is naked?
- John P Briffa (10 July 2004)
-
Science is worth the effort.
- Luke Devey (10 July 2004)
-
Doing good or just feeling better.
- Carl Thomson (10 July 2004)
-
Gwyneth Paltrow will have more influence
- Neville W Goodman (10 July 2004)
-
Prince of Wales and CAM!
- Dr. Naseem A. Qureshi MD, IMAPA, LMIPS (10 July 2004)
-
Objective science?
- Paul A Taylor (10 July 2004)
-
FIRE YOUR DOCTOR
- Rev Dr Michael Ellner (10 July 2004)
-
A Letter to Royalty: a sardonic view
- Robert I. Rudolph, M.D., FACP (10 July 2004)
-
Prince Open letter to the Prince of Wales
- Croft Woodruff (10 July 2004)
-
Cancer Complacency
- Alan S. Meltzer (11 July 2004)
-
Pardon me, Dr Baum. Exactly WHO,... has got it wrong?
- Hilary Butler (11 July 2004)
-
Who do you call "Alternative"?
- Patrick P L Quanten (11 July 2004)
-
Dear Richard Smith
- David Potterton ND MRN MNIMH (11 July 2004)
-
Re: Science is worth the effort.
- Eddie Vos (11 July 2004)
-
Dear Prince Charles,
- Caroline Richmond (12 July 2004)
-
Re: FIRE YOUR DOCTOR
- Dr. Anne H Spencer, Royal Oak, MI 48073 USA (12 July 2004)
-
Gerson Therapy Hardly Unproven
- Howard D. Straus (12 July 2004)
-
Common medical politics.
- William G. Pickering (12 July 2004)
-
Re: Science is worth the effort.
- John P Heptonstall (12 July 2004)
-
Alternative Cancer Cures
- Louise Mclean (12 July 2004)
-
Yes to more Research
- Simon C Ottman (12 July 2004)
-
Re: A Letter to Royalty: a sardonic view
- Mark Struthers (12 July 2004)
-
unproven need not mean untrue
- krishna g. badami (12 July 2004)
-
Alternative healing is New Age spirituality, functionally distinct from medicine and science
- Bruce G Charlton (12 July 2004)
-
Re: Re: Science is worth the effort.
- Ellen C G Grant (12 July 2004)
-
The bully’s cloak for bigotry
- Steve Hickey PhD (12 July 2004)
-
The obvious answer
- Adam Jacobs (12 July 2004)
-
Everybody is entitled to speak - whether titled or not.
- susanne mccabe (12 July 2004)
-
Re: Excellent!
- Eddie vos (13 July 2004)
-
Thanks for trying to get sense into the public discourse
- Gerald Beuchelt (13 July 2004)
-
An open letter to Professor Baum
- Heather M. Goodare (13 July 2004)
-
Open your mind Professor!
- Sandra H Rowles (13 July 2004)
-
Prince Charles: Anecdotes?Perhaps worth listening to
- Wolfgang H Furste (13 July 2004)
-
Science is What the Scientists Do.
- BM Hegde (13 July 2004)
-
Tall stories of alternative cancer cures
- Trisha Greenhalgh (13 July 2004)
-
Why don't you get rid of the Royals?
- Joseph C Watine (13 July 2004)
-
Misinterpreting the message?
- Dai Roberts, Alison McNulty, Christine Waterman (14 July 2004)
-
Re: Tall stories of alternative cancer cures
- John P Heptonstall (14 July 2004)
-
Re: TALL STORIES
- Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich (14 July 2004)
-
Re: Tall stories of alternative cancer cures
- Ellen C G Grant (14 July 2004)
-
True scientists should have open minds.
- Jacqui Gath MBCS C Eng (15 July 2004)
-
A Challenge to Professor Baum
- G Robert N Jones (15 July 2004)
-
Re: Pardon me, Dr Baum. Exactly WHO,... has got it wrong?
- Neville D Yeomans (15 July 2004)
-
Prince Chalres lecture best resonse to Prof Baum
- Abram Hoffer (15 July 2004)
-
Possible link to homeopathy and genetics
- Joao N Bento (15 July 2004)
-
'The need to stay open-minded'
- Margaret C Anderson (16 July 2004)
-
The Fallacy of a Single Medical Science Envisaged by Professor Michael Baum - The Reality of a Division into Mechanistic and Holistic Medicine
- Erich K. Ledermann, Allan Withnell (16 July 2004)
-
One consequence of a 100% mortality rate
- Robert A. Da Prato (17 July 2004)
-
Pritikin was motivated - but did he have any answers?
- Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich (19 July 2004)
-
The Prince and the Professor: Who's got it wrong?
- Earl Baldwin of Bewdley (19 July 2004)
-
The need for integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches.
- Hazel Thornton (20 July 2004)
-
Friends in low places
- Michael O'Donnell (21 July 2004)
-
What matters is what works
- John Hopkins (23 July 2004)
-
Inductive logic is not to blame
- Darren J Bradley (23 July 2004)
-
Re: Friends in low places - where are they?
- Hazel Thornton (23 July 2004)
-
With respect your highness
- Richard Carlos (23 July 2004)
-
With respect, Professor Baum, you've got it wrong
- Alexander Molassiotis (27 July 2004)
-
Who needs to be pressured?
- P J Moran (27 July 2004)
-
Re: Who needs to be pressured?
- Howard D. Straus (29 July 2004)
-
Re: Re: Who needs to be pressured?
- Peter J Moran (30 July 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Who needs to be pressured?
- Howard D. Straus (1 August 2004)
-
Re: Pritikin was motivated - but did he have any answers?
- Erich K. Ledermann (3 August 2004)
-
Please Share Their Agony - Your Royal Highness
- Michael D Innis (5 August 2004)
-
Re: "An Open Letter to Prince Charles*.
- Dr. Sankar. K. Das (8 September 2004)
-
HRH The Prince of Wales's Speech
- Michael Fox (22 September 2004)
-
Wonder
- John Y Davenport (24 September 2004)
-
CONGRATULATIONS
- CELIO LEVYMAN,MD,MSc (27 September 2004)
-
Royal Patronage
- Andrew D LAWSON (10 October 2004)
-
Explosions of CAM?
- Allan J Sweeney (30 December 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Sri S Varman, Director of Surgery Redland Hospital, Cleveland, Australia 4163
Send response to journal:
|
Congratulations for having the courage to say that the Emperor is naked. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lesley J Fallowfield, Professor of Psycho-oncology Brighton & Sussex Medical School, BN1 9QG
Send response to journal:
|
Well done Michael Baum, you deserve a Knighthood at the very least for putting your head on the block yet again and having the courage to say what most of us believe, but usually feel to cowardly to express in the presence of the Royals. See you in the Tower ! Lesley Fallowfield your fellow heretic Competing interests: Lesley Fallowfield is a known collaborator of Michael Baum |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Luke Devey, Research Fellow University of Edinburgh
Send response to journal:
|
I am delighted that Professor Baum has spoken for all of us who object to the excessive exposure given to the ill-informed opinions peddled by our future Monarch. I am grateful indeed to anyone with sufficient integrity to abandon all hope of a knighthood to speak out in this way. Thank you!! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Norman J Vetter, Reader, Department of Epidemiology, Statistics and Public Health University of Wales College of Medicine, CF14 4XN
Send response to journal:
|
Archie Cochrane, Professor here, in the University of Wales College of Medicine, spent much of his life promoting the use of scientific methods in medicine. Wales therefore, likes to think of itself as a centre for evidence-based medicine. Perhaps the next time the Prince visits we could bring him up to date. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brian Jarman, Immediate Past President of the BMA Imperial College Faculty of Medicine
Send response to journal:
|
On 4 Nov 1970, while I was working as a resident in medicine at one of the Harvard teaching hospitals in Boston, my wife noted that our 5 year old son had a small lump at the back of his head. I noticed that he was pale and had bruises on his legs, so I said to her that I thought he had leukaemia. The diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) was confirmed by a blood test next day and a bone marrow the day after. At the time I and my medical friends knew of no effective treatment for ALL and so we decided to bring him back home to the UK to die. Several friends and relatives suggested various forms of alternative medicine treatment. Luckily, when we arrived in London Dr Humphrey Kay at the Royal Marsden Hospital suggested that our son should be entered into the UK ALL trial based on the treatment devised by Professor Donald Pinkel at St Jude’s Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee which had been shown to be effective in a recent trial in the USA. Our son went into remission, has not relapsed and is now well aged 39. The pressure from well-meaning friends to try alternative treatment was quite difficult to resist. I have had patients who have felt similar pressure to which they have, at times, succumbed when effective conventional treatment was available. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mangesh A Thorat, Senior Registrar Dept. of Surgical Oncology, TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Dr. E.Borges Marg, Parel, Mumbai - 400012
Send response to journal:
|
It required someone of Professor Baum’s stature to come out courageously in open to put the things straight. Alternative medicine has always been common topic for debate, and I suppose that this letter has answered most of the questions. Remedies (???) from alternative medicine definitely need to be explored in the most scientific manner. And such medicines cannot be blindly accepted till these pass the rigorous scientific testing by most modern methods. Thank you professor for standing firmly for medical scientific community. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brian F Walker, GP Hong Kong
Send response to journal:
|
Bravo the Price of Wales! I have long admired his open minded approach to current problems of the world. It is surely unreasonable to expect the medical profession to ask for even-handed approaches to health care when it is doctors who are the cause of the 4th most common cause of death - properly prescribed medication which is properly administered. Taken together with blunders, errors and happenstance, doctors are the number one cause of death. When it comes to health (and cancer) we as a profession have failed to take adequate reconizance of the fact that correct nutrition and correct exercise are the foundations of properly maiantained health. How many doctors can properly claim to know more than their grandmothers about nutrition? And yet we feel able to recommend treatments for cancer that have in the last 10 years brought not one more day of life to patients, but at horrendously increased costs. Having successfully treated cancers with foods, and seen reversal of widespread bony metastases (primary adenocarcnoma lung) with increased body mass, reversed persisting thrombocytopaenia of 2, and seen healthy brain tissue regrow into the site of a glioblastoma (no residual tumour) - to name but a few - I find the arrogance of the medical profession with respect to CAM an unbearable slight on the intelligence of our patients. In the atmosphere of blatant data manipulation by drug companies for corporate gain, falsification or bias of results for personal glory, and the proven inability to discern truth from the morass of unluckily applied statistics, I would far rather question the results of current pseudo- research than the documented successes of ethical and caring observers of facts. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Harold Jacobs, Consultant Neurologist 14115-96 Ave, Edmonton, AB, T5N 0B9, Canada
Send response to journal:
|
I wish to commend the author, Michael Baum, for his frank, reasoned and polite rebuke to the irresposible medical advice offered to the public by someone not versed in medicine nor in science. Such advice does far more harm than good. Flawed advice raises false hopes adding to human suffering. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Roger Eeckels, emeritus professor of paediatrics University of Leuven, Belgium
Send response to journal:
|
How could one not fully agree? Should not the considerable amounts of money spent on alternative medicine better be used to alleviate the suffering of mothers and children in poor countries? Roger Eeckels, MD, DTM&H Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark R. Lipsman, Nonmedical 01460
Send response to journal:
|
The colossal arrogance of Michael Baum's message to Prince Charles that he shouldn't speak up about alternative health methods--unfortunately all too characteristic of the medical profession--is one of the main reasons people are turning to alternative techniques in such record numbers, aside from the fact that they work. As one who has cured himself of cancer using holistic methods, without going to a doctor, I know whereof I speak. Conventional medicine has nothing to offer for cancer except surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy--otherwise known as slash, burn, and poison--and more and more people are catching on that the mutilation, burning, and toxic chemicals are completely unnecessary. Modern medicine, in thrall to the pharmaceutical industry, fails utterly to understand that cancer itself arises from toxicity and that a cure depends on righting the body's internal energy balance. Gerson's diet works well, and so do many other techniques. The fact that large numbers of people are trying them and succeeding is a reproach to medicine's many failures. The holistic way typically offers superior results with fewer or no side effects and much lower cost--not to mention that patients aren't sent through an assembly line and get a practitioner who actually has the time to listen and respond. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Moises Gorodezky, Retired Chief of Service Inst. Nac. Cardiol. Mexico Explanada 920, Mexico, D.F. 11000 Mexico
Send response to journal:
|
I fully agree with the letter of Prof. Baum and I admire his courage. I think that is very important to denounce all the quackery and supperstition when it appears, no matter where and by whom. Well said and well done Professor Baum !! Moises Gorodezky M.D. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Laurie A Forbes, None Retired
Send response to journal:
|
I have just read with great satisfaction your letter on the subject of alternative medicine and Prince Charles. In a world seeming more and more steeped in irrationality, the last thing needed is someone of his position and influence promoting quack medical treatments. May I respectively encourage further efforts on your behalf. In my experience, as a medical lay person, the battle against quackery is, for the most part, fruitless and futile (and not assisted at all by generally science illiterate law makers) but if even a few are influenced the efforts are worthwhile. Best regards, Laurie Forbes Calgary, Canada Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bobby K. Potter, student Asda Hulme, M15
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Prof. Baum, I am Robert Potter a young student at Nottingham Uni and have a few questions about your view on Cancer treatments. Firstly I would like to say that I am a student of Politics not Pharmacy so please excuse any ignorance or stupidity I may portray. My father is Prof. Gerry Potter, also a cancer expert at Leicester De Monfort, and he has found and can prove the link between diet and cancer. The letter you published in British Medical Journal on Friday openly criticised the unproven alternative therapies Prince Charles was endorsing. The point of my e.mail is I want to know why is food seen as alternative. And although 13 glasses of carrot juice and coffee enemas may be yet scientifically unproven the link of food as a remedy to chronic disease is not. My father is woking on a product revolving round his own theories of carcinogenesis, which involves Fruit. But of course he can't claim that they kill cancer cells because this is a food supplement and cannot be seen as medicinal by interpretation. You think it is not helpful when high profile figures make sweeping statements on matters they are not qualified in but on the other hand these are DYING people here, so isn't the sharing of thoughts benefitial however unfounded. You yourself have criticised orthodox medicines, here I refer to your paper entitled 'Has Tamoxifen Had Its Day?', so wouldn't you agree that these so-called alternative therapies working in conjuction with so-called orthodox treatments should be given a chance? The body is evolved to metabolise natural compounds not sythesised drugs, so my point is shouldn't nature have a turn, at the very least to work in a complementary manner. I know very little on the matter but it seems to me that a) the pharmaceutical industry - chemotherapists and surgeons etc have a vested interest in preventing the spread of ideas and other cures and b) you've got one hell of a gripe with Charlie Boy! Being a youth I agree with you on the latter. But I probably know as much as you on the royal family and I wouldn't go as far as say that just because he made an opinion on medical science that he is patronised by the sycophants who surround him. Perhaps it is you who "may have overstepped the mark." (There's my politics coming out again) Also, you can't knock him because I really believe he wants to help. He's the president of the Foundation for intergrated Health and a campaigner for remedies for christ sake. At the end of the day he's looking forward and embraces change and chances in the hope of saving lives. I understand thats what you want to do as well, you probably get hundreds of desperate and heart-braking e.mails from victims of the 'Big Casino' wanting a shred of information just to inspire that bit of hope, God knows my Dad gets them. I only hope if his product works he again realises the miraculous nature of the job you have in common. Your in a very previliged position, the cancer sufferers hang on to your every statement, please don't rubbish my fathers work because he can prove it. Kindest Regards Robert Potter Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr.Bhalendu S Vaishnav, Addl. Professor,Department of Medicine P.S.Medical College, Karamsad,Gujarat, India.Pin 388325, Dr. Smruti B. Vaishnav ,Addl. Professor, Department of Obstretics And Gynecology, P.S.Medical College.
Send response to journal:
|
The raison d'eitre of all medical sciences throughout the history of the mankind has always been the same i.e. to relieve the human suffering and to bring about a positive state of well-being. Their approach, however, has been influenced by the then prevailing belief systems,amenities and the methodology of assessment of human disease states. Synthesis between allopathic medicine and alternative therapies can be arrived at, atleast fundamentally to begin with, by comparing 'em with different roads going atop the mountain.While no two roads may ever cross each other, they still share the journey upwards. Each medical science adderesses some aspect of human disease and in that particular field the others are not equal contendors.Allopathy is adept in handelling the physical dimensions.Many of the alternative therapeutic sciences adderss the psychosomatic,'sub-clinical',or 'subtle physical' dimansions of health and disease.Their measures of measurements are different and therefore cannot satisfy the criteria of modern medicine. The need is to identify a common denominator or an integrating principle of human health. Obviously this principle lies beyond all sciences. It encompasses all but is bound by none. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Abram Hoffer, Psychiatrist Victoria BC
Send response to journal:
|
The National Post, Friday, July 9, 2004 under the Headline " Prince scolded over coffee enema 'cure' wrote " A prestigious British medical journal has blasted Prince Charles over his support for controversial cancer treatments that include coffee enemas and copious amounts of carrot juice". More accurately it should have stated that it was Professor Michael Baum who blasted Prince Charles while your journal labeled it a Personal View thus publicly dissociating yourself from his views. Professor Baum is disturbed because he thinks that Prince Charles was "not exercising his power with extreme caution when advising patients with life threatening disease to embrace unproven therapies". He writes "I have always advocated the scientific evaluation of CAM? Using controlled trials". It puzzled me why he was so unhappy with Prince Charles's comments. According to the Sunday Observer, Prince Charles told the health care audience he knew of one patient who had been treated successfully and added that "rather than dismissing such experience, we should further investigate the beneficial nature of these treatments. If Prince Charles is correctly quoted he and Professor Baum are in perfect agreement that alternative cancer therapies should be properly tested with good controlled clinical trials. Prince Charles did not recommend that patients seek out the Gerson treatment. He said we should further investigate such experiences. The main different appears to be that Prince Charles would like to see these trials conducted sooner rather than later and Professor Baum is content never to do them for he expects the alternative practitioners to conduct them even though they have no resources, no institutes, no research grants, and no time to conduct these trials. I think Professor Baum would be in a much stronger position if he were to use his influence to initiate these trials. Is this a this another case of Royalty to the rescue. Sir Thomas Sydenham Md(1), (1624 to 1689) was confronted with small pox. In 1667 1196 died and 1468 the following year in London with a population of only 500,000. Dr Sydenham observed that the death rate from small pox was much higher when the patients fever was increased. This was the standard treatment of that day. He wrote "By such means greater slaughters are committed and more havocke made of mankinde every yeare than hath bin made in any age by the sword of the fiercest and most bloody tyrant that the world ever produced". Dr Sydenham allowed his patients to stay out of bed for four days after the onset of the fever, allowed them liberal fluids, particularly small beer, a few bedclothes and in a few cases of youths, bleeding. His treatment was designed to keep the fever down. This was a new idea in medicine. The medical profession did not particularly like what Dr Sydenham was doing since it went against theory and practice going back nearly 1500 years. He was challenged to a duel. He had been Lieutenant in Oliver Cromwell's army. The medical association threatened him with loss of his licence. Had the double blind randomized prospective methods been known they would have demanded that. Dr Sydenham appealed to the first Earl of Shaftesbury in 1669 where he described the controversy, his data and the results he was getting. I like his sentence" It fares not always soe well with Truth and Right as not to need a patronage, new truths especially such as stand in the way of received maxims and general practice, and like trees sprouting up in the middle of the beaten road. which however useful or pleasant is not fenced while they are young and defended till they are growne too sturdy for common injury, are sure to be tramped on in the bud and to be trod into dust and forgetfulness". (1) Dewhurst, K. Dr. Thomas Sydenham (1624 - 1689) Jarold & Sons Ltd. Norwich, 1966 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joseph . C . Obi, Professor Of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Research ; School Of Natural Medicine , Larnarca , Cyprus , European Union .
Send response to journal:
|
I hereby fully support the highly outstanding efforts of HRH Prince Charles to publicly raise the basic profile of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in the United Kingdom. However, it is my personal opinion that the Prince Of Wales may not actually be highlighting those exceedingly successful aspects of Complementary and Alternative Medicine which have consistently been scientifically proven to be almost as beneficial as their Orthodox Counterparts. I therefore warmly invite Prince Charles (at his own Royal Leisure) to humbly visit the website of the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) at http://www.acam.org , to get up-to-date information about our various Academic Conferences and Workshops; as these would certainly assist him (and many others) to do much more good for 'Holistic Specialties' at large. Our Future King may also wish to humbly appoint one or two ACAM Members to constantly advise him from time to time , on precisely what NOT to say about certain exceedingly explosive issues relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. I for one, can gleefully provide him with free tuition and guidance via e-mail , without any ostentatious charges , 24 hours a day : All he just needs to do is simply make contact. May I finally (respectfully) call upon Professor Baum to henceforth 'Pick On Someone His Own Clinical Size' ; and duly channel much more of his 'Academic Energies' into the 'Miraculous Use' of Simple 'Non- Prescription' CAM Therapies ...like Lycopene in Advanced Metastatic Prostate Cancer....and Padma in Occlusive Peripheral Vascular Disease. There is (most certainly) much more to Complementary and Alternative Medicine than 'Carrot Juice' and 'Coffee Enemas'. Competing interests: Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi MBBS MD MPH DSc FRIPH FACAM is also the Chairman of the General Wellness Assembly (GWA); an International Professional Body for Independent Wellness Consultants . He humbly invented the 'Omnipill'. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I think Prof. Baum's intolerance of the deliberations and opinions of the Prince of Wales are testament to the bigotry Prof Baum has exhibited for many years where alternative and complementary methods are concerned. It came as no suprise that he should be the one chosen to express said outrage, or that there would be any number of a vocal minority of medics who would support his display of outrageous bigotry. Regards John H. Competing interests: I am a practitioner of Traditional Chinese Medicine - acupuncture & moxibustion |
|||
|
|
|||
|
G.A. Bates, ex-social worker and retired teacher Leicester, England, UK
Send response to journal:
|
Michael Baum's "chastisement" of Prince Charles needs to be challenged for no other reason than he is wrong to suggest alternative medicine is the result of inferior thought and lacking in scientific credentials. Laying the groundwork for his argument Baum puts great play on the 'new skills' learnt by doctors in the last 20 years including "epistemology .. the nature of proof.". Baum then goes on to give a very brief account of modern scientific method (what is in fact Popperian falsificationism) which is at the root of so-called 'null hypothesis methodology' the cornerstone of modern statistics employed by scientific research. OK. So far so good. Then he states: " You [Prince Charles] promote the Gerson diet whose only support comes from inductive logic-that is, anecdote. .. " and .. ".. I do beg you to exercise your power with extreme caution when advising patients with life threatening diseases to embrace unproven therapies. " Braun then proceeds to differentiate between the more simplistic inductive process, and falsificationism (or refutation) on which modern research is built. It is textbook stuff alright. Just one thing Michael Baum forgets - all primary knowledge is based on anecdotal experience. We naturally 'associate the positive' in our experience. To characteristically or habitually 'deny the negative' (this would be 'refutation of the null hypothesis' in Popperian terms) is virtually impossible because we are 'creatures of contact' and not abstract entities. The schemata of formal reasoning arrive much later in life and even then we communicate our experience in terms of affirmation, rather than denial. This is quite evident in the syntax of language: even the language that Baum uses: " If their [CAM] proponents lack the courage of their convictions to have their pet remedies subjected to the hazards of refutation then they are the bigots who will forever be condemned to practise on the fringe. " The juxtaposition of positives: IF <conditional statement / cause> THEN <conclusion / effect> makes intuitive sense to all regardless of mathematical ability or inherent truth - there is no better way to express an IDEA, but this is not refutation - it is affirmation. How then, does this phenomenology of experience and communication relate to medicine and epistemology? Simply this: Our knowledge, intuition and feeling about the world from the moment we begin to experience it is based on a substrate of proof by association, not denial by refutation. In this way, the 'methodology of the anecdote' serves as a vital link between the solipsism of the womb (extreme relativism) and the archaic world paradigms that have survived the vicissitudes of time and modern science to give us a great wealth of viable alternative and traditional medicines. Popper himself went to great lengths to make the point that falsificationism has a limited context and to apply the notion incorrectly leads to a fragmentation of knowledge [1]. I hope this brief exposition will stimulate Michael Baum and others in the mainstream of medicine to consider the merits of alternative medical paradigms per se, rather than attempting a transplant into the unnatural surroundings of a controlled trial that is bound to suffer either rejection or total suppression. This does not imply a return to witchcraft or spiritism (indeed traditional chinese medicine - TCM - rejected that path thousands of years ago in the Nei Jing, a famous text of antiquity). Rather we should understand the 'methodology of the anecdote' as a kind of time-conditioned (dare I say dialectic-historic) filtering of evidence that the laboratory is incapable of reproducing. I'd say respectfully to Michael Baum that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and ask him not to forget where Popper's falsificationism originates - in a sound scepticism of the pretentious, both ancient and modern [2]. Let us applaud Prince Charles for fighting the corner for CAM. Thank you Sir! We owe you a great debt for helping to keep alive these ancient treasures in a throwaway world. Yours faithfully, Mr. G.A. "Sammy" Bates www.prostateman.org 1. "The fact that most of the sources of our knowledge are traditional condemns anti-traditionalism as futile. ..... without tradition, knowledge would be impossible" Karl R. Popper: Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge 1963. ISBN 0-415-28594-1. p. 28 2. "For the simple truth is that truth is very often hard to come by, and that once found it may easily be lost again. Erroneous beliefs may have an astonishing power to survive, for thousands of years, in defiance of experience, with or without the aid of conspiracy. The history of science, and especially of medicine, could furnish us with a number of good examples." Karl R. Popper, from his lecture "On the Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance" first delivered before the British Academy in 1960. Proc Br Ac 46. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
M C Feliciello, n/a Leeds
Send response to journal:
|
I’d like to focus on the word “Complementary” here, not the phrase “Mutually Exclusive” I don't believe the Prince of Wales to advocate the abandonment of reason? Adequate and balanced nutrition is an acknowledged prerequisite of good health, but dietary elements have a role in healing too.We know relatively little about the active phytochemical components in our diet, even the humble carrot (1) Are we so ready to dismiss potentially untapped and abundant resources? Good research can be conducted on CAM (2)and will hopefully meet the territorial requirements of the most entrenched sceptic, but who will rush to fund THAT kind of research? Has anyone applied for the patent (3) on Carrots yet? (1) Health promoting chemicals in vegetables and fruit Lars P Christensen, Dept of Food Science, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences http://www.bioteamsouth.dk/download/Bioactives_DJF.pdf (2)Complementary and Alternative Medicine, When Rigorous, can be Science Edwin L. Cooper eCAM 2004 1(1):1-4; doi:10.1093/ecam/neh002 http://www.ecam.oupjournals.org/ (3)Associated Press GlaxoSmithKline Settles Augmentin Suit http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2004/07/08/ap1448595.html Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich, Private Practice Bribie Island, Australia 4507
Send response to journal:
|
"....I was the only one of my colleagues unequivocally to register dissent....", methinks is hardly an accomplishment. Scolding Prince Charles for "promoting unproven cures for cancer" doesn't appear to be very constructive either. "The paper invited me to respond " . Well, Professor Baum, your comments invited me to respond to you, so you may, if you wish, consider this an open letter to you. Your response appears to me somewhat of a tirade, with just a judicious amount of arrogant confidence mixed in to stop short of offending.Your response does little to help the situation about which you are so concerned . "Over the past 20 years I have treated thousands of patients with cancer and lost some dear friends and relatives ....to this dreaded disease." This, semi-subliminally, gives the impression that you treated thousands and lost a few. The reality, however, would be that you most certainly lost thousands. You state that Prince Charles's "power and authority rest on an accident of birth ". This is a strange comment as I would have thought that the Prince, by now, is standing on his own feet, royal or not. You warn of the dangerous advice the Prince gives to patients with life- threatening diseases and you urge people not to "embrace unproven therapies". Well, what is a patient to do? Does (s)he 'embrace' conventional cancer therapy even at the risk that the embrace might turn into a lethal one? The undercurrent of your letter is, to me, bordering on insulting Prince Charles although you will probably be given the royal benefit of a doubt. About coffee enemas and carrot juice. This has such a hilarious ring to it but that is undoubtedly the intent. "Slash, burn and poison" would be an answer for the tabloids to consider. More seriously, the 30% alleged fall in breast cancer mortality since 1984 reminds me of the recent statement (also from Great Britain) of a significant decrease in overall cancer mortality and of the American Heart Association's oft-repeated propaganda for a drastic improvement on that front. Both were proven false and both had agendas. No, Professor, if you are trying to give the impression that the "WAR ON CANCER" is being won I am afraid that very few people would take you seriously. You challenge Alternative Medicine to present scientific evaluation but the tone of your letter clearly conveys that you would be the last person to move a finger to bring this about. Should a thorough testing of alternative methods not be MANDATORY ? After all, if this eventuated it could prove you right. The words of condemnation for Alternative Medicine come easy to you. You predict that "these bigots will be condemned to practise on the fringe". After a good look at the numbers I wouldn't be so sure about that. When you talk about SCIENCE and MEDICINE you may not be thinking about your track record concerning cancer but, as you must know, I am not alone in the conviction that there is little difference in cancer outcomes between 1974 and 2004; in fact the record is dismal! Dr. Max Gerson was no quack. Coffee enemas were not his invention, they were part of the "science of medicine". Yet you manage to make it sound as if Gerson were a member of the lunatic fringe. Issels, Livingstone-Wheeler, Cilento, even Hoxsey and many others were hounded, ridiculed and jailed, not because they were asking or coercing their patients to 'embrace unproven therapies', but because they were a threat. Pardon me for not taking the altruistic concern of the Medical Establishment for the welfare of their patients seriously in this context. There is far too much evidence to the contrary. Rather than castigating His Royal Highness for openly supporting alternative therapies it would have been significantly more productive if you had praised his efforts and asked him to join you in a no-holds- barred expedition into the innermost depths of Alternative Medicine. That, if you are not afraid of it (and as a loyal subject) would be the only logical road to march on. Condemnation without investigation - how does that fit in with your epistemology? You dismiss cures by Alternative Methods out of hand. Never happened, you say. But you may want to consider that even small untruths will eventually erode your credibility. Dr. Albert Schweitzer called Dr. Max Gerson a 'medical genius'. He praised him for his work and for his cures in hopeless cancer patients. I, for one wish to applaud Prince Charles for coming to the aid of the commoners by pointing out alternative roads that may be fit to travel on and may even be a better option at times. Rather than scold and lecture the Prince it would have been much better had you supported him for the good of mankind. But you wouldn't think of that, would you? That would take another Albert Schweitzer. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Steve A Hawkins, none none
Send response to journal:
|
(Ed: I first read an account of Prof Baum's letter via the NetDoctor' newsletter and tried to e-mail the comment below to him at UCL, but as the mail was 'bounced' and he does not seem to be listed on their server or the college directory, I wonder if you could either include it in your feedback, or pass it on for me. Thank you, SteveH) Dear Prof Baum, I have just read an account - via the NetDoctor service - of your castigation of Prince Charles' support for 'alternative therapy'. Whilst I hold no brief for the quacks in any branch of medicine, and have lost friends who followed 'alternative' therapies, I feel that, though I agree with much of what you say when it comes to the special case of cancer treatment, you are in many cases, wrong about the reasons people 'choose' the 'alternative'. You are quoted as saying: "There is this peculiar idea of a conspiracy in orthodox medicine that doctors want to deny their patients effective treatment. I don't know of any doctor who would not use a treatment that worked." This statement itself goes some way to explaining the 'peculiar idea': 'orthodox medicine' is only interested in 'orthodox' illnesses and diseases - which are, those from which drug companies can make the most profit from 'treatment' (There is a wealth of evidence of which I am sure you are aware.). As a result of this bias the word 'cure' has all but vanished from the medical literature, and those of us who have the misfortune to: suffer from 'unorthodox' illnesses; live in an 'unorthodox' part of the world - from which no profit is to be made; or who actually want to be cured rather than turned into life long addicts and cash cows for the drug companies, have NO alternative but to do nothing, or take the lesser, but, very expensive risk, of entrusting ourselves to the 'alternative' quacks. As someone who has been robbed of the enjoyment and productiveness of my middle years and sees little prospect of any positive change in the future, and who has never had any money to spend on 'treatments' of either kind, I am well placed to see the shortcomings on both sides of the Curate's Egg that is modern medicine, orthodox or alternative: both are 'good in parts'; both are effectively emasculated as a result of the very real conspiracy that is the profit motive. The result of this is that, for vast numbers of suffering people, doctors simply do not and cannot 'use a treatment that works', because under this system there is not and cannot be one, and their desperate charges are left to fend for themselves among the shark infested waters of 'alternative medicine'. Apparently it is not within the powers or inclinations of governments to insist on proper medical research that leads to cures rather than patents and profits, but, until this happens, there will always be a huge market for any would be 'alternative' manufacturer to exploit. It is a shame that you chose to apply your critical eloquence to an unfortunate effect rather than the cause that drives people to the 'alternatives'. Sincerely, Steve Hawkins Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andrew N Bamji, Consultant (rheumatology/rehabilitation) Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup, Kent DA14 6LT
Send response to journal:
|
Bravo, Professor, for saying what others do not even dare to think! However, the media have their part to play in this, for if they reported responsibly it is you who would get the four pages and the Prince of Wales less than one. I note that a number of Rapid Responses have commented that the Prince was calling for research to be done on some of these things - and that is vital if we are not always to be embroiled in arguments setting science against anecdote (as, indeed, a number of respondents have done). However the Royal Family does itself no favours by espousing offbeat causes. One could, of course, argue that the Prime Minister's family may not be so far behind... Personally I would like all columns about “alternative” remedies (that in the “Sunday Times” supplement particularly incenses me with its hearsay and flim-flam) to have a health warning prominently displayed at the top. There is abundant evidence (apparently, to be fair, reasonably well reported) that some "alternative" remedies may interact to fatal effect with drugs; there is good evidence also that some herbal preparations are heavily contaminated with steroids, paracetamol and other substances; and evidence also of direct harm (for example, the substitution of Aristolochia for another herb of similar Chinese name, resulting in an epidemic of renal failure, and renal cancer, in Belgium). Competing interests: My son has recently completed a course of chemotherapy for cancer |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Geoffrey C Rivett, historian, retired medical civil servant 173 Shakespeare Tower, Barbican, London EC2Y 8DR
Send response to journal:
|
In the archives of the King's Fund (A/KE/569/8) reposes the "Lister Letter" written in 1897. Lister was asked to give his views on how the money of the Prince of Wales' Fund, now the King's Fund, should be distributed. He wrote that a great problem would be to decide which hospitals were run on a sound professional basis. He referred to hospitals that prescribed red electricity or green electricity. He thought that an authoritative group of advisers was necessary - but that was not what Edward, the then Prince of Wales had in mind. Nevertheless the Fund did behave with probity and took heed of its visitors remarks. Perhaps it is time that the Lister letter was disinterred. author: The development of the London Hospital System, 1823-1982 (King's Fund, 1986) Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Briffa, Doctor and Writer London
Send response to journal:
|
Professor Baum pulls no punches in his criticism of the Prince of Wales’ support of complementary cancer treatments. The crux of his argument seems to be that the Prince of Wales should not be advising individuals to embrace ‘unproven’ therapies. The Profressor seems to take particular exception to the Prince of Wales’ recent show of support for the so-called Gerson therapy - a cancer treatment based on vegetable juices and coffee enemas. The Gerson therapy is unproven, in that it has not been subjected to systematic study. Whether it is of broad benefit to cancer patients is simply not known. Was it so wrong for the The Prince of Wales to call for more study in this area? But, even before the evidence is in, Profressor Baum seems to dismisses nutritional therapy out-of-hand, and describes the experience of cancer sufferers who are apparently cured by it as an ‘urban myth’. I respectfully remind Profressor Baum that that, as far as the potential benefits of a treatment are concerned, absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence. It appears as though Professor’s Baum’s views on naturally-oriented cancer therapies are based not on scientific objectivity (as he seems to assert), but prejudice. It is perhaps somewhat ironic that, in his letter, he indirectly cautions the Prince of Wales about letting his personal beliefs prejudice his advice. A strong subtext in Profressor Baum’s letter is the notion that conventional cancer treatments are based on sound scientific ground. But is this really so? Chemotherapy is often recommended for several types of cancer for which there is no clear evidence of benefit. Currently, cancer affects about one in three of the population, and kills one in four. These bald statistics mean that the great majority of individuals diagnosed will cancer will die from it. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of conventional cancer therapy. In a television interview Professor Baum expressed the opionion that natural treatments for cancer are potentially harmful and may reduce the quality of life. Of course this is true, but one wonders how the risks of drinking vegetable juice and having coffee enemas compare to those of conventional therapies. Profressor Baum, of all people, should know that treatment with chemotherapy is generally no stroll in the park. Surgery and radiotherapy are not without real hazard either. Conventional cancer therapies may have important detrimental effects on morbidity and mortality. The dawn of the information age and a rising desire for self- empowerment means thatm like it or not, individuals are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about the principles, practice and politics of medicine. And more and more, it seems, they are growing cautious of conventional medicine and ‘expert’ opinion. I suspect Professor Baum’s views will do little to restore people’s faith in these things. Sri Varman congratulates the Professor on having the courage to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. Perhaps Mr Varman might like to clarify which Emperor he is referring to? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Luke Devey, Research Fellow University of Edinburgh
Send response to journal:
|
Writing as a doctor struggling to learn the art of molecular biology (through which doctors and scientists seek to understand illnesses and develop new treatments), I can attest to the huge complexity of the subject. Science is difficult. Science requires great effort on the part of those who wish to understand it. Because it is so difficult, I fully understand the human temptation to seek understanding of the world's mysteries in a more intuitive, simpler way. Alas, such oversimplifications only reveal mirages. Medical science, like all technologies relies on the cold analysis of hard data: would we have mobile phones and spaceships if our physicists had ignored the facts in front of them? In contrast with professional scientists, most of us, the prince and his defenders included, do not have the ability, training, skills or years of effort to fully understand the complexities of science. Contradiction of scientific research, without the foundation of extensive scientific education is prejudiced folly. Arrogant are those, whoever they are, who discount the lengthy application of powerful scientific brains, because they are unable to understand the complexities of the subject. Facts are facts, however hard to grasp. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Carl Thomson, Retired NHS Consultant Formerly West Cumberland Hospital, CA28 8JG
Send response to journal:
|
We should, as a profession, be behind Prof. Baum's sentiments. If conventional medicine is to be disciplined by sound, statistical evidence of cost benefit, then complimentary measures, I refuse at present to call them medicine, should be similarly validated. Those who wish to make a living selling it should be licensed and reqired to furnish the evidence of effectiveness before public money is used to provide the complimentary measures. Certainly, soothing sick patients to make them feel generally better or less anxious is a full part of orthodox medicine we should all continue to apply, but we need to differentiate between what is curative and what is simply soothing. Even if I have nothing more wrong with me than an unexpected tax bill, I reckon that a gentle massage by an attractive attendant in a warm, pleasant-smelling environment with relaxing music is going to make me tick the 'feel better' box - at least for a while. We need to be clear about this aspect to decide how our tax dollars are spent, otherwise, it is like asking who is for free beer for the workers. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Neville W Goodman, Consultant Anaesthetist Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB
Send response to journal:
|
Many of the newspapers reported Professor Baum's open letter, with which I completely agree. But in the same issues of many of those newspapers there appeared photographs of Gwyneth Paltrow, freshly sporting evidence of a recent moxibustion session. Just as Prince Charles had more space in the newspapers than did Professor Baum, so Gwyneth Paltrow did also. As another e-correspondent has commented, we have an uphill struggle if the media report uncritically on unproven but fashionable therapies. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr. Naseem A. Qureshi MD, IMAPA, LMIPS, Locum Psychiatrist Postcode:64399, SBAHC, Riyadh, KSA
Send response to journal:
|
Sir: His highness, Prince Charles is a well known campaigner for the advancement of Complementary and Alternative Medicine [CAM], which has currently received international back-up for scientific research and practice. Indeed, WHO is supportive of CAM. Consequently, even other international medical organizations have earmarked substantial funds for testing the value of alternative medicines in various medical diseases, treatable and untreatable. Prof. Baum's letter openly criticizes not only the ever increasing research interest of medical personnel in alternative medications but also supporters of CAM campaign including Prince of Wales, which does n't do any justice. Dr.Baum must disclose his competing interests, which might have guided him to write such a skeptical letter to Prince of Wales and about CAM in particular. It is strongly hoped that CAM will flourish in future and take the major, leading role in alleviating the pains of those patients with (in)curable diseases without developing any untowards complications, which are most common with modern medicines. Reference: Michael Baum. An open letter to the Prince of Wales: with respect, your highness, you've got it wrong.BMJ 2004; 329: 118. Competing interests: CAM Campaigner |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paul A Taylor, Health campaigner Darlington DL3 7SX
Send response to journal:
|
In fact there is plenty of evidence that natural therapies, or Orthomolecular Medicine as it is more properly known, are effective in the treatment of cancer. Indeed, the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine http://www.orthomed.org/jom/jom.htm publishes peer-reviewed research of this kind on a regular basis, and has been doing so continually for 36 years now. Either science is objective, in which case it considers ALL of the available research, or it is not, in which case it considers only that research which the likes of Prof. Baum consider to fall into his own particular belief-systems. I proffer therefore that some science is not considered politically correct, and that our healthcare systems and scientific establishments are therefore clearly in need of a radical overhall. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rev Dr Michael Ellner, President HEAL, (Health Education AIDS Liaison-NYC) New York, 10113
Send response to journal:
|
Prince Charles is right to exercise his basic human right and responsibility to question, challenge and, when necessary, FIRE his doctor. Take heed England, the Journal of the American Medical Association acknowledged that modern medicine is the third leading cause of death in America. Most conventional medical treatments are not helping the majority of people taking them most of the time. Many Americans are seriously harmed by Dr. Baum’s "proven treatments”, and over 200,000 a year are outright killed by them! (JAMA. 2000; 284: 483-485). The good news is that millions of people around the world are waking up and smelling the herbal teas; many are doing their own research, firing their doctors and taking charge of their lives and health. It is obviously long past time to hold the practice of medicine to the same scientific standards that Professor Baum insists is lacking for alternative health care. Rev. Dr. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Robert I. Rudolph, M.D., FACP, Clinical Professor of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA 1134 Penn Avenue, Wyomissing, PA19610 USA
Send response to journal:
|
At the risk of having myself eviscerated (since I am an American and have no experience with "Royals") I must admit that the letter to Prince Charles, and the retorts anent it, make for entertaining reading and theater. I won't detail my own views regarding the medical science (or lack thereof) expressed in the original letter, or the Prince's statements which prompted it, or the numerous rebuttals, but will simply ask: "Who cares at all - or should care at all- what he said about this matter"? The Prince should have, in my opinion and in this context, been given the same reception as Sean Penn (a very prominent US actor) received when expressing his political views here in the USA. Both nabobs are certainly entitled to speak their piece, but their comments are, to my mind, utterly meaningless and irrelevant, and should carry no weight. Their amateurish statements should not have been exalted or elevated with great whoopings and shoutings by anyone, much less us professionals. I would hope that the intelligent citizen of each country has been able to recognize the comments for what they were, and has not clutched them to their bosoms as gospel. If not, then these acolytes deserve whatever they get. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Croft Woodruff, health researcher, journalist, broadcaster 6262A Fraser Street, Vancouver BC, V5W 3A1 [604] 327 3889
Send response to journal:
|
Prince Charles' recognition of the Gerson Therapy as having value as a cancer treatmentc certainly has the U.K. cancer establishment setting its hair on fire while personally attacking the prince. What is laughable is the fact Dr. Nicholas Gonzales of New York recently received a grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health [NIH] to fund a large clinical trial using nutritional therapy to treat cancer. The grant was given in light of the fact that Dr. Gonzales has a demonstrably successful track record in the nutritional management of cancer. Of course the old boy network (or is it nitwits?) in the cancer establishment attacked NIH for giving th | |||