Homeopathy, John Stossel (ABC's 20/20), and Junk Science

[Guest guest]

Forwarded from: mail

 

John Stossel and 20/20’s Program on Homeopathy:

Junk Science Creates Junk Journalism

 

In these days of reality TV, the integration of good scientific

experimentation with television could have turned the trivial nature

of most reality television programs into something more meaningful

and educational. However, “when John Stossel recently got involved

in a TV science experiment, he created ‘junk science’ and ‘junk

journalism,’” says Dana Ullman, who was interviewed by Stossel

for a segment on homeopathic medicine that was aired on 20/20.

 

On January 30, 2004, ABC News’ 20/20 program aired an eight-

minute segment on homeopathic medicine. The program began by

giving a list of numerous celebrities and British royalty who are

advocates of homeopathy. They then showed part of a promotion

for a homeopathic medicine for the flu, to which Dana Ullman noted

that there have been three large clinical studies verifying its

effectiveness (see references below).

 

The program also noted that there have been numerous other

studies that have shown homeopathy’s efficacy, but others that

have shown that it didn’t work.

 

After giving a short explanation for homeopathy, 20/20 then sought

to test homeopathic medicine using a laboratory experiment

conducted at a London hospital. This study was originally

supposed to be a replication of earlier studies that have

consistently shown statistically significant positive results for

homeopathy, that had been conducted at four different laboratories

and universities, and that have been published in several peer-

reviewed scientific journals.

 

However, the experiment that Stossel’s program created was

significantly different - and not just different, it was seriously flawed.

This new experiment used a chemical, ammonium chloride, that is

known to destroy the cells that the experiment was supposed to

count. The inclusion of this chemical was but one of numerous

serious problems with this “made for TV” experiment.

 

ABC News and 20/20 have not given any reason why the

experimenter in the London hospital chose to change the

experiment at all, let alone changing it so substantially. What is

particularly surprising and disturbing is that this experimenter wrote

an email to Dana Ullman asserting,”consensus between all parties

is essential when performing this experiment.” Yet, when he sought

to get consensus from Professor M. Ennis (one of the scientists

who had previously and successfully conducted this experiment

and who was the person that Stossel’s producer and Dana Ullman

agreed would be a consultant to the study), the 20/20 experimenter

was denied consensus based on his failure to follow the

experimental protocol as previously designed.

 

It is hard not to see a serious problem when an experiment was

changed, when approval for it was denied, and yet, the experiment

was conducted as though it was a valid test.

 

It should be noted that on February 4, 2000, John Stossel

produced a controversial program called “The Food You Eat” where

he claimed that “buying organic could kill you.” The program

asserted that organic food had been contaminated with E. coli (this

is a true but misleading assertion because most E. coli is

harmless) and, according to a study that ABC had supposedly

conducted, pesticide residue had not been found on either organic

or conventional produce. And yet, Ken Cook of the Environmental

Working Group in Washington offered hard evidence to ABC that

showed that the Stossel said existed were actually never

conducted.

 

Afterwards, ABC announced that Stossel would give a public

apology, and he did so live on 20/20 saying, “I said our tests found

no pesticide residues on either conventional or organic produce.

That was just wrong - I apologize for the error [and] am deeply

sorry I misled you. All we have in this business is our credibility ­

your trust that we get it right ­ I will make every effort to see that it

never happens again.”

 

For a detailed analysis of John Stossel’s reporting with an

explanation for why his reporting tends to be supportive of major

corporations, go to this article from The Nation.

 

Ironically, ABC’s 20/20 allowed John Stossel to air this segment on

his “Give Me a Break” series. Needless to say, we need to tell

John Stossel (the show’s co-anchor) to “give me a break!”

 

What Stossel got right:

 

** ABC’s 20/20 accurately showed Dana Ullman saying “there is a

body of evidence that shows homeopathy is effective,” and they

showed on-screen copies of the numerous studies that have been

published in leading medical journals. To be fair, it is also truthful to

say (as the 20/20 program did) that there have been numerous

studies that have not shown homeopathic medicines to be

successful. However, when scientists have reviewed the entire

body of clinical research and have published this research in the

prestigious medical journal “ The Lancet,” they concluded that

patients given a homeopathic medicine had a 2.45 times greater

chance of experiencing improvement in their health as compared

with patients given a placebo (see the reference by K. Linde and

others below).

 

** ABC’s 20/20 accurately showed Dana Ullman referring to three

large studies showing homeopathy is effective in treating influenza.

Because people are experiencing the flu in greater numbers this

year than in the recent past and because some people are even

dying from it, the evidence that homeopathic medicines can

effectively treat this common condition with such safe remedies

should not be ignored.

 

** ABC’s 20/20 accurately acknowledged that Dana Ullman

objected to the study that they had developed even BEFORE it

was started because they created their own different study that

was poorly designed due to its use of specific chemicals that are

known to kill the type of white blood cells that this experiment was

supposed to count.

 

** ABC’s 20/20 accurately acknowledged that one of the three

British homeopaths who observed the making of the homeopathic

medicine objected to the sloppiness of the laboratory procedures

BEFORE the study’s results were announced. Please note that

these three homeopaths only observed the making of the medicine.

They were not in attendance during the experiment itself, and none

of them nor ANY homeopathic researcher agreed to the misguided

protocol that was ultimately used in the 20/20 experiment.

 

What Stossel got wrong:

 

** ABC’s 20/20 provided misinformation about the small doses

used in homeopathy. Stossel asserted on air that the 6C potency

of a homeopathic medicine is equivalent to one drop in 50

swimming pools, that the 12C potency is like one drop in the entire

Atlantic Ocean, and that the 16C potency is like one drop in a

million earths. In actual fact, the total amount of water used to

make a 6C potency is around six test tubes (or around 6 ounces of

water). A 12C potency requires around 12 ounces of water.

Because 20/20 had a London hospital make up the16C of

Histamine, they knew that this pharmaceutical process only

required less than a quart of water (16 test tubes worth!). 20/20

seemingly and incorrectly assumed that each dilution required

“exponential” (100-fold) increases the size, when, in fact, it only

required repeated dilutions in a small test tube. (It seems that

20/20 is already so embarrassed by the statistics they gave, they

have already omitted reference in their transcripts of the 20/20

show to the 16C potency.)

 

** The 20/20 experiment used a chemical, Ammonium chloride,

that is known to destroy basophils, the type of white blood cell that

was under study. The experiment was designed to fail even before

any homeopathic medicine was administered. Because this

chemical was not used in any of the previous studies that have

been published in peer-review scientific journals, Dana Ullman was

absolutely correct in asserting that this study was “junk science”,

that the study should not have been conducted in this unscientific

manner, and that any results from this study are of no value.

 

** The 20/20 experiment also used a chemical called “foetal calf

serum” (the blood from a calf foetus). According to experts in

basophils and experts who had previously conducted this

experiment successfully, this chemical complex is not a

“recognized medium” for laboratory experiments of this sort, and its

effects on basophils are presently unknown. It should also be noted

that the experiment produced by 20/20 was created by an

employee at a London hospital who didn’t know the answers to

some simple questions about basophils when asked by Professor

Ennis. Also, to be done correctly, this experiment requires “clean”

basophils, and the use of foetal calf serum alters the binding

reactions of the basophils.

 

** The 20/20 experimenter left the blood containing basophils to be

collected to sit and sediment for 4 hours. It is known that basophils

are extremely fragile, thus, leaving them to sit for 4 hours disturbed

their viability and rendered them useless for scientific experimental

purposes.

 

What Stossel didn’t say:

 

** The original experiment that 20/20 had planned to conduct was

previously conducted in four separate laboratories in Europe,

including a laboratory at the Queen’s University of Belfast by a

professor of biochemistry who was previously a skeptic of

homeopathy. These laboratories conducted 3,674 tests (!), and

they found a substantial difference in the effects of potentized

histamine as compared with a placebo. To read this study, see:

Belon M, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Sainte-Laudy J,

Roberfroid M, Wiegant FAC. Inhibition of human basophil

degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a

European multi-centre trial. Inflammation Research 1999; 48: s17-

s18.

 

** After 20/20 acknowledged that Dana Ullman questioned the

protocol as considerably different, 20/20 said that their experts

described the experiment as “technically sound” and “meticulously

conducted”. 20/20 has yet to come forward with the names of

these experts. Dana Ullman seriously doubts that these “experts”

are knowledgeable about experiments with basophils. Just

because 20/20 used so-called “experts” does not mean that they

are experts on this subject.

 

** Although 20/20 asserted that the National Institutes of Health

considers some principles of homeopathy to run counter to the

apparent laws of physics and chemistry, there are many things in

nature that do not initially make rational sense but later prove to be

true. 20/20 was given specific reference to two studies recently

written about in the respected scientific magazine, The New

Scientist, which discussed new research in major physics and

chemistry journals testing homeopathic doses (to obtain these

articles, go to www.newscientist.com and search under the word

“homeopathy”). Further, although the “ nano-doses” used in

homeopathy may not be adequately understood and explained

using Newtonian physics, the new or quantum Einsteinian physics

is better able to help us comprehend, describe, and predict

extremely small (or extremely large) systems.

 

** 20/20 didn’t acknowledge that although we don’t know precisely

how homeopathic medicines work, we also do not presently know

how many common drugs work, including many used for

anesthesia in surgery. Certainly, no one suggests that these

valuable drugs be avoided just because we do not adequately

understand how they work.

 

** According to the World Health Organization, the most serious

public health problem in the world is childhood diarrhea, which

leads to millions of death as a result of dehydration. A leading

pediatric journal recently published a review of three double-blind

and placebo-controlled studies that have confirmed the efficacy of

homeopathic medicines in treating childhood diarrhea. Information

about this good clinical research might have been a lot more useful

than a seriously flawed laboratory study.

 

References:

 

K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., " Are the Clinical Effects

of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-

Controlled Trials, " Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. Even

critics have called this meta-analysis " completely state of the art. "

It reviews 186 studies, 89 of which fit pre-defined criteria for its

meta-analysis. Homeopathic medicines had a 2.45 times greater

effect than placebo.

 

J. Jacobs, WB Jonas, M Jimenez-Perez, D Crothers, Homeopathy

for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from

Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J,

2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly

significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008). It

should be noted that the World Health Organization consider

childhood diarrhea to be the number one public health problem

today because of the millions of children who die every year from

dehydration from diarrhea.

 

R. Papp, G. Schuback, E. Beck, et al., " Oscilloccinum in Patients

with Influenza-like Syndromes: A Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind

Evaluation, " British Homeopathic Journal, 87(April, 1998):69-76.

This study of 372 patients replicated an earlier trial of 487 patients.

Both trials found statistically significant results with

" Oscillococcinum " in the treatment of patients with influenza-like

syndromes. Earlier trial: JP Ferley, et al., A Controlled Evaluation

of a Homeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like

Syndrome, " British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, March,

1989,27:329-35.

 

For references to other research, see:

 

** “Homeopathic Family Medicine eBook: Homeopathic Family

Medicine” (an ebook available at www.homeopathic.com) by Dana

Ullman, MPH (this ebook provides a comprehensive and up-to-date

review of clinical research in homeopathy)

 

** Paolo Bellavite, MD, and Andrea Signorini, MD, The Emerging

Science of Homeopathy, Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2002

(this book provides an excellent overview of homeopathy in the light

of various clinical and laboratory studies and in light of recent

understanding in the medical and natural sciences.

 

Newest study: The highly respected journal, RHEUMATOLOGY,

published by the British Society of Rheumatology, just published

the below article on the homeopathic treatment of fibromyalgia. Not

only did these researchers find efficacy from homeopathic

medicines, they found significant changes in EEG readings from

those patients who were given the homeopathic medicines as

compared to those given a placebo.

 

Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with

individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo Bell IR, Lewis

II DA, Brooks AJ, Schwartz GE, Lewis SE, Walsh BT, Baldwin

CM.

 

To support getting this message out, please support:

The Foundation for Homeopathic Education and Research

2036 Blake St.

Berkeley, CA. 94704

(510)649-8930

All contributions are tax deductible

 

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

[Guest guest]

Phil-

thanks for your insight; John Stossel is a

right-wing apologist for every deep-pocketed group

that stumbles onto the scene. His shilling for big

business and medicine is mind-numbing and would almost

be entertaining if it weren't so depraved.

John G.

--- < wrote:

> Forwarded from: mail

>

> John Stossel and 20/20’s Program on Homeopathy:

> Junk Science Creates Junk Journalism

>

> In these days of reality TV, the integration of good

> scientific

> experimentation with television could have turned

> the trivial nature

> of most reality television programs into something

> more meaningful

> and educational. However, “when John Stossel

> recently got involved

> in a TV science experiment, he created ‘junk

> science’ and ‘junk

> journalism,’” says Dana Ullman, who was interviewed

> by Stossel

> for a segment on homeopathic medicine that was aired

> on 20/20.

>

> On January 30, 2004, ABC News’ 20/20 program aired

> an eight-

> minute segment on homeopathic medicine. The program

> began by

> giving a list of numerous celebrities and British

> royalty who are

> advocates of homeopathy. They then showed part of a

> promotion

> for a homeopathic medicine for the flu, to which

> Dana Ullman noted

> that there have been three large clinical studies

> verifying its

> effectiveness (see references below).

>

> The program also noted that there have been numerous

> other

> studies that have shown homeopathy’s efficacy, but

> others that

> have shown that it didn’t work.

>

> After giving a short explanation for homeopathy,

> 20/20 then sought

> to test homeopathic medicine using a laboratory

> experiment

> conducted at a London hospital. This study was

> originally

> supposed to be a replication of earlier studies that

> have

> consistently shown statistically significant

> positive results for

> homeopathy, that had been conducted at four

> different laboratories

> and universities, and that have been published in

> several peer-

> reviewed scientific journals.

>

> However, the experiment that Stossel’s program

> created was

> significantly different - and not just different, it

> was seriously flawed.

> This new experiment used a chemical, ammonium

> chloride, that is

> known to destroy the cells that the experiment was

> supposed to

> count. The inclusion of this chemical was but one of

> numerous

> serious problems with this “made for TV” experiment.

>

>

> ABC News and 20/20 have not given any reason why the

>

> experimenter in the London hospital chose to change

> the

> experiment at all, let alone changing it so

> substantially. What is

> particularly surprising and disturbing is that this

> experimenter wrote

> an email to Dana Ullman asserting,”consensus between

> all parties

> is essential when performing this experiment.” Yet,

> when he sought

> to get consensus from Professor M. Ennis (one of the

> scientists

> who had previously and successfully conducted this

> experiment

> and who was the person that Stossel’s producer and

> Dana Ullman

> agreed would be a consultant to the study), the

> 20/20 experimenter

> was denied consensus based on his failure to follow

> the

> experimental protocol as previously designed.

>

> It is hard not to see a serious problem when an

> experiment was

> changed, when approval for it was denied, and yet,

> the experiment

> was conducted as though it was a valid test.

>

> It should be noted that on February 4, 2000, John

> Stossel

> produced a controversial program called “The Food

> You Eat” where

> he claimed that “buying organic could kill you.” The

> program

> asserted that organic food had been contaminated

> with E. coli (this

> is a true but misleading assertion because most E.

> coli is

> harmless) and, according to a study that ABC had

> supposedly

> conducted, pesticide residue had not been found on

> either organic

> or conventional produce. And yet, Ken Cook of the

> Environmental

> Working Group in Washington offered hard evidence to

> ABC that

> showed that the Stossel said existed were actually

> never

> conducted.

>

> Afterwards, ABC announced that Stossel would give a

> public

> apology, and he did so live on 20/20 saying, “I said

> our tests found

> no pesticide residues on either conventional or

> organic produce.

> That was just wrong - I apologize for the error

> [and] am deeply

> sorry I misled you. All we have in this business is

> our credibility ­

> your trust that we get it right ­ I will make every

> effort to see that it

> never happens again.”

>

> For a detailed analysis of John Stossel’s reporting

> with an

> explanation for why his reporting tends to be

> supportive of major

> corporations, go to this article from The Nation.

>

> Ironically, ABC’s 20/20 allowed John Stossel to air

> this segment on

> his “Give Me a Break” series. Needless to say, we

> need to tell

> John Stossel (the show’s co-anchor) to “give me a

> break!”

>

> What Stossel got right:

>

> ** ABC’s 20/20 accurately showed Dana Ullman saying

> “there is a

> body of evidence that shows homeopathy is

> effective,” and they

> showed on-screen copies of the numerous studies that

> have been

> published in leading medical journals. To be fair,

> it is also truthful to

> say (as the 20/20 program did) that there have been

> numerous

> studies that have not shown homeopathic medicines to

> be

> successful. However, when scientists have reviewed

> the entire

> body of clinical research and have published this

> research in the

> prestigious medical journal “ The Lancet,” they

> concluded that

> patients given a homeopathic medicine had a 2.45

> times greater

> chance of experiencing improvement in their health

> as compared

> with patients given a placebo (see the reference by

> K. Linde and

> others below).

>

> ** ABC’s 20/20 accurately showed Dana Ullman

> referring to three

> large studies showing homeopathy is effective in

> treating influenza.

> Because people are experiencing the flu in greater

> numbers this

> year than in the recent past and because some people

> are even

> dying from it, the evidence that homeopathic

> medicines can

> effectively treat this common condition with such

> safe remedies

> should not be ignored.

>

> ** ABC’s 20/20 accurately acknowledged that Dana

> Ullman

> objected to the study that they had developed even

> BEFORE it

> was started because they created their own different

> study that

> was poorly designed due to its use of specific

> chemicals that are

> known to kill the type of white blood cells that

> this experiment was

> supposed to count.

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html