Acupuncture and other traditional Chinese medicine news and discussion thread

https://twitter.com/user/status/1750906463038394867

 

EDITED AS I'D MULCHED TWO COMMENTS TOGETHER BY ACCIDENT:

"the show included "unfounded" claims"

talk about disingenuous.

What is "unfounded" about the claims that had no foundation? at all

 

At least two NHS Trusts are offering ear seeds for chronic pain (as part of the patient's management programme) and sleep disturbance, despite the paucity of published studies on efficacy:


Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust:

https://www.kentcht.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Acupuncture-Auriculotherapy-00460-LIB.pdf

"...Earseeds are sometimes used by our Chronic Pain Service to prolong the effects of standard acupuncture treatments and may help some patients to self manage their chronic pain.

"How can I get the most out my treatment with earseeds?

It is recommended that the earseeds are massaged two to three times a day or when symptoms occur by applying gentle pressure to the earseeds and massaging in small circles.

Will using earseeds cure my chronic pain?

As with any treatment, earseeds are not a cure but they can reduce pain levels for some patients as part of their chronic pain management programme..."



The Christie NHS Foundation Trust:

https://www.christie.nhs.uk/media/usybshpk/1456-sleeping-with-ease-comp-may-2021.pdf

"...Acupressure consists of physically touching, and applying gentle stimulation/pressure to an acupressure point. Although acupressure can be implemented by a health professional, you can also stimulate it on your own, with or without using an acu-seed.

Acu-seeds have a small 2mm Vaccaria plant seed that is attached to a tape/plaster.

Below is a step by step guide how to do self-acupressure..."

 

I'm bored of the fact the people in the country with the least energy are having to have their time wasted by one of the most pathetic things I've seen of recent times. When the real predators like MIller are out and about to really push advice and misinformation that will foreseeably harm more people with what they've caused harm they've had reported to them before - and that does matter. So is this deliberate distraction - that as long as it is for ME then we also don't deserve acknowledgement of basic respect that you can't make false claims on your programme and when you do then as with anything else you have to make good on it and admit what you've done?

The rest of my post is from a non-ME, business perspective as to what I'd see when I saw this snivelling:

Whoever is running this deserves no respect, including from themselves - if you can't be responsible, answerable and accountable for what you produce and be objective in self-assessment of errors. You wouldn't even get away with this on any other channel and the BBC has bigger obligations for good reason. If they 'don't understand the issue' they shouldn't 'be in the job'.

There is a big difference between a crappy product with accurate information about it that people who fancy wasting their money on a e.g. chocolate teapot can choose to do so on the basis of knowing it won't hold much tea because it is made of chocolate.

If said show is allowing the founder to claim the teapot doesn't melt when it does [EDIT: even if that is merely by virtue of some magical personal anecdote that pretends to skirt that claim whilst strongly inferring it], and nowhere is it questioned through 6months of due diligence and a TV programme where supposedly a business process would operate as normal (and therefore check such claims) then it has allowed someone to tell a lie on tv ie 'false claims'. And all that machinery the BBC claims surrounds the programme has enabled that by pretending 'due process' has picked up on nothing, when said process either didn't exist or failed.

Hence their poor response is even worse than their (not one-off given the 6months to do checks) initial programme in the first place.

Endorsing is sidestepping the issue they've been written to with, even though they basically did anyway. But it is is rude to not reply directly to someone's complaint, but answer something you'd prefer instead.

All that used to be 'covered' by the Dragons - who now seem to have been choreographed by someone else not to. So you can't use that same caveat. It doesn't show what normal investors would do at all. SO it needs to clearly look at a whole new introduction and description of the programme to say 'it's fake' basically as it no longer even mimics a serious process.

In its previous incarnation - where the Dragons would normally ask for evidence of any claims - they could maybe hide behind that caveat but now they've done whatever they've decided to do where noone asks questions a normal business person would have, and then they put large sums of their money supposedly behind it and whilst the show claims it has 'due diligence' it doesn't check claims during said due diligence well... it needs to update on or the other of what they are doing. Either make a statement that the show no longer does any diligence and the business people no longer act like business people would or actually do those things.

PS if it is the former then it needs to question whether it has become an advertising show, because it no longer is showing the 'investing or business process' it claims. Just the claims made by the unchecked spiel they allowed however many minutes for it to be shown - what else is that other than advertising where they allow people x minutes to pitch unchecked to the viewing audience? Are there different regulations for that for a reason? CHoreographing 5 dragons to give said spieler a metaphorical round of applause at the end of the speech isn't the same as being a business show now is it?

 

THat NHS website description constitutes bullying and propaganda for an agenda when you put it into the context of it knowing full well it provides an opportunity to spread misinformation and will cause harm and maltreatment of individuals by all those around them - it isn't like the writers are unaware they've just chosen to do it to each and every person and know that by Maslow's hierarchy of needs they are frustrating access to nearly everyone with ME and much more devastating symptoms and needs (and whispering behind their back 'they aren't that bad') by what it is doing.

I find the choices of those in charge of it to deliberately leave up such information in order to cause this for so many years after being constantly warned about foreseeable harm they are causing unforgivable and immoral.

If they wrote the same for a cancer website in an attempt to persuade people who somehow 'didn't know it was anything else' what would society be saying about those individuals? And it would be without doubt it was for the agenda of ensuring people with cancer were viewed differently by others than if the info were accurate and treated as instructed which would cause harm. So where is 'the debate' about what they've chosen to do here?
____________

Discussion of the NHS webpages on ME/CFS has been moved here.

 

Opinion: The BBC and Dragons’ Den have let down ME patients

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/bbc-dragons-den-let-down-me-patients-2875435

 

That article is fantastic. Here's one reader comment (rosiecox1)

 

Excellent article.
Well done Ellie Fry and the Mirror. Ellie notes in the article that her Mum has ME. The family member issue again.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1750957284899844454

 

"what? it cures an illness that medical science doesnt know where it comes from and cant effectively test for it. I'm not getting in the middle of whether its..... long pause.... you know, the illness itself but, back in my day...."

Oooo nicely side stepped Steve.... i'm betting you were going to say - 'not getting in the middle of whether its... real' Or something akin to that! The long pause gave you away.

But nevertheless the snake oil salesman comment is helpful thank you

 

The Times hard copy today, page 19
"Dragons' Den accused of failing to scrutinise pitches"

Proscience group " Good Thinking Society" believe that stars of the show are failing to protect vulnerable people and have written to Tim Davie. Complaints about spiritual healer Liam Browne as well as Giselle Boxer.
Is this going to affect interest in ME?



Online which has much more information. Sorry haven't read it all but I have concern whether the focus will stay on ME.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...or-claim-that-ear-seeds-can-cure-me-x27f3wqht

edit: also Psychic Sisters- none were scrutinised by BBC.
edit2: a phrase omitted

 

The episode is back up on the iPlayer, with the following message:

Haven't watched the edited version.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1751174044345418000

 

The Dragons Den video is still giving false hope to ME patients.

 

So by this logic, all the scammers out there for any disease can say their product is a cure, while also putting out a disclaimer that it is not intended as a cure and it is OK then? Is that really a reasoning the advertising authority would accept?...

 

Anyone else spot the irony of the closing credit?

 

I see she's inviting people to apply for an "Affiliate program" to earn 10% commission on sales:

https://acuseeds.goaffpro.com

And also sells a £599 course to become a "Certified Ear Seed Practitioner":

https://acuseeds.co.uk/pages/learn-1

"Certified" by whom?