Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;335:801 (20 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.39370.657130.59
Ben Goldacre, doctor and writer, London
ben@badscience.net
How doctors describe the many interactions between a person, their illness, and society has little purchase in the crudely dualistic world of popular culture
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Although we are constantly told to "engage with the public," many doctors and academics avoid the media like the plague. This month, like many doctors before me, I walked into a broadcast studio a man and came out an ass.
The story was acupuncture. A major study had been published showing that acupuncture is more effective for back pain than conventional medical treatment, and as I sometimes write about complementary medicine and research methodology I was invited to discuss the study on BBC Radio 4, where nobody can tell that I look about 14.
The very interesting paper (Archives of Internal Medicine 2007;167:1892-8) had three arms. Results from the "sham" and "real" acupuncture arms were indistinguishable—make of that what you will—but both outperformed conventional medical treatment. The patients in the study, I should mention, were people who had already been failed by conventional medical treatment for an average of
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses