The College of Medicine
BMJ 2011; 342 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d3712 (Published 15 June 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:d3712All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
There is not the slightest doubt that the "College of Medicine" is simply a reincarnation of the late unlamented Prince's Foundation.
Like its antecedent, its aim is to promote bad science and ineffective treatments, by use of words like "integrated" which sound good but have many meanings. In their case it means integrating things that don't work with things that do.
One has to admit that it's been done quite cleverly, By recruiting people like Graeme Catto and Ian Kennedy they have given themselves a veneer of respectability that the Prince's Foundation lacked. Both I and Simon Singh have talked to Catto about the problem. It is obvious that he's well meaning, but, in my view he has been taken in by the word play around "integrated". I think he believes that he can turn the "College of Medicine" into something more respectable. In that I wish him luck. but you only have to look at their activities so far to realise that thus far he hasn't had much success yet.
In the absence of evidence (and funds), the College seems to rely on celebrity endorsements, as described by Cassidy. They are all too often the hallmark of quackery. Just look at the harm celebrities have done in the case of MMR.
Luckily I imagine that the readers of the BMJ will not wish to have medical decisions made for them by pop stars.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Is it possible that the new college is being deliberately ambiguous
about the term integrative health?
I would be interested to meet any doctor who would not support the
underlying 'philosophy of taking into account patients' beliefs and
personal circumstances and helping patients look after their own health.'
Of course this fundamental principle of good medicine needs nurturing and
encouraging at every opportunity.
The college, however, seems to interpret this 'philosophy' to mean
the promotion of unproven complementary therapies.
These are very different agendas and should not be confused. All good
doctors should support the first and reject the second. If this college
appears to be an attempt to smuggle in the second under the guise of the
first then good doctors should be very wary indeed.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The fund-raising activities of the rather portentously-named College
of Medicine will no doubt make for an entertaining if not edifying
spectacle. It was probably not very difficult to engage celebrities to
lend the weight which the evidence for integrative medicine so sorely
lacks. Why is any of this necessary? If unorthodox ideas in medicine have
any merit, they will naturally accumulate evidence until they become
conventional. Sadly the reverse seems to be happening more often, as the
science gets better. Yet the opinion of the actor Jeremy Irons on the
`incredible effects' of alternative treatments for cancer in children is
presented in the BMJ as something we should consider. Nowhere in the
article is anything said about rigorously testing these claims. Surely
that is what this college should be supporting above all else?
But more tragic than the rock stars and suchlike who are flocking to
support this self styled college, are the hitherto eminent people of
medicine who lend their names to it. I am not taking bets on how long it
will take to become a Royal College.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The new College of Medicine promotes itself by claiming that modern
medicine has lost its way and only they retain sufficient supply of the
milk of human kindness to sustain the born again doctor of the future.
Well if what Professor Ernst says is correct then the College of Medicine
is in fact leading the way backwards to the dark ages of Galenic dogma and
the new age doctor will be practising "new age" mumbo jumbo. A great leap
forward into the past.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Jane Cassidy[1] mentions that the new 'College of Medicine' singles
out projects for praise. I had a closer look at the initiatives which were
listed on the College's website. The information indicates that these
projects offer a wide range of treatments, including homeopathy, qigong,
reflexology and aromatherapy which, according to an evidence-based
assessment, must be categorized as unproven or even disproven[2]. In one
case, a therapeutic claim was made (homeopathy is useful for asthma and
eczema) which is clearly not supported by evidence[2]. Quackery can be
defined as the promotion of unproven or fraudulent medical practices.
Based on this definition, there can be little doubt, I think, that the new
College is a college of quackery.
Reference List
(1) Cassidy J. The College of Medicine. BMJ 2011; 342:d3712.
(2) Ernst E, Pittler MH, Wider B, Boddy K. The Desktop Guide to
Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Elsevier
Mosby. 2006.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Re:Medicine by celebrity endorsement
I apologise if some of the statements in my comment sound a bit
dogmatic. In the version submitted originally there were links to back up
the statements. The BMJ's lawyers insisted that the links should be
removed.
What better example could there be of legal chill?
And what better example of why blogs can often give better accounts
than mainstream media?
Competing interests: No competing interests