Letter to Observer re Burzynski clinic

My email to the readers' editor at the Observer re this article on raising the money to send a girl with cancer to the Burzynski clinic in USA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/nov/20/a-family-gripped-by-cancer



The worst year of my life: cancer has my family in its grip







Hi.





I think you should take a really serious look at what has
gone on around the publication of this article. Of course it’s a moving account
of knowing a child with cancer. But the whole emphasis is on people clubbing
together to allow her to receive some treatment which is unavailable on the
NHS. The overall impression is horribly misleading, which is that there is some
expensive and sophisticated treatment which is for some reason inaccessible
through the NHS. Actually, the obvious reason it’s not provided by the NHS is
that it plain doesn’t work. Unlike a number of treatments which are available
on the NHS (e.g. herceptin), the chemicals used by this clinic are fairly
simple and easy to manufacture and if there was any suggestion that this was
effective treatment the NHS would be providing it or at the very least there
would be clinical trials proceeding in the UK which would be available to NHS
patients.





The awful truth is that all the well-meaning people who have
raised money for the cause have been taken in by the clinic’s publicity
material. The fact that the Observer has also been taken in makes things so
much worse. The NHS is facing exceptionally difficult challenges and the last
thing we need is a respected, liberal newspaper contributing to the impression
that the NHS provides a second-class, limited service and that “proper”
treatments are available in the US for those who have enough money.





I know that personal issues and emotions will make this
difficult, but please try to unpick what has happened and undo the damage you
have done.





Yours sincerely





-       
David Curtis








--

Professor David Curtis

Consultant and Honorary Professor in Psychiatry



Comments

  1. Anonymous28 November 2011 at 04:54

    I too (along with several others) wrote to the Observer to raise similar concerns. I had no reply, although they did print one letter in an edited form.

    I have published what the Observer didn't on my blog (here http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/emails-regarding-the-burzynski-clinic-not-published-in-the-observer/#comment-646), where I have also taken the liberty of pasting your email (I hope this is OK with you).

    I have just put it as a Comment but if it transpires they fail to reply to you, I would be happy to paste it into the post itself.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dave Curtis4 December 2011 at 04:07

    No actual reply from editor but obviously the Reader's Editor has published a response today. Mentions a couple of people, though not me. I'm happy for you to paste it into the post if you want. Whatever you think works.

    Although the Reader's Editor has gone some way to addressing our concerns he hasn't considered the negative effect on the NHS and it's absolutely outrageous to finish with this sentence: "But some participants in the debate have combined aggression, sanctimony and a disregard for the facts in a way which has predictably caused much distress to the Bainbridge family." That provides a completely skewed view of the debate and to end on this note makes the response unbalanced and defensive and tends to negate the admissions of mistakes which are buried in the middle of the response.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Email to David Ward MP re Holocaust Memorial Day

Here is the link to the BBC report about David Ward's comments on Holocaust Memorial Day: Lib Dems condemn MP's criticism of Israel ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day In the article he states that he has only had emails from two detractors. So I thought I would be the third. Another detractor 'david@davidward.org.uk' Dear Mr Ward. I see you told the BBC you had only had emails from two detractors. Please consider this a third. I have never written this kind of email or letter before. Most anti-Israel or anti-Jewish statements I just let go past. Your remarks were offensive. What makes things worse is your defiance in the face of criticism. I am happy to accept that not everything Israel does is perfect and that Palestinians do have some grounds for complaint on some matters. Some actions of the state are of questionable legality and some individuals have probably acted in violent or hateful ways and sometimes may have escaped the sanctions they should have been subjected t
Read more

My response to: We must not confuse Trump's bad behavior with mental illness by Allen Frances

http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/08/25/allen-frances-we-must-not-confuse-trumps-bad-behavior-with-mental-illness The title is somewhat misleading because in general mental health professionals are not suggesting that Trump suffers a mental illness, as it is commonly understood. They are suggesting that he does indeed meet the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder and that he may well be developing dementia. This is not to use these diagnoses as terms of abuse - they are relevant because they may feed into the legal process whereby it is determined whether or not Trump should be removed from office. Frances' position is absurd. In one paragraph he says that he supports the Goldwater rule and in the next he flouts it. The fact that he does so in order to defend Trump is irrelevant. He is clearly debating the diagnosis of somebody he has never met and adduces various facts in the public domain to support his own thoughts on the subject. I do not support the Goldwater
Read more

My response to "listening exercise" on proposed NHS reforms

Arizona is proposing fining obese Medicaid recipients who do not comply with a diet. People are complaining that this represents a "nanny-state" mentality but if the state is providing your healthcare and you are behaving in a way which makes this more expensive, why shouldn't the state try to recoup some of that extra expense? Fining non-dieters sounds impracticable but it would be fairly straightforward to allocate a specific cost to a wide range of activities which would tend to make people less healthy and hence to require more expensive healthcare. One could assign such a cost not only to each cigarette or each unit of alcohol but also each calory of food consumed. Thus there could not only be components of tobacco and alcohol duty which were badged as related to healthcare costs but also a health tax on food and drink related to calorific and salt content. As an example this would either make diet drinks cheaper than their sugar-containing equivalents or else the ma
Read more