Are we gradually shaming the BBC into reporting what they call the 'side effects' of conventional pharmaceutical drugs. Today, 13th February 2015, BBC News reported that Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) increases the risk of Overian cancer.
The report is, at least, a breath of honesty through this 'public service broadcaster' who have failed for over a decade to engage in the Health Debate that is going on out here. But it is still quite inadequate, and it demonstrates the ongoing failure of the BBC to honour their duty to the public.
First, the report states that facts. The 'new' study has found that the increased risk of ovarian cancer means that 1 in 1000 women will contract the disease. But then it plays down the issue, both by what it reports, and what it does not report. It tells us that the risk is minimal, that 5 in 10 smokers will die of cancer - but doesn't tell us what relevance that has to the dangers of HRT! It does not tell us that it is well known, and accepted, that only 10% of side effects, or DIEs are ever reported - and so the incidence of Ovarian Cancer arising from HRT treatment is more likely to be 1 in 100 rather than 1 in 1000.
And so the 'Russian Roulette' of conventional medical practice continues!
Second, the BBC continues to use conventional medical doctors to provide them with their 'expert' advice' about drugs and vaccines. Even the BBC does not do this in many spheres. What is Tory economic policy? Ask a Tory spokesperson to give advice on this! What is HSBC Bank's policy on tax evasion? As a spokesperson from HSBC!
What does the BBC think a doctor, who has prescribed these drugs for decades, going to say about the continuing use of HRT?
Third, HRT has been prescribed to women for decades. Some 10 years ago, following a major study, it was found to cause 'unacceptably high' levels of both breast and cervical cancer. It has not been so widely prescribed as a result since that time.
BUT IT IS STILL BEING PRESCRIBED BY DOCTORS!
The BBC forgot to ask the simple question - WHY! Why can a drug that has been found to have such disastrous consequences for women's health still be prescribed?
Yet the BBC forgot to ask many more questions. For instance, what are the additional dangers of HRT for women. 1:1000 for Overian Cancer perhaps. But what are the additional risk factors for breast cancer? And the BBC do not even mention cervical cancer!
Fourth, the advice at the end of the article is, as usual for the BBC, is based on what a conventional medical spokesman has to say, namely, go on taking the drug, but be more careful! Be more aware!
Nor does the BBC ask the question: Is there a safer alternative treatment for 'he symptoms of the menopause? Well, there is, click here! But don't rely on the BBC to tell you about it!
The BBC, as a public service broadcaster, is failing to engage in an important health debate. In this it is perhaps no different to other mainstream media outlets in the UK. But these outlets are financially entwined with the pharmaceutical industry - no excuse if they believe they are part of a 'free press' in this country - but this is not an excuse the BBC can use for failing their licence fee payers.
And one last question. If BBC News is not telling us the whole truth about health issues, if they are totally failing to question, and hold to account the conventional medical establishment, why should anyone be confident that they do so in any other sphere of life?
The report is, at least, a breath of honesty through this 'public service broadcaster' who have failed for over a decade to engage in the Health Debate that is going on out here. But it is still quite inadequate, and it demonstrates the ongoing failure of the BBC to honour their duty to the public.
First, the report states that facts. The 'new' study has found that the increased risk of ovarian cancer means that 1 in 1000 women will contract the disease. But then it plays down the issue, both by what it reports, and what it does not report. It tells us that the risk is minimal, that 5 in 10 smokers will die of cancer - but doesn't tell us what relevance that has to the dangers of HRT! It does not tell us that it is well known, and accepted, that only 10% of side effects, or DIEs are ever reported - and so the incidence of Ovarian Cancer arising from HRT treatment is more likely to be 1 in 100 rather than 1 in 1000.
And so the 'Russian Roulette' of conventional medical practice continues!
Second, the BBC continues to use conventional medical doctors to provide them with their 'expert' advice' about drugs and vaccines. Even the BBC does not do this in many spheres. What is Tory economic policy? Ask a Tory spokesperson to give advice on this! What is HSBC Bank's policy on tax evasion? As a spokesperson from HSBC!
What does the BBC think a doctor, who has prescribed these drugs for decades, going to say about the continuing use of HRT?
Third, HRT has been prescribed to women for decades. Some 10 years ago, following a major study, it was found to cause 'unacceptably high' levels of both breast and cervical cancer. It has not been so widely prescribed as a result since that time.
BUT IT IS STILL BEING PRESCRIBED BY DOCTORS!
The BBC forgot to ask the simple question - WHY! Why can a drug that has been found to have such disastrous consequences for women's health still be prescribed?
Yet the BBC forgot to ask many more questions. For instance, what are the additional dangers of HRT for women. 1:1000 for Overian Cancer perhaps. But what are the additional risk factors for breast cancer? And the BBC do not even mention cervical cancer!
Fourth, the advice at the end of the article is, as usual for the BBC, is based on what a conventional medical spokesman has to say, namely, go on taking the drug, but be more careful! Be more aware!
Nor does the BBC ask the question: Is there a safer alternative treatment for 'he symptoms of the menopause? Well, there is, click here! But don't rely on the BBC to tell you about it!
The BBC, as a public service broadcaster, is failing to engage in an important health debate. In this it is perhaps no different to other mainstream media outlets in the UK. But these outlets are financially entwined with the pharmaceutical industry - no excuse if they believe they are part of a 'free press' in this country - but this is not an excuse the BBC can use for failing their licence fee payers.
And one last question. If BBC News is not telling us the whole truth about health issues, if they are totally failing to question, and hold to account the conventional medical establishment, why should anyone be confident that they do so in any other sphere of life?
