Ofcom rule that Sky News' presentation of the Perrin Technique was "not duly accurate or duly impartial"

It could be argued that Ofcom here demonstrate a better ability to analyse the results of a research paper than the MRC....

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/ass...ue-360-ofcom-broadcast-on-demand-bulletin.pdf, skip to p. 20 for the start of this specific ruling.

 

@Trish

you emailed/commented on a couple websites where they were making similar claims; any chance you could send them a copy of this ruling?

https://www.s4me.info/threads/clinic-offering-perrin-technique-one-for-trading-standards.4917/
https://www.s4me.info/posts/98961/

 

It probably is difficult for them to provide a high quality response about every piece of research the MEA are asked to comment on. The way Sky interpreted the MEA comment could show the advantage of including a general comment like "we have serious concerns that some patients are being encouraged to spend their time and money on interventions that lack any good evidence of efficacy".

edit: @Andy posts more from the MEA in the next post, and it looks like they did say something very similar! Bad Sky.

 

If you read further on in the judgement, Ofcom say

So Ofcom are of the opinion that Sky essentially weren't interested in representing the MEAs counter-opinion.

 

I really wish Raymond Perrin would stop with the bombastic claims, because I actually think his theory holds some weight. I am convinved the lymphatic system plays a big role in this illness. I'm glad he worked together with researchers and NHS clinicians to write the paper in BMJ, and I do think there may be scope for accurate assessment of ME using physical characteristics. But this is still a theory. There really is very little evidence backing up his claims. For example, his theory is build on the idea of varicose lymphatics, which I find interesting because I can feel exactly what he describes in my own neck and chest area. But you search for 'varicose lymphatics' on google and you get next to zero relevent results (except those from content written about the Perrin Technique). He's really talking a different language to most clinicians.

 

I think he is talking the same language but he is using the words in a way that makes no anatomical sense. He talks of a tender point over the left breast related to the thoracic duct. But the thoracic duct is way deep inside the ribcage. I don't see how you are going to get varicose lymphatics in the head and neck because they are above the heart and so under no hydrostatic pressure. His account is sort of free-wheeling looniness without a scrap of evidence (as you say).

 

Now that is a great tagline...I’ll have to bank that one for future use

 

Is that the medical equivalent of the Morecambe and Wise's sketch to i'm playing all the right notes just not in the right order?

 

I think this is interesting. In the past I have complained to the BBC about their coverage of PACE/Crawleys work and their failure to put other view points. Being the BBC they dismiss such complaints claiming they have over coverage that balances (which they don't). So this ruling from ofcom is interesting.