Talk:George Lewith

Untitled

I've found a fair bit of stuff on this, but it'll take a day or two to wrangle into shape and some of it is a little academic at the moment. Just hacking through it... Ishtar1949 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishtar1949 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC) I've just taken this bit out:

He has been criticised because his department has promoted teaching to medical students by apologists of the disgraced Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield, whose work, was subsequently shown to be falsified, was responsible for a fall in vaccination rates.   

If David Colquhoun's very opinionated blog is a good source for Wikipedia, I'd like someone to explain why that is - views of bloggers certainly don't look like a reliable source to me. In this case, the quote is irrelevant and misleading: Lewith is pro-vaccination, and resigned as a patron from the charity Foresight precisely on the grounds that it continued to support Wakefield. Ishtar1949Ishtar1949 08:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

PS, I've also changed 'alternative' to 'complementary' in this sentence:

George Lewith is the most prominent advocate of complementary medicine in a Russell group university.

on the grounds that his work is about researching mainstream and non-mainstream medicines in complement to each other. 'Alternative' suggests 'throw away your drugs and use herbalism instead' and there's nothing in his research that suggests he is advocating that - some like the study of mindfulness techniques to help women keep taking their Tamoxifen for breast cancer are directly in support of mainstream medicine. So I think using 'alternative' is not NPOV about his work, but more a political position... Ishtar1949 08:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishtar1949 (talk • contribs)

David Colquhoun's blog may qualify under WP:RSEX, but I am not entirely sure. It permits material sourced from blogs by researchers active in the field and blogs hosted by universities. Colquhoun has published in this field (e.g.) and his blog was hosted for many years by University College London, although it doesn't seem to be now.92.18.35.112 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just deleted 'George Lewith was prominent in the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health' etc etc because it is simply untrue. If anyone wants to reinstate this paragraph, they'll need to provide a citation. 86.133.56.213 (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This source suggests that you are incorrect. It is a published article by Lewith describing his "Complementary Health Unit" at Southampton Medical School, and under the heading "Cooperation with Professional Organizations" states the following:

"Southampton Medical School has also played an important role in the development of the Foundation for Integrated Health, particularly with respect to its research and development agenda."

He is also currently a director of the "College of Medicine" (see this page on his directorships), which is the reincarnation of the "Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health" (see this Guardian article).--92.18.42.205 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Research areas

I have to say that I feel this quote, "His research demonstrates how acupuncture has significant effects over placebo in chronic neck pain...", is misrepresenting the source by omission. The source specifically makes clear in its conclusion that, although there was a statistically significant difference, the results were not clinically significant. Only mentioning statistical significance in terms of the P value hides the magnitude of the treatment effect, we use clinical significance to avoid making this error. I will change the sentence to mention the lack of clinical significance.

The remainder of the above quote, "...and his team has also demonstrated through brain imaging techniques that it has clearly defined neurological mechanisms that are different from placebo", lacks a supporting citation. I could not find a corresponding source among his publications, rather I found articles advocating research in this area and an article (see here) that used fMRI to compare the superficial needling (Japanese) and deep needling (Chinese) styles of acupuncture, but this has nothing to do with acupuncture placebos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.35.112 (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence, "He has researched how homoeopathic consultations are unique and different from conventional care.[13]", cites a paper not authored by Lewith, so the statement is unsupported as it stands.

This portion, "His clinical trial of homoeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis indicated that the effect of homoeopathy (almost certainly due to the consultation) is as large as the most powerful conventional drugs available for this condition.[14]", is not supported by the citation at all. The cited article does not compare homeopathic remedies to conventional drugs, rather the study was explicitly designed to examine the effect of consultation in homeopathic treatments only, finding that, "Homeopathic consultations but not homeopathic remedies are associated with clinically relevant benefits for patients with active but relatively stable RA.". 92.18.35.112 (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

This entire paragraph reeks of bias,

"There are a large number of systematic reviews looking at the clinical effects of real versus placebo in homeopathy and analysing much the same data with slightly different research questions and frames of reference. The conclusions of these systematic reviews are evenly split; some suggest that homeopathy is a placebo[16] while others suggest its effect is greater than placebo.[17] All researchers looking at the primary data in this field thoughtfully comment that there is inadequate data upon which to draw definitive conclusions. When such controversies in data interpretation occur it is almost uniformly the case that there is too little information upon which to draw the definitive conclusions."

I doubt very much that any researcher not directly involved in complementary medicine would say that systematic reviews are evenly split, judging by the available Cochrane reviews. Citing two articles with opposing conclusions is simply not enough to support this statement. Also, the 2005 review by Shang et al. specifically refers to the meta-analysis by Linde et al. and later work by that group in reference to that meta-analysis:

"A meta-analysis by Linde and co-workers was based on an extensive literature search, which we updated for our study, but it did not include trials of conventional medicine. These researchers concluded that their results were “not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo”. However, in a subsequent, more detailed analysis of the same data, they observed that more rigorous trials yielded smaller effect sizes and that their meta-analysis probably “at least overestimated the effects of homoeopathic treatments”. In a separate study, the same group observed that many trials in complementary medicine have important methodological weaknesses" (source)

In light of this, the citation of Linde et al., "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials", cannot be used to claim reviews in the literature are evenly split, the authors have discredited their earlier meta-analysis with their own later work.

This sentence, "All researchers looking at the primary data in this field thoughtfully comment that there is inadequate data upon which to draw definitive conclusions.", is completely unsupported by citations and clearly the opinion of the editor.

I am going to remove the entire paragraph, it is not salvageable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.35.112 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to question the purpose of this paragraph as well:

"As someone who has published high quality randomised controlled trials of real homeopathy versus placebo which demonstrate no specific effect[16][17][13] Lewith’s sceptical position in relation to the specific effect of homeopathy is publicly transparent. However all the studies in which he has been involved demonstrate that homeopathy is a very effective treatment even though its efficacy is in doubt. Homeopathy may be exerting these clinical benefits through a variety of mechanisms that have nothing to do with ultramolecular potencies including its unique approach to the consultation."

It has nothing to do with any controversy, rather it seems to be an attempt to counter the criticism referred to in this section. In my opinion it doesn't belong here, if no one has any objections I will remove it. I also question the veracity of this statement, "However all the studies in which he has been involved demonstrate that homeopathy is a very effective treatment even though its efficacy is in doubt", as Lewith has published research indicating that it isn't the homeopathic treatment but the consultation that has an effect. The consultation is not the treatment. Also, the difference between effectiveness and efficacy will be largely opaque to the casual reader, it serves only to mislead the reader into believing the evidence for homeopathic treatments is better than it is, so I question the neutrality of author.92.18.35.112 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The last set of changes to this section were themselves pretty biased: it left the impression that Lewith continued to use Vega tests having proved himself they didn't work: in fact he ceased to use them for the areas where the machines have been proved not to work -- a point that the last editor misleadingly omits to mention. Equally he has not proved that 'homeopathy doesn't work' - rather his research has led him to believe that it works as a whole system perhaps largely or entirely due to the consultation, but that there is weak evidence for the pills themselves. I take the point that the difference between efficacy and effectiveness may be lost on some readers, so I have rewritten that part in what I hope is clearer language.

A note on David Colquhoun's blog: it was removed by UCL at one point because it didn't wish to be associated with David Colquhoun's private views, and his antipathy for Professor Lewith is well known. Better to go at this page on the basis of peer reviewed evidence - it makes for a stronger case. 109.144.198.117 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, your edits have no sources and are therefore WP:OR, they also now misrepresent refs [12] and [15]. Do you have sources for any of these claims about Lewith's Vega testing practices, that his research is "high quality", or that all his studies show that homeopathic consultation is "very effective"? I had a brief look for some response from Lewith about his Vega testing practices but could not find one. Also, my understanding is that very little of his research has distinguished between the homeopathic consultation and the treatment, in any case for that claim to be true his research would have to show that these effects are specific to the homeopathic consultation rather than any other form of consultation. As to Colquhoun's blog, my understanding is that UCL were forced to reinstate it under widespread pressure. Randomnonsense (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't provided sources, so I've reverted your edits under WP:V and WP:OR. They mangled the sources for that section and so would have been reverted anyway. If you can provide reliable sources (see WP:RS) for the text you added, feel free to add it back in. I'd be very interested to know where you got that information about Lewith's Vega testing practices, it does not appear on any pages indexed by Google as far as I can tell. If you are Lewith or know him then that would be a WP:COI issue. Randomnonsense (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"How people use..."

The sentence, "How people use complementary medicine interchangeably, safely and in an informed manner with conventional care when they have chronic illness.[8]", cites a paper on which Lewith is not a co-author. Thus removed. Randomnonsense (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health/Medicine

I've added the claim from the Guardian article that Lewith was a council member of the foundation, but I'm also aware that he was a Foundation Fellow. However, the foundation website with its list of foundation fellows (originally here) has been expunged from the web and the Wayback Machine doesn't seem to have archived that page. The only sources for this now are various websites (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The last 3 of those links seem to be news aggregators that have reprinted a press release (originally located here) from the foundation website. I think the combination of these sources is sufficient to cite Lewith as a Foundation Fellow, as independent sources are citing Lewith as a foundation fellow and linking to the FIH fellows page as a source or linking to a FIH press release.Randomnonsense (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added this citing the FIH fellows page and back dated the accessed date to when the above sources suggest it was available. Randomnonsense (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Found a FIH page on the Wayback Machine citing Lewith as a Foundation Fellow, see second footnote here. Randomnonsense (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

82.17.2.1's edit

82.17.2.1's edit removed the text, "The Foundation for Integrated Medicine became the Prince of Wales' Foundation for Integrated Health in 2000". This text cited Lewith's paper which states, "The Foundation for Integrated Medicine was re-born as the Prince of Wales’s Foundation for Integrated Health in 2000 but still fulfils much the same functions, in particular with respect to the government’s increasing regulatory agenda as far as complementary medical practitioners are concerned." The removal was baseless.

The following text was also inserted after the mention of criticism in the BMJ, "However, this is not the view taken by the Charity Commission which has recently granted the College of Medicine charity status.", with a supporting reference to the College of Medicine's own website, which only states that it is a registered charity. The text falsely implies that the Charity Commision holds a position on the criticism in the BMJ, which it most definitely does not. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 21:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Another edit. The 1st sentence is original research violating WP:OR. [44] barely mentions homeopathy, so I'm not sure why it has been added. [13] does not say that homeopathy has a large non-specific effect, the paper states that the effect of the homeopathic consultation is clinically relevant and significant in the statistical sense, not large. The next edit is WP:OR advancing a position by implying the acceptability of placebos (very questionable and citing one supporting source is WP:SYNTH) implies homeopathy is acceptable. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 00:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Missed this bit of the second edit, " Lewith rejected these comments, saying that it was a legitimate endeavour and accusing Ernst of being overly negative" was replaced with "Lewith rejected these comments, and pointed out that Ernst has himself produced papers with many of those involved in the Cambrella project, and therefore must regard them as legitimate researchers." The new text cannot be found in the source article, it is original research violating WP:OR, so removed. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 04:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Lewith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.debretts.co.uk/people/biographies/browse/l/13840/George%20Thomas+LEWITH.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226023548/http://www.iscmr.org/about/about_iscmr/ to http://www.iscmr.org/about/about_iscmr/#c57
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422061837/http://www.fih.org.uk/about_us/foundation_fellows.html to http://www.fih.org.uk/about_us/foundation_fellows.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/newsletters/nlett28.html#chan4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)