http://timesonline.typepad.com/scie...olumnists-should-not-give-medical-advice.html
07/22/2009
Swine flu: Simon Jenkins shows why columnists should not give medical advice
When swine flu first emerged as a global threat back in April, Simon Jenkins, the former editor of The Times who now writes a column for The Guardian, was unimpressed. In three separate articles published over the course of a single week, he laid out his hypothesis that the H1N1 virus was nothing more than a scare. The danger was being hyped up needlessly and irresponsibly by journalists to sell newspapers, by pharmaceutical companies to flog drugs and vaccines, and by scientists to justify and renew their research grants.
I wrote at the time about the foolishness of this viewpoint, and I like to think that my arguments have weathered rather better than Jenkins's as the pandemic has developed. So it was with some interest that I noticed he'd returned to the subject in his Guardian column this morning. Would he, I wondered, have the grace to admit he'd been mistaken?
Far from it. Not only has he repeated his view that the threat from swine flu is exaggerated and illusory, in the face of significant evidence to the contrary. He has also taken it upon himself to dispense some extremely dubious medical advice.
First, Jenkins decides that the H1N1 virus's symptoms were "correctly diagnosed by a Dulwich 12-year-old during the initial outburst of hysteria in May as 'like a cold'." For many people who have been infected, that is undoubtedly true, but it is simply incorrect that this always holds true. Try squaring this description with my colleague Sarah Vine's account of her bout of swine flu (though she seems to have developed tonsilitis as a complication). Animal studies have suggested that swine flu causes more severe disease than standard seasonal H1N1 infections, and this is reflecting our clinical experience of the virus. Many health officials now pointedly refer to its effects as moderate, not mild as they did in the early stages of the pandemic, and rightly so. Mild viruses do not cause hospitalisations and deaths. That Jenkins has family and friends who have had swine flu, and found it "less severe and certainly briefer than a bad cold", is the worst sort of argument from anecdote, not data.
Jenkins next explains that all but one of the UK deaths reported so far have occurred in people with other health problems. It's a fair point, and as my co-blogger Sam Lister writes eloquently in an adjacent post, it's one that has too often been glossed over in reporting of these individual tragedies. That does not mean, however, that H1N1 was not a significant factor in these deaths. Flu is always going to be a greater danger to people with another medical condition, but it does not follow that the otherwise healthy are not at risk. There is no cause for panic -- though the Times poll published this week suggests few of us are panicking. But this is something to be taken seriously.
The most worrying aspect of Jenkins's latest commentary, however, comes when he decides he knows better than doctors how we should treat a swine flu infection:
"The one thing not to take is Tamiflu. I do not want to dent the soaring profits of Roche pharmaceuticals, but most I spoke to found the Tamiflu side-effects, of bad dreams, nausea and irritability, far worse than the illness. People should take an aspirin."
I bridled at this last sentence when I read it: Jenkins is not, to my knowledge, medically trained, and columnists who are not doctors (myself included) should refrain from giving medical advice. The reason why has been noted today by the blogger Gimpy, who points out that this could actually be unsafe. Multiple medical bodies, including the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, state that aspirin should never be given to under-16s with flu, because both flu infections and aspirin raise the risk of Reye's syndrome.
For Jenkins to label others' swine flu coverage irresponsible after writing that sentence is a classic case of pots and kettles. I think he's now proved that we can safely disregard most of what he has to say on this subject.
07/22/2009
Swine flu: Simon Jenkins shows why columnists should not give medical advice
When swine flu first emerged as a global threat back in April, Simon Jenkins, the former editor of The Times who now writes a column for The Guardian, was unimpressed. In three separate articles published over the course of a single week, he laid out his hypothesis that the H1N1 virus was nothing more than a scare. The danger was being hyped up needlessly and irresponsibly by journalists to sell newspapers, by pharmaceutical companies to flog drugs and vaccines, and by scientists to justify and renew their research grants.
I wrote at the time about the foolishness of this viewpoint, and I like to think that my arguments have weathered rather better than Jenkins's as the pandemic has developed. So it was with some interest that I noticed he'd returned to the subject in his Guardian column this morning. Would he, I wondered, have the grace to admit he'd been mistaken?
Far from it. Not only has he repeated his view that the threat from swine flu is exaggerated and illusory, in the face of significant evidence to the contrary. He has also taken it upon himself to dispense some extremely dubious medical advice.
First, Jenkins decides that the H1N1 virus's symptoms were "correctly diagnosed by a Dulwich 12-year-old during the initial outburst of hysteria in May as 'like a cold'." For many people who have been infected, that is undoubtedly true, but it is simply incorrect that this always holds true. Try squaring this description with my colleague Sarah Vine's account of her bout of swine flu (though she seems to have developed tonsilitis as a complication). Animal studies have suggested that swine flu causes more severe disease than standard seasonal H1N1 infections, and this is reflecting our clinical experience of the virus. Many health officials now pointedly refer to its effects as moderate, not mild as they did in the early stages of the pandemic, and rightly so. Mild viruses do not cause hospitalisations and deaths. That Jenkins has family and friends who have had swine flu, and found it "less severe and certainly briefer than a bad cold", is the worst sort of argument from anecdote, not data.
Jenkins next explains that all but one of the UK deaths reported so far have occurred in people with other health problems. It's a fair point, and as my co-blogger Sam Lister writes eloquently in an adjacent post, it's one that has too often been glossed over in reporting of these individual tragedies. That does not mean, however, that H1N1 was not a significant factor in these deaths. Flu is always going to be a greater danger to people with another medical condition, but it does not follow that the otherwise healthy are not at risk. There is no cause for panic -- though the Times poll published this week suggests few of us are panicking. But this is something to be taken seriously.
The most worrying aspect of Jenkins's latest commentary, however, comes when he decides he knows better than doctors how we should treat a swine flu infection:
"The one thing not to take is Tamiflu. I do not want to dent the soaring profits of Roche pharmaceuticals, but most I spoke to found the Tamiflu side-effects, of bad dreams, nausea and irritability, far worse than the illness. People should take an aspirin."
I bridled at this last sentence when I read it: Jenkins is not, to my knowledge, medically trained, and columnists who are not doctors (myself included) should refrain from giving medical advice. The reason why has been noted today by the blogger Gimpy, who points out that this could actually be unsafe. Multiple medical bodies, including the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, state that aspirin should never be given to under-16s with flu, because both flu infections and aspirin raise the risk of Reye's syndrome.
For Jenkins to label others' swine flu coverage irresponsible after writing that sentence is a classic case of pots and kettles. I think he's now proved that we can safely disregard most of what he has to say on this subject.
