Doubts and certainties

- 1 February 1991

(from New Scientist 15/9/90)

The results of a study of women attending the Bristol Cancer Help Centre have concentrated a few minds. The findings published in The Lancet last week may be baffling, but they are undoubtedly disturbing: women with breast cancer who attended the centre in addition to having conventional treatment fared very much worse than a control group of women who received conventional treatment alone.

The centre is famous for its vegan-style diet and holistic therapies, such as relaxation and the laying-on of hands. Innocuous as this might sound, the women who went there were almost three times as likely to have a tumour spread, and almost twice as likely to die, as the control group.

These results have caused distress—both to those who run the centre and, more importantly, to all those who have followed its regimen. But the findings clearly had to be announced urgently.

The explanations must be that there is something different about the women who attend the centre, there is something different about the centre itself, or there is something different about both. At this stage, there is little point in speculating about the effect of the diet, psychological factors or anything else; the question can be answered only by the study that the Institute of Cancer Research is still carrying out.

It was the Bristol centre that asked for the study in the first place. It was a courageous move, and unusual in the field of complementary medicine which has not always been eager to submit its work to scientific method. But the centre should abide by the tules of the scientific community.

First, it should not declare confidently—as it has done—that it dues not believe it can be doing any harm. Secondly, it should try to be clear about what it is offering. People who go to the centre—a third of them women with breast cancer—go because they believe the centre might help them to beat the tumour and live. If the centre’s real benefits are in making people’s remaining life happier, then it should say so.

The only solution is more research. Disturbingly, the centre has meanwhile tried to act through publicity. It has sent a letter to all its clients asking them to write to the newspapers and “say something on our behalf”. It declares that “all our gentle therapies are life enhancing” and ends by saying “You will, like us, know in your heart that we are doing nothing harmful.” This tactic does it more damage than the results themselves.