The series set out to give a very personal view of Kathy Sykes' experiences with
these three
forms of therapy rather than a definitive study of the subjects.
However our experts went to great pains to present a much wider range of links
on the
series website and in our booklet to enable viewers to broaden their knowledge
of and find
diverse viewpoints on each topic - even including some "sceptic sites" in an
attempt to
give balance.
As far as the first link it was no more than a re-hash - if we have found a
positive, it can be explained by a negative. (And again placebo which doesn't
address the effects on children and babies). The second link was to the
reflexology forum, which was so out of date (2006) that it would have put anyone
searching off taking it seriously. The third link was invalid.
Is this really the best their "experts" can do? One question remains, why did
they not approach, or have a comment from, any of the Reflexology organisations
listed. It would be the only fair and balanced way to offset it - though they
are happy to include "the sceptic websites..."
The debate continues
Kay
----- Original Message -----
From: footc1
To: reflexologycommunity@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:45 PM
Subject: [Reflexology Community ] Open University's Response to Dr. Sykes
programme on reflexology
Dear Mr Kunz,
I'm sorry you are unhappy with our programme.
The series set out to give a very personal view of Kathy Sykes' experiences
with these three
forms of therapy rather than a definitive study of the subjects.
However our experts went to great pains to present a much wider range of links
on the
series website and in our booklet to enable viewers to broaden their knowledge
of and find
diverse viewpoints on each topic - even including some "sceptic sites" in an
attempt to
give balance.
Thought this might be of interest. Answer back on the question of personal
journey
versus scientific look.
Kevin Kunz
Forum Moderator
*****************************************************************************
The phrase we used of the series is that:
"Professor Kathy Sykes sets off on a personal and scientific journey to
explore three popular, and fast-growing, alternative therapies:
meditation, hypnotherapy, and reflexology." So the answer is both. It
combines her personal opinions and experiences on all sorts of issues
with an examination of relevant scientific research, looked at in a
fair, accurate and objective way.
As for being "definitive", I don't think any of us would ever claim
that and few scientists would ever use that word when looking at
subjects like these for which there has often not been a tremendous
amount of high quality scientific research. On the other hand, do we
think the series presented the current state of scientific knowledge on
the subjects covered fairly and accurately? Of course
Matthew Barrett
Executive Producer
BBC Vision Productions
Tel: (44)-208-008-1388