Ear Woo in the NHS

It has been quite a while since I managed to find time to blog sadly. Too many irons in too many fires. But this particular event is worth a bit of a chuckle.

As an NHS Audiologist specialising in Tinnitus and a Skeptic I don't take too kindly to nonsensical exploitative treatments wherever I find them (low level laser therapy, I'm looking at you...). But I have never had to deal with them in my own workplace, until now that is.

While sitting down to a quick sarny and some admin one of my colleagues rushed in to my office waving a leaflet. She had found this, along with dozens of its fellows, scattered around the staff canteen. This was advertising a very long list of woo, all being delivered by the same individual through the offices of our Occupational Health Department. One of the treatments on offer was Ear Candling, which I have looked at before on here 'Hopi' Ear Candles, but in brief - pointless and dangerous.

I called up the OH department and they confirmed that this was indeed advertised through their office.

This brought up a number of questions in my mind.

1) How DO these individuals manage to gain specialities in multiple treatment modalities?

2) What evidence base is being employed to permit this treatment on NHS staff?

3) Who was getting a kick back from this?

Number one is easily addressed by looking on the internet. Given sufficient spare time and cash it would be quite simple to become an expert in:

Homeopathy
Reiki
Reflexology
Candleology
Aromatherapy
Stone Massage
Aura Manipulation
etc etc.

Indeed if you tried hard enough you could paper a reasonable sized office in official looking certificates of complementary treatment modalities.

For number 2 there was no evidence base suggesting efficacy or safety of treatment, they were completely unaware of any potential harm.

Having identified who I was and my speciality (Chief Audiologist and Hearing Therapist) I explained in detail why it was that I was deeply unhappy with such a moronic and dangerous practice being offered in my Trust. I also provided (via email) all the research literature I have examining the claims & harm of ear candling (Ernst, Seeley, etc). The person I was speaking to clearly came from a woo sympathiser perspective but was suitably swayed by my talk of 'employing evidence based medicine' and my willingness to take it further if necessary. As it happened the practitioner was in the hospital that day and agreed to withdraw ear candling from her list of offered therapies

I failed to receive a satisfactory answer to number three and will continue to pursue this. I would hope that the trust is at least receiving some benefit from this therapists direct access to staff and accommodation.

What do you think, is it ok for a health service that demands evidence based practice from all it's Doctors, Nurses and Allied Health Professionals to simultaneously advertise treatments that have a implausible mechanism of action and strong evidence of active harm?