ULTRA – VIOLET RAYS

Hokitika Guardian, 4 November 1929, Page 2

ULTRA - VIOLET RAYS

MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL’S REPORT. CRITICISM BY BRITISH. EXPERTS. STRONG CONDEMNATION OF DECISIONS. The Medical Research Council of Britain recently reported the results of certain tests with ultra violet rays. Groups of school children were subjected to the rays, and compared to other groups not so subjected. The results of these tests were summarised by the Council with the words, “The numerical differences were very small, in no case large enough to signify either a harmful or a beneficial effect.” Opinions on the subject were given at the time by several well-known Wellington specialists. They expressed considerable surprise at the Research Council’s cabled statement. Their surprise, however, it seems, is nothing to the astonishment with which the report was received in many medical circles in Britain and elsewhere in the world. One American opinion of some weight went so far as to suggest laonically that “ the resignation of such a stupid and malicious body as the Medical Research Council sould be demanded.”

FACETIOUS AND UNSCIENTIFIC The British Journal of Actinotherapy, commenting on the report, states “that contrary to all precedent the report was largely based on some experiments which were not simultaneously made public—and which have not yet been made available for criticism. It gave only the most scanty consideration to the proven results of reliable workers in half a dozen countries. It was facetious in tone, and unscientific in manner. It was generally treated as an attack rather than a report nd its purpose was widely understood to be to cast doubt on the whole treatment and to prevent any further extension of it.”

Dr. Alfred Salter, chairman of the Parliamentary Medical Committee in Britain, .whose life-long devotion to the welfare of the poorest citizens removes any possible suspicion regarding motives states: “All medical and scientific opinion in touch with the modern developments and progress of Actinothevapy was staggered by the report on light, treatment issued under the auspides of the Medical Research Council. lire report is a highly unsatisfactory document from many points of view.”

HASTY* GENERALISATIONS, , “In face of overwhelming evidence, patiently accumulated by the laborious works of many of the best minds in international medicine, a dogmatic statement is made accompanied by no detailed evidence that can he sifted or tested. The text is characterised by a flippancy and levity which ai'e incomprehensible in an official'- document. The criticism offered is of such a superficial character from beginning to end that I can hardly believe that the individual members of the council could have seen it, or have read it, before it was printed. lam sure that its hasty generalisations are not endorsed by persons of weight in the profession. Publication in the lay Press of its bald and ill-considered statements has done great harm by creating a‘ sense of confusion and uncertainty in the minds of Public Health administrators.

“These effects, however, have been countered by the practical universal condemnation with which the report has been received in all responsible medical quarters. As a matter of fact the prestige of the council has received a severe blow—But the Medical Research Council will be well advised in future not to allow' partial and unscientific statements to receive its imprimatur.”