Yesterday I witnessed the most biased piece of reporting by a BBC unit that I have ever seen. It cleverly ignored the facts, and used an interview with a doctor who is suspected of extreme bias in order to present a 'shock, horror' news item that fits into the finest Sunday Sport 'aliens ate my baby' tradition.
Here are just a few of the questions raised by this extraordinary news item from BBC North:
1. Why are we not being told the most important, the most crucial item of information in this case? If someone dies from Paraffin Lung (lipoid pneumonia), why were we not told specifically that the patient had never used paraffin for the alleviation of constipation? This is like a death occurring from cyanide poisoning - but then we are told the Police are not investigating. Eh?
Paraffin lung is the occupational disease of fire-eaters, as they hold wads of paraffin (kerosene) in the side of the mouth, and ignite the fumes. Doing this also causes them to breathe the fumes in, resulting in lipoid pneumonia. Few (if any) die though, since they are mainly young, fit people. The elderly and infants though, if exposed to paraffin fumes, are not so strong, and can die. Paraffin Lung is seen in those who frequently use paraffin for the alleviation of constipation, since the fumes can be dangerous and indeed deadly for older people or infants.
So in the case of a death from Paraffin Lung, the most important aspect of the case would be: did the patient ever take paraffin for constipation? Because if the answer to this were negative, we would then be looking at an unusual case and another possible cause would have to be investigated.
2. In the event of rare and unique cause of death, it is normally the case that further investigations are carried out. Why are we not being told about the investigations that the pathologist would have carried out in order to determine the agent that was the cause of death?
Firstly, oil samples from the lung would have been analysed; and then several samples from the intestine would have been taken, in order to determine whether paraffin was or was not present in the digestive tract. Why are we not being told the results of these analyses?
If it is being suggested that no such investigation took place, then it seems that we have to assume that Paraffin Lung was not the primary cause of death. Instead, perhaps it was one among several items listed on the Death Certificate as the possible cause of death. In this case we should not be discussing Paraffin Lung as the cause of death, since emphysema and heart disease (for example) might also be listed, and be equally likely (or more likely) as the cause of death.
3. The BBC team were told that the deceased was a smoker with decades of use. He is reported to have used an e-cigarette for a few months. It is reported that he suffered from numerous smoking-related conditions including but not limited to emphysema and heart disease.
Since they were also told by the UK trade association that e-cigarettes are known to be safe, and that there was a wealth of research on the ingredients, why did they present a highly-unbalanced news item as a result? Whose agenda is being followed here?
4. Because of the notable lack of balance in the news report, it is necessary to question either the integrity of the news team or the doctor involved; or the possibility that the film editor made a series of critical errors by removing all the important facts of the case. For example it appeared that the widow had not been told that deaths from Paraffin Lung are caused by the use of paraffin for constipation in older people, since neither she nor anyone else mentioned this crucial fact. Or is it the case that lipoid pneumonia was not in fact the primary cause of death? In which case, why did the BBC present it as the cause of death (and also remove any and all relevant information)?
5. Then, we find that the doctor concerned may be a supporter of the WHO type of pseudo-medical opinion that all tobacco use is fatal and should be banned - overlooking the fact that some forms of tobacco use, such as smokeless tobacco products, are proven 1,000 times safer than cigarettes. This is after all why Sweden has the lowest rate of male cancer in Europe. Or is that something that the BBC are unaware of?
All-in-all this was one of the worst cases of biased reporting that has ever been seen from a BBC local unit, who cleverly managed to conceal or omit all the facts. Full marks for editorial bias - or extreme naivety - whichever you prefer.
Emphysema patients are at risk of developing pneumonia; and it is known to be difficult to diagnose which of the many types of pneumonia is involved (especially if no investigation is carried out). This is increasingly looking like a smear campaign by the doctor involved, assisted possibly unwittingly by the BBC, whose naivety was certainly a bonus.
Here are just a few of the questions raised by this extraordinary news item from BBC North:
1. Why are we not being told the most important, the most crucial item of information in this case? If someone dies from Paraffin Lung (lipoid pneumonia), why were we not told specifically that the patient had never used paraffin for the alleviation of constipation? This is like a death occurring from cyanide poisoning - but then we are told the Police are not investigating. Eh?
Paraffin lung is the occupational disease of fire-eaters, as they hold wads of paraffin (kerosene) in the side of the mouth, and ignite the fumes. Doing this also causes them to breathe the fumes in, resulting in lipoid pneumonia. Few (if any) die though, since they are mainly young, fit people. The elderly and infants though, if exposed to paraffin fumes, are not so strong, and can die. Paraffin Lung is seen in those who frequently use paraffin for the alleviation of constipation, since the fumes can be dangerous and indeed deadly for older people or infants.
So in the case of a death from Paraffin Lung, the most important aspect of the case would be: did the patient ever take paraffin for constipation? Because if the answer to this were negative, we would then be looking at an unusual case and another possible cause would have to be investigated.
2. In the event of rare and unique cause of death, it is normally the case that further investigations are carried out. Why are we not being told about the investigations that the pathologist would have carried out in order to determine the agent that was the cause of death?
Firstly, oil samples from the lung would have been analysed; and then several samples from the intestine would have been taken, in order to determine whether paraffin was or was not present in the digestive tract. Why are we not being told the results of these analyses?
If it is being suggested that no such investigation took place, then it seems that we have to assume that Paraffin Lung was not the primary cause of death. Instead, perhaps it was one among several items listed on the Death Certificate as the possible cause of death. In this case we should not be discussing Paraffin Lung as the cause of death, since emphysema and heart disease (for example) might also be listed, and be equally likely (or more likely) as the cause of death.
3. The BBC team were told that the deceased was a smoker with decades of use. He is reported to have used an e-cigarette for a few months. It is reported that he suffered from numerous smoking-related conditions including but not limited to emphysema and heart disease.
Since they were also told by the UK trade association that e-cigarettes are known to be safe, and that there was a wealth of research on the ingredients, why did they present a highly-unbalanced news item as a result? Whose agenda is being followed here?
4. Because of the notable lack of balance in the news report, it is necessary to question either the integrity of the news team or the doctor involved; or the possibility that the film editor made a series of critical errors by removing all the important facts of the case. For example it appeared that the widow had not been told that deaths from Paraffin Lung are caused by the use of paraffin for constipation in older people, since neither she nor anyone else mentioned this crucial fact. Or is it the case that lipoid pneumonia was not in fact the primary cause of death? In which case, why did the BBC present it as the cause of death (and also remove any and all relevant information)?
5. Then, we find that the doctor concerned may be a supporter of the WHO type of pseudo-medical opinion that all tobacco use is fatal and should be banned - overlooking the fact that some forms of tobacco use, such as smokeless tobacco products, are proven 1,000 times safer than cigarettes. This is after all why Sweden has the lowest rate of male cancer in Europe. Or is that something that the BBC are unaware of?
All-in-all this was one of the worst cases of biased reporting that has ever been seen from a BBC local unit, who cleverly managed to conceal or omit all the facts. Full marks for editorial bias - or extreme naivety - whichever you prefer.
Emphysema patients are at risk of developing pneumonia; and it is known to be difficult to diagnose which of the many types of pneumonia is involved (especially if no investigation is carried out). This is increasingly looking like a smear campaign by the doctor involved, assisted possibly unwittingly by the BBC, whose naivety was certainly a bonus.
Last edited:
]
