I blogged before (Lies, damn lies and statistics) about the misleadingly named antivivisection group Europeans for Medical Progress and its equally misleading claims of support from 83% of GPs. This claim comes from a survey conducted in August 2004. One of the odd conclusions that EMP draws from it is:

The clinical relevance of animal research requires urgent evaluation - a fact now accepted amongst the medical profession ...

So there could be no doubt about it, EMP headlined its press release ‘Doctors fear animal experiments endanger patients’

EMP’s sister organisation AFMA has posted the complete survey in raw data form. It tells a rather different story, of leading questions and omission of results that were clearlyinconvenient for EMP/AFMA. We have an astute member of the discussion forum Oxford Gossip to thank for drawing this astounding spin to our attention. Another member of Oxford Gossip helpfully analyses the questions and concludes:

It’s a simple fact that every single day of their working lives, GPs will be treating patients in one way or another using findings from animal research. I’ve taught hundreds of medical students in both Oxford and London for over 15 years, my parents are medics, my father in law and sister in law are medics, I’ve yet to encounter a single one who doesn’t appreciate the value of animal based research. Where on earth did they find these GPs?

OK, so this is anecdotal. But, particularly in the light of another omission by EMP/AFMA, very credible. EMP/AFMA commissioned the survey company TNS Healthcare to carry out the poll of GPs. TNS subsequently dissociated itself from EMP/AFMA’s analysis of the results in no uncertain terms:

The conclusions drawn from this research by AFMA are wholly unsupported by TNS and any research findings or comment published by AFMA is not TNS approved.

TNS did not provide any interpretation of the data to the client
TNS did not give permission to the client to publish our data
The data does not support the interpretation made by the client (which in our opinion exaggerates anything that may be found from the data)

TNS Healthcare reactive statement, September 2004