I’m pleased to say that - courtesy of the wonderfully named pooflingers anonymous blog - Holford Watch now features in poetry (a nice haiku for the sceptics’ circle blog carnival roundup). Now, where can I find my local pooflingers anonymous meeting (and is it polite to duck when walking through the door)?
Entries from April 2007
Pooflinging poetry - sceptics’ circle blog carnival
April 30, 2007 · 2 Comments
Categories: carnival · sceptic's circle
Why I’m not McCarthyite (boring, obvious response to Holford)
April 30, 2007 · 4 Comments
Holford has e-mailed me a number of criticisms of Holford Watch. I’ve already responded to most of these, but he raises a lot of points - some of which I probably ought to address here. Holford complains that I “first portray Mathias Rath as an arch villain without any consideration of the fact that the BMJ had both apologised to to him and paid him a whopping £100,000 settlement”. However, as I’ve shown, there are a number of good reasons to be angry with Rath. I’m not sure that the BMJ settlement to him is particularly relevant in this context: the BMJ published an inaccurate story about Rath, and then had to pay a large settlement. The fact that the BMJ published an inaccurate story about Rath does not make his advice on HIV/AIDS treatment any less troubling, make Rath’s science any better, or change the facts that hundreds of thousands of HIV+ South Africans have died and will die because they cannot access effective treatment. If readers do see this type of legal issue as important, though, one should also note that there have been a number of rulings against Rath.
Holford claims that I “throw in a comment about a co-author of mine ‘apparently’ clapping at some point during a talk…and then, in a leap that defies logic use these two facts to have a dig at me. This is not robust questioning of ideas in the interest of science, rather it is closer to the smear tactics of the McCarthy era.” However, this does not defy logic at all - Holford’s co-author, with whom he wrote a book on how Food is Better Medicine Than Drugs, was applauding a man who had just made some very troubling statements about how food is better medicine than drugs. It’s therefore reasonable to ask if Holford sympathises with Rath. Holford might be very opposed to what Rath is doing - I’d be delighted if he wanted to make his position on this clear - but do I think it is reasonable to ask the question.
A final point re. my supposed McCarthyism. Some might like to imagine me as a powerful drug company agent, lavishly funded, and drawing on Their massive surveillance infrastructure - sitting here, hands raised in the pyramid of evil contemplation while plotting how to destroy poor nutritionists. However, nothing could be further from the truth (in contrast to the funds available to Holford, this site has had under £5 spent on it and earned me a total of £0). McCarthyism was able to have large numbers of Americans blacklisted, fired, arrested etc. However, all I’ve done is to criticise some of Holford’s ideas, and ask him some questions (some of which he appears not to like). While I quite like the idea of heading a massive, super-evil conspiracy, sadly this isn’t the case - and what I’m doing here is not McCarthyism.
Categories: AIDS · HIV · Jerome Burne · Matthias Rath · patrick holford
Attack of the genetically engineered spinach-lovers! Patrick Holford, diet and gene manipulation, in the Sunday Herald
April 30, 2007 · 2 Comments
The Sunday Herald yesterday ran about half a good article on the way in which diet/supplementation can be used to modify the way in which our genes are expressed. The second half of the article, however, draws on Holford’s ‘knowledge’ of the subject: he argues that “Manipulating people’s genes can help you fine tune your diet but I am deeply suspicious about what we are going to be able to do with any level of safety”.
This does sound scary, like scientists are planning on genetically engineering adult humans in order to improve their diet - insert a special spinach-loving gene, for example. This would be scary, but it’s also (at least in the foreseeable future) total rubbish - no-one is going to modify the genes of adults just in order to improve their diet. This type of gene therapy is currently experimental, difficult, dangerous and very expensive - while it may be useful for treating some diseases, it’s not going to be used to make people eat better. Put bluntly, it’s much easier, cheaper and safer to persuade or bully people into eating sensibly than to try to modify their DNA.
What the (sensible first half of) the Sunday Herald article was discussing was the use of diet/supplementation to modify the ways in which particular genes are expressed. For example, while certain genes are risk factors for neural tube defects (such as spinal bifida) in children, one can often prevent these genes from being expressed in this way through giving the mother folic acid supplements.
So, we’re not talking about scary, evil scientists looking to carry out dangerous experiments on adult humans - genetically engineering great armies of spinach-loving supermen. Instead, a greater knowledge the human genome will allow us to modify our diets - based on our own genetics - in order to avoid certain undesirable expressions of these genes: for example, supplementation with folic acid to reduce the risk of birth defects. Safe, effective nutritional therapy - assuming Holford actually understands what he’s talking about, it’s hard to see why he would oppose this.
Categories: Sunday Herald · gene therapy · genes · patrick holford
What’s The Excitement About Turmeric?
April 29, 2007 · 16 Comments
There have been lots of exciting news stories about turmeric over the last few years: from claims that it might slow Alzheimer’s Disease, to reducing the incidence of leukaemia, or being a potent weapon against several cancers and cystic fibrosis. There are the usual claims that it has general anti-inflammatory effects and modulates the immune system although the mechanisms are presently unclear. There is a good overview about curcumin and some of its principal researchers in a recent Scientific American: Spice Healer. (more…)
Categories: Holford · bioavailability · cancer · catherine collins · curcumin · patrick holford · supplements · turmeric
Tagged: Ben Goldacre, bioavailability, cancer, catherine collins, curcumin, Holford, patrick holford, supplements, turmeric
Review of Holford on Hayfever (Manchester Evening News article, again)
April 27, 2007 · 5 Comments
One interesting factor with much of Holford’s work it the sheer amount of time that it takes to check its claims properly. Dealing with Holford’s statements in one, short, Manchester Evening News article has lead to me reading more than I’d ever wanted about fish cooking and Shinga doing some detailed reading and writing about MSM. This article just gives and gives, though - Coracle, from the awayfromthebench blog - has carried out a review of Holford’s claims in the Manchester Evening News. And, very kindly, e-mailed it to me to post here. So here it is - enjoy:
Not that long ago Patrick Holford was extensively quoted in an article about allergic rhinitis in the Manchester Evening News. In the article Mr Holford makes claims for a number of supplements he believes to be effective in the management of allergic rhinitis. It has already been pointed out that some of his advice is dubious, it therefore follows that the other claims by him should be subjected to critical analysis. Here I will attempt an amateur systematic review of the evidence for the recommended supplements. Methods The terms used in the original article were used to search the pubmed database (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) in conjunction with the phrase “allergic rhinitis”. Where freely available, full text articles were retrieved. When full text articles were not available abstracts alone were used. Previous reviews of the area were not included although observational studies were. Results Vitamin C Three clinical trials involving ascorbic acid for allergic rhinitis were identified. Each trial measured different outcomes and were of small size. Bucca et al (1990) found that 2g of vitamin C a day improved forced expiratory volume. A small trial using a range of doses found no benefit for vitamin C up to doses of 4 g a day when testing histamine response and skin wheal (Fortner et al, 1982). The largest trial found an improvement in allergic symptoms when treated with vitamin C (Podoshin et al, 1991). However, the details of this study are particularly sparse, it is not clear whether the trial was placebo controlled, what dose or doses of vitamin C were administered, nor for how long. A single observational study failed to find an association between plasma vitamin C levels and allergic rhinitis (Kampauer et al, 2006).
Table 1: Summary of evidence for Vitamin C in allergic rhinitis. FEV, forced expiratory volume. NR, not reported.
Reference
n
Dose (g)
Measured outcome
Favoured Intervention
Bucca
16
2
FEV
Vitamin C
Fortner
6
1, 2 or 4
Skin wheel/ histamine
Neither
Podoshin
60
NR
Symptoms
Vitamin C
Omega-3
Searching for omega 3 and allergic rhinitis returned the greatest number of hits for any of the interventions. Four observational studies and two clinical trials were identified. The results of the trials were equivocal, the larger trial found no benefit for fish oils in comparison to an olive oil placebo (Thien et al, 1993) when looking at occupational and recreational antigen challenge. The smaller of the two trials found benefit for EPA when compared to no dose in direct antigen challenge. The two studies used very similar doses of EPA and the larger trial was conducted for longer and in a real-world environment rather than a clinical setting. The four observational trials identified produce no clear pattern of benefit for omega-3 oils. The smallest trial found benefit for omega-3 with odds-ratio of 0.5 for the highest qurtile intake compared to the lowest quartile intake (Hoff et al, 2005). Kompauer et al (2005) failed to find any relationship between allergic rhinitis and omega-3 intake in a study of 740 adults. In a survey of 4104 children an increased risk of wheezing was associated with higher intake of fats in the form of margarine and butter (Farchi et al, 2003). The largest of the observational studies found that high ratios of n6:n3 omega fatty acids increased the risk of hay fever in males, and a higher total fat intake was associated with increased risk of hay fever in females (Trak-Fellermeier et al, 2004).
| Reference | n | dose (g) | Measured Outcome | Favoured Intervention | Type |
| Thien | 37 | 3.5 EPA/day, 6 months | Histamine levels | None | Placebo controlled trial |
| Rangi | 7 | 3.5 EPA/day, 8 weeks | Nasal blood flow, eosinophils, symptoms | omega-3 | Placebo controlled trial |
| Hoff | 568 | N/A | allergic sensitisation | omega-3 | observational |
| Kompauer | 740 | N/A | Hayfever, allergic sensitisation, total IgE | No benefit for omega-3 | observational |
| Farchi | 4104 | N/A | Wheezing and allergic rhinitis | Increased risk with increased fat intake | observational |
| Trak-Fellermeier | 802 | N/A | Hayfever, allergic sensitisation | Higher risk associated with higher n6:n3 ratio | observational |
Table 2: Summary of evidence for omega 3 oils in allergic rhinitis. EPA, Eicosapentanoic acid. N/A, not applicable.
Quercitin
Searching for Quercitin returned two clinical trials. One, involving a combination antihistamine had no abstract and so was excluded from analysis (Miller, 1963). The other was a trial of Artemisia abrotanum L. extract in 12 patients (Remberg et al, 2004). No control group is reported. Reductions in nasal and conjunctival symptoms were reported. The concentration of flavenols, of which Quercitin is one, was reported at 2.5 microg/ml. No estimation of total Quercitin content or delivered dose is reported in the abstract.
Methylsulphonylmethane
A single clinical trial of Methylsulphonylmethane was retrieved from Pubmed. 55 subjects were recruited for an open-label trial for 30 days. Significant decreases in allergic symptoms were found in comparison to baseline (Barrageret al, 2002). Glutamine No reports were returned when searching for Glutamine and allergic rhinitis. Bromelain Only one experimental paper involving Bromelain for allergic rhinitis was found. One Rather than use as an anti-allergic agent, in this research Bromelain was used as an aggravating agent in mice. Inhibited and active forms of Bromelain were investigated and active forms were more potent in inducing sneezing and nasal rubbing (Suzuki et al, 2006).
Discussion
Allergic rhinitis is an unpleasant condition that affects approximately 16% of the UK population (Savage and Roy, 2005) and is increasingly common (Gupta et al, 2007). Dietary interventions have been recommended for the management of allergic rhinitis symptoms in areas of the lay press. The provision of evidence-based advice is important for the relief of symptomatic suffering. Here I have systematically reviewed the evidence for dietary intervention. Six dietary interventions were examined in the management of allergic rhinitis. The evidence base is generally poor, clinical trials are generally of small sizes and not always placebo controlled or blinded. The most evidence exists for vitamin C and omega 3 fatty acids. However, these trials are not uniform in the outcomes measured or their results. Only two clinical trials were reported for omega-3 oil intervention and the larger of the two reported no benefit for omega-3. The results of the observational studies were similarly conflicting with the largest study reporting increased risk of hay fever with increased fat intake. Of the other interventions the evidence was limited and of poor quality. Some reported benefit was found for Quercitin and MSM and the recommendation of Bromelain intervention appears to be counter-intuitive. No evidence was found for the non-essential amino-acid and the therapeutic rationale for taking supplements of crystalline glutamine, that could otherwise be provided by a balanced diet, is unclear. This study has been limited by the lack of full text articles. All analysis on the results has been based on content provided by the text of the report abstracts. Further information provided by full text articles may have provided a clearer picture of the results. The possibility of abstract bias, in which positive outcomes may be emphasised in the the abstract, cannot be discounted. However, abstract-bias cannot likewise estimated without full text availability. In conclusion there is insufficient evidence to recommend any of the dietary supplements suggested by Patrick Holford.
References
Barrager, Eleanor, Joseph R Veltmann, Alexander G Schauss, and Rebecca N Schiller. 2002. A multicentered, open-label trial on the safety and efficacy of methylsulfonylmethane in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) 8, no. 2 (April): 167-73.
Bucca, C, G Rolla, A Oliva, and J C Farina. 1990. Effect of vitamin C on histamine bronchial responsiveness of patients with allergic rhinitis. Annals of allergy 65, no. 4 (October): 311-4.
Farchi, S, F Forastiere, N Agabiti, G Corbo, R Pistelli, C Fortes, et al. 2003. Dietary factors associated with wheezing and allergic rhinitis in children. The European respiratory journal : official journal of the European Society for Clinical Respiratory Physiology 22, no. 5 (November): 772-80.
Fortner, B R, R E Danziger, P S Rabinowitz, and H S Nelson. 1982. The effect of ascorbic acid on cutaneous and nasal response to histamine and allergen. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 69, no. 6 (June): 484-8. Gupta, R, A Sheikh, D P Strachan, and H R Anderson. 2007. Time trends in allergic disorders in the UK. Thorax 62, no. 1 (January): 91-6.
Hoff, S, H Seiler, J Heinrich, I Kompauer, A Nieters, N Becker, et al. 2005.Allergic sensitisation and allergic rhinitis are associated with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in the diet and in red blood cell membranes. European journal of clinical nutrition 59, no. 9 (September): 1071-80.
Kompauer, Iris, Hans Demmelmair, Berthold Koletzko, Gabriele Bolte, Jakob Linseisen, and Joachim Heinrich. 2005. Association of fatty acids in serum phospholipids with hay fever, specific and total immunoglobulin E. The British journal of nutrition 93, no. 4 (April): 529-35.
MILLER, J. 1963. CLINICAL TRIAL OF A MULTIPHASIC ANTIHISTAMINIC PREPARATION (CLEMIZOLE, QUERCETIN, AMPHETAMINE). Annals of allergy 21:692-7. Podoshin, L, R Gertner, and M Fradis. 1991. Treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis with ascorbic acid solution. Ear, nose, & throat journal 70, no. 1 (January): 54-5.
Rangi, S P, M H Serwonska, G A Lenahan, W C Pickett, V A Blake, S Sample, et al. 1990. Suppression by ingested eicosapentaenoic acid of the increases in nasal mucosal blood flow and eosinophilia of ryegrass-allergic reactions. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 85, no. 2 (February): 484-9.
Remberg, P, L Björk, T Hedner, and O Sterner. 2004. Characteristics, clinical effect profile and tolerability of a nasal spray preparation of Artemisia abrotanum L. for allergic rhinitis. Phytomedicine : international journal of phytotherapy and phytopharmacology 11, no. 1 (January): 36-42.
Savage, Julian, and Dev Roy. 2005. Allergic rhinitis: an update. Journal of the Royal Society of Health 125, no. 4 (July): 172-5.
Suzuki, Motohiko, Makoto Itoh, Nobuo Ohta, Yoshihisa Nakamura, Akihiko Moriyama, Tamami Matsumoto, et al. 2006. Blocking of protease allergens with inhibitors reduces allergic responses in allergic rhinitis and other allergic diseases. Acta oto-laryngologica 126, no. 7 (July): 746-51.
Thien, F C, J M Mencia-Huerta, and T H Lee. 1993. Dietary fish oil effects on seasonal hay fever and asthma in pollen-sensitive subjects. The American review of respiratory disease 147, no. 5 (May): 1138-43.
Trak-Fellermeier, M A, S Brasche, G Winkler, B Koletzko, and J Heinrich. 2004. Food and fatty acid intake and atopic disease in adults. The European respiratory journal : official journal of the European Society for Clinical Respiratory Physiology 23, no. 4 (April): 575-82.
Categories: IgE · allergies · hayfever · manchester evening news · msm · omega 3 · patrick holford · vitamin c
Holford Watch in the BMJ! (OK, in a BMJ rapid response)
April 27, 2007 · 3 Comments
I’ve previously written about Holford’s failure to declare his competing interests when submitting a BMJ rapid response. I’m pleased to say that the BMJ have now posted a rapid response from me (as well as an excellent post from the dietician Catherine Collins). Cool - Holford Watch, as featured in the BMJ! OK, as featured in a rapid response on the BMJ website…
Anyway, I’ll reproduce my rapid response below:
Patrick Holford argues that he did not need to declare any competing interests in his first rapid response to this article because he does not “run an Indian restaurant [and therefore] didn’t feel there were any conflicts involved in recommending curry”. However, Holford does acknowledge that he owns shares in Health Products for Life (a company which sells Curcumin, extracted from tumeric).
In his first rapid response, Holford states that “1834 studies are cited in PubMed on turmeric or curcumin, thought to be the active ingredient in this spice, many of which demonstrate clear anti- inflammatory and immune enhancing properties, 648 of which relate specifically, and consistently, to it’s anti-cancer properties”. I would therefore argue that shares in a company that sells curcumin supplements are a competing interest - and should have been declared as such from the start.
Categories: bmj · catherine collins · competing interests · curcumin · patrick holford
Pulling My Hair Out
April 26, 2007 · 4 Comments
or, The Role of Mineral Hair Analysis in the Sale of Food Supplements
Patrick has set up a charity. Not poorly, fluffy kittens or unwanted donkeys, but a charity dedicated to helping kids do better at schools with better ‘nutrition’. The charity is called Food for the Brain. Being against such a venture would appear to be like being against sunshine or trying to ban Christmas, but I have some genuine concerns about the nature of this charity and will be writing more soon, but for now, I would like to concentrate on one rather strange aspect of it.
The charity sets out to ‘promote awareness of the link between learning, behaviour, mental health and nutrition.’ Great. But this is no Jamie-Oliver-Throw-Out-The-Turkey-Twizzlers-And-Eat-Seared-Carpaccio-of-Beef style campaign. No, this looks like ION for kids - ideas from Patrick Holford’s Institute of Optimum Nutrition being sold to parents who quite rightly want to do the best for their children.
So, we see the usual ION themes - ‘optimum’ nutritional plans, ‘optimum’ health, food supplement regimes, questionable ‘allergy and intolerance’ testing and, what I want to cover today, hair mineral analysis.
The Food for the Brain web site discusses supplements for your kids in some detail and states that the charity uses hair mineral analysis as a diagnostic tool to see what supplements children may need in their school projects. For the schools, Patrick recommends Higher Nature’s Dinochews supplements, an organisation that Patrick Holford, funnily enough, formulates products for and lends his name to. There is also a link to a site called MineralCheck that appears to give independent advice about minerals and hair analysis. (More on this later!)
The idea that our diets may be deficient in minerals, even if we are eating a balanced diet, is popular in nutritionist circles. There are ideas out there in nutri-land that our soils may be depleted from nasty intensive farming and that we should be taking the right supplements to top up. However, scientific sources for this are hard to come by and invariably appear to originate from the suppliers of mineral supplements, as I have previously discussed.
Now, as an idea, diagnosing exposures to heavy metals and attempting to diagnose nutritional mineral deficiencies through analysing hair samples, has been around for some time. The only problem is that it looks like it does not work and has been shown to be flaky in a number of reviews.
Stephen Barret, one of the first reviewers to look at the subject concludes,
Hair analysis is worthless for assessing the body’s nutritional status or serving as a basis for dietary or supplement recommendations. Should you encounter a practitioner who claims otherwise, run for the nearest exit!
Why would a charity, wanting to improve the nutritional status of kids, recommend to put them through doubtful diagnostic techniques? Before we come to any conclusions, let’s look at why hair mineral analysis probably does not work. It might involve a little science. Forgive me, I think it is worth it.
So, according to MineralCheck, Hair Mineral Analysis (HMA) claims to be able to determine if you have an ‘imbalance’ in minerals. You get a report back telling you about:
- Your body’s level of nutrient minerals and toxic metals Mineral ratios
- A list of recommended foods - and those to avoid
- Food allergy indicators
- Body chemistry balance analysis Suplement [sic] recommendations
Email the company and they tell you the following…
The cost of the test is £49 and the laboratory will test for 29 nutritional minerals including calcium, copper, zinc, sodium, potassium, magnesium etc) and 8 toxic minerals (including lead, aluminium, mercury and cadmium). The results are presented as a graph with a report attached explaining them and making diet and where appropriate supplement recommendations. Your sample can be sent by post and the report is returned by post.
All very impressive from a few strands of hair. The problem is that these sorts of analytical techniques are very hard. You are trying to find the levels of trace amounts of large numbers of metals in biological samples and then relate that analysis to an understanding of human physiological function and health. This is the stuff that a hundred PhDs are made off. Careers are devoted to such techniques. Let us walk through some of the questions that would have to be well answered by sound science if we are to get close to the MineralCheck promise…
- How does the mineral concentration in hair relate to whole body concentration?
We are not actually interested in hair concentrations as such, but the levels in tissues that need the minerals, such as the blood and other organs. Does hair take up minerals in direct relation to body concentration? It need not. We need to know the answer to this question for each element being analysed. - What individual variation is there in hair growth and mineral levels?
How does age, ethnicity, sex, activity levels and health affect the result? Again, we need to understand this for each element being tested. - What levels in hair are normal and what ranges are acceptable?
And how does this vary across different geographies with different diets and lifestyles? - How can we relate these levels to health issues?
Even if a mineral level is outside the normal range, this does not mean that there is a problem. Mineral levels may be biologically unimportant within a wide range. - How best should we collect samples?
Does using steel scissors introduce contaminants? What about any sample packaging used? Is ‘home’ sampling OK, or do you need controlled lab conditions? - How much hair do we need to get a reliable, repeatable result?
One strand, a bunch, how long should the hair be? - Do we need to prepare the sample to remove environmental contaminants?
Shampoos, car fumes, cigarette smoke and general dirt will be on the hair. Can this be easily removed? Is it absorbed into the body of the hair? Do hair treatments, such as bleaching and colouring, affect the result and how? - What analytical technique is best?
Most techniques are poor at measuring wide ranges of elements, but are good at targeted elements. Do we need several techniques or the same technique optimised in many ways? - How do we ensure the right levels of accuracy and precision at an affordable level to the testing laboratory and their customers?
It is no good having a whizzy technique if it costs millions. - How do we get good calibration samples?
In order to get good results, you need good standard samples to compare against. How can a laboratory obtain known and certified reference materials for each mineral being tested at concentrations similar to that being tested? What analytical technique should be used to certify the references? - How should Hair Mineral Analysis laboratories undertake external quality assurance?
Good laboratories validate themselves against other independent laboratories to make sure they are not systematically getting this wrong. Who will do this? - What do bald people do?
Now, the problem is that there are few answers to these questions and much work to be done. It could be one day that we answer these question in sufficient detail to have hair analysis as a useful diagnostic tool. But we are not there yet, and one of the reasons is that other more direct techniques, such as blood or urine analysis, are better tools to put our research energy into.
Given the poor state of the science of hair mineral analysis, one might expect that laboratories offering this service might lead to shabby, inconsistent and meaningless results. And that is what is found. Several studies have looked into the quality of results obtained from commercial laboratories. One 1985 study entitled, “Commercial hair analysis. Science or scam?” concluded,
The reported levels of most minerals varied considerably between identical samples sent to the same laboratory and from laboratory to laboratory. The laboratories also disagreed about what was “normal” or “usual” for many of the minerals. Most reports contained computerized interpretations that were voluminous, bizarre, and potentially frightening to patients.
Six laboratories recommended food supplements, but the types and amounts varied widely from report to report and from laboratory to laboratory. Literature from most of the laboratories suggested that their reports were useful in managing a wide variety of diseases and supposed nutrient imbalances. However, commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal.
As this was 20 years ago, we ought to be cautious, but luckily a similar study has been done more recently to see if things have improved. It concluded,
…Variations also were found in laboratory sample preparation methods and calibration standards. Laboratory designations of normal reference ranges varied greatly, resulting in conflicting classifications (high, normal, or low) of nearly all analyzed minerals. Laboratories also provided conflicting dietary and nutritional supplement recommendations based on their results.
CONCLUSIONS: Hair mineral analysis from these laboratories was unreliable, and we recommend that health care practitioners refrain from using such analyses to assess individual nutritional status or suspected environmental exposures. Problems with the regulation and certification of these laboratories also should be addressed.
It is no surprise then that QuackWatch calls this technique a ‘Cardinal Sign of Quackery’. Even worse, the American Medical Association issues a policy on the technique which states,
The AMA opposes chemical analysis of the hair as a determinant of the need for medical therapy and supports informing the American public and appropriate governmental agencies of this unproven practice and its potential for health care fraud.
So, why do people including MineralCheck continue to carry out such analyses? It is difficult to conclude anything other than it is very lucrative and a good way of pursuading people to buy supplements. Whilst blood analysis needs qualified practitioners to take and analyse the sample under medical conditions within a strict legal, ethical, and scientific framework, hair analysis requires none of this. Its much easier, and importantly, much cheaper; posting off a hair sample and getting a computer read-out back. Follow that up with recommendations to buy £50 worth of supplements per month, an order form, and a recommendation to repeat the test in a few months time and you are quids in.
Worryingly, there is a danger that, as the technique looks near useless as a diagnostic tool and the recommendations that come from it arbitrary, there is not only the risk that customers will waste their money, but that harm may come too from needless and drastic changes in diet and excessive supplements.
And, as promised, what do we know about the background of the web site MineralCheck? They don’t say much on their pages - no names, no company information, an anonymous email address, but they do give a telephone number. A quick Google reveals that this telephone number is also used by a Mrs Karen Watkins BA(Hons), Dip.I.O.N, MTTS. It turns out that as well as doing Hair Mineral Analysis, Karen is also Principle of Education at Patrick Holford’s Institute of Optimum Nutrition.
My advice for any school or parent involved with programmes to improve kids nutrition, and is using Food For the Brain for help, should be to question Patrick, the Charity Trustees and the Scientific Advisers to the Charity very hard about the value that Hair Mineral Analysis is bringing to the children. If you get evasive answers, particularly questioning the qualifications of those who doubt the advice from Food for the Brain, I suggest you follow Stephen Barret’s advice and ‘run for the nearest exit!’
Categories: Food for the brain foundation · competing interests · institute for optimum nutrition · medical tests · minerals · supplements
Currying for business? Holford denies his competing interests in BMJ rapid response
April 26, 2007 · 4 Comments
I’ve previously blogged about Holford’s rapid response on the BMJ website failing to declare his ‘competing interests’. David Colquhoun responds to Holford, arguing that Holford “[b]eing the sole shareholder in Health Products for Life might be thought of by the sceptical as constituting a rather large financial interest in promotion of nutritional supplements”.
Rather than apologising, though, Holford has submitted a second rapid response which argues that “I was pointing out that the scientific data for turmeric – found in curry - having a beneficial effect was substantial…Since I don’t run an Indian restaurant I didn’t feel there were any conflicts involved in recommending curry.”
Sounds fair enough. Well, it would be, except Holford’s HealthProductsForLife sells curcumin (turmeric extract) supplements. Holford’s initial rapid response stated that “1834 studies are cited in PubMed on turmeric or curcumin, thought to be the active ingredient in this spice, many of which demonstrate clear anti-inflammatory and immune enhancing properties, 648 of which relate specifically, and consistently, to it’s anti-cancer properties.” HealthProductsForLife therefore sells the product which Holford claims has been shown to have anti-inflammatory, immune-enhancing and anti-cancer properties’. Sounds like a competing interest to me.
One more thing to note - Holford also attacks Prof Colquhoun, arguing that Colquhoun “has so far not felt it relevant to mention his own competing interests and financial involvements with the pharmaceutical industry”. Now, this might lead one to believe that Colquhoun is hiding his interests in the evil pharmaceutical industry - in order to have a go at a poor nutritionist. However, Colquhoun didn’t declare any competing interests because, um, he doesn’t have any (unlike Holford). Colquhoun’s “research has never been funded by the drug industry, but always by the Medical Research Council or by the Wellcome Trust“. Oops.
Categories: David Colquhoun · bmj · competing interests · curcumin · health products for life · patrick holford · rapid response · tumeric
Tangled Bank blog carnival
April 25, 2007 · No Comments
The latest edition of the Tangled Bank carnival of science blogs is now up, and includes a nice summary of the Framing Science debate, and a discussion of Le Canard Noir’s wonderful post on electromagnetic radiation here on Holford Watch.
Lots of interesting stuff there. **goes to read a load of posts about Framing Science**
Categories: EMR · Electromagnetic Radiation · Framing Science · carnival · tangled bank
The Holford Watch guide to cooking fish (response to Patrick Holford’s advice on hayfever)
April 24, 2007 · 4 Comments
Yesterday, Holford was featured in a Manchester Evening News article on hayfever. There’s too much in the article to cover here, so I’m going to focus on what he said about cooking fish (sorry, the effects of posting while hungry).
For Holford, while he recommends omega 3 supplements, you also “can and should obtain these from eating unfried, unbreaded fish”. That got me thinking about why fish should be unfried and unbreaded.
Firstly, omega 3 fats aren’t terribly bright. They don’t much care whether they fish is breaded or not. Breading mackerel - for example - before baking or pan frying isn’t going to somehow damage its omega 3 content (breading mackerel/herring strips, then baking to make ‘fish fingers’, is also sometimes suggested as a way to get kids to eat oily fish - and seems pretty sensible).
Secondly, the issue around frying is a bit more complex. Having read through way too many papers pubmed about how cooking fish effects the omega 3 content, there is disagreement between different papers - for example, one paper found a nutritionally significant 11% fat reduction when salmon was fried, while another found, on the contrary, it’s hard to destroy the omega 3 fats in herring through cooking because “fatty acids have a high durability and a low susceptibility to thermal oxidative processes“.
In order words, it looks like the effects of cooking on the omega 3 content of fish may vary depending on the type of fish, length of cooking, and just blind luck. Frying fish may reduce the omega 3 content - but unless you char it to a crisp this is unlikely to completely destroy these fats. In other words, eat a healthy, varied diet, without too much fried food or junk food - but hopefully your common sense would tell you this, without the need to see a nutritionist.
Categories: fish · hayfever · manchester evening news · omega 3 · patrick holford
