Comments on: ASA Ruling: YorkTest adverts breach guidelines for truthfulness and substantiation

By: Zeno

Zeno — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:23:56 +0000

I see Yorktest Laboratories have been brought to the attention of the ASA again (informally resolved complaint, so we don't see the details).

By: Bernard

Bernard — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:25:02 +0000

My sister recently used the Yorktest and has completely eradicated very painful symptoms from the day she eliminated the specific foods. I had been trying to persuade her for years, but the cost stopped her doing it for so long. And reports like this.
I took the test 6 years ago after a 4-year phase of worsening symptoms (very different to those of my sister). After the test and eliminating 5 foods I gradually got better over months, although I have still not eliminated the problem. I also called the company and nagged them until I was put through to someone who knew some science, because I was very sceptical.

By: Equazen and the ASA - Again « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:36:41 +0000

[...] YorkTest, source of the IgG food intolerance tests criticised by both the House of Lords and the ASA). Holford managed to procure some useful backing for the Food for the Brain project. One of the [...]

By: eden aries

eden aries — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:39:19 +0000

DON’T FALL FOR YORK TESTS!!
I HAD 2 TESTS DONE ONE AFTER THE OTHER (7 DAYS APART WITH NO DIET CHANGE) SPENT A TOTAL OF 400 POUNDS AND HAD RESULTS COMPLITELY DIFFERENT IN ONE TEST I WAS INTOLLERANT TO EVERYTHING IN THE OTHER JUST TO 3 THINGS..I WANT MY MONEY BACK (130+ 265) THAT’S A BIG FRAUD PLUS THEY DIDN’T REPLY TO MY COMPLAINT

By: Food for the Brain Child Survey: The Promotion « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:31:47 +0000

[...] is any such evidence, despite expert review of these issues by both the House of Lords and the ASA? If so, it would behove him to explain why these independent reviews should be rejected in favour [...]

By: Patrick Holford, Food for the Brain and Equazen « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:48:12 +0000

[...] to EMR and YorkTest, the IgG food intolerance tests criticised by both the House of Lords and the ASA). Holford managed to procure some useful backing for the Food for the Brain project. One of the [...]

By: LeeT

LeeT — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:17:20 +0000

Thank you. That’s great. I have just signed. If the word goes out in the blogging community hopefully thousands more will sign up.

Regarding Jon’s point legislation was tightened up to impress upon company directors their responsibilities re health and safety. Perhaps the same thing could be done with regard to misleading advertising claims. Make directors, such as Mr Holford, personally liable and they will surely be careful. As things stand he has two adjudications go against him directly and I suppose the York one could be thought of as an indirect – let’s see whether he will change his ways …

By: Claire

Claire — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:08:20 +0000

REgarding Lee’s point (i), somebody called Nicholas Cresswell has put up a No. 10 petitions callling for disclaimers to be put on alternative medications, stating sth like ‘ there’s no good evidence that this works’ – http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/altmedicinediscl/ . Not many signatures so far but it might cheer him up if more were to sign up!. On the wider point of regulation/enforcement, I agree with jonhw, the ASA did what it could and it is good to have the decision on the public record. The US’s FDA (though not by any means without its own problems, suspicions of being too cosy with Big Pharma etc) does seem to have more clout that MHRA when it comes to sanctioning those making inaccurate claims. Though I’m not sure about the extent of their reach regarding AltMed products?

By: jonhw

jonhw — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:07:55 +0000

Thanks for all the comments. I think the ASA did what they were able to do – but there is a real case for giving them, or other agencies, stronger punitive powers. For example, we could take a leaf out of America’s book – where, sometimes, if a product is sold using inaccurate claims then company(s) selling it are forced to offer a full or partial refund to all customers.

By: LeeT

LeeT — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:28:11 +0000

Thank you for the links.

Although it is good fun reading adjudications against Holford and Holford-related projects I do think it is a rather slow way of making progress. Firstly, it depends on either the public or the ASA taking an interest. Secondly, most adjudications are not very well publicised.

The MHRA did not seem very interested when I rang to express my concern at the medicinal claims being made on some Higher Nature/Patrick Holford mood supplements. On his blog David Colquhoun’s mentions how they allowed certain herbal medicines to be labelled traditional remedies. (Sorry haven’t been able to find the link.)

If we were to argue in favour of a stronger regulatory regime that would certainly (i) engage the interest of CAM practitioners and (ii) probably the general public.

Can I challenge those who run this blog and comment on it to come up with a five or ten point manifesto? (Serious suggestions only!) Here is my contribution:-
(1) all herbal/supplement products to treated the same way as conventional medicine
(2) nutritionist to be a title protected by law within the EU
(3) nutritional therapists to be oliged to have an honours degree in addition to the ION diploma unless they have a relevant degree such as biochemistry/food science