Comments on: YorkTest, Hardman & Hart: there’s a difference between the BMJ and Nutrition and Food Science

By: You and Yours on Which? Investigation into Food Intolerance Tests « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:04:47 +0000

[...] YorkTest, Hardman & Hart: there’s a difference between the BMJ and Nutrition and Food Science. Which?, YorkTest and Cambridge Nutritional Sciences Ltd. Update on Which?, YorkTest and Selective Quoting in Google Sponsored Links. [...]

By: Update on Which?, YorkTest and Selective Quoting in Google Sponsored Links « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:30:39 +0000

[...] to attract: see, e.g., the YorkTest information brochure that mistakenly implies that the YorkTest customer satisfaction audit was published in the BMJ. All too often, there is a schism between what the research division of a company is happy to claim [...]

By: jdc325

jdc325 — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:13:46 +0000

Oh dear. Does this mean that YorkTest and Patrick Holford have both incorrectly cited the customer audit as being published in (different) peer-reviewed journals? How unfortunate. Admin edit: jdc's post about Holford's error (now edited into main post). But when you have the chutzpah to tell an anecdote about 2 people on national radio as if it is equivalent to or more valuable than a systematic review of trials involving 250,000 people...

By: dvnutrix

dvnutrix — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:09:36 +0000

You have interpreted the trials correctly, Wulfstan. One of the odd things about this is the "clinically validated" aspect is that some people usually complain about off-label prescribing of a drug for a condition for which it was not specifically tested yet, it seems that they are happy to use a test that has not been validated for the diagnosis of food intolerance and for which there is no indication that IgG levels are related to food intolerance.

By: Wulfstan

Wulfstan — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:20:35 +0000

The BMJ!?! Yorktest accidentally claimed that it had a double-blind clinical trial published in the BMJ? Do they have a spanish work-experience guy on which they can blame this? If I understand this correctly: the Gut paper was double-blind and randomised; the Headache Congress paper was not double-blind and an audit rather than a trial; the Nutrition and Food Science paper was an audit of customer satisfaction surveys - no blinding, no trial. Canards like that?