I used to be under the impression that – if something was in the Telegraph – it had been subjected to a reasonable amount of scrutiny. DVNutrix has recently written heretically about a sad shattering of illusions about the Economist; likewise, I have recently become much less confident in the contents of the Telegraph. The Telegraph has sold and advertised – in a clearly untruthful way, as confirmed by the ASA – a silly insomnia cure, and has recently also helped to promote a dubious miracle diet sold by an ‘expert’ with a ‘doctorate’ in nutrition.
A while back, I was shocked to see the Telegraph claiming that an acupressure bracelet could let one
Say goodbye to sleepless nights. With our anti-insomnia band you can fall asleep naturally without the use of medication and its associated side effects. It works based on the principles of acupuncture – the wristband has a small inbuilt pressure button on the inner side which gently stimulates the H7 spot on the wrist, totally relaxing the body and promoting deep, restful sleep
The technical term for this is ‘bullshit’. Anyone with the sense they were born with should know that gently pushing an acupressure point on the wrist will not make someone ‘totally relax’ – imagine how dangerous it would be if people collapsed if a watch or similar knocked a spot on their wrists., Even putting this aside, the evidence for acupressure helping insomnia just isn’t there – being generous, one can find the occasional study that suggests a slight possibility it might do something…
I made a complaint to the ASA about this (very easy to do online, if you see something inaccurate in an advert). Unsurprisingly, the ASA found that the claims made in the ad had not been substantiated and the ad was misleading:
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and Beauty Products and Therapies).
OK, that was ‘just’ an advert – even if this was for a product sold by Telegraph Media Group. Sadly, though, the editorial content can be just as problematic. I was also disappointed by a recent article on Barry Groves’ recommendation for a high fat diet.
Firstly, I was surprised how much space was given to the article – lots of fad diets like this have been doing the rounds for ages, so why devote over 1,000 words to this? Rather than reporting on good, original research, much of the article focused on Groves’ good health: while I am delighted that he is well and active, I am not sure why this type of anecdote is newsworthy.
More worryingly, though, the article states that Groves “holds a doctorate in nutritional science”. It may be that the Telegraph have confirmed that Groves holds an accredited doctorate. However, the Oxford Mail states that Groves
obtained a doctorate in nutritional science from distance-learning Trinity College and University, registered in the US, whose website said it awarded degrees based on experience.
Trinity College and University offer doctorates based on ‘life experience’ for a bargain £295. As you can see from the form, they ask many searching questions before awarding a doctorate [PDF form]. For example, you need to tell Trinity your name, address, age, what degree you want, etc. This is clearly not the same as a PhD from a properly accredited University.
Of course, ‘doctorate’ is not a protected word in the UK: Groves is quite within his rights to assert that he has a doctorate even without having completed a properly accredited course. It is of course also possible that Groves has a properly accredited doctorate, as well as or instead of the Trinity College doctorate (I e-mailed him to ask, politely, but have not yet had a response – if I get one, I will post it here). However, it does look like the Telegraph may have credulously accepted a Trinity College and University doctorate as a meaningful qualification, whereas all Trinity College and University doctorates actually show is that one has a few hundred pounds to spare and can complete a simple form. This does not look good for the Telegraph – and leaves the Oxford Mail one up on the distinguished Telegraph.
Certainly, there is still a lot of good material in the Telegraph. However, mistakes like these can really damage the Telegraph’s reputation for accuracy. And, in my case, can have the sad effect of shattering some illusions.
By the way, there’s more I could write on Groves – but that would require a bit of extra research on my part. If people are interested, I might do so…
The Telegraph has fallen from such a height to being one of the laziest, poorly-researched, weak-minded, low-brow newspapers on the stand.
I wrote a piece during silly season this year about how the telegraph seemed to be on constant silly season, with advertorials like “Lower your blood pressure with our free spring water” which was also picked up and slammed by the ASA.
Don’t forget the real newsworthy stories in the Telegraph like “Alien Stole My Brain”.
Sheesh.
It might be fun if you wrote more on Groves although to be honest he’s so obviously a quack that it’s hardly worth it – maybe if he gets any more media attention.
When I first heard about Groves I fantasized about setting up some of debate between him and Holford. Woo vs. woo in a fight for the nation’s diet. Sadly Holford wouldn’t do it, although Groves seems like he’d be up for it.
“I used to be under the impression that – if something was in the Telegraph – it had been subjected to a reasonable amount of scrutiny.”
I’m not sure what the Telegraph used to be like but in recent times (at least since I’ve been taking more of an interest in teh national media) there does seem to have been some shocking rubbish published in their pages. The Independent is another paper that has sadly gone downhill – possibly more so than any other broadsheet – and is now basically a conspiracy theory rag as far as I’m concerned. And the Observer is not what it used to be – the 1 in 58 story from “Scoop” Campbell, the witterings of Spencer the astrologist being published on a weekly basis *grumble, grumble*. Maybe it’s just a sign that I’m getting older and grumpier rather than any real downward trend in broadsheet quality. I’d like to think so.
Hm – maybe I’ve taken too long to become disillusioned…
I’m rapidly losing faith in newspapers – I no longer read anything to do with science and medicine (except in order to blog about how bad it is) and I’m increasingly turning to the internet for general news and political comment – the election campaign, for example, was best followed online, newspapers just couldn’t keep up.
I suspect that in about a year or two I’ll stop reading print newspapers. I give them 10 years or so before they become unviable and it all goes online.
Barry Groves might be interesting because his Second Opinion website is well-regarded in some communities as people do place some store by the “studied nutrition since the 1960s” shtick and the doctorate.
There are no penalties associated with carrying these dodgy adverts so, in many ways, no harm no foul for the Telegraph although they have now lost money in having to deal with the ASA over this.
Pingback: Barry Groves’ Second Opinions website loses honcode accreditation « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
Having read Barry Grove’s book – Trick and Treat, and actually checked a few of the references he quotes (and he quotes pages of references), I think you do him a disservice. Much of his point of view is the same as Holfordwatch and Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science. I think all three of you offer valuable information.
The Telegraph article may have given a wrong impression, but his book makes real sense, and the references do check out.
Maybe you should investigate further?
Pingback: The Telegraph runs uncritical articles discussing homoeopathy and unconventional theories about climate change « Evidence Matters
Comparing Groves to Holford? C’mon, r u havng a bad hair day.
If you people were as “scientific” as you pretend you might have checked out Groves’ citations and and conclusions.
You did not. You are are as shonky as Holford.
Groves is controversial. Are his arguments faulty or hopelessly flawed?
I do not think so.
Attacking the messenger and not the message suggest a very biased (and hence insecure) listener.
Time you grew up, ate some humble pie, looked in the mirror and followed Poppers philosophy (like real scientists).
Otherwise you have as much credibility as Holford.
Smug pommy prats.
I do like the way that you complain about us ‘attacking the messenger’ and then sign off with “Smug pommy prats”. I’m no Popperian, but I didn’t think that the way the Telegraph reported Groves’ ‘doctorate’ was helpful. Some of Popper’s debates with e.g. Wittgenstein reportedly got fairly heated, but I don’t think that discussions ever deteriorated to the ‘pommy prat’ level.
I suggest that you read the Protein Power books by the Drs Michael and Mary Dan Eades, and Dr Michael Eades’ blog http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ before dismissing Barry Groves’ way of eating as a fad diet.