A number of our threads have discussion that is off-topic to the post: this is inconvenient to anyone who is interested in researching an issue. So, we shall move off-topic comments to here.
Most commenters know this by default but for the handful who don’t, we will moderate comments that contain abuse or obscenities.
We may move towards moderating comments that ask questions that have been asked and answered on previous occasions.
If you don’t think that logic is a good method for determining what to believe, make an attempt to convince me of that without using logic. No one has even bothered to try yet. [Brett Lemoine]
Similarly, when you have been given appropriate information or links to read and you do not read them but continue to make your original statements in the hope that the broken record technique will wear down everyone’s critical faculties, this may lead to moderation if disemvowelling hasn’t worked.
For the majority of our commenters who are lively, well-mannered and whose comments regularly add to the general knowledge store, thank you.
Go, write it in a martial hand; be curst and brief. It is no matter how witty, so it be eloquent and full of invention.
Updated July 6, 2008.
78 responses so far ↓
Persiflage // October 17, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Couldn’t you do with a “support for dubious products” category as well? I’m thinking, of course, about stuff like the Q-Link pendant…
HommeVert // March 3, 2008 at 10:37 pm
On an only slightly peripheral issue, since Herr Professor Dr Holford also promotes organic food (on the Radio 4 Food Programme amongst other places):
The great organic con trick
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?storyID=20747
Organic produce is better for you?
Robert Johnston explodes five myths about its benefits
Interest groups claim that organic food is healthier and better for the environment, but many of such claims are myths.
• Myth No. 1: Organic food is healthier.
Actually, scientific studies show more health risks from organic food than conventional food. This month in California, for instance, Salmonella was found in organic fertilisers which could contaminate fruit and vegetables.
In 2003, Dutch scientists established that organic chickens and conventional birds had the same rate of infection with Salmonella even though many organic farmers vaccinate their chickens against the bug. In 2006, other Dutch scientists found that as many as three-quarters of organic chickens were infected with parasites.
cont …..
koo // April 12, 2008 at 3:43 am
I wonder What it took to get Michael Meacher to say the words ‘there is no difference between organic and conventional food’
This is a very serious misrepresentation
The difference between organic and conventional food is as follows:
Conventional food is grown using nitrate fertilizers, nitrates encourage the cell walls to expand and swell with water, thus producing a larger less nutritious product. It may look great and weigh more but it has less substance rather like this site.
It also contains some rather nasty chemicals (which do not wash off under the tap water as many believe) which also displaces available nutrients and then you get to a stage when what you are consuming is empty calories.
Meat is said to contain 40% less minerals then it did in the 1960’s and there you have the empty calories again.
During processing certain meats such chicken, bacon etc go through a process they call tumbling, which is where the meat is injected with beef proteins which enable the cells again to absorb more water and again make them look better and weigh more then they should, which explains the large amount of water that comes out when you are cooking these products.
So you are not getting the nutrients that you need to from your food and so people are getting very sick (nutritionally depleted) and are turning to their doctors who put them on some kind of drug without even considering that they may be nutritionally deficient.
The whole system of conventional farming compounds its self, it is a vicious cycle as the nutrients are ever leached from the soil, fertilizers in the form of nitrates never replenish the soil, so the soil becomes poorer and poorer and our food like wise.
This is simple logic, I don’t need to back it up because at the push of a button you can do the research in to the way nitrates behave and read it for yourselves.
Organic farming is now commanding 30% of the UK market compared to 2% as it was in the year 2000, this is seriously upsetting the conventional farmers and of course the chemical companies which is why this crazy argument against logic is taking place. It is also the reason why Codex is coming into play in 2009, it is a protectionist racket.
CONventional farming is indeed one of the biggest cons to hit mankind as is modern medicine. It is in fact alternative farming practice as we have been practicing organic farming for thousands of years and now we have to pay extra for ‘real’ food
It is interesting that this site is attacking both organic farming and alternative medical practice, both are areas that the chemical companies have a massive vested interest in.
When Codex arrives in it completion in 2009, if it is allowed to get through, our food is going to get worse and our ability to counter the effects of that food through supplements is going to be very much reduced.
koo // April 12, 2008 at 3:46 am
Don’t you think its time you guys wound it up?
I’ve been going through the comments and you are in a minority, looks like you are not quite getting away with it, flogging a dead horse, can’t be good for the self esteem…………….
koo // May 1, 2008 at 9:43 am
Just found this in an artical asking ‘why are doctors so unhappy in the editorials of the BMJ
enjoy….
Doctors and patients: redrafting a bogus contract
The bogus contract: the patient’s view
* Modern medicine can do remarkable things: it can solve many of my problems
* You, the doctor, can see inside me and know what’s wrong
* You know everything it’s necessary to know
* You can solve my problems, even my social problems
* So we give you high status and a good salary
The bogus contract: the doctor’s view
* Modern medicine has limited powers
* Worse, it’s dangerous
* We can’t begin to solve all problems, especially social ones
* I don’t know everything, but I do know how difficult many things are
* The balance between doing good and harm is very fine
* I’d better keep quiet about all this so as not to disappoint my patients and lose my status
The new contract
Both patients and doctors know:
* Death, sickness, and pain are part of life
* Medicine has limited powers, particularly to solve social problems, and is risky
* Doctors don’t know everything: they need decision making and psychological support
* We’re in this together
* Patients can’t leave problems to doctors
* Doctors should be open about their limitations
* Politicians should refrain from extravagant promises and concentrate on reality
koo // May 2, 2008 at 9:19 am
Ahhh did you create off topic just for me I’m soOO thrilled
dvnutrix // May 2, 2008 at 9:24 am
Your egotism is as deeply affecting as always - as is your inability to read and comprehend.
Post your off-topic material here in future or it won’t be moved.
rita // May 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm
i think your site contains load of rubbish. i do believe that vitamin and mineral supplements can enhance peoples’ wellbeing and resolve health problems. as for patrick holford he is just demonstrating the fact that people who suffer from ailments can further improve their health by taking supplements. i suffered from various health problems and taking supplements and homeopathy has greatly improved my health
Claire // May 8, 2008 at 10:22 am
Rita, I think if you read this site carefully you will find plenty of lengthy explanation of why individual anecdotes cannot be regarded as reliable evidence. If the reason is not clear to you by now, well, I’m not sure what more can be done.
Mr Holford is one of those who promote the idea that doctors and Big Pharma are locked in a greedy conspiracy to keep people ill and taking ever-increasing amounts of medications. Accompanied, of course, but the insinuation that those who examine critically the evidence for alternative /complementary theories are either stupid or in the pay of the pharmas. There is, undeniably, much to deplore about the nefarious practices of some pharamaceutical companies and their attempts to influence medical practice, and I personally welcome the increasing critical attention given to this by medical and scientific journals and internet sites such as Ed Silverman’s Pharmalot. But claims of a seamless conspiracy to keep patients in thrall to prescription drugs are, I think, inaccurate, exaggerated and dishonest - and offensive to the many medical professionals who dedicate much time and effort to carefully assessing evidence and formulating recommendations which are in the best interests of patients.
For example, the SIGN/BTS asthma management guideline, extensively detailed constantly referred to by doctors, has published an update dated May 2008 - http://www.sign.ac.uk/ . Non-pharmalogical treatments are reviewed, including complementary therapies, and a new recommendation has been made regarding the Buteyko breathing method, which the guideline now says may be considered to help patients control the symptoms of asthma (and reduce use of bronchodilator medications). Up to now, the BTS/SIGN position has been that the evidence was not clear enough. Doctors considering something that might reduce drug usage? Fancy that!
Unfortunately for Mr Holford et al, the evidence at present does not support use of supplements, fish oils etc in asthma, or homeopathy, chiropractic etc.
jim // May 9, 2008 at 9:42 pm
whoever is behind this site is say who they are and any affiliations they have– especially sinse there are alot of accusations of profiteering
jonhw // May 10, 2008 at 1:58 am
Jim - we’ve made clear that we don’t have any competing interests, in the pharmaceutical or CAM industries. We’ve also made clear why we’re not going to state our identities - see the About Us page.
gulliver // May 11, 2008 at 8:57 pm
oh dear clare. you really are wrapped up in your own little orthodox medicine world
jim // May 11, 2008 at 11:59 pm
My guess is you are a group of med students who are annoyed at people like PH for undermining the status of your profession- am I close?
HappyGilmore // May 12, 2008 at 10:08 pm
One last thing. When I discover this group of blogs against CAM or NT, I was amazed by how many never published my comments. I really appreciate this blog does, it shows maturity and full openess to discussion.
Although I am thinking, what about those who don’t allow comments against their opinion? Which kind of information are they divulgating?
I am referring in particular to this one: http://dcscience.net/?p=227
I have tried to post twice, never using inappropriate language, but I have never been posted.
this article is full of rubbish, some information has been copied and pasted just to suit the need: very unprofessional!
draust // May 13, 2008 at 10:26 am
David Colquhoun over at dcscience.net publishes almost all comments, though he has occasionally been known to edit them if they are (i) insulting or offensive; or (ii) simply repeating off-topic rants they have posted before - see e.g. the comments thread on his front page and the comments of “bigpharma-bigbucks”.
Regarding us being “against CAM or NT”… is asking it to meet scientific standards “being against it”? I don’t think so. What we ask is that CAM (inc nutritionism) should either come up with the evidence to show it works, OR stop claiming to be an “established therapeutic intervention” that deserves recognition alongside evidence-based medicine. “Put up or shut up”, one might say.
The nominal subject of this blog, “Prof” Holford, does neither, as has been exhaustively documented here and elsewhere.
Claire // May 13, 2008 at 1:06 pm
When comments fail to be published, it can sometimes be due to the presence of more than one link in the comment which diverts it into the spam filter. This has happened me a few times but contacting the person responsible for the website sorted things out. One shouldn’t automatically assume censorship.
HappyGilmore // May 13, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Thank you for the information.
Again, after I said it already 3 times, I am totally not an Holford supporter so please please please, I am begging you stop insinuating that.
Prof. Colquhoun has all my respect, although no offensive language (which isn’t part of my educational backgroud) or links were added in the post.
Re his article, I can guarantee you on personal experience that what he mentioned be a specific timetable, it is not true.
Re Nutritionism….I am a strong beliver, unless you try to convince me that someone like Linus Pauling, for example, was a total idiot.
Thanks & regards, J
Dr Aust // May 14, 2008 at 8:43 am
Well, Pauling’s claims about Vitamin C have not been bourne out by later studies by people other than the Pauling Institute, HappyG.
Pauling is one of my scientific heroes, and arguably should have won three Nobels rather than the two, but that still doesn’t mean he was right about everything. Science is a hard discipline that way, because the things you get wrong are ultimately exposed for all to see.
Re. nutritionism, there is no dispute that diet influences both health and disease. The dispute is really whether disease can be prevented or cured in the sort of “magic ingredient” or “magic diet” ways relentlessly promoted by most nutritionists, certainly by PH and his ION-trained disciples. The evidence says it can’t.
jdc325 // May 14, 2008 at 11:44 am
“Re Nutritionism….I am a strong beliver”
Ah. Belief in nutritionism. So it is a religion. Is convincing you that Pauling was wrong the only way to change your mind? It seems odd to me that your faith in nutritionism depends on people rather than evidence. Nutritionism can encourage people to spend disproportionate amounts of money on single nutrients or so-called superfoods rather than eating a healthy balanced diet. Having seen Holford, McKeith et al recommend various superfoods - not to mention pseudo-medical supplements (Horny Goat Weed to promote sexual satisfaction anyone? Antioxidants for schizophrenia?) - I worry that it could be the case that people who believe in superfoods might spend money on expensive exotic berries of dubious value rather than buying good value-for-money fruit and veg and eating a healthy diet. There’s nothing wrong with getting specialist dietary advice (from a qualified dietitian) if it is necessary for some reason. Otherwise - “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants”.
“unless you try to convince me that someone like Linus Pauling, for example, was a total idiot”
You don’t have to be a total idiot in order to occasionally be wrong. Take, for example, the triple helix of DNA. The author of the classic textbook General Chemistry made a chemical error and got the structure of DNA wrong. Ironically, in order to check the chemistry Crick had to consult General Chemistry. The author was, of course, Linus Pauling. It was a rare error - but an error all the same.
PS - Nobel Laureate Arthur Kornberg agrees with Dr Aust that Pauling should have had another Nobel: “according to Nobel Laureate Arthur Kornberg, Pauling deserved a Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery of the molecular cause of sickle-cell anaemia and his work on protein structure.”
HappyGilmore // May 14, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Dr Aust, about nutrition and prevention, yes I think it works in same cases. About influence on disease, yes Nut can definetely support recovery, particularly with gastro-int conditions.
Magic bullets don’t exist. Overdose of micronutrients and such can be very dangerous and I am better off not precribing.
NT does good, it imporves wellbeing, it improves recovery from disease, it can prevent t2 diabetes, CVD, obesity. For me this is enough to say it is good.
Thank you for the debate, it was highlitening and pleasant!
J
Amanda // May 21, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Having been severely damaged by a prescribed drug taken at low dose for 5 1/2 weeks , i wonder if anyone checks the claims made by the pharmacuetical companies - that doctors have to rely on - (apart from NICE who have shares in said companies) ? I would find it hard to survive without taking herbs, and B vitamins which incidentally have been shown to improve or cure certain mental health conditions from more than 75 years ago. I have also used clinically proven herbs to prevent having to have surgery. I find eating salmon reduces pain caused by inflammation. I have a degree in Plant science and Pure maths if it makes any difference. As you happen to be ‘openly’ (sort of if you do not give your names) critical of someone who fronts his beliefs and research carried out over many years it seems maybe not fair that you do not disclose yourselves or qualifications. PS:1 In trials the drug i took caused worse symptoms than those treated AFTER ONE DOSE in ay least one trail; and caused epileptec fits in 2 out of 30 people in another trial - before eventually being ‘passed’ to be prescribed. PS:2 I have also learned that ginger AND turmeric ‘kill certain cancer cells’ in vitro better than the preferred chemotherapy used. As 1 teaspoon per day could be the amount required causing no hospital visit, toxicity or hair-loss; i hope the reason clinical trials are not taking place is because they cost 50p a jar in Asda.
[Moved as off-topic from About Us.]
Wulfstan // May 21, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Sadly, doesn’t seem to have done much for you either, judging by the critical thinking or research skills on display. Hint, go to PubMed, enter the botanical names for the substances you mention (which is where your degree in plant science might come in useful) and observe the number of trials in progress.
Links for the remainder of your assertions?
And the reliance of personal anecdotes as if they are meaningful data, not very popular. On the upside, The Royal College of Lay People is recruiting people just like you.
Amanda // May 21, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Maybe you could move this bit back to “About Us”:
‘As you happen to be ‘openly’ (sort of as you do not give your names) critical of someone who fronts his beliefs and research carried out over many years it seems maybe not fair that you do not disclose yourselves or qualifications.’
[NB: Full text moved to "Off-topic"]
dvnutrix // May 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm
No - that sort of comment has had multiple responses and none of the sort of commenter that you seem to be has ever demonstrated the capacity to read and absorb earlier answers.
Perhaps you ought to go and learn what Holford’s actual qualifications are and then you would understand how difficult it would be to have fewer relevant qualifications than he does.
As a matter of interest, what sort of qualifications do you need to be able to say that someone is citing a paper that has been retracted by the authors.
Amanda // May 21, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I do critical but not detailed research and I do not have any of the links for studies.
I am glad if there are more trials carrying on.
Certain B vitamins were researched before 1930 in connection with mental health.
Vitamin C can improve immune function.
Echinacea increases white blood cell count (and all in my own blood test results).
Milk Thistle has been shown to improve liver function.
Agnus Castus modulates FSH (as shown in my blood test results).
I however DO NOT assume that personal information is meaningful statistically, nor do i want to be treated as a statistic. I was showing that i use my own experience with things to help myself - and actually omega oils in oily fish have been shown to reduce inflammation.
If i did not believe in myself i could have had major surgery by now.
Amanda // May 21, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I did not mean to imply you are under qualified.
Amanda // May 21, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Wn. I have never ’sat on the pavement with a placard’ and i do not understand the RCLP link. i am trying to have a serious conversation !
I have references for the drug research and NICE reports but am in the middle of working on this.
Alot of health professionals are not interested in adverse drug reactions, or herbs. In fact some are quite rude about both.
dx: What ’sort of commentator’ do you fit me in to ?
dvnutrix // May 21, 2008 at 5:53 pm
The sort of commentator who comments:
*off-topic
*without being fully aware of the situation (e.g., Holford’s remarkably bellicose response to any grounded criticism of his work yet the aggressive and unpleasant nature of his discourse when discussing others when it is he who is in error (e.g., Prof Summerbell and her co-authors)
*without having looked around the blog much to check what we have already written or previous responses that we have made
*without appraising the quality of the posts and noticing basic stuff like the fact that we give full, correct citations to primary literature and links wherever possible
*without checking the state of Patrick Holford’s qualifications before presuming that we are over-matched or comparatively under-qualified
*to make a number of assertions without providing any relevant references
*to assume that we are not familiar with similar assertions and the lack of clinical evidence to support them.
If you are interested in the bio-availability of curcumin, you might be interested in this: What’s the excitement about turmeric?
Amanda // May 21, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I was merely explaining why i support that it may be reasonable that other people expect you to say who you are, which is policy, taking into account the website address. You put photographs of him on your site.
I think it is probably good if you do this work, in case people think they have to pay unnecessarily to get well, but as i am new i wondered if you criticize the pharmacuetical industry as much - maybe you can point me to this.
Anyway - good to have intelligent debate.
I have found some of PH’s work and basic supplements invaluable so am a little defensive and you would expect a few unchecked reference changes or withdrawels when 1,000’s are made.
I support the connection between nutrition, science and mental (and physical) wellbeing but i would not call myself a ‘nutritionist’ because it makes it sound like a religion. I am sure that you are aware that anyone passionate about this or ‘guilty’ of encouraging any diversion is far outweighed by the influence of the pharmaceutical companies. The human body evolved (was designed) to heal itself.
jonhw // May 21, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Amanda - we’re not nit-picking at the occasional mistake here. Holford’s work is riddled with basic errors: this blog has been running for over a year, and barely even scratched the surface of what he has got wrong.
We’re also interested in “the connection between nutrition, science and mental (and physical) wellbeing”. Part of the reason I go to the effort of criticising Holford is that:
- his work on nutrition is terribly poor quality science.
- his medicalisation of many of the ’symptoms’ of typical life (and promotion of pills to ‘cure’ them) seems unlikely to promote wellbeing.
- his strikingly insensitive approach to mental health problems (for example, developing a hierachy of mental disease) does not seem conducive to wellbeing.
To be honest, I am surprised that we don’t see more professionals in the field of nutrition speaking out against Holford - in order to defend the reputation of their field.
Amanda // May 22, 2008 at 10:40 am
Maybe because they know of the fairly low ‘cure’ rate in the treatment of mental illness by modern medicine (and the well-documented possibility of extremely severe side-effects).
I would say that modern medical science may be good science but CAN be very bad medicine and morality. This is not with-standing the hard work and genuine motivation that contributes to a wealth of knowledge trying to help understand human health. Why do health professionals receive no training in the use of herbs that have extremely good efficacy, fewer side-effects and often have no pharmaceutical equivalent ?
I have not read the text but do not see PH’s diagram as ‘heirachical’ which is why it is illustrated as a 3-dimensional object. It illustrates different facets in the continuum of mental health and dis-ease and the factors that may be involved (which i do not see as peculiar in any way).
jdc325 // May 22, 2008 at 11:14 am
I’m going to pick up on one of the points raised by Amanda and write quite a long and boring comment about it. Possibly with spelling mistakes, dodgy html and broken links. Apologies in advance for any errors.
“i wondered if you criticize the pharmacuetical industry as much”
I see this point raised time and time again by critics of skeptical blogs. This particular blog is about Patrick Holford - I wouldn’t really expect it to cover Big Pharma and I’m actually a little surprised at the suggestion that it should.
Other skeptical blogs that cover a wider range of topics have looked at the failings of Big Pharma. Ironically, the authors of these blogs are also criticised by people for being insufficiently critical of Big Pharma. Bad Science and DC Science have categories for ‘Regulating Research’ and ‘Big Pharma’ respectively. If you are interested in information and opinions on the shenanigans of Big Pharma you could do worse than check these posts out.
Incidentally, both sites also criticise a certain media nutritionist - Patrick Holford.
Referring to DC’s Improbable Science and Ben Goldacre’ Bad Science indirectly leads me to another, possibly related, complaint about this blog - that “it may be reasonable that other people expect you to say who you are” because of “any affiliations they have“. Jon clearly states in this response that there are no relevant affiliations (i.e., competing interests) “Jim - we’ve made clear that we don’t have any competing interests, in the pharmaceutical or CAM industries. We’ve also made clear why we’re not going to state our identities - see the About Us page.” David Colquhoun’s research has never been funded by the drug industry, but always by the Medical Research Council or by the Wellcome Trust. This didn’t stop Patrick Holford from incorrectly stating that Prof Coquhoun had competing interests and financial involvements with the pharmaceutical industry that he had failed to mention. Basically, the guy with competing interests criticised the guy without competing interests for having competing interests and made himself look very silly indeed. I wonder how many Holford fans would be surprised to learn that it is Holford rather than the Professor of Pharmacology or the other skeptical bloggers [including HolfordWatch] who has direct financial interests that should be declared when discussing nutritionism?
More on Holford, Colquhoun, HolfordWatch and competing interests here: Currying for Business.
Amanda // May 22, 2008 at 10:02 pm
NB: I disagree with all dx’s bullet points ******* however i think we probably both have better things to do than go through them.
I will take jw’s bullet points - - - one at a time :
- 1 - i think you could be accused of defamation of character for this one.
-2- this is such a common accusation made against pharmaceutical companies i find it curious that you manage to transfer it onto PH.
-3- I find PH to be incredibly sensitive (and have explained why i do not agree with your projection of his diagram). Amazingly enough i think the “strikingly insensitive approach to mental health” award would have to go to all pharmaceutical drug research i have ever read [on this matter] - it is unbelievably dehumanized. Human happiness and misery defined in clinical statistics.
Wulfstan // May 23, 2008 at 9:16 am
With respect, you’ve just summed up your whole problem. You haven’t read the text yet you are free with your opinions. The people here have read the text in extraordinary detail and they’ve checked the references - yet you are disagreeing with them and think that they are being mean/ inappropriate in their analysis.
Name them and give references as to why taking a punt with a non-standardised dose of a substance is a good idea (the active substance in red rice yeast is lovastatin but the dose varies, or you could take a statin where the dose is standardised). I see that you haven’t commented on the pharmacokinetics of curcumin - is that because you would rather concern yourself with fluffy rhetoric than where the rubber meets the road of bioavailability, plasma levels etc?
I urge you, read more, comment less until you have more of a grasp of the topic that you espouse to know about.
One more thinking point (I will not make the obvious crack). All those respectable academics who found themselves entangled with Holford - why do you think that Dr John Marks, Prof Andre Tylee, Prof Jonathan Waxman etc. have withdrawn their endorsements? Likewise Dr Chris Steele? Why do you think that FFTB lost so many of the academics who were supposedly on their Scientific Advisory Board?
Why don’t you list out what you think Holford’s qualifications and experience are? Then take a look around this blog and see what they actually are? share the results with us.
Wulfstan // May 23, 2008 at 9:29 am
No - it’s obvious that, yet again, you are using words and phrases that you don’t understand. Have the courtesy to look them up before tossing them about with abandon. The people here provide references and working for every explanation when they highlight Holford’s errors. Oh - don’t tell me, like Holford, you don’t understand leaf plot analysis either, but you would be happy to accuse others of lapses of integrity sooner than consider the greater probability that you are mistaken.
Wait - I’ve just realised. Sock puppet alert? Hickory, is this you?
openmind // May 23, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I think Amanda is probably Sara, from the ‘About Us’ thread, who also had a degree in Plant Science and a habit of using lower case i’s.
Amanda // May 23, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Holfords text, from my subsequent reading, does not imply he meant the diagram to be hierarchical either - that is why it is 3-dimensional. It also does not contain arrows which some people have commented on. I would have to say that this relevant website page is extremely hypercritical for no apparent scientific reason but i am sure not all your scientific analysis is necessarily like this.
Sounds like you are against herbs and i have not the time to find references so if you are interested:
Agnus Castus is clinically proven to modulate FSH levels - disruption of which can be the only cause of infertility and causes PCOS involving ovarian cysts. There is no pharmaceutical equivalent and it does not cause side-effects.
There is no good reason theoretically and directly medically why people are not informed to try this and any obvious nutritional approaches before they consider traumatic, invasive and expensive intervention (sometimes paid for by the tax-payer - nb: adverse drug reactions estimate could cost nhs 2bn a year); even if more clinical trials would help protocols.
St Johns wort is prescribed in Germany for mild or moderate depression. It has few side-effects, is non-addictive, does not allow tolerance and has never caused someone to become suicidal or homocidal all of which have been publicised problems (bbc, Times, C5, USA) with certain pharmaceutical anti-depressants (some also proven not to be effective).
Echinacea raises white blood cell count. For this reason and because of its efficacy it is extremely dangerous for consultants NOT to know this for patients with certain cancers eg. maybe if they take interferon.
Milk thistle (and certain other substances) have been clinically shown to improve liver function. There is NO pharmaceutical equivalent for this herb either. It can help with hormones, digestion, alcoholism and drug toxicity (whether legal, prescribed or illegal).
There should be more standardisation ( some are regulated as well eg. Germany), clinical trials, and accurate advice. There is enough information if you have the time or skills, but ‘conventional’ medical advice should be seriously considered always. Sometimes pharmaceuticals may be an option or a combination of advanced techniques and/or clinical practise combined with the use
of chosen herbs. You probably have read that some herbs work well as a whole plant because they contain supportive agents for the effective constituent.
PH has a Bsc in Experimental Psychology and has studied and researched in the field of nutrition especially in connection with mental health. He has at least one paper published in the Lancet. He is open about his commercial ventures especially supplements (and books) which have his name plastered all over them.
I should be able to understand leaf plot analysis as i have studied statistics and Pure maths to degree level. Also about critical research.
I have not enough time to study turmeric at the moment even though i have found it -used as a powder- to be the most successful at reducing inflammation marker readings. I make ‘fluffy’ comments to encourage analysis about why the economics, politics, financial pressures and even ’science’ of medicine reinforces a divide between old/natural and new/pharmaceutical medicine to the sometimes obvious detriment to ‘wellbeing’ - which is what medicine is for; and the only way to offer an alternative or complementary approach is SEPARATELY and outside funded, nationalised, regulated, commercial and even sometimes scientific ‘norms’. I am sorry if i have not studied everything that you or PH has said or done, and i would not blindly defend someone or bother attacking anyone but i thought i would try adding a comment. I may sound thick but my views/anger/passion involving peoples’ welfare are scientifically based. I am not suggesting that anyone involved in modern medicine is intentionally corrupt but the systems involved (even the scientifically based protocols etc.) help create some seriously warped ideas and solutions. I cannot really speak for PH though anyway.
I do not know Hickory or sock puppets.
We were taught at college that research could be skewed or weighted and to have a look at sponsers of the research. The economic ’system’ and the fact that modern pharmaceuticals provide nearly all there own research, marketing and clinical advice and information for practitioners provides a possibly unintentional conflict of interest for them and anyone who owns their shares.
I still think you have a point - or however many it is (seriously) but some of your work that i have seen is too hypercritial or biased suggesting emotive reasoning.
dvnutrix // May 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm
No, he doesn’t (he has a 2:2 in Psychology - not Experimental Psychology, there’s a difference); no, he hasn’t (unless you count just reading and writing about work by other people, that’s not what most people mean by research); and no, he hasn’t although given the way he talks about the Benton and Roberts Lancet paper you would think that he did write it (not to disillusion you further, but his input was so negligible he doesn’t even merit a mention in the acknowledgements; yet again, you are asserting knowledge about something you haven’t even read).
If you had followed the link, you would have learned all about Hickory and sock puppets. Again, if you had followed links before posting, you would be much better informed as to why someone used the leaf plot example.
Good grief - what were they teaching in your college? Certainly not decent critical thinking skills. Supplement manufacturers sponsor their own research. Engineering companies ditto. Who are you suggesting should fund research. There is a lot more to analysing research literature than that. Read the literature about sponsorship before affecting to comprehend research or scholarship.
Sounds like advice you should be taking not dispensing. Read the links you’ve been given - give your own links for your assertions or there will be a “stop feeding the research-challenged” recommendation.
See above, no, they are not “scientifically based” just because you think that they are. Read this - it might explain misconceptions and framing to you.
jonhw // May 23, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Amanda - it is fair comment for us to say that Holford’s work on nutrition is poor quality science. We have also explained, at tedious length, a number of the problems with his science. To be honest, it seems rather crass for you to be (inaccurately) claiming that this is defamatory, without appearing to pay much attention to whether or not it’s true.
Re hierarchies, you do know that you can get multi-dimensional hierarchies, right. For example, a pilot and administrator might both have reached the same level on the military hierarchy - the same rank - while doing completely different jobs. And, as has been said, reading the text may help.
As to Holford’s sensitivity to those with mental health problems, you could also note other issues like the use of the word ‘crazy’ to describe a schizophrenic woman. Or, in a broader context, Holford’s Food for the Brain organisation has written about how foods can make some children “stupid”.
Amanda // May 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Not sara either.
You could take up my tutoring on research with Cardiff University Science department. [as it happens various acid rain research sponsered by UK electrical companies gave statistacally significantly more positive results than those not].
Its fair comment for me to say that you are hyper-critical and biased in some of what you have written/encourage to be written.
I have read the text and i do not think the diagram looks intends or look heirarchical.
I have read about the crazy thing and heard about the stupid quote. got to go - looking up crass.
dvnutrix // May 23, 2008 at 5:17 pm
You were wrong about Holford’s qualification and the Lancet paper. You are wrong about a lot of things and even when corrected you do not apologise for your error or acknowledge it.
I see no more reason to trust you about having studied degree level Plant Science AND Pure Math at Cardiff than I do any of your assertions about plants, herbs or your general foolish conspiracies about sponsorship etc.
Wulfstan // May 23, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Look in the mirror? Also, ‘up’ was superfluous in that context.
If we are going to be subjected to more from Amanda, may I plead that she has to use a spell-checker (I’m waiting for someone to develop a commonsense checker). I’m sure that Cardiff would be mortified that she is publicising that she is one of their alumni. Also, to be fair to Cardiff, what they taught Amanda and what she remembers may be entirely different.
Since Amanda is so knowledgeable about Agnus Castus, maybe she’ll explain why there is nothing in PubMed about its use for PCOS. But, judging by her writing, maybe she indulges in more than one form of herbal fantasy. Step away from the functional waters.
jdc325 // May 23, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Can I take the off-topic thread further off-topic and ask if anyone else has seen the latest health email from Patrick Holford this week?
It’s titled “A bikini body in 5 weeks”.
dvnutrix // May 23, 2008 at 10:02 pm
“A bikini body in 5 weeks”. We certainly have seen this and shall concoct a little something over the w/end. One has to admire the continued use of phrases that have no agreed meaning.
Amanda // May 24, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I do not claim to be so knowledgeable about Agnus Castus - i just scratched the surface. Agnus Castus is one of or the most important herbs for PCOS because it controls FSH and LH.(i did not read this at university).
I did not lie about my qualifications. The University of York website says : “We are an EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY department and our research and courses reflect this”. 2:2 is BSc Hons then. PH may not be mentioned on a scientific paper if he was involved in the preliminary research before the trial.
Your interpretation of Holford’s diagram is wrong and you have not apologised about that.
Sorry about spelling - had to catch a train - do not like spellcheck if it is American.
I might try to explain my point of view in one more post.
dvnutrix // May 24, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Your logical leaps are absurd. You are the one who mentioned Agnus Castus - now you are trying to quell people with stuff you haven’t even had the courtesy to read about. Somehow you know that it is important despite Wulfstan pointing out that there is nothing in the PubMed literature on this topic.
I have nothing to do with the diagram - you’re talking to the wrong person. I instinctively feel that you are the one at fault however but you don’t even realise your failure of comprehension.
If you had read the links further, although the dept stresses experimental psychology, the degree is plain ordinary Psychology and this was confirmed by both a lecturer at the university and the Registrar as well as several graduates. As for the Lancet - you were wrong, acknowledge it.
That’s what acknowledgements are for, you would know that if you had ever read a paper all the way through…I remind you that your original claim was:
Oddly enough, on the topic of research - don’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs. I can confidently say that everyone here has forgotten more about research in a coffee-break than you know.
Whoever told you that you have any research ability cruelly deceived you, so I rather hope that this is a solo fantasy of yours.
Your point of view is as worthless as your research skills - so, don’t trouble yourself to post an explanation on my account as you don’t seem to understand what the words ‘explanation’ or ‘evidence’ mean. You will not be tolerated further if you don’t read the links you are given and if you don’t provide quality evidence to support your assertions.
Amanda // May 24, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“Polycystic Ovary Syndrome : Clinical Considerations”
Alternative Medicine review by Keri Marshall
[nb:may not be the best or most up to date review].
I could be just as rude back to you about your comments but have alot better things to do than check up the exact wording of other people’s qualifications.
I talk to everyone posting at the same time (seeing as i am talked about in the third person).
Because I disagree with some of your opinions you are rude to me ?
Amanda // May 24, 2008 at 4:35 pm
AMR , June , 2001 by Keri Marshall
jonhw // May 24, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Amanda- the diagram of mental health/disease has different mental health issues/learning difficulties arranged with one above the other. It also has arrows pointing up and down, implying possible movement up and down this scale. It definitely looks like a hierarchy. If Holford did not want it to be viewed as a hierarchy, he should have made this clear. He would win extra tact points if - for example - he had refrained from calling a schizophrenic woman ‘crazy’ or if his FFTB organisation had refrained from writing about how some children were made stupid. I certainly don’t see any need to apologise.
dvnutrix // May 24, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Amanda - look it up and post your own link and reference - that isn’t good enough.
I have to say that the remarks that you deprecate look like appropriate humour to me - it is hard to believe that you haven’t previously been told that you over-value your own knowledge and abilities. It isn’t rude if it is correct and people have reasoned with you and provided references that you fail to follow. The humour may seem inappropriate to you but I doubt that it does to others.
jonhw // May 25, 2008 at 12:40 am
Amanda- I took a look at your reference (see here for the PDF of the article), and found that it was rather unimpressive.
You say that “Agnus Castus is clinically proven”. However, the article you’ve referenced only has a short passage on Agnus Castus, which references a single small-ish (n=96) trial on a herbal product containing Agnus Castus extract (among a number of other ingredients), which did not find any statistically significant effect on hormone levels.
The article’s section on Agnus Castus (one paragraph on p. 285) references only one trial - abstract here. The article you referenced does not summarise this single trial well. Firstly - although not mentioned in the article - it is clear from the trial’s abstract that it did not find that Mastondynon produced statistically significant changes in hormone levels. It is also clear from the trial’s abstract that it used a herbal preparation called Mastodynon: which appears to contain a number of active ingredients, and (even if the Mastodynon used did bring beneficial changes) it could have been the Agnus Castus or a different ingredient which was responsible for any benefits; again, the article does not mention this issue. Unfortunately, I can’t read the full text of the trial: it’s in German.
At any rate, I would want to see rather better evidence before I conclude that something is clinically proven to do anything.
Amanda // May 25, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I SEE the arrows as pointing to health at the top down to disease at the bottom of a 3-dimensional container with the factors and various descriptions of ‘mental disorders’ involved illustrated - in a NON-hierarchical way, which as hierarchy is not mentioned at all or inferred in the chapter in which the illustration appears, could be said to mean that this is what PH intended. Maybe this is because i have more of an idea, belief or understanding of what he means. I never assume i am correct or have the best answer so i do not ‘over-value’ my knowledge or abilities as dx infers. I value my insight and complete independence from pressure, finance and prejudice but not above anyone else (hierarchically). I have not sourced or written out references since college, though am able to research with as open mind and analytical if possible; and thought there were anecdotal posts on the site without references so decided to post. Mostly because i think people deserve unprejudiced advise (nb: not from me).
I only asked you to apologise because i was asked to myself - actually about getting ‘Experimental Psychology’ wrong which looks probably about right on http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/psych/www/about but i wouldn’t normally get involved in such arguments anyway. I have not got anywhere double-checking the BBC horizon/Lancet research interest. A large part of medicine or health care is unquantifiable - involving faith , sensitivity, understanding, kindness, caring, sympathy (eg. well-documented placebo effect). From what i have seen of PH I am sure the way crazy and stupid were used by PH is not done or meant disrespectfully or rudely, especially as he relates the extra burden of stigma that sometimes accompanies mental health problems and titles.
Agnus Castus worked for me very quickly correcting LH level ( did not know was wrong at the time) so i have been interested ever since. Has stayed normal ever since but i get more cyclical headaches when i do not take it (Schellenberg, 2001). Wouldn’t you be interested ? Can feel better mentally with controlled hormone levels aswell. LH and FSH control the other hormones. Agnus Castus can help with testosterone levels which sometimes is important in PCOS. Looks like may be chinese herbs that work better or in combination.
In the study i thought that 56% (of 96) became potentially fertile or pregnant; 36% on placebo. Dont suppose the 15 babies (does not say how many on placebo) mind whether they are statistically significant or not ! Anyhow i may be able to find some better references from sources i have used though. 9 year safety study and one for during pregnancy and feeding. Pubmed has ‘dietary intervention for PCOS infertility’ 2008. Increased testosterone during pregnancy linked to baby and child behaviour [Oxford]. NaProTechnology. Lowers prolactin to improve fertility. Hormone imbalance can cause health problems for men.
If St Johns Wort may be more effective for mild to moderate depression than pharmaceuticals (some studies have showing several no effect except for very severe depression), and would anyway be a safer placebo, should not ‘CAM’ publicists put information (carefully) into public arena until the it can be offered alongside by GP’s ? (How long before the political changes are made to allow this ? ). Also at the moment prices vary from £1.29 to £16+ for 1 month. With users of £1.29 reporting very effective [anecdotal].
Since Germany was created after the war with proportional representation and for example has ‘Green’ members of parliament there is more impartial and “cross-medical-approaches ” information available about herbal medicines (and even food quality/contamination). This is my theory anyway. There is also more standards for preparations. Maybe higher prices ?
USA can have more choice and research because people tend to personally pay for their healthcare. However adverse drug reactions are high.
People can feel more empowered and ‘in control’ with substances that work WITH the body systems instead of masking symptoms. You also can feel very connected to plants, and ‘at home’ on the planet, when they obviously used. This may better contribute to wellbeing - especially more than getting unwanted side-effects.
dvnutrix // May 28, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Amanda, Off-topic is supposed to be for the subject of a particular post - not the blog.
You still have acknowledged your Lancet or other errors so I see no point in working through your comment.
Derek // June 12, 2008 at 8:55 am
I have been conducting my own experiments as a diabetic (type 2) for the past 3 years using innovative ideas with salads as a main meal and incorporating some of Holford´s theories and products. I am not a nutritionist, medical man or psychologist - neither am I a chef however, how much of a rocket scientist do you have to be to know what foods are good for you and what additional supplements one should include in your diet. The results of my program have revealed a lower and stable blood sugar level without prescription drugs and that´s a big plus in my book. At the end of the day, if taking a parsley capsule makes you feel great, I highly recommend it. Being over critical is often the result of a hidden agenda, mostly sub-consciously be it sour grapes, jealousy or the acceptance of another persons economic success.
Wulfstan // June 12, 2008 at 9:22 am
I spy No. 2 and 80, possibly 4 and 39.
If you think that it is fine to take parsley capsules because people feel good taking them why do you find hitch an eyebrow at the motives of the people who examine the claims being made for the supplements? Presumably the people who write HolfordWatch are as entitled to their beliefs and preferences as the believer in parsley.
NB 1 Granted it is fine for people to take parsley if they believe it is good for them. Is it OK for manufacturers and distributors to lie (either actively or by omission) to those consumers about the clinical evidence for those capsules?
NB 2 “I am not a nutritionist, medical man or psychologist…” In the UK, neither ‘nutritionist’ nor ‘psychologist’ are protected terms so you could call yourself both of these if you wished. As it stands, bar an honorary diploma from the institute he set up, you and Holford have exactly the same number of qualifications in nutrition. He has a 2:2 degree in psychology; no further qualifications nor (afaik) formal supervision in a recognised facility. Obviously, ‘medical man’ doesn’t have a formal definition.
NB 3 Skepdic discussesWhere’s the harm? and Skeptico examines the argument: What’s The Harm?
popey // June 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Yes Derek you are right, these people put far too much effort into this. Its all very suspect.
Derek van Oudtshoorn // June 13, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I agree that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, I too have had good reason to be skeptical after trying various ¨Herbalife¨ products, are they not a real scam. My feeling is that supplements such as magnesium, chromium, cinnamon, vitamin c and other trace elements have a roll to play. This is especially important after the age of 40 and when used as part of a restricted diet. One must not be gullible and assume all supplements have a positive effect. A sure test is access, after 6 weeks of taking any supplement if it has had the results intended and ask yourself how you feel. I most certainly feel a lot better taking Holfords Cinnachrome with my salad diet and when I say salads, it includes chicken, turkey or salmon with some fruit and on occasion I also include roasted pumpkin and sunflower seeds (Optimum nutrition by Patrick Holford) while I don´t agree with everything that Patrick Holford says, I can´t be over critical. I am amused that a site is created specifically to gather negative input or invite negative input and then give the site a title of HolfordWatch, be ware Patrick, you are being watched. Try living in Africa - every gorilla has a honorary degree and are ¨sikolojusts¨
leet01 // June 15, 2008 at 4:09 pm
dvnutrix (and anyone) who might be interested my blog is now up. I am still trying to get to grips with the technicalities of WordPress so please bear with me. I have posted a story of what happened when I went to see a Dip ION nutrition therapist:
http://leet02.wordpress.com/
Amanda // June 16, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Srr strtd dtng m lst pst b dltng th lst prgrph, bt t gt pstd nstd. PHs CV smtms mntns th Lnct std nd wld nt wnt t bthr th thrs t vrf hw nvlvd h ws wth th prlmnr rsrch r th std. t shws th drctn f hs ntrst. [ n Nw ptmm Ntrtn Bbl h sys: w hlpd rn th frst trl ? ]. knw gvrnmnt scntsts whs rsrch wrk hs bn pblshd wth thr bsss nm n t. n cv hv sn hs lst f sx jrnl-pblshd pprs (wth hs nm). t sms prfctl rsnbl fr hm, r hs md-svv pblcsts nd pblshrs, t xpln hs dgr ws xprmntl Psychlg nstd f jst Psychlg. (d ntllgnt ppl rll hv th tm r nclntn t b s cncrnd bt mstk n th dts ?) PHs wrk, vn f cttng-dg, spks fr tslf nd d nt nd t dbl-chck th wrdng(s) f hs pblshd cvs r qlfctns nr plgs fr thm myslf, frm brf lk s skd b y.
NB: hv nt sn th bk - bt th tbl n yr Fsh nmbrs pg wrks s cmprtv rt t frm th rdrd lst s r. yr dscrptn f th tbl.
NB: Hyfvr rtcl pg: sng flx nd pmpkn sds n ql wght wld prvd n mg rt t f bt : ths s fn (rfrncs) nd pmpkn sds m b sfl fr mmnt ND dgstn n prtclr, s cld b rcmmndd fr smn wh m hv prblms wth fd llrgs.
Amanda // June 16, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Srr; gns Csts s, btncll, Vtx gns csts; ftn clld thr n f ths; r cmmnl th Chstbrr (Tr). t hs bn fnd t blnc hrmns xcrtd b th pttr glnd - f rqrd (t s n dptgn ), nml LH nd FSH whch cntrl thr hrmns ncldng prgstrn, strgn nd tststrn. t cn ncrs LH (f ndd) nd rdc FSH (f ndd) whch cn mdlt th thr hrmns. t s ls shwn t b nvlvd wth prlctn (frtlt nd mlk prdctn), drnl hrmns (strss) nd m ffct th thyrd (whch cn ffct wght nd s cnnctd t nsln rsstnc, bth pssbl symptms f PCS). Tststrn s sgnfcnt fr sm PCS symptms, ml frtlt nd, ncdntll, hgh lvls n prgnnc r shwn t ffct chld bhvr. Thr r vrs clncl ds fr s r nt drng prgnnc nd brst-fdng thgh t s fnd t b sf drng ths tms. (prsmbl hgh tststrn mght b cntrlld bfr cncptn ? ) .
10.5 mnths trl ws smll dtr trl (/ chvd frtlt), n nthr / rstrd vltn sng dt ( See http://www.townsendletter.com/Nov2004/phyto1104.htm and http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_256/ai_n6258842/pg_7 ) .
Vtx fnd t b sf ftr yrs cntns s (18) Lch 1991.
n n grmn std: (9) Blank A, Gorkow C. Mastodynon(R0 bei weiblicher Sterilitat [in German]. Forsch Komplementarmed . 1998;5:272-278 Gerhard I, Patek A, Monga B [same one?] 57% f trtd gnd frtlt r prgnnc {36% n plcb} wth 30% (n=15) chvng prgnnc {15% n plcb} vr 3 mnths.
ncdtll, Vtx rdcd hgh FSH (nt knwn t th tm) tnrml wthn - wks. gns csts ws trd wth thr hrb(s). Hrmn lvls wr stll nrml mnths ltr bt whn Vtx s ws cntnd thr wr fr lss cyclc symptms (rfs). Ths ws nstnctvl sd nd symptms mprvd, nd wld nt hv chckd fr clncl stds n cyclc symptms t s ths hrb sccssfll f nt fr yr rqst fr rfrncs. d nt spps, whn ts ffcts wr frst dscvrd nd t ws sd b mnks, nd wmn, (d t nstnct, wrd f mth r xprnc) t ncrs chstt [pssbl d t cntrl f tststrn nd thr hrmns ?], tht thr wr clncl trls bfr t bcm knwn s th Chstbrr tr. [prmts n cptvt hv bn dcmntd chsng hrbs pprprt t thr cndtn]. t s cmmn t fl bttr r mr cmplt whn yr hrmns r blncd. f frtlt cn b chvd b mprvng mmnt, bvs ntrtnl stts nd hrmn blnc thn t sms rsnbl tht, mrvr, thr m b gd, r vn bttr, chnc fr ls hlth prgnnc nd chld, nd th chllngs f prntng.
Clncl stds n dptgnc hrbs m b mr dffclt b dfntn (prt frm thr bng lss fnncl nvstmnt); nd bcs th r nt sll sd n sltn frm thr hrbs, ntrtnl pprchs nd ndvdl ssssmnt. Bcs Vtx wrkd fr m m ntrstd n hrbs sd fr th mnps, ftn n cmbntn, whch r rglrl pblcsd. hv sd mdrn tsts nd scnnng tchnqs t spprt (r cmplmnt) th s f hrbs n hlpng chs, nd t s f th r wrkng.
Smlr-ctng phrmctcl frtlt drgs ppr t b ffctv (% prgnnc) bt cn cs sd ffcts sch s mltpl prgnncs, lvr prblms, bd ns drng s nd n prgnnc, HSS, nd rjctn f sprm (hppns n %),hdchs, cyst frmtn, nd r nt rcmmndd fr mr thn mnths.
Amanda // June 17, 2008 at 9:44 am
Ddn’t mn t pst nyn, hr r th Vtx nd PCS rfrncs.
Edit: Do another link dump for an off-topic subject like this again and these too shall be disemvowelled. In addition, have enough internet sense to realise that something like this automatically ends up in the spam filter which is pretty annoying.
(1)Loch, EG [Gynaecology in practice - A sure choice of therapy], Tjherapiewoche, 1993,
43(48):2577-80
(2) Loch, E, et al, [Diagnosis and treatment of dyshormonal menstrual periods in the general
practice], Gynakol Praxis, 1990, 14(3):489-95
(3) Propping, D et al, [Treatment of corpus luteum insufficiency], Zeitscchrift Fur Allgemein, 1987,
63:932-3
(3) Milewicz A, et al, [Vitex agnus castus extract in the treatment of luteal phase defects due to
latent hyperprolactinaemia. Results of a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study],
Arzniem-Forschung, 1993, 43(II-7):752-6
(4) Roeder, D, [Therapy of cyclical disorders with vitex agnus castus], Zeiterschrift fur
Phytotherapie, 1994, 15(3):157-63
(5) Bleier, VW, Therapie von zyklus-und blutungsstrorungen und weiteren endokrin bedingten
erkrankungen der frau mit pflanzlichen wirkstoffen, Zbl Gynakologie, 1959, 18:701-9
(6) Giss, G et al, Phytotherapeutische behandlung der akne, Haut-und Gesch, 1968, 43:6451.
(7) Taylor M. Botanicals: medicines and menopause. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001; 44:853-863.
(8) Brown DJ. Q Rev Nat Med . 1994;Summer:111.
(9) Blank A, Gorkow C. Mastodynon(R0 bei weiblicher Sterilitat [in German].
Forsch Komplementarmed . 1998;5:272-278 Gerhard I, Patek A, Monga B
(10) The Systemic Theory of Living Systems. Part IV: Systemic Medicine—The
Praxis José A. Olalde Rangel, Meyer Magarici, Francis Amendola, and
Oswaldo del Castillo Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2005 December;
2(4): 429–439. doi: 10.1093/ecam/neh139.
(11) Treatment for the premenstrual syndrome with agnus castus fruit extract:
prospective, randomised, placebo controlled study R Schellenberg
BMJ. 2001 January 20; 322(7279): 134-137
(12) http://www.townsendletter.com/Nov2004/phyto1104.htm 19 references
(13) Arzneimittelforschung. 1993 Jul;43(7):752-6.[Vitex agnus castus extract
in the treatment of luteal phase defects due to latent hyperprolactinemia.
Results of a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study]
(14) Marsh K, Brand-Miller J.
The optimal diet for women with polycystic ovary syndrome?
Br J Nutr. 2005 Aug;94(2):154-65. Review
[have left out several reports about diet for pcos (pubmed), but most allow
or recommend drugs for weight-loss or insulin resistance if deemed
necessary]
(15) http://www.vitaminstuff.com/herbs-vitex.html
(16) http://healthlibrary.epnet.com/GetContent.aspx?token=e0498803-7f62-
4563-8d47-5fe33da65dd4&chunkiid=21648 iherb link. 25 references
but not much about Vitex.
(17) http://healthlibrary.epnet.com/GetContent.aspx?token=e0498803-7f62-
4563-8d47-5fe33da65dd4&chunkiid=134668 iherb link. About PCOS.
8 references, none about Vitex.
(18) Loch, E. Bohnert K.J. Peeters M, et al. “The treatment of menstrual disorders with Vitex
agnus-castus tincture.” Der Frauenarzt. 1991. 32(8): pp.867-70.
(19) Westphal LM, Polan ML, Trant AS.
Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of Fertilityblend: a nutritional
supplement for improving fertility in women.
Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2006;33(4):205-8.
(20) Dittmar, F., Bohnert, K.J., Peeters M. et al. “Premenstrual syndrome: treatment
with a phytopharmaceutical.” Therapiewoche Gynakol. 1992. 5(1): pp.60-8.
(21) Lauritzen, C.H. et al. “Treatment of premenstrual tension syndrome with Vitex
agnus castus: controlled, double-blind study versus pyridoxine.” Phytomed.
1997. 4: pp.183-9.
(22) Mohr, H. “Clinical investigations of means to increase lactation.” Dtsche. Med.
Wschr. 1954. 79 (41): pp.1513-1516.
(23) Hobbs, Christopher. Vitex: the women’s herb. 2nd ed. 1996. Botanica Press.
Amanda // June 17, 2008 at 9:45 am
Fr spch
Edited: Relevant speech. Disemvowelling will continue until there is an acknowledgement of your error and a cessation of increasingly ludicrous back-stories to avoid acknowledging such. You are also showing no signs of taking the advice to read original sources to heart and even when you are scavenging through a post you are not reading it properly. Finally, you have previously been warned that this is an area that is off-topic to subjects of a post - it is not to be used as a dumping ground for matters that are off-topic to the blog.
Amanda // June 17, 2008 at 12:42 pm
ws rqstd th nfrmtn n m lst tw psts b JDC. hv nt th tm t xpln ntcd mstks nd msndrstndngs n yr pgs sprtl. hv xplnd wh d nt s wh shld plgs bt ‘m Lnct mstk’. nl rsrch dtls hv n trmrc s ncrsd bsrptn sng bprn (blck pppr).
Edit: your explanation/self-justification was inadequate and wearisome. If you want to discuss matters that are off-topic even for off-topic on this blog, then go over to that blogger’s own blog. You will locate that URL by clicking on the person’s name.
Amanda // June 26, 2008 at 5:45 pm
t ws Jnhw wh gv spcfc rqst fr Vtx rfrncs n ths pg. Dx wntd bttr prsnttn, ‘xplntns’, rfrncs nd lnks. Nbd sms t knw hw nvlvd wth th Lnct std PH ws, s wh shld knw ? Wth hs bd f wrk, cnstntl rvwd knwldg, nd ndrstndng vdnt, prsmd t ws pblshd n th cv sw t shw th drctn f hs ntrst t n rlr stg. H hs svrl [ttrbtd] pprs nd rprts pblshd n th Jrnl f rthmlclr mdcn nd Prmr Cr Mntl Hlth; s wll s th Fd fr th Brn Chld Srv .
Edit: disemvowelling will continue until you write something other than tedious/wrong-headed self-justification and learn to read links etc. properly.
Jim Jones // July 1, 2008 at 6:01 pm
You [obscenity deleted] are making money from this site. get a real job and focus your time in something constructive and useful. [obscenity deleted]
Admin edit to remove obscenities. Future such items will not be published. Plus, moved from Holford ??!!s
Amanda // July 5, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Thr s n pnt t th blg f y r drgtr nd rd (cntrvnng yr wn rls t th tp f th pg ?) nd scrmbl th wrk f ppl wh dsgr wth y; nlss y r cntnt wth cybr-bllyng - n tp f th rdcl, lbl, dfmtn nd llgd cybr-stlkng mtrd t t PH. Myb ths st s sppsd t b jk ?
Edit: Make a sensible comment that is relevant to this blog and it won’t be disemvowelled. You have been warned repeatedly.
Amanda // July 5, 2008 at 3:42 pm
m tkng dvc frm Ggls lwyrs.
Edit: As per previous comments although I have to admit that the entertainment value was so high that I very nearly let it stand. I’m sure that they will be as much use to you as Barrack Room lawyers etc. I believe that it is the usual tradition to copy in members of Fleet Street, the Queen, the PM and Ming the Merciless on such occasions.
clare // July 6, 2008 at 9:43 am
I couldnt agree with jim more. What hell are you lot doing with your lives?
dvnutrix // July 6, 2008 at 12:00 pm
See stock response to stock drive-by.
As opposed to the rich lives of people who are out and about promoting supplement companies’ unproven products, eh?
clare // July 6, 2008 at 6:58 pm
sounds like your a bit obsessed with the whole thing, im not sure this is healthy.
dvnutrix // July 6, 2008 at 7:03 pm
See previous.
clare // July 8, 2008 at 8:59 pm
see previous
Clare // July 9, 2008 at 10:03 am
Your constant ignorance in believing your reality is the correct one also never fails to dissapoint either. No matter what you beleive is true, even if it is 100 percent clear to yourself, does not make you right. Everybodies reality is different according to genes and past experiences. Unfortunately you can only percieve something depending on your past experiences and sub concious downloads. This only enables you to form an opinion on a subject and does not make it correct.
This applies to Holford and anybody else.
Clare // July 9, 2008 at 10:03 am
What you delete and distort from the stimulus you recieve is unique depending upon your past experiences and expectations.
Remember that science is a subject created by the human brain, but does it exist outside of this? Maybe not.
You seem so wrapped up in this ’science’ due to your education and belief system, that you you cannot see the wood for the trees. This probably applies to all humans (including myself) due to human instinct to make sense of things.
wulfstan // July 9, 2008 at 10:04 am
Do I detect someone who has done an NLP course and will soon be telling everyone that “the map is not the territory”?
What are you suggesting instead of a formal set of rules for investigating ideas about the world?
And, what does any of this have to do with accuracy about dates, the nature of qualifications and whether somebody is giving an accurate view of the literature?
Finally, if one’s own perception is dodgy and the world is illusion, why do you round shilling for a supplement product? What gives you the right to impose your perception on others? Particularly when you appear to object to reading material that you elected to read or are you commenting without really reading?
PS - I know this is OT for this post, if it goes anywhere, just move it to OT if it isn’t too OT for the blog.
Admin edit: obviously, moved. If it goes any more off-topic, it will be too OT.
clare // July 9, 2008 at 12:37 pm
What is NLP?
And what gives you the right to impose your perceptions? The answer is that we all have a right, but dont go round thinking that you perception is correct. That all it is , a perception.
I was not commenting on any reading material, just on your attitude.
Amanda // July 9, 2008 at 5:45 pm
NLP is ‘neuro lingistic programming’. It is seen as part of CAM (supposing this is ‘complementary and alternative medicine’, not ‘conventional allopathic medicine’) so is generally disrespected and used in general ridicule by this site (and several others). It is also sometimes criticised because of its lack of published scientific papers. I do not have a strong or knowledgable opinion on it. It does not,however, use any patentable drugs (with mostly only postive-result research published, sponsered by the people who have to pay for the research, and have to then ‘market it’ to practitioners) that have been shown not to work significantly, but are still bought by taxpayers for the nhs as recommended by NICE and the MHRA (despite being less-well tolerated than a well known herbal remedy or scientifically researched nutritional approaches shown to work in prisons and schools) and causing severe side-effects such as addiction, homocide or suicide; or unfortunately sometimes all three.
People who think unbiased research or academic discourse is the only kind could call this quackers and run jolly websites with ducks on, if the effects of this massive bias on people’s health and wellbeing were sometimes not so irresponsible or tragic.
Admin edit: at last, some insight. Amanda, you regularly write about areas in which you lack any “knowledgeable opinion”. However, this is less ludicrous than your usual contributions so it will stand as a better example of your typical comments.
Might I enquire though, you were complaining to Google lawyers, weren’t you? Are you not undermining your case by continuing to comment here? We enquire with your best interests at heart.
Amanda // July 9, 2008 at 5:54 pm
1. Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y. & Gross, C. P. (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA, 289, 454 –465.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs): Overview of regulatory statutes and CSM advice relating to major depressive disorder (MDD) in children and adolescents including a summary of available safety and efficacy data. (www.medicines.mhra.gov.uknews/2003/htm#2003)
3. Whittington C, Kendall T, Fungy P, Coltrell D, Cotgrove A, Boddington E. Selective Serotonin Inhibitors in Childhood Depression: A systematic review of published versus unpublished data. April 24. The Lancet: 363:1341-45.
4. Melander H, Ahlquist-Rastad J, Meijer G et al. Evidence and medicine-selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: Review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003; Volume 326. Web reference: (bmj.com).
5. http://www.naturalnews.com/Prozac.html
6. http://www.naturalnews.com/021352.html
7.http://www.psychminded.co.uk/news/news2008/April08/antidepressants007.htm
Admin: Can’t see what this is related to but it stands for now.
Leave a Comment