Derek Draper repeats some canards of the alternative health industry on nutrition

Derek Draper, as well as having an unreliable CV, has appeared on ITV1’s Kyle’s Academy through his DIY-Therapy website – described as “The one-stop-shop for information and tools to improve your emotional wellbeing.”.  Jon from the magnificent and recently redesigned Holfordwatch has alerted me to a document published by DIY-Therapy ‘The Good Mood Diet‘ which contains some dubious claims typical of nutritionists, such as Patrick Holford – another individual with an interesting history of CV revisions.

The document starts off with a rather simplistic telling of the serotonin hypothesis of depression arguing that lowered levels of serotonin cause depression and that high doses alleviate, it is of course more complicated than that, as this recent review argues.  It also contains the claim that aspartame lowers serotonin levels, a claim wide spread amongst the more alternative corners of the internet but one on which the scientific evidence is confusing, contradictory and limited.

More canards creep in as you read further, especially relating to the effect diet has on mood.  Draper claims that eating food rich in tryptophan can increase brain serotonin, this is a claim not borne out by the scientific evidence. Where diet can affect mood is more likely to be due to the fluctuation of insulin levels related to the amount and type of carbohydrate in a meal and not to tryptophan.  Although there is some evidence that supplementing with tryptophan may be beneficial.    Draper also recommends a protein intake of 60-90g/day, up to 50% more than the recommended daily average for a male adult. There is also slight comedy value in misplaced parenthesis suggesting that rye, oats and barley are in fact wheat.  This is part of a section on ‘bad mood foods’, and betrays a worrying belief in the opiod theory of wheat proteins that has informed the opinions of Andrew Wakefield and others on the alternative fringe of autism science.

The source of these canards appears to be a book titled ‘The Mood Cure’ by Julie Ross, I have not read the book but judging by it’s interpretation of the science of depression it would not feel overqualified sitting next to the works of Patrick Holford in the lifestyle section of your local bookshop. Julie, like Patrick, holds a qualification in psychology, although only an MA, which she feels sufficient to pass herself off as an expert in nutrition and diet.

In fact this raises an interesting point about those who operate in the more alternative spectrum of healthcare, there seems to be little awareness of the limits of professional competence.  Merely holding a qualification in a particular discipline is seen sufficient to hold an experty type opinion in tangentially connected or completely unrelated fields.  Not only that but individuals such as Draper, Ross and Holford seem very keen to enhance their actual credentials through ommission and lack of clarity, there is failure of understanding that the strength of a position in science and healthcare is defined, not by the qualifications of those holding it, but by the strength of the supporting evidence.  It is a shame that the media favour individuals such as Draper and Holford whose arguments of ‘trust me, I’m an expert’ come at the expense of evidence based reasoning and whose personal trust is somewhat undermined by an exaggerated CV.

[BPSDB]

BANT response to regulation – not entirely honest

The British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT) have issued a press release(PDF) expressing their desire for strict regulation of the nutritionist profession under the auspices of the Nutritional Therapy Council (NTC) and, in 2009, the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC). Unfortunately the press release contains a statement that is an astonishing exercise in mendacity.

The British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy is the largest Professional body representing NT practitioners. BANT was set up as a Company Limited by Guarantee in February 1997. It is a non-profit organisation funded neither by pharmaceutical, agrochemical or government agencies but by member subscriptions and donations. It promotes high standards of education in Nutritional Therapy and high standards of practice and ethics within the profession and acts as a professional body regulating the activities and practice of its members. It also provides opportunities for Continuing Professional Development.

This reads as if BANT are not influenced by commercial or government concerns, are a wholly independent body with a commitment to education and high standards of ethics as well as encouraging practitioners to maintain their continuing professional development.  Unfortunately the facts disagree with this reading.  Any implication of independence is misleading at best, BANT were happy to change their code of ethics after pressure from business interests to allow its members to profit from commission on supplement sales.  An astonishing act that officially sanctioned the ability of practitioners to profit by pushing particular brands of pills on their clients.  Their claims about promoting high standards of education are also suspect.  The British College of Natural Health (BCNH), a BANT approved source of nutritionist qualifications, responded to criticism from Ben Goldacre about the lack of critical appraisal within the industry by stating “everyone [...] is in agreement that critical appraisal from outside (and inside) can be only beneficial, as it is the start point for improvement”.  Fine words you might think, but the BCNH acted on these words by employing a nutritionist firmly embedded in the profit focused side of the industry and who charges hundreds of pounds for tests of no benefit as a scientific advisor.  BANT’s commitment to ethics is also not quite as bold as suggested.  Not only are their ethics swayed by commercial considerations but the head of BANT’s own Ethics Committee breached her own code of conduct and committed a criminal offence by falsely claiming to be on the Nursing Register.  The final point about Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is also misleading, what BANT do not say is that most of their CPD courses are run by supplement companies such as Biocare – “the first choice [...] amongst Nutritionists“.

BANT, despite any claim to the contrary, are a Professional body in thrall to commercial interests, their courses are paid for by industry, their colleges seek scientific advice from industry, their code of ethics is shaped by industry and their lax attitude to ethics is exemplified by the head of their Ethics Committee breaching their rules.   I hope both the NTC and the CNHC see BANT for what they really are, an industrial lobby group with little regard to ethics.

More information on BANT can be found on the excellent Holfordwatch site.

[BPSDB]

Patrick Holford distorts research findings on statins to push his pills

[BPSDB]

I am a masochist. This is why I signed up for ex-Visiting Professor Patrick Holford’s health e-news bulletins. Normally these emails consist of a plug for some dubious piece of pseudo-scientific equipment or vitamin supplements from one of the companies Patrick has a financial interest in. However, sometimes you get his thoughts on a new scientific study or perhaps an attack on one of his many critics. These type of things are usually covered by the always admirable Holfordwatch but Patrick does produce a surfeit of nonsense so this time round I think I will deal with it.

The pill pushing proselytising of Patrick Holford

Patrick Holford is a fellow of BANT. BANT have a code of ethics (thanks to Holfordwatch for the link). The BANT code of ethics clearly allows its members to earn commission and profit from selling products to clients which, as Holfordwatch point out, is inappropriate behaviour from want-to-be healthcare professionals. However, despite its faults, the BANT code does apply to its members and they are expected to adhere to its strictures.

Patrick Holford makes a career out of selling products and books and his grasp of science is shaky at best. I recently discovered a webchat from early last year that superbly illustrates the idiocies and unethicaliness of Patrick, who might be expected to adhere to the BANT code of ethics, as well as highlighting the relentless profit driven proselytising of his own products. In fact I have my suspicions that the bulk of the Holford Head is a clockwork counting machine that, with a ping and the roll of a pound sign across Patrick’s pupils, rapidly calculates the commercial benefit of any given situation. So I have decided to analyse this webchat with respect to Patrick’s ignorance, bad advice, wrong advice, profit making and breaches of the following sections of the BANT code of ethics:

6.3 The Member should strive for a good relationship and full co-operation with medical and other recognised health professions. Clients must not be led to believe that Nutritional Therapy replaces medical care.

7.1 b). The Member must never promise cure or recovery. Nutritional Therapy claims that the advice given may enhance the body’s natural means of resistance to disease.

7.1 e). The Member must not advise a client in any case which exceeds his capacity or competence, but should call in another nutritional therapist or refer the client to the appropriate practitioner or Registered Medical Practitioner.

12.1 The Member, placing an advertisement, must satisfy the requirements of the British Code of Advertising Practice and the Advertising Standards Authority (www.asa.org.uk).

Anyway, let us begin………….