July 11, 2005
A New Dawn or An Old Scam?
For the last several months Ian Stokes and some of his supporters have been posting on Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome websites about his book “A New Dawn.” The book claims that PCOS is caused by allergies to certain foods which lead to inflammation and disease, and that it is possible to cure PCOS, as well as a number of other diseases, by finding out which foods a person is allergic to and removing them from the diet.
This process can be carried out by an elimination diet (which Ian does not recommend) or a $1500 blood test. (Of course no one was told about the test until after they already spent $25 on the book.)
I have looked around his website. He references no research papers that either discuss the issue of whether or not PCOS is caused by inflammation, or the issue of whether this inflammation is caused by allergies to certain foods. (In fact, nearly half of the articles referenced in his PCOS article are from dental journals that discuss a disease that causes inflammation of the gums.) He also provides no information about his credentials, his research, the test name, or the technical process whereby food allergies are found.
After spending a few hours searching the web, I happened upon some interesting information. In an article in the July 1998 issue of Positive Health Magazine, this information about Ian Stoakes appeared. (All the many misspelled words were left as they were.)
Ian Stoakes trained as a teaccher, concentrating on behaviourally disturbed children. After running a unit for mentally handicapped children he was employed by the Home Office as principal of a secure unit. He has worked for a number of charities, primarily involved with children and nutrition. He was Chief Executive of the Dietary Research Foundation, which conducted research into the relationship between nutrition and intelligence. He is now Chief Executive of NuTron Analytical Limited.
A teacher, not a doctor. Now that’s certainly sounds like someone I’d trust to give me expensive medial advice without a single iota of pertinent backup research.
The article itself, of which only an abstract is available, discusses a blood test that detects which foods cause an inflammatory response.
Partially digested food particulates can adhere to the gut wall and, when sufficient amounts gather, they can be absorbed through the cells of the gut and into the blood stream. Once in the blood stream a food particle can be carried to any organ or tissue, anywhere in the body, hence the wide spectrum of inflammatory conditions that can be attributed to food intolerance. These include: Migraine, Acne, Hayfever, Psoriasis and Eczema, IBS and Crohn's disease, PMS, Glue Ear and Hyperactivity.The food particulates in the blood are marked for immune response and the first cell to react is the neutrophil. This cell is recognised as producing more than fifty different inflammatory chemicals and is able to produce a wide range of subtle responses. The neutrophil's responses can be so fast and so subtle and the cell itself is so small that responses are very difficult to measure.
The NuTron Test uses a haematology analyser to assess the degree and nature of neutrophil response in blood incubated with reconstituted food samples. It is thus possible to detect foods that produce a neutrophil response and to construct a diet that avoids them.
Ian's current explanation for the test sounds pretty much exactly the same.
The automated hematology analyzer is employed to interogate a blood sample that has been incubated with food and to compare it to a control sample i.e. a sample from the same person that has not been exposed to a food extract.The state of the cells are carefully checked for sign of activation, the platelets are checked for activation, too. In this way, it possible to build up a picture of the response that will occur if the food is eaten.
Let’s just forget, for the moment, the questions of whether or not food particles (as opposed to more basic nutritional building blocks) really pass through the gut wall and float around in the blood stream. Let’s also forget about the question of whether or not a hematology analyzer can really detect the “fifty different inflammatory chemicals.”
Instead, let’s just do a search on the internet for “NuTron.”
Several articles from the Health Watch newsletter, as well as a blog article show up. Let’s look at this one.
"Don't be tempted by the Nutron diet - it’s a con," says Which? magazine (11/94). The £135 diet is provided by the Individual Diet Company, which tests your blood and devises a personal food sheet for you. The sheet excludes foods to which it says you have an intolerance.Which? investigated the company's claims by sending in two blood samples from the same person under different names. The company sent back two diet sheets. One listed 20 foods to avoid, the other listed 12 to avoid - there were only five foods in common to both lists.
More dangerously, the company failed to notice that the investigator was intolerant to gluten and similar proteins because of coeliac disease.
In fact, Nutron listed gluten as safe to eat. It told Which? when challenged that the test could not be expected to pick up a gluten allergy.
The company also did not tell the sufferer to avoid rye, wheat and oats, all of which must be avoided in this condition.
Nutron claims that its diet will help solve problems from irritable bowel syndrome to obesity.
Experts told Which? that the diet may lead to loss of weight simply because it bans a lot of calorie-high foods.
The other articles say the same thing. This isn’t something I’d advise anyone to spend $25 on, let alone $1500 on. (Besides, other scam artists, apparently old associates of Ian Stoakes, will provide the same useless thing for half the price elsewhere.)
Of course supporters say "oh, there's naysayers everywhere." Yeah. Uh-hu. That sounds like a great excuse for sending back two very different reports on two blood samples for the same person. Hey - who needs repeatability? Certainly not valid scientific health care procedures or anything.
I must admit the only thing that really surprised me about this was how old the scam really was. I certainly wasn’t surprised that it really was a scam – it had all the hallmarks including, but not limited to, a refusal to discuss the credentials of the writer, a refusal to provide research supporting his claims, paranoid accusations of the money driven pharmaceutical industry and doctors hiding the information, claims that the only reason that hadn’t published research was a lack of money, calls to “take control of your own health” by trying this expensive and unproven technique, escalating costs as people are drawn in, personal attacks on people voicing skepticism, and a supposition that it’s up to skeptics to prove them wrong rather than up to them to prove themselves right.
Instead we were expected to believe this miraculous cure merely on the basis of a few testimonials. Testimonials are all well and good, but they don’t prove anything: only carefully controlled double blind placebo research does and I have a hard time beliving that after over 10 years they haven't managed to scrounge together enough money for a study. The people testifying to the success of the program could be lying, or they could not. But either way their weight loss and other successes are mostly likely due to the placebo effect or the result of going on a very restrictive diet, rather than a result of avoiding an allergy to lettuce.
I don't care if one person or one million people swear by this method, that doesn't provide a lick of proof to its efficacy. The number of positive newspaper articles containing glowing testimonials also mean nothing. Reporters are no more or less guilible than anyone else. (Thousands of people have also believed in the healing power of everything from arsenic to distilled water.) Indeed the proponents don't provide ANY proof and instead expect you to just take them on their word.
Check out the next post for what the research REALLY says about PCOS and inflammation, as well as more reasons why you shouldn't trust Ian Stoakes.
Posted by illuminaria at 03:26 AM | Comments (4)
May 16, 2005
TV Unrealistic? Never.
Forensic classes give budding CSIs a reality check.In one hand, he holds a blood-smeared cotton swab over a beaker. In the other, he delicately clasps a dropper filled with a chemical solution.
Matthew Forneris pauses and looks to his forensic science professor for instructions. Very carefully, he's told, he must squeeze a drop of the liquid onto the tip of the swab.
But the college junior squeezes a bit too hard and the solution squirts onto the table, onto his hand -- everywhere but onto the swab.
"Whoops," Forneris mutters with a sheepish grin as the liquid dribbles down his fingers.
Professor Marilyn Miller gives him a sideways glance and says, "Did I tell you it was a carcinogen? No -- just kidding."
It's not exactly the slick and glamorous image of crime scene investigators portrayed on the "CSI" TV shows or "Crossing Jordan." But that's fine with Miller. The Virginia Commonwealth University professor began her career as a forensic scientist in 1979 -- long before it became trendy.
While such shows have boosted enrollment in forensic science classes nationwide, many in the field say they give budding crime scene investigators an unrealistic view of what the job is all about.
I have to say that I love CSI, but I have no illusions about its reality or lack thereof. I think anyone who has taken more than one chemistry lab class would be a fool to think otherwise. (If you want a better idea of the reality of forensics, watch the FBI Files on the Discovery Channel.)
My favorite thing on CSI is when they have a picture from some security camera that has an image of the suspect’s car where the license plate is about two pixels big, and they magically sharpen the image so that they can read the license.
I also really like the realistic morgue. Everything is all gray and dark, and they use super cool blue lights. The perfect environment for doing medical work, I’m sure. Also, the chambers for the bodies have translucent doors and there are blue lights inside the chamber so that you can see shadows of heads in each of them. (Unfortunately I was not able to find a picture of this, but believe me, it’s hilarious.) I’m sure the forensic budget for most police stations has a large chunk set aside for dramatic lighting.
Posted by illuminaria at 12:33 PM | Comments (0)
May 06, 2005
Is Jim West Really a Hypocrite? I'm Not Convinced.
Note for people from liberal blogs surfing in today: I don't know anything about West, other than what I've read in these stories about him. I find his soliciting 18 year olds, while not illegal, creepy, and certainly a reason to not vote for him. I find some of his past legislation stupid beyond words and definitely a reason to not vote for him. The only issue I am writing about here is if it is possible for his sexuality and his political record given in the Spokesman-Review to not be at odds. I think it is, and I think people are jumping to conclusions in that regard. Typically these seem to be people who think being conservative and gay is an oxymoron. That doesn't mean I'm "readying the smokescreen to protect one of [my] own," affirming his opinions, or expressing my "latent homosexual tendencies." Seriously, people, you can think someone's an ass and still not believe everything said about him. Try actually respectfully reading something and taking it at face value for once.
Over at Wizbang they have the story of Spokane, WA mayor Jim West who has recently been outed by the Spokesman-Review. In one part, they compare his supposed homosexuality with the legislation he’s supported over the years, seemingly to imply that he’s a hypocrite. Is he? Let’s take a look.
In February 1998, West voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, a ban on gay marriage. Gov. Lowry vetoed the measure, but the veto was overridden and Washington became the 27th state to enact such a ban.
First of all, I’d like to point out that West has said that he’s not gay, and in fact it was revealed that one of his chat room nicknames was “RightBi-Guy.” That does change things somewhat. Depending on where he falls on the “Kinsey scale,” it may not be that he’s more attracted to women than men, meaning that he wouldn’t care much about marrying a man. Even if he was completely gay, it doesn’t make him a hypocrite to not support gay marriage.
In 1986, he supported a bill allowing criminal background checks for jobs involving children. The measure was necessary because child abusers “often try to gain a position of trust and authority,” West said in a Spokesman-Review interview at the time.…
Their 1986 bill, which failed, would have barred gay men and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies. It called for screening prospective employees for sexual orientation and firing employees whose homosexuality became known.
The implication is that this is hypocritical because West himself is a state employee. However, even if true, this isn’t hypocritical because West is not a state employee who works with children. (Update: some people seem to think this point isn't terribly important. I don't see why. There's many people, especially in the 80's, who may not have cared if someone was gay, but didn't want openly gay people working with children. My mother is a strong liberal, but she herself has expressed this opinion to me before. Also, I'll point out that it's presumably talking about openly gay people here, not closeted gays like West.)
I'm suspicious as to whether the summary is accurate or not. Try as I might, I can’t find a single story on this on Lexis-Nexis, search engines, or Washington newspaper archives. I think the story is just too old for a lot of the smaller newspaper archives to go back that far. You’d think if it really was outright calling for the firing of homosexuals working with children, there’d be some mention of it in one of the bigger newspapers, or even a national newspaper. The “criminal background checks for jobs involving children” part is obviously not hypocritical, and indeed sounds like a great idea. I will continue to look, but I remain suspicious of Spokesman-Review’s summary. Especially considering this next gaffe.
In an April 9 Internet chat, West sent his photo to “Moto-Brock,” the person he believed was an 18-year-old Spokane high school senior. Instead, Moto-Brock was a forensic computer consultant hired by the newspaper to verify the mayor’s identity and presence on Gay.com.…
During a 1990 hearing on AIDS education, West proposed that teen sex be criminalized.
The bill, written by the abstinence group Teen Aid, would have made sexual contact – not just sexual intercourse – a misdemeanor for unmarried teenagers 18 or younger. It defined sexual contact as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person.”
Since he was hitting on supposed 18-year old boys, which he doesn’t deny, this would indeed be hypocritical, if true. Let’s go to Lexis-Nexis…
The Seattle Times January 19, 1990, Friday, Final EditionIn what many are calling a misguided effort to prevent the spread of AIDS, some influential state senators have proposed making "sexual contact" illegal for anybody younger than 18.
There would be an exception for minors who are married.
Ok, so it’s younger than 18, not 18 and younger. Nice job, Spokesman-Review. Sorry, afraid this isn’t hypocritical either, even if it is pretty stupid.
In 1986, West voted to bar the state from distributing pamphlets telling people how to protect themselves from AIDS during sex. He said such instruction “is something people go buy at dirty bookstores.”
I’m afraid this isn’t hypocritical either. It is possible, and indeed quite understandable, for a gay person to want to keep sex out of the public sphere as much as possible.
In 1995, when allegations of sexual harassment involving Democratic Gov. Mike Lowry and a female aide were published in an independent counsel’s report, West called on the House to launch impeachment proceedings against Lowry.“The governor should not be held to any lower standard than anyone else in our society. Governors cannot and should not flout the law,” West said
This would indeed be hypocritical if the allegations that West had molested two boys over twenty years ago were true. However both of the men making accusations are convicted felons and there’s no corroborating evidence. Plus, people who molest boys usually don’t stop. If he was a child molester, you’d think they’d have been able to find something more recent. I’m sure they looked. However, it is possible, so we’ll put this one into the maybe category.
If it was true, though, he's a bastard and I don't care whether or not he's a hypocritical and a bastard. One's enough for me.
As Spokane’s mayor, West recently said he’d veto a proposal to extend city benefits to unmarried domestic partners at City Hall, citing its cost. But the City Council last month approved the measure on a 5-2 vote, enough to withstand a mayoral veto.
Again, it’s legitimately possible to be gay and not care about gay marriage. Plus West cited the costs, not the sexual issues. Again, not hypocritical.
There’s also several small snippets about West’s opposition to abortion “rights.” I really fail to see how that’s hypocritical. What about being gay would require someone to support abortion? Heck, unplanned pregnancies are not even something gay people often have a problem with.
So in summation, we have 1 “maybe-depending-on-the-uncorrobrated-testimony-of two-felons" and 6 “no”s to the question as to whether West is a hypocrite. Not quite enough to get in a tizzy about. I do agree that some of this stuff was pretty stupid and I wouldn't be jumping around to elect him if I lived in Washington, but I’m not convinced that he’s a self-hating closeted gay. (Update: Just to clarify, I think West is a stupid creepy guy. I wouldn't vote for him. The only issue being discussed here is whether or not his record proves that he is a hypocrite, especially well enough for the newspaper to be writing the story that they did. I think not.)
Read the rest of the story. It’s chock-full with your typical liberal rhetoric that any gay conservative must be a conflicted, angry, and hate himself and that it’s their right to out him because “It’s really hurting a lot of people, especially gay youth." This comment is also really great.
“For a politician to be (privately) gay and to be so anti-gay is an abuse of power,” Reguindin said.
Um, OK. An abuse of power…sure. Them gay-outin' liberals sure are smart.
More at Say Anything, who also isn't impressed with West in general.
Update: Success! The Seattle-Post Intelligencer has archives going back to 1986 (registration required). In May of 1986 Rep. Glenn Dobbs proposed Initiative 490 which “would prohibit knowingly employing homosexuals and other "sexually deviant" people in schools, day-care centers, foster care programs and other government employment that involves contact with children, the elderly, people in detention and mentally or physically handicapped people.” It needed 151,133 signatures to put it on the ballot, which it failed to get, so it never even got close to passing. Not a single one of the 10 stories that mentioned the Initiative mentioned Jim West in any way shape or form.
The reason given for the bill was that homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters. (This was presumably in response to a story I found several months earlier about a day care worker accused of abusing 5 children.) Of course the old meme that most child molesters are heterosexuals was pulled out. This is of course true, but most people are heterosexual so that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. If we take the number from the article that 20% of child molesters are homosexual and 4% of the population is homosexual (which may be a slight overestimate is anything), then we can calculate what your chances are that you’ll be a child molester if you are gay. Let’s take the population of the US as 296 million and the number of child molesters as 4 million. In that case, if you’re heterosexual, you have a 1.1% chance of being a child molester, whereas if you’re homosexual, you have a 6.8% chance of being a child molester. Therefore, you’re over 6 times more likely to be a child molester if you’re a homosexual. Of course the numbers overall are low enough that I don’t think homosexuals should be banned from working with children for that reason.
Now as to the question about whether this proves West is a hypocrite, it’s still up in the air. We have determined that such an animal exists, (although, Spokesman Review, it was an initiative, not a bill) but we haven’t determined exactly what West said about it. I would at least like to see his entire quote to the Spokesman Review. More later, perhaps, as I look at more newspapers. (There’s only one webpage in all the internet that mentions the initiative, and then only in passing with no details.)
Just as a reminder, the Spokesman Review says
In 1986, he supported a bill allowing criminal background checks for jobs involving children. The measure was necessary because child abusers “often try to gain a position of trust and authority,” West said in a Spokesman-Review interview at the time.
So did West just support the background check part, or was he in favor of the whole thing? We'll see.
Posted by illuminaria at 02:48 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
April 12, 2005
Kerry Dumb, But Not THAT Dumb
I’ve been a little suspicious about this meme that popped up yesterday claiming that Kerry (who was recently complaining about some being told the election was on Wednesday) was being fooled by an Onion article that “urged minorities to get out and vote on Nov 3.” I didn’t quite believe this because at the time of the election, I remembered hearing one of the talk show hosts saying it would be really funny if they rented a big truck and drove it around shouting “Due to expected crowding at the polls, Republicans will vote on Tuesday and Democrats will vote on Wednesday.” Obviously the guy was joking, but you know there’s always some stupid person who takes him seriously.
Sure enough, this Washington Post article from October 31, 2004 talks about a similar scam
The college scam has also made an appearance in Pennsylvania, along with a separate scam last week in Allegheny County, where election officials received a flurry of phone calls about fliers handed out at a Pittsburgh area mall and mailed to an unknown number of homes. The flier, distributed on bogus but official-looking stationery with a county letterhead, told voters that "due to immense voter turnout expected on Tuesday," the election had been extended. Republicans should vote Tuesday, Nov. 2, it said -- and Democrats on Wednesday. A criminal investigation has been launched.
It would indeed have been funny if Kerry had been fooled by an Onion article, but I’m afraid it is not to be.
Posted by illuminaria at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)