Doctor’s Data and Bogus Tests

July 7, 2010
By Le Canard Noir

This is not just a US thing. British clinics misleading clients with these doubtful tests from Doctor's Data.

test tube This week in The Lawyer, Robert Dougans and David Allen Green wrote about the emerging phenomenon of ‘wiki litigation’ where there is large scale scrutiny and participation in legal proceedings using the web as a shared medium. They used the example of the British Chiropractic Association’s libel case against science writer Simon Singh. This was not just the web watching the case – but actively participating by the scrutiny of all parts of the claim, actively playing out scenarios and options for Singh, and undertaking a distributed analysis of the pertinent scientific points – the result being the demolition of the BCA’s reputation.

This mass participation turned a near hopeless case for Singh under the absurd English libel system into a victory and a total humiliation for the chiropractors. It was a great example of what Clay Shirky describes in his book Here Comes Everybody of how the internet can bring together like minded people to collaborate on creating previously unthinkable change.

It is likely that a US company called Doctor’s Data (DDI) is going to be facing similar scrutiny as it is has decided to sue the website Quackwatch for libel. Stephen Barrett has been very critical of DDI and has written that the diagnostic health tests it provides are used to defraud patients. One test in particular stood out for his criticism where patients are given a “provoking agent” that flushes out heavy metals into the urine. A urine test is then analysed by DDI and the concentration of heavy metals is compared with standards. Except the standards used are for patients who have not had the provoking agent. The levels of metals are going to be much higher than normal and this ‘elevated result’ is then used to sell expensive and unnecessary treatments. These tests are particularly popular with doctors in the US who advocate chelation for the treatment of autism. It is a bogus treatment and such laboratory tests provide an artificial sense of urgency and validation.

Doctor’s Data asked Stephen Barrett to remove his articles discussing these urine tests as they were “false, fraudulent, defamatory or otherwise not truthful”. Dr Barrett replied asking for clarification as to what specifically he had written that was not correct or fair opinion. Doctor’s Data did not respond but instead has now simply filed suit.

This is tragically familiar. When the Society of Homeopaths threatened me, I asked them to detail their concerns. I got no response. The chiropractors also asserted they had a ‘plethora’ of evidence to back up their claims when they sued Simon Singh. They withheld the plethora – and when it was finally released, it was quickly shown to be worth nothing.

I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have researched and written about some of them before.

Pursuing a court case rather than discussing evidence does not make Doctor’s Data look the good guys in this episode. Quackwatch would appear to have some very serious concerns about how their tests are used to mislead people into expensive and unnecessary treatments. If DDI could defend the selling of these tests against these complaints then it is surprising that they do not. Looking at their web site, Doctor’s Data would appear to be a respectable laboratory and yet they happily promote a number of bogus tests.

I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have researched and written about some of them before. DDI also offer Hair Analysis as a way of assessing nutritional status. This is simply not possible to do in any meaningful way. As I have explained, to measure the mineral content of hair and then draw conclusions that lead to intervention recommendations (such as supplementing with pills) is not possible given the state of knowledge we have about how hair mineral levels relate to possible deficiencies. And yet, this is precisely what nutritionists do. They use these tests to give scientific plausibility to their recommendations and their customers purchase expensive supplements ‘tailored’ to their ‘nutritional status’ as revealed by the tests.

And if we in the UK think this a peculiar US phenomenon, we should note that DDI operate in Europe too. Their testimonial page for their “comprehensive testing for the treatment of autism” offers some feedback from “luminaries in this field of medicine.”

One such “luminary” is Dr Jean Monro, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FAAEM, DIBEM, MACOEM, Medical Director of the  Breakspear Hospital in Hemel Hempstead.

Dr Munro is not unknown to the Quackometer. We have seen how the private hospital treats people with ‘electrosensitivity’ (a condition where people falsely attribute symptoms such as headaches to the presence of mobile phones and mains cabling) by subjecting them to strange  Eastern European magnetic therapy devices and using unreliable diagnostic tests to see if things are ‘working’. I have also documented how Breakspear  treats allergies with special injections on the basis of bizarre, pseodoscientific and homeopathic reasoning.

Breakspear also offers treatments for autism. Part of this expensive programme is chelation to remove supposed high levels of heavy metals. Breakspear states that it regularly tests urine during chelation to look at metal levels – precisely the sort test that is at issue here. Breakspear tell us that the test is “evaluated at independent accredited laboratories”.

In Jean Munro’s testimony on the DDI web page she says,

Breakspear Hospital and its antecedents have been practicing in the field of environmental medicine, allergy and nutritional medicine since the late 1970s. Throughout this entire period we have worked with Doctor’s Data Inc. Stool tests and investigations for heavy metals through urine tests have been the mainstays of our management of patients. The service we receive is excellent with results set out superbly and with expert advice available from Doctor’s Data’s scientific advisors whenever requested. Having had this experience and backup, we can now provide a service to any practitioner in the UK, including practitioners helping to treat children on the autistic spectrum and patients with Aspergers syndrome who will benefit from this laboratory service.

Munro does not hide the central importance of urine testing in the “management of patients”.

In 1990 Granada Television’s ‘World in Action’ programme produced a documentary that focused on the activities of Dr Monro and the Breakspear hospital. The programme alleged that the Breakspear Hospital in Hertfordshire has been “the subject of allegations of wrong diagnosis, useless treatment and a death following the failure of treatments. It is run by Dr Jean Monro who charges extortionate fees for bizarre treatments.”

Munro sued.

The programme makers had to apologise for stating that Munro took “wrongful advantage of her patients’ vulnerability”. Their other charges stood.

The problem with many libel cases in the UK is that you are often as a defendant pushed into proving a state of mind, much as Simon Singh nearly had to. To show that Munro deliberately misleads and defrauds requires an impossible peering into her soul to understand her motives. An aggrieved party can always claim that they are honestly going about their business, even if the subsequent analysis of the science or facts may prove them wrong. Being wrong but honest is not the same as being fraudulent.

Being wrong but honest is not the same as being fraudulent.

And that is the problem that Quackwatch may face, if any. Barrett has stated that these tests are used to defraud patients. But it is quite possible, and indeed we must assume for the moment, that all people involved are acting with what they believe to be honesty. The laboratory may well be offering analytical tests to the best of their ability. It is not up to the laboratory to dictate how doctors use the data. The doctors and nutritionists who use the tests may be mistakenly using them to spot deficiencies, excesses and problems that need correcting. They may well have been trained to interpret the tests in inappropriate ways. The end result, however, is indistinguishable from fraud. Patients are being falsely led to believe they have a problem that needs expensive intervention to correct. They may hand over thousands of dollars as a result of being misled.

Patients are being badly let down by regulatory authorities and governments that allow this chain of deception (intentional or otherwise) to take place.

We can see another clear UK example from the Doctor’s Data web site where. One other “luminary” is a Nutritional Therapist called Antony J. Haynes BA(Hons), Dip ION from London. Haynes says of the lab,

    In my professional opinion, Doctor’s Data, Inc. (DDI) not only offers an excellent service, but also has the finest and most up-to-date scientific laboratory assessments available anywhere. DDI’s elemental, amino acid and comprehensive stool analysis test results have proven invaluable in helping offer the most appropriate therapy to those with ASD. I’d recommend DDI to colleagues and patients alike.

Haynes appears to work for a nutritional supplement company, lectures in many undergraduate colleges and has had over 11,000 ‘patients’. He states that he is registered with the Complementary & Natural Healthcare Council (Ofquack) although I cannot find his name on their list. (Although to be fair, I have little faith in Ofquack’s IT skills). He was trained at Patrick Holford’s ION where hair mineral analysis is taught as a legitimate technique for assessing nutrient needs. Haynes is not alone. It is quite possible to find people on Ofquack’s register who do undertake such tests and then sell pills on the back of these meaningless results.

And here is where the real failure is. Ofquack does not see such misleading claims as an impairment to fitness to practice. As Simon Perry uncovered, it appears to be acceptable for such claims to be made if they have been trained to do so and that no deliberate attempt to mislead has been made. The best that the government can do in protecting people from dodgy tests is to set up a voluntary registration body that feels it cannot tell someone off if they have been told to do the tests by bigger boys and girls.

It is a failure in the US too. As Kimball Atwood puts it on the Science Based Medicine blog,

Yes, it is true that very few people or places provide the type of information that [Barrett] does. That’s why I linked to so many of his articles from my own recent post. You can’t find that kind of information on virtually any mainstream website that claims to give reliable information about “complementary and alternative medicine”: not on WebMD, not onInteliHealth, not on the NCCAM website—even though most people would probably expect to find it in those places, if they were aware of it at all. You won’t find on any of those sites, for example, that being “a CLlA-certified company in full compliance with all state and federal regulatory and CLlA standards” is no guarantee against peddling bogus diagnostic tests.

It is a scandal that Quackwatch has had to highlight these concerns nearly alone. Barrett is now paying the price of speaking out. And he is one of the few voices warning the public to be aware. Stephen Barrett deserves to be supported. You can donate here.

More importantly, let Doctor’s Data know that deciding to sue without addressing the science is not a risk free and low cost option for shutting up critics. Write about the case. Examine its merits. Blog. Tweet. Comment. These tests are a menace and largely unregulated. Perhaps DDIs actions could shine some unexpected light into this murky world, and maybe, just maybe, someone will be watching.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. The Breakspear Hospital and Antigen Vaccines Let’s jump off the deep end again with the Breakspear Hospital. Previously, we saw Dr Jean Monro using unproven allergy tests with highly questionable electromagnetic ‘therapies’ to treat food allergies....
  2. A Carnival of Bogus* Chiropractic One of the side effects of the BCA vs Chiropractic libel case is that there are a growing number of people who now realise that Chiropractic is bogus*. Even though...
  3. Pulling My Hair Out or, The Role of Mineral Hair Analysis in the Sale of Food Supplements initially posted on Holford Watch. Patrick Holford has set up a charity. Not poorly, fluffy kittens or...
  4. The Breakspear Hospital and Electromagnetic Therapy The development of new forms of quackery continues with the publication of the latest research from the University of Essex showing yet again that mobile mast radiation was unlikely...
  5. Home Pregnancy Gender Testing – Pink or Blue or Con? One of my repeated gripes is that the Daily Mail Health editorial policy is little more than to be a shill for quacks. Like most of the paper, you have...

Tags: , , ,

10 Responses to “ Doctor’s Data and Bogus Tests ”

  1. Dorothy Bishop on July 8, 2010 at 5:48 am

    I don’t know much about libel laws.
    Am I right in assuming you could not get sued for libel if you just avoided saying anything about a person’s motivations and just reported bald facts?
    If so, why don’t critics do just that?
    You can say a great deal that would lead most people to draw the inference that someone is dishonest without actually saying it.
    And at the end of the day it is less important whether a promoter of a quack treatment does it because they genuinely believe in it, than whether their claims have any merit.

  2. Dorothy Bishop on July 8, 2010 at 5:51 am

    I don’t know anything about libel laws and would like clarification on one point.
    Am I right in thinking you can’t get sued for just reporting the facts of the case, but only if you say someone is dishonest/fraudulent etc?
    If so, why don’t critics like Quackwatch just avoid saying anything about motives and instead describe objectively verifiable information?
    Most people are able to draw an inference of dishonesty without it being directly stated – and anyhow, as you point out, it can be hard to tell whether a woo merchant genuinely believes in their stuff or is just making a fast buck.

  3. Dorothy Bishop on July 8, 2010 at 5:52 am

    oops – sorry about double posting!
    Struggling with the web this morning….

  4. hat_eater on July 8, 2010 at 8:19 am

    “they happily promote a number of bogus tests.
    I can confidently label these treatments as bogus [...]”

    Oooh, I see what you did there!
    And I congratulate you :)

  5. AndyD on July 8, 2010 at 8:56 am

    One of the problems, Dorothy, is that (I assume) the case isn’t actually tested until it gets to court. In the meantime you have to gather your data, probably engage a lawyer and possibly postpone more important work in order to make sure your case convinces the judge of the weaknesses of the suit. How many people are committed enough to be bothered?

    As for what constitutes libel, it differs around the world.

    It’s completely ridiculous that government’s the world over just turn a blind eye to some of the most egregious frauds committed in the name of “wellness”. That bloggers have to put themselves at risk for the sake of the wider community is pathetic.

  6. ClaireOB on July 8, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    The AAAAI’s ‘ask the expert’ website recently (25/06)commented on the ‘provocation/neutralization’ type of allergy diagnosis which is apparently used at the Breakspear – http://www.aaaai.org/professionals/ask-the-expert/view.asp?id=9986

    “…In summary, this test has not been validated and there is a body of literature (see references cited above) which indicate that in blinded studies, it is of little value in diagnosing and treating allergic disease …”

    Dr Lieberman (AAAAI) also recommends:
    “…A further, very nice review of this testing procedure can be found on the Internet. Please go to the site “Quack Watch” and you will find an article by Dr. Stephen Barrett which summarizes the studies of this technique…”

  7. ceedeess on July 8, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    <>

    I support Simon Singh and Quackwatch and I do believe that there is no doubt in the minds of all persons associated with these tests that the patients are paying up heavily for something they wrongly believe in.

    However, I wonder if it is necessary to publicise the matter as a fraud. I am just getting involved and have not much experience, and I can readily accept that calling something a ‘fraud’ is a quick and dirty way to draw attention adverse attention to it.

    On the other hand, publicising with circumspection could leave many readers to draw the conclusion of ‘fraud’ on their own, and the majority may never get there. People do need to be spoon fed with stuff.

  8. tomo on July 12, 2010 at 9:00 am

    What research have you conducted on heavy metal toxicity that have lead you to your claims?

    • Daniel on July 14, 2010 at 7:01 am

      I think even without knowing or saying anything about heavy metal toxicity, it is highly dubious of Doctor’s Data to compare what they find in a provoked urine test to reference values meant for unprovoked tests.

      To put this more bluntly, this is like breaking eggs in the supermarket and then complaining to the staff that they sell broken eggs.

  9. Jon on July 21, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    I support Quackwatch and I would urge others to do so… use the PayPal link and give some money!

    If anyone reading Quackwatch articles disagrees with their content, they are free to stop reading and never come back. They are also free to comment. QW provides an essential balance against pseudo science.

    Doctor’s Data and Breakspear may may sincerely believe in what they are doing, or they may not. If there is no data to support what they are selling as certainty then it really doesn’t matter; it is fraud or delusion.

    If regulators won’t tackle this issue, then citizens have a right to balance.

Leave a Reply

Search the Quackometer

QuackSafe Search

Search for reliable information about alternative medicine on the web:
Follow lecanardnoir on Twitter

Twitter Updates

    Sign the Petition