Foresight Preconception: Beware of Claims


It has come to my attention that, this autumn, I will become a father for the second time. We have been very fortunate in that we are not spring chickens and achieving this feat has been quite straightforward. A near 100% hit rate.

For many couples, it is not so easy. Getting pregnant can take some time. Even if you are both healthy and you are managing to have regular sex, your chances of getting pregnant in any particular month are only about around 20%. According to the NHS Choices web site, this means that for every thousand couples, about 150 of them will not have been successful after a full year of trying.

Of course, it could be worse than that. Two people in busy careers, long commutes, social lives and so on, may find it hard to keep up the effort. And indeed, if you do have a genuine infertility problem, such as ovulation issues, low sperm counts, infections or being overweight, then conception can take much, much longer. Some couples simply have no explanation for their infertility.

Given these numbers, then there will always be a very large pool of people, who are probably quite healthy and fertile, who are becoming desperate that it is ‘just not happening for them’. And other people who may have significant health issues that need sorting out. And it may well be quite difficult for any particular couple to know whether they are just being unlucky or need some medical advice and treatment.

Such a potent mix of high hopes and frustration, surrounding a problem that may well be self-correcting, provides a natural hunting ground for quacks to offer their wares and claim any subsequent success.

One such organisation that has come to my attention is the 30 year old charity called Foresight Preconception. A ‘non profit’ organisation, Foresight has a list of registered Foresight practitioners who “improve natural health in both parents” and so “enhance fertility and successful pregnancy”.

On the face of it, there are some fairly sensible looking angles they take – looking at nutrition, cutting out alcohol and checking for genito-urinary infections. But scrape away ever so slightly and the approach that Foresight promotes starts to get worrying.

Let’s look at some of those aspects.

Firstly, nutrition. The headline advice is to go for “filtered water, organic food, free from pesticides and additives.” There is no good evidence that eating organic food helps with fertility. This sounds more like Sunday supplement advice rather than anything serious. But it gets worse. Instead of straightforward advice on eating a balanced diet, good food preparation tips and how to manage weight, we are presented with lists of foods to avoid, specialist foods to east (such as Alfalfa and Mung beans, Goat and sheep milk products), and a warning to look out for “individual allergies, food intolerances”. This looks more like a classic nutritionists sales pitch rather than sensible eating advice, usually the prelude to selling vitamin pills. The tactic amongst nutritionists is to make diet look really hard and complicated – this softens people up for the shortcut pill purchases.

And my suspicions are raised further.

Foresight base much of what they do on Hair Mineral Analysis. They do this to look for trace element deficiencies and heavy metal contamination. However, Hair Mineral Analysis has been described as ‘a cardinal sign of quackery’. I have previously gone into detail about why this technique is not useful for deciding if you need mineral and vitamin supplements. Indeed, HMA is used solely used as a sales tool, whether wittingly or not by practitioners. The results are not reproducible and reliable and there is no good way of interpreting results to allow people to decide if they need to take a supplement. Most people do not need supplements of this sort – but the practitioner’s interpretation of the test will invariably say you do. (I note, for example, this one person in a forum is saying they were recommended supplements costing £130 per month.)

Foresight say that they have “been testing hair and giving supplement programmes to restore natural fertility and ensure successful reproduction for over 30 years” and that it is their “most vital component”. There is no good scientific rational for why this might be so. Indeed, there are lots of good reasons to think this is nonsense and that couples will be buying lots of expensive “Foresight formulated” pills for no reason.

Hair Mineral Analysis is so popular because it looks really scientific.  Print outs of lots of data from computers and everything. Foresight say “it is an essential part of the Foresight philosophy that recommendations to clients are based on solid scientific evidence”. Hair Mineral Analysis cannot provide that and it looks like they have been misled and are misleading their clients.

More worrying signs are they part of their programme is all about cutting out “Electromagnetic Pollution”. We are told that ‘electrosmog’ can be “valid reason for headaches, dizziness, sleeplessness, fatigue, depression and we now know – ovarian failure and low sperm count.”

There is no good reason to think this is true. Indeed, the idea that the electromagnetic radiation from domestic sources can be the source of such illnesses is the invention of a few characters who have built businesses from selling solutions to protect you from such ‘dangers’. And indeed, they are advised by the usual suspects, including the high profile and doubtful Powerwatch.

Foresight say they will advise a ‘geopathic survey’ for your house. This is likely to be expensive – and completely useless as it is based on pure pseudo-science – it is a form of dowsing. Typical more ‘solutions’ are sold on the back of a meaningless report.

Where things start to get really alarming is on their advice on sexually transmitted diseases. Quite rightly, Foresight advise their couples to get tested. Where they go off the deep end is to advise them that a suitable treatment can be found in homeopathy. Homeopathic pills have ben so diluted that all that is left is the sugar pill. Treating infections with sugar pills is the same as leaving them untreated. And of course, it is worse than that because people may feel they have received treatment when they have not.

Foresight do say that antibiotics may be used. However, and this is a real worry, many of the Foresight practitioners are indeed homeopaths (e.g. see Rachael Leffman, member of the Society of Homeopaths, for her approach and costs.). Homeopaths believe that mainstream medicines, such as antibiotics,  can produce greater illness in people later on – they are likely, of course, to propose homeopathy as a treatment and so leave patients at risk and untreated. Such advice is not just counterproductive to Foresight’s aims, it is deeply irresponsible.

There are many other worrying and dubious aspects of their approach. Not least is their homeopath fuelled rejection of vaccination. So, not only do they put their clients at risk, they advise their clients to be suspicious of treatments that could protect their child. Such are the risks of alternative medicine – it is not the treatments that are dangerous, it is the untreated illness and dangerous advice that pose risks.

But Foresight say they have lots of medical advisors to make sure they are doing things right. Looking at the list of their advisors, it becomes quite apparent that the advisors live on the fringes of medicine. We see homeopaths such as Dr. Anne Wynne-Simmons (who trained at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital) and Dr Sheila Gibson (who used to work at the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital) . We see ‘ecological medicine’ specialists such as Dr Stephen Brooke (who advises ‘electosensitivity’ support groups) and Dr Sarah Myhill (who was investigated by the GMC last year and had her ability to prescribe taken away).

Dr Jean Munro is also on the list. I have written about her private clinic and bizarre treatments on several occasions. Munro was the subject of an investigation by ‘World in Action’ in 1990 for “allegations of wrong diagnosis, useless treatment and a death following the failure of treatments.”

There are some even odder characters too, such as Roy Riggs B.Sc who descibes himself as a “Holistic Geobiologist” and is “an “professional Earth Energy dowser”. He guest lectures at the London Westminster University’s School of Integrative Medicine and The Baltic Dowser’s Association of Lithuania. (Do you see what company you keep, Westminster?)

Foresight are keen to present some evidence that they are successful, but from their figures it is impossible to tell how much of the ‘success’ is due to their intervention and how many pregnancies would have occurred anyway. As time is one of the best factors in achieving a successful conception, all Foresight may be doing is taking hundreds of pounds off people in the meantime and waiting for nature to take its course..

But some of their practices –such as unnecessarily complex dietary restrictions, obsessions with non-existent harms and, useless treatments for significant problems, might actually be making it much harder for couples to have a baby. Just because something sounds natural and good and someone is paying attention to you does not mean that the result will be good.

For that reason, I would suggest couples are very cautious before approaching a Foresight practitioner and go and have a talk with their GP instead. To begin with, your doctor might not do much and simply advise you to keep trying whilst cutting down on alcohol, taking a folic acid supplement and eating well, but that might indeed be the best advice you can have.

25 Comments on Foresight Preconception: Beware of Claims

  1. If they are all Fellows of the Royal Society of Medicine, then they may meet the duck standard: “If it quacks like a duck…”

  2. As somebody who used CAM extensively during / because of unexplained infertility, a lot of this is depressingly familiar. (I even used to take Foresight vitamins on the recommendation of a nutritionist and had a hair mineral analysis done). It really is quite stressful and restrictive.

    One small niggle: In your post, you say:
    “Of course, it could be worse than that. Two people in busy careers, long commutes, social lives and so on, may find it hard to keep up the effort. And indeed, if you do have a genuine infertility problem, such as ovulation issues, low sperm counts, infections or being overweight, then conception can take much, much longer.”

    It’s actually far, far more complicated than that. The medical literature on fertility recognises subfertility and unexplained infertility, too. Here’s the obligatory pubmed reference:

    As a former infertile, I would strongly suggest that you edit this paragraph as soon as possible. (That’s assuming you want this information to reach infertile people, and have not primarily aimed this at the skeptical community.) If I had come across this page while I was still struggling with unexplained infertility, that one paragraph would have been enough to put me off, and I would have classified you as a well-meaning but clueless fertile whose assvice is best avoided. I assure you that’s not me being overly sensitive – I’ve extensively talked to infertiles, both while I was still struggling to conceive and afterwards, and that would be quite a common reaction.

  3. This comment has been removed as it breaks my comments guidelines.

    I moderate few comments: Benneth has repeatedly broken basic standards of commenting such as being vastly off topic, libelous, rude – and so all his comments are subject to moderation.

    If Mr Benneth wishes to comment, I ask his to stick to the topic of the blog post and be courteous in his manner.

  4. My wife fell victim to Foresight Preconception – spent a lot of money on hair analysis on useless “supplements” that did absolutely nothing. I refused to take them.

    Sub-fertility (as I prefer to think of it) is very difficult and stressful. CAM practitioners who prey on the sub-fertile and infertile make me very very angry (one reason that I’ve never blogged about it). I attended a fertility exhibition (mostly clinics flogging IVF) and had to be restrained from tackling the astrologers, acupuncturists and the like.

    Stress is a particular problem during fertility treatment. I have no problems with people using CAM treatments alongside conventional treatment (or the simply keep trying approach) as an aid to stress management. What I find disgraceful is that i) some CAM practitioners actually increase stress levels by presenting their clients with a whole bunch of things to worry and obsess about that are totally irrelevant and ii) make unsubstantiated claims for the effectiveness of their treatments when very often their clients are having conventional treatment at the same time…

    • With all due respect, maybe the reason your wife put herself through such an ordeal and expense with no baby at the end was that you (the male) didn’t take the supplements! Sub-fertility is equally the male part and not participating in simply taking a small vitamin that can have significant results seems ludicrous. The integrated approach to infertility is, in my opinion the answer. Embrace all relevant methods relevant to your case… GP, fertility specialists, acupuncture nutrition and often counselling. Acupuncture contrary to your comment is so successful that mainstream IVF clinics are now using it prior to treatment as it has been shown to increase success rates.
      I suggest opening your eyes and mind to a balanced approach. I believe that no one extreme approach is healthy, but refusing a spouse cooperation when she clearly is looking for avenues to have a baby is not particularly conducive or beneficial. Anger never made babies so maybe channel all your avenues into solutions!

  5. Easiest way in the world to make money is to charge people to increase likelihood of an outcome that may well happen anyway.
    An even better wheeze is to charge people to improve chances of conceiving a girl or a boy. They can even give you your money back if it doesn’t work, but that means on 50% of occasions they make a profit from doing nothing.

  6. After much deliberation and ‘tripping over their own shoelaces ‘ it seems that the medical swats are finding that EMF does do something to reproductive systems…here is one snippet from the learned (not so?) ignoramus of the world…
    The biological effect of electromagnetic field (EMF) emitted from mobile phones is a current debate and still a controversial issue. Therefore, little is known on the possible adverse effects on reproduction as mobile phone bio-effects are only a very recent concern. The aim of this experimental study was to determine the biological and morphological effects of 900 MHz radiofrequency (RF) EMF on rat testes.
    The study was performed in the Physiology and Histology Research Laboratories of Süleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Medicine, Isparta, Turkey in May 2004. Twenty adult male Sprague-Dawley rats weighing 270-320 gm were randomized into 2 groups of 10 animals: Group I (control group) was not exposed to EMF and Group II (EMF group) was exposed to 30 minutes per day, 5 days a week for 4 weeks to 900 MHz EMF. Testes tissues were submitted for histologic and morphologic examination. Testicular biopsy score count and the percentage of interstitial tissue to the entire testicular tissue were registered. Serum testosterone, plasma luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) levels were assayed biochemically.
    The weight of testes, testicular biopsy score count and the percentage of interstitial tissue to the entire testicular tissue were not significantly different in EMF group compared to the control group. However, the diameter of the seminiferous tubules and the mean height of the germinal epithelium were significantly decreased in EMF group (p<0.05). There was a significant decrease in serum total testosterone level in EMF group (p0.05)

    So it seems that Foresight(whoever they are) should be congratulated on their (necessary) ahh…not insignificant umm…foresight.Hearty congratulations on your foresight in this regard !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  7. I don’t understand your skepticism. My mom had 10 children. Each one natural. Last one at the age of 44. She’s 58 now and extremely healthy and robust. Beautiful and energetic. She followed everything that you are saying is “questionable or quackary”. We ate organic. Her friends around her all were trying to get pregnant in their late 30s and early 40s and ate “healthy balanced diets” but a lot of processed food and weren’t able to. My mom showed them her natural tips and bing! Pregnant they got.

    I have 3 girlfriends in the last few years who were trying to get pregnant for varying amounts of time from a year to 4 years. Paid attention to the electromagnetic issue, wifi, cell phone etc. (they are all past 40) and as soon as they lowered their exposure, especially laptop on lap, they got pregnant.

    Though we never did the geopathic survey.

  8. Understanding how to provide healthy sperms and eggs and providing them with a healthy environment in which to fertilise and provide a healthy environment in which any embryo can develop to full term and potential, will inform achieving good fertility.

    Farmers and vets have a much better understanding of fertility than human experts in general, as they expect all their stock to breed with total fertility. They rely on good pre-conception care and high quality physique, health precautions, and quality life style for the breeding animals to achieve this. Twins no problem!

    Foresight may consider more “alternative” theories than the average human is comfortable with, but modern civilisation is damaging the life of most species on land sea and air, and it requires some scientific ingenuity to combat this for some happy reproduction outcomes. Foresight have succeeded in identifying most if not all the hazards which might have significant impact on an individual’s suitability, and suggested how to identify and remedy most of them.

    Foresight have helped many previously infertile or sub fertile couples to conceive and carry their babies to full term and enabled couples who have endured the misery of multiple miscarriages or a still birth to successful parenthood.

    It is wrong to ignore the huge burden of evidence just that as early pregnancy care is beneficial to producing a healthy baby, and happy family, preconception care is even more so.

    Does your negative anti quackery brigade have any logical or scientific insight into how long it takes to grow spermatozoa and eggs and a fertile environment for them to fertilise and develope an embryo ?

    It is tragic that this Ill-considered, ill-founded criticism should prevent potential parents from making the best of their conception opportunities. Most of the Foresight Protocol ( anyone can send for their free literature or visit their web sight ) is similar to the early pregnancy protocol of the NHS, but with antenatal NHS CARE, ironically tests are carried out which identify potential problems that cannot be corrected when pregnant. With foresight, tests for many non-fertility factors may be corrected before conception eg. Anaemia, infections, deficiencies, common medical drugs, alcohol, tobacco toxins, stress can all be ameliorated while there is time, INCLUDING diet with adequate protein, vitamins and minerals.

    It was rumoured that in the seventies, dog-breeders in certain agricultural areas had to give up or move elsewhere, because the local drinking water carried excessive amounts of nitrates, and the bitches lost their pups. Mothers were given bottled water from elsewhere in the worst places, but do you know if your tap water is as good as it can be for fertility? I believe tap-water may be tested for free by your water board, but might usefully be included in the search for homes with safe water.

    Preconception care is a huge and fascinating subject and I deeply regret that your sceptic has failed to highlight that Foresight are the best source of information and advice to be found in one place.


    Just Williams

  9. Interesting indeed. I worked for Foresight for six years and in all that time I do not remember anyone ever being forced to have their hair tested or take supplements. When anyone rang for information we offered the best available advice possible to them. As a charity there was absolutely no reason for us to promote ourselves other than to be able to ‘keep going’ in a world that is now at every turn, hell bent on ‘profiting’. Common sense tells us that what we put in our bodies will have an affect good or bad, on it. For some people their sensitivities and lack of nutritional balance cause infertility – we always only ever wanted to help and over the 30 years this was achieved for many, resulting in healthy babies.

  10. Teresa-Iche – who is claiming people are ‘forced’ to take Hair Mineral tests? My point is that they are an unreliable way of determining any micro-nutrient deficiency. They provide a ‘sciencey’ background to what is a supplement sales pitch. This misleads couples.

    As for your ‘common sense’ approach to nutrition – but science is the way we test our ‘common sense’ to see if it is ‘common prejudice’. For example, there is no good evidence that eating organic will increase the chances of conception. To tell clients otherwise is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

    • There is good evidence though that despite the pesticide DDT being phased out over a decade ago it is still being detected in new born babies.

      Organic food is free of such chemicals and is therefore less damaging in terms of bioaccumulation, also due to organic farming focusing on regenerative methods and improving soil quality though natural means (rather than synthetic nitrogen and phosphorous pellets) organically grown food is more nutritionally dense than non-organic.

      What’s inexcusable though is the companies who see it as a reason to double their profits by hugely upping the cost to consumers.

      So in summary, there are not many large studies proving that organic good increases fertility (let’s not forget that Monsanto manufactures both pesticides and fertility drugs, funds a lot of “research” and is a powerful political lobbyist) however it cannot harm fertility to eat the best possible food.

  11. Well said. I find “quacks” are often those who are afraid of what they might discover should they not take a critical approach which provides a bravado to avoid having to acknowledge validities beyond the common denominator. When you look inside a bully you generally find vulnerability! = Quak bloggers!

  12. If it’s so misleading why are pregnancy rates so high. If protocol and tests hold such little validity then the outcomes of success would also be low. Results are the best evidence, beyond research, beyond studies.

  13. Show your evidence that pregnancy rates are high as a result of the treatments and I will gladly accept I am wrong.

  14. I disagree with so much in your article. I had struggled to conceive and each pregnancy took 2 years only for me to then miscarry. (3 in total before I came across Foresight). After my husband & I both took on their recommendations (no fizzy drinks, no alcohol, no microwaved food, organic food only and a selenium deficiency so vitamin supplement – I began conceiving every 6 months. Unfortunately 6 pregnancies later I was still miscarrying but I then enlisted on the recommendation of Foresight; Roy diagnosed our bed was over fault lines / water lines when he did his house survey. In fact all of the bedrooms were so we moved. First thing before we bought the new house was to do the survey there – a house twice as big with no fault lines at all. I now have 2 healthy girls age 9 & 12. I am convinced its all down to the advice from Foresight and them putting me in touch with Roy. A colleague in work had similar issues and took the same after speaking with Foresight and Roy Riggs and they now have 3 healthy children too. So for those of you struggling for 10 years like I was – I’d recommend that you do the same too. Good luck on your journey!

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Professor Geoffrey Petts of the University of Westminster says they “are not teaching pseudo-science”. The facts show this is not true

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.