{"id":1355,"date":"2010-07-07T22:13:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-07T22:13:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.quackometer.net\/blog\/?p=1355"},"modified":"2010-07-07T22:13:00","modified_gmt":"2010-07-07T22:13:00","slug":"doctors-data-bogus-tests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.quackometer.net\/blog\/2010\/07\/doctors-data-bogus-tests.html","title":{"rendered":"Doctor’s Data and Bogus Tests"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"test<\/a> This week in The Lawyer, Robert Dougans and David Allen Green wrote about<\/a> the emerging phenomenon of \u2018wiki litigation\u2019 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\u2019s libel case against science writer Simon Singh. This was not just the web watching the case \u2013 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 \u2013 the result being the demolition of the BCA\u2019s reputation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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<\/a>\"\" of how the internet can bring together like minded people to collaborate on creating previously unthinkable change.<\/p>\n

It is likely that a US company called Doctor\u2019s Data (DDI)<\/a> is going to be facing similar scrutiny as it is has decided to sue the website Quackwatch<\/a> 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<\/a>. One test in particular stood out for his criticism where patients are given a \u201cprovoking agent\u201d 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 \u2018elevated result\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

Doctor\u2019s Data asked<\/a> Stephen Barrett to remove his articles discussing these urine tests<\/a> as they were \u201cfalse, fraudulent, defamatory or otherwise not truthful\u201d. Dr Barrett replied asking for clarification as to what specifically he had written that was not correct or fair opinion. Doctor\u2019s Data did not respond but instead has now simply filed suit.<\/p>\n

This is tragically familiar. When the Society of Homeopaths threatened<\/a> me, I asked them to detail their concerns<\/a>. I got no response. The chiropractors also asserted they had a \u2018plethora\u2019 of evidence to back up their claims when they sued Simon Singh. They withheld the plethora \u2013 and when it was finally released<\/a>, it was quickly shown to be worth nothing<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have researched and written about some of them before.<\/div>\n

Pursuing a court case rather than discussing evidence does not make Doctor\u2019s 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\u2019s Data would appear to be a respectable laboratory and yet they happily promote a number of bogus tests.<\/p>\n

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<\/a>, 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 \u2018tailored\u2019 to their \u2018nutritional status\u2019 as revealed by the tests.<\/p>\n

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 \u201ccomprehensive testing for the treatment of autism\u201d offers some feedback from \u201cluminaries in this field of medicine.\u201d<\/p>\n

One such \u201cluminary<\/a>\u201d is Dr Jean Monro, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FAAEM, DIBEM, MACOEM, Medical Director of the \u00a0Breakspear Hospital in Hemel Hempstead.<\/p>\n

Dr Munro is not unknown to the Quackometer. We have seen how the private\u00a0hospital treats people<\/a> with \u2018electrosensitivity\u2019 (a condition where people falsely attribute symptoms such as headaches to the presence of mobile phones and mains cabling) by subjecting them to strange\u00a0 Eastern European magnetic therapy devices and using unreliable diagnostic tests to see if things are \u2018working\u2019. I have also documented how Breakspear \u00a0treats allergies with special injections on the basis of bizarre, pseodoscientific and homeopathic reasoning.<\/p>\n

Breakspear also offers treatments<\/a> 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 \u2013 precisely the sort test that is at issue here. Breakspear tell us that the test is \u201cevaluated at independent accredited laboratories\u201d.<\/p>\n

In Jean Munro\u2019s testimony on the DDI web page she says,<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Munro does not hide the central importance of urine testing in the \u201cmanagement of patients\u201d.<\/p>\n

In 1990 Granada Television\u2019s \u2018World in Action\u2019 programme produced a documentary that focused on the activities of Dr Monro and the Breakspear hospital. The programme alleged<\/a> that the Breakspear Hospital in Hertfordshire has been \u201cthe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Munro sued.<\/p>\n

The programme makers had to apologise<\/a> for stating that Munro took \u201cwrongful advantage of her patients\u2019 vulnerability\u201d. Their other charges stood.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0aggrieved\u00a0party 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.<\/p>\n

Being wrong but honest is not the same as being fraudulent.<\/div>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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

We can see another clear UK example from the Doctor\u2019s Data web site where. One other \u201cluminary\u201d is a Nutritional Therapist called Antony J. Haynes BA(Hons), Dip ION from London. Haynes says of the lab,<\/p>\n