BBC Watchdog's Dirty Allergy Trick

I received one of Patrick Holford's 100% for Health emails this morning and boy was he hopping made. The BBC's Watchdog programme totally misrepresented the slightly differing results of the 2 identical blood samples submitted for the IgG Food Intolerance or York Test.  See below for Patrick's email in full.

I can't say I blame him. He has worked so hard and helped so many people with their allergy problems, that to see the reputation of the York test tarnished in that way is just too much. It is really just a case of extremely shoddy and lazy reporting. That's the problem when you get reporters that are either totally ignorant of the subject or have a vested interest.

I've seen this happen a number of times before. There was that programme on spiritual healing where the doctor / scientist decided to go down the avenue of the 'placebo' effect. They say they want proof that it works, but then when you produce it they just dismiss it, or say they need more. Or else they don't even bother to look for the proof. She could have contacted the Reiki Federation for details of clinical trials. But no, instead of making a programme about spiritual healing she made one about the placebo effect, that we've all known about for ages! It's just poor research.

But we did hope for better from the BBC and Watchdog. I didn't see the programme myself, so if you saw it, let me know what you think. 

BBC Watchdog's Dirty Allergy Trick

In case you watched Tuesday (9th Jan 2007) night's Watchdog on BBC1 you might have spotted a slight of hand. A healthy volunteer had three allergy tests - a vega test (twice), a hair test, and Yorktest's IgG Food Intolerance test, in which the volunteer sent two blood samples. The first two came up with a lot of foods, and the vega tests each had different results. Yorktest's test identified no reactions in the first test, and two foods on the lowest possible level of sensitivity. You can have a +4, +3, +2, +1 or 'rotate' reaction. Rotate means don't eat every day. If I have a patient who has 2 'rotate' foods only they are, in essence, not allergic. In other words the two tests were almost identical in result. Thumbs up for Yorktest you'd expect.

But no. Watchdog not only implied the results were 'very' different, but they also said that the test had shown five reactions! They did this not by reading the actual result - one of the allergens was 'citrus mix' - but by saying the test had shown they were allergic to oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruit and so on. For a BBC Watchdog programme that's pretty underhand. But it got worse. The expert they used to pass judgement said that there had been only one study on IgG as a basis for allergy! That is plain deception. If you go into Medline, the on-line database of published research and put in IgG you'll find 139,473 referenced studies. If you narrow down to IgG + food intolerance it list 85 studies. I referenced 115 studies in my book Hidden Food Allergies (Piatkus).

The evidence for IgG antibody reactions as a basis for food intolerances continues to grow, including well designed randomised controlled trials, however, some health professionals just haven't kept up to date. Perhaps it's because a 'home test' takes the power away from the professional and puts it in your hands.

Patrick Holford 

                                                                                                                                               

Comments

[Ryan]

Thats just cruel and should be borderline criminal. I hate when shows pull stunts like this

[allergist]

I'm now wondering what the BBC's Watchdog program looks like.

regards,
Luke