UK diet guru exposed

mada85

The Cosmic Force
Guardian UK said:
A menace to science

For years, 'Dr' Gillian McKeith has used her title to sell TV shows, diet books and herbal sex pills. Now the Advertising Standards Authority has stepped in. Yet the real problem is not what she calls herself, but the mumbo-jumbo she dresses up as scientific fact, says Ben Goldacre

Call her the Awful Poo Lady, call her Dr Gillian McKeith PhD: she is an empire, a multi-millionaire, a phenomenon, a prime-time TV celebrity, a bestselling author. She has her own range of foods and mysterious powders, she has pills to give you an erection, and her face is in every health food store in the country. Scottish Conservative politicians want her to advise the government. The Soil Association gave her a prize for educating the public. And yet, to anyone who knows the slightest bit about science, this woman is a bad joke.

One of those angry nerds took her down this week. A regular from my website badscience(dot)net - I can barely contain my pride - took McKeith to the Advertising Standards Authority, complaining about her using the title "doctor" on the basis of a qualification gained by correspondence course from a non-accredited American college. He won. She may have sidestepped the publication of a damning ASA draft adjudication at the last minute by accepting - "voluntarily" - not to call herself "doctor" in her advertising any more. But would you know it, a copy of that draft adjudication has fallen into our laps, and it concludes that "the claim 'Dr' was likely to mislead". The advert allegedly breached two clauses of the Committee of Advertising Practice code: "substantiation" and "truthfulness".

Is it petty to take pleasure in this? No. McKeith is a menace to the public understanding of science. She seems to misunderstand not nuances, but the most basic aspects of biology - things that a 14-year-old could put her straight on.

[...]

One window into her world is the extraordinary way she responds to criticism: with legal threats and blatantly, outrageously misleading statements, emitted with such regularity that it's reasonable to assume she will do the same thing with this current kerfuffle over her use of the title "doctor". So that you know how to approach the rebuttals to come, let's look at McKeith's rebuttals of the recent past.

Three months ago she was censured by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for illegally selling a rather tragic range of herbal sex pills called Fast Formula Horny Goat Weed Complex, advertised as shown by a "controlled study" to promote sexual satisfaction, and sold with explicit medicinal claims. She was ordered to remove the products from sale immediately. She complied - the alternative would have been prosecution - but in response, McKeith's website announced that the sex pills had been withdrawn because of "the new EU licensing laws regarding herbal products". She engaged in Europhobic banter with the Scottish Herald newspaper: "EU bureaucrats are clearly concerned that people in the UK are having too much good sex," she explained.

Rubbish. I contacted the MHRA, and they said: "This has nothing to do with new EU regulations. The information on the McKeith website is incorrect." Was it a mistake? "Ms McKeith's organisation had already been made aware of the requirements of medicines legislation in previous years; there was no reason at all for all the products not to be compliant with the law." They go on. "The Wild Pink Yam and Horny Goat Weed products marketed by McKeith Research Ltd were never legal for sale in the UK."

[...]

But those who criticise McKeith have reason to worry. McKeith goes after people, and nastily. She has a libel case against the Sun [UK newspaper] over comments they made in 2004 that has still not seen much movement. But the Sun is a large, wealthy institution, and it can protect itself with a large and well-remunerated legal team. Others can't. A charming but - forgive me - obscure blogger called PhDiva made some relatively innocent comments about nutritionists, mentioning McKeith, and received a letter threatening costly legal action from Atkins Solicitors, "the reputation and brand-management specialists". Google received a threatening legal letter simply for linking to - forgive me - a fairly obscure webpage on McKeith.
Legal behaviour which is strongly reminiscent of many gurus of this and that, who use the legal system to bludgeon their detractors and avoid holding their work up to peer scrutiny. Interesting that her husband is a lawyer, and active on her behalf; suggestive perhaps of some kind of partnership and/or direction from behind the scenes...if the good Doctor is a psychopath or has a controller, then some of her dietary advice would be disinformation - devil, details, and so on. Given McKeith's litigious habits, one would assume that this article has been cleared by the Guardian's law team.

Read the complete article here A menace to science
 
At the same time, I cannot help to see this as another way to "hit" on people who actually are doing some real research and offering products which the governement has decided "illegal".

I think that exposing crooks at certain moment in time is beneficial for the PTB when it suits them to defent thier view of science.

When the article says "but the mumbo-jumbo she dresses up as scientific fact", ok but whose scientific facts are they talking about ? theirs ?
I am not defending her side, it's just that this kind of situations happens often enough and it's not easy to know at first whom will profit of this.
 
Now that we're in the information age, lack of information is not a problem anymore. The problem these days is too much information. Fitness and diet "guru's" preach about their "latest breakthroughs" on TV infomercials 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Hundreds, even thousands of diet and exercise books fill bookstore shelves. Dozens of magazines clutter the newsstands every month.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom