/ Health

Had dodgy advice from a nutritional therapist? We have!

Have you ever visited a nutritional therapist? In this month’s Which? magazine we investigated the profession and found some worrying practices, such as therapists advising against going to your GP.

One therapist advised our researcher, who was posing as a cancer sufferer, against having conventional treatment (a lumpectomy and radiotherapy), saying that she should try for three to six months to rid herself of the cancer through diet (by cutting out sugar).

Nutritional therapy can be big business; therapists charge up to £80 for a consultation and often prescribe expensive supplements on top. So we wanted to investigate whether it was worth the money.

How our investigation worked

We asked five undercover researchers to each visit three therapists. Each researcher was provided with a scenario.

One researcher (in her early 30s) had been trying to conceive unsuccessfully for over a year. Two (in their 50s) had been suffering from severe tiredness for the past three months. And two women (in their 40s) had recently been diagnosed with DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma in Situ), the most common type of non-invasive breast cancer.

A panel of experts (a dietitian, a GP and a Professor of Pharmacology) then assessed recordings of the visits and any other information the therapists provided to the researchers, including prescriptions for supplements.

Are nutritional therapists worth the money?

Our expert panel concluded that visiting a nutritional therapist wasn’t worth the money – and in some cases could have actually endangered the health of the researcher. Six of the fifteen consultations were rated as ‘dangerous fails’.

This could have been down to a number of reasons:

  • The advice given by the therapist could have potentially harmed the researcher.
  • Therapists were diagnosing conditions without relevant testing (even though their Code of Practice says they shouldn’t diagnose).
  • Researchers were advised not to visit their GPs about the problem, recommending unproven testing such as hair mineral analysis, and the case above, advising against cancer treatment.

Of the remaining visits, eight were rated as ‘fails’ and only one was graded as a ‘borderline pass’. Our experts were disappointed by the advice given by therapists and concerned at their poor knowledge of the body and how it works.

The experts were also worried by some therapists using non-evidence-based testing to diagnose symptoms. These tests included iridology (studying the patterns, colour and other characteristics of the iris), hair mineral analysis and a researcher being given several liquids to hold in his mouth before being told he had a chromium deficiency.

Are the recommendations right?

Twelve of the therapists prescribed supplements to the researchers, costing up to £70 a month. Researchers were told not to buy them from Boots or other high street chemists as they weren’t ‘pure enough’ and you were effectively ‘flushing your money down the loo’. Instead, they were asked to buy them from the retailers recommended by the therapist.

Of course, there is benefit in following healthy dietary advice, but most of what was provided by the nutritional therapists is freely available on websites such as the NHS site.

Plus, most of the therapists in our investigation recommended quite restrictive diets that excluded several foods (predominantly dairy and wheat) and taking expensive supplements.

If you do have a medical condition that you are concerned about, your first port of call should be your GP. If necessary they can then refer you to a dietitian. We have contacted the British Association of Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT) with our findings and concerns.

People who have visited nutritional therapists emailed us to say that they found the diets recommended to them difficult to maintain over a long time and eventually gave up.

Have you visited a nutritional therapist? What was your experience like – do any of these findings ring true or did you have a more positive experience?

Comments

I must say, I’m utterly shocked and appalled that a therapist recommended a reduction of sugar to rid a researcher of cancer.

A better diet can no doubt improve your quality of life and make you feel better but by god, never advise against seeing a GP.

There is a real difference between nutritional therapists and Registered Nutritionists (RNutr), who are assessed by the Association for Nutrition (AfN) and can only be on the UK Voluntary Register of Nutritionists if they are qualified and competent in nutritional science and practice and uphold the highest professional and ethical standards through a comprehensive code of conduct.

Registered Nutritionists who consult on an individual basis would only do so under the supervision of a suitably qualified practitioner, such as a GP, if there is a pre-existing medical condition.

There is a response to this investigation on the AfN website, http://www.associationfornutrition.org

Angie says:
16 January 2012

It makes me very sad to read about so called therapists cashing in on what can be a beneficial approach to health when combined intelligently with help and advice from GPs. It gives nutritional medicine…and by that I mean eating healthily and supplementing where absolutely necessary, a bad name. I treated myself for depression and anxiety years ago. Effectively, by altering my diet and taking Passiflora and using relaxing aromatherapy oils. Without the Ativan (subsequently found to be addictive and unhelpful) which I was prescribed by doctors. But such unscrupulous practise labels a good and balanced approach to health as quackery. Shame on them!

Lorna says:
16 January 2012

My Mum visited a naturopath for dietary advice while fighting secondary breast cancer in 2010. On the advice of the naturopath she delayed a chemotherapy treatment which she had been advised to begin by her consultant. This was in order to try and ‘treat’ the cancer through a combination of diet, expensive dietary supplements and self-administered enemas.

The diet restricted her daily routine and failed to help. By the time she began the chemotherapy regime a few months later she was significantly more poorly and suffered an extremely bad reaction to the drugs.

She died in April 2011 and although I don’t put this down to the advice of the naturopath – she
was extremely ill with advanced cancer – I believe that the therapist was negligent in her advice and should not be allowed to treat cancer patients as such.

It is also worth mentioning that the naturopath in question works by signing clients up to a monthy direct debit after asking them to sign a contract which also presuambly acts as a kind of disclaimer.
My Mum continued paying this for months despite being too poorly to use the naturopath’s services.

I was extremely concerned at the time but didn’t want to upset my Mum by intervening. I also discovered there was no regulatory body I could actually raise my concerns with either.

Hi Lorna, what a sad story – I’m so sorry to hear what your mum went through, and particularly shocked to hear about the payment methods, which sound very underhand. Thank you for sharing – hopefully stories like these will encourage those reading to research different therapists thoroughly before deciding whether to take their advice or not.

HR O. says:
16 January 2012

Hi Lorna, this is very sad and I really feel for you. I too have had close family die of cancer and I know how painful it is to find the right balance between all the different options. I think nutrition has an indisputable role in the management of any disease, but where we fail is to see it as just one more factor, so it’s not just nutrition, or just chemo, or just radiotherapy. Surely every case is different anyway, but what applies to them all is the fact that by covering as many different angles as possible and being integrative and holistic ultimately it is the patient that benefits.

I too would be happy for nutritional therapy to be more regulated but only because it would allow these professionals to work alongside doctors, nurses, consultants, etc, and really help create a National Health System where the patient gets the best care possible.

On a slightly different note, I don’t believe BANT registers naturopaths, as naturopathy is a different discipline.

Louise says:
19 January 2012

May I just say that Naturopathy is a different profession to nutritional therapy and are not regulated by BANT

The Code of Practice link in the introduction is not a code but a brief curriculum – details of the content of a taught course.

You’re right, Wavechange that isn’t quite the right info. Unfortunately, we can’t actually find the Code of Practice anywhere online so we’ve removed that link – sorry about that.

Thanks Hannah. Feel free to delete my message.

The Nutrirional Therapy Core Curriculum doesn’t appear to be brief as you say – it’s over 40 pages long and appears quite extensive!

Alan henness says:
16 January 2012

It’s very odd that BANT don’t seem to make the Code of Professional Practice Handbook available on their website. How are the public meant to know how their members are supposed to behave?

The latest issue of their Code seems to be Issue 1.1 March 2011, but an older version from 2005 is available here: http://www.dcscience.net/bant-code_of_ethics.pdf It makes interesting reading.

JSB – I was trying to alert Which? to the fact that the linked document was a curriculum and not a code of practice. The curriculum does give information about course content and does not provide details of the depth of coverage. That is not a criticism of the curriculum, but I should not have used the word brief.

It is important to note that there are people in EVERY profession who do not adhere to the rules that are imposed on their industry.

As a nutritional therapist I would NEVER advise a client to go against the wishes of their doctor and cease conventional treatment. I would NOT diagnose, use unproven testing and suggest that a client spends a large amount of money on expensive supplements. I take my clients’ health and budgets incredibly seriously and would NEVER endanger anyone.

Many of my clients are referred by previous clients who have had very positive results after visiting me for advice.

I would welcome stricter regulations within my profession as I operate to a very high standard.

Elaine says:
16 January 2012

And yet surgeons can remove the wrong organ and not much happens! I visited a nutritional therapist for digestive problems and eczema – which no end of doctors could help me with and it’s the BEST thing Ive ever done. Totally healthy in 3 months! No more drugs, no more pain and suffering.
If anyone else has success stories, which I’m sure there are many you, please write in to which to balance this ‘comprehensive’ survey!

HR O. says:
16 January 2012

I couldn’t agree more with the fact that this piece of research is utterly biased. The medical profession alongside other “mainstream” healthcare providers have historically tried to discredit any therapies that could potentially achieve results by using other methods, whichever these may be. What is really wrong is that the big losers in this battle are those suffering from conditions which could be benefited by a more integrative approach. As a Nutritional Therapist says herself in a previous comment, it would be much better for them to be approved or certified at a higher level so their practices can be assessed and they could bring all their knowledge into the NHS to help many who, like me, need as much help as we can get to feel healthier.

Nutritional counselling and therapy are available on the NHS via a registered Dietitian. By law for a person to call themselves a Dietitian they must be registered on the health professionals council and undergo regular reassessment. This aims to prevent case like this happening whilst still enabling everyone access to this treatment without commercial gain getting in the way of treatments.

HR O. says:
16 January 2012

@Std I lost quite a lot of weight when I had my gallbladder removed after my biliary duct got blocked by gallstones. An NHS dietitian told me to eat crisps, donoughts, cakes and bacon because these are highly calorific foods that would help me “build myself up”. Taking into account that I lost a valuable organ in my body because of my inability to cope with fats, was this safe advice? I assume this lady was an all singing-all dancing-all registered, etc dietitian.

Doesn’t the same argument that’s being used about the inefficiencies of statutory regulation apply to dietitians? If regulation doesn’t provide sufficient guarantee against the bogusness of a profession (quoting Prof. Colquhorn on chiropractors) surely this also applies to dietitians? Do they always offer the right advice? Are doctors never wrong. The bias keeps surfacing with every further comment… You cannot have it all ways. Either it is better to go to a healthcare provider that’s statutorily registered or not. It is nonsense to say that nutritional therapy would continue to be dangerous even if it was statutorily regulated… I may just go and have a bacon buttie now, on the advice of my dietitian!

George Barker says:
21 January 2012

I have written in about good nutrition advice from Sarah Burt.

Clare Daley says:
16 January 2012

It is disappointing that a respected publication such as Which? should publish such a biased piece of research. None of the ‘experts’ chosen are from the profession and at least one is a well-known critic of complemetary therapy and writes a blog on the subject.
Some of the headlines in the article eg ‘Quack Analysis’ are what I would expect from the gutter-press, not Which?.
The article also failed to mention the regulatory body – the CNHC. At the moment registration with this body is voluntary and most nutritional therapists would welcome statutory regulation.
On the other hand, there are clearly issues with the profession if therapists are advising against cancer treatment/visiting GPs. However, having not seen the transcripts it is difficult to know whether comments have been taken out of context. I know of no nutritional therapists that would give this kind of advice. Certainly, our training teaches working alongside conventional healthcare (this may have differed in the past). Modern day nutritional therapy adopts a ‘functional medicine’ approach which is an approach that is gaining acceptance also amongst some conventionally trained doctors etc. In criticising nutritional therapy in such an unbalanced manner, Which? plays into the hands of the almost complete monopoly enjoyed by big pharma who over the last few decades have completely failed to turn around the growing levels of chronic disease in the UK – and yet make huge amounts of money out of increasing levels of sickness.

Andy Lewis says:
16 January 2012

Clare – this is precisely the type of response that Nutritional Therapists should not be making right now.

Which? have clearly shown that 14 out of 15 nutritionists gave bad advice. Some of it very dangerous. They used quack diagnostic tests and prescribed expensive supplements. These are the only thing that needs matter now. It is not relevant if mainstream medicine is failing in some way, or your critics were involved. It only matters that you sort your house out and are seen to be doing that.

The homeopaths went through a similar sting from BBC Newsnight nearly 5 years ago. they failed to address similar issues. They misled and reacted badly. They are now thoroughly discredited and have failed to gain the legislative support they wanted. Nutritional Therapists have the opportunity to do it the right way now. I hope they do.

I’m not sure why Elaine and HRO should say the research was biassed. It simply reports what was actually said, That, in many cases, was shocking, and in some cases it was dangerous.

The question of regulation is really quite tricky, simply because regulators usually turn out to be quite ineffective. There can be no better example of that than the General Chiropractic Council. That’s the highest level of statutory regulation, on par with the GMC. Yet it proved totally ineffective. When the British Chiropractic Association tried to sue Simon Singh for defamation, after he described some of their treatments as bogus, the claims made by chiropractors came under close scrutiny and were found to be wanting. Over 600 complaints were sent to the GCC but very few were acted on. Even statutory regulation is no guarantee that a practitioner won’t make false claims. The regulator, in the case of the GCC, itself supported the false claims.

Neither will giving degrees in a subject like nutritional therapy be effective. The course will be taught by nutritional therapists and it will be the source of misinformation, not the cure for it. If you don’t believe that, take a look at the examples of what gets taught on some BSc degrees. at http://www.dcscience.net/?p=259 and at http://www.dcscience.net/?p=260

In fact UCAS no longer offers degrees in Nutritional Therapy, and having seen the nonsense that’s taught on some of them. that seems to me to be a good thing.

The only sort of regulation that is likely to work is for the Advertising Standards people to clamp down on false health claims (a job at which they are quite good) and fro the Office of Fair Trading to ensure that Trading Standards officers prosecute serious cases (a job at which they are abysmally bad).

Well said David. I would like to see biochemical or other evidence of deficiency before anyone is prescribed supplements, and not just where nutritional therapists are involved. At least we have stopped blood letting therapy, but the extraction of money from the gullible and desperate continues as it has done for centuries. My diagnosis is a deficiency of regulation of these therapists.

Some people have questioned the existence of certain degrees for many years and I believe UCAS made the correct decision.

Sophia says:
16 January 2012

Any practitioner who tries to persuade a client not to seek medical help should be subject to disciplinary action.
Regarding the comments made about sugar and cancer, of course one cannot cure cancer by cutting out sugar, it is worth noting that cancer cells take up sugar faster than normal cells, which is why fluorescently labelled glucose is used for PET scanning to detect cancer tissue during cancer diagnosis.
There is considerable evidence that high blood sugar level and high levels of insulin are associated with a greater incidence and recurrence of breast, endometrial and bowel cancer. Diabetic women have, on average, a higher breast cancer incidence and poorer outcome than women without diabetes. Therefore the appropriate evidence-based advice is that a low glycaemic index/load diet is appropriate for both breast cancer prevention and after diagnosis. Unfortunately this is not the standard dietetic advice to cancer patients, who are usually told that what they eat doesn’t matter.

Lolitaborro says:
16 January 2012

I suffered of repeated miscarriages and the doctors didn’t have a solution to my problem. I resorted to nutritional therapy and was found to have a high level of inflammation in my body that cause my own immune system to ‘reject’ the babies. I was put on the right diet and now I have two beautiful children.

There certainly are lots of ‘rogues’ out there, but a competent nutritional therapist can actually help a lot.

Sophia
None of what you say constitutes evidence that a low glycaemic index/load diet will benefit someone with cancer. People in that situation are quite distressed enough without being told that they must eat particular things. It’s really rather cruel to do that.

Sophia says:
16 January 2012

Read the evidence David, then decide if good glycaemic control is of no benefit for someone with cancer. Furthemore the way that advice is delivered is important, of course one wouldn’t wish to frighten a patient, but not giving the whole story is not serving them well either.
I’m sure that you are aware that the mechanisms involved include the action of IGF1, which is raised in hyperglycaemia and hyperinsulinaemia, and that malignant cells switch to glycolysis, but if you have any doubt that avid glucose uptake by cancer cells is relevant for cancer patients, ask why a number of pharmaceutical companies are pursuing glycolysis blocking agents.

Refs for my earlier comments on glycaemic control and cancer risk:

LAJOUS, M., BOUTRON-RUAULT, M.C., FABRE, A., CLAVEL-CHAPELON, F. and ROMIEU, I., 2008. Carbohydrate intake, glycemic index, glycemic load, and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer in a prospective study of French women The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 87(5), pp. 1384-1391.

LAJOUS, M., WILLETT, W., LAZCANO-PONCE, E., SANCHEZ-ZAMORANO, L.M., HERNANDEZ-AVILA, M. and ROMIEU, I., 2005. Glycemic load, glycemic index, and the risk of breast cancer among Mexican women Cancer causes & control : CCC, 16(10), pp. 1165-1169.

SIERI, S., PALA, V., BRIGHENTI, F., PELLEGRINI, N., MUTI, P., MICHELI, A., EVANGELISTA, A., GRIONI, S., CONTIERO, P., BERRINO, F. and KROGH, V., 2007. Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and the risk of breast cancer in an Italian prospective cohort study The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 86(4), pp. 1160-1166.

And if you want to see how a group of German oncologists are considering carbohydrate intake:

KLEMENT, R.J. and KAMMERER, U., 2011. Is there a role for carbohydrate restriction in the treatment and prevention of cancer? Nutrition & metabolism, 8(1), pp. 75.

The first of the references mentioned by Sophia is available online at:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/5/1384.full.pdf

I have not checked to see if the others are available to the public.

taurean says:
17 January 2012

Is it not worse to get someone to take chemical preparations (commonly called medication) that have nasty side effects. That is really cruel, to add to their suffering while telling them it will help. Then it is often the case that other ‘medication is needed to counteract those side effects etc. etc.etc……..
Also, my sister who is diabetic was advised to eat a high carbohydrate diet because of her diabetes, this by an all knowing NHS dietician (same advice from Diabetes UK). Excuse me but science tells us that carbs are converted to glucose in the body which is the last thing a diabetic needs!

I have now taken a look at the first reference that Sophia provided. The first sentence of the abstract for results says

“Dietary carbohydrate and fiber intakes were not associated with overall breast cancer risk.”

Of course I’m not denying that there are interesting relationships between oestrogen levels and diet. That’s standard. All I was saying is that there is no evidence to suggest that withholding sugar from a patient who already has cancer will have the slightest benefit for them, though it may well make them miserable.

Lorna says:
16 January 2012

I entirely agree that a good diet and education about diet should be central to anyone dealing with any sort of illness. One of my daughters has a milk allergy and we have received great support from a nutritionist. It would be fabulous to see more advice being given to people with specific illnesses alongside support from ‘convential’ medical support. I don’t think many people would deny what we consume has a massive effect on our health. In the case of my Mum, she beat the odds with secondary breast cancer, and I would not be surprised at all if it were partly due to the great care she took to eat well.

Obviously there are a lot of credible and well qualified complimentary therapists out there. But there really does need to be a system in place to regulate those who make claims like the naturopath I am talking about. At one point she also advised my Mum to come off beta blockers which were essentially stopping her from having a serious GI bleed! Thankfully my Mum also sought the advice of her GP and remained on her medication.

I have considered contacting her consultant at the hospital even just to make someone aware of this kind of practice in the area. This particular naturopath is seemingly very well established and highly respected otherwise.

Carole says:
16 January 2012

In reply to David Colqhoun, the degree module he illustrates was a small introductory module exploring the naturopathic roots of nutritional therapy. it was worth 10 of the 300 credits needed to achieve the degree. Perhaps to balance the argument the readers would like to look at the course content of a current degree programme
http://courses.uwl.ac.uk/CourseDetails.aspx?CourseInstanceID=30329
If Mr Colqhoun or the authors of the Improbable Science website, have full details of the content of all of the other modules in the degree programme surely he/ they should, in way of fairness, detail those as well … if not, then perhaps it is inappropriate to make a judgement based on such limited information.

Well well. I had missed the University of West London course, because it is not listed in UCAS for entry in 2012. Presumably it us a continuation of the course that used to run at Thames Valley University, about which I wrote at http://www.dcscience.net/?p=260

I’d like to point out that it took over three years work to get a judgement from the Information Commissioner that universities must release all such teaching materials (see http://www.dcscience.net/?p=2485 ).. The people who teach the courses have fought tooth and nail to conceal them.

If you are connected with the West London course, I’d be very pleased if you sent me the whole of the course so i can come to a fair judgement. Otherwise I’ll have to send another FOIA request.

All this is slightly beside the point though. This investigation shows that in practice nutritional therapists give bad and sometimes dangerous advice, From what I have seen, that stems from what they have been taught. They aren’t allowed to do diagnosis according to BANT, quite rightly because they aren’t qualified to do so. This leaves them with little to do apart from offering the sort of common sense advice on diet that is coming at us already from every quarter. They only way they can make a living is to prescribe supplements that, in the vast majority of cases, are not necessary.

Jenny Hargreaves says:
16 January 2012

Hopefully these results don’t tar us each with the same brush. We are all trained to 1. Use food first. 2. Back up all recommendations with evidence based research or biochemistry. 3. Never diagnose 4. Refer to a GP for testing 5. If testing, use appropriate laboratory serum/urine/stool analysis 6. If necessary, before supplementing individual supplements – test. 7. Send results to GP 8. Never advise to cease any prescribed treatment. It is a pity not all pracitioners follow these rules. I have found Nutrition Therapy/Functional Medicine very useful in helping my Autistic son with his health issues, which is why I developed an interest and eventually trained in Nutrition Therapy.

That seems a sensible approach, Jenny. It is a credit to you that you have taken training to help support your son and understand his problems.

If only the therapist in this study had stuck to the rules outlined by Jenny Hargreaves, then there would not have been much to write about. Sadly, they didn’t.

The only one that i’d quibble with is “Use food first”. If you have already had a diagnosis of breast cancer then it is too late for that approach.

It’s admirable that you say “Back up all recommendations with evidence based research”. The problem there is that the evidence is now quite good that nutritional supplements don’t do you any good (and may even do harm).

I don’t believe you Doc. Show me proof.

John H says:
16 January 2012

I first saw a nutritional therapist in 2008 after getting nowhere with my GP with digestive symptoms and chronic fatigue syndrome. My GP told me I had psychological issues and I was imaginging all my symptoms. This meant I had no option but to seek help elsewhere and pay for it. The nutritional therapist appeared very knowledgeable, professional and well trained. She also listened to me and went through all of my health symptoms. She recommended I ask my GP for a stool test to rule out an infection, unfortunately my GP did not oblige, so at the next session she then recommended a private 3 day stool test. I felt I had no option but to pay for this privately as my GP had been so uncooperative. When the results came back I had a high level of dientamoeba fragilis and H Pylori. The nutritional therapist asked me to consent to her contacting my GP, she wrote a letter to him and sent him my results and asked my GP to prescribe medication. She also helped me make many simple changes to my diet. This really helped my symptoms to improve. My nutritional therapist also helped me with other laboratory tests that helped get to the bottom of my problems. I now know that I have had glandular fever, again my nutritional Therapist notified my GP. Interestingly when my GP received the results he was less than complimentary about the fact that I had seen a nutritional therapist even though it proved my symptoms had physical infective causes. I feel my health was put at risk by the ignorant and archaic views of my GP. Whereas my nutritional therapist was really helpful in identifying the real issues behind my symtoms and ultimately helping me to recover.

Can you please tell us if the study involved any CNHC registered nutritional therapy practitioners? If the practitioners involved in the study were not CNHC registered, then the study will have been conducted upon practitioners that self regulation is effectively trying to ‘police’ against.

Alan henness says:
16 January 2012

JSB

Although we don’t know whether or not the nutritionists in the study were registered with the CNHC (aka OfQuack), it hardly matters. OfQuack launched themselves with some £900,000 of public money almost exactly three years ago and have consistently shown themselves to be utterly incapable of regulating: http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/search/label/complementary%20and%20natural%20healthcare%20council

Rachel says:
16 January 2012

I work as a nutritional therapist. I studied at University – a degree in Human Biology followed by a nutrition course at postgraduate level. I would never diagnose and would always suggest a visit to the gp if a client suffered fatigue. My advice is always backed by scientific research. There are unfortunately people working calling themselves nutritional therapists giving wrong advice and giving the rest of us a bad name! I met one who had enrolled on the same post grad course as me – she left without completing an assignment and seemed to think she already knew it all. I would suggest when choosing a nutritional therapist people check on qualifications and if all advice is backed up by research.

Sheila says:
17 January 2012

A very common-sense approach Rachel and one I fully agree with. I am also a fully qualified Nutritional Therapist (following five years study) and have been in practice for a number of years. All my advice is evidence-based and I never diagnose, nor treat. If I feel lab tests are necessary I always recommend clients see if these are obtainable from their GP first. If there are NTs out there who breach the code of practice they’ve signed up to, then they should be removed and named, so that fully qualified Nutritional Therapists can continue to support the health improvement of their clients, working together with other health professionals.

My final point is that I am disappointed, as a subscriber to Which?, to hear that on this occasion the panel of experts used to comment on the consultations did not include an expert representing nutritional therapy. It’s therefore hard to see how an objective conclusion could have been reached by this panel.

I agree with what you say Rachel, and it is good to read your input. My only concern is that you suggest that people check that all advice is backed up by research. Some people with health problems put a great deal of effort into understanding their condition and have the critical evaluation skills needed to help decide on what to believe. Most would just turn to websites, where the quality of information on health and disease is arguably poorer than for most topics.

I feel there is a strong case for anyone working in this field to help clients to find reading material that provides a balanced review of the topic. The depth would, of course, have to be matched to what the individual could reasonably be expected to understand.

Sheila complains that there was not a “nutritional therapist” on the panel. But there was one of the foremost experts on nutrition in the country on the panel, namely Catherine Collins. Since this was meant to be a proper scientific assessment there would be little point in including someone who represented complementary medicine.

dawn says:
16 January 2012

I wish people would wake up and realise that cancer can be prevented and cured naturally!!.People that have cancer should do a hell of a lot of research and then they`d find the real truth that the medical profession are keeping from us.They found out what cancer was 70 years ago by a Dr Otto Warburg that won an nobel prise for,that it is a fungus that lives anaerobic(without oxygen) and that it feeds off sugar(glucose) the cure lies with the fact that you need to make your body as unfriendly for these fungi to live.The fact that someone has cancer means they have been exposed to a lot of toxins, bad diet,heavy metals,parasites etc basically any artificial going into your body including pharmaceutical drugs is going to cause cancer,if you think about it logicaly and sciencifically then it is starring you in the face.It has got nothing to do with genes,its to do with lifestyle!!.The reason why any of this isn`t common knowledge is that the suppession of the facts and the propaganda out there makes it the biggest conspiracy in living history!!

John R says:
16 January 2012

I suffered with arthritis, insomnia and chronic fatigue for a number of years. Since the age of 42 I have been to a number of doctors (I move around for work) and have also seen a couple of dieticians. The pain in my knees would sometimes be so bad that even climbing the stairs would be an ordeal. Lack of sleep would often make me bad tempered and the low energy would leave me seriously debilitated for days on end. My niece took one of these courses at Westminster University and I must admit I thought it was a dressed-up cooking class. She explained the effects the effects of the nightshade group of vegetables on my joint pain and reluctantly I omitted them from my diet. She wrote to my doctor but to put it bluntly he wasn’t interested. I was started on fish oils with a number of other dietary tweaks and supplements such as glucosamine and my pains eased significantly. Following this I let her ‘work on me’ a bit more and now I also sleep much better having increased magnesium rich foods in my diet and I am now able to keep up with the grandchildren on a day trip thanks to my good energy levels. Nutrition hasn’t cured me but I now feel more ‘normal’ again. My doctor is also starting to change his view especially when he measured my vitamin B12 levels and exclaimed they were the best he had seen in a 70 year old in a long time.

Anne says:
16 January 2012

It is worth noting that you can make anyone fail if that is what the intention is…

I am a Nutritional Therapist and get lots of referrals from GPs and nurses at the local practices.

Can we see the transcripts and if not, why not?

Alan Henness says:
16 January 2012

Anne said: “It is worth noting that you can make anyone fail if that is what the intention is…”

I don’t suppose you’ve any evidence that that was Which’s intention as you seem to be implying?