Alan Hunter resorts to CAPITAL LETTERS! Will The Ed falter?

This time he waited nearly 23 hours to post a fresh rant, and only one copy of it as well. We make progress, perhaps.

Dear WWDDTYDTY

Re your abusive and criminal threat to me that you would have “my arse” (my, how dignified you must be!),

Then again, perhaps not.

simply because my article threatened mainstream medicine….

You give yourself airs. Your article does not threaten modern medicine. It is only a threat to the gullible who read it and swallow it hook, line and sinker. You claim that serious medical conditions – including cardiovascular problems, depression, schizophrenia and epilepsy – are caused by food allergies. Encouraging people with the symptoms and illnesses you list on your website to forsake their medication in favour of your patent diet could lead to their deaths.

I want to reply. It doesnt matter a f**k my credentials. Not ONE f**k!

Exactly. Because your credentials are not worth – and please note that we are not so hypocritical as to use asterisks – a single monkey’s fuck.

I have brought together 30 YEARS of research in the manner of a jigsaw puzzle

Ah, the Lone Maverick ploy. Nope, being the only (totally unqualified and inexperienced) person in the whole world to have reached a conclusion over 30 years is more likely to be a sign you’re barking up the wrong tree than that you’re a genius.

which resulted in comments such as “Highly original”, “Truly original”, “Completely original”

Sounds like a new brand of sherry. Of course, anecdotes do not represent objective data – anonymous, unsourced anecdotes even less so – but even the team here will concede that, upon reading your claims, our first reaction was: “That’s, er, very original.”

because it was the FIRST-EVER world discovery of the link between body temperature, parasites, and food allergy.

What parasites are these then? Fleas? Ticks? Tapeworms? Political lobbyists? Or just general nameless parasitey things? Frankly the blurb on your website reads like something out of HP Lovecraft:

  1. How parasites can exist in YOUR body, causing your food allergy or chronic health disorder by interfering with blood flow at the site of your symptom.
  2. How low body temperature (even a mere one degree below the normal of 98.6) is responsible for attracting these TEMPERATURE-SENSITIVE organisms to you in the first place causing not only food intolerance but a host of common everyday disorders such as arthritis, depression, etc.
  3. How you can RAISE your body temperature naturally by following the diet recommended in the book, thereby overwhelming the parasites that are responsible for your condition.
  4. How Nature already shows us that heat is the means of defeating parasites (such as bacteria) – she raises the body temperature at such times by producing a FEVER!
  5. How the body heals itself; How drugs do not restore health – and much, much more.

Amazing discoveries and claims, yet not a single study published in a genuine scientific journal? How very, very odd. Anyone might think you hadn’t a shred of evidence.

Your attempt to attack my awards is pathetic. I won Best Research from Action Against Allergy (who are more knowledgeable about food allergies than any of your crowd!). They KNOW about food allergies – unlike you! 

We can find no mention of the charity giving any awards, so links or it didn’t happen. Incidentally, “our crowd” includes doctors and health researchers, so we suggest you keep the willy-waving to two shakes at the urinal.

I won Best Resarch award – TOP RESEARCH AWARD – from the Prince’s Trust for Integrative Medicine,

An institute for quackery doesn’t impress. Where’s the publication in the BMJ, Lancet, Nature etc?

beating at least twenty MEDICALLY QUALIFIED doctors from all over the UK who submitted their own research WORKS.

We forget how many qualified medical doctors there are in the UK, but 20 is not exactly a huge sample. There are idiots everywhere, of course. There’s a huge idiot in line for the UK throne in a few years and worthless quackery remains worthless quackery even when royally approved.

My research on that fine day, was declared “Truly original”, “Highly original” and “Completely original” as my 30 year research on food allergies came to fruition.

Are you sure they weren’t referring to the sherry? You don’t give the year, but since HRH has also been recorded as giving similar awards for aromatherapy we continue unimpressed. Even a link to that notoriously unselective repository, PubMed, would be better than this.

So your libellous statement that I had received my awards from a diploma mill is being studied carefully – I can assure you!

It’s not libellous until a court of law says it is. Moreover, we did not claim that you had received your worthless PhD from a diploma mill, simply that we thought it likely.

My doctorate, from the Indian Board of Alternative Medicine (and they have absolute authority to award such awards according to Indian Laws) was awarded for my fabulous food allergy research.

Fabulous? You do not hide your light under a bushel, do you? Yes, we see the organisation you mention does indeed list you as an alumnus and offers the title you claim. Again, it’s a quack organisation. It does not matter that the Indian Government has chosen to dignify it with the title of medicine; reality holds sway even in India and pseudoscience remains pseudoscience.

Besides, we were under the impression that your credentials don’t matter a single, heartbroken fuck?

Yes, there are other websites which recently have arisen that they are “fake”. But as someone who went to their alternative medicine university, I can tell you now, they are a valid and active college, fully accredited by Indian law.

Yes, but it’s still pure quackery, dispensing quackademical diplomas.

They also awarded me the high honour of the Seva Ratna award for my research.

The Fuck Donation count is steady at zero. Where is the evidence? Where is the peer-review? Where, in short, are the signs that this is anything other than an ageing, embittered ex-champ trying to make money out of a form of charlatanry he’s cobbled together from various other quack cults?

And they have Indian government authority to deliver these awards.

“By Jove, but fucks are in short supply this year, Justin.” – “They certainly are, Ludovic.”
(Translation: it’s not the diplomas that validate the science, but the science done by graduates that validates the diploma)

My award was not from a diploma mill as you libellously suggested. BUT THAT MATTERS NOT A SINGLE JOT!

It seems to bother you, in spite of your denials. Some of us are beginning to recognise the symptoms, and they include this tendency to repeat oneself word-for-word and SCREAM IN IMPOTENT RAGE.

I AM AN AWARD WINNING AUTHOR WITH 30 YEARS RESEARCH BEHIND ME AND A FABULOUS CONCLUSION ON FOOD ALLERGIES!

Fabulous, as in: mythical or of fables, e.g. “the unicorn is a fabulous creature”? Yes, we reckon you’ve got exactly the right term there.

I have never said I was a medical doctor, so I suggest you swallow that foul accusation – just as your claim I got my awards from some queer website.

No, sunshine, the onus is legally on you to make it clear, when you use the honorific “Dr” in a medical context, that you are not medically qualifed. And this, as we have seen, you fail to do on your website.

No, sir, you are WRONG. My books, exposing the sham of mainstream medicine and how they are complicit in PREVENTING the man in the street from getting well, tellS it all, my good man!

Conspiracy theorist as well? Predictable, of course: hucksters often use this scare tactic to push their wares. Tough, we ain’t buying your idiotic book and will certainly dissuade anybody else from buying it, except perhaps if they’re doing a very specialised type of research in psychology.

I have no itention of using Dr if that worries you!

Since you already do use that title, that can best be categorised as “a barefaced lie”.

I don’t NEED to. Give me your email address

Not bleedin’ likely. It’s bad enough getting all these foaming rants via the website Contact form.

and I will show you why YOU – yes YOU – are in the wrong.

A far better way to settle it would be to get your research accepted for peer review and  publication  by a reputable scientific or medical journal. Come back when you’ve got that, and maybe you’ll get a handsome apology and withdrawal of all criticism. However, this is just too funny for words:

Or are you STILL hiding? Mmm? And if you have intentions of taking me out – as your threat suggests – be aware, I am WAITING, my good man. Oh yes!

Your kind friend Alan Hunter

Put the horse whip away, Alan, that attitude and manner of speech went out with the Edwardians. Nobody except you has offered violence of any kind. You’re just an ageing jock turned drama queen.

Exactly 45 minutes later, we got yet another message. Definitely got a bee in his bonnet, this guy.

Dear Sir
Further to my email to you recently – referring to how your threat to “have my arse” simply because I made a wonderful piece of research on food allergies – which you don’t know the first thing about…. I want to now state that I will be having my solicitor looking at your libellous statements that I won my awards from a “diploma mill”, and – not only that – put in on the web so that the entire world could see it! And that your threat to “have my arse” was also displayed on line so that the entire world could see that THREAT to my body. Because that is, my dear man, exactly what it was! About time, don’t you think, you were brought to task instead of firing out insults left right and centre, always on the assumption you would get away with it? Mmmm?
Alan Hunter

We would not like to be the solicitor who has to explain, slowly and carefully, that he hasn’t got a hope in hell because we did not write the things he’s accusing us of. Pity, really. A frivolous suit like that could have been a great advert for scepticism and would certainly annoy the bullshit-apologists at WDDTY for several months.

17 thoughts on “Alan Hunter resorts to CAPITAL LETTERS! Will The Ed falter?”

  1. Of course, all legitimate medical teaching institutions have a page header saying they are “legally recognized”. Apart from all the ones I can find.

    I notice from http://altmedworld.net/ibam.htm that this institution’s page on accreditation does not actually say it’s accredited, only that it is licensed; it also says that:

    “The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta passed an Order of “Status quo” in favour of Indian Board of Alternative Medicines against the respondents namely (Deptt. of Home (Police), Union of India; Deptt. of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India; Medical Council of India and others). Hence the practitioners of Indian Board of Alternative Medicines can practice Alternative System of Medicines without any interference by the above named respondents.”

    Nothing says credible institution louder than having to go to court to stop the authorities prosecuting your graduates for their quackery.

    Perhaps they are referring to cases like this: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1410034/ where the practitioner is clearly identified as a quack, but the prosecution shown to be flawed procedurally.

    And there’s a gem at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/347439/ showing all sorts of issues with this specific institution.

    We know, of course, that India, for all its strengths, has a deep current of superstition, and is decades behind the US and Europe in promoting evidence-based medicine. Any country that licenses homeopaths as primary health care providers, has a long way to go. So this is a case of an institution that struggles to meet even India’s remarkably lax standards of medical evidence, and whose graduates are not recognised as health care providers in the UK (they would also fail the criteria for overseas medical graduates if they tried to transfer into a licensed medical profession in the UK).

    As for his claims of awards from the Prince’s Foundation for Magical Thinking, I am unable to trace any third party reference to these. That’s not to say they have not happened – the bar is notoriously low – but I cannot find them using my Google-fu.

    Obviously the man is a crank, and I think we can draw our own conclusions from his verbose insistence on a respect his work clearly fails to earn on its own merits.

    His grasp of law also seems to be tenuous: he does not appear to be aware of the actual law (Defamation Act 2013) or indeed of Healey’s Law of Holes.

    1. You know what they say: assume makes an ASS out of U and ME. Or in this case just you. This is a group blog, the posts about you were not written by Guy Chapman.

      We are, of course, happy to correct any errors of fact, if you can identify specific errors and support these with evidence we can check. Please note that we draw a distinction between opinion and fact. We understand that this is an approach which is incomprehensible to most quacks, so here is an example.

      You claim to have won prestigious awards. You list the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health as a source of at least one of these, though you offer no proof. The Prince’s Foundation is not only not prestigious, it no longer even exists, having been shut down due to fraud.

  2. Dear Guy
    These conditions that are linked to food allergies have been shown to be so linked since the 1960s. There are thousands of books on the subject all agreeing there is such a link to many conditions. But because there is a food “cure” so to speak, mainstream medicine shows no interest in this approach. People rarely give alternative medicine a first try. They nearly always go to their GP. It is after the GP has failed that they turn to us. And are often most pleasantly surprised to find the illness can be caused by what they put into that hole in their head. It takes a long time for mainstream medicine to catch up with what many researchers in alternative medicine have known for years. Just consider Lind, who happened upon the lime connection to scurvy. It took medicine a hundred or so years to accept it. Well time you lot caught up, don’t you think?

    1. Your logical fallacy is: bait and switch. Some effects are indeed provably due to food allergies, however the majority of “alternative” diagnostic techniques and treatments for food allergies are entirely without merit. Quackery has failed to offer any insight into food allergies, and it is doctors, not quacks, who isolate the allergens and develop new, effective treatments.

      One example with which I am familiar is coeliac disease (which incidentally refutes your claim that medicine is not interested in a “food cure”, since licensed, registered dieticians are a core part of the treatment of coeliac, although unlicensed, unregistered nutritionists of course are not, since their qualifications and ideas are generally worthless). The link between gluten and coeliac was not established by quacks, but by doctors; other doctors and medical scientists are currently testing a vaccine which may obviate the need for a gluten-free diet. Meanwhile quacks are using fraudulent diagnostics (iridology, live blood analysis and the like) to diagnose gluten or wheat intolerance in people who have no such thing, and promoting diets which suborn the medical work and mix in batshit craziness. The overlap between what quacks do and valid medical involvement in coeliac is the null set. Some people diagnosed as wheat intolerant by quacks will be undiagnosed coeliacs, but that is pure accident: coeliac diagnosis requires TTGA testing and usually a duodenal biopsy.

      If you want your conjectures to be taken seriously there is only one way to make it happen: publish your research in the peer-reviewed literature. By this I mean the mainstream, reliable peer-reviewed literature, not the quack literature in which the function of peer review is simply to make it appear reviewed, rather than to establish whether the work is sound or not.

      I cannot speak for the editor who wrote the posts to which you so obviously object, but I for one will take you seriously when I see your claims published in something like the Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Allergy or Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology, and replicated by independent researchers in institutions with academic standing.

      This is not a big ask, it is a test that any scientifically valid idea of this type would pass easily. For the hard of clue, this is what a scientifically valid presentation of an autoimmune hypothesis looks like: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140903/ncomms5741/full/ncomms5741.html

  3. Alan Hunter here again fans. I have had my research published in magazines such as Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients (USA), JACM (Journal of Alternative and Commplementary Medicine) UK, Positive Health, and others.

    1. The Townsend Letter? Remind me: isn’t that the batshit crazy quack rag that promotes chelation for autism? The one with the disclaimer that says “We encourage reports which frequently are not data-based but are anecdotal. Hence, information presented may not be proven or factually correct.”? The problem with alternative-to-medicine journals is that they are uncritical of crank ideas, virtually never publish negative findings, lack effective peer review, accept poorly designed and even blatantly fraudulent results, and serve primarily as a vehicle for promoting quackery, not testing its validity. Come back when you have real science published in real journals and replicated by real physicians.

  4. To the bunch of orthodox medicine practitioners who happily slag me off because I actually DISCOVERED something (note the capital letters – worthy of a special headline in your view, what?) which your average doctor never does in his entire professional life….

    The average doctor goes through his entire life just repeating, parrot-fashion, what he was taught at medical school. He makes no real discovery.

    Your average medical researcher MAY make a discovery that he thinks is important. But it will only be something that always ends up by hitting a brick wall.

    Every pronouncement (almost daily) in the press or media that states that this or that discovery will cure this or that – always is a prediction of what will happen in 5 or 10 years. BUT NEVER TRANSPIRE.

    You are all missing something vitally important that is completely missing in your medical training (and once you graduate, you don’t want to hear about it!): The connection between natural food and chronic illness. You feed animals cooked food and they will become ill. Because they are not meant to eat cooked food. The Pottenger Cats experiment is only ONE example (but you’ll probably only connect with spoiler websites that try to dissuade the public from the truth of the experiments). Then feed such ill animals RAW, natural foods for their species, and recovery occurs! Now, how many of you know, or accept, that? None I guess.

    That same approach applies to humans. But financial and vested interests in medicine simply poo-poohs that. And what average doctor wants to hear THAT! I can understand YOUR anger, your sarcasm, your facetiousness, with your responses. I would be embarrassed too if I had been fed garbage through my 7 or so years of training! So you arrogant lot, apparently fully “qualified” and dismissive of those who go against your wrong training, must surely be shattered to know the REAL truth about health and ill health. But I understand you cannot know something you have not experienced or trained in. Plenty medically trained doctors have looked into this and abandoned their original training once they see this logic. Often to experience being shunned by their former colleagues.

    It is unfortunate that you are all hidebound by your narrow views on health. You cannot EXPECT to know something you have no training in. Maybe one day – when you work out your medical training has been devoid of the connection between NATURAL diet and the health of the human body, maybe then you will see that you have been barking up the wrong tree your entire professional life. Of course, you will type away, sarcasm-filled fingertips, dissecting every one of sentences – determined to pick to pieces all what I say. Out of professional EMBARRASSMENT. But I – not you – have had experience in the diet connection to chronic illness (thank god) over FORTY YEARS, and not been tied down to your useless approach of drugs, drugs, and more drugs – all of which never CURE chronic illness. So, shoot away. You ain’t fooling those of us who KNOW the score. And certainly, we KNOW you don’t know the score. You must you feel absolute FOOLS! And if you say you don’t… well, you ain’t fooling me for sure!

    1. I would not deny that the highly-processed Western diet is a cornerstone of a huge number of chronic diseases but neither would most involved in medicine. The published evidence tells us as such. So let’s get this clear.. We, like animals, are supposed to eat a raw diet? Despite us having evolved a shortened GI tract because of the relative simplicity of digesting cooked food? Despite the conclusion of enormous amounts of legitimate, published, peer-reviewed research that cooking foods, hydrolysing complex carbohydrates and proteins, enabling vastly greater amounts of nutrition to easily be gleaned from them, is one of the cornerstones of the evolutionary rise of the human race?

      A raw diet?

      I think not.

      And as far as arrogance goes, one person telling untold thousands of very intelligent professionals that they are all wrong and he is the only one who is right strikes me very much as a dictionary-definition of arrogance.

      Publish your studies, Mr Hunter. In a proper peer-reviewed journal and let the evidence be evaluated. You may have discovered the secret of all illness. If so, then you are right and we are wrong and I shall be delighted so to be proved and will applaud when you receive the Nobel Prize that you will so richly deserve.

      If, on the other hand, you continue to clatter away in heavily-capitalised green-ink blog-posts whilst imagining that publication in industry quack-rags legitimises what you notionally refer to as research, you will continue to attract our scorn.

    2. A minor correction: you did not DISCOVER something, you made it up. There is a crucial difference. Science discovers things, what you do is not science but proctomancy.

    3. Every pronouncement (almost daily) in the press or media that states that this or that discovery will cure this or that – always is a prediction of what will happen in 5 or 10 years. BUT NEVER TRANSPIRE.

      BOLLOCKS!
      Some recent (in the past 20 years) advances:
      – We have a cure for Hepatitis C, announced a few weeks ago
      – We can prevent cervical cancer by simple vaccination.
      – We have a vaccine for chicken pox, protecting people from horrifically painful shingles episodes.
      – HIV is no longer a death sentence, and the drugs used to control it are better tolerated and more effective as time goes by and we learn more about the virus.

      There are more, but those are the ones that spring most quickly to my mind. You are ignorant, arrogant, and a lying little fuck. Without any poncy asterisks.

  5. … I am in awe of your mastery of rational argument and reasoned rebuttal.

    “Every pronouncement (almost daily) in the press or media that states that this or that discovery will cure this or that – always is a prediction of what will happen in 5 or 10 years. BUT NEVER TRANSPIRE. ”
    http://wwddtydty.com/2014/09/alan-hunter-resorts-capital-letters-will-ed-falter/#comment-1273
    I see you never talk about peer-reviewed journals, you publish in “magazines” (?!!?!) and you act as if your contradictors’ sole source of information are “the press”.
    Do you even know about the differents steps in scientific information ?
    http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174
    Yes, the press often likes to hype discoveries beyond what was written in the study, who are in general far more careful. However, publicizing your results is a way to interest other scientists, who will try to replicate them.
    Trumpeting that all doctors are idiots isn’t a way to encourage them to test and approve your “discovery”.

    “Just consider Lind, who happened upon the lime connection to scurvy. It took medicine a hundred or so years to accept it. Well time you lot caught up, don’t you think?”
    Lind is now famous, not only because of this major discovery (the vitamin C / scurvy connection), but also because his experiment was one of the first clinical trial.
    The mainstream medicine you so love to hate is based on these principles and Lind is a hero of EBM / SBM advocates.
    (For extra irony : http://www.jameslindlibrary.org > see collaborators )
    He certainly didn’t become famous by claiming “I discovered a fabulous treatment for scurvy and I have the credentials to prove it !”
    So tell us, did you experiment with the same rigor ? If so, where are these clinical trials documented ? That’s all that should matter.

    Regarding what research you published :

    “Hunter Alan: Reduced blood flow in the food allergic reaction: International Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine: 16(7):14-17; 1998 July”
    (thank you for giving the wrong journal title by the way. I first thought it was this journal but couldn’t find you in their database : http://www.donotlink.com/bu7r
    At least your site had the right title and the name of your article.)
    This journal doesn’t have an online archive (so much for the “international”), and I didn’t found even an abstract describing what you tested.

    “Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients
    Hunter, Alan, PhD
    Food/Chemical Allergies: An Original Discovery. #255 (october 2004) p.67-74”
    http://www.donotlink.com/bu7p

    “Chronic Illness, Food Allergies and Low Body Temperature
    by Alan Hunter
    issue 67 – August 2001”
    Full text : http://www.donotlink.com/bu7n
    (includes the (in)famous tomato example)
    Basically you experimented primarily on yourself, and became a disciple of Hulda Clark, whose own theories have never been proven either (the fact that in some cases, some cancer may be caused by parasites doesn’t mean they’re the cause for all cancers, far from it. And how does it relates to allergies ?).
    Your “heat” theory is based on observing the behavior of amoebas… on a microscope slide. Protip : whenever something interesting occurs in a petri dish, scientists don’t immediatly assume it must occur exactly like that in a human body.

    So basically one publication in a maybe peer-reviewed journal, 16 years ago (the others being in, as you say yourself, magazines).
    And in the full text all I can read is you pontificating on the possible mecanisms ; where is the clinical trial ?

Leave a Reply