Category Archives: 100 ways to live to 100

100 ways to live to 100: Summing up

WDDTY’s series “100 ways to live to 100” fails on a number of levels.

  • It’s not “100 ways” because some things appear more than once
  • It’s not “ways to live to 100” because few if any show good evidence for increased longevity and several are not even about you, but about your children
  • It’s as likely to shorten your life as lengthen it, since some of the advice is actively harmful

Here are the sections again:

We’d like you to score the advice according to the following scheme:

  • Contains good advice supported by references: +2 points
  • Contains reasonable advice: +1 point
  • Contains bad advice: -1 point
  • Contains bad advice and materially misrepresents sources: -2 points

Please let us know your scores by email ([email protected]) or using our feedback form. Scores per question, per section or for the whole, are all good. We’ll average them up and publish the results.

When you’ve done that, why not try our quiz? Don’t forget to tweet your results with #wddty!


100 ways to live to 100: Your healthy lifestyle

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

Your healthy lifestyle

Oh good, lifestyle advice. We all love to be told what to do, if only so that we can feel appropriately virtuous when it’s what we would do anyway.

91 Don’t shield yourself from the sun’s rays

The sun is our best source of vital vitamin D, which to protect against numerous diseases and conditions. Most of us in the northern climes are vitamin D-deficient. Opt instead for sensible sun exposure by supplementing with antioxidants like selenium, lycopene, beta-carotene, and vitamins C and E, which offer natural sun protection without the need for potentially harmful chemical sunscreens.

One of the most baffling things about WDDTY is that they tell you things like WiFi cause cancer (which they don’t) then promote not only exposure to the sun (which irrefutably does cause cancer), but unprotected exposure, asserting (falsely) that sunscreens cause cancer.

In fact, that the Skin Cancer Foundation’s Francisca Fusco MD tells you exactly why doctors don’t tell you that sun exposure is the best way to get vitamin D or that sunscreen causes cancer: it’s utter bollocks. Dangerous bollocks at that.

92 Get at least seven hours of sleep

This amount of sleep may “significantly” reduce your risk of cancer, says recent research.60 Lack of sleep alters insulin levels, contributing to overweight and even diabetes. Seven hours seems about right while nine is too much; women sleeping more than this have the highest risk of stroke.

Reference 60: Cancer. 2011 Feb 15;117(4):841-7. Short duration of sleep increases risk of colorectal adenoma. Thompson CL, Larkin EK, Patel S, Berger NA, Redline S, Li L.

All together now: Correlation is not causation. How do you know that those who sleep less are not rampant caffeine addicts? How do you know they’re not heavy drinkers? Alcohol intoxication seriously impacts quality of sleep, after all.

The answer is, you don’t, and you certainly don’t from a study whose 95% CI is 1.05-2.06, meaning that either it makes no difference or it doubles your risk. The study is underpowered to draw any firm conclusion about a causal link.

WDDTY did suggest that a lie in could cure diabetes. If that’s the level of rigour at play here, then perhaps it explains the sloppiness of the argument.

93 Ensure you are breathing through your nose

Breathing incorrectly can contribute to asthma,61 and even attention-deficit/hyperactivity (ADHD)-spectrum problems. If you aren’t breathing correctly, try the Buteyko Breathing Technique or the breathing exercises (pranayama) practised in yoga.62

Reference 61: BMJ, 2001; 322: 1098–100 Prevalence of dysfunctional breathing in patients treated for asthma in primary care: cross sectional survey Mike Thomas, general practitioner, R K McKinley, senior lecturer, Elaine Freeman, primary care research coordinator, and Chris Foy, medical statistician.

Reference 62a:  J Asthma, 2000; 37: 557–64; A clinical trial of the Buteyko Breathing Technique in asthma as taught by a video. Opat AJ, Cohen MM, Bailey MJ, Abramson MJ.

Reference 62b:  J Asthma, 1991; 28: 437–42 Effect of yoga training on exercise tolerance in adolescents with childhood asthma. Jain SC, Rai L, Valecha A, Jha UK, Bhatnagar SO, Ram K.

The first reference concludes:

About a third of women and a fifth of men had scores suggestive of dysfunctional breathing. Although further studies are needed to confirm the validity of this screening tool and these findings, these prevalences suggest scope for therapeutic intervention and may explain the anecdotal success of the Buteyko method of treating asthma.

This qualifies as blindingly obvious, as does the second paper, because bronchospasm is self-reinforcing: teaching breathing techniques that help recover normal breathing rhythm, will minimise the symptoms of bronchospasm. But Buteyko does not claim to be merely palliative, it claims to cure asthma. The second reference shows this not to be the case – there are improvements in quality of life and reduced bronchodilator use, but no evidence of cure.

Wait, isn’t it medicine that’s only supposed to treat the symptoms?

Here’s what Asthma UK say:


  • There has been little research published in medical journals about the Buteyko technique. This makes detailed comment difficult.
  • A Cochrane Review of breathing exercises found no improvement in lung function. However, four clincial trials have suggested that breathing exercises can lead to a reduction in asthma symptoms and reduced use of a reliever inhaler.
  • In 2003 (Cooper et al) Asthma UK funded research into the clinical effectiveness of the BBT as a complementary addition to conventional asthma treatment. This study showed that for some people with asthma, the use of the BBT helped to reduce their asthma symptoms and to reduce their use of reliever inhaler; although no effect on the underlying condition itself was found.
  • The BBT may help people with asthma to feel more in control of their breathing and may be worth trying for those who are willing to give it a try and commit the time required to learn the technique.
  • More research is needed to identify if certain people with asthma benefit more than others.
  • BBT can be expensive and this should be taken into account when considering it as an option.


  • Yoga is an ancient Hindu discipline that uses a variety of postures and breathing techniques to help to increase fitness and aid relaxation.
  • One aspect of yoga, Pranayama uses breathing exercises, and has been studied with regard to asthma. These breathing exercises were found to be beneficial, with participants showing fewer asthma attacks and a higher tolerance to certain triggers.
  • Simple relaxation techniques, which do not incorporate the philosophical aspects of yoga, have also been shown to have some benefit.
  • It’s uncertain whether yoga and breathing exercises help asthma by reducing stress (which can be a trigger) or by other physical effects. More research is needed to establish this.

So, breathing techniques help the symptoms of bronchospasm, it probably doesn’t matter much which one you use, in both cases you’re dealing with “brands” that have a side-order of claptrap so go in with your eyes open and don’t succumb to the usual woo.

Remember that the appeal to tradition is fallacious, that starting with a treatment and then generating evidence to support your business is always a red flag, and never give your money to anyone unless they can prove they are fully qualified with proper degrees from accredited colleges.

94 Walk

Especially if you’re a woman, walking at even a moderate pace (3 miles per hour) provides every benefit that running does for staving off degenerative diseases and cardiovascular events. Power walking will even burn more calories than running at a similar speed with no harmful effects on your joint cartilage. Use a Swiss ball to work your ‘core’—the muscles of the trunk, front and back—as this will strengthen the abdominal muscles that support the spine, hip and buttocks. Opt for free weights over machines, which are less effective for strengthening the body holistically.

Free weights also carry a higher probability of injury, because they are less controlled in the axis of movement and have no mechanism to control release on muscle failure.

Here’s a simple and easy fact about exercise: the type you enjoy most is the type you will keep up. Running, walking, rowing, cycling, on crosstrainer, climber, stationary bike or treadmill, on the road or on singletrack. Whatever you enjoy, you will be motivated to do.

The single best piece of advice is probably to exercise as part of a group who have healthy attitudes to their bodies and what they want to achieve. A cycling club, or a group of ladies who meet for half an hour on the treadmill followed by a skinny latte. Whatever gives you pleasure. 

Regardless, this advice is precisely what your doctor will tell you.

95 Sleep in the very dark dark

Too much light at night interrupts our body’s production of melatonin, the hormone that regulates our internal sleep–wake cycle; working at night and sleeping in a too-bright bedroom have also been linked to an increased risk of cancer.63 Get yourself a sleep mask or blackout curtains, particularly for the bright summer months.

Reference 63: J Natl Cancer Inst, 2001; 93: 1557–62 Night shift work, light at night, and risk of breast cancer. Davis S, Mirick DK, Stevens RG.

Yes, night shift work adversely affects your health. Remember to thank the nurses and juniors and buy them biscuits and chocolate next time you’re in a hospital, they do it for you. Now what does the study actually say?

RESULTS: Breast cancer risk was increased among subjects who frequently did not sleep during the period of the night when melatonin levels are typically at their highest (OR = 1.14 for each night per week; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.28). Risk did not increase with interrupted sleep accompanied by turning on a light. There was an indication of increased risk among subjects with the brightest bedrooms. Graveyard shiftwork was associated with increased breast cancer risk (OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.5), with a trend of increased risk with increasing years and with more hours per week of graveyard shiftwork (P =.02, Wald chi-squared test).

CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide evidence that indicators of exposure to light at night may be associated with the risk of developing breast cancer.

That was in 2001, over time the evidence that prolonged night shift work is associated with higher cancer risk has firmed up. Sleep masks and blackout curtains? Not so much. These studies refer to long-term shift workers (nurses, in fact) and don’t establish any causal link between levels of darkness in normal sleep and cancer.

96 Seek out the new

Keep your brain active, stay curious and maintain goals—even physical ones. Routine is not only deadening to the senses, but can actually make us ill. According to Bowling Green State University psychologist Jaak Panksepp, one of the most important basic human instincts is the ‘seeking’ mode, a nature that remains intensely engaged in the search or the puzzle, or is simply curious about what’s new. Every study of longevity shows that those who live to a ripe old age set themselves goals and stay curious. An interest in new things and change and, most of all, a “pioneering spirit” seemed to be the longevity elixir of a group of long-lived Civil War nurses.64 Vary your activities and ensure that you engage in ones that involve problem-solving.

Reference 64: Nurs Forum, 1991; 26: 9–16 New Surprises in Very Old Places: Civil War Nurse Leaders and Longevity, Wendy Woodward

Just when you think the Weird has peaked…

While the average woman in the U.S. Civil War times lived to the age of about 40, a group of 17 extraordinary nurses–including Louisa Mae Alcott, Dorothea Dix, and Clara Barton–survived to much older ages. A variety of possible reasons, from social and marital status to altruism and religion, is explored. More than any tangible factor, however, the presence of a “pioneering spirit” seems to be at the root of their longevity.

 Is this genuinely the best source supporting this claim?

97 Love your work; work to serve

Don’t settle for anything less than work that makes your heart sing, and do it with gusto. People at peace with their lives and life’s work live longer than those at war with the world. One of the most fulfilling types of work is living a life of service to others.

Doctors, for instance? Oh, wait…

We hope our public service in debunking WDDTY’s egregious nonsense will indeed confer long life, but we don’t put money on it because the actual evidence for positive attitude making the blindest bit of difference is pretty thin.

If you live to be 100, you’re likely to be pretty chipper about it, but you can be the Duracell Bunny and still die aged 30 from a heart attack.

98 Find your tribe

Various studies have revealed that the root emotions of stress are a sense of helplessness and loneliness, and anything that can help re-establish connections—with family, with the community, with God—is a potent healer. Joining just one group this year will halve your chances of dying; connecting also protects against heart disease and stroke. If you don’t have a close community, then assemble one either through your church, or through work or leisure organizations. Meet and share regularly.

A classic confusion of correlation with causation. Does going to church make you live longer? It would be nice to think so, but nobody has successfully unpicked this from a general attitude of acceptance of the world, rather than perpetual angst. 

Oh, we believe chocolate works as well. Also probably gardening, certainly cycling, and who knows what else. It’s likely that anything that gets you out of the house and makes you happy, works. Which doesn’t explain the longevity of Victor MeldrewW, and although it’s definitely true that Tom Good has outlived Jerry Leadbetter, we reckon Margot Leadbetter is wearing the years more gracefully than Barbara Good.

99 Erase your old inner emotional tapes

Try one of the new energy psychology methods like  Thought Field Therapy (TFT) or the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), both of which are ‘needlefree’ forms of acupuncture in which the therapist or patient ‘taps’ on various meridians of the body while making a series of statements. In one study of patients suffering from post-traumatic stress—considered extremely difficult to treat—TFT reduced such stress by more than half.65

This message was brought to you by our sponsors.

Reference 65: Traumatology, 1999; 5: 1, article 4 – reference unclear (see contents)

This kind of bullshit makes professionals who deal with PTSD very angry. There is an immense body of research into PTSD, much of it centred on combat veterans. CBT and other techniques have an effect, as does EMDR, but it is a complex and long-lived disorder that is likely to require a lot of intensive effort from well-trained professionals.

Thought Field TherapyW is ideologically acceptable to Lynne McTaggart, author of many pseudoscientific discussions of similar concepts, but there’s no credible evidence it works.

Emotional Freedom TechniqueW is also purest hogwash.

Both are practised mainly by hippy-dippy New-Age quacks who believe that the body is regulated by the flow of an empirically unverifiable life force whose balance is vitally affected by meridians and acupoints that have no known associated biological structures.

The evidence that these points exist is, to put it mildly, not compelling. Nobody has yet succeeded in proving that tapping them (or sticking needles in them or anything else) has any differential effect over doing the same thing in the “wrong” place. Oh, and Chinese and Japanese versions are different, so if you’re a Chinese and get sick in Japan, be sure to let them know.

100 Cultivate a readiness to empathize and forgive

One of the greatest antidotes to stress is heartfelt forgiveness and empathy. Learning to forgive can help overcome depression and stress.66 Gratitude and generosity are powerful, health-promoting game changers.

Reference 66: Explore [NY], 2006; 2: 498–508 Positive emotional change: mediating effects of forgiveness and spirituality. Levenson MR, Aldwin CM, Yancura L.

Opinion masquerading as fact, basically pure new-age hogwash. But what the hell, to err is human, to forgive divine. However, it does require that the sinner first repents. When WDDTY apologises for some of its egregious errors, we’ll start to forgive them for their decades long anti-health crusade.

100 ways to live to 100: 10 bits of medical advice you should question


Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

10 bits of medical advice you should question

In general, it’s always fair to ask for the evidence supporting any proposed medical intervention.

In general, WDDTY does this for you by quote-mining and cherry-picking to suit its anti-medicine agenda.

What WDDTY does not do is to provide any actual evidence that this information is anything other than a routine part of the normal process of informed consent, especially in the UK. For example, discussion of radical prostatectomy is dominated by a test that has been deprecated in the UK for over twenty years and an operation that never reached a quarter of its peak level in the USA.

81 Lower your blood cholesterol levels

The theory that high-fat foods—like meat and dairy—build up fat in our arteries has never actually been proven. After people eating high-fat diets were followed for 10 years and not one suffered a heart attack, researchers concluded that “the evidence is not there” to support a high fats–heart disease connection.48 In fact, high levels of the ‘bad’ LDL cholesterol may actually be good for us, especially as we get older.49

Reference 48: Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis, 2012; 22: 1039–45 Biomarkers of dairy intake and the risk of heart disease. Aslibekyan S, Campos H, Baylin A.

Reference 49: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci; 2007; 62: 1164–71 Statins and dietary and serum cholesterol are associated with increased lean mass following resistance training. Riechman SE, Andrews RD, Maclean DA, Sheather S.

The first reference is specific to dairy, noting:

Dairy product intake as assessed by adipose tissue 15:0, 17:0, and by FFQ is not associated with a linear increase in the risk of MI in the study population. It is possible that the adverse effect of saturated fat in dairy products on cardiovascular health is offset by presence of beneficial nutrients.

This is a great point against WDDTY’s anti-dairy agenda, but not really a point for the argument that cholesterolW is good for you. The second source finds:

These data suggest that dietary and serum cholesterol contribute to the skeletal muscles’ response to RET in this generally healthy older population and that some statins may improve this response.

A great point against WDDTY’s anti-statin agenda, but not much of a hit for the promotion of cholesterol either since this applies to people undergoing “12 weeks of high intensity resistance exercise training (RET) with post-exercise protein supplementation”. Few 60-69-year-olds do this, and the overall evidence is taken from the largely sedentary general population not from atypical sub-populations like this.

WDDTY seems to be disputing the lipid hypothesisW but without actually tackling it head on, still less addressing the evidence base behind it. In fact both the lipid and the chronic endothelial injury hypothesisW are converging over time to a single hypothesis which puts LDL front and centre in the mechanism of hypertension.

The Centers for Disease ControlW are blunt: “Having high cholesterol puts you at risk of developing heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States”.

82 The mercury in your fillings is permanently locked in and harmless

Dentists have been saying this for years, but the European Commission’s BIO Intelligence Service (BIS) begs to disagree. The group recommends that a total ban on amalgam fillings be fully implemented in five years’ time, and the use of mercury fillings virtually eliminated throughout the EU.

No, the EU does not say that your fillings are a problem. It has a rather technical document detailing measures to reduce usage and pollution from mercury in the environment. It puts the report by Bio Intelligence Service S.A. (which is,a s the name suggests, a commercial entity and not an EU body) into context. Its principal argument is that dental use of mercury represents an environmental, not a toxicological, problem.

The report does not say that amalgam fillings in-place are a significant source of concern, instead it discusses the pollution caused by the mixing and installation of amalgam, and the disposal of amalgam after teeth are extracted or the patient dies.

Overall, you’re probably fine as long as you don’t heavily chew nicotine chewing gum. A controversy that has raged for a century without any consensus forming or any concrete and damning evidence of significant biological effect – a “smoking gun” – is evidence of philosophical differences, not provable harm.

83 Go for angioplasty

Balloon angioplasty and stents were to be medicine’s ‘miracle’ treatments for blocked arteries, but around one in 10 heart patients returns to hospital for emergency treatment following the procedures, and nearly a third of non-emergency ‘drug-eluting’ stents are also likely to cause potentially fatal harm.50 Patients given a cocktail of generic heart drugs instead do just as well .51

Reference 50: Arch Intern Med, 2012; 172: 112–7 Factors associated with 30-day readmission rates after percutaneous coronary intervention. Khawaja FJ et. al.

Reference 50b: N Engl J Med, 2007; 356: 1009–19 Long-Term Outcomes with Drug-Eluting Stents versus Bare-Metal Stents in Sweden Bo Lagerqvist et. al.

Reference 51:  N Engl J Med, 2007; 356: 1503–16 Optimal Medical Therapy with or without PCI for Stable Coronary Disease William E. Boden et. al.

This is a particularly pernicious piece of misinformation. It is very easy to find cases where people are readmitted not long after surgery for coronary heart disease: the reason they have had the surgery is often because they are very sick. Unsurprisingly, they are a poor surgical risk and a high risk for post-surgical complications. In other words, even with surgery, doctors may not be able to save them. That’s a great reason for keeping your heart in good shape and a truly terrible reason for refusing heart surgery if it’s indicated.

WDDTY say that nearly a third of drug eluting stents are likely to cause potentially fatal harm. The source absolutely does not support this.

Drug-eluting stents were associated with an increased rate of death, as compared with bare-metal stents. This trend appeared after 6 months, when the risk of death was 0.5 percentage point higher and a composite of death or myocardial infarction was 0.5 to 1.0 percentage point higher per year. The long-term safety of drug-eluting stents needs to be ascertained in large, randomized trials. (emphasis added)

 WDDTY have been caught before confusing relative and absolute risks, but rarely this blatantly.

The final study also doesn’t support WDDTY’s statement:

As an initial management strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease, PCI did not reduce the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or other major cardiovascular events when added to optimal medical therapy.

WDDTY recommending intensive pharmacologic therapy. That’s a turn-up for the books.

84 You don’t need your womb anymore

A University of California committee of gynaecologists once concluded that three-quarters of all hysterectomies done are not necessary.52 Except for genuine indications like uterine cancer and life-threatening bleeding during childbirth, some 90 per cent of referrals for hysterectomies can be treated with conservative surgery, medication, alternative medicine, nutritional supplementation or just waiting until menopause.

Reference 52: Obstet Gynecol, 2000; 95: 199–205 The Appropriateness of Recommendations for Hysterectomy, Michael S Broder et. al.

This is an US study. One in three US women will undergo hysterectomy, compared with one in five in the UK. The US removes ovaries in 73% of cases, the UK in 20%.

WDDTY editor Lynne McTaggart is American. Sometimes she forgets which side of the pond she’s living.

Sometimes she also forgets that the anecdotal claims of quacks to “cure” endometriosis, fibroids and the like are a long way short of being evidence that they actually can do this.

85 Have ‘catch it early’ surgery for prostate cancer

Men in the early stages of the disease are often offered radical prostatectomy, where the entire gland is removed. At best, it’s a trade-off, mostly because of the high risk of permanent impotence and incontinence. Unless you’re under 55, you’re more likely to die with the disease than from it.

That’s why the standard of care for indolent prostate cancer is “watchful waiting”. Who are these doctors who supposedly “don’t tell you” this? I suspect they may be American again, though even there it’s been in decline since the early 1990s. The UK has deprecated screening since the 1990s and the UK’s rate of radical prostatectomy never reached 10 per 100,000, a quarter of the peak rate in the US.

Bottom line: if your doctor recommends radical prostatectomy, it’s probably the conservative option.

86 Have a radical mastectomy to ‘catch it all’

This mutilating operation involves removing the breast, the chest wall, the lymph nodes and much of the skin, but it confers no advantage over other, less aggressive forms of mastectomy, including the simple removal of the lump with radiotherapy.53 Also, some 70 per cent of double mastectomies—where both breasts are removed following a diagnosis of breast cancer—are unnecessary as the cancer was never likely to have spread, say researchers.54

Reference 53: Ann Surg, 1986; 204: 136–47 Treatment of primary breast cancer without mastectomy. The Los Angeles community experience and review of the literature.

Reference 54: J Clin Oncol 30, 2012; suppl 34: abstr 26 [Medline does not find this reference]

This advice is literally decades out of date. Radical mastectomy no longer involves routine axillary clearance, instead the lymph nodes are staged, often in real time. Prophylactic mastectomies will only be advised for women who already have cancer, or who, like Angelina Jolie, have both genetic and family history indications.

WDDTY were among the strident chorus of natural-woo promoters who denounced Jolie for her decision. Jolie showed grace and fortitude in the face of this torrent of bullshit, pointing out that the risk for her was in excess of 80% given family history and evidence of specific expressed genetic mutations.

Lumpectomy is the standard of care for small, well-defined tumours; radical mastectomy is not recommended lightly.

The moral of this story is, listen to oncologists, not cranks who hate the entire world of medicine on reflex.

87 Let’s fix your inguinal hernia

The wise doctor will delay surgery until the patient is in pain or discomfort—partly because he knows that surgical repair carries a long-term risk of recurrence and can itself cause more groin pain than the hernia, as it does in a quarter of patients.55 When more than 700 men with hernias underwent watchful waiting instead, the vast majority carried on with their everyday lives without a moment of pain and without the need for surgery.56

Reference 55: Ann Surg, 2001; 233: 8 Groin Pain After Hernia Repair, Robert E. Condon.

Reference 56: JAMA, 2006; 295: 285–92 Watchful waiting vs repair of inguinal hernia in minimally symptomatic men: a randomized clinical trial. Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, et. al. 

Once again, WDDTY recommends the standard of care. Well done for telling your readers what doctors already do tell them.

The only problem with WDDTY’s commentary is that it seems designed to deter anyone from undergoing repair, based on a speculative finding from 2001 (“Could it be that the major change in the technique of hernia repair that has evolved over the most recent two decades—the widespread use of implanted prosthetic mesh, whether needed or not—is a cause?”) and a report based on minimally symptomatic patients.

The 2001 paper refers to what is now termed post herniorraphy pain syndromeW, a recognised complication that leads to – guess what? – the standard of care being “watchful waiting” for minimally symptomatic patients. The problem does not seem to be caused by mesh itself, but by damage to the nerves, which may be consequent from the original injury

So as usual it’s safe to follow WDDTY’s advice as long as you’re not actually ill…

88 Let’s cut out your gall bladder

This procedure (cholecystectomy) may increase the risk of colon cancer, according to a review of 33 studies.57 Surgery can often make matters worse by injuring the bile duct, releasing gallstones and causing more digestive issues. Stones can usually be sorted out by avoiding processed food and sugar, eating less red meat and eschewing HRT, which doubles the risk.

Reference 57: Gastroenterology, 1993; 105: 130–41 A meta-analysis of cholecystectomy and risk of colorectal cancer. Giovannucci E, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ.

CONCLUSIONS: Because the risks varied substantially by study design and because time since cholecystectomy or potentially confounding factors were often not considered, we could not firmly quantitate this risk. However, the findings are consistent with other evidence that suggests some characteristic of bile acid metabolism increases the risk of cancer of the proximal colon.

CholecystectomyW became much more common in the 1990s after laparoscopic techniques were devised which made the surgery effectively a day-case. Yes, like any surgical procedure, it has potential complications, and those should be (and are) taken into account when considering surgery.

The accuracy of WDDTY’s commentary can be demonstrated pretty simply:

WDDTY: Surgery can often make matters worse by injuring the bile duct, releasing gallstones and causing more digestive issues

Goldman’s Cecil Medicine (24th ed.): The most serious complication of cholecystectomy is damage to the common bile duct. This occurs in about 0.25% of cases.

Often… 0.25%. I think this might be a problem of perspective.

WDDTY: “Stones can usually be sorted out by avoiding processed food and sugar, eating less red meat and eschewing HRT, which doubles the risk”

NHS: “There are several non-surgical ways to break down gallstones, but they are only effective in around less than 1 in 10 cases and are rarely a viable option.”

Perhaps WDDTY has been mistaking the claims of its advertisers for fact.

89 Sort your overactive thyroid with surgery

Nearly a third of all cases will resolve on their own. Even when just part of the thyroid is removed, only 30 per cent will have normal thyroid levels after eight years, a whopping 41 per cent will have a permanently underactive thyroid and 12 per cent will still be hyperthyroid.58

Reference 58:  J Endocrinol Invest, 1993; 16: 195–9 Follow-up evaluation of patients with Graves’ disease treated by subtotal thyroidectomy and risk factor analysis for post-operative thyroid dysfunction. Sugino K, Mimura T, Toshima K, Iwabuchi H, Kitamura Y, Kawano M, Ozaki O, Ito K.

Grave’s diseaseW is the commonest but not the sole cause of hyperthyroidismW, and it’s not the sole indication for thyroidectomy. In fact, it’s been considered debatable for some time:

Operation is indicated mainly when the disease is severe with a larger goitre or in younger age groups (below 40 years) where radioiodine may not be advisable. For preoperative treatment the use of antithyroid drugs in preferred, although iodine perhaps in combination with beta blockers may be used safely as well at least for moderate cases. In the presence of alternative means of treatment surgery should not exceed an operative risk of 0.5-1.5% with virtually no mortality

It’s unlikely that any patient will be offered surgery for management of hyperthyroidism without first excluding non-surgical approaches. WDDTY seems to think partial thyroidectomy is common, in the UK at least this is not the case. As the NHS says:

Surgery to remove all or part of the thyroid gland is known as a total or partial thyroidectomy. It is a permanent cure for recurrent overactive thyroid.

Your specialist may recommend surgery if your thyroid gland is severely swollen (a large goitre) and is causing problems in your neck.

Other reasons for surgery include:

  • a person is unable to be treated with radioiodine treatment as they are pregnant and they are unable or unwilling to take thionamides
  • a person has a severe form of Graves’ ophthalmopathy
  • the symptoms return (relapse) after a previous successful course of treatment with thionamides

It is normally recommended that the entire thyroid gland is removed as this means there will be no chance of a relapse.

See that word “specialist”? In the UK you will not get anywhere near thyroidectomy for Grave’s disease without seeing a specialist endocrinologist and exhausting the alternatives.

It’s almost as if doctors know what they are talking about and WDDTY don’t.

90 You need a blood transfusion

This routine medical practice suppresses the immune system, increasing the chances of infection, pneumonia—and cancer. Patients who received a transfusion during cancer surgery are 42 per cent more likely to develop cancer again, say Johns Hopkins University researchers.Transfusions should be reserved for emergencies like trauma or haemorrhage, when they can be a lifesaver.59

Reference 59: Anesthesiology, 2012; 117: 99–106 Variability in blood and blood component utilization as assessed by an anesthesia information management system. Frank SM, Savage WJ, Rothschild JA, Rivers RJ, Ness PM, Paul SL, Ulatowski JA.

CONCLUSIONS: The use of data acquired from an anesthesia information management system allowed a detailed analysis of blood component utilization, which revealed significant variation among surgical services and surgical procedures, and among individual anesthesiologists and surgeons compared with their peers. Incorporating these methods of data acquisition and analysis into a blood management program could reduce unnecessary transfusions, an outcome that may increase patient safety and reduce costs.

Needless to say, this does not support WDDTY’s statement. The article proposes spreading of best practice in the context of the US health system (where interventions may risk being profit-driven).

Yes, transfusions might indeed have negative effects, especially in the US where payment for blood donors has led in the past to contaminated supplies. However, cancer surgery tends to be at the upper end of things that are not considered “emergencies” even by WDDTY’s rather arbitrary standards, and some people might consider that the chances of being offered a transfusion just on the off chance when you’re not in mortal danger is probably pretty low. Especially in the NHS.

100 ways to live to 100: 10 drugs to avoid whenever possible

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

10 drugs to avoid whenever possible

WDDTY frame this with a truly staggering statement of faith:

After 24 years of publishing WDDTY, we’re still searching for one single drug out there besides antibiotics that actually cures something. We still haven’t found one. Virtually all drugs are for maintenance—that is, they manage, ease or suppress symptoms, but they do not cure. In spite of assurances from the pharmaceutical industry that drugs can target certain receptors in the body with laser-like accuracy, the fact is that many unrelated systems in the body have identical receptors—which is why drugs invariably affect other parts of the body indiscriminately and cause side-effects.

There is a better, alternative solution to virtually every chronic health problem except emergency medicine, which is where orthodox medicine comes into its own. If you’ve been shot, stabbed or run over, or suffer a heart attack or stroke, then modern Western medicine is without parallel for fixing you. In those cases, get to a hospital without fail. Otherwise, here are the10 drugs you might be better off avoiding. In no particular order:

We’re pleased to be able to help WDDTY out here. Again, since this is not the first time WDDTY have made this claim.

  • Tetanus antitoxin cures tetanus.
  • Antimalarials cure malaria.
  • Chemotherapy cures liquid tumours especially in children.
  • Antivenins cure venomous bites.

But why exclude antibiotics? Not only are they the best known and least ambiguous example of drugs that cure, but WDDTY also disputes their utility. The exclusion of this class of drugs seems to be capricious and specifically designed to assert that, excluding the vast number of illnesses they can cure, doctors can’t cure anything. Of course, unlike quacks, doctors don’t claim to cure disease unless they actually can, but n the end this reminds us of something:

But ultimately this is a categorical fallacy. Think for a moment: what is the definition of a chronic disease? It’s one that cannot presently be cured. A hundred years ago, syphilis was a chronic disease. Now it’s not. So WDDTY are taking a class of diseases defined by the fact that medicine cannot currently cure them, and asserting that, shockingly, medicine cannot cure them.

Is maintenance and management of symptoms necessarily a bad thing? Ask a type I diabetic or an asthmatic. 

Are there better alternative solutions to “virtually every chronic health problem”? No. Minchin’s Law applies: these things are alternative because they have not been demonstrated to be better. In most cases they haven’t been demonstrated to be as good. Many of them don’t work at all, and several are actively harmful.

71 Statins

These can cause cancer and definitely cause muscle weakness.

So they might, but the benefit outweighs the risks according to large studies.

A meta analysis of randomised controlled trials found:

Conclusion In patients without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors, statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events.

WDDTY has a long-standing agenda against statins, leading to its promotion of the idea that cholesterol is OK as long as it’s the “good” kind, but this is mainly arguing backwards from ideological opposition to statins. As always, the NHS has more nuanced and more accurate information.

72 Prozac and other antidepressants

These can cause rebound anxiety, suicide and addiction, and have been sold to us on a faulty premise—there is no brain chemical imbalance to fix.

This is pure propaganda. Antidepressants and antipsychotics have a role in the management of acute disease, and trying to tough it out without them can and does lead to suicide.

Epidemiological analysis shows that SSRIs reduce suicide rates. There is a specific problem with use in children, but it’s uncertain whether this balances out or not – however, this does not undermine the conclusion that:

[T]he strongly positive results of the TADS study indicate that medication treatment is vital for effective treatment of adolescent depression. With the confusing results of studies to date, fluoxetine is a good first choice for antidepressant treatment of adolescents. However, there may be reasons that clinicians choose to start other antidepressants instead. For instance, adolescents with a good prior response to another antidepressant, who are currently on another antidepressant with good response, or who have a history of poor response to fluoxetine, would probably be started or stay on another antidepressant.

In other words, follow the data not the dogma.

73 Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-blocking drugs

Meant to replace painkilling COX-2 inhibitor drugs, they’ve been linked to tuberculosis and cancer.

Having “been linked to cancer” is a standard WDDTY weasel phrase. Yes, there is a plausible link between TNF inhibitor|TNF inhibitorsW and cancer. This applies to both synthetic drugs and natural TNF inhibitors such as curcuminW, catechins and canabinoids.

As with any effective treatment, it’s a question of risks versus benefits.

74 Atypical antipsychotics

These next-generation drugs, classed as the ‘new’ antipsychotics, include olanzapine (Zyprexa), quetiapine (Seroquel) and risperidone (Risperdal). Studies show they’re no better than the older variety, and may cause Alzheimer’s disease and hasten mental decline in the elderly. They also cause sexual dysfunction and depression, and so make any psychiatric condition worse.44

Reference 44: Clin Neuropharmacol. 2005 May-Jun;28(3):111-4. Use of ziprasidone in parkinsonian patients with psychosis. Gómez-Esteban JC, Zarranz JJ, Velasco F, Lezcano E, Lachen MC, Rouco I, Barcena J, Boyero S, Ciordia R, Allue I.

A source at last! So what does it say?

Twelve patients with Parkinson disease and psychosis were included in an open-label 12-week trial of ziprasidone. Two patients withdrew from the treatment because of adverse effects. The remaining 10 patients reported a significant improvement in psychiatric symptoms. Altogether, there was no deterioration of motor symptoms (UPDRS III score: basal 40.4 +/- 11.1, first month 41.1 +/- 10.8; final visit, 37.7 +/- 13.3). Two patients (20%) suffered a slight deterioration in motor symptoms and another patient suffered deterioration of gait. No analytic alterations or serious adverse effects that could limit the use of ziprasidone were observed. Although controlled trials are needed, the findings suggest that ziprasidone may be effective in parkinsonian patients with psychosis.

Is it just me, or does that say pretty much the opposite of what WDDTY claim? Be in no doubt: ziprasidoneW is an atypical antidepressant, the fifth such to be licensed by the FDA.

This is unusually dishonest even by WDDTY’s standards: the paper supports the use of the drug in Parkinson’s sufferers, but this is spun as a recommendation against it.

75 Anticholinergic drugs

These have a long list of side effects, including dementia.

This is not specific to anticholinergicW drugs, but to anticholinergics generally, including plants of the solanacae family, henbane and mandrake.

They also have a long list of beneficial effects. They suppress muscle spasms, for example, so are often used in gastritis and ulcerative colitis. But the major source of adverse reactions appears to be in recreational drug users, not least because medical use tends not to be long-term. One of the better known anticholinergics is butylscopolamineW, marketed under trade names such as Buscopan, which is used to control stomach cramps. It tends to be used episodically and not chronically.

76 Bisphosphonates

These osteoporosis drugs can halt bone loss, but they’ve also been linked to high rates of atrial fibrillation, a heart-rhythm disorder that can lead to stroke.45

Reference 45: N Engl J Med, 2007; 356: 1809–22: Once-Yearly Zoledronic Acid for Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis, Black et. al.

RESULTS: Treatment with zoledronic acid reduced the risk of morphometric vertebral fracture by 70% during a 3-year period, as compared with placebo (3.3% in the zoledronic-acid group vs. 10.9% in the placebo group; relative risk, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 0.38) and reduced the risk of hip fracture by 41% (1.4% in the zoledronic-acid group vs. 2.5% in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83). Nonvertebral fractures, clinical fractures, and clinical vertebral fractures were reduced by 25%, 33%, and 77%, respectively (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Zoledronic acid was also associated with a significant improvement in bone mineral density and bone metabolism markers. Adverse events, including change in renal function, were similar in the two study groups. However, serious atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently in the zoledronic acid group (in 50 vs. 20 patients, P<0.001).

The question then would be: are you better off suffering a hip fracture due to untreated osteoporosis, or atrial fibrillation, which may or may not result in a stroke?

WDDTY claims to be all about informed choice, but by giving only a tiny subset of the information, they actively impede a properly informed choice. It’s about as much use as advising everybody never to leave the house in case they get knocked over crossing the road.


It’s the ultimate just-in-case lifestyle drug, taken to ward off heart disease and stroke, but it actually increases the risk of stroke sevenfold.46 It can also cause serious gastrointestinal bleeding. Other NSAIDs now carry warnings regarding their cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risks—and guess what? They haven’t been proven to reduce inflammation.

Reference 46: Lancet Neurol, 2007; 6: 487–93 Change in incidence and aetiology of intracerebral haemorrhage in Oxfordshire, UK, between 1981 and 2006: a population-based study. Lovelock CE, Molyneux AJ, Rothwell PM; Oxford Vascular Study.

This is a long-term study of stroke risk which finds that in the over-75s long term use of antithrombotics (aspirin) is associated with an increase in stroke incidence. This is most likely to be based on a population with higher dosages, as the prophylactic dose recommendation has reduced over time.

Reliable sources support low dose aspirin as a prophylactic against heart disease and stroke, unreliable sources promote more aspirin (mainly out of date) or none (WDDTY and other natural-woo promoters).

The Mayo Clinic has a useful reference. One interesting point that WDDTY didn’t make is that if you’re already taking aspirin daily, stopping can cause a rebound effect and actually trigger a stroke. Let’s hope nobody suffers a stroke after following WDDTY’s advice and sues them.

The important thing to remember is that a paediatric dose confers most of the benefit, but most of the risk studies refer to an adult dose, two to four times as great. As always discuss it with your doctor, not some anti-medicine crank.

78 HRT and the Pill

Their cancer connections are finally indisputable, even though drug companies keep fighting the evidence.

We already covered HRT. The pill? WDDTY really are becoming more reactionary over time.

Here’s what Cancer Research UK say about the Pill:

  • There’s a small increase in risk of breast cancer, which reduces when you stop taking the pill and returns to normal by 10 years after you stop taking it.
  • There’s an association with cervical cancer, likely to be down to the fact that cervical cancer is rarely seen in women whoa re not sexually active.
  • There’s a reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer, and the longer you take the pill the lower the risk gets.
  • There’s a reduction in cancer of the uterus which lasts for around 15 years after you stop taking the pill.
  • There may also be a reduction in bowel cancer.

Oh, and you tend not to get pregnant.

Your doctor knows all this, it’s safe to take your doctor’s advice rather than the ideological nonsense form WDDTY.

79 Antiepileptic drugs

These can lead to suicide and also cause potentially fatal liver failure. Many of the newer ones like Keppra (levetiracetam), Topamax (topiramate) and Sabril (vigabatrin) increase the risk of depression and suicide or self-harm threefold.47

Reference 47: Neurology. 2010 Jul 27;75(4):335-40. Use of antiepileptic drugs in epilepsy and the risk of self-harm or suicidal behavior. Andersohn F, Schade R, Willich SN, Garbe E.

Once again, WDDTY misrepresents the source. Here’s what it actually says:

Newer AEDs with a rather high frequency of depressive symptoms in clinical trials may also increase the risk of self-harm or suicidal behavior in clinical practice. For the most commonly used other groups of AEDs, no increase in risk was observed.

So: older AEDs do not increase the risk of suicide. Newer ones might, so doctors should be on the lookout for symptoms of depression. Which may well be partly due to the well documented tendency of practitioners to be more conservative and report more adverse reactions in new drugs than for well understood ones, where they know that symptoms are unlikely to be directly related.  Nothing to see here, move along please…

It’s hard to express how inappropriate it is to issue a blanket warning against antiepileptic drugs based on a misrepresentation of early studies on an entirely new class of drug that’s only recently entered clinical practice.

80 Zetia and other second-generation cholesterol-lowering drugs

Not only do these drugs not work, but they’re also hard on the liver.

We totally understand: cholesterol is natural so trying to control it is evil. Heart attacks are natural too, as is dying by the age of 40.

NICE don’t endorse ezetimibeW other than in cases where statins are not well tolerated, or as an adjunct to statins where cholesterol remains stubbornly high. It’s a relatively new class of drug and the evidence base is changing fairly quickly. Your doctor should be reading up on this, so it’s worth discussing the findings of ENHANCE and, when published, IMPROVE-IT with your doctor. As always, the advice form your doctor is likely to be evidence-based not ideology-based like WDDTY.

Cholesterol levels are a proxy marker and the jury is still out on whether reducing cholesterol levels is a valid end in itself; however, the outcome of statin trials does indicate a significant reduction in cardiac events so it does seem likely.

Errata and corrections:

  • Thanks to Andrew Crysell for spotting a schoolboy howler in the first section, fixed on 27/12/2013

100 ways to live to 100: 10 situations that don’t usually require a doctor

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

10 situations that don’t usually require a doctor

If there’s one thing you can rely on doctors telling you, it’s when you don’t need a doctor. They are about as keen to see people with the common cold as WDDTY is to see evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. And in both cases, that doesn’t stop it happening, all the time.

61 Backache

Some 80 per cent of us suffer from back pain, but medicine doesn’t offer much besides potentially dangerous surgery (which leaves only a quarter of patients free of pain) and drugs. In most cases, an osteopath, chiropractor or Alexander Technique practitioner can sort you, as can exercise.

Let’s unpick that. If medicine cures back pain by surgery, that’s evil. If medicine gives drugs to manage the pain, that’s evil. If medicine recommends exercise and physiotherapy, that’s ignored because it would undermine WDDTY’s pretence that these are “alternative” and thus the sole preserve of quacks like their advertisers.

Why don’t doctors tell you that Alexander Technique works for low back pain? They do. They also recommend osteopathy and chiropractic, but there are severe problems with both these fields, due to the prevalence of crank ideas. Osteopaths need to discipline and exclude charlatans who practice “cranial osteopathy”, and chiropractors need to recognise that there is no evidence that chiropractic works better than evidence-based manipulation therapy, and substantial evidence of actively dangerous practices such as cervical spinal manipulation, potentially leading to stroke, bullshit claims to treat ear infections, asthma and other things unrelated to the musculoskeletal system, anti-vaccination propaganda, and of course the big scam: never discharging a cured patient, but instead trying to sell them an indefinite course of worthless “maintenance”.

If you have back pain, see your doctor, they will recommend the most appropriate treatment. Which might be surgery, drugs, exercise or some form of physiotherapy. Unlike WDDTY’s advice, this won’t be based on dogma or pleasing the advertisers, it’ll be based on the best currently available evidence.

62 Earache

Shout it loud: antibiotics just don’t work for earache. Nor does removing adenoids fix glue ear.39 Instead, try time, mullein oil, a woolly hat, a hot-water bottle, homeopathic Pulsatilla,40 osteopathy or auricular therapy (acupuncture of the ear). Before having grommets inserted in your child’s ear, cut down his fat and sugar, and investigate food or airborne allergies as the potential cause.

Reference 39a: JAMA, 2006; 296: 1235–41 Wait-and-see prescription for the treatment of acute otitis media: a randomized controlled trial. Spiro DM, Tay KY, Arnold DH, Dziura JD, Baker MD, Shapiro ED.

Reference 39b: BMJ, 2004; 328: 487 Adenoidectomy versus chemoprophylaxis and placebo for recurrent acute otitis media in children aged under 2 years: randomised controlled trial. Koivunen P, Uhari M, Luotonen J, Kristo A, Raski R, Pokka T, Alho OP.

Reference 40: Ullman D. Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1991; AHZ, 1985; 230: 89–94

If you follow this advice, a repeat of a recent and particularly dreadful article,  you’ll have to “shout it loud” because your child may be deaf.

The standard of care is watchful waiting, but adenoidectomy may be indicated in the presence of both glue ear and persistent nasal symptoms. Antibiotics work as a primary treatment for bacterial ear infections. Most children will grow out of them in time, but leaving the infection untreated when treatment is indicated, on ideological grounds as WDDTY propose, is perverse.

HomeopathyW has three problems: first, there’s no reason to think it should work; second, there’s no way it can work; and third, there’s no proof it does work. Of all alternatives to medicine, it is the most thoroughly debunked. Its doctrines were refuted over a century ago and its only real value now is as a litmus test for lack of critical thinking. A test WDDTY fails on a truly epic scale.

Dana Ullman, the cited source, is a high priest of the cult of homeopathy, he is a proven liar who claims Darwin and Nightingale for homeopathy despite their well documented contempt for it, and is responsible for propagating the lies that Montagnier’s work proves homeopathy and that the Swiss Government found it safe and effective. His propagandising for homeopathy knows no bounds. Each new publication by a True Believer is presented as the final clinching proof of homeopathy, and when it’s shown to be flawed or fraudulent he merely moves on to the next, occasionally repeating the old ones if he thinks nobody will notice. His self-promotion and steadfast denial of reality got him banned from Wikipedia.  There’s even an eponymous law: the Dull-Man Law. In any discussion of homoeopathy, being Dana Ullman loses you the argument – and gets you laughed out of the room.

AcupunctureW is also nonsense, though it is only recently proven to be completely useless. Auricular acupuncture has absolutely no basis in fact and lacks even the marginal credibility of acupuncture. The ear looks a bit like a baby, therefore the bits of the ear correspond to the organs that would be there if it was a baby. No, not even vaguely sensible.

63 Infection

For common and non-serious infections, try Echinacea, essential oils like clove, lavender, lemon, marjoram, mint, niaouli (Melaleuca), pine, rosemary and thyme oils, and goldenseal, manuka honey, tea tree oil, good old garlic and cranberry, all of which are powerful alternatives to antibiotics.

Alternatives they may be. Effective? Not so much. There’s some evidence of manuka honey as a topical antibiotic but why on earth would you not use antibiotics? They work very well, are generally well tolerated, and they have saved countless millions of lives.

This references a May 2013 article, we’ve added it to the work list.

64 Just-in-case checkups, particularly if you’re aged over 50

If you have nothing particularly wrong with you, going to the doctor won’t necessarily protect but is likely to unleash the entire arsenal testing apparatus have you leaving prescription (or three) in your hands.

So let’s get this straight: it’s wrong to see your doctor in case he finds something wrong with you.

Er, right.

65 Menopause In most cases, holistic measures

In most cases holistic measures (diet, homeopathy, herbs) will help you through the change in a safer way than using hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which continues to be discredited, despite protestations by doctors, because of a link with breast cancer.41 Our medical detective Dr Harald Gaier has had greater success with Phytoestrol N (which contains rhubarb root) than most of the popular herbals for menopause.

Reference 41:  Am J Public Health, 2010; 100 [Suppl 1]: S132–9 Decline in US Breast Cancer Rates After the Women’s Health Initiative: Socioeconomic and Racial/Ethnic Differentials Nancy Krieger, PhD,corresponding author Jarvis T. Chen, ScD, and Pamela D. Waterman, MPH.

HRT was discredited years ago, when it was shown not to protect against coronary heart disease but instead to promote it. Well-informed doctors don’t push it unless the symptoms of menopause are extremely bad, or for very early menopause or occasionally hysterectomy.

Homeopathy doesn’t work. Herbs may or may not (remember that a herbal remedy is basically an unknown dose of a potentially pharmacologically active compound with unknown impurities). The source for Harald Gaier’s success stories is Harald Gaier – WDDTY seem to think that blatant conflict of interest is fine as long as the message is ideologically acceptable.

66 Chronic but non-life-threatening conditions

Eczema, psoriasis, non-life-threatening asthma, arthritis and the like generally respond better to alternative measures than drugs, which only suppress symptoms. Check out the alternatives before resorting to lifelong drug use.

Few things are more infuriating than the claim that medicine “only suppresses symptoms” so alternatives are better.

Alternatives do one of two things: suppress the symptoms less effectively and less predictably, or nothing.

There are no alternatives which cure chronic conditions. If there were, they would no longer be alternative (Minchin’s Law).

The easiest way to demonstrate how wrong this advice is, is with a simple case study of one of the “non-life-threatening conditions” listed: eczema.

A couple whose baby daughter died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies instead of conventional medicine have been found guilty of manslaughter.

Gloria Thomas died aged nine months after spending more than half her life with eczema.

The skin condition wore down her natural defences and left her completely vulnerable when she developed an eye infection that killed her within days of developing.

And it’s not the only case. It’s extremely clear that the very last thing you should do when faced with a chronic condition is to consult an “alternative” practitioner, who will follow an ideologically-determined path with no provable value to you, for profit.

67 Slimming

All doctors usually have to offer are drugs and calorie counting, which aren’t long term solutions, and numerous slimming drugs have potentially fatal side-effects. Look first for potential food intolerances, get your thyroid checked out, clean up your diet, and opt for low-GI foods and lots of fruit and veg.

The GI diet was developed by doctors. It’s recommended by doctors, who also recommend exercise and weight management clinics. Oh, and they can also refer you for lap band or other surgical interventions which have a reasonable success rate in the chronically obese who are not compliant with diet regimes. Doctors are also pretty good at spotting thyroid problems.

In the end, though, there is only one diet that is proven to work 100% of the time: the ELEM diet. Eat less, exercise more. Every reputable doctor in the UK, and probably the world, will tell you the same. WDDTY seem to prefer nutritionists who generally have no recognised qualifications whatsoever but nevertheless often sell miracle or fad diets.

68 Colds and flu

Unless you’re elderly and your immune system is compromised in some way, there’s nothing your doctor can give you (or your children) to end a cold or flu, which is usually caused by a viral infection (against which antibiotics mostly don’t work). Bed rest and plenty of fluids, plus zinc, Echinacea, Pelargonium sidoides, Andrographis paniculata, vitamin C and probiotics can all shorten the life of a cold (see WDDTY December 2013).

We’ve critiqued these claims recently. No reputable doctor prescribes antibiotics for uncomplicated viral illness. WDDTY’s view of current medical advice seems to be 20 years out of date and from another continent.

69 Fever

Heat is the body’s extremely clever method of killing foreign invaders of all varieties, and taking anti-inflammatories and other drugs to lower your temperature just hampers that process. Allow your body to self-help by not interfering with a fever unless it’s so high that it may cause permanent damage. Fevers for ordinary viral and bacterial infections won’t exceed 105 degrees F (40.5 degrees C), which generally isn’t dangerous. But see a doctor immediately if you suspect a serious problem like meningitis.

WDDTY don’t seem to know the difference between anti-inflammatories and antipyretic|antipyreticsW. As it happens, Clay Jones at Science Based Medicine recently wrote a much more nuanced piece on fever, in the context of acute cases in hospital, which seems to be the situation WDDTY are considering.

As it happens, Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, recently tweeted a much more pragmatic piece by an actual doctor. Why would you allow your child to suffer the symptoms of fever, if a cheap and safe drug can bring them relief and let them at least get to sleep?

70 Acne

All your doctor can offer are drugs with horrendous side-effects; isotretinoin, marketed as Accutane and Roaccutane, can cause permanent damage to the cornea, impaired hearing, fatal pancreatitis, depression and even suicide.42 Try changing your diet, balancing your blood sugar and identifying any food intolerances first, then look to acupuncture, shown to help in 80 per cent of cases, or herbs like the Ayurvedic herb guggul (Commiphora wightii).43

Reference 42a: Arch Dermatol, 2012; 148: 803–8 Ocular Adverse Effects of Systemic Treatment With Isotretinoin Meira Neudorfer, MD; Inbal Goldshtein, MSc; Orna Shamai-Lubovitz, MD; Gabriel Chodick, PhD; Yuval Dadon; Varda Shalev, MD

Reference 42b: Am J Ther, 2004; 11: 507–16 Polar hysteria: an expression of hypervitaminosis A. O’Donnell J.

Reference 43a: J Tradit Chin Med, 1993; 13: 187–8 Treatment of 86 cases of local neurodermatitis by electro-acupuncture (with needles inserted around diseased areas). Liu JX.

Reference 43b: J Dermatol, 1994; 21: 729–31 Nodulocystic acne: oral gugulipid versus tetracycline. Thappa DM, Dogra J.

The first source says that “Isotretinoin use may be associated with short-term ocular events, especially conjunctivitis, underscoring the importance of educating patients and caregivers about these potentially important AEs of the therapy.” In other words: always read the label and be mindful of the balance of risks and benefits. To spin “may be associated with short-term ocular events” as “can cause permanent damage to the cornea” is typical of WDDTY.

The second source discusses accutane’s similarity to vitamin A, and thus the possibility that it may lead to hypervitaminosis A (but of course no actual vitamin is bad, as because natural). It’s an interesting paper that specifically note that accutane is indicated only for severe recalcitrant nodular acne but is being prescribed for less serious cases. However, this applies almost exclusively in the US, where drug manufacturers can advertise direct to consumers. In the UK, doctors are much closer to following the actual indications, because parents and patients are much less likely to pester the doctor for the drug they just saw advertised on TV. The increase in suicide with accutane should also be weighed against the fact that acne itself may induce suicidal thoughts. Bottom line: ask your doctor. This is the kind of thing GPs are trained for.

The third source is in a journal dedicated to promoting “traditional” Chinese medicine – in fact largely an invention of Mao. Such journals have serious issues with publication bias. The combined weight of evidence is pretty clear: needling results in only placebo effects. Electroacupuncture may have similar effects to TENS, but traditional it is not. Chinese acupuncture uses bamboo needles – bamboo is a notoriously poor conductor of electricity,

The fourth source, from 1994, promotes gugulipid (guggul). There’s decent evidence this works, but (as with every effective treatment) it has side-effects, which WDDTY either haven’t seen or don’t care about because natural.

It can cause side effects such as stomach upset, headaches, nausea, vomiting, loose stools, diarrhea, belching, and hiccups. Guggul can also cause allergic reactions such as rash and itching. Guggul can also cause skin rash and itching that is not related to allergy […].

Hormone-sensitive condition such as breast cancer, uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, endometriosis, or uterine fibroids: Guggul might act like estrogen in the body. If you have any condition that might be made worse by exposure to estrogen, don’t use guggul.

Underactive or overactive thyroid (hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism): Guggul might interfere with treatment for these conditions. If you have a thyroid condition, don’t use guggul without your healthcare provider’s supervision.

So, quite a lot of problems there. And guess what? Thanks to assiduous lobbying by the supplement industry, you might well never find out about these.

Acne is a bugger. See your doctor for good evidence-based advice, and see a counsellor if you find the bullying of your peers to be distressing.

100 ways to live to 100: Think twice about these tests

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

Think twice about these tests

This is an area where WDDTY is more likely to be right, simply because there is a reasonable consensus that screening leads to overdiagnosis and false positives. However, WDDTY’s advice is based on prejudice and dogma. It is less complete and less well argued than the numerous evidence-based discussions of the pros and cons of various tests.

Our advice on avoiding unnecessary tests is this: read Dr. Margaret McCartney’s The Patient Paradox. This will help you to understand false positives and false negatives, and to ask intelligent and informed questions that will lead you to make a pragmatic choice over a particular test, rather than hysterical anti-medicine rejection of all tests however appropriate.

51 The PSA (prostatespecific antigen) blood test for prostate cancer

It produces false negatives a third of the time and has overdiagnosed more than one million men since its introduction in 1987.29 Unless you have an aggressive cancer, consider watchful waiting. Ditch statin drugs, which increase your risk of this cancer by one-and-a-half times, and reduce carbs, avoid red meat and eat a Mediterranean diet.

Reference 29: J Natl Cancer Inst, 2009; 101: 1325–9 Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. Welch HG, Albertsen PC.

PSA is a marker, it is useful in monitoring progression as part of “watchful waiting” (the standard of care for indolent prostate cancers) but its use as a screening test is controversial, not least because the “normal” level of PSA varies widely. From the Wall Street Journal:

Richard Ablin, a professor of pathology at University of Arizona College of Medicine, discovered the prostate-specific antigen in 1970, and for nearly as long, he has argued that it should not be used for routine screening.

So the fact that PSA screening is problematic is not only not something “doctors don’t tell you”, it’s something that the inventor of the test itself has been saying for decades, and which medical journals are confirming.

PSA screening has been discouraged in the UK since the 1990s.

WDDTY can never resist a dig at statins (we’ll review that later), or an opportunity to plug the mediterranean diet (presumably in a modified version that does not include pasta, breads or tomatoes, since these are all fingered as causing problems within this article as well as elsewhere).

52 Routine mammograms (unless cancer is suspected)

This blunderbuss approach, which uses X-rays to detect breast cancer, doesn’t see cancer at its earliest stages and fails to pick up aggressive tumours. For every woman whose cancer is correctly detected, 10 healthy women will go through unnecessary worry, further testing and even treatment before doctors realize they’ve been misled by a false-positive. Consider thermography instead.

So close! This was almost a correct piece of advice, and then they went and ruined it by promoting a quack diagnostic technique instead.

Breast thermography is, to put it bluntly, useless as a diagnostic tool. It’s dissected here by David Gorski, a surgical oncologist specialising in breast cancer. To quote the American Cancer Society:

Thermography has been around for many years, but studies have shown that it’s not an effective screening tool for finding breast cancer early. Although it has been promoted as helping detect breast cancer early, a 2012 research review found that thermography detected only a quarter of the breast cancers found by mammography. Thermography should not be used as a substitute for mammograms.

Oh, and mammograms do detect cancer, just not perfectly. As with any area of medicine, breast cancer staging and screening is a work in progress. There is a debate about what to do with DCIS, for example. There is certainly a debate about routine mammography and the ages at which it should be considered. Above all, our understanding of the nature of indolent disease is developing rapidly. It seems likely that as the population ages many more people are likely to die with cancer than die of cancer.

53 Blood pressure readings

Many factors can distort a BP reading by as much as 5 mmHg: acute exposure to cold, recent alcohol intake, incorrect arm position, an incorrect cuff size—and even the presence of the doctor, now so common that it’s called ‘white-coat’ hypertension. Blood pressure falls at night, and night-time blood pressure is considered the most accurate predictor of heart attack.30 Consider 24-hour blood-pressure monitoring, not the old-fashioned cuff.

Reference 30: Lancet. 2007 Oct 6;370(9594):1219-29. Prognostic accuracy of day versus night ambulatory blood pressure: a cohort study. Boggia J et. al.

Why don’t doctors tell you this? Oh, they do. A single high reading in the doctor’s surgery is never the trigger for intervention unless it’s very high. Normal range is 120/80 to 140/90, so the uncertainty of 5 mmHg is clinically insignificant – if your pressure is 200/100 this is not going to be down to the white coat effect.

Compare and contrast WDDTY’s advice with that from the National Institutes for Health.

54 Routine smear tests

Many doctors still offer women an annual smear test for cervical cancer—even though they’ve been told the test can do more harm than good. The test throws up many false positives—incorrectly ‘seeing’ abnormal tissue that triggers a series of further and more invasive tests, plus needless worry. Even the advises a smear test once every three for those aged over and once every five years for those between 30 and 65.31

Reference 31: Am J Prev Med, 2013; 45: 248–9 The times they (may) be a-changin’: too much screening is a health problem. Harris R, Sheridan S.

Routine smear tests are a curate’s egg. In women at high risk, they are likely to be warranted. In women at low risk, not so much. If your GP is not up on the current state of knowledge (and they should be), ask for a referral to a specialist gynaecological clinic.

The take-home message that must be reinforced here is not that screening is evil, but that a borderline positive smear is not a cause for worry, it is a prompt for further investigation only.

55 Routine dental X-rays

Your dentist keeps telling you it’s safer than an airplane flight, but dental X-rays could triple the risk of meningioma, a kind of brain tumour. Children who have a Panorex or full-mouth X-ray before the age of 10 run the greatest risk, and even bitewing X-rays increase risk. Regular exposure may also cause heart disease. Annual checkups should be urgently reconsidered, say Yale University researchers.32

Reference 32: Cancer, 2012; 118: 4530–7 Dental x-rays and risk of meningioma. Claus EB, Calvocoressi L, Bondy ML, Schildkraut JM, Wiemels JL, Wrensch M.

Actually we agree that you should avoid unnecessary X-rays, because unlike WDDTY we understand the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. X-rays are ionising radiation. 

But good dentists don’t do routine X-rays. They use them to diagnose and guide treatment. If your dentist recommends routine X-rays then consider changing your dentist.

If you want an example of gratuitous exposure to unnecessary X-rays, look to your local chiropractor.

56 CT (computed tomography) scans

This whole-body, three dimensional imaging system is one of the most sensitive early-warning detectors of cancer, internal bleeding, heart problems, stroke and neurological disorders, but the standard course of two or three CT scans is equivalent to the radiation levels of Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bombs;33 just one scan is equivalent to around 500 standard chest X-rays, reckons the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. Children who are scanned run a far higher risk of developing cancer.34 Ask for any other kind of imaging exam first.

Reference 33: N Engl J Med, 2007; 357: 2277–84 Computed Tomography — An Increasing  Source of Radiation Exposure David J. Brenner, Ph.D., D.Sc., and Eric J. Hall, D.Phil., D.Sc

Reference 34: Radiat Res, 2010; 174: 753–62 Thyroid cancer risk 40+ years after irradiation for an enlarged thymus: an update of the Hempelmann cohort. Adams MJ, et. al.

This is a rehash of a story in the December 2013 issue, “CT scans increase children’s cancer risk“. The second reference is puzzling as it refers to patients who had radiotherapy, not CT scans. The evidence for increased risk of cancers in children following CT scans is epidemiologically sound and does not rely on making inferences from unrelated research.

CT scans are used to rule out potentially life-threatening conditions, especially in children. Brain haemorrhage, for example. The sources are unanimous in supporting their diagnostic use and the fact that the benefits outweigh the risks, but equally unanimous in urging caution and ruling out other diagnostic tests first.

It should be pointed out that radiation increases risk, but does not inevitably produce cancer. Tsutomu YamaguchiW was exposed to radiation equivalent to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, having been caught in not one but both blasts. He died in 2010 aged 93. The Wikipedia article on hibakushaW (survivors of the atomic bombs) is interesting; the fact that the memorials are still being updated annually does indicate that being exposed to radiation is not a death sentence, however undesirable it might be.

The take-away message here is that it’s fine to challenge the diagnostic necessity of any test, but don’t rule out scans that reveal potentially fatal conditions just because of fear of some uncertain future consequence.

57 Routine prenatal ultrasound

The prenatal ‘miracle’, which uses high-frequency pulsed sound waves to image the fetus in the womb, gets it wrong so often that up to one in 23 women told by doctors they’ve miscarried may end up terminating a pregnancy. Scans see’ a miscarriage the pregnancy is viable, say researchers London and Belgium.35 Reserve this when something really wrong, and consider waiting before ‘completing’ termination if the test concludes you’ve miscarried.

Reference 35: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2011; 38: 503–9 Gestational sac and embryonic growth are not useful as criteria to define miscarriage: a multicenter observational study. Abdallah Y, et. al.

A second bite at the cherry for ultrasound (should we dock one from the tally of 100 things and make it 99 things?). Does the source support WDDTY’s conclusion? Only partly:

There is an overlap in MSD growth rates between viable and non-viable IPUV. No cut-off exists for MSD growth below which a viable pregnancy could be safely excluded. A cut-off value for CRL growth of 0.2 mm/day was always associated with miscarriage. These data suggest that criteria to diagnose miscarriage based on growth in MSD and CRL are potentially unsafe. However, finding an empty gestational sac on two scans more than 7 days apart is highly likely to indicate miscarriage, irrespective of growth.

In other words, there is a level at which ultrasound can detect a definitely non-viable pregnancy, but the margins are more blurred than was thought. This is in first trimester pregnancies, where only a few generations ago many women would not even know they were pregnant. Spontaneous abortionW is common in the early stages, often before the woman is even aware that she’s pregnant.

The source absolutely does not support a blanket rejection of obstetric ultrasonographyW, or even of early ultrasound where bleeding is present. However, the mandatory use of ultrasound introduced by anti-abortionists in some US states is unquestionably abusive and morally repugnant.

58 Peripheral bone densitometry

It’s the most commonly diagnostic tool for osteoporosis, and it measures usually the hip and spine, but bone mineral density (BMD) is not uniform throughout the skeleton. Although the WHO criteria for a healthy BMD apply only to the hip and spine, a wide range of ‘normal’ BMDs elsewhere in the body may be misdiagnosed as abnormal by these criteria. Diagnosing osteoporosis is still not an exact science, say researchers; you have a strong chance of being misclassified, especially when the test is done in those under 65.36

Reference 36: BMJ, 2000; 321: 396–8 The increasing use of peripheral bone densitometry (Editorial)

Differential diagnosis of osteoporosisW versus osteopeniaW is indeed a grey area, but it’s a distinction without a difference as both indicate a loss of bone density. DEXA scans can be perofrmed on central or peripheral bones, peripheral scans are easier and the machinery is smaller (and often portable).

Needless to say the BMJ article does not undermine the use of bone densitometry, but does question the use of a pragmatic epidemiological definition of osteoporosis, as the threshold for intervention. In other words, it may be valid to treat low-end osteoporosis as osteopenia – essentially using calcium and vitamin D as a first line of treatment before launching right in with bisphosphonatesW. This is what any good doctor would do anyway. But how will the doctor make the diagnostic call without a DEXA scan? Would you prefer a core DEXA, involving a trip to the radiology department of your nearest big hospital and a longer procedure with greater X-ray exposure, or a possibly clinic-based scan that will give a less accurate but probably still clinically useful answer?

As usual, WDDTY takes an absolutist stance that doesn’t help.

59 Biopsy

In a biopsy, a small bit of tissue is removed under local anaesthetic to diagnose a serious illness like cancer. Besides infection, puncturing nearby organs, and causing tears and bleeding, the greatest danger is that biopsies can inadvertently ‘seed’ or spread cancer. With breast biopsies, the risk of recurrent cancer from a ‘needle metastasis’ is about one in 15.37 Request PET (positron emission tomography) or MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) instead.

Reference 37: Acta Radiol Suppl. 2001 Dec;42(424):1-22. Aspects in mammographic screening. Detection, prediction, recurrence and prognosis. Thurfjell MG.

The relevant section of the abstract is:

Local recurrences in 303 nonpalpable breast cancers with preoperative localizations and breast conservation therapy were evaluated for needle-caused implant metastasis. A total of 214 percutaneous biopsies were performed. There were 33 local recurrences. Needle-caused seeding or implantation as based on the location of the recurrence in comparison to the needle path in the mammograms was suspected in 3/44 (7%) invasive cancers without radiotherapy.

This absolutely does not support the idea of rejecting biopsy. These instances of needle-caused seeding are primarily in women who had breast-conserving surgery (“lumpectomy”) for active cancers, and note that it’s more likely to happen when women opt not to have radiotherapy. In the absence of cancer, there are no seed cells.

The overall thrust of the article is actually a vindication of diagnostic mammography:

Screening mammograms comprising of 32 first round, 10 interval and 32 second round detected cancers and 46 normal were examined by an expert screener, a screening radiologist, a clinical radiologist and a computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) system. The expert screener, screening radiologist, clinical radiologist and the CAD detected 44, 41, 34 and 37 cancers, respectively, while their respective specificities were 80%, 83%, 100% and 22%. Later, with CAD prompting, the screening and the clinical radiologist detected 1 and 3 additional cancers each with unchanged specificities. Screening mammograms comprising 35 first round, 12 interval and 14 second round detected cancers and 89 normal findings were examined without and with previous mammograms by experienced screeners. Without previous mammograms, the screeners detected 40.3 cancers with a specificity of 87%. With previous mammograms, 37.7 cancers were detected with a 96% specificity.

Neither PET nor MRI can accurately diagnose whether a tumour is malignant or not. If your doctors recommend a biopsy, it’s because they think you are likely to have cancer. The utility of baseline mammograms is demonstrated, as is the importance of having a properly trained clinical radiologist review the films.

As to the issue of seeding, Prof. Bill Heald CBE, pioneer of the total mesorectal excisionW procedure for colorectal cancer, is a firm advocate of lavage to minimise seeding – he routinely flushed the abdominal cavity and port sites with copious amounts of dilute antiseptic.

Discouraging people from having a truly accurate differential diagnostic pathological test to differentiate the presence, type and possibly aggression of a cancer? I’d question the medical credentials of anyone giving such advice. If indeed they had any.

60 Computed tomography (CT) angiography

The use of intravenous dye and CT technology to provide an ‘inside view’ of the coronary arteries is fast replacing the exercise stress test done in doctors’ surgeries. It’s also doubling the rate of invasive cardiac procedures, including surgery, say Stanford University School of Medicine researchers.38 Ask to have the standard gym bike or treadmill stress test instead.

Reference 38: JAMA. 2011 Nov 16;306(19):2128-36. Association of coronary CT angiography or stress testing with subsequent utilization and spending among Medicare beneficiaries. Shreibati JB, Baker LC, Hlatky MA.

WDDTY advocate an older test because it finds fewer cases. Remind me again why that would be a valid criticism? Computed tomography angiographyW is a relatively new technique. As with any CT scan, there is exposure to ionising radiation. As with any CT scan, it will only be appropriate when the risks are outweighed by benefits. Rejecting a test on ideological grounds, as WDDTY do, is foolish.


100 ways to live to 100: Your healthy children

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

Your healthy children

It’s not clear how your children’s health could help you live to 100, though if you follow WDDTY’s anti-vaccine advice you certainly need them to be as healthy as possible to minimise the chance of death or permanent harm from vaccine preventable disease.

41 Get fit before you conceive

Work with a doctor experienced in preconception nutrition who will check your nutritional status and help you correct any deficiencies, hidden infections, heavy-metal toxic overload and the like, all of which can contribute to infertility and pregnancy loss. Contact Foresight for their complete programme of preconceptual care ( The organization reports a 90 per cent success rate of healthy babies born to the nearly 1,600 couples who completed the full Foresight programme, many with a previous history of lost pregnancy or infertility.

This is  a blatant sales pitch. Foresight’s website scores easily 8 ducks on the Quackometer – anything inspired by a “psychiatrist-with-vision” can’t score less!

The chances of anyone living a normal middle-class British lifestyle having “heavy metal toxic overload” are vanishingly small. Unless you ask a chelation quack like Dr. John Mansfield, a member of the WDDTY editorial panel. And most British women conceive without any special measures, so don’t throw your money down the drain until you’ve at least satisfied yourself you have a problem – and if that is the case, be sure to consult only a doctor who is registered and licensed to practice in the UK. The GMC has an online register which is a tad cumbersome but allows you to check for a name and verify that if, say, they qualified before 1976 at Guy’s, they are not licensed to practice in the UK.

In short: the heading is misleading. WDDTY are promoting quackery before conception. Avoid like the plague.

42 If you are pregnant, minimize your exposure to prenatal tests like ultrasound scans

Scans have been linked to low birth weights, delayed speech and dyslexia. Unless a problem is suspected, wait till after your baby is born to take its picture

“Scans have been linked” is classic WDDTY weasel words. Of course women with red flags for suspected problems will be referred for scans to see if the baby is developing normally. That doesn’t mean the scan has any effect on development.

Ultrasound is safe, cheap, and reassuring especially to the anxious primagravida. It can also pick up serious defects such as cleft lip and palate and prepare parents for informed choices at an early stage.

Some forms of diagnostics lead to many false positives and undesirable outcomes. Antenatal ultrasound is not one of these. It is an entirely reasonable check for developmental abnormalities, which is why virtually every doctor and midwife recommends it.

43 Breastfeed

Give your child this lifelong gift and breastfeed for as long as possible—at least one year, according to the WHO. In addition to providing the perfect food and the full complement of essential fatty acids, for your child, it also protects against allergies and helps improve vision and IQ. Resist the suggestions of experts to add supplemental feeds unless something is clearly wrong. The baby is usually getting enough if allowed to feed on demand.

Can anybody name the doctors who “don’t tell you” this? It’s entirely mainstream. Unfortunately, it is also so deeply embedded in the middle-class psyche that women who find they can’t breastfeed, for whatever reason, may feel bullied and inadequate (warning: Daily Mail). This is not just tabloid hysteria.

44 Get informed about vaccination

There’s no such thing as a totally safe vaccine; official organizations like the US National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tacitly acknowledge that all vaccines have the potential to kill or cause serious harm. Assess every last jab with the following questions: How necessary is this vaccine? How effective? How safe? Especially question vaccinations against illnesses that are rare or generally not life-threatening in healthy, well-nourished children. This includes the MMR (measles–mumps–rubella), cervical cancer, Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b) and meningitis C vaccines.

Informed consent is good, as long as the information is reliable. WDDTY’s information on vaccines is grossly unreliable. Its claims for harm are massively inflated, its anti-vaccination agenda was established from the very outset and no story about vaccines has ever been published in any edition of WDDTY, as far as we can tell, which is accurate, positive, or correctly reflects the balance of risk and harm. A recent story claimed that “Andrew Wakefield was right”. He wasn’t. A story in this very issue repeated the vicious anti-vaccine lie that HPV vaccine has seriously harmed 1,700 girls. It hasn’t.

The best source for accurate information about vaccines is, and always has been, your family doctor. The implication that doctors claim vaccines are 100% safe or 100% effective is false, official documents have never supported this. they are, however, extremely safe and at least very effective.

Measles, pertussis (whooping-cough), Hib and other vaccine-preventable disease are killers. The anti-vaccine agenda is denialism at its most selfish, relying on others taking the tiny risk to provide the herd immunity that allows anti-vaccinationists to claim that vaccine preventable diseases are rare anyway.

45 Suspect allergies first

If your child has any chronic problems like earache, eczema, bowel problems or hyperactivity, suspect food/chemical allergies, and get them identified and treated.

Allergies are more common and more diverse than many parents think, and less common and less diverse than WDDTY would have you believe. If your child has a chronic health problem there are three very important things to remember:

  1. Intolerance is not allergy.
  2. Many children grow out of both intolerance and allergy.
  3. Avoid any allergy diagnostic services that claim to find yeast overgrowth, leaky gut and the like, and instead ask your GP for a referral to the local NHS allergy clinic.

Allergies, and chronic disease generally, are fertile hunting ground for quacks. Just look at the back pages of WDDTY.

46 Avoid plastic toys containing phthalates

These chemicals have clear evidence of causing ‘feminization’ and abnormal gonadal development in boys.

So all the boys who have ever played with Action Man are eunuchs? Get real. But don’t worry, the problematic pthalates have been banned from toys since the end of last century.

47 Be wary of giving your child unnecessary chemicals and drugs like antibiotics for benign conditions

Antibiotics have been linked to childhood diabetes; cold and flu medications can be deadly in small children; and steroids are responsible for many paediatric deaths. Avoid medications like salbuterol for asthma—it doesn’t work and can make the condition worse.

Dangerous nonsense. The basis on which WDDTY claims that cold medications are deadly is primarily evidence that you should only use the dose and type of medicine indicated for a child of the correct age; the adverse effects tend to be overdoses from giving infants doses designed for older children or even adults. Accidental and deliberate overdoses are both included.

WDDTY’s long-standing agenda against antibiotics is more puzzling: as a class of drugs, antibiotics have saved more lives than any other except perhaps vaccines. Oh, wait…

Past stories indicate that WDDTY believe you should allow your children to suffer ruptured eardrums rather than give them antibiotics for ear infections. Because natural. This may qualify as child abuse.

48 Avoid Ritalin and other drugs for hyperactivity

They can increase cardiovascular risk and trigger new psychiatric symptoms plus sudden death. If your kids are hyperactive, suspect sugar or processed foods. Artificial colours like tartrazine used in juice drinks or ‘squashes’ and salicylate foods can all cause hyperactivity and attention deficit.

Ritalin was never as widely used in the UK as in the US (where drugs are marketed direct to patients). NICE maintains a useful database of evidence. And this is what an evidence-based discussion might look like. Do you see how it includes both risks and benefits, unlike WDDTY?

In the UK, Ritalin is used only for serious cases, not for self-diagnosed or questionable diagnoses. As usual, it’s safe to say that your doctor is probably better informed on the risk / benefit balance for your child than some shrill anti-medicine harridan.

49 Avoid toothpastes with fluoride, and filter your water if it’s fluoridated

High levels of fluoride in drinking water can dramatically lower IQ in children, say Harvard scientists—enough to cause learning difficulties in children who already have lowish IQ.26

Reference 26: Environ Health Perspect, 2012; 120: 1362–8  Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P.

And by high levels, they mean levels dramatically above the safe limits in drinking water. No water company adds these levels of fluoride.

It’s astonishing that as we approach the half-centenary of Dr. Strangelove, cranks are still repeating Major T. J. “King” Kong’s fulmination against fluoridation of water. The provable effect is a reduction in dental caries. And that’s it.

As always in medicine, anything given to healthy patients is subject to much more scrutiny than a drug given to the sick. Vaccines are another example. The evidence of safety has to be much more robust than for , say, a new antibiotic, because the risks of side-effects are offset only by potential benefits. Fluoridation of water (and toothpaste) has been studied intensely for a long time. There is no credible evidence of harm. Fluoridation is safe.

There is no credible reason at all to avoid fluoridated toothpaste. It might be wise not to snack on it, though.

50 Throw kids outdoors

Most infants and toddlers have low levels of vitamin D, some with levels below those needed to maintain and grow healthy bones.27 One school of thought maintains that by ‘protecting’ children against exposure to dirt and germs, we are inadvertently destroying their immune system’s ability to respond appropriately to infection and other stimuli. Diseases like eczema are far less prevalent in children who live in less sanitized conditions like farms and rural communities.28

Reference 27: Pediatrics, 2010; 125: 627–32 Adherence to vitamin D recommendations among US infants. Perrine CG, Sharma AJ, Jefferds ME, Serdula MK, Scanlon KS.

Reference 28: Clin Exp Allergy, 1999; 29: 28–34 Prevalence of hay fever and allergic sensitization in farmer’s children and their peers living in the same rural community. SCARPOL team. Swiss Study on Childhood Allergy and Respiratory Symptoms with Respect to Air Pollution. Braun-Fahrländer C, Gassner M, Grize L, Neu U, Sennhauser FH, Varonier HS, Vuille JC, Wüthrich B.

The idea that being in the outdoors is good for you is plausible and uncontroversial. WDDTY’s obsession with vitamin D, the idea that sunlight is “natural” and so “safe”, and their bizarre agenda against sunscreen, combine to make nonsense out of sense.

Australia has one of the best developed networks for surveillance of skin cancer. Guess what? Rural Victorians (those who get “thrown outdoors”) are 24% more likely to be diagnosed with melanoma.

So even when WDDTY advice has “truthinessW”, it turns out to be questionable and potentially dangerous, because WDDTY cares only about what WDDTY cares about, whereas medical advice usually cares about everything.

Enhanced by Zemanta

100 ways to live to 100: Your healthy house

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

Your healthy house

This section is the worst supported, the most agenda-driven, the most counter-factual and the least referenced. It’s also actively, rather than passively, harmful. Recommending homeopathy instead of antibiotics is stupid but it is no worse than not treating the condition. Advocates for electrosensitivity not only don’t fix the cause of the illness, they are the cause.

Oddly, as @LennyLaw points out, they have omitted a rather important factor that is of particular relevance to the WDDTY core demographic (TQ9ers): radon. Moving away from the South-West, or at least testing for radon and if necessary installing radon extraction equipment, is far more likely to be of benefit than guarding against non-existent electrosensitivity.

But then, radon is natural. In August 2007 (apparently the last time  they mentioned radon), WDDTY were promoting the evil of mobile phone radiation as opposed to:

…frequencies similar to those found in the earth’s natural background radiation, which is being emitted from radon gas, lightning, the sun or the earth’s own magnetic field. Also, over the course of our human
evolution, our bodies have developed defence mechanisms against those natural frequencies.

Yes, you read that correctly. Radon is apparently not a problem because natural. Something else doctors don’t tell you.

26 Choose a home away from power lines, electrical meters and substations, and railway lines if you can

Studies show an elevated risk of leukaemia in children who live and sleep near power lines. If in doubt, measure the EMFs in your home or have independent monitoring done. Visit or check out WDDTY’s Electrosmog Doc’s column.

The claim that power lines cause any demonstrable health effect is soundly rejected by an immense body of research. As the Health Physics Society note:

In conclusion, there are no known health risks that have been conclusively demonstrated to be caused by living near high-voltage power lines. But science is unable to prove a negative, including whether low-level EMFs are completely risk free. Most scientists believe that exposure to the low-level EMFs near power lines is safe, but some scientists continue research to look for possible health risks associated with these fields. If there are any risks such as cancer associated with living near power lines, then it is clear that those risks are small.

This is an important point: science can never prove a negative, so no study finding demonstrating an effect, however weak, however likely to be coincidental, can ever be truly refuted. This is cynically exploited by fearmongers such as Powerwatch and “WDDTY’s electrosmog doc” to build a subculture of paranoia and self-reinforcing anecdotes. More on this later.

Some studies do indeed show a weak positive correlation between childhood leukaemia and power lines. Others show the opposite. There is no credible evidence of adult cancers being caused by this. An effect on only one cancer in only one age group seems unlikely to be anything but chance.

27 Cook with electricity

Nitrogen dioxide, spewed out by gas cookers and gas and oil-burning boilers, often stays concentrated in the home particularly in this age of double glazing, and is implicated in arthritis, asthma and other allergies. One American study concluded that gas cookers generate concentrations of nitrogen dioxide of 200–400 ppb (parts per billion); this means the average kitchen with a gas cooker has an atmosphere comparable to levels of pollution usually accompanied by government health warnings. Also consider moving your gas boiler outdoors.

There are four mains sources of risk in gas cooking, three of which WDDTY missed entirely:  fire, NOx, CO and microparticulates (<100nm). Of these, particulates applies roughly equally to electric cooking and fire to a lesser degree. So of the four risks, one of which is similar with electricity and one is lesser but still present, they missed three, and proposed the most expensive solution (changing cookers) rather than the cheapest (decent extraction).

In fact, a modern gas oven (with no pilot light) will emit very little CO or NOx and a decent extraction system (as fitted in most kitchens these days) will fix it. 

Here’s a review in Occupational and Environmental Medicine from 2001:

Very high concentrations of oxides of nitrogen may also be generated by gas cooking, and with no extraction and poor ventilation, may reach concentrations at which adverse health effects may be expected. Although respiratory effects of exposure to NOx might be anticipated, recent epidemiology suggests that cardiac effects cannot be excluded, and further investigation of this is desirable.

Again, the message is pretty clear: ensure your kitchen has efficient ventilation, and your gas appliances are serviced regularly. Or opt instead for the much more expensive option of changing your cooker, and forget about the particulates because WDDTY chose not to think about them.

Presumably you’re supposed to knit your own electricity, since you live where there are no power lines.

I’m not sure how well this plays with WDDTY’s core demographic, who are solidly in the Aga target market. No doubt WDDTY’s raw food “expert” will tell you not to bother cooking at all.

28 Minimize your exposure to volatile organic compounds

Derived from petrochemicals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like benzene and formaldehyde can be found in plywood, particleboard (chipboard), wood panelling, insulation, ordinary house paint and adhesives. All ‘outgas’ a stew of toxic vapours at room temperature, causing eye and respiratory irritation, memory impairment and possibly even cancer. Choose eco-friendly paints and real wood over MDF and other ‘wood compounds’. Blast VOCs out by turning the heat up to 100 degrees F (38 degrees C) and opening the windows. Repeat for two or three days.

WDDTY cite no source for this, and I can find no credible source advocating it.

Most outgassing is during the first few weeks after installation, and modern houses may be force-ventilated during this period for exactly that reason. There are various types of insulation, but all have either inherent vapours or are treated to prevent rot, and the treatments have vapours. This is a great reason to ensure the house for a while after treatment. Choosing a random temperature that your heating system probably can’t achieve, so will require large-scale space heating, is irrational.

Perhaps as well as eating your food raw you’re supposed to live in a cold house.

29 Check your water-supply pipes

Although lead pipes have been banned since the 1970s, most of the water in Britain still runs through rickety old Victorian pipes, and the drinking water for one in 10 British people has a lead content far in excess of World Health Organization (WHO) standards. Lead is known to cause brain damage and lower the IQ of children chronically exposed.

Again no source is cited, and no credible source comes readily to mind for the 10% figure or for the risks of lead from legacy mains supply infrastructure. For a house to have lead pipes and the householder not to know, it must have been built before 1970 and not modernised since then – and the householder probably has to have been living there since before 1970, since surveyors note lead piping as part of the normal building survey. If you are concerned about your domestic water you can have it tested free of charge by your water company.

Hard water areas even where lead pipes are still in place, have lower lead levels due to the limescale buildup on pipes. The claim that “most of the water in Britain” still runs through “rickety old Victorian pipes” is questionable. Leaving aside the fact that large chunks of British housing did not even exist in the Victorian era, including whole towns and cities, the largest network of Victorian pipes was Thames Water’s, and they have been replacing them for much of the last decade to mitigate leaks.

The pipes will not necessarily have been lead, either. Thames Water describe their legacy infrastructure as “Victorian cast iron pipes”, but if (like Lynne McTaggart) you grew up in the US, you might have a valid concern: the lead industry mounted a huge campaign in the US to promote lead for municipal supplies despite its higher cost over cast iron, and the cleanup from this is still in progress. I found no obvious evidence of parallel campaigns in the UK.

So this looks like advice based on the assumption that the UK situation is the same as that in the US. It isn’t.

30 Consider wood floors and area rugs

Carpets in homes trap more allergens, are doused with dangerous pesticides and outgas more chemicals than do uncarpeted floors.

Again, no source is cited. If you do follow this advice remember that most laminate flooring is on an MDF back, which WDDTY also tell you causes a problem. In fact, no such problem exists: the gases reduce exponentially over time. There’s also no evidence that a rug is any different from a carpet in this respect.

It might be wise not to carpet your new baby’s room with brand new white shag pile.

Washing the puke out is a bugger.

31 Minimize your exposure to indoor EMFs

Keep the TV and computer screens at a reasonable distance. Place beds and chairs six to eight feet away from domestic sources of EMFs like electricity meters and TVs, and keep bedside electrical or battery-operated appliances at least two feet from your head. Don’t keep electric blankets on while you sleep, and also unplug all electrical devices in your bedroom at night (like TVs, telephones and computers).

This is a mix of archaic advice and paranoid nonsense. In the old days of cathode ray tubes, it made good sense to sit a decent distance form the screen (both from the point of view of avoiding exposure to low-level ionising radiation, and because it minimised perception of flicker. With modern LCD screens, this is unnecessary.

There is no credible evidence at all of ill effects from battery appliances. There are literally no sources other than paranoid EMF/electrosensitivity sites promoting this, but again, more below.

32 Make sure all family members use computers safely

If you’re a man, don’t use Wi-Fi with the computer in your lap as it may adversely affect your sperm and fertility.21 technology, and set up a network for your household computer using the electrical system.

Reference 21: Fertil Steril. 2012 Jan;97(1):39-45.e2. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Avendaño C, Mata A, Sanchez Sarmiento CA, Doncel GF.

As usual with such studies, the Wi-Fi element is not separated. The most likely cause is heating, well know to affect sperm. No obvious control for this is included in the paper.

It’s now time to wrap up the credible evidence for adverse systemic effects from Wi-Fi usage around the home:


But it’s much worse than that. The Wi-Fi paranoids, promoting “electrosmog” and “electrosensitivity” are not just not helping, they are actually the cause of the problem.

Studies on so-called “wind farm syndrome”, Wi-Fi issues and the like, consistently find that they exist only where they are talked about in the media. There is no known physical way they could happen, no credible objective evidence linking the symptoms to the purported cause, but a strong evidence base for the “noceboW effect”, whereby the symptoms are caused not by the purported source but by the expectation that they will be caused by it.

WDDTY is playing a part in actively making people sick.

33 Choose safer household cleaning products

Most ordinary cleaners contain a cocktail of chemicals toxic to people and plant life. Choose cleansers free of sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS), phenols, formaldehyde, naphthalene and other widely used chemicals. Avoid air fresheners, which are just chemical cocktails. Ditto for materials impregnated with flame retardants.

You should definitely avoid anything made from chemicals. Oh, wait, you can’t: everything is made of chemicals, by definition.

Definitely avoid cocktails of chemicals though. Use only the pure elements. Oh, wait, that’s utterly impractical and ridiculous.

Seriously, there are all kinds of reasons for handling cleaning agents with care (and absolutely never consuming them as a miracle cure), but used in accordance with the instructions, they are safer than the consequences of not using them. Bleach is effective in killing bacteria and preventing infections.

Avoid air fresheners? Well, yes, unless you want your home to smell like a cheap minicab.

But avoid flame retardants? There are no words to describe how dangerously stupid this would be. Every year in the UK there are nearly 60,000 house fires and 500 people die. The number of cases of people provably killed by flame-retardants in furniture and soft furnishings is, as best I can establish, zero.  That’s why it is illegal to sell some products in the UK unless they are treated with flame retardant.

34 Watch out for lead in house paint

House paint containing lead is largely banned in the UK and US, but could be present in older houses. Leaded paint is an often ignored source of lead in the blood and the greatest source of lead poisoning in children.

A telling point: yes, lead paint has been banned since the 60s, but it is still the leading source of lead poisoning ,even though WDDTY want you to believe that 10% of UK houses have dangerous levels of lead in their water.

Even WDDTY can’t be wrong all the time!

35 Clean up your ‘dirty electricity’

Surges of high-frequency voltages or EM radiation in 50–60 Hz power lines can cause a variety of disorders like asthma, multiple sclerosis, tinnitus and electrical hypersensitivity; all improve when exposure is reduced.22 Buy a Graham–Stetzer (GS) filter (, which is specially designed to clean up power from inside and out by shorting out highfrequency

Reference 22: Electromagn Biol Med, 2006; 25: 259–68 Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Havas M.

This is complete nonsense. There is no proven link between high frequency transients and these conditions, the Stetzer claims in WDDTY are misleading and unsubstantiated. The study cited is unblinded and refers to a condition with cyclic symptoms.

Once again WDDTY are causing a problem not fixing it. And they are doing so on the say-so of a columnist whose entire business is selling the products to “cure” the problem he purports to diagnose.

It’s a bit like sending someone to Bernie Madoff for advice on clearing their debts.

Addendum: Thanks @PencilBloke for pointing out that this is also mutually exclusive with point 32 – any system that effectively filters high frequency transients from your mains supply will also ground out the superposed high frequency signals used by ethernet over power. On the whole you’re probably better off with a steam-powered difference engineW.

36 Choose safer cosmetics

Perfumes and cosmetics contain a witch’s brew of carcinogens, mutagens, preservatives and toxic heavy metals. New evidence shows makeup and cosmetics cadmium play a key development of aggressive often fatal breast cancer.23 Encourage all the women and preteen and teenage girls in your family to use non-toxic makeup and nail polish.

Reference 23:  PLoS ONE, 2013; 8: e72639 Chronic Cadmium Exposure Stimulates SDF-1 Expression in an ERα Dependent Manner, Esmeralda Ponce, Natalie B. Aquino, Maggie C. Louie.

Why use any form of makeup or nail polish? Seriously? Needless to say the source doesn’t mention cosmetics as a source of cadmium, so even when WDDTY give what would appear to be simple and reasonable advice, they still get it wrong!

37 Choose cars that run on petrol or electricity

Diesel cars may release less carbon dioxide, but they higher levels of particulate matter, VOCs and nitrous oxide—all harmful to human health and responsible for nearly three-quarters of toxic air pollution. The Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) has now labelled diesel exhaust a ‘likely’ carcinogen.24

Reference 24a: Environ Health Perspect, 2002; 110: A458–64 NIEHS News Rising from the Ashes: NIEHS Awards Post-WTC Grants, E Dooley

Reference 24b: Lancet Oncol, 2002; 3: 581 Clear skies not so clean

WDDTY have apparently never heard of diesel particulate filters, which have become ubiquitous since these two (old) publications. Actually of course the environmentally responsible choice is to walk, cycle and use public transport as much as possible, but this is unlikely to go down well with an audience which is likely to be interspersing pages of WDDTY with discussions of whether the BMW or the Volvo is safer for taking Tarquin and Jocasta to the Montessori nursery.

The issue for the driver is not what goes out of the tail pipe, but what’s present in the cabin. Cabin air quality is no worse in diesel cars, and modern diesels with emission controls are much less dirty than older cars anyway. The major source of exposure to diesel fumes is likely to be sitting in heavy traffic, regardless of what powers your own car.

38 Use natural pesticides

The weed killers and insecticides we spray all around our gardens can cause cancer—especially leukaemia in children, brain tumours and prostate cancer—as well as birth defects, arterial damage and other disorders.25 Use eco-pesticides and natural pest prevention methods.

Reference 25: Institute of Science in Society, ISIS Report 06/10/10

ISIS is not a particularly reliable source. It is committed to campaigning against biotechnology. The linked source includes an exhortation to “Ban GMOs Now“, not a hallmark of a neutral source.

There’s no doubt that pesticides can cause health damage. The evidence that they do so when used prudently on non-food plants is slim to none, and the evidence of any significant effect even from use on food plants is pretty weak, provided the levels are as per the directions.

In the end, the balance between higher yields and less pesticide is one on which reasonable people can (and do) differ. We recommend you take your sustainable gardening advice from Bob FlowerdewW rather than Lynne McTaggart.

39 Choose safer personal-care products

Avoid shampoos and toiletries using TEA (triethanolamine), DEA (diethanolamine) and products with excessive perfumes, nanotechnology and hair dye (which contains resorcinol and p-phenylenediamine, or PPD, both linked to allergies, cancer and sudden death).

We would go further. Avoid pretty much any product sold on TV by fake scientists wearing white coats and using sciencey-sounding bollocks to sell overpriced junk. Especially if they talk about “nourishing” your hair: hair cells are dead, you might as well attempt to bring roadkill back to life by “nourishing” it.

However, WDDTY cite no sources for their particular selection of things to avoid. So it’s opinion, based on a well-established agenda and well-established lack of good critical judgement.

40 Limit your mobile phone use

Some 200 studies point to health hazards like brain tumours and infertility that may be due to long-term mobile-phone use, especially among children. An Italian court recently found a direct causal link between extensive mobile phone use and brain tumours Keep your mobile phone an arm lengths’ away when not in use, says electrosmog expert Guy Hudson, and text rather than talk whenever you can.

The number of studies pointing to a possible relationship is irrelevant, because the scientific consensus is that there is no solid evidence of a causal relationship, and such a relationship would be unexpected as mobile phones do not emit ionising radiation. It’s no surprise that electrosmog believers like Hudson advise against mobile use, but his opinion is known to be misleading (see above).

For credible information on mobile phones and cancer risks see Cancer Research UK, the World Health Organisation, the National Cancer Institute and other reputable sources.

The consensus of these sites is clear, and we covered it in Talking on your mobile phone 16 minutes a day triggers cancer, and the Mayo Clinic sums it up nicely:

For now, no one knows if cellphones are capable of causing cancer. Although long-term studies are ongoing, to date there’s no convincing evidence that cellphone use increases the risk of cancer. If you’re concerned about the possible link between cellphones and cancer, consider limiting your use of cellphones — or use a speaker or hands-free device that places the cellphone antenna, which is typically in the cellphone itself, away from your head.

Who to believe? A man who sells you products to supposedly make your “dirty electricity” clean, or prestigious cancer research institutes and international public health bodies?

Errata and updates:

  • Item 27 updated 25/12/2013 thanks to a tip from @ogoffan

100 ways to live to 100: Your best supplements

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

Your best supplements

Supplements are the “gateway drug” of the SCAM industry. They skirt the boundaries of legitimacy, alluding to incredible claims that are never explicitly made in the adverts – relying instead on extraordinary testimonials and sciencey-sounding bullshit in alternative magazines like WDDTY. Most of the WDDTY editorial panel appear to profit from selling supplements, and this is also a profitable sideline for homeopaths, chiropractors and other quacks.

Unless you live on a farm, grow all your own organic vegetables and have access to free-range meat, it’s almost certain you have vitamin deficiencies even on the best of diets. Ideally, get yourself tested by a knowledgeable nutritionist to determine which nutrients you need or aren’t getting from your food, and customize your supplement programme accordingly.

This is a blatant sales pitch. There is no good evidence that organic produce is significantly more nutritious than equivalent intensively farmed produce, there is a robust consensus that most people with a healthy balanced diet do not need supplements, and SCAM propagandists are in total denial regarding the rather obvious fact that routine supplementation is medication by any definition, and many of the largest supplement manufacturers are also pharmaceutical companies.

Whatever your political slant, you’ll find an ideologically consonant source telling you that supplements are a waste of money. Daily Mirror, Guardian, Telegraph,  Huffington Post, even the Daily Mail. The claim that the human body has evolved such that even the highly nutritious and enriched modern diet is routinely deficient in large numbers of essential nutrients is implausible, and the promotion of this idea is evidence of the propaganda machine that underpins the immensely profitable supplement industry.

And if your diet is deficient in essential nutrients, wouldn’t the prudent thing be to fix your diet?

The very last person you should consult is a “nutritionist”. Has the public learned nothing from Gillian McKeithW, the noted celebrity copromnancer and holder, like Ben GoldacreW’s cat, of a worthless fake “doctorate” form a worthless fake “health college”? Nutritionists are unregulated, may be untrained or (worse) trained in batshit crazy doctrines with no basis in reality, and their main source of income may well be selling the very supplements they recommend.

21 Choose a good quality multivitamin/mineral supplement

Choose a supplement from a reputable brand. If you can’t find one to your liking, take the nutrients individually.

What constitutes a reputable brand? NBTY, formerly Nature’s Bounty, is a $3bn corporate conglomerate; it owns Holland & Barrett and is owned in turn by the Carlyle GroupW. Centrum is owned by Pfizer. Seven Seas is owned by Merck.

22 Make sure you’re getting enough vitamin D

About a third of the general population is vitamin D-deficient. The vitamin offers natural protection against most cancers and heart disease, and can also boost immunity and vascular function. People who regularly supplement with vitamin D increase their longevity by 7 per cent. The body naturally produces it when exposed to sunlight—just 5 to 15 minutes of sunshine a day between 10am and 3pm, without sunscreen, is about enough to do the job.20 Otherwise, supplement with 600–1,000 IU vitamin D/day (400–1,000 IU/ day for those aged 18 and under).

Reference 20: Am J Clin Nutr, 2004; 80: 1678S–88S  Sunlight and vitamin D for bone health and prevention of autoimmune diseases, cancers, and cardiovascular disease. Holick MF.

Vitamin D is the new vitamin C. The same inflated claims, the same mega dosage recommendations from the same industry lobby groups (e.g. the “Vitamin D council”).

The evidence that adequate vitamin D is important, is pretty solid. The evidence that most people are deficient, not so much. For example, it has been found that the apparent deficiency of vitamin D in African-Americans is an artifact of an evolutionary adaptation; the amount of bioavailable vitamin D is much higher than blood tests suggested.

It is likely that modest supplementation would benefit older people, especially postmenopausal women, though there are potential disbenefits and  some of the claims are shown to be false.

More research is needed. The supplement industry instead spends more money on marketing.

23 Make antioxidants the mainstay of your supplement programme

To minimize damage from free radicals, the toxic byproducts of your body’s metabolism, take adequate daily levels of vitamin A (up to 25,000 IU as beta-carotene or 10,000 IU as retinol), 1–3 g of vitamin E (tocotrienols, up to 600 IU), zinc (10–50 mg), selenium (200 mcg) and vitamin C (1–3 g). And take a good B-complex supplement containing at least 50 mg of thiamine and riboflavin, and 50 mcg of B12.

It’s astonishing that the human race has evolved a metabolism that s incapable of surviving without industrially refined supplements, especially since the availability of these supplements only goes back two or three generations.

Before necking bottles of beta-CaroteneW, it’s as well to be aware that it may increase the risk of prostate cancer, intracerebral hemorrhage, and cardiovascular and total mortality in people who smoke cigarettes or have a history of high-level exposure to asbestos (source).

Once again, a normal healthy balanced diet should contain all the nutrients you need unless you are assessed as deficient by a competent medical professional (i.e. not a nutritionist).

24 Don’t forget magnesium (200–400 g/day) and chromium (100 mcg/day)

According to a large-scale study by the renowned British lab testing service Biolab (see #15), people become deficient in both minerals as they age, and both are necessary for heart health. Magnesium is also essential for bone health and more absorbable than calcium supplements.

Biolab is mainly “renowned” as a lab which offers dodgy diagnostics alongside proper ones and refers people to half the editorial board of WDDTY for treatment of the non-existent conditions they thus diagnose.

NHS Choices seems to think that magnesium and chromium are both widely present in the diet, with no supplementation necessary. The difference may be explained by the fact that NHS Choices is not selling diagnostic tests to allow its referred physicians to profit by selling you the supplement. But that would be conspiracist thinking, and we should probably leave that to WDDTY.

25 Take good-guy bacteria

Invest in a quality probiotic, which includes lactobacilli, bifidobacteria, Saccharomyces boulardii and non-disease causing strains of Escherichia coli and streptococci.

I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that.

Probiotics have been tested on a long list of diseases and conditions, and it appears that a scientific consensus is approaching for the use of certain probiotics for lactose intolerance and rotavirus diarrhea. Claims related to these benefits may be the first to be accepted in many jurisdictions. Before other claims are approved, manufacturers will have to invest considerable time and money to obtain data to show the efficacy and safety of their probiotic product. The data and documentation required to obtain a label health claim will be different in different jurisdictions because of differences in legislation. These discrepancies will add to the challenges faced by probiotics producers and consumers. – J. Nutr. June 2008 vol. 138 no. 6 1250S-1254S The Evidence to Support Health Claims for Probiotics

That’s probably why the Mayo Clinic says that “You don’t necessarily need probiotics — a type of “good” bacteria — to be healthy”.

The probiotic industry is also huge. Major manufacturers are Danone (a multi-billion-Euro French multinational) and the Japanese Yakult corporation. Yakult submitted a request for marketing authorisation, the result of which was:

The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota and maintenance of the upper respiratory tract defence against pathogens by maintaining immune defences.

Still, at least Yakult is actually paying for some research, albeit that it has precisely the same sources of bias as any other industry funded research, and still doesn’t support the claims they want to make.

100 ways to live to 100: Your healthy digestion

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

Your healthy digestion

11 Cut down or avoid eating wheat

Lots of people can’t tolerate this relatively new food in the human diet, particularly as it’s been so genetically tampered with. Each grain contains wheat-germ agglutinin (WGA); in small quantities it can inhibit nerve growth factor, which is vital for healthy neurons.8 WGA can disrupt endocrine function,

causing rheumatoid arthritis, ulcers, insulin resistance, and kidney and digestive problems;9 it can also bring about cell death10 and chronic inflammatory conditions. Switch to carbs like millet, buckwheat, quinoa, rice and corn.

Reference 8: Scand J Gastroenterol, 2010; 45: 1197–202; Positive serum antigliadin antibodies without celiac disease in the elderly population: does it matter? Ruuskanen A, Kaukinen K, Collin P, Huhtala H, Valve R, Mäki M, Luostarinen L.

Reference 9: BMJ, 1999; 318: 1023–4 Do dietary lectins cause disease? David L J Freed

Reference 10: Toxicol In Vitro, 2004; 18: 821–7 Studies on the joint cytotoxicity of Wheat Germ Agglutinin and monensin. Dalla Pellegrina C, et. al.

Those references don’t support the overall claims, of course. The first finds that “Although AGA positivity is of clinical relevance only in a subset of elderly people, it seems to be related to rheumatoid arthritis and depression, both conditions linked to celiac disease”. This is testable using tTG antibody testing. Valid, worth pursuing, narrowly applicable as the summary suggests. The second says “The evidence is suggestive—and raises interesting possibilities for treatment”, again valid but speculative, and if we don’t have something firmer than speculative nearly 15 years later, perhaps it’s not that significant.

The third reference is a corker. It suggests that eating wheat could treat cancer – the self-same apoptosis that is promoted by some of their quack advertisers. But of course that would never do, wheat is a baddie not a goodie, so it’s spun as “causing cell death”.

There are at least a couple of other problems with the section itself, in addition to the sources not saying what WDDTY claims for them.

First, wheat is an excellent source of essential dietary fibre, while quinoa is ethically and environmentally dubious. Second, wheat intolerance is massively less common than rancid quack tomes such as Wheat Belly would have you believe. Coeliac is the best known and is relatively common – up to 1% of the UK population – but that can be objectively tested, and those with genuine wheat intolerance do not have coeliac.

It’s unlikely that as many as 5% of people have wheat intolerance.

Wheat is the bête noire of many a quack nutritionist, but solid evidence to support this status is lacking. Intolerance and allergy is more common in children than in adults (children often outgrow it), and it introduces non-trivial restrictions on diet.

Bottom line: do not self-diagnose as allergic or sensitive to anything, and don’t allow anyone else to diagnose you either unless they are a fully trained and qualified dietician or doctor. Remember, even prominent TV “nutritionists” can turn out to have bought their worthless degrees off the internet.

12 Dump homogenized or pasteurized lowfat dairy

People who consume large quantities of dairy products have higher levels of circulating insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), linked to an increased risk of numerous cancers.11 Men with the highest IGF-1 levels quadruple their chances of getting prostate cancer with low-fat milk, which strips away the anticancer protective effects of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA).12

Reference 11: Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov, 2012; 7: 14–30 Insulin-like growth factor: current concepts and new developments in cancer therapy. King ER, Wong KK.

Reference 12a: Science, 1998; 279: 563–6 Plasma insulin-like growth factor-I and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, Gann PH, Ma J, Wilkinson P, Hennekens CH, Pollak M.

Reference 12b: Am J Clin Nutr, 2005; 81: 1147–54 Dairy, calcium, and vitamin D intakes and prostate cancer risk in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study cohort. Tseng M, Breslow RA, Graubard BI, Ziegler RG.

This is a rehash of WDDTY’s “is dairy cancer food”. We checked that question and found that the answer is probably “no”, and the sources WDDTY use to support it, generally don’t support it and occasionally say pretty much the opposite.

13 Root out any allergies or food intolerances

Besides wheat, suspect the other big seven: corn, soya, sugar, nightshades (potatoes, tomatoes, aubergines, sweet and chilli peppers), yeast, egg and dairy. Find out if you’re intolerant by following an elimination diet (see WDDTY November 2012).

This is also a rehash of old material including the silly article on arthritis. WDDTY seem to have a particularly schizophrenic view of tomatoes. They contain lycopene (which apparently makes you immortal), are part of the immortality-conferring mediterranean diet, but it turns out they also cause all manner of illnesses.

According to the Mayo Clinic the eight most common food allergies are:

  • Milk
  • Eggs
  • Peanuts
  • Tree nuts (such as almonds, cashews, walnuts)
  • Fish (such as bass, cod, flounder)
  • Shellfish (such as crab, lobster, shrimp)
  • Soy
  • Wheat

Corn, Solanaceae, yeast and sugar do not figure at all. The FDA has the same list, the NHS has a longer and more specific list split into allergies common in children versus adults, again:  corn, Solanaceae, yeast and sugar do not figure at all.

It’s so confusing! Unless you look at the actual evidence rather than a filtered, cherry-picked version in an anti-medicine rag promoting the quackery of so-called nutritionists, of course.

14 Eat your greens for calcium

Dairy products actually accelerate the rate at which calcium is lost from the body, and calcium supplements as a rule are not properly absorbed; in one large study, an increased consumption of pasteurized milk did not protect against bone fractures. Just one serving of green, leafy vegetables a day, rather than once a week, can cut the risk of hip fracture in half.13

Reference 13: Am J Clin Nutr, 1999; 69: 74–9 Vitamin K intake and hip fractures in women: a prospective study. Feskanich D, Weber P, Willett WC, Rockett H, Booth SL, Colditz GA.

Another rehash of the arthritis article’s claims, and continuing the WDDTY agenda against dairy. Needless to say the source does not support the claim: it finds that “Low intakes of vitamin K may increase the risk of hip fracture in women. The data support the suggestion for a reassessment of the vitamin K requirements that are based on bone health and blood coagulation.”

15 Check out your stomach acid

If you suffer from acid reflux or poor elimination, get your stomach acid levels tested by Biolab Medical Unit (9 Weymouth Street, London W1W 6DB;; tel: 0207 636 5959) or Genova Diagnostics (63 Zillicoa St, Asheville, North Carolina 28801, USA; tel: (828) 253 0621).

This message was brought to you by our sponsors. Biolab is a respectable lab but it also runs some distinctly dubious tests. It refers patients to a number of the WDDTY editorial panel (can you say “undeclared conflict of interest”? I thought you could) for treatment of medically unrecognised conditions based on questionable tests.

16 Find out if your gut is ‘leaky’

If the walls of the large intestine are excessively permeable, allowing larger food molecules through, this will reduce food absorption and lead to allergic symptoms. Confirm the diagnosis through Biolab or Genova (see the infobox) and repair the gut wall with probiotics, plus the amino acid glutamine and glutathione, an important antioxidant. If you have digestive difficulties, get checked for Candida overgrowth and parasites by doing a stool test (Contact Genova Diagnostics Europe, Parkgate House, 356 West Barnes Lane, New Malden, Surrey KT3 6NB; tel: 0208 336 7750;

This message was brought to you by our sponsors.

Leaky gut syndrome is a quack diagnosis.Candida overgrowth is a quack diagnosis. If WDDTY were a responsible publication they would tell you this, rather than feeding you to labs which will diagnose non-existent or unrecognised conditions and refer you to quacks who will “treat” them.

17 Give up the white stuff

Besides causing tooth decay and diabetes, just 10g of any simple sugars, brown white, will temporarily suppress immune system white cells by a whopping 40 per cent.14 Consuming sugar is linked to inflammatory bowel disease, gallstones and kidney stones, high blood pressure, stomach and endometrial cancer, and even shortsightedness. It’s just plain bad for you, full stop.

Reference 14: Dent Surv, 1976; 52: 46–8, Sucrose, neutrophilic phagocytosis and resistance to disease. Ringsdorf WM Jr, Cheraskin E, Ramsay RR Jr.

This study is rapidly approaching its 40th birthday. NHS Choices offers much more moderate advice, that is also (obviously) more practical.

18 Periodically detox

Virtually all of us are walking around with a cocktail of some 100,000 ubiquitous environmental chemicals in our blood, some of which are now known to be ‘bioaccumulating’ in human fat and causing a variety of health problems.15 Take regular saunas, exercise and extra fibre plus Chlorella, Spirulina and coriander (cilantro), as they all show evidence of clearing heavy metals from the body (see pages 80–81 for more detox tips).

Reference 15a:  Altern Med Rev, 2000; 5: 52–63;

Reference 15b: Environ Health, 2011; 10: 9 Knowns and unknowns on burden of disease due to chemicals: a systematic review Annette Prüss-Ustün1, Carolyn Vickers, Pascal Haefliger and Roberto Bertollini

If there’s one thing that marks out a quack, it’s “detox”. Hysterical references to unidentified “toxins” building up in our bodies, are used to sell expensive treatments that vary between worthless and downright dangerous. Exactly what you’d expect, in fact, given that the first reference is to Alternative Medicine Review, a junk journal devoted to promoting quackery.

The second source is reputable, but does not support detox. It is instead discussing the human effects of dioxins and other known toxins (real ones, identified by name) and recommending means to reduce exposures to these. It does not mention detox even once.

And the reason the reputable source doesn’t mention detox? Detox is what your liver does.

The only known value of detox is as a red flag to avoid a quack.

19 Steer clear of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)

Found in virtually every processed food and soft drink (a standard cola has about 17 teaspoons’ worth), HFCS picks up deadly mercury during processing. Also avoid chemical sweeteners like aspartame, now characterized by many as an excitotoxin, shown to cause seizures and brain neuronal damage in animals.16 Aspartame also been linked to cancer in animal studies.17

Reference 16a: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol, 1972; 31: 464–88 Glutamate-induced brain damage in infant primates. Olney JW, Sharpe LG, Feigin RD.

Reference 16b: Eur J Clin Nutr, 2008; 62: 451–62 Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain P Humphries, E Pretorius and H Naudé

Reference 17: Am J Ind Med, 2010; 53: 1197–206 Aspartame administered in feed, beginning prenatally through life span, induces cancers of the liver and lung in male Swiss mice. Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Manservigi M, Tibaldi E, Lauriola M, Falcioni L, Bua L.

Aspartame is another of WDDTY’s bogeymen. It’s also, according to the best available evidence, safe (and the unreliable evidence is equally unreliable, with describing it as “by far the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods”. 1972 is the oldest source used anywhere in the entire article. Wikipedia has a nice discussion of aspartame controversyW. It’s one of the most heavily studied additives in use, and there is a vast amount of evidence indicating its safety.

20 Drink a bit of alcohol

Drinking lightly (a glass every few days) rather than heavily or abstaining seems to be the safest and healthiest overall drinking for preventing heart disease.18But make it red wine, which contains health-giving resveratrol, and also helps prevent inflammation.19

Reference 18:  Eur J Clin Nutr, 2010; 64: 561–8 Relationship between alcohol intake, health and social status and cardiovascular risk factors in the Urban Paris-Ile-de-France Cohort: is the cardioprotective action of alcohol a myth? Hansel B, Thomas F, Pannier B, Bean K, Kontush A, Chapman MJ, Guize L, Bruckert E.

Reference 19: FASEB J, 2009; 23: 2412–24 Resveratrol attenuates C5a-induced inflammatory responses in vitro and in vivo by inhibiting phospholipase D and sphingosine kinase activities. Issuree PD, Pushparaj PN, Pervaiz S, Melendez AJ.

Red wine may indeed be good for you in moderation, but these sources don’t prove it. The first is vulnerable to multiple confounders, the second does not discuss red wine, because the amount of bioavailable resveratrol in wine is unpredictable. It is possible that resveratrol is clinically useful, but the studies don’t compare it with other substances and don’t support its use along with the well-known and potent toxin: ethanol.