Dear Mr Dinsdale,

Thank you for your reply. I am disappointed to learn that the request was considered “vexatious” since it addressed an issue of scientific importance that is clearly in the public interest. As far as I can determine, none of the criteria for vexatiousness as defined in the FOI Act apply to my request.

The central issue is one of scientific propriety. The Durham County Council web-site contains several press releases that trumpet the success of the fish-oil trials. As a case in point, one dated March 2006 reads ‘Further Fish Oil Trials Produce “Stunning” Results’. If the data have been fully analysed more than six months ago so as to properly support this claim, it is astonishing to learn from you that they have not yet been submitted for peer review. A conference presentation is a relatively worthless document since it has not been peer-reviewed.

As a working scientist, I am concerned to see proper scientific practices maintained and peer-review is a fundamental cornerstone of our discipline. It a vital part of the scientific process that helps to ensure the quality of published information. To be sure it is not a perfect method, but it is far better than publication by press release and any responsible scientist should submit their work to peer-review before any publication. This is all the more vital when it comes to an issue as important as child development.

Since Durham County Council is a publicly funded body I would hope that it takes its responsibilities to the public seriously. The issue raised by Dr Goldacre is neither trivial nor mischievous. The Council could have avoided the recent FOI requests if it had chosen to respond candidly to his request.

I wish to appeal your decision.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Curry

I Googled “Eye Q” and came up with www.netmums.com/lc/fishoils.php

The netmums site is (seemingly) highly regarded as peddling common sense for parents and has been behind many campaigns. This page however is nothing more than an Equazen advertisement. No other sources of fish oil even get a mention and the testimonials are all for Eye Q. To their credit the site notes that the Durham Thing is an “initiative” and has no control group. Good on `em.

And yet… the previous page links to this one by saying “Fish oils – we’ve all heard of them but what exactly are they? Read what we found out and how it can help your child.”

Put another way “hey, we’ve swallowed a brochure” or maybe even, “wow, Equazen gave us wodges of cash!”

Dear Mr Dinsdale,
Thank you for your reply. I am saddened that you appear to have completely misunderstood the purpose behind my FoI request and regard it as ‘vexatious’. The material you have supplied is peripheral to the central issue which is that the base data for the Durham trial should be available for verification. I have some scientific education (a degree in Geology) which taught me that for any scientific claim, the observations on which it is based must be available for inspection and furthermore we verified what we learned in the lecture room on field trips where we could see the raw evidence and form our own opinion.

The first entry after a Google search on ‘Equazen’ boldly states:-

www.equazen.com Omega-3 fish oils including Eye Q Proven in the Durham Schools Trial

Well — prove it.

Equazen’s home page contains the following graphic:-

>

When you click on the graphic you are taken to marketing material for Equazen’s ‘eye-q’ product. Durham CC activities are being used for marketing purposes in a commercial venture to persuade large numbers of parents to buy products in the hope of doing best by their children. This is not a trivial matter. It is essential that the scientific basis for the Trial is published so that it can be examined independently and parents can then make up their mind from the results of the examinations.

Accordingly I wish to appeal in the first instance under the Count Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure,
Yours Sincerely, J R Lillywhite

I particularly liked the phrase “randomly controlled trials” – possibly a good description of these trials (if only we had the information to tell!)

I mean what do you compare it to?

Almost every year we hear that results are getting better (are the exam’s easier?) so if this bunch did do better then it would only be part of the current trend anyway. The only way it could prove anything would be if there was a massive drop in reults which would buck the trend and be meaningful if it only occured at the schools taking part.

not at all. its not about the trial being a “success”, its about the devil in the detail. i think its perfectly possible they did an okay ish piece of dissertation level work. i think it’s unlikely, knowing what we do now, that they did a five star trial. but its simply wrong that anyone, drug companies, academics, whoever, least of all a public body, should prance about in the media talking about their positive trials if they’re not able to come up with the details.

its bad form enough to do it ahead of publication, but ridiculous to do it if you simply can’t provide methods and results on request.

science derives its authority from transparency.

in any case i would imagine – if i was in their shoes – portwood et al are now in overdrive trying to finesse it up as good as is humanly possible.

On a serious note, surely the question being asked should be the original: what evidence? The whole investigation should be published for at least one independant enquirer to examine (and im not having any problem thinking of one).

there is no fish oil

there are no fish

wait and see and with the over-fishing of the oceans my little twist on #33′s conspiracy theory will come to pass

[insert sound of "evil genius" laugh]

If other MPs table questions on the matter I think they will just be lumped together with Mr Kidney’s (ok, so I find the name a little funny) and I am not sure if it will speed things along or not or if it will add weight.

Perhaps anyone who is a parent anywhere in the country could ask their MP to raise a question about what evidence there is and should their LEA be providing these? Turn it into a national issue that way and so allow it to be asked about by people from all over the place.

This still rules me out, I refuse to allow any children to be attributed to me.

Another way is to look for MPs who are medical doctors, like Evan Harris. They will know something about trials and equally should have concerns about feeding something to 1000s of kids as a PR stunt.

Having said that, I think targeting the Durham MPs first is best as this is going on in their constituencies and the kids’ parents (who are being duped) are their constituents.

Maybe more of us doing this would be good but I worry we could swamp him and annoy him/his staff.

Maybe just one from Ben would be good (if Ben has not already telepathically picked up on this message and done so…).

really looking forward to the vid though

www.badscience.net/?p=323