Comments on: And then I was incompetently libelled by a litigious millionaire

By: Synsei

Synsei — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:40:01 +0000

Off topic but it’s my first visit on this blog and I wanted to say how awesome I find it. Though I listen to a lot of skeptics podcast, I never found this one before.
I wish we could have a bigger and more active skeptics movement in France, where I live, and some people like Ben, Simon Singh, the guys from Skeptic Zone, Skepticality, Skeptics guide… Keep up the good work!

By: wardin

wardin — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:55:21 +0000

Never mind that seems to have been old news : )

By: wardin

wardin — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:48:17 +0000

In case it 'disappears' I have a screenshot available here: http://imgur.com/38kB6.png

By: wardin

wardin — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:37:23 +0000

Has anyone seen this twitter account? Seems like that slipped through the cracks, oh Gilly.

> twitter.com/gillian_mckeith

Let the real Gillian McKeith stand up?

Cheers

By: T.J. Crowder

T.J. Crowder — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:55:06 +0000

So here we are, a month later, is anything happening on this front?

By: jjad

jjad — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:36:18 +0000

I can’t wait for the “Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is not lies” T-shirts! Keep the pressure on: it was a silly claim to make and could be quickly retracted with such an apology. Not apologising is, in effect, maintaining that the author of the tweets still believes the book to be “lies”.
I note that the ‘Gillian McKeith Official Website’ (gillianmckeith.info/) still has the link to the originating twitter site (twitter.com/gillianmckeith), albeit hidden, in the source code.

By: starbuck

starbuck — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 06:01:27 +0000

She is an idiot. Sue me.

By: Antares

Antares — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:23:13 +0000

@JMS: That whole “teh acids will murders you” is a typical alt-med thing. It is practically a mile-wide exaggeration of actual metabolic acidosis, combined with utter misunderstanding of pH and the acid-base balance.

You can read a few claims here (Caution, woo site)
gaia-health.com/articles201/000225-acidosis-the-cure.shtml

and a respectfully insolent takedown here
scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/09/your_friday_dose_of_woo_acid_base_or_woo_1.php

By: bladesman

bladesman — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:41:53 +0000

Funny how in the ‘Latest News’ section of Ms McKeith’s official website they proudly announce a “Great editorial feature in the MAIL on SUNDAY (13th June 2010), one of the UK’s highest circulation newspapers” but nothing about her alleged twitter comments…….

Guess humble pie isn’t that nutritious?

By: bjc

bjc — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:01:12 +0000

I’ve realised the error of my ways and will post other off-topic remarks on the forum.

With regard to McTweet-gate, I think the heat has got to be kept up, as there is the chance that a well publicised apology or if it’s the only way, a libel case, may then be followed by a debate/recognition in the media that people such as McKieth and Griffiths are not to be continually referred to – to give out “expert” advice to a public who assume that this is bona fide nutritional info from an educated source.

By: skyesteve

skyesteve — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:38:32 +0000

@jhaaglund – I am no lawyer but I thought libel was about reputation not intention. If someone claims that what Ben wrote in his book amounts to lying then the ramifications of that, given that much of what is in the book has been published or said in some form or anotehr elsewhere (e.g. The Guardian, on Tv and radio, etc.), is that his lying goes beyond a single book. In my “book” (no pun intended!) that amounts to a damaged reputation. As I say, I think Ben has taken the right approach in this instance (more’s the pity) but if he did decide to sue I can’t for the life of me see how his action could be described as “petty, childish and hypocritical”.

By: sime

sime — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:12:57 +0000

And now over to Stephen Barrett, M.D. and his apply named site Quackwatch.

It would appear that Ms Gillian McKeith who is apparently “The world’s top nutritionist” and Clayton College of Natural Health have already been sussed by the good Doctor.

“Clayton College of Natural Health: Be Wary of the School and Its Graduates” … ouch!

Meaningless “Accreditation”… looking good for Ms McKeith then.

“Unscientific Teachings…” Who would have thought eh

And the good doctors final words…

The Bottom Line

CCNH does have one potentially valuable aspect. Its credentials are a reliable sign of someone not to consult for advice.

Sliced and diced…

www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Nonrecorg/clayton.html

Enjoy

By: jhaaglund

jhaaglund — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:01:04 +0000

@skyesteve, well as Ben Goldacre points out in the article at the top, the case would stand and fall on whether he deliberately set out to mislead, not the truth value of the claims he makes in the book.

By: JMS

JMS — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:22:36 +0000

@bjc Off topic certainly, but stunning. Do you think that the nutritionist even read the abstract of the paper she was invited to comment on? I must admit that’s all I’ve read, I’m not a biologist so I probably wouldn’t get much more from the paper than I would from the abstract. Anyway as far as I can tell she failed on the first question. Is it all meat or just some kinds? According to the paper’s abstract no distinction was made between calories from red meat or poultry. So according to this research the answer is presumably – don’t know. She seemed to be suggesting that she had undertaken her own research, did the Imperial college paper cite her work?

She also suggested that the reason why eating meat should make you fatter had to do with the calories in the meat. The abstract of the paper says that total calorific intake was controlled for, I take this to mean that the calories in the meat cannot be the explanation for the weight gain observed.

Finally, we are alkali and meat is acid apparently. I thought we were essentially meat, does being dead make that much of a difference? I seem to remember from O-level biology (yes I am that old) that the stomach is full of concentrated acid, my guess is this is much more acidic than any meat, so what is she talking about?

By: bjc

bjc — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:14:15 +0000

Further apologies for bad linking..
It’s Maria Griffiths from www.familynutritioninpractice.com/

By: bjc

bjc — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:07:54 +0000

Apologies for being a little off topic but this has potential for annoying you more!

www.familynutritioninpractice.com/
was interviewed on BBC 5Live Drive yesterday to comment on a study looking at the relationship between meat consumption and weight gain.

A nutritional therapist commenting on real scientific research of all things!

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00t4n7c

Go to 1hr 53 mins into the show (1:53.15) for a wondeful description of how food provides calories and how acidic meat unbalances your body.

The study for reference:

Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592131?dopt=Abstract

By: skyesteve

skyesteve — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:16:29 +0000

@jhaaglund – I think you are missing the point. Whilst I fully respect Ben’s approach here (and he is probably taking the right line) the decision to sue would not be about petty vindictiveness. GMcK didn’t just call Ben a liar in a playground kind of way – the Twitter feed specically accused Ben of writing lies in his book about GMcK. Some of us see this as the perfect chance to get the lady to stand up in a public court of law and prove that what Ben has written is lies. That’s the point because in that court her reputation would stand or fall.

By: T.J. Crowder

T.J. Crowder — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:16:02 +0000

What, still no response from Ms. McKeith?

By: Guy

Guy — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:33:29 +0000

Posted on Skepdic
21 July 2010. According to Consumer Health Digest, Clayton College of Natural Health (CCNH), a diploma mill notorious for selling health-related “degrees,” is shutting down. The non-accredited correspondence school boasts such “graduates” as Jillian McKeith and Hulda Clark. Future “nutritionists” or “naturopaths” looking for a quick degree to impress the unsuspecting need not worry. The folks at Clayton claim that the recession has been bad for business, but the stagnant economy has not deterred the folks at a place called the Institute for Integrative Nutrition (IIN). They’ve taken out an ad on Google for “Clayton College” searches, with the heading Clayton College Closed. Clicking on the link takes you to an IIN page where you are told that a “limited number” of partial tuition scholarships are available to students “enrolled” at Clayton College. IIN promises:

We can help you stay on track and become a certified Health Coach with a deep knowledge of holistic nutrition and wellness.
A certified “health coach”? Whatever it is, you can start practicing midway through the program, which is delivered on a “gorgeous red iPod completely customized with the course materials including, video, audio, lectures from world-renowned experts, and more.”

End of quote – So good news if you wish to follow in Gillian’s illustrious academic footsteps. The door closed but is open again!!

By: Guy

Guy — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:29:44 +0000

Outeast “That’s a claim that reads very, very oddly.”
Welcome to the whacky nonsense world of McKeith pseudo-science.