Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
		<< 1	< Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9 >	8 >>

1 Quackery
- 1.1 Who uses quackery?
2 Letter to the editor
3 Her father
4 McKeith's own response to the reporting of the ASA debacle
5 Writing for Max Clifford
- 5.1 Just a quick one

Quackery

The Criticism section can be summed up by Quackery. I added Quackery to the see also section and it has been deleted. Linking this page to that page is helpful to the reader. What is the best way to make that link? WAS 4.250 06:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not keen on adding that because it makes us look as though we're taking a position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to provide the link, but I agree with your reluctance. It is a word that can make people stop thinkibg and merely respond emotionally. I think the key is to phrase it right. I'll give it a try, and see if it works. If not, perhaps you could reword the sentence so the sentence comes off with the right feel to it. You're better at that than I am. WAS 4.250 17:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Quackery" seems a bit derogatory to me. Is "pseudoscientific" or "pseudoscience" a better term for summarising the criticisms? IanHenderson 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that we may be misrepresenting her critics by saying they allege "quackery". Some of her critics use that term, but we may be putting a derogatory word in the mouth of other critics we cite, who wouldn't use such an emotive term themselves. "Pseudoscience" is less problematic in this respect - I think we could safely assume that all her critics would use that term to describe her work. I may change the bit in the intro to "quackery or pseudoscience" rather than just "quackery". IanHenderson 10:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not keen on pseudoscience either: (a) it's a meaningless word; (b) it's always used as an insult; and (c) it implies that "science" (whatever we're claiming that is) is a good thing, and that ideas that aren't "science" aren't good things in areas that "science" wants to lay claim to, which is not only a very confused and probably wrong-headed idea, it's highly POV. I think it's better to let facts speak for themselves in situations like this and not try to do the readers' thinking for them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How should we summarise the POV of McKeith's critics then? (Assuming that is worthwhile - we do summarise her positions, and it seems reasonable to me to attempt to summarise theirs.) A third formulation is to say that McKeith's critics view her work as "unscientific". The term "pseudoscience" suggests pretend science - a subset of "unscience". Perhaps the broader term "unscientific" covers the POV of her critics better, with less of the insult that "pseudoscience" has (and much less than "quackery" has)? IanHenderson 22:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The allegation is that she is engaged in endangering people's lives by seeking to make a profit from unsound medical advice and products - in short - quackery. The allegation is not that she is advancing some harmless nonscientific theory. WAS 4.250 00:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

True. "Criticism of McKeith's position can be summed up as an allegation of quackery; her defense is that she uses a holistic, rather than a standard, approach to nutrition." This is a balanced and accurate description of what the sides are saying. --Merzul 00:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim that she's endangering people's lives is surely hyperbole. She tries to get people to stop drinking, smoking, and eating meat, and she encourages organic veggies and exercise. If people did what she's suggesting, they'd be a lot healthier, not dead. As for the blue algae thing, that's very common in health food stores, and I'm not aware of anyone who's been killed. We really shouldn't use words like "quackery" and "pseudoscience," and we're not here to promote a "scientific" agenda, whatever that is. If we were, a great deal of modern medicine would be ruled out for a start. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but SlimVirgin, the actual sentence is "Criticism can be summed up as an allegation of quackery", and I think that is accurate because we are simply describing both sides in their own terms. I don't see that we are promoting any agenda, the entire sentence is quite balanced, don't you think? --Merzul 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Who uses quackery?

I'm having some doubts about this though, like Ian above. So, who actually uses the term "quackery" in their criticism? I looked a bit for Goldacre, and I could find one place but rather indirectly about McKeith [1] (search for "quackery" to see the context). Of course we have the article "Is McKeith a Quack". This is a difficult issue. --Merzul 03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Critics of McKeith contend that her methods are unscientific; her defence is that ..." is the wording I was thinking of. However, at least one of her critics alleges that her methods are dangerous:

Asked about McKeith's advice, Amanda Wynne, senior dietician with the British Dietetic Association, said: "We are appalled. I think it is obvious she hasn't a clue about nutrition. In fact her advice, if followed to the limit, could be dangerous. Her TV programme takes obese people and puts them on a crash diet that is very hazardous to health."

Perhaps this should be reflected in a summary of her opponents' positions too? IanHenderson 14:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Another critic (John Garrow) expresses concern about her promotion of colonic irrigation - expressed in this Observer article:

Some experts consider her advice is potentially dangerous: for instance, her advocacy of colonic irrigation. 'Colonic irrigation is not to be undertaken lightly,' says John Garrow, professor emeritus in human nutrition at London University and the chairman of Healthwatch, a charity that promotes better understanding by the public of the importance of clinical trials in medicine.

Coupled with concerns about blue-green algae, it might be fair to say that: "Critics of McKeith contend that her methods are unscientific; some consider her advice potentially dangerous. Her defence is that ...". IanHenderson 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This avoids using loaded terms like "quackery" and "pseudoscience", and seems more defensible to me, as well as a more accurate description of her critics concerns. IanHenderson 15:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Letter to the editor

Regarding this paragraph:

In response, Jan Krokowski of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency wrote a letter to New Scientist, warning readers that "[b]lue-green algae — properly called cyanobacteria — are able to produce a range of very powerful toxins, which pose health hazards to humans and animals and can result in illness and death." (Krokowski, Jan. "Blue-green for danger", New Scientist, January 14, 2006. Accessed February 13, 2007)

I wrote to Krokowski to ask whether he'd written the letter on behalf of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and he has replied that he wrote it as a private individual. This seems to be a case of someone simply using his employer's address. I'll forward the e-mail if people need to see it.

Should we remove it, edit it to remove the SEPA reference, or leave it as it is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he's a scientist working for the SEPA (rather than a non-expert employee) - he's editor of The Phycologist, a publication of the British Phycological Society, and I guess therefore his scientific background is algae-related? Might be worth checking though. I was a bit unsure when I added that - McKeith does certainly promote blue-green algae fairly prominently, and it is true that it can be dangerous to humans - there are a couple of references on the cyanobacteria page. In You Are What You Eat, McKeith doesn't mention any risks as far as I remember; I've not read Miracle superfood: wild blue-green algae, which the New Scientist column quoted from though. I thought Krokowski's letter (which referred to McKeith) gave a fuller picture. The Health Canada website referenced under cyanobacteria does suggest that blue-green algae products contain a risk:

How will I know if I've accidentally come into contact with cyanobacterial toxins?

If you ingest water, fish or blue-green algal products containing elevated levels of toxins, you may experience headaches, fever, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting.

Perhaps another solution to this is to remove it from the criticism section and put it elsewhere? McKeith's opinion on blue-green algae is definitely notable, but I'm not sure to what extent Krokowski's letter counts as "criticism". We could have something saying that "McKeith believes blue algae have the following benefits: ... (as in the New Scientist quote)", but Dr Jan Krokowski (of the SEPA/editor of "The Phycologist", a publication of the British Phycological Society) adds that "blue-green algae can be dangerous...".

Has anyone read her book Miracle superfood: wild blue-green algae, who can better summarise or quote what she says about it? (I might get hold of a copy myself.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.225.1.162 (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, forgot to log in - I wrote the above. IanHenderson 11:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You will get ill if you eat anything high in toxins. I don't understand why algae is any different, although eating algae sounds pretty disgusting, particularly if it is blue! Is there any point in inserting that quote?--Conjoiner 16:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ian, I'd agree with keeping it but moving it out of the criticism section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Her father

Well, at least there has been some progress since I last saw this, especially flattening the criticism section and putting the rebuttals at the appropriate places. Now, I wanted to add something about her father dying and she going on a crusade against smoking. It's such a sentimental story and Max Clifford is really proud of it, but... the cited article said his father was a "Shipyard worker" and our other source says he is a "civil servant", so are there many shipyard working civil servants in the UK, or do we have a conflict here? --Merzul 04:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a very touching story, it makes it a better story and appeals to more people if he was working class.:) Probably he was one, then went on to be the other. I liked the other story too that said she was brought up on junk food. On another note, are people happy with the 'screaming fat women being given enemas by gillian' type quote in the section on her TV programmes? It's quite funny I suppose lolMerkinsmum 04:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm slightly confused with the source that it is taken from, it seems like a rant about everything, and then mentions McKeith somewhere there. I actually wanted to add something about why she is so damn popular, and I was assuming that her collection would contain something, but finding somebody that says nice things about this woman isn't easy. I think Max Clifford should be fired! --Merzul 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

McKeith's own response to the reporting of the ASA debacle

Why don't people want it included, that she still feels able to use the title Dr. as and when she wants? It's useful because to an extent it must be relevant to what the ASA document about her title actually said (which we haven't seen.) i.e. she says it's only because a disclaimer saying she was not a medical doctor was not included on a leaflet. There'd be little point in her lying about what they'd said, as the ASA would really not be happy with her then. She obviously believes in the value of her PhD, that's her opinion and shes entitled it. It is accredited- just by an alternative medicine, not government recognised source. She's done (some) work I mean whatever it was took at least 3 years, she didn't just get it overnight in return for payment of a sum. And she's right, she's not thick and has a good degree and MA from good, recognised institutions, (Edinburgh and Pennsylvania) she could have gone where she wanted, although it may have taken her longer to change subjectsMerkinsmum 12:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article says:

When questioned by the Glasgow Herald about her doctorate, McKeith said: "I have nothing to be ashamed of. My qualifications are second to none. People out there would love to have my qualifications and expertise." On Clayton College, she said: "I could have gone anywhere I wanted but I chose Clayton. There was cutting-edge research being put forward by people who were pioneers at the time."

What is your issue again? WAS 4.250 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article should explain why she still uses the term on her products etc. And it's just informative and NPOV to give her side of the story about the ASA recommendations. Otherwise the reporting of the ASA thing is not neutral and balanced, it also doesn't explain her current practice in advertising etc to the reader so falls short of being encyclopedic. People might see that she is still using it and it would undermine their impression of this article as a source of information. It also holds back from, and deprives the reader of, information we know.Merkinsmum 12:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You added:

Regarding the ASA recommendations, McKeith said she understood that it was only about the lack of a disclaimer on one leaflet, to make it clear that she is not a medical doctor. She would still use the term Ph.D. after her name and would use the title of Dr when she chose to do so.

The source says:

According to documents seen by the Guardian, the agreement prevents Ms McKeith calling herself a doctor in any advertising or mailshots relating to her company and its products. They include a Dr Gillian McKeith-branded range of health foods and the Dr Gillian Club, which offers online health plans. She told the Guardian she understood the offending ad was a leaflet without the usual disclaimer she was not a medical doctor. She said she understood the honorific had to go from leaflets, but not from all adverts. "As far as I'm concerned, because of the hard work I have done, I'll continue to put PhD after my name; I'm entitled to use the word Dr as and when I choose."

So Gibson says she has agreed to not call herself a doctor in an ad and then quotes her as saying she does not agree to any such thing. I disagree that we can use this to "know" anything other than that Gibson is contradicting himself or at least being very unclear. Further, that the specific incident involved a specific leaflet does not mean that the issue is "only" about that leaflet. That is nonsense as the agreement is about paid ads in general. The content you added is not supported by the source you provide when the whole of the source is used to evaluate it. So 1:That the case used a specific leaflet as evidence has no importance as to the general finding of Dr being misleading and the agreement to not use it in paid ads. And 2:The source contradicts itself on whether she will continue to use Dr or not on paid ads. WAS 4.250 13:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

'She told the Guardian she understood the offending ad was a leaflet without the usual disclaimer she was not a medical doctor. She said she understood the honorific had to go from leaflets, but not from all adverts' How about if we put that bit you quoted? It's a direct quote from the article isn't it? Sorry I had misread it before. All I'm saying is that for NPOV we should show her side of it, also it adds information and explains her behaviour.Merkinsmum 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your latest version is justified by the source, I believe. On the other hand, I don't see that it adds anything worth adding (similar to a comment I made above in a different ssection). The thing is, it seems both accusations and defenses are said in numerous ways to no good end. This is not supposed to be a list of every synonym for quack ever printed against her nor a list of ever utterance of defence for her ever printed. We should edit it down to the essense and leave out the minor (unencyclopedic) details as distracting and trivial and unimportant. I guess it boils down to whether when one reads it one thinks "So?" or "That's interesting!" WAS 4.250 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Very well said! This was precisely what disturbed me about the article, but it is getting much better! Good work, all of you! --Merzul 14:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Writing for Max Clifford

Jokes aside, WP:WFTE has a link to Principle of charity, and that's an article I would recommend to our more critical editors; because that's what this article desperately misses. This woman is presented entirely through the eyes of her enemies; so without joking, we need to write a bit for Max Clifford. --Merzul 02:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)