Research - tracing the truth...

Every week (or even every day it seems) a 'news' story breaks about the fact that we should be drinking more milk, eating more dairy products and/or eating more of certain meat products.
The 'advice' is relentless.

But research always concludes in scientific fact, so for the sake of our health we should all rush out and start following it. Does it? Should we?

This post is long overdue from me and I wanted to write it because whilst many of you will know how to get at the truth (or just be so sceptical that you don't take media-reported advice anyway) there will be many who believe the hype.

To be honest, I believed some of the hype for many years and my mother regularly sent me 'handy' Daily Mail clippings in the post about what I should be eating, drinking, doing etc. Joy.

That was until I woke up and smelt those (good for you, no, bad for you, oh god knows!) coffee beans. Probably the best piece of learning that resulted from me studying for two MSc degrees (Health Science and Weight Management) was to question the validity of any research that you read in the course of doing your own research into a particular subject. This critical analysis is an eye opener.

It's this questioning of research that is vital if, as regular people / consumers, we are to be able to sort the fact from the propaganda.

Because UK TV and press hasn't changed in a million years, its easy to see why people blindly listen and read and follow. I was going to say like sheep - but actually sheep are more enlightened.
A kind of fog has descended on the public at large and the cogs of brainwashing industry and government are well and truly turning 24/7.

So. What to do? How can you find out what is and isn't the truth?

Well the very first thing to think - at all times - is where's the money? In 99% of cases you can bet your last £ that someone, somewhere, needs and wants to make money from the outcome of a particular piece of research. Research, is not, altruistic science. It needs big money to fund it, researchers need jobs, and research therefore can (shock horror) be subject to, shall we say, a little bias on occassion.

So there's a trail to be followed and I wanted to share with you some tips on how YOU can research for yourself to see which of the latest 'advice' (if any) you want to follow.
Incidentally - for the sake of trying to wake reporters up as well - whenever you find flawed propoganda-style research 'recommendations' being touted as 'must do' advice you may wish to point out (politely) to the reporter / media that they are relaying biased, potentially incorrect and harmful information to the public. Just a thought...

It's easiest to describe processes by giving you some examples (I will update with more examples later as time goes on):

Todays latest research findings came under the sensationalist headline:

'Iodine deficiency may lower UK children's IQ'

You can read the BBC version of this story here.

If you glance through the story quickly (no need to read it all) you can gather that the report leads to advice recommending pregnant mothers eat more dairy products, drink more milk and consume more meat and fish.

At this stage look for either a link to the research report that the story is talking about or the actual scientific title of the report (which you can then Google).

If there is neither, then make a note of the names of the authors, the institution where the research was carried out, the name of the publication it appeared in (The Lancet in this case) and a couple of key words such as 'iodine', 'pregnancy' and 'IQ'.

If you click on the live link in the news story I've quoted above - it takes you to a summary page (known as the 'abstract') in The Lancet. Let your eyes be drawn to the most critical first point in your sleuthing - to the heading 'Funding' at the end - in this case it reads 'none' [strange - because all research is funded somehow!].

However, it's not safe to assume that this research (and consequent recommendations) aren't biased in any way, because as well as funding, researchers have to declare any conflict of interests - it's just that in this journal summary the full report doesn't show and you cannot see any further information.

So don't stop investigating there.

Next, note the title of the actual research project as well and use Google Scholar to start looking things up and to see if you can gain access to the full research report.

** A warning here: Many scientific journals make their online puplications available to registered scientists / uni students etc but the general public cannot access them, until they are archived, without paying a fee (which always seems weird to me - I believe that all of this info should be in the public domain). However, with a few different Google searches using the info you have noted from above, you may be able to access the research report (or parts of it) somewhere on the net other than in the journal that wants to charge you for reading it.

In the case of The Lancet you can register with them free of charge and gain instant access to the entire report.

This was the report on the back of which advice to drink more milk was given:
Effect of inadequate iodine status in UK pregnant women oncognitive outcomes in their children: results from the AvonLongitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC)
by: Sarah C Bath, Colin D Steer, Jean Golding, Pauline Emmett, Margaret P Rayman

Once you have the full report, whiz right down to the end and above the 'References' section [page 7 of 7 in this case] you have sections detailing 'Contributors' (usually the authors), 'Conflicts of interest' (this should, legally, include anything that could be deemed as a conflict of interest - such as a researcher receiving hospitality from Weight Watchers whilst studying the effectiveness of various weight loss techniques.) and 'Acknowledgements' (a list of thanks for support - but beware of how support was given and where that support came from - Google any company names / organisations you don't know. This is a section that people use to avoid adding names to the Conficts of Interest section!) 

Interesting to note that in the Contributors section it states that:

MPR raised the funding for the study.

Initials like this (MPR) relate to the names of the report authors (always listed under the title). In this case Margaret P Rayman.

Yet in the Acknowledgements section it states:

A PhD studentship for SCB, funded by Wassen International and the

Waterloo Foundation, enabled the costs of this investigation to be

covered.

This is slightly confusing if MPR raised the funding - and it's then important to know who Wassen International and Waterloo Foundation are (if you do not recognise company / organisation names - Google them).

Wassen International - Wassen International is committed to providing nutritional supplements of the highest quality. The company was established over 30 years ago and is based in Leatherhead, Surrey, England.

Waterloo Foundation - is an independent grant-making Foundation with an interest in child development (hence their interest in this project?). If an organisation such as this tells you nothing obvious about any conflicting interests then the next stage would be to Google the names of the people on the Board of Trustees.

So, a connection of one of the authors to a company that supplies nutritional supplements (that would include iodine based supplements for use by pregnant mums) does raise an eyebrow, does it not?

To dig a little deeper into how MPR might have got finance you can use Google Scholar to see what else comes up for that author (i.e. other research papers that may give an indication of funding / conflicts of interest etc). [Google scholar is a resource for searching scientific papers and legal documents].

Initially I just did a casual search though on 'Iodine' and 'Lancet' - selected 2013 and just happened to select the first result (although you should scan through to pick out same author names or the report title etc).

Low and behold here we have a page from The Journal of the American Medical Association where Sarah Bath and Margaret Rayman (plus one other) have written a reply to the authors of another research project on iodine.

Now here's the interesting bit:

At the end of their reply, there is a 'Conflict of Interests Disclosure' section - lets call it exhibit B.

 
It turns out that not only has Dr Bath had funding from Wassen International for her PhD, but has received payments for lectures from the Dairy Council of Northern Ireland.
Not only this, but Dr Rayman's university received a grant from Wassen to support her PhD.

So here we have clear evidence that both authors had a connection with two organisations that could be deemed to be in conflict with the focus of their research and this report.
Why?
Well because the findings were that Iodine deficiency can affect childrens IQ. But although the research stopped there - the clear indication following on from the findings of the report is that pregnant mothers need to increase their iodine intake if they are to give birth to brighter children (a very emotive subject). This iodine could be from animal sources such as MILK and through the use of SUPPLEMENTS - both of which are all widely recommended and focused on by all media who picked up this story.

So the research outcome has, in part, been 'funded' / supported, covertly by two very interested parties indeed - a dairy council and a supplements company.

So with just a little digging you can see that there is a trail casting doubt that this research is totally impartial.

Recommendations based on research with any element of potential bias can only be considered with extreme caution.

The further upsetting thing here is that the research may be valid - but the resulting advice could and should be very different. And thats the next thing to consider. In this case, if you are either pregnant or planning to be - my advice would then be to look into how else you might boost your iodine levels.
This can be done through a simple online search - and you would see, for example, that the biggest casue of iodine deficiency is eating too much processed food - because processing damages all nutrients. All whole foods contain traces of iodine and so eaten in balance will provide more than enough iodine.
You do not need to drink gallons of milk. 
You do not need to take supplements.

So the research may not be biased but the resulting advice most definitely is.

I hope that this example has been helpful and thought provoking. Please let me know of any incidents like this that you come across so that together we can trace the truth and publish it.

Chantal xx

P.S.  Copy of my response to the BBC: 

'It should be pointed out that whenever a study gives this type of advice to consume more milk etc or take supplements it should be taken with a pinch of salt (pardon the irony).

If you actually read more about the authors of this studyyou will find that they were paid money for lecturing by the Northern Ireland DAIRY Council and received grants and PhD funding from Wassen International - who supply nutritional SUPPLEMENTS.

These clear conflicts of interest leave the way open for research finding and subsequent dietary advice bias.

As iodine is found in minute traces in all whole foods, better advice would be for people to eat less refined foods (refining always depletes valuable nutrients).

To report otherwise, is, in my opinion misleading and unfair to the general public as they have not been given the full and acurate facts.'