P.W. Joller faces up to his Strath claims

December 7th, 2006

Continuing on from my harrying of Alex Wong and the Strath® cats, it think it is time to take on those crackpot studies that sully the good name of food supplements. Enter Dr Peter W. Joller, author of no less than eight different studies on wonder-elixir Strath®. Let’s stop to look at “Influenza and colds in winter: Prophylaxis with a herbal yeast preparation in comparison with influenza vaccination”, which appeared in, yes, you guessed it, the Swiss Journal of Integrative Medicine.

Dear Dr Peter W. Joller,

Your study “Influenza and colds in winter: Prophylaxis with a herbal yeast preparation in comparison with influenza vaccination” was recently forwarded to me by Bio-Strath® AG, and I have read it with much interest. I have the following questions regarding your study:

- An influenza vaccination is a prophylactic against influenza. It is not intended to improve concentration, vitality or decrease stress. Do you therefore think it unfair to compare the performance of an influenza vaccination on these criteria against those of a nutritional supplement specifically designed for this purpose?
- Anyone who was ill for more than two weeks was dropped from your program. Do you think this may have lent a bias to your study?
- The group who were treated with Strath® tablets showed a 75% decrease in loss of work days through illness during the course of the study. This is very impressive. However, during the same period, the control group, who were not given a placebo, showed an equally-impressive 70% drop in loss of work days through illness. This leads me to ask two questions.
– Do you think the decreases may not have been due to the treatment?
– And is there a significant difference between the two?
On the dramatic decrease of illness in the control group, you suggest “merely participating in the preventive program… probably exercises a favourable influence on the course of an illness”. Given that a course of Strath® tablets for the winter costs roughly £60, would you suggest I save my money and simply imagine that I am a participant in the control group of a medical study this winter?

Your answers are very much appreciated,

Frank Swain.

Dear Mr. Swain
Thank you very much for your email. I was delighted that you read my publication about prophylaxis of influenza and colds with Bio-Strath very carefully. Your questions are legitimate and very good. I shall do my best to answer them honestly.
You ask, whether it is fair to compare a vaccination with Strath elixir on criteria like concentration, vitality and stress. In my opinion, you can also ask this the other way round: is it fair to compare a vaccination with Strath on criteria like prevention of infectious diseases? There is an intimate association between the immune system and the central nervous system. So for me it is not surprising that colds can cause stress, diminished vitality and impaired concentration. Why do we try to evade infectious diseases? I think because they harm our quality of life in a broad sense and therefore we learned to apply different strategies to avoid getting sick.
Any rule applied to the analysis of the study results can add bias. Our argument was: Influenza or common cold symptoms usually only last for two weeks. If someone is absent from work for a longer period of time, most probably the reason for it is not a common cold. I admit that one can argue against that decision. One has to ask which preference brings in more bias.
Our computation of the reduction of absenteeism can be challenged for statistical reasons. The pre-study period was only one month while the study lasted 4 months. But since it was done the same way for all groups there might be a systematic error only.
Since in the study we analysed diverse parameters we should look at the overall outcome for the different groups to decide whether it makes sense to take Strath. If you have a very conspicuous imagination it is possible that you easily can spare the £60 for Strath this winter and feel well all the same. But I for myself trust more in Strath than in my imagination.
If you should not be satisfied with my answers, please ask again and I shall try to go deeper into the relevant topic.
With kind Regards
Peter Joller, PhD
FAMH Clinical Immunology

Wow! It’s not often we get a reply this open and honest. I should really target scientists instead of PR departments in the future. But his reply is as confused as his study. Seriously, it’s difficult to figure out where the hell I should start. Here goes.

Dear Dr Joller,
Thank you for your reply, however, I still have some questions regarding your study.

Those participants who were off work for more than two weeks were assumed not to be sick with influenza, therefore were not included in a comparison of the two treatments for influenza prevention. But why were they not included for the comparison of the two treatments on stress, vitality and concentration? It seems to me that if Strath® were to make someone severely ill, this would not show up when comparing the fringe benefits of the treatment.

On that note, can you supply your reference for your assumption that influenza and common cold infections last no longer than two weeks? You use the phrases “influenza” and “common cold” interchangeably, are you aware that influenza and the common cold are different illnesses caused by different viruses? If you were studying the restorative effects of Strath® and the influenza vaccination, this probably wouldn’t matter. But your study is supposed to focus upon the preventative effects of these treatments.

You claim that simply by participating in a scientific study, the control group were able to reduce their illness by 70%. However, you attribute the 75% drop in illness of the Strath® group to their treatment. As the Strath® group were also participating in a scientific study, why did they not also show this “participation” effect? Do you understand the principle of a “control” group, i.e. any effect in this group must be assumed to be present in all groups? That leaves us with a 5% difference between the groups. Is this significant – does Strath® have a statistically significant effect at all?

I am interested in the points you raised on restorative versus preventative medicine, but I’m afraid I will have to point out that the title of your study was “Influenza and colds in winter: Prophylaxis with a herbal yeast preparation in comparison with influenza vaccination”. Therefore, any comparison of the two treatments on a basis of a restorative effect is entirely irrelevant to influenza prevention. I must disagree that you should look at the “overall outcome” of “diverse parameters” to decide whether it makes sense to take Strath® in the context of this study. You only need to look at one: prevention of influenza.

Can you tell me, as author of many studies on Strath®, whether any of these studies were commissioned by Bio-Strath® AG? I couldn’t get a answer from Alfred Habegger on this one.

Can you tell me, were any these points raised during the peer-review process prior to your study being published in Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Ganzheits Medizin? If not, do you think they should have been?

Thank you again for your reply,
Frank Swain

As always, my subject clams up when presented with irrefutable evidence of bad science. I could have fallen back on little details such as the lack of a placebo, the unequal study group sizes, hell, even that the participants chose which group they wanted to join, resulting in far more women opting for some free Strath® elixir than men. I could then point out the effects were judged by self-assessment. Could the people who chose their treatment have a bias for that treatment? Could that bias translate into positive feedback regarding that treatment? Could a schoolchild have designed a better experiment? I think so.

One down, seven to go…

Entry Filed under: The Letters

Permalink  |    |    |    |    |