Holford Myths: what is the problem with Nutritionist Patrick Holford?

We’ve had a comment from Patrick Holford – posted here as requested (although slightly edited, to remove a reference to potentially defamatory material). Our response is also below:

To the owners of holfordwatch.net and holfordmyths.org, posted on 10th January,2008:

Who owns, and takes responsibility for these websites? Why are you not willing to disclose your identity, and take responsibility for this highly defamatory and malicious material?

Who funds these websites? I estimate that the equivalent of one full-time person is employed to scrutinise everything I say and have said, then compose these inaccurate and tired stories based on material going back to 1981!

Whom do I sue for defamation should I wish to? I am the owner of 100% Health Ltd, which publishes the website http://www.holfordmyths.com. This website answers all your significant defamatory allegations. If you don’t agree with these facts then provide the contrary evidence and I will respond.

At least declare who you are. My interests and beliefs are open for all to inspect on my website and even such opponents as Ben Goldacre and David Colquhoun, misguided as they might, be put their name to their attacks.

But again any claims in that publication that can be shown to be false will be corrected by the author and I promise to update my website accordingly.

All this openness contrasts very unfavourably with your own hiding behind a veil of anonymity. If you really are interested in the truth, or in scientific debate, or in protecting the public, you would come into the open and you would publish this letter unedited, as a blog on 10th January, 2008..

Your website states that your motive is to protect people from any (or all) of my work that may be “ultimately misleading, distracting, expensive, disempowering, and unhelpful.” I have been in the field of nutrition for 30 years. I am not aware of anyone being harmed by my advice and many thousands of people being helped and empowered. If you know of someone who has been misled, distracted, disempowered and harmed would you please let me know?

As it is your anonymous jibes seem more a form of cyber bullying than an attempted to engage in serious dialogue over what is best for people’s health.

Patrick Holford.

While we appreciate the comment, it’s a shame that Holford didn’t offer a fuller engagement with out criticisms.

“Who funds these websites” “At least declare who you are.”
If Holford would like to know who is behind holfordwatch.net, or who funds it, I suggest that he asks them. As for this blog a number of people have given their time free of charge due to a commitment to evidence-based and ethical science, nutrition and healthcare. The costs of setting up a website are trivial nowadays.

Readers should be able to judge our work based on its content, instead of our identities, and we also do not want to open ourselves up to potential harassment by revealing our identities. Of course, if anything posted on holfordmyths.org is inaccurate, we will correct this when someone points out our mistakes.

As far as personal disclosures go, we have made a full declaration of our competing interests in the pharma and supplement industries (none) and the total payments we receive from these industries (£0). We have asked Holford if he would be prepared to offer a similar disclosure?

This blog is “more a form of cyber bullying than an attempted to engage in serious dialogue over what is best for people’s health”.
Given that claim, it is unfortunate that Holford fails to address the specific points that we raise: for example, we have asked if Holford regrets having endorsed the QLink pendant? And does he plan to withdraw his endorsement?

“If you know of someone who has been misled, distracted, disempowered and harmed would you please let me know?”
We would argue that – for example – every person who has moved to an unnecessarily restrictive diet due to inaccurate allergy and intolerance tests has been harmed. It is disempowering for people to be left under the impression that a healthy lifestyle requires the use of a wide range of pills and tests: this is a medicalisation of our day-to-day lives. While some kinds of screening and supplements may be justified by the benefits they bring for well-defined groups of people, these are, for the most part, better handled in consulation with an appropriate professional who has a full clinical history.

We are pleased that Holford is seeking to “engage in serious dialogue over what is best for people’s health”. Hopefully, a more productive dialogue will be possible in future.