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

Professor Patrick Holford is certainly attracting publicity to the University of Teesside. On Saturday, Damian Thompson mentioned Holford as instrumental in (inadvertently) exposing the shoddy research at the heart of nutritionism and other CAM: The last rites for alternative medicine? And, today, Lois Rogers of The Times discusses: Do vitamin supplements do more harm than good? Read the rest of this entry »

The nation recently had many opportunities to listen to Professor Patrick Holford of the University of Teesside and Head of Science and Education at Biocare. Holford was engaged in a manufactroversy about the Cochrane Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases (review). In several of the interviews he framed himself as a scientist and presented himself as a equivalent scientist to those who had conducted the review. Read the rest of this entry »

HolfordWatch is considering the weighty proposition: Will Science Blogging Absolve the Mainstream Media of the Need to Provide Science Coverage? It’s a fairly wide-ranging discussion that discusses the common understanding that there is something amiss with the current state of science journalism. As it stands, science and health journalism mostly fails to meet the needs of either a specialist or general audience. However, most media proprietors seem to be unconcerned about this because, unlike other specialist interests, such as darts, or gardening, there is little to be gained from advertising sales. In an unvirtuous circle, this lack of potential advertising revenue means that there is little economic rationale for maintaining a staff with specialist knowledge. Res ipse loquitur as someone, somewhere, will be saying. Read the rest of this entry »

Summary: Professor Patrick Holford is a popular media pundit who is celebrated for his scientific approach to nutrition. Pundit brand equity may partially explain why the mainstream media do not seem to care that Holford’s work is riddled with errors that substantially undercut some of the scientific claims that he makes: that is irritating but understandable, given the economics of advertising. Mainstream media may also find it difficult to admit that they were duped or indifferent to the accuracy of what they were offering.

However, it does not explain why the University of Teesside persists in lending him academic credibility or why reputable scientists continue to be associated with him. Ironically, perhaps these people who should know better would only be prompted into appropriate action if the mainstream media were to cover his errors and to appraise the quality of his scholarship. Maybe Ben Goldacre will mention something in the next instalment of The Rise of the Lifestyle Nutritionists. Read the rest of this entry »

HolfordWatch wrote up the intriguing story of the proper form of title for Professor Patrick Holford of Teesside University. The FOIA documents show a story of dissent from some quarters and some stern words to Patrick Holford on the form of title that he should be using. Read the rest of this entry »

Professor Patrick Holford and Drew Fobbester are joint authors of the Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007 (pdf). Holfordwatch has made a close study of Holford and Fobbester’s report (see related reading) and it is riddled with errors and examples of poor proof-reading. We have looked at Holfordwatch’s reviews and annotated some parts of the report to reflect some of those criticisms. We hope it is useful to have some of those comments collected together like this as it gives a flavour of how poor the report is.

It is disappointing but not particularly unusual that some media pundits such as Dr Hilary Jones claim to have read the report from cover to cover and yet failed to notice any of the many mistakes. However, we can only echo Holfordwatch’s surprise that the Scientific Advisory Board passed this report for publication. We hope that policymakers familiarise themselves with the many mistakes in this report and adjust their estimation of the value of its findings accordingly.

This report looks like a poor return for the investment of time that the reported 10,222 respondents put into it. There were more than 70 questions, most of which required some thought (just how many times a week is the child bloated, crotchety, sugar-craving and how frequently does the child eat nuts, wholegrains etc.). Depending on how much thought was necessary, filling in the questionnaire might take 30-50 minutes. So, 10,222 x 40 minutes. These data are the results from a collective input of 408,880 minutes or 6,814 hrs and 40 mins from the respondents. The reports’ authors really must try harder.

FFTB Child Survey 2007 Literature overview (pdf) See references 1-4 in related reading.

For the data and analyses in these next two, see references 6-10 in related reading.

FFTB Child Survey 2007 SAT Scores Variance (pdf)

FFTB Child Survey 2007 Dark Green Leafy Vegetables (pdf)

Related Reading

Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: The Promotion
Holfordwatch looks at the literature review:
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 1
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 2
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 3
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 4
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 5

Holfordwatch approaches Professor Holford and two members of the Scientific Advisory Board with questions that they do not answer. Holfordwatch reviews the data and analyses:
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 7
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 8
Why Don’t Food for the Brain Report Their Survey Results on Supplement Pills Survey: Review Part 9
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 10
Chair of FFTB Scientific Advisory Board acknowledges that their research hasn’t been “a proper job” and hasn’t been “rigorous”

We hope that this Annotated CV for Patrick Holford and his Visiting Professorship at Teesside University may prove to be a comfort to those who encounter embarrassing slips of memory when compiling an application for similarly prestigious jobs or even those of a more junior status.

Update 24.02.2008: We have browsed through the recently-released FOIA documents relating to this appointment. Apparently, the University of Teesside doesn’t find this sort of inaccuracy or lack of fact-checking to be a cause for concern. Document 15, an email from Professor Henderson to the Professorial Conferment Committee, dated 07.09.2007.

Whilst the citation, references etc. presented to the Committee appeared to lead to a relatively straightforward decision it transires that Patrick Holford’s work is highly controversial and has been for many years - even to the point that we have now been made aware that websites exist dedicated solely to criticising Patrick and his work…
The University is currently investing a lot of time and resources into investigating some of the concerns that have been expressed, with a view to determining what action, if any, may now be necessary or appropriate…
Whilst all of these events have resulted in the University retrospectively checking some of the information provided to PCC, and indeed to review its Governance and “due diligence arrangements” for ensuring the veracity of all information provided to the Committee, it remains our view that the Committee made a credible decision on the basis of the information provided and no criticism is being attached to the Committee for its actions.

We look forward to exploring the rest of the case for support for Patrick Holford’s application for a Visiting Professorship at the University of Teesside.

References

[1] Patrick Holford and Some Interesting Errors on His CV and Profile
[2] Comment on Patrick Holford and More Oddities in the Biography and CV
[3] Brain Bio Centre Info Pack (pdf)
[4] Patrick Holford, Professor Andre Tylee and the Endorsements That Cannot Die
[5] Statins and Why Patrick Holford is Breaking My Heart: Part 2
[6] Ben Goldacre on Patrick Holford and the QLink
[7] Myth: The Scientific Support for Chromium and Cinnamon
[8] Myth: You Can Diagnose Food Intolerance or Allergy with an IgG Blood Test
[9] Dr. Sarah Jarvis and Patrick Holford discuss diabetes management on GMTV
[10] Dr. Emer Keeling and Patrick Holford discuss nutritional medicine

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.

This post has been moved to our permanent front page.  Please click here to read.

We’re starting this blog because we were concerned about some myths propagated by the nutritionist Patrick Holford, and the ways in which these have impacted on the culture of nutritionism. Patrick Holford’s science has been effectively dealt with on a number of blogs - including badscience.net, dcscience.net and holfordwatch.info - so we’re going to focus on a few specific myths here. We won’t be able to deal with everything in one post, so will start with a few Holford Myths here:

• Questions about Patrick Holford’s CV. From the way that Patrick is quoted in the UK and international media, one could easily get the sense that he is an expert in nutrition. Indeed, Teesside University has given Holford a visiting professorship. However, bloggers have raised a number of serious questions about Patrick’s credentials - including his the date of his undergraduate degree, the quotes that Holford used on his CV and the fact that the only accredited university-level qualification on Holford’s CV is a 2:2 in Psychology.
• Patrick seems to have some strongly held beliefs about Prof David Colquhoun; however, his statements about Colquhoun have not been entirely accurate. When Prof Colquhoun showed that Holford had failed to declare his competing interest in curcumin sales in a BMJ rapid response, Patrick complained that “Professor David Colquhoun has so far not felt it relevant to mention his own competing interests and financial involvements with the pharmaceutical industry when knocking non-drug approaches to diseases”. However, readers were amused to learn that Prof Colquhoun did not declare these competing interests because he doesn’t have them: “My research has never been funded by the drug industry…Neither have I accepted hospitality or travel to conferences from them.” This is a very nasty myth to spread about an academic who - because he “would never want to run the risk of judgements being clouded by money” - has refused drug company funding.
• Dr Ben Goldacre “has failed to accurately critique one single point of [Holford's] science”. Patrick seems to be annoyed at that nasty Dr Goldacre, and by the publication of Goldacre’s work in the Guardian. However, Goldacre has accurately critiqued a number of points of Holford’s science - see for example Goldacre’s report on how Patrick’s Health Products for Life were found by the ASA to have made “untruthful and unsubstantiated claims about pills” or his fisking of Holford’s belief in “The Amazing Qlink Science Pedant“.
  

There’s plenty more myths to come - and lots of other contributors who want to share their concern about what Holfordism is doing to the culture of nutritionism - but this will do for now. If any other interesting myths come to mind, do please post them here.