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

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 »

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”