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 »

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.