Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Patrick Holford has e-mailed me with some comments about, and responses to, this website - and asked me to publish them here. I’m therefore pleased to reproduce his e-mail below (in full and unedited), but will first give a few links to put this in context. The post about Burne, Rath and HIV/AIDS that Holford refers to is here (and I have also responded to these issues in more depth). I discuss Food for the Brain’s advice to autistic children here, and the Catherine Collins criticisms which Holford refers to are contained in this Independent article.

I’ll respond to the specific points that Holford raises when time allows. As Holford states in his e-mail, I remain willing to remove and/or correct anything on this site which is shown to be false - although of course I have aimed to make this site as accurate as possible, and Holford has not yet pointed out any errors which need correcting. I also look forward to Holford’s response to the scientific and medical points I raise (and have, as Holford states below, agreed to post this response on Holford Watch). Below, I have reproduced the text from Patrick Holford’s e-mailed response to this site:

Dear Jon - I welcome robust questioning of ideas - with an open mind. In a sense almost all of my work has come out of doing just that within the field of nutrition and, more specifically, mental health.

However I would suggest that you go somewhat beyond that, when you first portray Mathias Rath as an arch villain without any consideration of the fact that the BMJ had both apologised to to him and paid him a whopping £100,000 settlement, then throw in a comment about a co-author of mine ‘apparently’ clapping at some point during a talk (since when was this a crime?) and then, in a leap that defies logic use these two facts to have a dig at me. This is not robust questioning of ideas in the interest of science, rather it is closer to the smear tactics of the McCarthy era. It strongly suggests that you already have a fixed mind set and aren’t willing to adjust, regardless of the science.

An example of your reluctance to consider the evidence would be your attitudes to HIV and vitamin C. You’ve obviously read the ping-pong exchanges on this between myself and Goldacre. I didn’t even lecture on AIDS in South Africa! Given that high dose vitamin C does consistently show profound anti-viral activity; significantly outperforms AZT in reducing viral load in vitro and is non-toxic (see www.patrickholford.com/hiv for the references); that the few studies that have given small but decent amounts of vitamin C to patients, have made a positive difference, what do you propose is the ethical thing to do with this information? Ignore it? Bring it to the public’s attention and hope that the much needed follow-on research is done? Or ridicule it, which can only have the effect of stifling further research? ARVs do nothing to reconstitute a weakened immune system, hence there is good logic in exploring the role of nutrition in enhancing immune response alongside medication.

I know of many individuals who have benefited from high dose vitamin C and none that have been harmed. I know of none who have shunned their ARVs for vitamin C and I have certainly not recommended any to do so. Given this information what do you think is the right thing to do?

Another of the points you take issue with concerns Food for the Brain’s advice for autistic children and on this I accept that your critique has merit. We have since added caveats for parents who wish to put their child on a gluten-free/casein-free diet to see if it helps, expanding the text about it on the website www.foodforthebrain.org as follows:

” Consider testing your child for IgE and IgG food allergies and avoid those foods to which they test allergic. Alternatively, consider pursuing a wheat and dairy free diet which has proven helpful for some, but not all, autistic children. However we recommend you do so under medical supervision, or supervision of a dietician or nutritional therapist to ensure that suitable replacement foods are included that ensure your child achieves optimal nutrition. Click here for a review of this approach. You may also wish to give your child a chemical additive free diet which has also proven helpful for some.” [Link to comprehensive report on review of research into wheat, milk and autism.]

If you have worked with autistic children you would know that, for some, this approach makes a huge difference. Many parents of autistic children are simply not aware of this and it is our intent to inform them about any nutritional intervention that may be helpful. I am not aware of this advice having caused harm. You are no doubt aware that the dietician Catherine Collins strongly criticized this approach in the Independent. And also that one girl we treated, to which she referred, showed considerable clinical improvement and that her mother was delighted with the results, as were many of the other parents who took part in this project. Catherine Collins never actually met or spoke with either the girl or her mother. When the facts of this case were shown to the Independent they were willing to publish my letter of correction.

I will respond on the other scientific and medical points you raise in due course, including the merits of IgG antibody tests, and thank you for your offer to publish my responses and to correct or remove false allegations.

Yours sincerely, Patrick Holford