Holford has e-mailed me a number of criticisms of Holford Watch. I’ve already responded to most of these, but he raises a lot of points – some of which I probably ought to address here. Holford complains that I “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”. However, as I’ve shown, there are a number of good reasons to be angry with Rath. I’m not sure that the BMJ settlement to him is particularly relevant in this context: the BMJ published an inaccurate story about Rath, and then had to pay a large settlement. The fact that the BMJ published an inaccurate story about Rath does not make his advice on HIV/AIDS treatment any less troubling, make Rath’s science any better, or change the facts that hundreds of thousands of HIV+ South Africans have died and will die because they cannot access effective treatment. If readers do see this type of legal issue as important, though, one should also note that there have been a number of rulings against Rath.
Holford claims that I “throw in a comment about a co-author of mine ‘apparently’ clapping at some point during a talk…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.” However, this does not defy logic at all – Holford’s co-author, with whom he wrote a book on how Food is Better Medicine Than Drugs, was applauding a man who had just made some very troubling statements about how food is better medicine than drugs. It’s therefore reasonable to ask if Holford sympathises with Rath. Holford might be very opposed to what Rath is doing – I’d be delighted if he wanted to make his position on this clear – but do I think it is reasonable to ask the question.
A final point re. my supposed McCarthyism. Some might like to imagine me as a powerful drug company agent, lavishly funded, and drawing on Their massive surveillance infrastructure – sitting here, hands raised in the pyramid of evil contemplation while plotting how to destroy poor nutritionists. However, nothing could be further from the truth (in contrast to the funds available to Holford, this site has had under £5 spent on it and earned me a total of £0). McCarthyism was able to have large numbers of Americans blacklisted, fired, arrested etc. However, all I’ve done is to criticise some of Holford’s ideas, and ask him some questions (some of which he appears not to like). While I quite like the idea of heading a massive, super-evil conspiracy, sadly this isn’t the case – and what I’m doing here is not McCarthyism.
McCarthysm is defined as “the practice of making accusations of disloyalty,[esp. of pro-Communist activity], in many instances unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence”
and
“has become a general term for the hysterical investigation of …. opponents or the publicizing of accusations against these opponents without sufficient evidence to support the charges”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mccarthyism
If one accepts the above definition, one would have to conclude that the objective and rational deliberation by ‘Holford Watch’ of Mr Holfords exhortations and practices are the antithesis of McCarthyism.
Mr Holfords apparent inability to tolerate any criticism of his work without a need to redress, in contrast, seems distinctly McCarthy-esque.
On balance-and taking a line through the way that a number of disputes progress when strong opinions or controversial topics are involved-is it worse to be accused of McCarthyism or fascism?
On a different topic, Orac has an interesting discussion of how debate and discussion of controversial issues is suppressed – ranging from animal testing to autism research.
Anyway, it may be interesting when there is further dialogue about the science etc.
Regards – Shinga
Thanks for the comments. Seeing the problems Orac had, looks like I’ve had it pretty easy so far…
Hm, re. being accused of McCarthyism vs fascism – when used in heated discussion, I get the sense that the terms are often rather ill-defined anyway…
And certainly, the aim is to soon move to more in-depth dialogue about the science. Wasn’t sure whether or not to post this, but wanted to get it out of the way.
Since Holford obviously reads this blog, can he please answer this question?
“Which is best for prolonging the life and health of the HIV+, antiretrovirals or vitamins?”