A recurrent theme among the anonymous commenters is that we need to develop compassion and an open mind when we discuss Patrick Holford and his work. I’m unclear as to whether either of these ought to encompass the acceptance of information that is mis-leading or wrong. More recently, a (named) commenter wrote to tell us how impressed she is by Holford:
I certainly don’t agree with everything alternative medicine has to offer, but some of it does work, so please don’t criticise too much!Nutritionists (as opposed to dieticians) want to help people towards optimum health - who doesn’t want to feel good? Some of us can’t seem to get the balance right ourselves and, since doctors and buying heavily marketed products often doesn’t help (docs, like dietitians, tend to want to cure rather than prevent), we want to ask someone who knows more than us.
Why is it not appropriate to criticise someone when they are wrong? Or do you think that confusing premature mortality figures of 250,000 for cardiovascular disease when the actual figure should have been 60,000 is neither here nor there? What did you think of the WiFi avoidance advice that would turn your domestic wiring into an aerial? Is it acceptable to extol the virtues of a prophylactic pendant that works by faith and magic rather than science? What about Holford’s fauxrious claim that Watchdog had misrepresented the strength of the research literature for food intolerance tests when he was mistaken?
Holford has removed his fauxrious claims about the Watchdog programme but it still exists on the websites of his supporters. In response to some of Jon’s concerns, he has amended some dietary claims and recommendations on his Food for the Brain website and has now reported that he will ask Health Products for Life to amend advice about folic acid supplements. Holford’s testimonial about the QLink also seems to have disappeared.
Holford Watch hasn’t begun to scratch the surface of what is amiss with some of Holford’s claims or his sometimes inappropriate characterisation of the scientific literature. It is difficult to estimate whether these flaws are minor or might have greater significance: it is also difficult to assess how widespread they are among (say) nutritionists who have trained at ION or any nutritional therapist that one might consult. Catherine Collins gave a robust response to the commenter’s misconceptions about the work and scope of practice of registered dietitians. I would dispute the commenter’s implication that a nutritionist will, by default, always know more than ‘us’.
If Holfordism has persuaded somebody that it is inappropriate to comment on unsubstantiated claims, poor research or bad science, is it harmless?
62 responses so far ↓
Duncan // June 4, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Hi
i have been perusing you site having been looking for some articles on Patrick Holford.
I thought i would add my personal perspective.
I have suffered with periods of depression for a number of years and had bounced from one health professional to another, desperate for relief. With the help and advice of a nutritionist trained at the institute of Optimum Nutrition as well as my own efforts i am well again.
After my success i encouraged a friend who has had severe eczema for years which at the time of treatment covered 90% of his skin causing him to manage 2 hours sleep a night for the past year and a half. The only treatment offered to him by the NHS was seeing a skin specialist who provided steroid creams that burnt his skin!! 3 months later he is eczema free apart from one small area of scar tissue on his wrists.
I also haave a relative who suffered from Schizophrenia who visited a different nutritional therapist (also trained by the institute of O N). After 15 years of severe psychotice episodes, several hospitalizations and suicide attempts he is now well and better adjusted than most of us.
There are alot of quacks out there. However, your site seems to be dedicated to picking holes in a man’s work who is making a profound difference to people’s lives. Can you say the same? It looks like a personal vendetta and is not really a balanced appraisal. I respect your right to an opinion but what i am saying in my experience experience is that Patrick Holford’s advice is very sound. Certainly more so than the health professionals i have encountered time and time again who could not help.
I am sure his opinions are not flawless, but no doubt he does not claim to know it all. However, i think it is of more benefit to the world if he stands up and gives his contribution than sits on the sidelines like everyone letting the fallacy of our money driven heath systems cause untold unneccessary suffering.
cheers
Duncan
Shinga // June 4, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Duncan - I’m truly delighted that you, your relatives and friends have enjoyed such relief from the serious conditions that you endured.
It’s a shame that a constructive look at Holford’s mis-understandings of the technical literature and basic science looks like a “personal vendetta” to you.
Do you think that it is appropriate to encourage people to spend (possibly) several hundred pounds a month on treatments that have not been assessed for their clinical impact?
Do you think that it is appropriate to encourage people to spend money on the QLink?
With respect - with the way in which Holford is setting himself up to pronounce on the safety of WiFi networks, nutrition, contraception etc. etc., it does seem as if he is claiming sufficient expertise to guide people’s purchasing and healthcare decisions in a very extensive “claim to know it all”.
That same healthcare system that you deride has brought us greater longevity and greater health in the UK and much of the western world.
Regards - Shinga
Duncan // June 4, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Hi Shinga
it think it is correct to encourage people *if it works*.
I did some investigation into the Institute of Optimum Nutrition before i went down that road. I happen to know that they put great weight into the assesment of the available information on trials of specific nutritional supplements.
The thing with this is if something works (and i can only talk of my experiences and give reference to lots of people i have conversed with) then we should pursue it whole heartedly. Do you have a clineical trial that shows a plane flies or that water is wet. If something is of actual benefit to people then it should be implemented in the best way possible. I have rarely heard of people becoming ill from supplkements. Millions die for pharmaceutical drugs, hospital infections and medical mishaps.
Just as an example if you go to a doctor with a depressive illness or anxiety based illness. The first line of defence is antidepressants. They don’t even know exactly how antidepressants work. They have a theory and they believe that they interrupt the re-uptake of serotonin but they don’t know for sure. Now based on the fact (and if you have looked into this you will know) antidepressants *can* carry horrific side effects in many people. I have seen this first hand and have been there on hand to support people when it is happening. The effciacy of these drugs is all based on a theory and some very dodgy science!
With Mr Holford in particular remeber you are talking about a guy that has studied nutritional science in theory and practice for his entire working life and if the newspaper articles i have readd are true reads several hundred clinical trials a week and has treated thousands of patients. I think it is rather rich to claim that this blog debunks his claims with science. How many patients have you worked with on a one to one basis with nutritional/traditional therapy? Which nutritional research science department are you conducting you research with? Its easy to say this is the truth behind his claims and we are debunking it with science. Do you really know what the truth is?
What is the reason do you think that people rate about his opinion on things such as Wifi networks etc? Why do you think he has a slot on several tv programs, an institute dedicated to training and research, and columns in newspapers etc? Is he a fantastic self-publicist? Surely people would have rumbled him after selling several million books. Maybe he prays on desperation? Or perhaps he is on to something that people are realising is helpful.
The question i would ask you is. Have you spent some time actually trying to implement some of the lifestyle and nutritional changes that Patrick Holford suggests? Or have you spent time talking to people that the approach has helped?
Believe me i can be cynical when i think it is called for but somtimes you have to go out and see with your own eyes. Not sit back criticising from your computer desk.
I notice that you work in research with breathing techniques. I really think that is great. However, i guarantee that there would be a million people sitting there debunking your research ‘all that nonsense about breathing techniques’ long after you had seen the benefit and the improvement of the quality of life of those that you help along the way
With regards to the increase in longevity and greater health. I have no doubt that it healthcare plays a part. However, if you lok historically vaccines played a part, but improved sanitary conditions and the aviablilty of nutritionally rich food have ahd more impact than any medical treatment we currently have. I think you will agree people still suffer from all kinds of chronic debilitating conditions. Finally statistically our actual health and wellbeing is declinging. Its not just about how long you live. Its about how well you are as you get there.
cheers
Duncan
Catherine Collins RD // June 4, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Hi Duncan
I’ve read with interest your measured comments and glad to hear that nutritional measures have been able to help yourself and your friends.
I am a Registered Dietitian (RD)and I have spent over half my life working in exactly the sort of way you challenge the contributors to the HolfordWatch site. I can’t vouch for their qualifications, but I work on a “one to one” basis with nutritional/traditional therapy. I work in Intensive Care, and have a weekly rheumatology clinic where conventional and complementary aspects of nutrition dovetail.
I have published nutritional research, and I work in a dept in a large teaching hospital with 20 fellow dietetic colleagues. Oh, and I’ve written a nutrition book for public use, and been part of a serious-ninja nutrition manual (no, not the ‘Bible’ suffix so beloved of nutrition gurus - no modesty needed when sales are all-important). But I don’t spend a fortune getting soundbites onto air/ column inches in newspapers. The media seek me if they want a balanced and interpreted advice on nutrition research.
How did I get to here? To do so I spent 4 years in full time study to acquire an honours BSc after my name. As have the other 6000+ dietitians (RD’s) in the UK.
Now, how would you judge my expertise against an ION nutritionist?
Would you find in their favour because they have ‘ease of access’ via Institutes/ websites/ alt.health conferences and you felt better for taking their advice? Even if some of it was considered seriously inaccurate by sites such as these?
Or would you consider me potentially better qualified because I work within a legal code of conduct, so if I do something really, really bad you have some legal redress through law?
And how would you evaluate my 4 year full time BSc(Hons) degree vs 3 yrs part-time study for a qualification which on the ION website states doesn’t even add up to an access course for a ‘formal’ nutritional degree qualification?
I guess it doesn’t really matter about the relative merits of one group of nutritionists vs another if you feel you/ your colleagues have personally benefited. But say, for example, you had an expensive allergy test. Plus some blood and urine tests. And then given an exclusion diet. Plus oodles of supplements. Do you really believe that all these were necessary to alter your diet sufficiently to improve mood? I’m sorry, but the research in this area suggests that a dietary appraisal and the inclusion of perhaps a supplement would have done exactly the same. But how are you to know whether that would have been the case, or not? Or that spending - at a guess - a few hundred pounds was justified for benefit, even if you could have achieved the same gratis via a different route. You have to take it on trust from your therapist- of whatever hue - that they didn’t exploit your health concerns for personal profit.
But how do you reconcile the fact that unlike other health systems that run alongside conventional Western medicine - such as TCM - Holford/ ION use EXACTLY the same research papers as we dietitians on which to justify his/their claims. No ‘alternative’ strand there. Its all in the public scientific domain. The difference between his, and my, approach being that his interpretation of these conventional clinical nutrition research papers is truly unique - so unique, that as this site shows, his views can frequently be totally, completely incorrect. How moral is this when applied to a person seeking nutritional help?
But why should he do this? Who knows?
Perhaps he truly feels he is barking up the right tree on something we ‘conventionals’ haven’t had the nouse to investigate. If so, where is the formal research protocols he uses from the clinical papers to support his approach?
The proper, randomised trial rather than anecdote-by-GMTV-soundbite-and-the-address-for-book-for-sale-is-on-the-website approach? If he really, truly is on to something, then why not PROVE IT definitively by proper clinical trial (he is always lamenting the lack of evidence in supplement pills- so put money from supplement sales where mouth is and fund one - i’m sure it’d be tax deductable from the business) and then let us all adopt the Holford techniques proven scientifically to work?
Or are we missing something here? That in fact risking your profit margin from supplement sales to fund research into the very supplements you are using as alt.medicines to ‘treat’ conditions may not in fact live up to the ION hype. Perhaps the power of placebo is so strong that you couldn’t prove any benefit - which sadly, is what I believe.
We come to expect safe food, and safe drugs, in the knowledge that if they aren’t we have legal redress. Using megadose supplements and individuals who ‘practice’ nutrition have no safety net attached.
finally, you define Holford as the
“guy that has studied nutritional science in theory and practice for his entire working life …..reads several hundred clinical trials a week ….has treated thousands of patients”.
Hold the thought. Imagine if I thought I could be a radiologist. I subscribe to the radiology journals. I search google for radiology images to try and ‘diagnose’. I buy some radiology books and pore over them avidly, for ooh, quite a few years. No-one validates me. No-one teaches me. I do it all myself.
Now, substitute ‘radiology’ rather than ‘nutrition’ into the above.
How, final question. Would you trust me - as an RD who has ‘read about and practiced radiology for oodles of years’ - to correctly interpret your MRI scan?
Each to their own profession. I’ll stick to the subject I trained in, am legally managed by, and which I know gives me a grounding to objectively help patients. I do wish that your collective GP/ consultants had offered you dietetic referrals….
apologies to Holfordwatch for this lengthy email. please cut if too long.
Shinga // June 4, 2007 at 11:41 pm
I was about to discuss whether it is sufficient proof that something works, just because it did for you and some people that you know - but I see that Catherine has pre-empted me in a considerably more elegant fashion.
Planes fly and engineers can explain the mechanisms. We have reasonable observational and other data about gravity to the extent that we have been able to formulate equations to calculate it and build it into principles of everyday life. (If that was even semi-seriously your issue - sorry but it is difficult to tell when somebody has been so influenced by Holfordism.)
Argue with the science that we discuss. If you have a plausible biological mechanism for the claim that chlorphyll oxygenates the blood - please, share it with us.
As for the books etc. - Dan Brown - Celestine Prophecies - The Secret - any of these ring a bell? As for people who are frequently on television although they add little to the state of human knowledge or information on a topic - supply your own names.
It is a tad inappropriate that you presume to secondguess the state of my knowledge or my life experience; I doubt that you would appreciate it if anybody did that to you.
Have you read some of the accounts of how GPs deal with people with depression? E.g., Dr. Crippen and a recent patient (Monday’s entry)? You can search through his blog and find a substantial number of entries in which he offers people extended appointments and talking therapies. Do you really think that he and his colleagues do little but disburse prescriptions for anti-depressants.
As for the breathing techniques - if somebody were so unwise as to say that, I would misgivings about the state of their knowledge of respiratory physiology. Maybe I would also be disappointed that they were unable to search Entrez PubMed with such simple terms as hypocapnia, pursed lips breathing, sleep-disordered breathing etc. I would also imagine that they had managed to overlook the positive outcome of trials that had investigated these techniques.
Duncan - you must have read about the tremendous impact of the Measles Initiative in Africa in the last few years. Sadly, Africa has not had a massive and miraculous turnaround in its infrastructure - the poorest countries have not suddenly acquired decent housing, clean water, good sewage systems, food security etc. or even potentially accessible general medical care. Yet - there has been a 60% decline in mortality.
Read Fogel (search on this blog) - read how much fitter and healthier we are into our old age. If you have different evidence, that can be appropriately supported, and backs your statement, “Finally statistically our actual health and wellbeing is declinging”, then I would be interested to see it.
Regards - Shinga
PS - Why would you think that I am in need of Holford’s recommendations for supplements and lifestyle changes? There is plenty of advice out there on how to eat well. I don’t perceive a need for supplements - or are you somehow arguing that everybody needs supplements or just people who hold a different viewpoint?
Jon // June 5, 2007 at 12:19 am
Hi Duncan. In terms of substantive points, there’s not much more I can add to Shinga and Catherine’s contributions. I thought I would throw in an anecdote of my own, though.
I used to have fairly nasty eczema. Then, relatively suddenly, it got better for no apparent reason (happily, this has remained the case till the present day). I’m glad that your friend’s eczema is better - but this is the type of condition that sometimes corrects itself.
That’s why we need well-ran clinical trials of supposed eczema remedies: otherwise, some of the people using pretty much any treatment will get better, and will conclude that the treatment ‘works’. This can have odd consequences (one guy was urinated on by their guinea pig; their eczema got better at the same time; they therefore persuaded their family to try this ‘remedy’*). Either you have well-ran trials, or you run the risk of weird remedies becoming popular - for example (although thankfully the guinea pig remedy didn’t catch on) there’s a risk of hordes of families rushing out to buy them guinea pigs to use in novel ways…
*guinea pig urine is not an effective eczema treatment. Don’t try it…
Persiflage // June 5, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Ahem, hem. What you mean to say Jon, I respectfully submit, is that “There is no solid evidence that guinea pig urine is an effective eczema remedy”.
In fact, guinea pig urine as a treatment for eczema fits all the criteria for recommendation by alternative therapists:
1) It is natural, so there must be something in it
2) Various cultures have historically believed in the healing powers of urine from different animals: it is therefore “ancient knowledge”, and there must be something in it
3) It is not espoused by Big Pharma as it isn’t something they can patent, so there must be something in it
4) Someone has suggested that it might work, and scientists have never *disproved* that it’s effective so there must be something in it
5) It has been rubbished on this blog, so there must be something in it
I expect to see Cavia porcellus 30C in all good homeopathy retailers by the end of the month…
Jon // June 5, 2007 at 2:29 pm
thanks persiflage - you’re right. Despite the lack of evidence that guinea pig urine is effective (and lack of safety data) I haven’t proved that it doesn’t work. Now, who’s going to volunteer to try it ;)
“I expect to see Cavia porcellus 30C in all good homeopathy retailers by the end of the month…”
Good thought - at least in that case the lack of active ingredients means there’s no need to worry about safety.
Duncan // June 5, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Hi guys
thanks for your repsonses. Your hostility betrays you.
I will take my experiences elsewhere lola dnwish you all the best in any case.
take care
Dunc
catherine collins // June 5, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Its a pity Duncan considers his repliers ‘hostile’. I think the replies add up to a measured debate about the veracity, interpretation, and a sort of risk/ benefit analysis of following Patrick Holford’s advice ….
Duncan // June 6, 2007 at 12:58 pm
I disagree with you catherine there is little measured debate. Just an attempt to prove that that each persons opinion has precedent over the other. measured debate is having a perspective while not dismissing everbody elses.
I spent some time writing a reply to your and others posts yesterday pointing out how my persepctive differs from your and the other contributors here. After thirty mintues or so i relised that even if i put forward the most pursuasive propositions based on the glaring holes in you argument it wouldn’t be considered by any staunch anti-holford contributor on here. It would merely be another opinion to attmept to ‘debunk’.
I have looked through other posts on here and anybody who attempts to put forward a pro Holford opinion is met with a un-justifiably hostile rebuke. The model from which you work from is the model you work from, heaven forbid anybody challenge some of its premises. Its not everybody’s model.
If you guys really did think partick holford’s work was all twaddle would you be so outraged by it? Surely you would just give it little creedence and let him fizzle out as anyone who makes claims they can’t back evetually does. You will probably state that there is some moral indignation or safety claims about waht patrick holford does. Misleading the poor old public. However, people are not as sutpida as you think and there are certainly better causes for you indignation than what you consider to be be a media idiot peddling overpriced vitamin pills. People soon sort out who is a genuine article and who is charlatan based on the substance of their results from the premise of their claims.
Out of interest. I did see a dietician before i went on to an ION therapist.
The long and short of it is i have no interest in making you a convert. Just sharing perspectives in an adult manner. That is certainly not what goes on here.
Duncan
Jon // June 6, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Duncan,
I’m sorry if you feel that people have been hostile - all I can see is that some people have (politely) disagreed with you. I don’t think that disagreement is necessarily hostile, and it plays an important role in ‘measured debate’. Chambers defines debating as “to consider the arguments for or against something” - so considering the arguments against some of Holford’s positions is an important part of debate on this topic.
Duncan, you say that “If you guys really did think partick holford’s work was all twaddle would you be so outraged by it? Surely you would just give it little creedence and let him fizzle out as anyone who makes claims they can’t back evetually does.”
I wish that I shared your optimism, but experience suggests otherwise. For example, there were serious known problems with hair testing from at least the 1980s - but nutritionists such as Holford are still advocating and using this technique.
Duncan // June 7, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Hi Jon
thanks for the update from dictionary corner. Try looking up patronize. That’s why i referred to measured debate.
There is little learnt from deciding the absolute truth and then arguing that you are right. Every contributor on here may have something to offer. To have any meaningful conversation you must also listen to what the other person is saying.
I’m afraid i know nothing about hair mineral analysis. Never done it, had it or researched it.
However, a simple goole search shows that many people believe that it has benefits backed by research. Not Just Patrick Holford. Equally many people are able to provide evidence that they believe it to be twaddle. You appear to have already decided its twaddle.
Cheers
Dunc
Jon // June 7, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Duncan,
I referred to a dictionary because I wasn’t sure what you meant be ‘debate’ (I’m still not). Debate can involve analysing a particular point of view and explaining why you disagree with this - e.g. le canard noir looks at some of the claims made for hair mineral testing and explains why they are wrong.
You talk about “the glaring holes in you argument” - perhaps if you gave some specific examples we could debate these. At any rate, I’m not sure that it’s particularly productive to debate what the appropriate terms of a debate would be.
Le Canard Noir // June 7, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Duncan, Please, we would love you to put forward “glaring holes in our arguments”. That we can really debate.
But, personal anecdote is not going to show any glaring holes. Nor are your google searches. If you find the latest research and reasons why Hair Mineral Analysis has become reliable then we will change our minds. But saying you can find lots of quacks in Google that fleece money from the unwary, is not going to convince anyone.
Please, debate our ideas, as we debate Patrick’s. We would love it.
Claire // June 8, 2007 at 2:03 pm
If we understand ‘Holfordism’ to include a distrust of modern medicine allied to belief in all things CAM, I would argue that it is not harmless. My particular interest is paediatric allergy, especially the need to obtain high quality diagnosis and care for children with multi-system disease, e.g. the child with asthma/eczema/hayfever and possible food allergy. This is something which many parents find extraordinarily difficult, given that for the UK we have a total of five full-time paediatric allergy specialists in the NHS. The implication of this is that levels of awareness can be low in primary care and there can be a lack of willingness to take seriously parents’ concern to discover if their children’s health problems are allergy-related. Failure to diagnose these children can mean that they suffer needless morbidity, or, occasionally, worse.
What appears to be filling this vacuum in the UK is all manner of unproven, possibly unsafe CAM therapies which claim to cure allergies and which are relentlessly promoted in the lifestyle media. In the 2004 House of Commons Health Committee report into provision of allergy services in the NHS, Dr (now Professor) Jonathan Hourihane commented that paediatric allergy was “plagued by the interventions of practitioners who are not qualified in what could be considered medical allergy” (p. 39 http://www.bsaci.org/open/pdf/provision_of_allergy_services.pdf ). He went on to outline the dangers, which included unvalidated, inaccurate testing. The observation is made further down on p. 39 that many of these practitioners have no training whatsoever in child health.
In addition to these immediate dangers, I would argue that another consequence of the ‘colonisation’ of allergy by CAM is to tarnish this whole subject with associations of quackery and so to reinforce the scepticism of many in primary care when faced with parents’ concerns about allergy. So, the problem of insufficient awareness of and training in allergy is compounded by suspicion, while the one thing that could help - better specialist provision - just doesn’t happen. Which means that, in the UK, the poor patient in real need of specialist diagnosis and care bounces back and forth between GP and the CAM marketplace. Hardly harmless.
Shinga // June 10, 2007 at 7:34 am
You’re absolutely right about this Claire. Because of the association with self-testing, dubious testing methodologies and CAM, the whole area of allergy has been tainted in the UK. This is especially damaging at a time when so many young people are plagued by allergies that have an impact on their health (particularly if multi-systemic) and their quality of life.
Sandy of JunkFood Science recently mentioned the propagation of the medicalisation of the human condition. Oddly enough, Holford’s writings about allergies seem to reduce it to a lifestyle issue rather than a medical issue with his rhetoric around allergies and de-toxing. Professor Peter Conrad co-authored Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness. He writes extensively on ‘healthism’, warning that its promotion has creating the much amplified media view that wellness and the pursuit of health is a widely-received moral virtue, distinct from any actual health outcomes (which for me ties in the the self-righteous belief that you can ‘Say No to Cancer/Arthritis etc.). As Conrad commented in Culture Medicine and Psychiatry in 1994: “[W]ellness seekers engage in a profoundly moral discourse around health promotion, constructing a moral world of goods, bads and shoulds…engaging in wellness activities, independent of results, becomes seen as a good in itself. Thus, even apart from any health outcomes, the pursuit of virtue and a moral life is fundamentally an aspect of the pursuit of wellness”.
Regards - Shinga
Patrick Holford and His “Deeply Impressive” Scientific Proof « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // September 25, 2007 at 4:47 pm
[...] 2 16:15: Holford Watch is indebted to a correspondent who has alerted us to a fine piece of Holfordism on IgG testing and food intolerance in The Independent: The IgG antibody is the new kid on the [...]
Patrick Holford Likens Himself to ‘de Vinci’ and Denounces Reductionism « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // July 12, 2008 at 10:39 pm
[...] to his audience of confused and concerned parents in the guise of being an honest broker. Holfordism as [...]
clare // July 14, 2008 at 6:41 am
I have noticed this to. Anyone with a different idea to the bloggers on this website are met with hostility and an awlful attitude that says ‘we know best and you are a little bit thick’.
Your perceptions built from yoursubconciuos downloads (not always from your experiences, but also from teachers) become your beleifs. These beleifs will become your word and actions.
What if you have been taught the wrong thinks.
Stop staring at your computor screens and start learning about real people in their everyday lives. If there are exceptions to the rules of a theory, the theory is incorrect.
It is not possible to put so much effort into this website without some sort of personal vendetta (even if you are aware of it or not).
clare // July 14, 2008 at 6:49 am
Hey cathrine, i hope since your last T.V appearance that you have put as much effort down the gym and cutting out the sugar as you have being a celebrity.
One thing that annoys me about yourself and Holford, is that you are trying to tell the nation about health without the consideration that everyone is an individual with individual needs.
You claim Holford wants to be a celeb (prob true) but what about yourself.
Dont tell me, your beleifs are more valid.
Amanda // July 14, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I have/had serious food allergy reactions. Have never been refered for this or given any advice by a GP. Prescribed a drug because of this which i took , as prescribed, for 5 and a half weeks. Was ill due to this for 12 years(and 50% chance still giving me symptoms). Extremely ill for 3 years due to the drug. Will never (completely) trust a doctor again.
BANT provide a code of conduct and training requirements, and insurance. I do not know if PH is more interested in being a celebrity, earning a living, or helping people but he provides information to people in his readable books, that GP’s often do not have the training, experience, or time to provide.
There are mistakes in the ‘mistakes’ on this website and it is too biased to be helpful.
dvnutrix // July 14, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Clare - your remark about Catherine is contemptible. Catherine prefers to let remarks like this stand as she feels that it shows the desperation of your oppositional stance that you would resort to such ad homs and comments about a woman’s appearance.
As ever, you then claim victimhood status in expiation of what you know to be shoddy.
I don’t know what sort of example or model you think you are setting - however, don’t mistake that for any degree of interest.
You seem to have difficulty with original comments, however, to save time, we again refer you to: Stock responses to stock comments such as yours.
dvnutrix // July 14, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Amanda, your anecdotes are no more than that and you should know that it is unwise to generalise them to others. (As it stands your anecdote doesn’t make sense but I in no way want any more information.)
As for the alleged mistakes, you haven’t read properly so your comments are not helpful and embarrassingly wrong (actually, we were trying to spare you embarrassment, your arithmetic being no better than Holford’s).
Again - enquiring minds want to know Amanda, you said that you were consulting the Google lawyers and you must have heard back from by now - what is your next attempt at intimidation or are you going to stick with your usual grumbles?
By the by - you and Clare might be able to arrange a meet-up as your IP numbers are getting closer and closer.
wulfstan // July 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Clare seems to be publicising her lack of familiarity with Catherine Collins’ advocacy and professional work. I called it correctly on the NLP and I’m going to guess at some Landmark or similar influence.
Amanda, you didn’t respond, I would wonder why but you appear to be very busy imagining slights so that must take up a lot of your day. I’ve also come to accept that you can’t reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into and your general attitude appears to be contrary.
OT - I know the people who write this blog don’t like comments about spelling but some of the above is unreadable although it is eloquent testimony to the rigour of the author’s thinking and general care.
clare // July 14, 2008 at 6:05 pm
When you get a moment, sit down and read a book called biology of belief by bruce lipton (a classic) you might learn something.
Please stop pointing out spelling. Some of the comments above are only unreadable if you are blind, dont be such a plonker
jdc325 // July 14, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Clare asks “What if you have been taught the wrong thinks.”
I wonder if this is something Clare ever contemplates when considering the things she has been taught? Just a thought.
@wulfstan: “eloquent testimony to the rigour of the author’s thinking and general care” - yes, it doesn’t exactly fill you with confidence does it?
PS - re Bruce Lipton’s ‘classic’ book: I searched on the Quackometer for “Bruce Lipton” and the first result was a discussion of the book and author on the Richard Dawkins forum. It seems it is not universally regarded as a ‘classic’.
Quackometer. Dakwins Forum
dvnutrix // July 14, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Clare - you are on a warning. Cease the ad homs and don’t abuse fellow commenters.
After jdc’s comment, my first Lipton exposure promised me “a renaissance in Cell Biology now provides the cutting edge science - real science - to prove how holistic health therapies work”. The second was “mind over genes” and I decided that my brain would never forgive me for subjecting it to Patrick Holford’s vaccination views and Lipton’s renaissance in the same 24 hours.
Any chance of anyone picking it up and blogging about it further or will the Quackometer suffice?
wulfstan // July 14, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I do use a screen-reader, Clare - your spelling makes it stop and spell out each word every time you mis-spell one. The grammar makes it difficult to track the sense of your sentences.
Never mind Lipton, if you are using the internet, you would benefit from reading about how people with disabilities use the web.
One of the good things about this blog is that most commenters don’t use texting acronyms or contractions and they do write well-formed sentences.
wulfstan // July 14, 2008 at 7:42 pm
This won’t be obvious to other people but I should point out that this is the only blog that I’ve ever come across that uses alt tags correctly when they post a picture, diagram etc. They use header tags sensibly as well and, again, they are some of the only people I know who use proper notation tags for references and notes: they also mostly give full references which makes it easier to follow up.
jonhw // July 14, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Lipton reportedly also believes that “EFT is a simple, powerful process that can profoundly influence gene activity, health and behavior”.
Perhaps Clare suggested Lipton due to a subconscious desire that one of the readers of this blog would offer a more detailed and accurate assessment of the quality of his work ;)
Mary Parsons // July 14, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I learned a lot from Wulfstan’s link and will try to learn more.
I was sorry to read what Clare thought passes for a reasonable comment about Catherine. It gave me a shock of recognition as I’d just read about unpalatable attitudes like this on Junk Food Science.
From newspapers, it looks as if any woman who isn’t a size zero is fair game for being mocked for her size.
Does anyone know why it is usually people who lecture others about perceptions, distortions and being judgmental are usually the ones who come out with ad homs like Clare’s?
leet01 // July 14, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Amanda
I don’t find Patrick Holford’s books readable. Please forgive the plug, but Family Doctor Publications has an extremely good range short books about common conditions. They are published in asscociation with the BMA:
http://www.familydoctor.co.uk/
Lee
clare // July 15, 2008 at 6:41 am
mary, have you ever heard of a wind up? and when did i call catherine ‘fat’. I dont remember this! This must be your own perception of the woman.
John, im alright for that assesment thanks.
JD chappy, everything is an opinion, no matter how much you think you know or how you interperate research or your own experiences, it is still only your opinion. To think that you grasp the fundamentals of life and health with such cockiness is quite frankly embarrasing for you.
Hang on Mary isnt this just about the most awlful judgemental blog ever. Anyone with different ideas are judged as being ’stupid, unintelligent, uneducated, fooled or whatever.
I have just read that i am into NLP and i am disabled. The diabled bit was quite witty I admit!
And yes, we must all consider that we maybe barking up the wrong tree, including yourselves.
Not that your interested but i know nothing about NLP, cant stand Homeopothy am very sceptical about the absorption and bioavailibity of many supplemnets etc. What i do understand is that conventional medicine is failing big time and we need to face up to this.
Anyway i kind of feel this is all pointless because you have you heads so deeply buried in the sand and any valid opinion is swatted away by your belief system. Sorry about the disjointed message but im sure your massive brains that are so insightful will be able to cope.
DV i love the way you give me a warning like your my headmaster or something, i love agood lauagh, thank you.
superburger // July 15, 2008 at 10:39 am
“JD chappy, everything is an opinion, no matter how much you think you know or how you interperate research or your own experiences, it is still only your opinion.”
Not true.
That the square root of two is an irrational number is a fact - you are free to disagree with it, based on personal opinion but it remains a fact.
dvnutrix // July 15, 2008 at 10:45 am
Clare, I doubt your reading skills are as poor as you are pretending that they are. However, even you must know that your attempts to put words in the mouths of others are not at all persuasive.
I should think that most people will have noticed that Wulfstan reports that he uses assistive technology and offered you a link to read on the off-chance that you didn’t understand what a screen-reader does.
Wulfstan, you are the first person to mention the attempts to conform to WAI guidelines. This isn’t our own installation of wordpress so we can’t follow some of them but we do try.
jdc325 // July 15, 2008 at 11:05 am
How does that relate to my comment re your request for others to consider if the things they have been taught are wrong? I wondered if you asked the same of yourself as you do of others, I didn’t claim to know anything - let alone everything. I haven’t claimed to grasp the fundamentals of of life and health, I don’t feel I’ve been cocky and I’m frankly amused that you think others should be embarrassed about their comments on this thread. Your comment seems to me to be leaning towards the Po-Mo notion that all opinions are equally valid. This just might be true of purely subjective subjects, but where objectivity plays a part I fail to see how it can be true.
Please can you explain:
Where I claimed to have grasped the fundamentals of life and health
Why you feel I am cocky
How you justify the view that everything is an opinion
draust // July 15, 2008 at 11:42 am
“What i do understand is that conventional medicine is failing big time and we need to face up to this”
Errm.. failing how?
More people are living longer, and more healthily, than ever before.
That is unchallenged statistical fact.
And infant mortality in the developed world has practically disappeared, especially mortality due to infectious disease.
My 77 yr old dad (born 1931) had TWO (out of seven) siblings who did not live to the age of ten, one succumbing to pneumonia and another to whooping cough (pertussis). This simply does not happen any more in the developed world.
Or taking a few specific advances of “scientific medicine” over the last 150 yrs:
- Sanitation, pushed on by the acceptance of the germ theory of disease, helped prevent many epidemic diseases
- Post WW2, antibiotics can cure many others that were formerly deadly
- Anaesthesia and (therefore) painless surgery can cure many more things
- Vaccination has prevented many formerly epidemic diseases of childhood
And even if one limits it to just the last 20-30 years: childhood leukaemias used to be a death sentence; ditto much breast cancer. Now you have a good chance of beating either one. The advances in cancer treatment over the last three decades are 110% the result of medical science and painstaking clinical trials.
So how exactly is modern medicine “failing”?
Get a grip.
As far as I can see, the only REAL arguments for it “failing” are (i) modern medicine is getting ever more expensive; and (ii) as a result of (i), and of the increased expectation, we patients get less time with the doctors and nurses and often feel ever more “cheated of time, care, and attention” by the system.
The latter, fairly obviously, is also fed and promoted by the huge bandwagon of AltMed that repeatedly tells us “modern medicine is failing us by not making us feel “well”".
I would re-phrase that last one - let’s change it to:
“Modern medicine is failing us by not making us feel happy”
But: that is not its job.
There certainly may be major societal questions about why, given all that we have, including better health than ever before, we 21st century westerners are (as the surveys tell us) “not happy”. But that is hardly the fault of the medical system.
superburger // July 15, 2008 at 2:26 pm
perhaps the reason people regard modern medicine as ‘failing’ is that in the West you are almost certainly going to die of
1) Cancer
2) Heart disease
3) Stroke
3) COPD
all of these are, to varying degrees, lifestyle related. If you don’t smoke and eat a ‘healthy’ diet, and exercise, you stand a good chance of living a long time.
The other factor is genetics, but given that the human genome was only sequenced in 2001 its still very early days for genetic therapy - but it has the potential to be as revolutionary is the antibiotic revolution.
Those disease that people do die of are ones which are hard to treat (although progess is made steadily.) Cancer is common now, because one is not going to die of cholera, plague, pneumonia, TB, giving birth, or most bacterial infections in the UK, leaving only the ‘difficult’ and lifestlye diseases to treat.
“nutritionists” make their money from the worried well, offering supplements, where all the evidence suggests that a balanced diet (lots of veg, generally lowish GI carbs, lean meat and oily fish) coupled with regular exercise, no smoking and low alcohol consumption are the factors which contribute to long and healthy life.
clare // July 15, 2008 at 3:29 pm
DrAust
I believe that conventional medicine is failing us for many reasons, but please dont think that i am against it. As you have stated in numerous examples many peoples lives have benefited.
The care and attention people feel cheated from is crucial to considering underlying causes of peoples symptoms. I speak to many people who feel bullied into taking drugs and treated with contempt when they refuse. This cant be right.
The unfortunate side effects of many drugs are pretty shocking and seem to create even further ill health in the long run. We have to look for reasons behind ill health, not just treat the symptom, you must see the logic behind this. To do this medical care needs to shift in a slightly different direction.
You are wrong about N.T being for the worried well. Whn i see someone who has huge digestive issues, fatigue, headaches, various inflam conditions etc how does this make them well. Many people are now suffering from these multi symptom complaints and are genrally not helped by their doctor. What are these people supposed to do, just pretend they are well and get on with it. It takes someone longer than five minutes to help these people.
I saw a doctor down sainsburys the other day and his trolly was filled with junk food. Probably not a great person to ask about prevention me thinks. conventional med is failing in certain areas and many people now feel unhelped.
JD
Reading many post on here you seem to ready to consider someone thick just because they have different ideas. Im sorry but this is the way you come across.
clare // July 15, 2008 at 4:49 pm
can i just add that most of my comments so far have been unprofessional and scruffy. Debating with you guys on here can be very differcult as you all seem to be extemly well educated and have an excellent knowledge in all areas of research. My entries kind of result to humour (although im sure you dont find me funny)
In future i will concentrate on discussing matters in a more professional manner and now fully regret my comment about Cathrine Collins.
Beleive it or not i do actually agree with much/some of what is on this website (hence why i keep returning and fully respect your opinions. I think my oringinal problem was when i got dismissed so readily and i resorted to proving arguement rather than to have a proper debate.
clare // July 15, 2008 at 4:53 pm
sorry about spelling again, I do tend to tap away whilst straing out the window. In future i will read it through before submitting.
clare // July 15, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I meant staring, I did it again.
clare // July 15, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Im quite interested in the placebo effect and was wondering about a comment earlier. If belief/perception does not alter gene expression, how does the placebo effect work?
This should no doubt be moved to off topic
Admin edit: follow-up should be posted in off-topic: just repost a seed discussion up there.
superburger // July 15, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“I saw a doctor down sainsburys the other day and his trolly was filled with junk food.”
Again, you fall into the trap of thinking because someone does not practice what they preach their advice is not sound.
Doctors are not machines - they might be armed with all the facs but chose to make ‘bad’ choices.
Rates of alcoholism are high amongst medics. That does not mean the entire medical profession is incapable of dealing with alcohlism.
“We have to look for reasons behind ill health, not just treat the symptom, you must see the logic behind this.”
This is a common line from CAM believers, which I’ve never full grasped the logic of. Superficially it sounds nice, but it doesn’t bear up to much scrutiny.
When someone has TB they are given powerful abtibiotics to kill the cause (bacteria) *of* their symptoms.
I suppose one could argue that the cause of TB is poor housing and poverty, leading to bacterial infection but those are not things that medical science can readily cure (although medics working within the framwork of the welfare state can access other agencies who might be able to help - a holistic approach, one might say)
“It takes someone longer than five minutes to help these people.”
Yes, yes it does. Some people have enormously complicated and challenging lives, and sometimes the root causes of their ill health are related to family life, socioeconomic circumstances, or even mental health problems. And 5 minute GP appointments seem woefully short - but if you’re arguing that we need more and better GP surgeries then that’s a seperate argument.
What nutririonists do is to assume that the answer is in pills and supplements - medicalising problems that might be better solved by other non-medical interventions. I wonder what %ge of trips to a nutritionist (£25-£50 a time?) result in a non-tablet based solution?
lateral // July 16, 2008 at 2:17 am
Umm
Its conventional medical practice you really should be looking at when considering harm………
Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Killing 250,000 People Every Year
This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.
If you want to keep updated on issues like this click here to sign up for my free newsletter.
This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
* 12,000 — unnecessary surgery
* 7,000 — medication errors in hospitals
* 20,000 — other errors in hospitals
* 80,000 — infections in hospitals
* 106,000 — non-error, negative effects of drugs
These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
superburger // July 16, 2008 at 7:44 am
no-one would dispute the medicine makes some terrible mistakes.
But I wonder, how many lives are *saved* every year by modern medicine? I mean, imagine if every hospital closed and every doctor quit, what would be the change in death rate?
JAMA is a mainstream medical journal (one of the biggest, too) and it publishes an article critical of the profession.
How many nutritionist trade magazines carry articles critical of nutritional thrapy?
terry // July 16, 2008 at 9:18 am
Lets close the doors of all G.P surgeries and replace them with nutritional therapists. Lets spend time educating communities on the relationship between diet/nutrition/stress and the symptoms they suffer from. Lets prevent rather than cure. Instead of offering drugs that may clear up one symtom but probably cause some other ones, lets send patients to educational workshops. Lets listen to the patient for more than about 7 seconds to try and understand why their symtoms have developed.
Obviously i dont actually want to close GP centres but this would also be a good expeiment.
I would say after a few years of not demanding people take drugs and instead provide education and functional medicine, promoting lifestyle and dietry changes according to the individual and symptoms, death rates would drop dramatically.
LeeT // July 16, 2008 at 11:31 am
Terry
I am not sure whether you have ever seen a nutritional therapist or even visited one of their websites. Many of them seem to base their appeal on the fact they can cure various conditions. We do not need GP’s to waste their time on giving out advice about nutrition, diet and stress. You can learn about basic nutrition by buying a GCSE textbook or going on the website of British Dietetic Association.
At my local health centre the standard time slot with the GP is ten minutes. Sorry to hear you only get seven seconds - could it possibly be something you said?
There is a good case for increasing the funding for community dieticians and nurses. Not sure from where they will operate when you have closed all the health centres …..
superburger // July 16, 2008 at 11:44 am
“Lets prevent rather than cure”
Because GPs and the NHS in general aren’t involved in preventative/public health?
How many healthy living / stop smoking / cut down on booze adverts are ther running at the moment? None of these involved supplements and pills.
“Instead of offering drugs that may clear up one symtom but probably cause some other ones”
All drugs have side effects. Managing and explaining the risk of side-effect with the possibility of benefit is integral to physician and pharmacists work.
“lets send patients to educational workshops.”
Already a feature of many GPs surgeries - smoking cessation, stress management, grief counselling etc.
“Lets listen to the patient for more than about 7 seconds to try and understand why their symtoms have developed.”
More patient and doctor time is a good thing, yes. NHS resources are finite and it is a constant battle. Don’t think any GP actively avoids trying to diagnose cause of symptoms (unsurpisingly they generally care about their patients’ health)
Often they are beyond the scope of a short consultation (so referally to specialist required) or largely a social problem (no wonder you’re suffering stress, looking after 6 kids and a parent with parkinsons, living on 19th floor of flat with no lift, surviving on DSS payments)
“I would say after a few years of not demanding people take drugs and instead provide education and functional medicine, promoting lifestyle and dietry changes according to the individual and symptoms,”
Not sure that doctors do ‘demand’ patients take drugs (although nutritionists ‘demand’ people take pills). For all sorts of reasons many patients demand a pill-based cure for their problems, which pressed-upon GPs respond to by handing out antibiotics for common colds, etc.
The lifestyle and dietary advice is at the very centre of what the whole team of health care professionals aim to provide - GPs, practice and district nurses, health visitors, dieticians, physiotherapists and OTs all work to give lifestlye advice aimed at reducing illness. I would say if any medicine is ‘holistic’ then it is this form.
Not the world of nutritionism where every single complaint needs a particular pill associated with it.
dvnutrix // July 16, 2008 at 11:45 am
Superburger, it’s plausible that even if there was enough money etc. to fund an expansion of the number of GPS that would be necessary to give longer appointments etc., then:
i) the system would still not meet the needs of the most dis-satisfied users because if you don’t trust doctors, there is no reason to expect anything but more of the same;
ii) some of the people who need healthcare the most are still going to be the most unlikely to seek it.
Clare - If people have digestive upsets, headaches etc. on a regular basis and they seem to be food related then it is reasonable to ask for a referral to a dietitian who can guide someone through the eliminate and challenge diet. Catherine gives a good overview of that in the above comment and contrasts the experience of dietitians and nutritionists. One of the points that we return to regularly is the Holford regularly mis-cites and mis-interprets the research on which he relies for his recommendations. We have recently noticed examples of the same in the work of Jonny Bowden (don’t know if it runs through his work so we may return to that at another point). However, it does give us concerns as to what nutritionists were taught and whether or not they have checked the research upon which they rely.
Lateral - as Superburger said, critical self-analysis is unusual outside medicine - however, if you know of an example in CAM journals etc., please let us know. However, given the number of times that CAM proponents or advocates threaten to take legal recourse etc. against what they perceive to be a slight, then it is reasonable to expect that they would do the same to one of their own who suggested a more rigorous approach.
Look at the present hostility from homeopaths towards Prof Ernst who is dual qualified in both medicine and homeopathy and is investigating the evidence-base for various CAMs. E.g., letter in THES and Michelle Shine’s two FOIA requests - 1 and 2.
Update 21:30: for that last about Prof Ernst- Dr Aust is on point.
superburger // July 16, 2008 at 11:55 am
good point. Wonder what evidence is that longer appointments reduce the level of illness?
seperating medical and social part of medicine is complex…but for someone who is seeing a GP because of largely social problems (stress, but living with six kids, 19th floor of flat with no lift, parent with advanced parkinsons, only income from DSS) then at least a GP is in some position to refer people to the correct part of the social work system (respite care, social workers, council benefits deptmnt)
that’s a ‘holistic’ approach, and tries to get to root of problem.
Arguably that’s not a GPs job (is there anything medically wrong with someone in that situation?)
It’s hard to imagine that a nutritionist (assuming they are affordable to someone on the DSS in the wrong part of town) has direct access to the full spectrum of the (highly imperfect) welfare state or would offer anything other than a tablet-based solution.
dvnutrix // July 16, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I’m going to mention here that we are aware that there are sock-puppets or a ’shared environment’ in the above comments. It is probably not that hard to guess who these parties are.
This sort of behaviour does not show much confidence in your arguments.
dvnutrix // July 16, 2008 at 12:39 pm
‘Terry’ - it is not implausible that many people who might benefit from guidance would resent being sent to workshops and would not attend.
This begs the question as to what would be taught in those workshops. If the majority of nutritional therapists have been trained by people like Holford then I would have grave concerns about the accuracy and appropriateness of their recommendations.
As Superburger and Lee point out, there is no reason to believe that appropriate workshops aren’t already given by nurses, community dietitians or GPs with a Special Interest.
As a side-comment on that - do you have any idea how many charitable organisations in the C19th were concerned with teaching “the poor” how to cook nourishing food? Or how many of them ran classes for young girls to educate them about nutrition? It is a fascinating area - the essential problems were:
*lack of interest
*lack of money for food among those taking classes
*lack of access to good quality food (poor preservation; rampant adulteration; storage problems etc.)
*lack of access to cooking facilities
*objections to the ‘Lady Bountiful’ attitude.
Mary Parsons // July 16, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Terry and the other people who are recommending closing down GP surgeries and lecturing people about food, nutrition and other lifestyle advice, what would you advise for young children and the vaccination schedule? What do you base your advice on and what is your evidence that it is successful?
Did you even read the whooping cough post? Did you read that final part? Horse and Buggy Doctor, written in 1938, by Dr Arthur E. Hertzler.
I don’t want to see these diseases come back.
jonhw // July 16, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Yes - it is peculiar that many nutritional therapists and similar advocate prevention one minute, while opposing vaccination the next.
clare // July 16, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Thanks for the replies.
Was still wondering about the placebo/belief/perception effect and how it works if it does not change gene expression. This is a valid question.
Admin: It may be - but that doesn’t mean that it is something that grabs people’s attention enough to comment on it in a time-frame that suits you. Any responses on placebo issue should be in off-topic because it is not on topic for this post, and, as we haven’t written about it, not really this blog. You don’t have a class assignment that you are wanting input on, do you?
clare // July 17, 2008 at 7:01 am
This is the first time that no one has responded to a comment i have posted. I have noticed that the placebo effect is a topic that does interest poeple on this blog, so no reply would suggest your massive brains cant cope. (apart from resorting to humour)
jdc325 // July 17, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hi Clare.
Firstly, I would like to apologise to you. If any of my comments appear to be cocky or rude then I am sorry. This apology holds for anyone else who feels the same way about my comments. I don’t consider people who hold different views to mine to be thick - and I would hope that as well as avoiding use of the term ‘thick’ I can be sensitive enough in future to avoid any implication that I consider someone to be not overly intelligent.
Secondly, I would like to post a couple of links to some interesting things I have come across that relate to the placebo effect. I will do so in a separate comment. I’m afraid I don’t have a massive brain, so I can’t promise you will find my comment of particular interest.
To Holford Watch: apologies if the off-topic nature of my conversation is becoming a little dreary. I have added a page to my own blog - http://jdc325.wordpress.com/off-topic/ - in order that anyone wishing to further discuss my off-topic comments on other blogs can use my bandwidth rather than yours if you prefer.
Cheers,
jdc.
LeeT // July 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Clare
The simple answer to your question is the Placebo effect is something that needs more research. Have a look at the following interview with Professor Ernst:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/25/scienceinterviews.health
At one level it is understandable why private companies and the government are unwilling to invest in finding out why useless drugs and treatments can show positive effects.
However, personally I think it is important to understand the psychological effects of say, the “belief” of the patient in a particular treatment and a smiling a doctor or nurse! What we should be trying to do is combining the placebo effect with treatments that actually work.
I can’t imagine Holford or his chums funding research on the Placebo effect. It would risk the whole CAM industry collapsing like a house of cards.
Changing the subject slightly I wonder if there have ever been occasions of a negative placebo effect. This could occur when, for example, you ask a CAM practitioner to explain how his/her treatment works and then he/she becomes rather angry. Does anyone remember London Nutritionists who were posting here at the start of the year?
jdc325 // July 17, 2008 at 1:57 pm
This has been recommended to me, but I haven’t read the paper yet so I can’t really recommend it to you: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spmd.2005.02.008 (behind a paywall, unfortunately). It may be worth taking a look at the abstract though?
There is a cracking paper from 1965 on placebo: Lee Crandall Park. (PDF available for download via this link).
WebMD has a piece on the brain’s processing of pain and the difference made by placebo. It seems that the effect of placebo in terms of pain management is related to expectations of pain.
Alternatively, you could always try the placebo category on the Bad Science blog – it makes for very interesting reading and includes some cracking links (like the first couple I just gave). http://www.badscience.net/category/placebo/
jdc325 // July 17, 2008 at 8:26 pm
@LeeT: “Changing the subject slightly I wonder if there have ever been occasions of a negative placebo effect.”
It’s referred to as the nocebo effect. There’s a Wikipedia page on it and there’s been studies that look into the phenomenon, including this one: JAMA. 2002 Feb 6;287(5):622-7. [Seems to be paywalled, unfortunately, but there are ten papers indexed on Pubmed which promise links to free full text.] This looks like a good ‘un: “Conscious expectation and unconscious conditioning in analgesic, motor, and hormonal placebo/nocebo responses” - PMID: 12764120
The authors state that “the placebo and nocebo effect is believed to be mediated by both cognitive and conditioning mechanisms” and in this study, they analysed “the effects of opposing verbal suggestions on experimental ischemic arm pain in healthy volunteers and on motor performance in Parkinsonian patients”.
PS - my last comment contained links for Clare on the placebo effect. I hadn’t seen your post when I left my comment of 1.57pm but it looks a bit like I was responding to you rather than Clare. Apologies if this was a tad confusing Lee.
Leave a Comment