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?
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
I totally agree with your point. What you have to understand is Patrick Holford has enemies. He challenges the status quo. This website is created and maintained by funds from pro-industrial lobbyists. It’s amazing how ruthless the pharmaceutical industry holds on to its power and how they will pour funds into attacking and slandering the reputation of anyone they perceive as a threat. The real bad science is how their clinical trails are designed so the drug can’t fail. Also a recent study from the university of Wisconsin shows the more money a journal a excepts from pharma, the less about nutrition and the more negative results for nutrients. They’re actively falsifying the scientific evidence. God forbid people actually realise the answer lies in non-patentable nutrients designed by nature without the side effects. Keep speaking your truth! Its time to create a system based on integrity!!
You see, if you had read this blog rather than acting off your impression of what it might be like based on no actual knowledge or experience, then you would have noticed that we receive no funding from anyone but ourselves and none of us has direct or indirect ties to Big Pharma or whoever else you might think.
As for Holford having enemies – that is a fantasy to support his status as the millionaire underdog. He is employed by a firm that is substantially owned by Big Pharma. He was awarded a professorship in a UK university. Look at his Scientific Advisory Board for FFTB and Brain Bio Centre. Look at the slavish and unquestioning acceptance he has with mainstream media despite the standard of his scholarship.
As for criticism of clinical trials – you would read about the influence of funding on trial outcomes in many places on this blog – if you read it, rather than acting from your opinion based on no experience or knowledge of it.
As for your last point – how do you reconcile that with the prices that Holford charges for his products? Because, you must be aware that he advocates use of his own, costly, products rather than the substantially cheaper generics that he regularly denigrates…Do you think that Holford endorses particular food products for free in the cause of promoting a healthier diet for all?
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
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
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.
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?
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…
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…
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.
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
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 ….
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Pingback: Patrick Holford and His “Deeply Impressive” Scientific Proof « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
Pingback: Patrick Holford Likens Himself to ‘de Vinci’ and Denounces Reductionism « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
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).