I have said this on the blog before, but I’ll repeat just for you.

Back in October I went along to a Patrick Holford seminar. There was no question and answer session so I went up to the front to ask the great man himself what he was doing in the United States after graduating from the University of York.

His reply was “studying nutrition.” He went on to say that was what he has been doing for the last thirty years. What he meant by that I don’t know.

What do you think he was doing with Hoffer? Why do you think he is so reluctant to clarify what he was up to? What exactly has he got to hide?

Admin edit: let us recall that in Bad Science Ben Goldacre revealed that straight after university, Patrick Holford was working as a vitamin pill salesman for Higher Nature. Leaving aside the mistake about the dates of his study there was absolutely no time for going out to the US etc and studying for the implied period of time. Plus, neither Pfeiffer nor Hoffer were working in an institution could offer a course of study, a qualification or any form of accreditation.

Admin edit: did Hoffer reproduce the Holford CV in which he gave dates during which the course he claims to have studied at that time didn’t even exist?

Answered here – so, anything else on this topic goes to off-topic as it is off-topic for this post.

You are going into pre-moderation until you behave more responsibly.

Make your other comments at least on-topic for this blog. Read the comments policy.

As for Linus Pauling’s late career obsession with implausible theories about Vitamin C… I think what I said in the comment here is closer to the view of most scientists, both on him, and on other eminent scientists that made idiots of themselves talking about stuff they knew nothing about.

Admin edit: you completely overestimate your personal credibility and ability to influence if you think that making a film recommendation is meaningful after the number of errors you have made watching a short video clip and subsequently in your comments.

I haven’t read through the blog or the links. I was previously aware of Patrick Holford through his appearance in a film made by the actress Margot Kidder about her curing bipolar disorder through orthomolecular medicine. Patrick Holford studied under Carl Pfeiffer and Abram Hoffer for many years in the US. They were the first doctors to prove the link between nutrition and mental illness. Hoffer, of course, was a colleague of double Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling (much derided for many years over his advocacy of vitamin C) It was Linus Pauling who was Founding Patron of Holford’s original Institute for Optimum Nutrition. These are hardly the credentials of someone who is merely a ‘pundit with a gift for publicity.’

Admin edit: you do seem to visit blogs, make assertions, receive information and recommendations for reading which you refuse to take and then carry on commenting from ignorance.
Dr Jarvis is very active in promoting healthful eating – you should check out some of her committee memberships and books. In the interview that you seemed to have watched through blinkers and with ear defenders, she mentions the Portfolio Diet and the Mediterranean Diet and recommends both for appropriate patients.
As for the other points, as Dr Aust points out and as is covered in some detail on this blog, your are in error about Linus Pauling and his early relationship with Patrick Holford and the ION. And, as covered on this blog, there was never any years of study with either Pfeiffer or Hoffer.

Admin edit: you did not listen to the interview with full attention. Dr Jarvis was referring to the dietary recommendations that Patrick Holford was trying to pass off as original – she was distinguishing that from the nonsense of the supplements that he was pimping.

Again, once the diseases you mention are established, it is plausible that there is microvascular damage that is i) difficult to identify ii) not available to ‘reversal’.

Admin edit: wow. You can’t have complications from something that has been reversed? Golly. You have us stumped. Eh, no you don’t. It is entirely possible to have microvascular damage from diabetes that has affected the kidneys, eyes etc. – and this microvascular damage may persist even when somebody gets their blood sugar under control.

However, please, please correct your impression that the fact that an illness may be corrected doesn’t mean that some effects don’t persist. It’s entirely possible to have a GI infection that is cured but the damage that it has caused persists.