Comments on: Holford, Wakefield and effective regulation

By: Isabella Thomas

Isabella Thomas — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:54:19 +0000

Have a look at the web-site http://www.cryshame.com/
You can follow the GMC hearing from there.

By: Wakefield will not be “struck off for…challenging the status quo”; in other news, bear defecates in the woods « Holford Watch

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:26:13 +0000

[...] that MMR causes autism. However, I think it’s worth returning to Holford’s claim that “Dr Andrew Wakefield…is facing a hearing with the General Medical Council, and may be struck [...]

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:57:05 +0000

certainly, we can't know what Holford's intentions were in sending out this e-mail, so I would agree with Shinga that we can't say that Holford is a quack.

Oddly, some people do seem to find Holford's e-mail complelling: e.g. sig 5764 states that "The evidence as explained in Mr Holford's email is very compelling." Signatory 5784 seems to be a bit confused: "I believe Nigel Thomas is being persecuted and should not be stuck off".

By: Shinga

Shinga — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:03:23 +0000

Given the outcome of recent legal rulings in the EU (specifically NL), I am obliged to say that as long as Holford believes what he is saying, then it is neither a lie nor a fraud and that he can not therefore be a quack (which, in legal terms, apparently involves accusations of fraud).

The 'quality' of his evidence is such that I would hope that it would not persuade anyone to his point of view but I seem to be mistaken in that.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:56:18 +0000

Yeah, fair do, if Holford is championing Wakefield, based on no knowledge at all of the case, then he's a useless quack.

I wasn't sure whether Holford is credible: now it's clear that he has no interest in evidence before he makes up his mind.

By: Shinga

Shinga — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:35:10 +0000

I, too, was a little suprised by the absence of Patrick Holford as a signatory. Maybe he will sign up in the near future.

Holford is one of the first people to criticise others for partial readings of research studies or mis-emphasis of findings: it is remarkable that he can sometimes display a less than rigorous approach to what he describes as evidence for some of his assertions.

Regards - Shinga