Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

I used to think that the Observer was a proper, accurate paper - that when you saw an article in it, you could assume that it was well-researched, probably accurate and, if a mistake was made, the Observer would correct it. Maybe I was naive before: at any rate, the Observer has very effectively disabused me of this belief. Apologies in advance for any typos etc. in the below: I’m sufficiently annoyed about this that I’m struggling not to break into any Stott-style swearing, so the bile might come out in an occasional spelling or grammatical mistake instead.

On 8/7/07 the Observer ran two awful articles on autism and MMR - and got things wrong in many, many ways. The problems with the Observer’s 8/7/07 article on autism rates and MMR, and Wakefield interview, have been dealt with at length - here and elsewhere - and I won’t go over all of these points again here: the Observer got things wrong in so many ways that it frankly becomes tedious to keep listing them again. They have also made a real hash of their two - woefully inadequate - responses to well-justified criticisms of the article: criticisms that were in many case far better-researched, more nuanced, and closer to what good journalism should be than Denis Campbell’s attempts at being a health/science journalist in the original Observer articles. The Observer have now removed one of the two offending articles from their website (although this appears to be for legal reasons, rather than a retraction due to the article being mostly wrong on most things it covered).

In this week’s Observer there is not (so far as I can tell from their website) any mention of their previous coverage of MMR and autism. After previously trying to cover up their horribly embarrassing failures with a bodged clarification, it looks like the Observer may now be hoping that if they don’t mention the elephant that is in the room - and currently stamping all over their reputation for quality journalism - the elephant will go away. However, that is not going to happen.

What I’m going to focus on here is the Wakefield/Campbell interview still on the Observer website - and two embarrassingly basic errors in the interview, which still remain uncorrected. In the interview, the writer (Denis Campbell, I presume) states that:

Critics point out that the US [Autism Omnibus] court case is not about the MMR vaccine itself but centres on the use of a preservative called thimerosal, which contains 50 per cent mercury and until a few years ago was added to routine vaccinations given to children in the US under one. Crucially, it has never been an element of the MMR vaccine here.

The Observer is simply wrong to imply that MMR contained thimerosal, anywhere, ever: this is a live vaccine, so adding such a preservative would render MMR ineffective. Moreover, the Autism Omnibus has discussed MMR at length: for example, Chadwick’s testimony to the court offers a devastatingly effective critique of Wakefield’s science. (more…)

In the past two days, I’ve had two e-mails from the Food for the Brain (FFTB) e-mail list, advertising a seminar by Michael Ash on ‘The Gut Brain link in Autism, Depression and Mental Health’. They certainly seem keen to encourage attendance, and at £49 for the seminar, I can understand why bookings might be a little sparse. Naturally, as FFTB are so keen to promote Ash’s speech, I thought I’d look at some of his previous work on these subjects. What seemed especially notable was Ash’s role in Nutri Link: a “Practitioner Group” which offers information on a dizzying range of interventions for children on the autistic spectrum.

A first thing to note about Nutri Link’s ‘Information for Parents’ document [PDF link] on treatments for Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) is that it is explicitly aimed at parents and carers. One wonders why - is the Nutri Link treatment meant to ‘cure’ those with ASDs before they reach adulthood? Or would adults on the autistic spectrum be unlikely to appreciate the type of interventions suggested?

A second thing to note is how many interventions are suggested. There are seven pages of relatively dense text, suggesting a dizzying range of things to do to children with ASDs. As the author(s) of the document are clearly aware, they suggest that children with ASDs take so many supplements that it will be hard to get all these pills and powders down their throats. (more…)

Patrick Holford participated in a Nutritionists Debate sponsored by The Wright Stuff and YouTube. Apparently, it was a classic and we have been fortunate enough to obtain a transcript of the video segment.

Transcript: Wright Stuff / YouTube Nutritionist Debate

MATTHEW WRIGHT, Wright Stuff host: Good morning, and welcome to the first Wright Stuff/ YouTube Nutrionists debate where experts answer questions of the day. We asked people from all over the UK to submit questions via youtube.com, and the response was overwhelming. So, without further ado, let’s munch those seeds, swallow those supplements and prepare to listen really hard. Read on

Patrick Holford is tremendously proud of what he believes Food for the Brain (FFTB) accomplished during their collaboration with Chineham Park Primary School. So much so that, to the fair-minded, it seems as if he is perilously close to neglecting to acknowledge the tremendous achievements that the Chineham Park Primary School had made prior to the implementation of the project.

Of course, Patrick Holford is a byword for accidental misrepresentation in some parts. Read on

Patrick Holford makes several grand references to his reply in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). When he does so, he fails to communicate that pretty much anyone (and that would include Dr Ben Goldacre’s late, lamented, feline companion, Hettie if she were not past worldly considerations) can get a comment published in the online version of the BMJ. Writing a letter to a journal that makes it into the print edition is a very different matter because it goes through more than a cursory glance, it may even be peer-reviewed.

It seems that Patrick Holford is not the only nutritionist who fails to understand this. Neil Levin of Honest Nutrition dramatically asks, Am I biased? He then describes the scientific method, praises his own understanding of it, and lambasts the author of a paper who argues that the Use of antioxidants during chemotherapy and radiotherapy should be avoided. Read on

Patrick Holford is tremendously keen on the life and health-enhancing benefits of Vitamin C. Holford’s current recommendations are below his previous claim that he takes 5 grammes of Vitamin C per day:

Dr. Michael Colgan takes 5 grams daily. Dr. Linus Pauling takes 10 to 18 grams daily. I take 5 grams daily on top of a diet rich in food sources of vitamin C. The choice is yours.

Nonetheless, as Jon will detail in future posts about Holford and Vitamin C, there is a marked emphasis on supplementation because it is not practical to obtain large amounts of Vitamin C from dietary sources. Read on

Now I’m annoyed with the Observer. I had a nice Holford Watch post mostly written - looking at some particularly odd claims for vitamin C - and was planning on spending the rest of the day relaxing with a newspaper. Then I saw the Observer’s truly dismal (2nd) attempt at an apology for their terrible MMR/Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) coverage. Now I can’t buy myself an Observer, and feel obliged to insert a break in your usual Patrick Holford coverage to write another post on the Observer.

Lots of the mistakes in the Observer’s latest ‘clarification’ have already been covered by Ben Goldacre and Mike Stanton. The Observer’s mistakes have also been extensively covered already: in the Guardian, the Times, the BMJ, a number of blogs, and in numerous e-mails and letters to the paper (I wrote to the Observer Readers’ Editor myself, to point out some of their mistakes).

The Observer coverage of this is so bad, though, that there’s always room to point out more errors. Incredibly - despite being told, repeatedly and very publicly - what they got wrong, the Observer continued to make more mistakes in their ‘clarification’ of the failures in their MMR/autism coverage. I will summarise some of these below: (more…)

Skeptic’s Circle #65 is now up at the excellent Neurologica blog. This circle is taking place in a museum, with Steven Novella serving as your knowledgeable guide. “The room was filled with that odd combination of excitement, interest and restlessness that accompanies children forced to walk through a museum”, but there was plenty to hold their attention.

Holford Watch is delighted to see that Patrick Holford is now getting the attention that he deserves: Novella has announced that Holford is “so busy cranking out the pseudoscience he gets his own display.” However, I don’t see visitors spending all that long watching Holford’s display - there are many more interesting things in the museum. (more…)

I’ve just got a copy of Holford and Fiona McDonald Joyce’s Smart Food for Smart Kids (Piatkus: 2007). Holford argues that “A survey of children published in the Lancet
finds that the incidence of autistic spectrum disorders [ASD] has more than doubled in the last 20 years” (p. 11). Holford references Baird et al’s 2006 paper on the subject: a good source, but it doesn’t back up Holford’s claim.  Given the current debate around the Observer’s dubious figures on autism rates, this seems a topical claim to address now.

I could engage with Holford stats by going through the figures in the Baird et al paper - I might do so when time allows - but for now it will be sufficient to note a statement in the article’s abstract (I have looked at the full text of the article, but the authors make their position on this quite clear in the abstract). For Baird et al, their paper shows that:

Prevalence of autism and related ASDs is substantially greater than previously recognised. Whether the increase is due to better ascertainment, broadening diagnostic criteria, or increased incidence is unclear.

In other words, Baird et al make it perfectly clear that their research may not show any increase in ASD rates whatsoever: the increase in diagnoses could be down to changes in diagnostic practices. It is therefore potentially misleading - and unnecessarily alarmist - for Holford to cite this article as showing a doubling of ASD rates.

Looking over Holford’s New Optimum Nutrition for the Mind (Piatkus 2007 edition), one passage in the section on mercury stood out as especially odd. I’ll quote at length, so that you can see the context of Holford’s statement:

In one analysis of American babies six months old, the average intake of mercury was 111.3mcg. Tiny amounts of mercury have been shown to promote abnormal methylation. Although not proven, this provides a plausible explanation as to why the MMR vaccine could trigger autism. (pp. 100-1, emphasis added)

I am not at all sure why Holford would discuss MMR in the context of a discussion of mercury: this vaccine Does Not Contain Mercury, Thiomersal, Thimerosal and It Never Has. (more…)