Patrick Holford the international bowel-whisperer and supplement entrepreneur is familiar to us. Prepare to be dazzled by Patrick Holford the tap-dancer as he delivers a very partial account both of the training of nutritionists and the status of his own nutritional qualifications in a bravura performance on RTE’s The Late Late Show.
Patrick Holford had a 20 minute slot to promote Food Is Better Medicine Than Drugs on the Late Late Show (watch the video). As with the recent encounter Patrick Holford v. Dr. Sarah Jarvis smackdown on GMTV (partial transcript and commentary), Holford came up against one of those splendidly feisty women GPs who have embraced the right to speak their minds plainly in fine contradistinction to anything that their mothers might have tried to instill into them regarding that stifling social convention, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”.
Discussions on the Late Late Show tend to be conducted in the seductively attractive cadences of well-read Hibernians and are both entertaining and soothing even if you have no interest in the subject-matter. Pat Kenny’s charming introduction set an interesting tone to the segment:
Nowadays we are all paranoid about what we eat. Is this chip or crisp or fried egg or sausage bad for me? Why can’t I have a bar of chocolate without feeling I have to go to confession? But if we are what we eat, is it possible to undo the damage caused by bad living by eating ourselves back to health? And is proper food better at doing that, than prescription medicine? Psychologist and health guru Patrick Holford and General Practitioner Emer Keeling debated the issue.
There are many matters of interest in the course of this interview and I feel it in my water that Holford Watch shall explore them in some depth over the next few weeks. It is my aspiration that I would reach the heights of charm and deadliness that are so skilfully deployed in the interview but until such time as I start to take supplements, snake oil capsules and charm pills I shall have to content myself with sharing parts of this entertaining spectacle.
Patrick Holford added to the entertainment with his usual sagacious observations that although Drug Reps. call on doctors, GPs receive no visits from people selling oats or cinnamon. For some reason, he seemed to think that this speaks to the moral probity of oats and cinnamon but I doubt that tobacconists or drug dealers call on GPs offering them cigarettes, skunk or crack so I wasn’t entirely following his thinking on this point.
One of the most enjoyable parts of the video was the spectacle of a tap-dancing Patrick Holford (PH). It is just a shame that the dexterity of his qualification-shuffle was lost on both Pat Kenny and Emer Keeling (EK) who are accustomed to nutritionists who are state-registered, as per guidelines in Ireland.
Timestamp on video: 14:40 The Late Late Show, RTE Television. 3 November 2006.
EK (to PH): You’re a psychologist, is that right?
PH: And a nutritionist.
EK: What is a nutritionist?
PH: A nutrititionist….
EK: What is the training for a nutritionist?
PH: Well, it was…It’s a 3 or 4 year training.
EK: In science?
PH: Absolutely.
End segment
The dullest part of this verbal smokescreen is that although Holford’s Institute for Optimum Nutrition offers a 3 or 4 year course, it is not the de facto standard in the UK, and it is difficult to assess just how much of the course is recognisable as science of the sort that would be found in the degree courses that are taken by dietitians.
I am in awe of Patrick Holford, his twinkling toes and the selfless way in which he opted not to confuse the matter by dragging in personal details that might have confused the issue when he answered Keeling’s questions. Oh, why so shy Patrick Holford? Unlike for dietitians, the UK doesn’t define any qualifications for the term nutritionist, so, strictly speaking, the answer to “What is a nutrionist?” could be “Someone with chutzpah”.
Indeed, Patrick Holford himself is unencumbered by any formal qualification in nutrition for which he was expected to study or pass exams - why didn’t he say:
In my case, although I announce my status as a psychologist and nutritionist as if they are equivalent, I do not have any formal qualifications in nutrition. My pre-eminence has been recognised by an honorary diploma from the educational institution that I founded and that is accredited by a university that is arguably the worst in the UK.
There are many golden moments in this interview, Patrick Holford’s tap-dancing and frequent self-praise excite many emotions in the viewer. Holford Watch looks forward to appreciating these moments in full, goriest glorious blog review.
13 responses so far ↓
Catherine Collins RD // July 6, 2007 at 6:40 am
I recall from many years ago the ION course was a mere 2 years of part-time study with the additional weekend thrown in.
This made it quite easy to distinguish the bona fide nutritionist from the self-styled varieties. Ditto for ‘quality’ of the self-styled ‘nutritional therapist’.
As this started to become the groundswell definition, Mr Holford ‘extended the education’ of his ION course to 3 years, so he could easily - in interviews such as this - claim the public should ‘only visit those who have completed a 3 year course in nutrition’. This conveniently confuses the BSc (Hons) Nutrition degrees (full time) with Mr Holfords 3 year, weekly/ fortnightly sessional course, which from the ION prospectus possibly may be considered a foundation course for access to a BSc degree in the subject.
Around the time of the ‘extension’ Mr Holford also changed the moniker of himself and his ‘therapists’, ditching this tag and re-emerging as ‘clinical nutritionists’ (see Ian Marber and Vicki Edgson, both DipION, ‘Food Doctor’, for working examples of this.
So much confusion, such shallow media questioning prior to the settee, so much misinformation to the public……
Tifosi // July 6, 2007 at 10:40 am
I’ve rarely seen such fancy footwork. PH must be related to Lionel Blair! Given this was RTE I can see the double-act with Michael Flatley going down a treat.
Oh, how I’d have loved a follow-up to PH on “what science?” and “is that 3/4 years full-time or just a few hours on the occasional weekend when the moon is in Orion?”
Some of his other comments are equally breath-taking, especially his claim that each chapter in the book was reviewed by a Professor of Medicine. Knowing how he has claimed endorsement on pretty spurious grounds before, I’m not convinced such a claim is worth much.
I look forward to your further posts on this interview jem.
Gina // July 6, 2007 at 11:00 am
Hello Catherine,
This is as flagrant a case of purposeful qualification confusion as I’ve ever seen. I recall meeting several people whose CVs listed an MSc qualification that was actually MSC (Manpower Services Commission) and who, when challenged, claimed that it was a typo. But, I do know of people who were appointed on the basis of a misunderstanding of what the qualification was…
For those of us who are not meeja-habitues (sorry, I can never remember the codes for diacritic marks), how much responsibility do you think that the pre-interview researchers should take for this nonsense?
Why are these doctors not contacting Holford Watch prior to their interviews? (Ignoring the issue that it didn’t exist as the time of the Emer Keeling encounter.)
Gina // July 6, 2007 at 11:50 am
Oh, how I’d have loved a follow-up to PH on “what science?” and “is that 3/4 years full-time or just a few hours on the occasional weekend when the moon is in Orion?”
Nice - I may re-use that, if you don’t mind, Tifosi.
I, too, am enchanted by his claim that a crack team of medical professors reviewed each section/chapter of the book. Especially when the mistakes leap out at even the casual reader. The NNT for statins, anyone? Name and shame the guilty reviewers!
Spooked by supplements // July 6, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Fair play. Are the medical professors who signed off on the book content that same ones who will be Holford’s training courses in nutrition, “taught by doctors for doctors”? I think we should be told.
On the same front - on balance, does effectively a self-conferred qualification have more or less standing than the charmer Orac had found who has announced that his qualification has been granted to him by a very special institution. “The Lord…has given me a MASTERS DEGREE in SPIRITUAL CHEMISTRY, MEDICINE, NERVOLOGY and AGRICULTURE for the equipping of the saints, for the work of the ministry…
Because it is God’s will that we live in health, have a sound mind, prosper and go about doing good.”
Is it just me who hears the Twilight Zone music - or does that not remind you of Holford’s recent rant in the May newsletter?
“Under the guise of science, a new wave of scientism is attacking, with almost religious fervour, anything too complementary, individualistic, ’spiritual”, or based on concepts beyond linear physics or chemistry.
We are complex, individualistic, non-linear and spiritual by nature.
true science must reflect humanity and true medicine must be
people-centred not drug-centred.”
spooked by supplements // July 6, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Orac’s link
Shinga // July 6, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Well, thank you for that nugget, Spooked by Supplements. I am tremendously grateful for the link where I have learned that a proposed definition for NERVOLOGY is, “the science of the acquisition of chutzpah for the purpose of peddling woo”.
Patrick Holford, Professor Andre Tylee and the Endorsements That Can Not Die « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // August 29, 2007 at 3:30 pm
[...] some decades ago. We emailed Patrick Holford some time ago to enquire as to the identity of the professors whom Holford claim reviewed and endorsed all of the chapters in Food Is Better Medicine T… but, some weeks later, we are still waiting for a [...]
Patrick Holford and Some Interesting Errors on His CV and Profile « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // September 4, 2007 at 1:49 pm
[...] refers to it as proof of the rigour of his scientific training and it is the basis for his self-description not only as a psychologist but as a clinical psychologist (NB, a term that like nutritionist has no legal standing or minimum set of [...]
Patrick Holford Refers to Someone Else as Inaccurate « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // September 14, 2007 at 4:45 pm
[...] been dazzled by Patrick Holford the tap-dancer as he delivers a very partial account both of the training of nutritionists and the status of his own nutritional qualifications in a bravura performa…. But now, we have Patrick Holford the…well, judge for [...]
Patrick Holford, the Poet of Putney « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // October 2, 2007 at 1:36 pm
[...] alongside Patrick Holford the tap-dancer as he delivers a very partial account both of the training of nutritionists and the status of his own nutritional qualifications in a bravura performa… together with his entertaining denunciations of others as [...]
Conflict of Interest: YorkTest and Similar Commission « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // April 21, 2008 at 6:54 pm
[...] payments to the client? Particularly when some high-profile nutritionism experts frequently castigate medical professionals for their perceived conflict of interest. Yet, as Wulfstan recently pointed out, doctors are reprimanded for selling supplements to their [...]
BANT and Conflict of Interest: YorkTest and Similar Commission « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // April 21, 2008 at 9:28 pm
[...] payments to the client? Particularly when some high-profile nutritionism experts frequently castigate medical professionals for their perceived conflict of interest. Yet, as Wulfstan recently pointed out, doctors are reprimanded for selling supplements to their [...]
Leave a Comment