Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Prof David Colquhoun used a Freedom of Information Act request to get a copy of Teeside University’s Case for Patrick Holford as a Visiting Professor [PDF link]. I’ll take a critical look at this here - Teesside managed to cram a lot of problematic statements into a 1 page document. I will analyse some of their claims here:

• “Patrick Holford has an international reputation in terms of nutrition and mental health.” Absolutely, he does have an international reputation. However, as Colquhoun puts it “I guess he has an international reputation. But to find what sort of reputation, just check” the bad science blog. Colquhoun’s nice enough to mention this blog, too, and readers might also like to check out the coverage on Breath Spa, or Colquhoun’s work on Holford’s contribution to endarkenment. It’s also worth remembering that Holford’s ‘international reputation’ includes his reputation for spreading dubious health claims - including claims re. the benefits of vitamin C over AZT for AIDS treatment - to South Africa: Treatment Action Campaign discuss this aspect of Holford’s international fame. I am sure that a prestigious award from the scientology-funded anti-psychiatry group the Citizens Commission for Human Rights really to helped to augment Holford’s international reputation, too.
• The Case argues that Holford “has played a leading role in developing clinical, teaching and research links into the relationship between nutrition and mental health.” They’re right here, though the quality of the work he has done is questionable. For example, Shinga has highlighted the dismal quality of the ‘evidence’ that Holford’s Food for the Brain (FFTB) offered re. their recommendations for dubious food intolerance tests in children (FFTB advocated these tests in part as a way to reduce mental health problems such as depression).
• Holford “has published over 28 books on the subject of nutrition and its affects on mental health and other aspects of the human condition.” Sure he has - but did the appointments board read any of the books? Here at Holford Watch, we feel that Holford might have done better to write fewer books, but research them properly - as things stand, he has made a number of embarrassing errors. Here at Holford Watch, we’ve started to look into Food is Better Medicine than Drugs and New Optimum Nutrition for the Mind - finding everything from basic mathematical and statistical errors to the recommendation of pointless (and potentially harmful) medical treatments.
• The Case argues that “Collaboration with Patrick Holford would greatly enhance…developments [at Teesside's Cactus Clinic by extending] the client base for research to include more adults and increase capacity and capability with Cactus both by developing a northern Brain Bio Centre and by access to resources.” Clearly, a Northern Branch of the Brain Bio Centre will be an invaluable contribution to the region’s healthcare infrastructure. Given the high quality of the Brain Bio Centre’s autism advice - where the advice on dietary change isn’t even safe, let alone evidence-based - I’m sure this is just the type of health ‘care’ that is needed in the North of England. Readers might also enjoy filling in the Brain Bio Centre’s Mental Health Check, if you want to figure out how seriously ill you are and how much money you need to spend on dubious tests and pills. I’ve analysed a remarkably similar questionnaire here and, given that I was so very ill in March and still haven’t sought treatment, I think it’s a miracle that I’m still here today.
• The case argues that the “appointment of Patrick Holford as a Visiting Professor would underpin a collaborative research programme”. Well, as Holford Watch and others have shown, Holford’s ‘research’ to date has been rather problematic. We will certainly be interested to see the quality of Holford’s future contributions to the research field.
• The Case states that “Food for the Brain Foundation would fund [a PhD] researcher [at Teesside] a £12,500 per annum bursary”. Well, you can’t argue with that. It’s nice to know that Teesside will be getting some funding out of this, even if Holford won’t be able to contribute much in terms of good quality research.

I’m really not sure what to say. It took me maybe half an hour to go through this document and highlight the above problems; there’s a couple more points I may look into if time allows, but I think this is sufficient to show why there should be serious concerns re. whether Holford is a suitable candidate for a professorial appointment.

However, when Colquhoun got the relevant extract of the minutes [PDF link] from Teesside’s Professorial Conferment Committee - via a FOIA request - this only ran to two sentences. While the Committee do point out that “this was an unusual case” and “Visiting Professors should not be weighted as fully against the full Professorial Criteria”, one has to wonder whether they had time to give Teesside’s Case for Professor Holford the critical consideration that it deserved?