Here at Holford Watch, we’ve heard rumours that Professor Patrick Holford believes that correcting what he views as mistakes on this blog would be too expensive for it to be worth his while. If Holford does think this, I do wonder whether he has forgotten an earlier e-mail exchange we had: back in April 2007 I offered, twice, to correct any mistakes on the blog that Holford pointed out to me. No need for him to get lawyers etc. involved - a polite, factual e-mail or blog comment would do the job fine, if he found any mistakes on this site. Over the course of 100+ posts here, Holford has e-mailed a couple of responses to the criticisms raised - which have been posted on the blog as requested here, here and here - and has also modified some Food for the Brain advice in response to our criticisms. However, Holford has not sent a single correction.
To be precise, in April 2007 I made clear to Holford that:
if you show any statements on Holford Watch to be false I will remove them from the site and/or publish corrections. While I appreciate that you may disagree with the Holford Watch site, I would argue that the site focuses on the (robust) questioning of ideas - the type of debate that is essential to academia and science. With this in mind, you are very welcome to post comments on the blog; I would also be happy to publish a response from you.
Later that month I reminded Holford that “The offer still stands, of course.” However, while Holford has made clear that he disagrees with us on some points, he hasn’t sent us any corrections. I’m therefore disappointed that - rather than engaging with us in a robust debate about the issues raised by the blog - Holford reportedly feels that he would need to resort to some kind of protracted action in order correct any perceived errors on this site, instead of just getting in touch. Given that Prof Holford has recently been awarded his visiting Chair at Teesside University, one would expect him to welcome the opportunity to debate his ideas in order to move them a little closer to the standard expected in academic debate; however, this does not seem to have been the case.
A final point - out of courtesy, I have only reproduced part of my side of this e-mail exchange. However, If Holford feels that I am misrepresenting him, I would be more than happy to reproduce the exchange in full. Either way, we would like to reiterate that we are ready to correct any factual errors and have communicated that more than once. Our ambition is to discuss nutritionism and to contribute to a more rigorous and robust discussion of the available research and current recommendations: we would be delighted if Holford chose to engage with the scientific critique laid out on this site.
UPDATE: Holford e-mailed back commendably quickly (within hours of this post going online) to ask us to post a message on this blog. As requested, we’re posting the below unedited.
Dear Holfordwatch – I appreciate your offer for me to correct any mistakes made on Holfordwatch. I have in fact addressed many of the significant erroneous comments that are made about me and my work on www.holfordmyths.com which readers of Holfordwatch are invited to visit. As I’m sure you appreciate I am not able to spend all the hours in the day checking comments that are made about me on the internet as I prefer to spend my time researching new studies and writing books which I hope will make people healthier. Hence I have created one single website in which I can address the significant incorrect comments I am aware of.
Looking on holfordmyths.com, we have struggled to see how most of this relates to the criticisms raised on Holford Watch. We are happy to accept the clarification that Holford does not advise eating fish three times per days (the origin of the error appears to be in an Independent newspaper article on SAD), and have asked Holford if he would like to address any other specific points.
12 responses so far ↓
manigen // January 11, 2008 at 2:52 pm
100 posts? Amazing. Keep up the the good work because this is a great blog and you’re doing valuable stuff here.
Professor UKdietitian // January 11, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Ditto the above. It is important to keep a sense of sanity in dealing with issues nutritional, as food choice dictates overall nutritional quality. Hence the recommendations for supplements, supplements, and more supplements - to offset nutritional deficiencies from extensive and unnecessary food exclusions
anandamide // January 11, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Don’t know if you’ve spotted it but I found the following interesting link last night - http://www.patrickholford.com/content.asp?id_Content=2178 (sorry, don’t know how to embed).
He might not be responding to your points, but I think someone’s feathers are getting a little ruffled.
Wulfstan // January 11, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Lawks, anandamide, what larks, it does invite comparisons with being madder that a wet hen.
Do I take it that you are still waiting for Professor Holford to correct the various errors that you have faithfully catalogued for him in your Holford Myths page? Some of these, like the misunderstanding about the NNT for statins, should surely be substantial enough to prompt consideration of an erratum slip or at least a publisher’s amendment posted on Amazon and all good online book stores?
jonhw // January 11, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Thanks for all the comments. As you can see, I’ve updated the post to include a response from Patrick Holford.
feeling well now // January 12, 2008 at 2:38 pm
If you have health concerns, see a Dr or dietician
Thanks for the advice, but i did this for many years and not one of these poeple were of any help. A nutrtional therapist sorted out my problem within 1 month.
the people writing on this blog would benefit by getting out in the real world to see what works in reality. Probably wasting my time in suggesting this though.
Le Canard Noir looks at Holford Myths « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // January 12, 2008 at 5:38 pm
[...] Holford Myths ← UPDATED: After over 100 posts, Patrick Holford has not taken up our offer for him to correct any all… [...]
jonhw // January 14, 2008 at 1:29 am
feelingwellnow- glad you’re feeling better now. I’m certainly not claiming that there are no good nutritionists out there. However, there is a lack of effective regulation of nutritionists, and the level of training before going into practice can vary wildly. Due to this, I wouldn’t feel comfortable recommending that people visit a nutritionist with their health problems. I’m glad that you seem to have found a good one, though (or your health improved for other reasons) and hope that your good health continues.
feeling well now // January 14, 2008 at 8:28 am
Thank you john, i understand what you are saying here
jonhw // January 14, 2008 at 2:21 pm
thanks, feelingwellnow.
Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 5 « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // February 1, 2008 at 11:26 pm
[...] 1, 2008 · No Comments You might recall that in early January we had mail from Professor Patrick Holford of Teesside University. We responded to him and took the opportunity to ask some questions about the Food for the Brain [...]
Patrick Holford Responds to Radio 4 Programme and Misses the Point: To Be Fair, So Does Stephanie Fox « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // April 2, 2008 at 6:24 pm
[...] in January this year, your employer wrote to us: As I’m sure you appreciate I am not able to spend all the hours in the day checking comments [...]
Leave a Comment