Prof Patrick Holford of Teesside University presents himself as an expert in mental health and nutrition, and a number of bona fide mental health charities - including Mind - are affiliated with his Food for the Brain charity. I was therefore surprised to hear Holford on BBC London, referring to a schizophrenic client as “crazy” which is rather a culturally-loaded term. A valued correspondent then informed me that the same term is used on the Food for the Brain website. I find this quite surprising - ‘crazy’ is a rather offensive way to describe schizophrenic people, and a pretty unproductive diagnostic or descriptive term.
First to the BBC interview: Holford states that he “worked with one girl, she was schizophrenic…and she was crazy and she’d seen many counsellors”. An impressive level of diplomacy and adroitness in handling the stigmatising baggage of ‘crazy’, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Secondly, then, Holford’s Food for the Brain charity: they argue that “Although there are cases where people go crazy for purely psychological reasons, there is now overwhelming evidence that in most people so diagnosed, something isn’t right in the brain.” I’m not sure what Food for the Brain are trying to do here: are they seeking to distinguish between biological and psychological versions of ‘crazy’? (Personally, I can’t help but think that they would be better-advised to start with a detailed study of ’stupid’).
I was curious as to why Mind were affiliated to such an insensitive organisation, so I asked them. Paul Farmer (their Chief Executive) was kind enough to reply, telling me that:
We are aware of the concerns about Patrick Holford’s organisations. We have asked Mr Holford to talk to us about these issues, and we are reviewing our affiliation with the ‘Food for the Brain’ campaign — a relationship which I must stress is very informal and dates from the start of the ‘Food for the Brain’ campaign. They send us their reports every now and then. Naturally, as a high-profile mental health charity we have informal relationships with many different organisations with interests in our area. We don’t necessarily agree with every aspect of what these organisations do. Our independence is important to us at Mind — we take our lead entirely from people who have direct experience of mental health problems. We never take money from pharmaceutical companies.
I’m delighted that Mind don’t take money from pharmaceutical companies (neither do we). I’ve certainly got no objection to them talking to Food for the Brain (although they might like to be a bit cautious about Food for the Brain reports). However, an ‘affiliation’ may - in the eyes of many - be taken to show approval for Food for the Brain. Given the attitude in evidence in the quotes above - not to mention other troubling conceptions of ‘mental disease‘ - I would question whether affiliating to Food for the Brain is an effective way for Mind to serve the interests of those with mental health problems.
13 responses so far ↓
Carol // January 28, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I just filled in Food for the Brain’s questionnaire as if I were schizophrenic. The analysis did not pick up on the hallucinations or paranoia but it did recommend neurotransmitter, hair analysis and various other (nonvalid) tests. No doubt leading to supplementation with PH’s products.
LeeT // January 28, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Is anyone familiar with Oxford University Press’ “Very Short Introduction” serives. I have read loads of them. They are an excellent way of getting to grips with complicated subjects you know nothing about in a short of period of time.
There is one on Schizophrenia. I skimmed through it and there is absolutely nothing about nutritional deficiencies being a possible cause. Just about everyone in the field believes it is a neurological disorder. Presumably Mr Holford knows this so why does he mention his client went to counselling. What’s that got to do with the issue? The foreword to “Optimum Nutrition for the Mind” tells us how “Dr Abram Hoffer [...] ran the first ever double-blind controlled train in the history of psychiatry, in the 1950s, proving the the power of vitamins in treating schizophrenia.”
Surely some one must have looked at his ideas at some point in the last 50 years? Has he thought to tell anyone about his groundbreaking discoveries? Presumably as apparently “his ideas were attacked and ridiculed.”
Maggie // January 28, 2008 at 11:43 pm
It’s interesting to hear the voice of the Professor, but I wonder what a phonetician would make of it?
From the estuary english lapse (a la Tony Blair doing ‘prole’) at the start, followed by the slightly odd emphasis on DePression and poss - i - bil - it- y - makes the sum of the whole sound, well, dubious.
I had similar thoughts when watching the Professor vs Sarah Jarvis interview. With the benefit of sight as well as sound he looked - and sounded - like a man not quite believing what he was attempting to promote.
jonhw // January 29, 2008 at 12:41 am
Thanks for the comments. Carol, it’s disappointing - though not surprising - if the FFTB questionnaire really is that inept.
Mary- it’s hard to know about someone’s beliefs. For what it’s worth, I suspect that Holford really does believe in the ideas he’s promoting. I’d like to think that some of the analyses on this blog have shaken his confidence a little - but, to be honest, I doubt it.
Rachel // January 29, 2008 at 12:51 am
I had a really negative experience at the Brain Bio Centre, which was a shame as I was so hopeful. Basically a woman there just seemed loathed to say anything without charging me another £100 - it cost about £1000 in the end. I was not nutritionally cured of my psychotic depression - to be honest I was totally confused by all the bottles of pills I was required to take which cost a small fortune. I’m afraid its really put me off Holford’s ‘teaching’ as it just seemed such a rip-off. Not that i’m that enamored with modern medicine either.
dvnutrix // January 29, 2008 at 2:27 am
Rachel, I must admit that I have wondered how somebody who is under-the-bedclothes-the-world-has-gone monochrome-and-everything-sounds-flat-and-I-can’t-face-microwaving-a-tin-of-soup-for-which-I-have-no-appetite-depressed is supposed to organise the avoidance diet and supplements etc. It rather seemed to require that you would be staying with someone who could look after all this for you and persuade you to take various supplements.
If you remember, how many supplements were you taking, as a matter of interest? And, were you following a particular diet (e.g., no wheat, cashew nuts or whatever).
Please ignore anything that is intrusive or inappropriate.
dvnutrix // January 29, 2008 at 2:46 am
I’ve been swithering about whether to mention a very odd paper that I came across; this paper shocked me for a number of reasons but I’m going to editorialise as little as I can manage.
One of the authors is Shaheen Lakhan - aside from anything else, and this may be my genuine ignorance on this matter, but I don’t understand what MD (c) means. In his bio - he lists MD (c) as MD, Doctor of Medicine, Candidate. Does this mean he has an MD? Or, that he has an MD from one of those medical schools where you follow the curriculum but nobody accepts you onto an intern programme, so you could never actually practise medicine? (I’ve read about this in the US.) Or, does it mean that you are applying to various medical schools?
As an example of infiltration of the peer-reviewed publication system, this paper is fascinating. It will, of course, give both authors a publication in a peer-reviewed journal - the fact that it is ludicrous is neither here nor there. This ‘peer-reviewed’ and indexed journal will self-avowedly take almost any paper (do I hear the sounds of JPandS and Medical Hypotheses as the backing singers?).
Anyway, the paper is: Nutritional therapies for mental health disorders (pdf).
OK - so the supporting references aren’t quite on the level of that McKeith classic Spiritual Nutrition and the Rainbow Diet - but one despairs when Medical Hypotheses and 1 pg letters to the Lancet are your sources for claims such as:
On pg 12 - they really let themselves rip. Dolphins good. Evil pharma conspiracy very bad. Then:
Anyway, Lee, that paper will give you the inside scoop on the suppression of nutritional treatments. [/eye roll.] The disturbing thing is that the ideas and language in this paper are not that far removed from certain articles and books that are familiar to some of us.
Loth as I am to publicise it, I would be interested to know what others make of this paper.
jdc325 // January 29, 2008 at 10:25 am
Re the use of the word “crazy” - I think this is a word that Holford has used quite liberally. The Optimum Nutrition Bible contains a section on mental health that refers to B vitamins and states that, without enough of these vitamins, “the brain can produce chemicals that make you crazy”. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were further uses of the word in “Optimum Nutrition for the Mind”.
anandamide // January 29, 2008 at 11:18 am
Thanks for bringing this up - Holford’s proclamations on mental health are what first raised red flags for me, as it’s an area I have personal involvement and interest in. That Mind have an ‘affiliation’, no matter how loose, troubles me greatly and I will be writing to them to air my concerns.
dvnutrix // January 29, 2008 at 7:43 pm
In a way, one wonders if this is a carryover from the Holford youth:
Perhaps he hasn’t adopted modern usage or didn’t read the memo on stigmatising language and mental health issues.
Perhaps it is (unwittingly) an attempt to stir people from their “anger without enthusiasm” sufficiently to say,
Or, maybe it indicates that he really shouldn’t be pronouncing on mental health issues.
badchemist // January 31, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Rather OT but I realised the other day that Mind seem to like their quackery. On their site you can find the wonderful Making sense of homeopathy page which promotes homeopathy without the slightest criticism (it is written by homeopaths).
Although in some aspects of mental health I assume a placebo effect may be of great benefit.
dvnutrix // February 1, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I suspect that there are many areas of health (and elsewhere) where a placebo effect would be tremendously helpful. I, for instance, would welcome a pill that would convince me that I am a charismatic speaker who can hold the attention of an audience. I could then pop this before any presentation - as long as I believe it works…
LeeT // February 8, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Rachel
I can identify with your situation having spent about £150 propping up the Holford franchise. Eventually I just threw all my pills in the bin. If you were to consult your GP I think you would find her more sympathetic than the alternative lobby would have you believe. The receptionist can often be a good source of advice about which doctor to see. If your doctor does not seem to be helping you then you have the right to change your doctor.
DVN - re public speaking I wish I could tell you a slightly amusing story about something that happened to me last month, though a public forum like this is probably not the best place for it. I did email it to the blog if you are interested.
Leave a Comment