Comments on: Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 6

By: The Economist: The End of a Childhood Illusion « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:21:59 +0000

[...] Holford Watch appeals for help to Professor Holford and two members of the Scientific Advisory Board who approved this report and then looks at the data and analyses: Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 7 Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 8 Why Don’t Food for the Brain Report Their Survey Results on Supplement Pills Survey: Review Part 9 Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 10 [...]

By: Dr Aust

Dr Aust — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:53:27 +0000

Louise

Patrick Holford himself is NOT a scientist. Or even close. He has no training in any kind of science beyond a B.Sc. in Psychology in the late 70s. No Master’s degree (he started one at Surrey but was booted out for – guess what – shoddy science). No Ph.D. His patina of “science-ey-ness” is about as deep as a page of one of his books.

Re. the real scientists who are FFtB’s “advisory board, I suspect they are people who think that (in general) there should be more research into nutrition / diet and health, and have made what I call a “Faustian bargain” of supporting (from a distance) PH’s attempts to bring publicity to the issue. However….the dangers of associating themselves with PH are now clear to see.

Re “penalties”, tt is fair to say that these gentlemen’s reputations in science will NOT have been enhanced by this. Quite the opposite.

By: dvnutrix

dvnutrix — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:26:15 +0000

It is an interesting thought, Louise. Interestingly, we have received an email from Stephanie Fox (in partial response to this) to say that she and Patrick Holford refuse to engage with us for a number of wholly unsatisfactory reasons. Reasons that, to them, supplant any need to fact-check or provide a reasonable service to their paying public.

By: Louise

Louise — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:49:55 +0000

It seems as though a small proportion of scientists feel it is ok to ignore any questions or criticisms. I believe that the only way to stop the deluge of bad science going around today is to have an official body set up to deal with complaints, which scientists would be forced to respond to or face disciplinary action. Surely this is not beyond the capabilities of the government to set this up? In the same way that people giving financial advice have to be regulated, so do those giving scientific and health advice since certain unscrupulous individuals are benefiting financially from such un-sound advice and they need to be accountable.

By: Our Original Questions to Patrick Holford About the Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007 « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:29:33 +0000

[...] scores with improving diet, not a direct and consistence [sic] increase. We accept this criticism. Holfordwatch put up an explanation of what is wrong about this graph and FFTB’s claims. FFTB’s response is inadequate. They have provided SDs but no confidence intervals. There is [...]

By: Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 5 « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:55:06 +0000

[...] ← Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 4 Food for the Brain: Child Survey: Review Part 6 [...]

By: Why don’t FFTB report their survey results on supplement pills? Survey review part 9 « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:52:23 +0000

By: Claire

Claire — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:51:55 +0000

Thanks for the reference . It looks like a very low proportion of the key stage one (~7 yrs) parents/children gave SATs information, so not sure including that group in any extrapolation is a good idea, particularly as the average SAT score they quote is above the KS1 target (2)! I should have thought it would be more meaningful to give average scores for each KS level, given their different govt. targets. But since the average score given is surprisingly low, apart from KS1, one has to come back to selection bias, which, as pointed out, undermines claims to robustness and applicability to the general population.

By: dvnutrix

dvnutrix — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:22:17 +0000

It isn’t clear to us about the SAT scores but there is so much amiss with this report that we had to pick somewhere to start. The majority of the reports are for Key Stages 2 and 3. They do give their analysis of SAT scores and what they did with them in Section 5.4 (pg. 15) – if you can offer any insights, please do.

By: Claire

Claire — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:39:46 +0000

It’s not clear to me how they have calculated the SAT averages. Target level four applies to the Key Stage 2 sats. There are three SATS, key stage one (7 yrs, govt target level 2); key stage 2 (year 6, 10-11 yrs, govt. target level 4); and key stage 3, (yr 9, 14 yrs, target level 5). Are these averages from across all three SATs or just the KS2 tests? If all levels, how many children took each test – were there big differences between group sizes?