<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Catherine Collins: &#8220;Patrick has [given] an absolutely perfect example of why one should be wary of nutritional therapists.&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/</link>
	<description>The truth about Patrick Holford, media nutritionist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:11:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Holford: Why Did BBC Oxford Radio Give Him Free Advertising? &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/comment-page-2/#comment-28118</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick Holford: Why Did BBC Oxford Radio Give Him Free Advertising? &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:40:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.wordpress.com/?p=407#comment-28118</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] above: plus, regular readers might recall that Holford once proffered to usurp the findings of a Cochrane Review covering more than 250,000 trial participants with an uncontrolled, TV experiment involving 2 [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] above: plus, regular readers might recall that Holford once proffered to usurp the findings of a Cochrane Review covering more than 250,000 trial participants with an uncontrolled, TV experiment involving 2 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holford Diet site&#8217;s interesting take on Cochrane Review &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/comment-page-2/#comment-22904</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Holford Diet site&#8217;s interesting take on Cochrane Review &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.wordpress.com/?p=407#comment-22904</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Diet site&#8217;s interesting take on Cochrane&#160;Review  Jump to Comments  Holford has had varied engagements with Cochrane Reviews, so we were interested to see the Holford Diet site &#8211; which [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Diet site&#8217;s interesting take on Cochrane&nbsp;Review  Jump to Comments  Holford has had varied engagements with Cochrane Reviews, so we were interested to see the Holford Diet site &#8211; which [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Holford on Science Friction and the Limitations of RCTs and Meta-analyses &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/comment-page-2/#comment-18256</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick Holford on Science Friction and the Limitations of RCTs and Meta-analyses &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.wordpress.com/?p=407#comment-18256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] this coming from a man who offered his own anecdata of 2 people taking supplements to counterbalance or even contradict the results of the Cochrane Review of Anti-oxidants (pdf) that [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] this coming from a man who offered his own anecdata of 2 people taking supplements to counterbalance or even contradict the results of the Cochrane Review of Anti-oxidants (pdf) that [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Holford and Slimming Pills That Lack Evidence: Apparently, No Irony Intended &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/comment-page-2/#comment-18107</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick Holford and Slimming Pills That Lack Evidence: Apparently, No Irony Intended &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 06:03:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.wordpress.com/?p=407#comment-18107</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] for his own preferred supplements. You might also recall that Holford once offered his own anecdata of 2 people as a counter-argument to the findings of a Cochrane Review of anti-oxidants that involved more than [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] for his own preferred supplements. You might also recall that Holford once offered his own anecdata of 2 people as a counter-argument to the findings of a Cochrane Review of anti-oxidants that involved more than [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Holford: &#8220;conventional medicine, doesn&#8217;t have a very good track record&#8221; &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/comment-page-2/#comment-14211</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick Holford: &#8220;conventional medicine, doesn&#8217;t have a very good track record&#8221; &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:43:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.wordpress.com/?p=407#comment-14211</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] So, yes, &#8220;only 13% are rated as beneficial&#8221; but that doesn&#8217;t actually mean that the remainder are actively harmful as one might reasonably conclude from yoking that figure together with the dire figures from an unattributed anecdote[d] that Holford has used on many occasions. It is possible that Holford has repeated the anecdote so often that it has taken on a degree of authority for him but it still doesn&#8217;t make it either accurate or relevant. Where is this fabulous track record that Holford is implying for the nutritional interventions that he is recommending? Let us not forget that Patrick Holford attempted to dismiss the Cochrane Review of antioxidants which covered approx. 230,0.... [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] So, yes, &#8220;only 13% are rated as beneficial&#8221; but that doesn&#8217;t actually mean that the remainder are actively harmful as one might reasonably conclude from yoking that figure together with the dire figures from an unattributed anecdote[d] that Holford has used on many occasions. It is possible that Holford has repeated the anecdote so often that it has taken on a degree of authority for him but it still doesn&#8217;t make it either accurate or relevant. Where is this fabulous track record that Holford is implying for the nutritional interventions that he is recommending? Let us not forget that Patrick Holford attempted to dismiss the Cochrane Review of antioxidants which covered approx. 230,0&#8230;. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dear Terence Kealey, About Natural v. Synthetic Vitamins &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/comment-page-2/#comment-9510</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dear Terence Kealey, About Natural v. Synthetic Vitamins &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:48:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.wordpress.com/?p=407#comment-9510</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] these posts: Patrick Holford and His Own Reality: Part 2, estimating risk bias in Cochrane reviews Catherine Collins: “Patrick has [given] an absolutely perfect example of why one should be wary o... Patrick Holford and Contriving a Controversy: the Cochrane review of antioxidant supplements  Irish [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] these posts: Patrick Holford and His Own Reality: Part 2, estimating risk bias in Cochrane reviews Catherine Collins: “Patrick has [given] an absolutely perfect example of why one should be wary o&#8230; Patrick Holford and Contriving a Controversy: the Cochrane review of antioxidant supplements  Irish [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Irish Association of Nutritional Therapy: Giving the Facts About the Cochrane Review of Antioxidant Supplements &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/comment-page-2/#comment-9451</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Irish Association of Nutritional Therapy: Giving the Facts About the Cochrane Review of Antioxidant Supplements &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:51:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.wordpress.com/?p=407#comment-9451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] these posts: Patrick Holford and His Own Reality: Part 2, estimating risk bias in Cochrane reviews Catherine Collins: “Patrick has [given] an absolutely perfect example of why one should be wary o... Patrick Holford and Contriving a Controversy: the Cochrane review of antioxidant supplements [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] these posts: Patrick Holford and His Own Reality: Part 2, estimating risk bias in Cochrane reviews Catherine Collins: “Patrick has [given] an absolutely perfect example of why one should be wary o&#8230; Patrick Holford and Contriving a Controversy: the Cochrane review of antioxidant supplements [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Irish Association of Nutritional Therapy on the Cochrane Review of Antioxidant Supplements &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/comment-page-2/#comment-9388</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Irish Association of Nutritional Therapy on the Cochrane Review of Antioxidant Supplements &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:10:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.wordpress.com/?p=407#comment-9388</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] these posts: Patrick Holford and His Own Reality: Part 2, estimating risk bias in Cochrane reviews  Catherine Collins: “Patrick has [given] an absolutely perfect example of why one should be wary o... Patrick Holford and Contriving a Controversy: the Cochrane review of antioxidant [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] these posts: Patrick Holford and His Own Reality: Part 2, estimating risk bias in Cochrane reviews  Catherine Collins: “Patrick has [given] an absolutely perfect example of why one should be wary o&#8230; Patrick Holford and Contriving a Controversy: the Cochrane review of antioxidant [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Conflict of Interest: YorkTest and Similar Commission &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/comment-page-1/#comment-9349</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Conflict of Interest: YorkTest and Similar Commission &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.wordpress.com/?p=407#comment-9349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] listening to the coverage of the Cochrane Review of antioxidant supplements last week, it was interesting to note the number of times that various commentators challenged the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] listening to the coverage of the Cochrane Review of antioxidant supplements last week, it was interesting to note the number of times that various commentators challenged the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sir Cliff Richard offers conclusive refutation of Cochrane review on antioxidants and mortality &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science</title>
		<link>http://holfordwatch.info/2008/04/16/catherine-collins-patrick-has-given-an-absolutely-perfect-example-of-why-one-should-be-wary-of-nutritional-therapists/comment-page-1/#comment-9310</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sir Cliff Richard offers conclusive refutation of Cochrane review on antioxidants and mortality &#171; Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holfordwatch.wordpress.com/?p=407#comment-9310</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] - from the excellent blacktriangle blog - suggests that &#8220;not being able to interpret a Forest plot should be a bar from appearing on national [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8211; from the excellent blacktriangle blog &#8211; suggests that &#8220;not being able to interpret a Forest plot should be a bar from appearing on national [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

