Comments on: Patrick Holford and His Own Reality: Part 2, estimating risk bias in Cochrane reviews

By: Patrick Holford Promotes Error: Does This Explain His Continuing Support for Opposing MMR and Supporting Andrew Wakefield’s Research? « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:58:36 +0000

[...] and questioning their integrity. Operating in this parallel world that he does (see Part 1 and Part 2), perhaps it is not surprising that he continues to avoid issuing an update on what the findings [...]

By: Arlof

Arlof — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 05:55:24 +0000

How can he not have withdrawn that article after these errors have been highlighted?

Yes, it’s much easier to think there’s a huge conspiracy theory that nobody’s ever whistleblown, with documents, rather than you don’t know what you’re talking about. Still, he seems to have convinced a lot of people who are willing to pay him money for his advice and views.

By: Patrick Holford Refers to Himself As An Expert (No-One Else Was Volunteering) « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:26:58 +0000

[...] Easy. Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4. Regular readers are accustomed to Holford’s alternate reality (and part 2) so will not be surprised that he refers to himself as an expert in [...]

By: Dear Terence Kealey, About Natural v. Synthetic Vitamins « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:41:19 +0000

[...] content of the more common puzzling ‘criticisms’ of the Cochrane Review in 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 [...]

By: Irish Association of Nutritional Therapy: Giving the Facts About the Cochrane Review of Antioxidant Supplements « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:35:19 +0000

[...] dealt with some of the content of the more common puzzling ‘criticisms’ in 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 [...]

By: Irish Association of Nutritional Therapy on the Cochrane Review of Antioxidant Supplements « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:05:16 +0000

By: Sir Cliff Richard offers conclusive refutation of Cochrane review on antioxidants and mortality « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:35:18 +0000

[...] have dealt with some of the content of the more puzzling ‘criticisms’ in 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 [...]

By: dvnutrix

dvnutrix — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:13:46 +0000

Hm – they are probably near each other in the brain wiring (so to speak) and explain something profound about the general level of number-handling skills and logic.

By: LeeT

LeeT — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:11:15 +0000

I think some of Mr Holford’s chums confuse abuse with humour.

By: dvnutrix

dvnutrix — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:02:50 +0000

Don’t think so. I think that some of us have much messier laptops or desktops than we would wish when we inadvertently come across something funny :-)

And, yes – lots of substantiation for your points.

The only examples that come to mind of satire weren’t. It was some wee soul who repeated, “Voldemort, oops Ben Goldacre” every 2 lines or so in her posts. There are the usual accusations of sciencism (I think, could be ‘scientism’), the hilarious fantasies about us being Pharma Shills etc.. Stuff like that. So, not too inspirational.