Comments on: Patrick Holford Refers to Himself As An Expert (No-One Else Was Volunteering)

By: What Prevents People From Eating a Healthier Diet? « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:02:35 +0000

[...] What Prevents People From Eating a Healthier Diet? Jump to Comments I’ve been wondering what it is that so irritating about a certain type of food and health writer, the sort that moralises and pontificates about the food that the population should be eating. Media-hyped examples would be Gillian McKeith and her Abundant Foods list that includes vinegars and Tamari (who considers them to be food rather than ingredients?), or Patrick Holford and his low GL recommendations that can involve about £9 worth of berries per person, per day. Holford claims that people who are optimally nourished don’t become ill and don’t need medicine. [...]

By: Patrick Holford: “conventional medicine, doesn’t have a very good track record” « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:41:56 +0000

[...] research findings or understanding them appropriately. He should certainly not be accepted at his own valuation as an expert or even competent [...]

By: Who Wrote About Food for the Brain in The Economist: Conflict of Interest? « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:10:51 +0000

[...] heroin addiction as equivalent and promise to guide you on quitting both. Patrick Holford is the man of countless specialities (e.g., diabetes, autism, schizophrenia, infertility, allergy, depression) who has recently [...]

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

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:27:58 +0000

By: Medical News Today Rescinds a Patrick Holford Press Release « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:47:02 +0000

[...] to read a promotional piece for Visiting Professor Patrick Holford and his latest book in which the man of countless specialities (e.g., diabetes, autism, schizophrenia, infertility, allergy, depression) re-brands himself as an [...]

By: Patrick Holford and His Recommendations for Vaccines: As Canard-Stuffed As We Feared « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:43:42 +0000

[...] this year, Holford gave an interview in which he argued that a message from his latest book is that you are unlikely to become ill when [...]

By: draust

draust — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:51:44 +0000

Charl du Randt sounds like a good solid Afrikaner name to me. Talking of the white tribe of Seth Effrika, another Afrikaner people may recall from bad science threads passim is "corpse dowser" Danie Krugel. And historians of British Alternative Thinking will be familiar with the late Sir Laurens van der Post, one time close friend and spiritual guru to the Quacktitioner Royal, Prince Charles.

By: Claire

Claire — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:29:46 +0000

Perhaps it’s as well that the Quackometer engine isn’t available because feeding Dr dr Randt’s site into it might just make the little black duck explode. Anybody know what a “quantum xerroid consciousness interface” is?

‘Charl du Randt’ looks like it might afford interesting anagrammatic procrastination/timewasting opportunities…

By: Wulfstan

Wulfstan — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:52:31 +0000

Charl du Randt thinks Holford is an expert (pdf and pg 242). Admittedly, he also believes that Holford

[has] conducted "real" research and [has] not stooped to whorish compromise with Big Business.

The splendidly-named Charl du Randt (hard to believe that it is not parodic but unless my irony meter is off, it seems not) also claims that "Satan has hijacked the medical industry 'en masse'". Nonetheless, it would take a heart of stone not to be moved and cheered by this wonderful admonition (pg 245): "Beware the esoteric vultures hawking clap trap gadgetry". One wonders how he feels about the Q-link. Just in case you are wondering if you are up to the intellectual challenges of this remarkable text, on pg 6 Charl du Randt meets your concerns head on:

For the comfort of the readers, the author deliberately uses language of a non-technical nature. Techno-buzz as well as the secret (occultic) language of the medical industry is purposefully avoided.

Warning - I haven't read the book, just skimmed sections. I have no idea as to the overall content although I think that I could make an informed guess.

By: draust

draust — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:43:52 +0000

"Vital force" beliefs are utterly central to homoeopathy in particular. But they underlie almost ALL of Alternative Medicine in some form or other - Qi, Chi, prana, "life energy", "biofields"... take your pick. One of the most depressing things on the generally depressing NCCAM website is this laughable summary on "Energy medicine".

" ... Energy medicine is a domain in CAM that deals with energy fields of two types: * Veritable, which can be measured * Putative, which have yet to be measured The veritable energies employ mechanical vibrations (such as sound) and electromagnetic forces, including visible light, magnetism, monochromatic radiation (such as laser beams), and rays from other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. They involve the use of specific, measurable wavelengths and frequencies to treat patients. In contrast, putative energy fields (also called biofields) have defied measurement to date by reproducible methods. Therapies involving putative energy fields are based on the concept that human beings are infused with a subtle form of energy. ...."

...so there's the energies that exist ("veritable"), but for which hyperbolic and laughable healing claims are regularly made. And then there the energies which DON'T exist ("putative"), but for which even more utterly ridiculous healing claims are made. And this on a US taxpayer-funded NIH website. *sigh* As I often say, you couldn't make it up.