Former Visiting Professor Patrick Holford is still, unaccountably, Head of Science and Education at Biocare. This senior appointment might give the wary some food for thought if they should decide that they need an evidence-based supplement or lifestyle advice and are wondering whether Biocare is an adequate source for either/both. Biocare claims have a team of “qualified nutritionists and scientists” (my emphasis) working for them yet they don’t seem to have noticed Holford’s lack of relevant credentials. This rather makes a nonsense of their undertaking to provide science-based information:
We recognize the importance of education in order for the customer, whether a healthcare professional or a member of the public, to make informed choices about what natural substances may be of benefit to them or their patients as part of a healthy lifestyle. BioCare will be launching www.biocarescience.co.uk to provide in-depth scientific information on the natural ingredients that make up our unique formulations.
Holford’s latest contribution to public education is to compare himself to “Leonardo de Vinci”: one wonders if he meant Leonardo da Vinci but it is marginally less embarrassing than his usual comparisons of himself to Galileo and Gandhi. (You can not lampoon Holford’s pretensions to knowledge or even basic googling skills because they defy parody.)
It stretches credulity that someone who manufactures illness from everyday symptoms, decries the medical profession’s clinical skills in diagnosis in favour of unproven and implausible tests, and who frequently recommends supplements for which he repeatedly over-states the scientific support, is accusing others of reductionism. If he were to look up the word in a dictionary, he might find his own photograph with the caption, “Reductionist: a notable example”. The following is from the 100%health Newsletter, No. 46, July 2008, pg. 1.
Leonardo de Vinci [sic] was as irritated by ‘reductionists’ back in the 15th century as I am today. “They do injury to knowledge and to love…Of what value is he who, in order to abbreviate the parts of those of which he professes to give complete knowledge, leaves out the greater part of the things of which the whole is composed?…Oh human stupidity!…You don’t see that you are falling for the same error as one who strips a tree of its adornment of branches full of leaves, intermingled with fragrant flowers and fruit, in order to demonstrate that the tree is good for making planks.” [Fritjof Capra: The Science of Leonardo: Inside the Mind of the Great Genius of the Renaissance.]
We shall be posting a series of comments on Holford’s latest round of canards concerning vaccination, the Cochrane Review of Antioxidants and various others topics that he has been trailing for some time. It is unfortunate that people are paying a subscription to receive this misinformation and advice but it is their money to do with as they wish. However, it is irritating if subscribers are purchasing the newsletter because they think that it is an accurate source of information or workable advice.
Just to give you a taste of Holford’s advice, consider this scenario. He spends 3.5 pages of the newsletter repeating standard anti-vaccination canards and informing the reader that they should not trust experts with whom he disagrees. He provides key questions for you to ask a “health provider” and indicates the answers that you should expect to hear, based on the misinformation and distortion that he provides. He creates confusion, mistrust and uncertainty. He then concludes with this recommendation:
Only you can decide in the face of conflicting and often confusing information when, and if, to vaccinate your children. My advice is don’t be bullied. Ask your health practitioner for clear answers to your questions, and if you’re not satisfied, ask to see an immunologist. [My emphasis.]
Is there any reason to think that an immunologist would provide different answers to those from your GP unless there are already contraindications that a GP knows about and is already taking into account? Does anybody have a feeling for how long a non-urgent referral on this matter would take and the level of disruption that this would cause for a child’s vaccination schedule? Such recommendations are disingenuous and seem to be made only to create discord and distrust rather than discourse.
If you have received Holford’s newsletter and are worried about some of the evidence that Holford discusses, stay tuned. Do not be surprised to learn that Holford does not give an accurate account of some of that evidence. Holford gives wrong references, demonstrates that he has read news stories rather than the paper or even the abstract of the paper concerned, omits pertinent facts and makes implausible recommendations to his audience of confused and concerned parents in the guise of being an honest broker. Holfordism as usual.
Thanks for this one. The thought of cher Patrique comparing himself to Leonardo had me cackling speechlessly with laughter for a full 15 seconds.
… And does this cast all of us “hard core sceptics” in the role of the Inquisition? (All together now: NOBODY expects….”
Hmm. Sometimes I suspect that irony is truly dead.
Oh well. It is good to know there are people with such, erm, profound insight as Patrick around in today’s world. Although I do slightly mourn the days when such folk would cut to the chase and found their own religion, rather than simply setting up Institutes.
PS Talking of which… just how did Patrick’s ION get a .ac.uk Internet address? Do they hand them out to just anyone?
Dr Aust, we have reason to believe that Ben Goldacre reveals the story of how ION obtained an ac.uk address and the amazing naivety of JANET in his imminent Bad Science – to be available from all good bookstores.
We have no idea on what Holford is founding this over-blown opinion of himself. Kruger and Dunning to the fore, yet again.
NB For those who aren’t familiar with their work, you may be interested to read an overview of the Justin Kruger and David Dunning paper that discusses how difficulties in understanding one’s own incompetence can lead to inflated self-assessments.
It really it a very helpful paper that explains many otherwise inexplicable actions and beliefs. Likewise, for those who haven’t seen it, we recommend A Photon in the Darkness’ discussion in: The Arrogance of Ignorance.
Patrick likens his views to that of da Vinci regarding ‘reductionism’. although a useful process to identify the active nutrients in foods that alleviated what we know now to be nutritional deficiencies, 21st century nutrition has moved on (about half a century ago, actually) to consider the ‘whole diet approach’, not the ‘reductionist vitamin + mineral + media spin = optimised nutrient pills sales’ promoted ad nauseum by ‘de Holford’.
Poor Patrick. He doesn’t recognise irony when it slaps him in the face….
Professor UK Dietitian, I was a little puzzled as to why blood tests for individual biomarkers such as Hcy or outdated ideas such as IgG levels and food intolerance are not to be considered reductionism (oddly, both may result in commission for duh Holford) likewise promoting the notion of supplements to everyone.
Oddly enough, he does seem to be throwing in references to the broader diet lately (he has obviously been counselled that his zest for promoting supplements above all else doesn’t send the right message) but only, of course, in the context of pill recommendations.
Didn’t someone once say “in order to compare oneself to Da Vinci, one must not only be persecuted, but also be right”?
I feel that that saying should be modified to include, “and have a realistic sense of perspective”. Perhaps one might recommend the poet Burns on this point?
It was Robert Park, and Galileo:
http://dcscience.net/?p=124
He also has the world’s best disclaimer: see bottom of page:
http://www.bobpark.org/
Leonardo da Vinci was the archetypal Renaissance man what with his skills as a painter, poet and futurologist. Perhaps Patrick Holford sees himself in that way? After all he is an expert in psychology, nutrition, cancer prevention and alzheimers disease to name just a few things. Possibly Patrick is hoping the Italians will name an airport after him?
LeeT says “Possibly Patrick is hoping the Italians will name an airport after him?”
Nah, if anything Patrick more resembles a ship
the Titanic
Mojo, thanks for the Bob Park and that is a splendid disclaimer.
LeeT – the correspondences are extraordinary in Holford’s own mind, eh?
The boat/airport /fantasy themepark – duh Holford’s Supplement Land? Courtesy of his SA video, we know that Holford’s preferred promotional theme song is “What the world needs now”.
Thanks for the correction Mojo – your memory is clearly better than mine. Have you by any chance been taking Patrick Holford’s Brain Medicine?