In a recent burst of autobiographical disclosure and outrage I posted The Economist: The End of a Childhood Illusion.
I can’t begin to describe my disappointment that The Economist somehow veered from its olympian standards and published a piece of such gob-smacking credulity that I was left waiting for the volte-face punchline that didn’t come. More extraordinary is the fact that The Economist links to Food for the Brain (FFTB) and lends its gravitas to that organisation by carrying this article about its recent conference (you may recall the awfulness of the lamentable Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007, details in further reading).
Treatment on a plate displays shoddy scholarship that is a strong warning sign that there is either a substantial misunderstanding or an undisclosed conflict of interest: this is not typical of The Economist…which makes this article all the more dispiriting.
Thanks to an impeccable source, we have learned the identity of the writer.
Jerome Burne wrote Treatment on a plate for The Economist.
In the original post, I wrote:
That sounds uncannily like the basis for the latest book and book tour by
Visiting ProfessorPatrick Holford, Dr James Braly and David Miller; where the authors discuss sugar and 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 re-branded himself as an addiction expert. The authors provide recipes of supplements that are tailored to particular addictions: take a capsule of this, an IV of that, and watch your cravings leave your body. How to Quit Without Feeling S**t is long on conjecture and thick with anecdotes about 85% recovery rates from addiction but strangely short on trials and even basic quality evidence such as case-studies that have been submitted to peer-review and reputable journals.
Jerome Burne who co-wrote Food Is Better Medicine Than Drugs with Patrick Holford. Patrick Holford who is the CEO of Food for the Brain (FFTB): FFTB held the conference that Jerome Burne wrote up for The Economist. FFTB has incorporated the Brain Bio Centre: a body that promotes its nutritional approach to dealing with mental health disorders and addiction and is included as one of the Nutrition Based Treatment Centres recommended in Patrick Holford’s How to QUIT without feeling s**t website.
How 2 QUIT not only offers advice for individuals but also has a section that touts for more business: CALLING ALL TREATMENT CENTRES. They make a request of people who are not interested in an evidence base (OK, we inserted that last part but it is implicit):
If you work in an addiction treatment centre and would like to find out how to bring the latest nutritional approaches into your treatment centre send your details to us.
Because that is just what the NHS and private addiction centres need, more wibble and less analysis/implementation of what does work for people with addictions.
Jerome Burne’s co-author Patrick Holford is Head of the Brain Bio Centre. He is also Head of Science and Education at Biocare which is part of Elder Pharmaceuticals. Holford has his own range of supplements with Biocare despite his lack of relevant qualifications and despite Biocare’s boast about the credentials of its staff.[a] Biocare was one of the sponsors of the FFTB conference that Jerome Burne reported in The Economist. Holford stands to benefit financially (and with little apparent financial risk to himself) from any take-up of his Supplements and Diet Against Addiction recommendations.
To quote again from the earlier post about (what we now know to be) Jerome Burne’s Treatment on a plate:
Shoddy scholarship, credulous coverage of a conference that is sponsored by supplement manufacturers and companies that offer commercial addiction services, the shadow of Patrick Holford and a regrettable conspiracy-theory-by-the-numbers from Professor Smith, who should have known so much better. What were the writer and the editor of this piece thinking?
It might be possible to guess what the writer was thinking but if the editor was aware of Burne’s potential conflict of interest then it is all the more astonishing that The Economist published this piece. However, if the editor/commissioner in question did not know that Burne had co-authored a book with Holford and that Holford had recently released a book about ‘nutritional approaches to treating addiction’ and is head of a centre that offers such approaches, then we strongly suggest that he or she should ask the nearest 9-year old about Google.
From earlier this year, you may remember how very sensitive Patrick Holford is to the appearance of a conflict of interest. Who can forget the righteous indignation that throbs through Holford’s account of why he did not participate in Ben Goldacre’s Radio 4 programme, The Rise of the Lifestyle Nutritionists:
The approach from Radio 4 was quite aggressive and suggested a preconceived agenda to trash nutritional therapy with a highly-biased presenter, who has won numerous awards funded by the big pharmaceuticals.
Patrick Holford and Jerome Burne, co-authors of Food Is Better Medicine Than Drugs, should really have a chat. You see, one of those Science Writer awards, one of the ones that is “funded by the big pharmaceuticals”, it turns out that Burne wanted one. In 2005 (oddly, at the time when Burne was collaborating with Holford) both Burne and Goldacre were shortlisted for the award and Goldacre won.[b]
Is there a conflict of interest? We couldn’t possibly comment and our sensitivities in such matters seem to be less hair-trigger than those of Patrick Holford. Jerome Burne (Iboga name, Onion Messenger and indeed, his credulity does make one weep) has previous form for writing enthusiastically about one-step cures for addiction. However, as for The Economist,
Notes
[a] 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.
[b] We hear that if one were to judge by Jerome Burne’s performance at the end of Ben Goldacre’s talk at Big Chill, this may still rankle.
Further Reading
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: The Promotion
Holford Watch looks at the literature review:
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 1
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 2
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 3
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 4
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 5
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
34 Comments
November 16, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Jerome Burne? Almost, but not quite, unbelievable.
Following your link to Biocare:
If Biocare knows that they ought to state this then it is even more reprehensible that other people don’t think it is worth mentioning.
Judging by the current Biocare promo for Holford and Miller’s one-day masterclasses, Nutritional Strategies for Breaking Addiction, this seems to be like something that nutritionists and allied health professionals can pick up in a day.
It is with fondness that I recall Victoria Derbyshire’s smackdown of Patrick Holford when he complained of other people’s conflict of interest but seemed to have rather a blindspot about his own.
November 16, 2008 at 9:27 pm
…!?!!?….
…speechless.
As you rightly point out, can you imagine what the Nutritionistas would have said if this had been the other way around?
Since Private Eye have previously written about Cher Patrique, I think you should send this off rather evident example of insider back-scratching off to them forthwith. I suspect that from their POV the chance to put the Economist’s feet to the flames would be an added bonus.
November 16, 2008 at 9:36 pm
!!!
The Economistgate Affair becomes ever more interesting.
I trust you’ve approached the Economist about this?
November 16, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Well, the Economist has ever been the house journal of the business world, which is where nutritional therapy is at home.
November 16, 2008 at 11:16 pm
OMG. I’ve just read the link about Jerome Burne and Iboga so now I get the Onion Messenger ‘nym.
OMG.
I don’t want to come across as close-minded or inclined to dismiss something because of its origins. Like Jerome Burne says:
Even so – and how ironic, given the current lack of disclosure – the Onion Messenger Iboga trip is an example of Too Much Sharing.
November 17, 2008 at 9:58 am
Oh dear, oh dear. This does tarnish the reputation of The Economist.
Well, the Economist has ever been the house journal of the business world, which is where nutritional therapy is at home.
Claire, that is perhaps a bit unfair, while I may not agree with The Economist’s belief in the free market it does have a firm commitment to evidence-based reasoning and is far more progressive on many social issues than would be expected for an establishment journal, besides it does have a deep love of statistics so can’t be all that bad.
The Economist is also very good at holding its hands up and admitting it was wrong. It even says ’sorry’ sometimes which is more than most broadsheets do. I hope they admit their mistake over this article and apologise for misleading their readers.
November 17, 2008 at 11:13 am
Perhaps I was a bit harsh, a hangover perhaps from my dislike of its enthusiasm for the Reagan-Thatcher world view!
November 17, 2008 at 12:17 pm
“The Economist is also very good at holding its hands up and admitting it was wrong. It even says ’sorry’ sometimes which is more than most broadsheets do. I hope they admit their mistake over this article and apologise for misleading their readers”
It’s now over a month since the article appeared (Oct 16th), but I can’t see anything resembling an apology or explanation on the Economist website. Has anybody checked the print editions?
November 17, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I found this item about the need for CAM to expand its market by employing PR agencies.
From the section about PR to consumers.
It seems like people pay good money to obtain placement in particular media outlets. Or, in the case of Jerome Burne, why pay a PR agency when you can placefavourable articles yourself that do the same job, but under the radar (assuming that the Science Editor or whomever in The Economist didn’t know about it), and (presumably) get paid for it.
November 17, 2008 at 2:56 pm
The Science Editor of The Economist is aware of the discontent that relates to Jerome Burne’s piece. We can not comment on whether a notice in The Economist will acknowledge this brouhaha.
Wulfstan – given the letters that Patrick Holford fires off to people and the astonishing text from Martin Walker that he sees fit to host on his website, it is extraordinary that Jerome Burne is so sensitive to the “bullyboy tactics” of others and thinks that it is this, rather than the lack of appropriate evidence, that precludes an “open debate on the relative merits”.
November 17, 2008 at 3:32 pm
It would be reassuring if the Economist could acknowledge that this piece was not as meticulously checked for factual correctness and freedom from conflict of interest as one might wish – especially for an article appearing in the Science/Technology section of a periodical with a formidable reputation. In my view, this is particularly important given the importance the Economist attaches to speaking with a collective voice :
“Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor “not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle.”
November 17, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Well, from the perspective of the BadSci blogosphere, and on a collective but pseudonymous / anonymous site like Holfordwatch, one can hardly critique the concept of a “collective voice”.
There is a big “but”, though. The collective voice only works where you can trust the people involved NOT to grind personal axes, and to recuse themselves appropriately when they clearly have a flagrant conflict of interest.
So if I were The Economist’s Science Editor, I would be cursing Jerome Burne for leaving oth me and The Economist twisting in the wind, not to mention looking utterly idiotic.
Speaking as a magazine editor, if any of my contributors did this to me you can bet they would never be writing anything for me again. And I still think The Economist should print an apology, as their collective ethics and standards have clearly been compromised.
November 17, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Precisely, Dr Aust. And where the collective voice has the influence and reach of The Economist, safeguarding the integrity of that voice should be paramount. They should print an apology or explanation of how this lapse has occurred, and without too much delay.
November 17, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Quick poll – but HolfordWatch couldn’t agree more with this attitude and may well quote it at some time wherever it is that we discuss such things. As Claire, Dr Aust et al point out, the difference is the authority, gravitas, reach, influence etc. of The Economist.
It was the ‘quality’ of the original piece that disturbed us and the issue of the writer was only pertinent because it displayed such shoddy scholarship that it marked a departure from itself for The Economist and raised the possibility of a conflict of interest because it otherwise seemed to be inexplicable.
The piece seemed to be heavily infused with Patrick Holford and Holfordisms although he was never actually named and it just struck such an odd note that we felt compelled to write about it.
So – on balance, we were not surprised to discover that Jerome Burne had written the piece. However, we were shocked that something so poorly researched and with assertions and claims that conflicted with those of the authors/researchers that he cites as authorities somehow made it through The Economist’s editing and revision process. We still don’t know how this happened.
To some extent, even if a journalist is regarded as a trusted source by an editor, it is a surprise that this means that The Economist stops checking the material that you submit (or, so it appears).
We have not heard – but perhaps The Economist doesn’t consider the scholarship to be as shoddy as HolfordWatch does.
November 17, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Jerome Burne is very interested in the conflict of interest of others, although, yes – they should be highlighted where relevant and where they distort the market for a product. It is interesting that he didn’t consider that his association with Patrick Holford might be considered relevant in this case – particularly if there is a business or set of products that may be involved, albeit indirectly.
The Drug Pushers.
Threatened by a herb: Researchers are trying to discredit St John’s wort. They are funded by a pharmaceutical company
More about that 2nd story with HealthWatch. One of the authors of a study he criticises responds.
Readers with a good memory may recall that there were similar problems with Food Is Better Medicine Than Drugs in re: the assertions about statins.
So, as per Jerome Burne’s The Economist article, it is legitimate to complain that Big Pharma will not fund research that will provide competition or diminish their market by curing addiction. However, if Big Pharma does fund research into products such as St John’s Wort it is only because it is providing competition and diminishing their own market and they wish to discredit it. Presumably, despite the lamentable performance of Food for the Brain in conducting and writing up something as simple as the limited research that they have done, they should be given research funding. And this should happen despite the fact that people on their own Scientific Advisory Board recognise that their published research wasn’t a ‘proper job’.
I hope that is clear.
November 17, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I know it is the Economist Namibia rather than The Economist but you might enjoy this article about Food Is Better Medicine: It is cheaper to eat healthily than buying drugs.
November 17, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Totally agree with the sentiment that what is written is more important than who writes it. If something is a misrepresentation or misconstrual of the truth, we should be able to figure that out without knowing who wrote it.
In the case of the Economist piece by Jerome Burne, you spotted how awful it was without knowing the name of the author. I would have thought that anonymous work could be critiqued just as easily as attributed work.
When you know who is responsible for the piece, then certain things may become clear but it seems to me that an author’s name is not necessary in order to be able to tell if what they’ve written is sensible or not.
November 17, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I have to admit I’m not sure it’s as simple as that in this case, jdc, as it seems to me a potential conflict of interest/unstated agenda was allowed to get into print in an influential publication with, I’m told, a track record of accurate and impartial reporting in science and technology. Had the article been by an Economist staff science writer, it would have been a shocking enough example of the decline of media science coverage but, for me, the details of this particular episode raise questions of trust and integrity. So I agree with Dr Aust’s “big but” about trust and conflict of interest in this case.
November 21, 2008 at 1:22 am
From the miniblog link to Schwartz, Woloshin and Moynihan on medical journalists. They advised that medical journalists can be unduly influenced and should disclose their conflicts of interest etc.
Are we to assume that the Science Editor of The Economist thinks that that advice is just so much sanctimonious hot air and piffle?
November 21, 2008 at 9:54 am
We couldn’t begin to comment on what the Science Editor of The Economist is thinking. However, much as I agree with the overall thrust, I do find a little too much piety in the Schwartz, Wonoshin and Moynihan article: a little bit too much smugness of those with some job security and ready access to a decent library etc., alongside little sense of their own privilege (but that might be rather too personal and situational).
However, I do agree with this part, but would argue that it has to work across the entire spectrum of health reporting.
If Jerome Burne or The Economist had done any of that, I would still consider the piece to be shoddy scholarship and an unsustainable series of extrapolations from the studies involved or the present research evidence, but there wouldn’t be even the appearance of impropriety.
However, on the wider point, winning prizes can be an important part of the CV. If the industries concerned don’t fund them, then who else will? Where will the money for promoting excellence in healthcare journalism come from, given that newspapers are shrinking their budgets for specialist staff?
I don’t know.