We think it’s a bit more complicated than that.
In the ‘meet the author’ video about his How to Quit book, Holford takes a horribly reductionist view of addiction and recovery: he focuses pretty much exclusively on physiological issues and, in particular, on the alleviation of ‘abstinence systems’ through diet and supplements. However, there are clearly a whole range of reasons why people abuse various addictive substances, and why they find it hard to quit these substances. For example, a very quick glance over the literature shows that a recent article on the topic notes that:
negative emotions (e.g., loneliness, boredom), temptation to use (being offered drugs, seeing others use), and stressful situations have been cited as perceived reasons for relapse
While ‘alternative’ medicine is often claimed to consider the ‘whole person’, this is not the case here. While a doctor or clinical psychologist would generally consider a whole range of issues around addiction – including the social and psychological – Holford puts forward a highly reductionist viewpoint. Unsurprisingly, he does this without having good evidence to back it up.
As a postscript, one might also note that Holford introduces himself, reassuringly in the video by saying:
My name is Patrick Holford: I’m a psychologist and nutritionist
Holford is quite entitled to call himself a psychologist and nutritionist – as, readers, are you all. These are not protected titles in the UK. However, one might note that Holford’s only accredited degree-level qualification in psychology is a BSc (2:2) in Psychology; he has no accredited degree-level qualification in nutrition (although he did begin, and fail to complete, an MPhil on the subject). I am not sure if this is what the general public would expect of a ‘psychologist and nutritionist’.
Just checking – he very probably has no professional indemnity insurance to cover him in either capacity as psychologist or nutritionist? Shouldn’t they mention this on TV programmes and other media?
I think you are too easy on this video Holfordwatch. It’s dispicable and harmful piece of propaganda, in it Holford states that sitting around in groups is “not really going to do it” and addicts should moderate their diet and take supplements. This cavalier dismissal of ‘social and psychological’ support, which the review you link to claims is effective, does not appear to be based on evidence presented by Holford. What kind of moron is prepared to publicly dismiss apparent accepted treatment options with no evidence and clearly no thought for the consequences? Drug addicts are often vulnerable and troubled individuals and the very last thing they need is an unqualified, businessman with a product to sell dismissing tested therapies. This is a monstrous act by Holford.
Thanks Gimpy- we do get somewhat desensitised to this type of thing over time…
Wulfstan- actually, I think it’s plausible that Holford *might* have indemnity insurance (for example, his honorary diploma from the ION or his status w/ BANT might be seen as showing sufficient expertise). I don’t know anything much about insurance in general, though, let alone Holford’s arrangements. I would be very pleasantly surprised if any of the shows having him on have checked his insurance status, though.
If that’s what he thinks about addiction, he wasn’t paying much attention when he got his 2:2 – I did half a term on theories of addiction. Was one of the most interesting topics of the whole degree, we covered everything from neurobiology to social policy implications.
@ Wulfstan and jonhw – it would be very shocking if Mr Holford did not have insurance. He does occasionally still offer advice to individuals – remember the case last year of the girl he advised to go on a restricted diet
@ Duck – Mr H rarely seems to consider social policy implications.
OK, that’s a fair point Lee. When something like this came up before wasn’t there something along the lines that FBANTs aren’t necessarily covered by the same Code of Conduct as MBANTs – and that might or might not include the issue of insurance? I’d forgotten that he still gives advice during FFTB experiments and on TV.
I would say that he does care about social policy implications if it means changing rules of referral so that the NHS pays for people to see IONistas etc. rather than RDs. I expect there to be a lot of wibble (such a useful word) about this from January.
Next time he offers the benefit of his nutritional wisdom to a specific individual e.g diabetes, autism we can bring up the issue of his insurance.
(Holford & Associates – if you are reading this raise the matter at the next staff meeting spending a bit of money on insurance now could save you a bit of hassle in the future ….)
Is he on record as saying he wants the diplomates of his institute to be provided on the NHS? Now that would be well worth a letter to an MP.
hi all. I am currently studying for an MSc in Addiction Psychology.I am also a skeptic and avid supporter of groups debunking pseudoscience.
Anyway, guess what?we have a guest lecturer coming up to talk about addiction, none other than the man himself Prof. H.
Should be fun…
Admin edit: that’s formerly, Visiting Professor who never did anything when in post Patrick Holford? Lecturing to people on addiction? Where – if not a state secret? Please email us (see contact).
You may find some relevant discussion of some supplements and addictions as discussed in the literature in these posts.
http://holfordwatch.info/2008/11/05/the-economist-the-end-of-a-childhood-illusion/
http://holfordwatch.info/2008/11/16/who-wrote-about-food-for-the-brain-in-the-economist-conflict-of-interest/
Pingback: The Mail believes that Holford is an “holistic doctor” « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science