Monthly Archives: July 2009
Joanna Blythman: Please Read the Data Appendices About Organic Food Before Conjuring ‘Cancerous Conspiracies’: Part 1
Joanna Blythman and the Soil Association accuse the Food Standards Agency of ignoring the statistics in its own review for differences in nutrient levels between organic and conventionally produced food. We suggest, respectfully, that Blythman and the Soil Association are wrong and refer them to the original data. Continue reading
Filed under Current events, nutrition
GCC: evidence for chiropractic for infant colic is “inconclusive”
We were interested to see (among a number of documents sent in response to our FOIA request to the General Chiropractic Council) that the GCC acknowledges that The available evidence of the efficacy of the chiropractic contribution to the management … Continue reading
Filed under patrick holford
BBC1 lets Scott Quinnell plug Dore, uncritically
I was interested to see this clip on YouTube: apparently broadcast 26/6/09*. The interviewer gives Scott Quinnell ample time to plug Dore for the treatment of dyslexia, dyspraxia, ADHD, autism and Asperger Syndrome. There are a number of important issues … Continue reading
Bang Goes the Theory website: poor science communication from the BBC
Bang Goes the Theory: their website is poor quality, although one of the producers involved has described the majority of science blogging as “rubbish” Continue reading
Filed under patrick holford
A Tale of Two WorkForces in the Same Workplace: Different Rules for Dietitians and Nutritionists in the NHS?
The case of Katie Peck casts an interesting sidelight on the issue that, very soon, if nutritional therapists are employed by the NHS, then there is no mechanism for challenging them for dispensing the sort of advice that might lead to a hearing before the Health Professions Council if it were given by a Registered Dietician. How would this not lead to confusion for patients? Continue reading
Filed under patrick holford, supplements
Jerome Burne and Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy: Part 3
We look at Jerome Burne’s evidence for the suggestion that bioidentical hormones may be protective against breast cancer and heart disease while offering promise of neuroprotective function. There is no strong evidence as yet that bio-identical hormones out-perform all progestins and some of these claims may be premature. Continue reading
Filed under Jerome Burne
Jerome Burne and Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy: Part 2
Jerome Burne relies upon a review of the efficacy and safety of bio-identical hormones by Dr Kent Holtorf. HolfordWatch has some concerns about the quality and coverage of this review. Continue reading
Science: So What Is Recruiting a Dialogue Manager
Science: So What is recruiting a Dialogue Manager for the social media wing of its campaign. Continue reading
Filed under Uncategorized
Jerome Burne and Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy: Part 1
Jerome Burne questions whether middle-aged women should be taking bio-identical hormones in preference to HRT. He relies upon a review of bio-identical hormones which is selective, over-extrapolates the evidence and for which the author does not state of conflict of interest although he has a clinic that specialises in bio-identical hormone replacement. Continue reading
Filed under Jerome Burne
GCC ‘What Can I Expect’ leaflet
Correction: as Lothian has helpfully pointed out, the leaflet is still readily available on the GCC site [PDF]. I did spend some time looking for it previously – but clearly not effectively enough. The scratched post is towards the bottom, … Continue reading
Filed under patrick holford
