We are not nutritionists, we are very naughty boys and girls. We use basic science and research skills to perform a critical assessment of the work of Patrick Holford and nutritionism.
A number of people have said nice things about this blog. For example, have been described in the Guardian as one of four blogs that, compared to mainstream media coverage of Dore, “win on timeliness, accuracy, relevance, effort, ethics, and stupid names”. We have also been discussed – in broadly positive terms – in the Telegraph, Private Eye and Damian Thomson’s Counterknowledge
We’re not over-sharing on biographical details-this is not because we subscribe to a PoMo idea that individual credit for creative work is bourgeois but because we find that it distracts from a critique of the science and ideas.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether we are the pride of our mothers and the despair of our schoolfriends because we are so laden down with academic honours that we can’t get our heads through a standard doorway – or if we don’t have a 25m swimming certificate between us. It’s the ideas, science and analysis that count.
Holford Watch contributors have no competing interests in pharmaceutical or supplement companies. This site is funded by donations from readers and contributors (although we will not accept money from those with competing interests in the pharmaceutical or supplement industry) and payment from referrals to Amazon
If you have any questions for us that you do not want to post as a comment, or have any information you would like to send us, we can be contacted at holfordwatch duck googlemail and the usual that follows that (replace the fowl with @ to get a valid e-mail address).
It interesting how people with unorthodox scientific opinions often bring up the name of Galileo. The idea is to get people to think, “Well, the scientific establishment got it wrong with Galileo perhaps there is something in neurolinguistic kinesiological health dowsing after all.”
The fact is for every Galileo there are probably a hundred people who were regarded as cranks by their contemporaries and history judged them to be cranks as well. How many of you have heared of Girolamo Savonarola – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola ? Very few I would think! He lived at the beginning of the Renaissance a bit before Galileo.
Now I am not for one moment (!) suggesting that imitate the people of Florence in respect of alternative therapists. We just need to ask the question whether Patrick Holford is a Galileo or a Savonarola. History will be his judge ….
I was interested to come across your website, particularly as one who is exploring a career interest in nutritional studies. It is vital that anyone in the natural health industry who are exploiting people’s beliefs and vunerability, where no research or genuine care for patients exists, are exposed as the misleading opportunists they are.
However, I confess that your site makes me doubt yourselves more than Patrick Holford – whether you agree with his opinions/findings /research is totally up to you but you have to admit that he is willing to put his name behind his ‘claims’ (as you refer to them) and that you as the authors of this site, despite repeated requests to identify yourselves, are not.
Therefore, those of us who do genuinely have a legitimate wish to search out genuine articles, research and evidence of the benefit of nutritional therapy, filtering out those who give the often highly beneficial practise a bad name as we go, are more likely to question your anonymous motives than that of Patrick Holford, for example.
I, for one, welcome debate and justification by professionals in any field, particularly one which deals with peoples health and wellbeing often at significant financial expense to the patient but I don’t believe an unprofessional and anonymous website such as this is the way to go about it.
Hayley Willis
Actually, most of the time, it’s up to correct arithmetic, correct biographical details, correct science and a correct interpretation of research literature as you would know if you had looked through the site. It’s not really a matter of opinion, most of the time.
You are entirely happy with being told that a QLink will protect you from EMR? That the NNT for Statins is misquoted as 19,600? That the premature mortality statistics are misquoted to support the need for a particular blood test? You support Holford’s endorsement of IgG tests for the diagnosis of food intolerance despite the dearth of scientific or clinical support for such a use and the criticism of them by a special committee of the House of Lords?
For one who welcomes debate etc. I do notice that you haven’t addressed any of the poor science that we comment on, Hayley. We give our opinion and link to the source material – it is up to you to consult the material and form your own opinion. One might wonder why you don’t wish to do examine the source material but follow interpretations that may well be unfounded.
wow, just noticed all the new comments on this thread – thanks for all the feedback.
Troy- you’re right, there are a lot of horrible things happening in the world which we don’t address here (though I would be interested in the source of your 30,000 deaths figure). We also don’t address the ongoing repression in Burma, we don’t say much about the large numbers of unnecessary AIDS deaths due to inadequate access to effective treatment, etc. But just cause we can’t cover everything that’s wrong with the world (though we do obviously have lives outside this blog where we engage with other issues) doesn’t mean that we can’t engage with Holford here. Does it?
Hayley- we have consciously chosen not to put our names ‘behind’ what we say on the site. We don’t want people to believe what we say just because a certain name is/is not attached to it, which is why we are careful to give links to original sources etc. so that readers can check whether what we’re saying is accurate or not.
Please, if you feel that our account of the science is inaccurate in some places, or have any comments on it, do let us know. However, we don’t have any competing interests, we’re not selling anything, and information on this blog isn’t a substitute for consulting with a dietitian or doctor – so why should it matter who we are?
Again, as for searching out articles, we are pretty careful to link to what we reference – so that shouldn’t be too hard. btw, in many journals the ‘genuine articles’ you refer to will be reviewed anonymously – so it is possible to assess such ideas without knowing the name of the author(s).
Hayley – you should always play the ball, not the man. If someone writes an article on science it is the ideas that matter not the personalities.
LeeT – Good point regarding Galileo. I remember seeing someone’s signature on a forum. It said something along the lines of “they laughed at Christopher Columbus, they laughed at Galileo… they also laughed at Bozo the clown”.
And they also laughed at nutritionalism?
Just wondering if Patrick Holford were around in 15th century Florence what would have been thrown on the bonfire of the vanities -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonfire_of_the_Vanities Cheese on toast?
jdc, LeeT – I can’t quite remember the quotation, but it is something along the lines of “To be worthy of a comparison with Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted, you also need to be right”. Does it ring any bells or am I making this up?
Don’t know about cheese on toast – it might be something fishy on toast? :-)
That sounds like an excellent quotation. I googled it and was unable to find it anywhere on the World Wide Web so post it early, post it often, post it everywhere and before long it will be attributed to you. We all read it here first.
On the subject of quotations have you noticed this one from the website of our friends at The Institute for Optimum Nutrtion? “The Doctor of the future will no longer treat the human frame with drugs, but rather will cure and prevent disease with nutrition.” Supposedly it was uttered by Thomas Edison who I was thought was an inventor rather than nutritionist. The only websites quoting it seemed to be those involved in nutritonal therapy. I found a slightly different version on the website of a Canadian nutrition college: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patient in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease.” http://www.edisoninst.com/ That made me every more suspicious …
Fortunately our friends at Wikipedia have come to the rescue again. Have a look at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison to see what Edison really said. Was he really the first person to advance nutritional therapy or are the ION and various BANT practitioners quoting him just a bit out of context? What does everyone else think?
Shinga , you seriously need to open up your mind. Honestly, beleive me, you do.
As an observation, if you have nothing to hide then why go to so much trouble as to not reveal who you are on your website.
This might well indicate, that you do not have the real courage of your convictions plus it is always easy to ‘slag’ someone off behind a wall of secrecy.
Hayley is spot on with this,
I’m interested in nutrition but not necessarily Holford – I don’t really rate him that highly. (His sports nutrition literature is weak) But why start a blog like this without revealing your name and why choose him in particular.
Maybe some claims he makes are outlandish, but he does reinforce fundamentals of sound nutrition to a large audience.
You are like the guys criticising Al Gore’s message on the environment. You are trying to take down what is on the whole a positive message. Balance the criticism with some fact please and if you ever want to have more credibility than Holford you’ll have to get used to signing your name. I lost any respect for your views when I found out you were afraid to reveal your names.
We don’t “go to so much trouble as to not reveal who you are on your website”. We just don’t give our names. We have explained why several times. If we were doing something ‘sneaky’ here, it would, of course, be five minutes work to fabricate a couple of identities – but instead we have chosen to remain anonymous and give an honest explanation as to why.
Not knowing who we are does not prevent anyone from analysing the ideas raised by this blog. If you choose not to do so, that is, of course, your prerogative.
Ben- as to why we’ve chose Holford in particular, you’ll find some reasons on our Holford Howlers page.
jonhw – thanks for all your hard work. I have no desire to know the identities of the people behind this blog. What interests me are discussing ideas about nutrition and healthy eating. The fact that none of you seek “fame” for what you doing is an endorsement in itself. Not sure Patrick Holford or Gillian McKeith would do something anonymously since that would do nothing for their “brand.”
Whilst I am not an expert on the culture of blogs I think it is quite common for authors to remain anonymous unless they are celebrities, ego-maniacs or members of parliament.
Thanks again.
Lee
I thought you guys might enjoy this one:
http://lolquacks.blogspot.com/2007/10/truth-in-advertising.html
Ah yes, the simple pleasure of subverting a meme!
I am on a quest for good health. If not Patrick Holford, then who do you recommend? Out of curiosity, why do you use terminology such as “quack” and “howler”? It comes across as if you are somehow threatened. No offence.
Hi Murphy,
I am on a quest for good health as well which brought me to this website. My search first took me to Patrick Holford and nutritional therapy. His books were, for some one like without any nutritional knowledge, very difficult to take in. I have been reading a book called “Nutrition for Dummies” which is full of useful information. (Two of the authoris are state registered dieticians.) A shorter and cheaper read is “Food & Nutrition” from Family Publications produced in association with the British Medical Association. The British Dieticians website also has lots of good stuff.
Lee
Murphy, Patrick holford is thinking outside the box, which is why these people criticise him.
LeeT actually believes in dieticians. These are the people who follow the governments guidelines for healthy eating! They have no idea about optimum levels of nutrients. Take a look at the food table, it will make you laugh. Refined carbs, sugar , trans fats etc. It is a joke.
Murphy/Trev/Oberservant Good Cook/Curious and all your other aliases -
Just to like I am rather skeptical of guru figures whether they be religious, political or nutritional.
As I said to you before if you genuinely believe the government is so deluded about guideline nutritional amounts and nutrients arrange a meeting with your MP to put “the other side.” Most have constituency surgeries.
The British Dieticians website also has lots of good stuff. You are funny.
Where does all your faith in the government come from? O ill just walk on down and have a meeting shall i? That will change things!
Dont be so naive
Ive been reading some of your stuff. You really beleive what you are doing is really important.You should listen to yourself!
Murphy- I thought ‘howlers’ was a relatively polite way of describing what’s listed on that page… What term would you suggest?
Trev- you say that “Patrick holford is thinking outside the box, which is why these people criticise him.” Certainly, some people with novel – and accurate – ideas have attracted criticism. Of course, so have some people who have ideas which are novel, implausible and entirely wrong. They laughed at Gallileo; they also laughed at Bozo the Clown…
On transfats etc. the BDA recommends avoidance [PDF link]. What’s objectionable about that?