Comments on: About Us Archive

By: Has blogging changed science writing? « through the looking glass

Has blogging changed science writing? « through the looking glass — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:00:50 +0000

[...] is real). There’s the complex ways in which trust can be build via pseudonymous blogging (the about us section at HolfordWatch is a fascinating example). Or, the ways in which, for all the promise of the web as a great [...]

By: Introducing the Dip IONs - Patrick Holford’s Shock Troops of Optimum Nutrition « Through a Glass Darkly

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:03:10 +0000

[...] Now at Through a Glass Darkly we are sometimes accused of claiming that nutritional therapists are stupid. We are pleased to report to the world at large that this is not the case. Nearly all are [...]

By: David

David — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:16:40 +0000

Admin edit: moved to Off-topic.

By: Vegan Pirate

Vegan Pirate — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:49:20 +0000

Moved to off-topic. Just to be clear - this is a familiar sock-puppet - so familiar it is the same person who is pretending to be Mrs Holford.

By: Mrs Holford

Mrs Holford — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:27:20 +0000

Moved to off-topic. Just to be clear - this is a familiar sock-puppet and there is no indication that this is Mrs Holford.

By: jonhw

jonhw — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:32:50 +0000

Thanks Claire - I've corrected that mistake. I've been reading about Muphry's law, and I think that has infected my writing ;)

By: Wulfstan

Wulfstan — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:30:02 +0000

Was this the last part of the blog you read?

Surely that ‘last’ is a typo for only?

I defy anyone to have read and understood 160 of the posts on this blog in a day. I’m not even sure you could skim read them in that time.

By: Claire

Claire — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:17:50 +0000

“…So when someone reads YOUR interpretation of the research in a post (cos you do do that) then what validity does your opinion and interpretation have?

This is the crux of the argument.”

This is where we readers have to engage our critical faculties and evaluate for ourselves. As you point out, the analyses on this site do not come in a comforting wrapping of appeal to authority, i.e. with names and credentials attached. But since you have read all the entries, you may have noticed that people with credentials in this area, such as Catherine Collins RD, comment, as do others with scientific qualifications. I’m sure HW would be pulled up fairly promptly if they were propagating flawed analyses and interpretations.

@ jonhw – do you mean ‘biographical’? – there certainly doesn’t seem to be a dearth of bibiographical detail here!

By: jonhw

jonhw — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:51:40 +0000

Me- I’m flattered that you’ve taken the time to read 150+ posts on this blog. However, if you were just looking for our ~~bibliographical~~ biographical details, it’s a shame that you didn’t notice the nice clear explanation at the top of this page of why we don’t provide these details. Was this the last part of the blog you read?

We’ve explained multiple times why we don’t provide bibliographical details. You can judge what’s written here on its content (or, of course, choose not to read it).

Having read all of those posts, is there anything in particular that you find problematic? Or are you in broad agreement with our analyses?

By: jdc325

jdc325 — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:44:41 +0000

@Mary Parsons: “If anything, with the multiple footnotes and references, the bloggers here go too far with providing sources but I understand why they do that.”
Yes, they are certainly thorough. Personally, I love the fact that sources are provided on this blog – one of my hobby-horses is that the national media refuse to cite papers properly (or to link to the actual paper they are reporting on). I think Holford Watch deserve the Arte y Pico Award bestowed on them by Sharon.