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).
180 responses so far ↓
Jim Manson // July 18, 2007 at 8:31 am
Who are you ‘naughty boys and girls’? By name, I mean. I’m very interested in finding out more about holfordwatch.
Ps - is the plastic duck the same one featured in Dr Ben Goldacre’s ‘nutritionist’ merchandise?
jonhw // July 19, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Jim - thanks for the interest. The duck is ‘ours’ - we got him/her (not entirely sure how one sexes plastic ducks) from istockphoto.com
Jim Manson // July 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Nice to have cleared up the provenance of the plastic duck. ButI’m genuinley interested in who is behind the site.
lecanardnoir // July 20, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Jim, I am sure you can find out who we are if you want to. We are not really secret, just that we think that out biographical and personal information has nothing to do with the criticisms we make of the work of PH. What we say is either wrong, and we would like to hear why, or we are right.
Why are you so concerned?
PS Site updated recently, so not sure if mey email is here yet. but you can contact me via the quackometer
bengoldacre // July 27, 2007 at 6:39 pm
heh
this chap’s the editor of “natural products” the trade magazine.
they’re a bit preoccupied with launching ad hom attacks, as is de rigeur in the industry, so i’d imagine he’s fantasising that you are in the employ of the company behind thalidomide.
on the other hand i might be wrong, he might be primarily interested in engaging on the question of whether people really do have evidence for the explicit scientific claims they make, and discussing the content of your criticisms…
Andy // July 27, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Ah yes,
Should have run the quackometer over the name…
http://www.quackometer.net/?suspectquack=Jim+Manson
jonhw // July 27, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Jim- thanks for the interest in the blog. Hopefully you’ll be able to use us as a source of good information on nutritionism: I’ll make sure to keep an eye on Natural Products, to see if you’re able to make use of any of our ideas.
Of course, if you find the content here of interest, we’d also be very happy to contribute an article to Natural Products. A critical appraisal of nutritionism would be an obvious option, but we could be relatively flexible (for example, autism and vaccination seem to be topical at the moment). I’m sure your readers would be interested in a critical look at various CAM approaches.
Jim Manson // August 1, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Hey indeed, and hello from the dark side!
Seriously, I’ve got better things to fantasize about.
I’ll say this about Ben, he might not do ad hom but he does a nice line in personal insult.
Surprised but delighted that my nonentity status is now being challenged and I have been elevated to suspect quack.
Jon, I’ll get back in touch re your email.
jonhw // August 9, 2007 at 1:02 pm
thanks Jim - look forward to hearing from you.
LeeT // September 15, 2007 at 6:58 pm
So when’s the article appearing?
jonhw // September 15, 2007 at 11:23 pm
alas, haven’t heard back from Natural Products yet. A pity - we would have very much liked to contribute an article.
Youtellmeyoursandilltellyoumine // September 24, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Why have you specifically chosen Patrick Holford to criticise?
As for who you are - surely if your names are not a secret then why not state them unless , of course you have something to hide.
Shinga // September 24, 2007 at 4:23 pm
The old ones are the best, eh? See previous answers, here and elsewhere on site.
We disagree on whether investigating someone’s claims to scientific rigour etc. is criticism or appropriate correction to a mistaken message.
You don’t think that the Holford support for QLink, misinterpretation of statins NNT, misreporting of premature mortality statistics due to CVD is an appropriate matter for comment?
What do you think about the ASA adjudications against Holford? As a matter of interest, what do you believe his qualifications and expertise to be?
Youtellmeyoursandilltellyoumine // September 26, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I have seen previous answers - none were satisfactory.
LeeT // September 26, 2007 at 7:35 pm
I don’t think Patrick Holford is being personally criticised. It is more a questions of looking at his ideas.
He claims that nutrition is the answer to so many problems. Possibly in twenty years time he will be proved right with regard to some of the things he has been saying, though we shall never know unless his ideas are subject to criticism will we? That’s how truth emerges from scientific endeavour.
Troy Birdman // October 2, 2007 at 9:27 am
Why have a go at Patrick HOlford? Surely it is for patients to say whether his ideas are good or not. If people begin to get better by taking for instance, folic acid, then that’s good. If his ideas are a sham then there should be no room for a charlatan dressed up as a nutritionist. He preaches a non-negative side effect way to better health so what’s wrong with that? Bearing in mind prescription drugs kill 30,000 a year in the UK out of a total death rate of 600,000 then I think we should direct some of our criticism at the doctors who readily accept the pay and pills the large pharma corporations have to offer.
Shinga // October 2, 2007 at 10:39 am
When you say “we should direct” do you work for a Pharma Watch organisation or such, Troy - in which case - on you go? Pharma Watch, Pharmalot etc. do some very interesting work.
Read through Holford Watch and you may have a fuller understanding of our position. You do understand that Holford makes basic errors - such as whether cheese on toast would push you towards lactose intolerance… In that same link - you do understand that he endorses QLink as well as some allergy and intolerance tests that were recently criticised in a House of Lords report.
We don’t ascribe any motives or characterisations; we discuss the poverty of the science/experience/qualifications that Holford cites in support of his work etc.
LeeT // October 2, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Troy
I like your idea of patients deciding on whether treatment is useful or works. Personally, I have no medical training whatsover so would not presume to tell my doctors or nurses how I should be treated. By the way I think you’ll find Patrick Holford and his army of nutritional therapists call the people who consult them “clients” and not “patients”.
On the subject of prescription drugs killing 30,000 a year I would be interested to learn more about where that particular statistic comes from. More than 3000 people are killed in road traffic accidents every year. Consequently a considerable amount of money is spent on promoting the idea of road safety.
If 30,000 are being killed by prescription drugs we need to act rather urgently. However, I think what you may mean is that 30,000 die whilst on prescription drugs. Now such people are already in difficulties whether it be from mental health problems or chronic illnesses. That’s why they are presecribed the drugs in the first place! Thus, it is not surprising that their general rate of mortality is higher than the population. It is a serious which needs more attention given to it. However, I don’t think telling people to take supplements rather than medication is a good idea.
You make a very serious allegation that doctors are prescribing drugs in return for money. My understanding is that they only prescribe drugs licenced and approved by the MHRA. If you know of some one doing something different then you might like to consider reporting them to the BMA.
Incidentally, if a patient … errr … I mean client has problems with Patrick Holford who can they complain to? The British Association for Nutritional Therapy - who made Patrick Holford a fellow - are very cagey are their ethical code so it is difficult to know who can help.
Whilst pharmaceutical companies are probably quite capable of taking care of themselves, I must point out to you that most of them are quoted on stock exchanges of the major economies. If they are found to have produced drugs that don’t work or have awful side effects then investors will be reluctant to put money in them which can lower the share price rather dramatically.
One final point criticism was made of GPs a few years ago saying some of them were prescribing anti-depressants without good cause. Would BANT ever criticise Patrick Holford or any of their other practitioners for them being too free and easy with supplements ??!!
Shinga // October 2, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I have been thinking further about this, Lee and Troy.
To make an obvious point, some people have regular headaches so they take painkillers. Depending on their use, they develop rebound headaches because of the way in which they use the medication. You can’t always trust your interpretation of your body’s response.
There was the Boden et al study about stents earlier this year - patients like them and usually improved after them. However, the study revealed that patients with chronic chest pain who received coronary stents, as well as drugs, were just as likely to die or have heart attacks as those who received only the drugs. This is a level of nuance that is not available just by asking patients/clients.
People seem to respond to a placebo differently, depending on whether it is a particular colour and in the form of a pill or injection. We can’t always rely on our intuition although Holford does encourage us to rely upon it through dowsing, kinesiology etc.
If we were to rely upon people’s intuition, just how many people have you heard claim that smoking clears their lungs or some such?
Shinga // October 2, 2007 at 11:11 pm
The Brothers Hoofnagle have some relevant material on their Denialism blog.
LeeT // October 2, 2007 at 11:35 pm
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 ….
Hayley Willis // October 3, 2007 at 3:30 pm
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
Shinga // October 3, 2007 at 3:39 pm
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.
jonhw // October 3, 2007 at 4:02 pm
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).
jdc325 // October 3, 2007 at 5:24 pm
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”.
LeeT // October 3, 2007 at 8:53 pm
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?
Shinga // October 3, 2007 at 9:00 pm
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? :-)
LeeT // October 3, 2007 at 10:00 pm
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?
dunc // October 8, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Shinga , you seriously need to open up your mind. Honestly, beleive me, you do.
Curious // October 11, 2007 at 10:24 pm
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.
Brian // October 11, 2007 at 10:39 pm
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.
jonhw // October 11, 2007 at 11:26 pm
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.
LeeT // October 12, 2007 at 7:03 pm
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
Persiflage // October 17, 2007 at 3:00 pm
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!
Murphy // October 24, 2007 at 6:06 pm
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.
LeeT // October 24, 2007 at 7:12 pm
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
Trev // October 26, 2007 at 5:55 pm
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.
LeeT // October 26, 2007 at 6:44 pm
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.
Trev // October 27, 2007 at 6:29 pm
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!
jonhw // October 28, 2007 at 3:04 pm
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?
LeeT // October 28, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Trev
Thank you for saying how funny I am. Were you referring to the “Dr Holford” comment or the one on Savonarola? I have a few more ideas for satire so stay tuned.
Yes, you can often just walk in off the street and have a meeting with your local MP. For example, see http://www.vaizey.com/type15.asp?id=74&type=15 No, I do not think I have any particular faith in the government. One does have to some faith and engagement in the political process. If you don’t you may as well just hand things over to a guru figure or dictator. It is interesting that alternative health practitioners are more interested in engaging with the media than the political process. The House of Lords Technology Committee recently expressed disappointment there was not a greater response from them for a report they recently published on allergies.
I certainly do believe what I say. Doesn’t Patrick Holford believe in his theories and take them seriously?
Lee
Trev // November 1, 2007 at 10:06 pm
You two need to get out the house a bit more.
Trev // November 1, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Heres one for you. I have spoken to catherine collins in the past and she told me she takes a multi vitamin and mineral at RDA levels.
I asked her, if you can gain all the nutrients you need from her so called balanced diet. Why would that be necessary? She told me ‘insurance’!! Im a little confused here.
Catherine Collins RD // November 2, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Hmm
well, seeing as I am probably the person you are speaking about I think you will find that my stock answer to journalists as to whether ANY supplement is necessary is to say that a)only in specific circumstances such as iron for iron deficiency anaemia and folic acid in early pregnancy b) avoidance of high dose supplements, especially single nutrient types and c) if you want to take some ‘health insurance’ than a broad spectrum one-a-day 100% RDA type does no harm, and is the only type of supplement I would recommend if people want to take some “health insurance”. I am interested to find out when I supposedly stated that I took regular supplements of any type? hmmm. interesting one
LeeT // November 2, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Perhaps the above commenter misunderstood or misread one of the following articles:
http://www.bda.uk.com/Downloads/November04foodfacts.pdf
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article544881.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,2085210,00.html
jonhw // November 3, 2007 at 1:54 am
Catherine- thanks for clearing that up. Trev, fwiw I don’t think any of us are against food supplements per se - there are clearly (as in the example of folic acid when pregnant) circumstances when taking them is advisable. However, the fact that supplements can be useful means that it’s especially damaging when Holford and others get their science wrong.
Sarah // November 4, 2007 at 11:22 am
My life has completely changed since I read Patrick Holfords books. Gone are the anti-depressants, the constant headaches, heartburn, oedema and joint pain and his ideas were a pivotal part of my journey (I had a ‘hidden’ allergy to casein, but I didn’t pay to get a test to prove it, I did it through elimination/challenge - conclusive for me). I think it is fabulous that people like him put stuff out there to enable others to make better decisions about their own health.
A quote:
“First they ignore you
Then laugh at you and hate you
Then they fight you
Then you win “
jonhw // November 4, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Sarah - glad you’re feeling better now. We’ve got no objection to elimination/challenge tests, as long as used correctly.
Thanks for the quote. So, this blog has been ignored, laughed at and ‘fought’ - does that mean we’re going to ‘win’ sometime soon :D
Trev // November 11, 2007 at 5:02 pm
So mrs Collins would you dispute that due to bio individuality some people would need certain nutrients at much higher levels. RDAs are made without any thought of this. A schizophrenic pateint for example might need niacin in amounts far higher than the RDA, surely this needs to be bought into consideration.
I have also argued with people on here about the suggested food plate for a balanced diet. Can i just here it from you that you think that this plate is acceptable regarding refined sugars and carbs, trans fats etc is this really what you are advising?
LeeT // November 11, 2007 at 9:20 pm
People with schizophrenia certainly need specialist help, though they would probably be more likely to find it from a doctor than a nutrition therapist.
Trev // November 12, 2007 at 8:55 am
Thats funny Lee because i was diagnosed with schizophrenia 11 years ago and the medication i was given by my doctor caused huge side effects and no improvement even after trying several combinations and different drugs.
At this point i was unable to work or live a normal life.
I had a consultation with Patrick 6 years ago now, who changed my life. Within 1 month of sorting out my digestion (food intolerances, leaky gut disorder) and taking high doses of niacin (plus other b-vits) i was completly free of symptoms and have been for six years.
I have noticed when i do not take this amount of niacin for even 2 days, my disconnected feeling returns with avengence!
Doctors do not seem to recognise that this problem can be cured with nutrtion.
LeeT // November 12, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Trev
I am glad to hear about the improvement in your health and that Patrick Holford was able to help you. My problem with nutritional therapists is that they generally do a three year part-time course. That does not really seem sufficient to entrust them with vulnerable people.
Where I can read more about nutritional therapy and schizophrenia? Have you got any web links? My understanding was that specialist pyschiatrists in the field do not share Patrick Holford’s views. Are you aware of any who do?
Lee
Tony Bishop-Weston // November 21, 2007 at 2:02 am
As the numerous comments on this blog prove - your cowardice distracts from a critique of the science and ideas.
We are so used to biased critiques with ulterior motives it’s the first thing we look for - who’s behind it and why? Then we can judge whether it’s worth reading or dismiss it as another jealous Dr with 2 hours of training in nutrition, a dietitian with a bee in their bonnet about the private sector, a bored lobbyist from GSK or some crank nightshift worker at an animal testing lab.
The real reason why you stay anonymous? Because you know it’ll be hours before someone wreaks vengence on you and does to you what you’ve done to Holford - holds a magnifying glass to your sorry careers until they manage to make you look like pathetic hypocrites.
The real reason why Holford is so successful? Because the drug pushing medical institutions in this country are in such a sorry mess they can’t even get the basics right - people feel the need to pay to even find out how to pooh properly.
The real reason why I think you are pathetic? If you are anti Holford then you are likely to be pro status quo and the status quo in our town is a hospital with catering by Burger King and where if you refuse caffienated drinks you’re considered a crank.
Here’s some constructive homework for you -
1) Find out the percentage of people in the UK who are constipated.
2) Find out the gross UK NHS budget for laxatives per annum
You’ve made it clear it’s a subject you are interested in - get to it ‘researchers’
Then please explain why Holford encouraging people to use Vitamin C is a bad thing?
gimpy // November 21, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Tony Bishop-Weston, one of the criticisms frequently aimed at people in the CAM field is that they do not engage with ideas but they attack the people behind the ideas. You have done exactly that. I think the good people at Holfordwatch prefer anonymity because they would like to have their thoughts and opinions debated rather than their person. I find it deeply damning of your profession that you assess the quality of an opinion, not by the weight of evidence supporting it, but by how the person behind that opinion fits into your world view. You are effectively arguing that you can ignore the well thought out and informed opinions here simply because you think the people behind them are part of the status quo persecuting you and your multi-million pound business. That is no way to conduct science.
superburger // November 21, 2007 at 1:43 pm
“Because the drug pushing medical institutions in this country are in such a sorry mess they can’t even get the basics right”
“Medical Institution?” A bit like the ION?
“Drug Pushing? ” Like recommending / selling / having sold pills for a living?
“get the basics right” I think Holford watch has rather nicely shown that Holford sometimes fails to get the basics right.
It’s interesting to debate ideas: they’re what’s important.
jdc325 // November 21, 2007 at 5:38 pm
“The real reason why Holford is so successful?”
Because he’s charismatic. (Another reason may be this: he stuffs his books with references that the average reader will find impressive, but will not look up on pubmed).
“The real reason why you stay anonymous?”
I can’t speak for the good people of holfordwatch, but I am anonymous on teh interweb because (a) I don’t want to be stalked by some loon and (b) I don’t see how knowing my name could possibly add to the sum of anyone’s knowledge.
“…another jealous Dr with 2 hours of training in nutrition, a dietitian with a bee in their bonnet about the private sector, a bored lobbyist from GSK or some crank nightshift worker at an animal testing lab.”
Typical groundless assertions from an alt-med lobbyist. I’m none of the above - what do you think my motivations for criticising Holford may be?
PS - 50+ comments on this page now, I wonder why?
Could it be that alt-med types prefer ad hom attacks to engaging with debate?
LeeT // November 21, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“another jealous Dr with 2 hours of training in nutrition” Goodness, back in 2003 Mr Holford was criticised for an advertisement stating doctors had less than twelve hours of training in nutrition
http://www.cap.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=35650
At this rate by 2011 nutritional therapists will be claiming doctors have only twenty minutes of training in nutrition!!
On the subject of Burger King I understand they were setting up some outlets in hospital for the benefit of staff and visitors. I am unaware of any hospitals where they actually do the catering. If you have any evidence of that we should all very interested to see it!
jdc325 - many of the references in “The Optimum Nutrition Bible” send the reader to the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine or the ION.
LeeT // November 21, 2007 at 9:39 pm
jdc325 rightly pointed out that Holford has not had any articles published in respected scientific journals. I went on to the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine’s website at:
http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/index.shtml
expecting to see lots of references to Mr Holford. However, typing in his name only brought up four results. As far as I can he has not published any papers or articles in the house journal of orthomolecular medicine. If I am wrong I would happy to be corrected and to have a link to the article so we can all read it. (The ION does not count!)
Sara // November 23, 2007 at 8:36 am
Burger King……benefit of staff and visitors.
BENEFIT ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
You dont half make yourselves sound stupid
Sara // November 23, 2007 at 8:50 am
Can anyone tell me why I have to continualy correct really bad advice given out by bloody dieticians. I here story after story from people given no help from these people. You name the symptom and they havent got a clue.
For example, time after time after time i am sorting out digestive problems for poeple who have benn in and out of doctors surgeries for years, sometimes 25 years!!!!!
The advice they are getting from dieticians is literally laughable. They seem to be missing simple problems like
poor gastric juice secretion
Dysbiosis
Candida
Poor gall bladder function
Leaky gut disorder
etc etc
What the hell are these people learning exactly.
I could continue these examples all day long.
jabs2 // November 23, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Sara: “…the status quo in our town is a hospital with catering by Burger King” - this seems to imply that the catering for patients is done by Burger King. Lee clarifies here: “On the subject of Burger King I understand they were setting up some outlets in hospital for the benefit of staff and visitors”. I don’t see any reason to call Lee stupid on the basis of his post - it simply clarified your previous post. IMHO, I think this insulting post detracts from your argument, rather than enhancing it.
superburger // November 23, 2007 at 2:45 pm
hey sara,
what’s interesting about the medical professions is that they are regulated properly. If you *think* a dietician is clinically inept you can complain and the complaint is investigated and if found to be true the person in question can, ultimately, by struck off the register. As a rule professionals are also banned from profiting from endorsements of specific products.
Perhaps you’re arguing for better initial training for the healthcare professions? Or better CPD? Or maybe you think what they *really* need is a qualification from the IoN!
anyway, compare health professionals to the totally unregulated ‘nutrition’ industry where anyone (even if their only meaningful qualification is a 2.2 in psychology, or a ‘doctorate’ from a non-accredited US university) can say all sorts of inaccurate things, whilst making plenty of money selling books, pills and potions.
Sara // November 23, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Your not really adressing anything that i have said. You just say the same thing to most comments. I see what works and day in day out.
I see the problem (through no fualt of their own) doctors are having with various health problems.
I agree with everyone here that the ION course needs to be 5 and not 3 years, but it is 3 years heading in the right direction.
I literally spend every day correcting peoples health that doctors havent acheived .
Surley we all need to work together.
Instead of scrolling through study after study, never really knowing how it is exactly conducted, see what works in reality..
Sara // November 23, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Jabs
you havent come up with an arguement
jonhw // November 23, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Sara- are you a practising nutritional therapist yourself?
I don’t think any of us would claim that doctors or dietitians are all good practitioners. However, by making them do accredited training, and by having (imperfect but relatively open and effective) regulation after they start to practice, it is possible to protect the public to a good extent. Shouldn’t we put something similar in place for nutritional therapists?
jdc325 // November 23, 2007 at 4:30 pm
“I see what works and day in day out”. Sara, do you use scientific evidence when dishing out nutritional advice or do you give advice based on your assumptions about human nutrition (assumptions that come from your observations)?
superburger // November 23, 2007 at 4:45 pm
you know sara, in evidence based medicine models, personal experience (even if it comes from the most reputable sources) and anecdote is right at the bottom of the pile - it’s a starting point, not the end of the process.
i think jdc325 asks a very good question - if you give out advice based on science (perceived or real) then you obviously appreciate the power of experiments. If you appreciate the need for experiment, then surely you want them to be as accurate and rigorous as possible?
In which case you have to accept that anecdote and “what works day in day out” might not be as good evidence as is possible to obtain…..
What, out of interest, would a 5 year IoN course entail that dietician training would not? How would it be different / better?
LeeT // November 23, 2007 at 8:32 pm
My apologies if my comment of 21 November was not very clear. I certainly do not think it is appropriate for Burger King to open up a franchise in a hospital. I was quoting, what I recall, was the government’s justification at the time. Take a look at:-
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1784668,00.html for the REAL story.
Tony Bishop-Weston wrote: “the status quo in our town is a hospital with catering by Burger King.” This sounds extremely bizarre. If anyone can tell me the name of this town where the NHS has awarded the catering contract to a local burger I would be interested to see it.
I am still waiting to be informed where I can find details of Mr Holford’s original research - don’t care where it was published as long as it is not the ION and it is publically available. Look forward to hearing from you.
Sara // November 23, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I agree with you, regulation after starting practice needs to take place. Things are far to open for poor practice.
Can anyone tell me why pretty much every person i see has not been helped by a doctor or dietician. What is going wrong here.
The problems that they are struggling with which i am having great success with include
Sleep problems
Numerous digestive problems
Mental problems
Cholesterol and blood pressure
Headaches
chronic fatigue
Migraines
Skin problems
Arthritis
gallstones
I cant comment on the difference between ion and dietician course as i do not know what the latter entails. What i do know is that advice on the above is pretty poor.
Yes i agree research is important, what i am saying is that you dont learn until you put something into practice.
What are your professions? are you practicing doctors? You must be able to see that health problems like the ones above are not being sorted out by conventional medicine (or if they are it comes along with wicked side effects).
Yet i am having teriffic results.
So why are dieticians not able to acheive these results. You tell me.
LeeT // November 23, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Sara
Obviously people who get well after seeing their doctor are not going to consult an alternative therapist.
I am sure many therapists do a lot of good. Many of us do have pretty awful diets so it is not difficult to bring about change. The ION diploma leads to a foundation degree from Bedfordshire University i.e it is equivalent to two years of university study. Dieticians do a three year honours degree followed by post-graduate clinical experience before they qualify. What concerns me is that people who have taken a three year part-time diploma are then free to treat those with serious problems such as schizophrenia and autism.
I have looked at the websites of many ION diplomates. Hardly any of them state they are working towards converting their diploma in to a full honours degree. Indeed many of them give the impression that their ION diploma and Foundation Science degree are two separate qualifications. Rather worryingly several ION diplomates claim to be experts in one or more other disciplines. For most of us being an expert in one area is enough of a challenge!
A few years ago I went to see an alternative therapist. He advised me to avoid citrus fruits on the grounds they caused stress. At the same time I was also “prescribed” some relatively expensive vitamin supplements which I was always forgetting to take. Fortunately, I had the good sense to start eating oranges again ….
Lee
Sara // November 24, 2007 at 7:21 am
What ever i say here is pointless as you just state the same things over and over without taking into consideration anything i have said.
You obviosly went to see someone not up to the job which there are people in every profession.
Just to add that as well as being a nuttrtional therapist i also have a masters in plant science.
I agree things need to be regulated.
If you think that i run my practice by giving poor advice and dishing out vitamin pills that we do not absorb you are wrong. Not all of us are like patrick Holford and you will find most ion students feeling this way and i beleive many distance themselves from him.
We need to be humble in life. It is obvious that the strain on health is greater than ever and doctors are struggling a little. We need to join force here.
LeeT // November 24, 2007 at 10:11 am
Sara
Great to know you have a Master’s degree in plant science. That sounds like a qualification relevant to nutrition. What I was actually thinking about was people who are practioners of, for example, Thought Field Therapy. Don’t ask me what that is but there is a Dip ION who claims to be able to do it.
Doctors generally have a consultation slot of ten minutes for their patients. Nutritional therapists have a fifty or sixty minute consultation with their clients. The reason they are able to do that is that they charge fees of £50 to £75 an hour. If the NHS were able to do that its financial problems would be even greater than they are now. As a form of private health care nutritional therapy probably has some benefit to those on above average incomes. For everyone else in good health I would recommend “Nutrition for Dummies” - much more readable than anything published by Mr Holford.
It is interesting to know that ION students are starting to distance themselves from Mr H. They need to move away from the “alternative” health movement and have more external verification of their courses. Without that any regulation would be meaningless.
Regarding your desire for those involved in nutrition to work together you might be interested in this document:
http://www.nutritionsociety.org/documents/20060629fulldefiningnutritionreportforcouncil.pdf
Lee
Serena S // November 26, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Does Holford Watch believe that the work of Patrick Holford is universally incorrect ie: ‘the world is flat,’ or does it have some small, but nevertheless accurate redeeming features ie: ‘the world is flat but the highest mountain in the UK is in Scotland?’
jonhw // November 26, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Serena- I certainly wouldn’t say that Holford’s work is universally inaccurate: when you’ve written as much as he has, it would be hard not to make at least some accurate statements. However, if one wants accurate information about health, nutrition etc. then there are many more useful sources than Holford’s work: so I’m not convinced that his work’s partial accuracy is particularly redeeming.
peabody // December 16, 2007 at 12:30 am
through the ages, time and time again, we resist those who challenge our beliefs. when will we learn?
toughmedicine // December 16, 2007 at 12:37 am
Peabody,
I don’t know if we will.
I do know that I can’t trust this website.
Slating someones ‘pseudoscience’ then refusing to explain why it is ‘pseaudo’ , stinks of fish to me.
Fair enough, PH might be full of BS, or not, but slating his work without giving good reason is just not good enough.
It’s marking him as ‘wrong’, but refusing to tell the world what ‘right’ is.
paul // December 17, 2007 at 7:54 am
Visit my website
http://www.jonhandleeareacoupleofknobheads.com
jonhw // December 17, 2007 at 10:50 am
Toughmedicine- that’s odd, I thought this blog had given detailed explanations of some of Holford’s mistakes. Do you feel that we’re missing something, or need to look at something in more detail?
dvnutrix // December 17, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Peabody and Tough Medicine - two peas if one might resort to the obvious, or, if that were to fail, the Hinge and Bracket of informed commentary.
Their offerings pale into insignificance compared to the recondite wit of ^^Paul, of course. It seems that it is difficult to find critics who are willing to trudge through papers, follow the arguments about abuse of statistics, and comment accordingly. Hang on a minute, isn’t that what Holford Watch does?
paul // December 18, 2007 at 4:56 pm
thank you
paul // December 18, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Visit my other website
http://www.dvnutrixthinkshesclevererthanhereallyis.com
jdc325 // December 18, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Paul, why don’t you try to do something constructive?
If you are so upset about the discussion of Patrick Holford’s ideas on this site, why not start your own Holford-based blog? Or at least tell us why you are unhappy with the posts and/or comments on this site.
LeeT // December 18, 2007 at 8:20 pm
There seems to be a pattern here.
Holfordist comes on saying how wonderful the man is. They are usually followed by another one of Mr H’s fans. Very rarely provide reason for their faith in Holfordism and sometimes their behaviour/comments are rather juvenile.
I kind of suspect the comments are coming from the same person. Is there any way of verifying this?
Still waiting for them to: (i) inform us which NHS hospital has its catering services run by Burger King and (ii) provide evidence of the benefits of nutritional therapy for those with schizophrenia …
dvnutrix // December 18, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Obviously, Holfordism and a penchant for supplements tend to destroy the critical faculties.
Sorry you were caught up in this, Lee but it did seem as if leaving in the comments was the best way of commenting on their content…
However, if you would like us to edit the comment so that it refers only to Holford Watch members, then that is fine and possibly a reasonable policy.
Always with the need for some evidence that these nutritional therapies are of some usefulness for people with schizophrenia and such, eh? Next, you will be asking Holford to justify the claim in his latest newsletter that:
LeeT // December 18, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I don’t have any problems with the rude comments directed at me being left on nor the comment on another thread where I was impersonated. Impersonation is the sincerest form of flattery!
The more discourteous they get the more convinced I become that I was right to leave the Church of Holfordism.
Regarding the cancer claims I would refer him to pp. 386 and 387 of a report published by the World Cancer Research Fund last month: “Dietary supplements are not recommended for cancer prevention.” Could they have put it clearer???!! Contrary to what “The Daily Express” claimed the report was about more than bacon sandwiches. See:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/31_10_07_dietcancer.pdf
Let’s see whether he dares to put his cancer claims in a flyer or advertisement. We’ll know what to do next won’t we folks …?
dvnutrix // December 19, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Lee, I’d obviously missed out on the exciting piece of HW history in which you were impersonated.
Thank you for giving the page references as I have looked through parts of the report and I might have missed that simple statement. Yes, I am that shallow that I, too, am lead astray by the thought of bacon butties.
How can the authors etc. of that report sleep at night given how wilfully they overlooked the sovereign power of intravenous Vitamin C. [/snark]
LeeT // December 19, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Here’s the article where Professor Martin Wiseman sets the record straight:-
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3155379.ece
Basically, it all seems to be about levels of risk. About a third of cancers can currently be attributed to lifestyle. They looked at dozens of different studies from around the world over the past few years. Unfortunately, eating processed meat does seem to slightly increase your risk of bowel cancer. I am going to try not to eat ham again, but totally avoiding bacon is a step too far! So in terms of lifestyle a smoker who does no exercise and eats bacon day every day is playing Russian roulette with his life. It would be tempting for Mr H to conclude he and his friends will never taste death. Unfortunately, supporters of nutritionalism are presumably as vulnerable to genetic and environmental causes of cancer as the rest of us ….
“Before you start downing vitamin C capsules like jelly beans, high doses of more than 1 gram a day can result in diarrhoea and lead to formation of kidney stones.” (Nutrition for Dummies, p116) Oh dear.
LeeT // December 20, 2007 at 7:25 am
Here’s the article where Professor Martin Wiseman sets the record straight:-
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3155379.ece
Basically, it all seems to be about levels of risk. About a third of cancers can currently be attributed to lifestyle. They looked at dozens of different studies from around the world over the past few years. Unfortunately, eating processed meat does seem to slightly increase your risk of bowel cancer. I am going to try not to eat ham again, but totally avoiding bacon is a step too far! So in terms of lifestyle a smoker who does no exercise and eats bacon day every day is playing Russian roulette with his life. It would be tempting for Mr H to conclude he and his friends will never taste death. Unfortunately, supporters of nutritionalism are presumably as vulnerable to genetic and environmental causes of cancer as the rest of us ….
“Before you start downing Vitamin C capsules like jelly beans, high doses of more than 1 gram a day can result in diarrhea and lead to formation of kidney stones.” (Nutrition for Dummies, p116) Oh dear.
LeeT // December 20, 2007 at 9:50 pm
You are all evil hypocrites. I have been an excellent cook for the last ten years which enabled me to join the governing council of The Council of The Institute for Optimum Nutrition. Patrick is probably the most wonderful individual in the universe and his Institute is probably the most wonderful institute in the galaxy. People like you are obviously jealous of his magnificent and unparalleled intelligence. Not since Galileo has anyone been soooo unjustly persecuted by the establishment. When you have published as many books as he has and have acquired as much money as him then you will be entitled to criticize him. Oh, and until cats start building dairies don’t eat any red meat.
Kind regards, Mrs Patrick Holford
dvnutrix // December 21, 2007 at 3:10 am
Dear Mrs Patrick Holford,
We shall gather your advice to our bosom as if you were a thrilling combination of Nigella Lawson and a modern-day Emily Post.
We shall lose no time in contemplating the error of our ways and pondering upon the parallels with Galileo.
If we may raise one tiny point. Some of your husband’s books are about 80 pages long and we are talking A5 with big margins and a large font face. A number of us wrote something like that pretty regularly while studying/working - does that count as equivalent to those books?
About the money, what is the feeling about meritocracy in the family home? What with the discussion being taken up with how stupid un-supplemented children are, we wondered if the notion of merit rather than financial status was the topic of lively debate over your (presumably) low-GL smoothies.
LeeT // December 21, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Meritocracy? Let me introduce you to the family rabbit (see below). If a rabbit can write a post on a blog with a bit of supplementation then think of the potential for nation’s school children ….
Mrs H
Hallo Boy and Girls,
My name is Cuddles. I am a very special bunny rabbit who lives with a special family. You can read more about my adventures at http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,3605,926753,00.html In the family we call my owner the “doc”: http://holfordwatch.info/2007/10/13/dr-holford-good-blogs-and-a-puzzling-skeptics-circle/
You may be wondering boys and girls how a rabbit can type and post on a blog. Well, the doc came up with a supplement to quadruple the intelligence of rabbits So here I am with twice the IQ of an Observer journalist! These supplements for rabbits were, previously available from Higher Nature. For the time being you can get them from Biocare, that is until the doc gets a more lucrative deal from somewhere else
Yes, sorry digressing a bit there. The reason for this comment is to tell you about the doc’s latest product – homeopathic rabbit supplements. This consists of a microscopic particle of rabbit blood dissolved in a mineral rich water sourced by Biocare from a remote glacier in south-west Iceland. Now, these special supplements produce a strange change in your body. When rabbit molecules (Chemical Formula: RU2ST2P1D) interact with water molecules a calming effect is created. This arises from a little known law of quantum physics called “Einstein’s Compensator” together, obviously, with the Fifth Law of Thermodynamics. If you take this pill you will have a chilled out, easy-going rabbit-like personality. Before you think about reporting the doc or I to the ASA remember this is a blog not an advertisement.
Supplementally yours,
Cuddles the Bunny Rabbit
dvnutrix // December 21, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Bested by a supplemented bunny and one called Cuddles, to boot! The ignominy.
Wait, I could be saved by a comparable account. If I recall Flowers for Algernon correctly, the actual duration of the intellect boost might be important. How long have you been a super-rabbit, Cuddles and what is your projected longevity (I’m sure you’ve checked the journals on this matter, in several languages)?
LeeT // December 21, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Well, the doc give me my supplements after the visit of “Guardian” journalist back in April 2003. He was concerned at the fact I had left droppings on the kitchen floor - not the kind of image you want to project to the world when you are the world’s best nutritionist!
Gosh, my longevity? Who knows. It all depends on whether I continue with my supplement programme. Currently I am busy reading through all The Doc’s books to prolong my life. When I have finished I intend to write one of my own: “Say No to Myxomatosis”. Optimum Nutrition ultimately means saying “No” to death. “Oh death, where is thy sting?” (Good ole John Bunyan. What smoother progress his pilgrim would have had if he had experienced Optimum Nutrition.)
dvnutrix // December 21, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Well, according to House Rabbit Journal, the indoor rabbit has a life expectancy of around 8-12 years. Maybe we need to reserve judgment on whether you are a life expectancy phenomenon.
This does not diminish your standing as a maestro of the keyboard and I, for one, strongly support the book range that you propose.
If I interpret you correctly, you feel that John Bunyan might have avoided his Slough of Despond had he had access to fish oil capsules?
LeeT // December 21, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I had better stop this role play or before long I shall be believing I am either (1) married to Patrick Holford or (2) a highly intelligent rabbit. In terms of personality disorders that would be a great case study for a nutrition therapist
Not sure if Lucy Mayhew’s article makes it clear to us whether the Holford Family rabbits are indoors or outside.
Perhaps “The Pilgrim’s Progress” needs to be updated for the 21st century. The heroine could be called “Nutritionist” on a quest to obtain a diploma from the ION. Her companion is called Lee. He admires her pure skin, razor sharp intelligence and boundless nutritionally induced energy. Unfortunately, he also admires bacon rolls which leads to her abandoning him in the Despondent Slough Trading Estate Madonalds …
dvnutrix // December 23, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Many people are led astray by bacon rolls *whistles*.
But yes, it would be unwise to indulge the belief that you are either Mrs Holford or Cuddles.
I look forward to the stage-play for this modern Pilgrim’s Progress. I have some casting ideas in mind for Vanity Fair.
LeeT // December 26, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Holfordism does kind of encourage satire.
If you scroll up the “Who We Are” thread. You’ll see loads of vitriolic abuse. My favourite posting has to be Toby Bishop-Weston’s on 21 November: “If you are anti Holford then you are likely to be pro status quo.” Hmmm, sounds a bit like George Bush to me.
Nutritionists , London // December 28, 2007 at 1:11 am
I thought a month may have been long enough for you status quo fans to find answers to my questions about levels of constipation in the UK and NHS national spend on laxatives , as you seem to be experts in this field.
Sadly, no
Burger King: I believe Burger King now offer catering facilities for staff, patients and visitors in 4 UK hospitals. More traditional meals (stale white bread, baked beans, apple crumble and sugary custard) are still offered for free in these hospitals.
Training for Doctors in nutrition. Of the GP’s I’ve spoken to they calculate the maximum potential formal training in nutrition amounts to about 2 days. In practice non of them admit to attending more than around 2 hours - 1-2 lectures.
I believe it has improved recently - certainly younger doctors seem more open minded at least.
Human nutrition in medical practice: the training of doctors
Alan A. Jackson
Institute of Human Nutrition, University of Southampton
A significant concern about the quality and
standard of the training provided to undergraduate doctors justified more formal consideration in a report from a
British Nutrition Foundation Task Force -
Most doctors being trained at that
time readily acknowledged that they had little or no understanding and knowledge of nutrition, and few had received any training in the area. There was clearly a stark absence of any organised approach, and if any significant
progress were to be made, training in nutrition would have to be identified as important and given some priority. A formal approach to the training of doctors would have to be developed.
Whilst you are researching the laxative questions perhaps you could find time in between your busy role playing and defense of the pharmaceutical industry to find out exactly how much training in human nutrition new doctors can potentially hope to recieve if they attend all the lectures.
Tony Bishop-Weston
NOT a nutritionist and NOT the president of the USA and NOT Mrs Holford and certainly not a doctor.
YES, an advocate of scientifically proving that better human nutrition can resolve or prevent many conditions that the medical establishment and supporters of the status quo would have you mistakenly believe are ‘untreatable’
dvnutrix // December 28, 2007 at 1:44 am
Gosh, I’ve never come across you before but I instinctively feel that you are a national if not european expert in your area of interest - constipation. I don’t know how the others feel, but I think Father Jack says it best.
By the by - some homework for you that was probably handed out to you by the House of Lords. Is it appropriate to promote discredited allergy and intolerance tests or do you not count the company you represent as among the ethical professionals to whom the House of Lords made this recommendation?
It’s extraordinary that you make such odd distinctions between dietitians and nutritionists when, oddly enough, it is dietitians who have recognisable scientific training and can take their qualification anywhere. Whereas, the only legal entitlement that someone with only an ION diploma has to be on a hospital ward is as a visitor or patient…
Tony Bishop-Weston - as entitled to use the title of nutritionist as everyone else contributing to or reading this blog Or, indeed, the populace of the UK. Or, more specifically, anyone who has taken an ION diploma.
Your speculations and what passes for original thought for you are so commonplace that they have been dealt with amply above; we take no responsibility for your ability to comprehend text. I would continue this further, but then again, you have obviously never noticed any of the fundamental flaws underlying some of the claims in Holford’s books. Nor did you notice the problems with the allergy tests etc. so it might be over-taxing for you.
jazza // December 28, 2007 at 10:40 am
yes these dietictians are working wonders in hospitals arent they!
Instead of wasting your own time, here are some websites you may want to set up.
Tesco watch
Government watch
doctor watch
america watch
Esso watch
Hospital watch
Drug company watch
Gordon brown watch
LeeT watch
Dietician watch
dvnutrix // December 28, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Jazza - other issues aside, this is why I despair at the sort of research skills that some of you commentators have.
We write about what interests us - I wasn’t aware that we are in some sort of personal or other relationship with you that gives you a vote. I, for one, would be fascinated to read a well-referenced argument from you (possibly in your own blog) as to why the arguments here are wrong. Hint: writing, “You are All Very Mean” does not count.
As ever with the startling lack of orginality of thought that I lamented above - in words of few syllables so that your lips don’t get tired - most of the blog titles that you suggest already exist. Hint - some of them have names like Pharmalot. I might identify some of the others for you but you could certainly do with honing your information retrieval skills by the look of it.
Words for you to look up here to help you along your way. Catherine Collins; dietitian; BANT; homocysteine; IgG allergy tests; food intolerance; holfordism. You put those words in the little search box, in case you haven’t got to that part of your information studies course…
LeeT // December 28, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Welcome back, Tony.
Just as George Bush was wrong to say “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror” supporters of Mr H are, in my opinion, wrong to say we are either with him or for the status quo. There is an alternative - a nutritious diet based on the advice of qualified health professionals. Some of us have an old-fashioned liberal leftie belief in the duty of the state to provide universal health care for all. I am not sure what nutrition therapy has to offer the 90% of the population who cannot afford expensive supplements and £50-£75 an hour consultations.
General Practitioners are as the name suggests are generalists. State registered dieticians are the NHS experts in nutrition.
Jazza - dieticians are “watched” by the Health Professions Council. They are answerable to that body for their professional conduct. Who do I complain to about nutrition therapists who “prescribe” vitamin pills to healthy people?
dvnutrix // December 29, 2007 at 12:55 am
Guilt for the people who can not afford them for their children and believe that this underlies their children’s problems. Moralising at people as if serious socio-economic inequalities that contribute to health issues might all be wished away with a nutritionist’s pill for every ill including social problems.
Not that I’m jealous or anything, Lee but I note that you now have 2 sites dedicated to saying that you are a meanie for your astute comments.
LeeT //