We are not entirely sure that Professor Patrick Holford of Teesside University and also Head of Science and Education at Biocare quite understands the purpose of issuing clarifications. Hint, the clue is in the name.
As it is impossible to comment on Holford’s page, we reproduce his clarifications here and address what is wrong with them. Here, we shall look at the vitamin C claim for colds. (more…)
Categories: David Colquhoun · Goldacre · Holford · patrick holford · supplements · vitamin c · vitamins
Tagged: patrick holford, Holford, supplements, health, Ben Goldacre, vitamin c, scholarship, David Colquhoun, colds, Cochrane
‘Ratbiter’ has an excellent piece in Private Eye. In an article headlined May contain nuts, they ask Who is Patrick Holford, the British media’s favourite ‘nutritionist’? (issue 1197, p. 29).
The article begins with a critical look at some of Holford’s statements on vitamin C and HIV/AIDS, and also discusses one of Holford’s disagreement with David Colquhoun.
Ratbiter then points out that
Holford is derided by science bloggers, most notably the authors of the punchy HolfordWatch site, but foreigners trawling the British press cuttings would find him popping up as an expert witness more often than Posh Spice at London Fashion Week. (more…)
Categories: AIDS · David Colquhoun · University of Teesside · institute for optimum nutrition · patrick holford · vitamin c
In a letter on the Guardian website, Professor Patrick Holford of Teesside University responds to Prof Colquhoun’s article on Endarkenment. Holford states that an example nutritional claim “given [in Colquhoun's article], apparently made by me, that ‘vitamin C is better than conventional drugs to treat AIDS’ is [Colquhoun's] own invention”. Strangely, though, in this very letter Holford links to some of his writing on AIDS where he claims that “AZT, the first prescribable anti-HIV drug, is potentially harmful and proving less effective than vitamin C”. I wonder if anyone on the Guardian staff followed this link, to check the accuracy of Holford’s claims prior to publishing the letter?
Now, I’m neither a ‘qualified’ nutritional therapist nor a lawyer - so I will leave readers to judge whether this claim about AZT constitutes a claim from Holford that vitamin C is better than conventional drugs to treat AIDS, and whether it was appropriate for the Guardian to publish Holford’s claim about Colquhoun’s “invention” unchallenged. I will also leave it to Teesside to decide whether it is appropriate for their new Professor of Nutrition and Mental Health to claim that Prof Colquhoun has ‘invented’ parts of his work.
Categories: AIDS · David Colquhoun · The Guardian · patrick holford · vitamin c
Prof. Colquhoun has recently posted about a “threatening letter” from Holford. Holford also wrote to Holford Watch, alleging the Prof. Colquhoun made “false claims”, and referring to the possibility that Holford might make a future complaint against us. With this in mind, we wouldn’t dream of reproducing these controversial claims here. Instead, we’ll just link to where Prof Colquhoun discusses the issue on his blog: Colquhoun’s response to Patrick Holford. In the interests of balance, we would also link to any discussion of this issue on Holford’s site - but as far as I can tell there isn’t any.
When deciding who to trust, it might be useful to know a few facts about both parties. David Colquhoun is an emeritus professor at UCL, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and does not have competing interests in the drug industry. Patrick Holford has an honorary DipION (awarded from an Institute that he founded, while he was director), is an honorary fellow of BANT, and has recently signed a £400k+ deal with Biocare. Although Holford has had some serious problems with statistics, maths and interpreting scientific research, we believe that he did graduate with a BSc from York (receiving a 2:2 for his efforts) notwithstanding some confusion over dates. (more…)
Categories: David Colquhoun · patrick holford
Patrick Holford has recently corrected the dates of his degree which must be helpful to the Conferment Committee at the University of Teesside who awarded him the post as Visiting Professor. There have been several more amendments to Patrick Holford’s profile on his website but there are surprising inconsistencies that still exist.
Holford Watch is interested in whether or not there is any need to correct the title of Holford’s degree. Holford writes that his BSc is in Experimental Psychology (pdf) but the Registrar of York refers to him as a graduate in Psychology in an email to Prof David Colquhoun. (more…)
Categories: David Colquhoun · Holford · University of Teesside · patrick holford
Tagged: CV, Holford, nutritionist, patrick holford, University of Teesside, Visiting Professor
Patrick Holford is tremendously proud of his degree in Experimental Psychology from the University of York. He frequently refers to it as proof of the rigour of his scientific training and it is the basis for his self-description as a psychologist (NB, psychologist, like nutritionist, is a term that has no legal standing or minimum set of qualifications. Update 5). Connoisseurs of Holford’s equivocation about his qualifications will remember his tap-dancing performance with Dr Emer Keeling with some fondness.
Holford Watch was not particularly impressed by Holford’s CV. Professor Colquhoun recently noted that Holford included a glowing endorsement from Dr John Marks in his application for a post as Visiting Professor at the University of Teesside. Except that Dr Marks had not communicated with Holford in approximately two decades and more and now rues the day he ever became entangled with him. (more…)
Categories: Colquhoun · David Colquhoun · Holford · University of Teesside · editing · endorsement · patrick holford
Tagged: CV, degree, Holford, patrick holford, Professor Holford, qualifications, University of Teesside
As David Colquhoun puts it, “Patrick Holford had been made a visiting professor at the University of Teesside. What on earth can be the university’s criteria be for awarding the title of professor?” Colquhoun looks into this issue on his blog, and has got some interesting Freedom of Information Act Information on Holford’s new appointment.
As Colquhoun points out, one of Teeside’s criteria for professorial appointments is
“the application of knowledge in a systematic and original manner, designed to enhance wealth creation and/or the quality of life”…Well [Holford] has certainly created a lot of wealth for himself. The “application of knowledge” bit is just a little worrisome though.
Worrisome, indeed.
Categories: David Colquhoun · University of Teesside · patrick holford
1A slight interruption to your usual service here, while Holford Watch participates in the Ann Walker blog festival. To cut a long story short, UCL was “recently contacted by Dr Alan Lakin on behalf of his wife, herbal medicine practitioner Dr Ann Walker, in relation to comments made about her, on a websitehosted by UCL, by Professor Colquhoun, a distinguished UCL pharmacologist”. In response to Lakin’s contact, UCL forced Colquhoun to move his excellent blog temporarily, though after legal advice was taken I’m pleased to say it should be reinstated at UCL pretty soon.
However, this shouldn’t be the end of the affair. As Ben Goldacre puts it:
There is a more serious issue in the background, however. It strikes me that there is a sizeable cohort of people who sell themselves and their wares by making scientific claims, but then use bullying and legal threats when their claims and ideas are criticised. This to me is completely unacceptable. I suspect that in the case of Dr Lakin and Dr Walker their efforts in this case may backfire, and a great deal more attention will now fall on their work…Are we about to see a festival of Ann Walker?
I certainly hope that we’re going to see a festival of Ann Walker - to defend the freedom of bloggers to write and to criticise. Already, the excellent Science Punk and Quackometer blogs have began to look at Walker’s work. My own modest contribution is below - hopefully, many more will follow. If you’re contributing to the festival, let me know (you can e-mail me through my blogger profile) and I’ll add a link to you here.
Writing on HealthSpan’s site (where ginkgo biloba pills are sold) Ann Walker argues that
More evidence exists for the beneficial effect of ginkgo on mental function than for any herb for any body condition. Indeed, ginkgo is the most well-established herbal treatment for Alzheimer’s disease….The number of double-blind, placebo-controlled human studies on the effects of ginkgo on mental health now exceed 50. The authors of the influential Cochrane review (2002), while calling for further studies, added: ‘Overall there is promising evidence of improvement in cognition and function associated with it’.
These are bold claims. Holford, similarly, argues that ginkgo is a “proven brain booster…A review of all the studies up to 2002 concluded that there is ‘promising evidence of improvement in cognition and function with ginkgo’”*. Unfortunately, their interpretation of the evidence is somewhat selective.
Walker has, on occasion, spoken for HSIS (an “educational” body funded by The Boots Company PLC, Bayer PLC, Perrigo, Seven Seas Ltd and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare), and been very critical of some studies that have argued against the benefits of supplement pills. For example, responding to a high quality JAMA meta-analysis of antioxidant supplements (which found that some actually increase mortality) Walker argues that “The results of these mixed-sample metaanalyses are worthless”. Clearly, then, one would expect Walker to demand a high standard of evidence before recommending any pills.
As noted above, Walker and Holford both sing the praises of Gingko, quoting part of the conclusion of a Cochrane meta-analysis to do so. However, it’s worth quoting the conclusion of this meta-analysis at more length, to get a fuller picture of the evidence:
Many of the early trials used unsatisfactory methods, were small, and we cannot exclude publication bias. Overall there is promising evidence of improvement in cognition and function associated with Ginkgo. However, the three more modern trials show inconsistent results. Our view is that there is need for a large trial using modern methodology and permitting an intention-to-treat analysis to provide robust estimates of the size and mechanism of any treatment effects.
This sounds a lot less positive than Holford’s and Walker’s summary of the review. In effect, this review concludes that - while further trials would be useful - the current evidence base for the use of ginkgo to treat cognitive decline is poor. Therefore, Walker not only uses a meta-analysis here (having been so critical of the JAMA meta-analysis) but Holford and Walker’s interpretation of the meta-analysis is very problematic.
To make matters worse, a February 2007 Cochrane Review of the evidence re. ginkgo and cognitive impairment found that
There is no convincing evidence that Ginkgo biloba is efficacious for dementia and cognitive impairment. Many of the early trials used unsatisfactory methods, were small, and publication bias cannot be excluded. Overall, evidence that Ginkgo has predictable and clinically significant benefit for people with dementia or cognitive impairment is inconsistent and unconvincing. Two of the best most recent trials, which are also among the largest trials, found no difference between placebo and Ginkgo.
To be blunt, it looks like the trials on ginkgo that Walker so welcomed have been useful - and showed that it doesn’t help with cognitive impairment. The above quotes from Walker come from a 2004 article. However, given Walker’s obvious concern with the way that scientific articles - such as the JAMA review of antioxidant supplements - can mislead the public, it’s a shame that she hasn’t managed update her HealthSpan article in the light of the new evidence (Walker has posted two new articles February 2007).
Likewise, Holford’s book may have been in press before the newer Cochrane review came out. However, one would hope that future editions will be revised to take this into account. Moreover, given that Holford is keen that people do not waste money on supplements, one would hope that he will add an appropriate warning to the ginkgo pills sold by Health Products for Life - to make sure that customers don’t waste money by buying this as a treatment for cognitive decline.
*New Optimum Nutrition for the Mind (Piatkus, 2007 Edition), p395.
Categories: Alan Lakin · Ann Walker · David Colquhoun · UCL · blogging · ginkgo · health products for life · patrick holford
I’ve previously blogged about Holford’s rapid response on the BMJ website failing to declare his ‘competing interests’. David Colquhoun responds to Holford, arguing that Holford “[b]eing the sole shareholder in Health Products for Life might be thought of by the sceptical as constituting a rather large financial interest in promotion of nutritional supplements”.
Rather than apologising, though, Holford has submitted a second rapid response which argues that “I was pointing out that the scientific data for turmeric – found in curry - having a beneficial effect was substantial…Since I don’t run an Indian restaurant I didn’t feel there were any conflicts involved in recommending curry.”
Sounds fair enough. Well, it would be, except Holford’s HealthProductsForLife sells curcumin (turmeric extract) supplements. Holford’s initial rapid response stated that “1834 studies are cited in PubMed on turmeric or curcumin, thought to be the active ingredient in this spice, many of which demonstrate clear anti-inflammatory and immune enhancing properties, 648 of which relate specifically, and consistently, to it’s anti-cancer properties.” HealthProductsForLife therefore sells the product which Holford claims has been shown to have anti-inflammatory, immune-enhancing and anti-cancer properties’. Sounds like a competing interest to me.
One more thing to note - Holford also attacks Prof Colquhoun, arguing that Colquhoun “has so far not felt it relevant to mention his own competing interests and financial involvements with the pharmaceutical industry”. Now, this might lead one to believe that Colquhoun is hiding his interests in the evil pharmaceutical industry - in order to have a go at a poor nutritionist. However, Colquhoun didn’t declare any competing interests because, um, he doesn’t have any (unlike Holford). Colquhoun’s “research has never been funded by the drug industry, but always by the Medical Research Council or by the Wellcome Trust“. Oops.
Categories: David Colquhoun · bmj · competing interests · curcumin · health products for life · patrick holford · rapid response · tumeric
