Comments on: Off-Topic Archive

By: Manners maketh the man

Manners maketh the man — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:40:37 +0000

Seriously, you can’t think that people like GB are worth your time and effort. I commend your politeness but he is abusing it.

He has no intention of following up any of your pointers or learning how to perform critical analysis.

He can’t even reproduce your spellings correctly when repeating you.

By: Levi

Levi — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:31:45 +0000

as soon as you lot feel threatend by comments left on your deluded website you move eveything to off topic. mmmmm a bit suspect

Admin edit: still not read the comment policy, I see. Make a comment that is on-topic for the blog and it stays. This is your final warning.

By: Becka

Becka — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 07:03:33 +0000

holfordwatch.info is a magnanimous and usable forum when you are looking for further informations about what you read or hear. it is difficult to understand the fear of food over in UK when you have such abundance and secure supplies. yet you have people who want to persuade you this is not so and you need pills.
if you note my english is poor, apologies. it is better when reading than writing and for understanding than talking.

By: gina waalsrer

gina waalsrer — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:18:53 +0000

I saw that item about food allergy tests in the miniblog. Are you going to write any more about that? Just curious. Admin edit: yes, sometime later this week. As ever, the best recommendation is that there should be a referral to an allergist/immunologist and that the tests should only be interpreted by that person and in conjunction with a good, clinical history. We've also just put a link to a report about Nurse-Led Food Intolerance Clinics in Primary Care settings in the miniblog - that might interest you.

By: miranda

miranda — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:30:28 +0000

These people who are complaining about attacks and then questioning why you’re not attacking, you have to wonder:
1 which bits of the internet they usually visit
2 why they think consistency without a change of circumstance is over-rated.

I am tired of reading over-hyped books and diets in the papers. It’s good to know that there are people keeping an eye on the accuracy. But the papers should be forced to print prominent retractions when Patrick Holford and people like him are wrong.

By: grooveDJk

grooveDJk — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:02:02 +0000

You keep people’s comments, you move them to reduce the white noise on a post where they’re not appropriate and people complain.

Are you sure these people aren’t sock-puppets?

By: Gregg Billingsley

Gregg Billingsley — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:08:53 +0000

Hey Levi thanks for the sanity.

_______________________________
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants

Admin edit: good to see that you have acquired a sensible strapline from us. Again, read the comment policy – your final warning. Off-topic still means on-topic for the blog.

By: Karl

Karl — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:28:08 +0000

Like dchen says, you people who are complaining don't know when you're well off - it's only sceptical bloggers who make such a point of allowing comments from people who repeatedly ask for information then refuse to follow it up. Read and learn. Even if you don't agree, you will learn a lot about the critical analysis of a trial or study. You will learn how often Patrick Holford misreports a paper or even makes stuff up. Look at the analysis of his reporting of the Kahn paper on cinnamon. [note, Khan] Admin edit: Khan link added.

By: dchen

dchen — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:09:48 +0000

what people don’t seem to realise is that most bloggers just delete comments when they are stupid or rants – they don’t go through the bother of moving them. but usually all that happens is that people complain that they’re off-topic stuff is moved.

nobody ever gets anywhere by behaving well.

you do a lot of work that comes under the heading of boring but necessary. unlike holford, i bet no one’s ever offered you half a million for your pundit equity.

Admin edit: it is sad but true. Nobody will pay 500K to hear variations on, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants” from more than 1 pundit and Michael Pollan (deservedly) has that sewn up.

By: Gregg Billingsley

Gregg Billingsley — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:06:38 +0000

You know you guys seem so antiquated considering that the massive role nutrition and lifestyle play in ill health is being revealed year on year, showing that the ‘wacky-private-nutrition-clinic[s]’ as you so naively term them were right all along. In the US it has already broken into the mainstream through the 30 year effort of Dr Dean Ornish whose diet and lifestyle protocols to reverse heart disease are now being adopted by hospitals and insurance. The work of Caldwell Esselstyn, MD, also demonstrates the reversal of heart disease through diet and lifestyle. Ornish has also proven that prostate cancer can be reversed using the same methods.

The field of functional medicine, the clinical interface of systems biology, which has at it’s core the findings of clinical nutrition, is set to emerge as a new paradigm in medicine, superseding the old system of dividing up the body into separate areas and treating the symptoms rather than eliminating the causes of illness. Though it is estimated that it will take 20 years or more to filter through to the mainstream because of the attitudes displayed on this site. (As well as the tenacity of the pharmaceutical industry – why would it easily allow its position as the wealthiest industry in the world to be jeopardised? – the food industry and others.)

It’s quite simple: Human beings evolved to exist in an environment and lifestyle we no longer live in and to consume a diet that we no longer eat. Food is molecular ‘information’ and for 10,000 years since the dawn of agriculture we have been swallowing ‘information’ that the human body did not evolve to process. We have denatured food of its vital microorganisms that are utilised by the gut. Food is grown in soils depleted of the nutrients our bodies need. We live under stresses that the body did not evolve to cope with. The body is bombarded with industrial and other toxins it did not evolve to tackle. We live in fractured social communities and dispersed extended families that do not provide the emotional support we evolved to utilise. The future of mankind must be to intelligently recreate the past environment we evolved to exist in.

If anyone is being ‘rather trusting’ it is those that allow the giants of our economy to pull the wool over their eyes with bent science and lies. It is those who see corruption everywhere but at places where it is most prevalent and destructive. It is those who, like children, imagine a great parental force of benevolence to be watching over them. It is those who are ‘rather trusting.’

Admin edit: moved.

Read the blog before making assertions about what you imagine to be the contents. It is not an excellent modern paradigm to be clinging, as Holford and Orthomolecular proponents do to hair analysis tests, useless food allergy tests and the debunked antioxidant hypothesis, when science has examined them and found them useless?

You’re really not lacking confidence for someone who seems to have been studying this area for a whole, nearly 3 months – and such a diverse range of interest and expertise, too.

Again, any future comments, make them at least on-topic for the blog. First, read the comments policy thoroughly and do some subject-matter reading.