++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you like what I do, and you want me to do more, you can: buy my books Bad Science and Bad Pharma, give them to your friends, put them on your reading list, employ me to do a talk, or tweet this article to your friends. Thanks! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

85 Responses

1. Dr Aust said,

   January 10, 2007 at 8:09 pm

   And he appears also, by implication, to be an academic.

   Amazing.

   If you don’t feel like expending those years getting a PhD, working in a University or hospital or institute doing research, publishing, teaching and all that Professor-y sort of stuff….

   …simply open your own Institute of Nutri-flannel and give yourself a Professorship.

   Which gives me an idea…..

   Incidentally, I hate to labour this, but in much of Europe claiming an academic or professional title you don’t have is illegal, mainly because you are assumed to be doing it to deceive the gullible. Wonder what could have given them that idea?

2. pv said,

   January 10, 2007 at 10:45 pm

   “Incidentally, I hate to labour this, but in much of Europe claiming an academic or professional title you don’t have is illegal, mainly because you are assumed to be doing it to deceive the gullible.”

   Cultural priorities? In the UK I believe that kind of person is recognised as an entrepreneur, and only one step short of sainthood.

3. Registered Dietitian said,

   January 11, 2007 at 9:01 am

   no 40 – wewillfixit Your GP is probably right. The medical and dietetic professions haven’t really made their minds up on how useful the skin prick tests and RAST IgE tests commonly done in NHS clinics are. Having extensively read up on it i came to the conclusion they weren’t useful for delayed food allergy/intolerances – because you can have strong positive reactions for foods you are ok with and negative reactions for foods you definately react to. They are useful for children who have had strong immediate reactions to foods to see if their risk of reaction has been reduced, and so they might be safe to retry the offending food. However, as i said, other professionals may disagree with me. The best thing is elimination, and them reintroduction. If you are not sure if you felt better on cutting out the food, and didn’t feel worse on reintroducing it, you probably aren’t reacting to the food. Note that some people report feeling worse for a few days after the elimination, but then feel much better – this is supposed to be like a cold turkey response. It is all a really grey area.

4. Dr Aust said,

   January 11, 2007 at 12:15 pm

   “As for it being unique, in many ways ts seems just like what Jamie Oliver did with improved food and no supplements.”

   The difference being, of course, that the Cheeky Chappie is not styling himself as an “expert” (let along a Professor), surrounding the commons sense with a mystique of pseudo-science, plugging magic pills or branded supplements, and offering you salvation at a price (£ 40 / hr upwards for most alt-nutrition types, I suspect)…

5. j said,

   January 11, 2007 at 3:36 pm

   interesting info about different allergy/sensitivity tests – thanks 🙂

   re. ‘Prof.’ Holford – to be fair, do we know whether he’s decided to promote himself to Prof., or if the Telegraph just made it up?

   btw, re. the independent article – it looks like Holford and Collins have disagreed previously – see www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/vitamins_trans.shtml

6. stever said,

   January 11, 2007 at 4:06 pm

   hahaha Prof Holford!

   oh what a tangled web etc.

7. andy705 said,

   January 11, 2007 at 4:42 pm

   Holford is dangerous! People who are suffering look to anyone for answers to get a little relief, he offers them his advice but packages it like it is some new cutting edge area of research stifled by the evil medical establishment. I do not blame him so much as the irresponsible television producers who book him. What I do not understand is how he gained sufficient money/credibility to establish an Institute?

8. David Mingay said,

   January 11, 2007 at 6:04 pm

   Looks like he’s been passing himself off as a Professor for a while. This was quoted on bmj.com (of all places) as having orginally appeared in The Guardian (of all places), and it even has the “Prof” criticising someone else’s diet!

   Bestselling diet criticised
   Source: The Guardian
   Date: 29/12/2005
   Today in the Guardian, it is reported that the journal Nature has criticised the Total Wellbeing Diet for marketing itself as “scientifically proven” and branded it a “recipe for trouble” due to health fears in the long term. The controversy lies on the book’s emphasis on eating lean red meat, after Prof Patrick Holford of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition warned that the diet may be dangerous in the long term and could result in higher levels of breast and prostate cancer, along with stressed kidneys and reduced bone mass from over-consumption.

9. evidencebasedeating said,

   January 11, 2007 at 8:06 pm

   £40ph Dr Aust ? (post 51). Try £80-120ph plus the lucrative vitamin and mineral sales on top (“just tell the supplement company I recommend that I have devised this very special package of supplements for you” = 20% back-commission for nutritionist) plus commission on dodgy intolerance-but-we-will-infer-this-is-an-allergy test (a snip at £100-250,depending on how persuasive the nutritionist).

   And when it doesn’t work – well, another raft of tests – Candida sensitivity, Homocysteine levels (what is your ‘H level’?), stool parasites with another range of supplements (yeast ‘probiotics’, B group vitamins, blah blah).

   It’s basically a marathon exercise of marathon expenditure – as long as your finances hold out, you can go on indefinitely.. yet when you finally submit, having failed to achieve the “100% improvement ” you had been promised – then the blame is on YOU. Only YOU have failed to complete the diet/ take the supplements/ change your diet paying attention to the dietary minutae for the nth time, because rest assured, had you fully paid attention, then your health would have been completely and utterly improved whilst your nutritionist/ therapist/ gardener/ whatever undertakes another lecture tour funded by fellow believers who are travelling down exactly the same path – just haven’t reached your state of realisation yet……

10. Crispy Duck said,

    January 12, 2007 at 11:38 am

    Browsing the Holford site, I came across this glowing example of bad science:

    (Caution: string stomach required).

    I think Dr Ben has had trouble with the ‘electrosmog’ nutters before, so I guess it’s no surprise that Holford is involved, even plugging an ‘Electrosmog detector’. Some highlights:

    “Much like the colour spectrum, there is also a spectrum of different kinds of electric radiation, going from high frequency to low frequency. At the high-frequency end, there are gamma rays in deep space, then x-rays, ultraviolet radiation (UV), visible light, infrared, microwaves (the stuff that cooks your dinner and powers your mobile phone), radio waves, then finally extremely low frequencies (ELFs) that radiate from your computer and other similar electrical devices.”

    “So, what is EMR (electro-magnetic radiation)? Anything that radiates – from the sun to your radio – has a certain amount of electricity. This travels as a frequency, and from this traveling electricity emanates a magnetic field. While electric radiation is measured in Volts and Watts, magnetic radiation is measured in microTesla (µT).”

    “The reason this [the pulsed signal from a mobile] may be such bad news is that the light-sensitive cells in your brain can’t tell the difference between light and microwave signals. Lights turn off melatonin production in the pineal gland.”

    “If you stand three feet away from a microwave oven when it’s on, you’ll be exposed to 2 µT, but that’s only short-term exposure. However, that doesn’t take into account what it’s doing to the food.”

    I’m particularly concerned about the ELFs radiating from my computer.

11. apothecary said,

    January 12, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    Re 54. Surely that’s why we have a National Elf Service

12. bootboy said,

    January 12, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    No 54: that’s shockingly poor stuff. Whoever wrote it obviously made some attempt to understand the concept of electro-magnetic radiation though, just failed miserably – “traveling electricity”. Jeepers creepers. Why bother with all those power cables at all, you can just suck electrons out of the ether from the sun, a nearby radio or a microwave oven. I mean there’s no particular reason for them to get this stuff wrong, I assume that it’s not intentional and they’re just morons.

    The second bit about the “light sensitive cells in your brain” is, on the other hand obviously cynical and made up. The only light sensitive cells in the brain are the retina and they can certainly tell the difference between microwaves and visible light.

13. Andrew Clegg said,

    January 12, 2007 at 11:17 pm

    The link on the side of that page to an article called “Are vaccinations necessary?” scares me more.

    Sadly I can’t be arsed filling in an enormous reg. form in order to read past the intro and get mired in yet more nonsense — maybe someone with more dedication than me can check it out and see if it really is as sinister as the first paragraph you get for free suggests?

    Hands off our herd immunity you freak!

    Andrew.

14. Dr Aust said,

    January 14, 2007 at 9:58 pm

    Anyone still reading this thread?

    Don’t suppose anyone but me is sad enough to read the “Work” Section of the Saturday Guardian (the same day, of course, as the Bad Science column). Anyway, imagine my astonishment when I read the following:

    —————————————————————–

    Tricks of the trade

    What’s the best way to detox?

    David Nicolson and Dilys Gannon-Bone
    Saturday January 13, 2007
    The Guardian

    David Nicolson Director of the Institute of Optimum Nutrition ( NB !)

    If you are in good health I would kick off with a one-day fast, just drinking water and herb tea. This is a fairly stringent approach, and you shouldn’t fast unless you’re under the supervision of a doctor or nutritional therapist. ( !! – Dr Aust)

    On the second day I would introduce simple organic foods – preferably grown in this country – such as apples, pears and plums.

    The next day I would add wholegrains, such as brown rice with some steamed vegetables. The day after that I’d introduce some protein and essential fats, such as almonds, walnuts and brazils. On the fifth day I’d introduce some oily fish such as salmon or mackerel.

    By the time you finish your energy levels will be so much better. Detox is nothing more than just returning to a natural diet. We have stone-age bodies, so the body’s priority is to store as much energy as it can. If you go without food, your body slows the metabolism down and tends to burn muscle rather than fat. So, it’s important that you keep exercising; this will keep your metabolism up and your body will burn fat.

    When you fast, your body releases toxins into the bloodstream on the way to the liver, so expect to feel a bit headachey and drowsy. Be brave and carry on.

    ——————————————————————————

    Dilys Gannon-Bone Naturopath

    You don’t need to go on a long detox programme. You can detox in a day by having vegetable juices and by eating a warm vegetable soup at night. The body requires nourishment. Detoxification comes from the nutrition that you take in on a daily basis.

    We get toxicity from the environment in which we live. We also get it from eating an awful lot of toxic substances such as processed food. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend a strict fast of just lemon juice or water, although it’s probably fine for a day.

    People who work under stress should not necessarily go on fasts. Their adrenal systems may not be able to cope. They should cut out processed food and cut down on alcohol and coffee. Long fasts can upset the adrenal system. It’s better to work on a regular cleansing programme in which you just take liquids one day a week.

    Colonic hydrotherapy also helps. People think they’re going to have a hosepipe shoved up their backside but nothing goes into the body that is going to upset it. Warm water goes into the colon and gradually the waste material is drawn away, so there’s no smell or nastiness. You really feel fantastically light and cleansed after it.

    I have fantastic energy, I work about a 12-hour day and I’m 72. My motto is: “Those who do not find some time every day for health must sacrifice a lot of time one day for illness.”

    Interviews by Melissa Viney

    ————————–

    I love the idea of only fasting under the supervision of a “qualified nutritionist”, as advised by the director of the Holford Institute of Nutri-Tosh. The bit about “released toxins” during fasting is a hoot, as is the stuff about your adrenals. And our old friend (?) colonic irrigation makes a come-back in the second one.

    Dontcha just love the meejah’s need to fill space with any old bollocks?

15. askakeyboardninja said,

    January 15, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    Anyone still reading this thread?

    yep me

    🙂

    i’m beginning to think that a diet of pop tarts would have more nutritional value than anything the Holford Institute recommends

16. used to be jdc said,

    January 15, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    Re the link @ #60 – there is a link on the left of that page that refers to the BS column Ben wrote on Holford.

17. evidencebasedeating said,

    January 15, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    Hmm. So Mr Holfords ‘award’ of an Hon Diploma from his own institute was awarded by the trustees,not him. so who are his trustees? not listed on the website, but assuming they’re the same as FFTB franchise, find them here

    www.foodforthebrain.org/content.asp?id_Content=1684

    1 teaching rep
    1 prof of hospitality management
    1 business manager with good brand development
    1 lawyer
    2 ION ‘graduates’
    .. and a couple of others.

    guess that demonstrates their knowledge in imparting ‘honorary diploma’s’. Just imagine if medical degrees were awarded similarly…….

18. evidencebasedeating said,

    January 16, 2007 at 1:12 am

    more doctoring

    seems that the link in post #21 regarding dodgy diet gurus and Food for the Brain ‘trial that is not research’ seems mysteriously to have fallen off the Indy’s website into the Internet equivalent of a black hole. Thank goodness for Bens posting of the full text…
    How fortunate for Mr Holford. His peeved comments about the dietitian being ‘professionally jealous’ of his self-styled qualification/ dietary interventions/ ‘whatever ‘is now removed from public scrutiny, whilst he can continue to undermine the dietitian (called Catherine Collins) on his website. Er – just how professional is that Mr Holford. And The Independent. It is. ….Really??

    In Response To The Article Titled ‘Doctors Warn Against Food Fad Dangers’

    The following letter has been sent to the editor of the Independent on Sunday for publication:

    Dear Sir

    Re: IoS, 7th January 2007 – Doctors Warn Against Food Fad Dangers

    I write in response to the article titled ‘Doctors warn against food fad dangers’ in last Sunday’s paper.

    This was a British Dietetic Association-led article expressing concern about people adopting ‘faddie diets’ and it took, as an example, commentary from Catherine Collins about one child in a large school project in which I am involved. She was quoted as being “extremely concerned” about the weight loss of an autistic child.

    I wish to object strongly to the comments made, which were incorrect and misleading to the reader, and would like to set the record straight with the true facts of this particular case.

    In the article Catherine Collins claims that the autistic child ‘suffered sleep problems and her weight dropped as a result of the advice Mr Holford gave’ and that ‘her parents were told to remove soya milk and cow’s milk from her diet’. In fact, before we even started this project, the child had been diagnosed by her doctors as milk allergic and was already on a dairy-free diet, additionally refusing to have soya milk. She was also a very poor and fussy eater and was sleeping very little, waking up throughout the night. Consequently, Ms Collins is utterly wrong to claim I restricted the girl’s diet by elminating cow’s and soya milk.

    Since the project started we have expanded the foods she’ll eat, improved her diet and given her supplements. As a result of our intervention she is now less hyperactive, sleeping much better, has reduced her asthma and consequently her need for asthma medication.

    Behaviour-wise she has, on independent behavioural tests, made significant improvements in her ADHD, social difficulties, shyness and anxiety. Her mother is extremely pleased with the results. “Before she woke up a lot in the night. Now she sleeps the whole night without waking.” she says. “She is behaving better and has calmed down a lot. She is more confident and independent. Her asthma has improved a lot. She doesn’t real cough or wheeze anymore. Her health is better. She hasn’t had a cold for a long time. I’m not worried about her weight. I think the Eye Q essential fats and the other supplements helped. I don’t give her Weetabix anymore. I’ve noticed she gets very hyperactive.” Her psychiatrist actually called us to find out what specifically we had been doing to bring about these obvious improvements.

    The temporary weight loss may have occurred when we agreed, with her dietician, to put her on a gluten-free diet following an IgG food intolerance test which identified that she was gluten sensitive. Unfortunately she wouldn’t eat the gluten-free options so we put her back on pasta, for example, which she would eat. Wheat gluten and dairy allergy is quite common in autistic children. She has since regained the weight she lost.

    Catherine Collins, the accusing dietician, is not the girl’s dietician and, as far as we know, has never met her, nor is in any way involved with the school or with this project and therefore is really not in a position to have an informed opinion. The results of the project, which is proving highly successful, can be found on our website.

    Yours sincerely

    Patrick Holford – Food for the Brain Foundation

19. Dr Aust said,

    January 16, 2007 at 10:30 am

    Well, of course the Nutri-balls fraternity’s income depends on their “public credibility” – i.e. that their buddies in Meejah-land keep booking them on TV, and treating them as authorities.. So they will of course try to refute, or gag, criticism. A letter to the paper is fair right of response – better that than the threatening lawyers’ letters some people have got when they diss Ms McKeith.

    What annoys me is that the criticism always comes just from courageous individual dieticians, doctors or scientists – it takes guts to speak out when you are aware that people like TAPL are quick to get on the phone to M’Learned Friends – and not the medical or scientific establishment. It should be the British Dietetic Association or similar professional body that should be speaking out about things like the Durham Nonsense, or the fatuous Woo and fleecing of the public promoted by the Nutri-balls gang. Not just the odd individual.

    I suspect the professional bodies keep shtum for a range of reasons: “giving them the oxygen of publicity”, not wanting to “come out” as slagging media-darling types, It’ll all just go away, “some of the advice is sensible” etc. etc. But I think all the professional associations and learned societies are far too craven about this.

    What would be so hard about a factual statement from the Brit Dietetic Association pointing out that, while parts of the advice given by Holford, McK et al.might be sound, many also promote, or are associated with, loads of thoroughly discredited nonsense, they have no proper qualifications or real professional accreditation in the field they profess to be expert in etc etc.

20. stever said,

    January 17, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    holford says this:

    “In Ben Goldacre’s column on Saturday he once again reiterates a statement in one of my books that ‘AZT is potentially harmful and proving less effective than vitamin C’. What he fails to mention is that the author of the research I referred to – Dr Raxit Jariwalla – wrote to the Guardian (20/1/05) the last time Goldacre made this claim to confirm that my statement is correct on the basis of two studies on HIV infected cells, thus he is guilty, once again in misleading readers. The real crime here is that no full scale human trials have been funded on vitamin C to follow up Jariwalla’s important finding because it is non-patentable and hence not profitable.

    Goldacre, who only left university in 1995, further accuses me of being unqualified to call myself a nutritionist. I have spent the last thirty years researching, teaching, writing and practising nutrition. I am not sure what else I can call myself. I did not confer my own diploma, as he states. The Board of Trustees of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION), which is an educational trust that I founded in 1984, awarded me an honorary diploma. I am not, nor have ever been on the Board of Trustees. ION offers a fully accredited Foundation Degree in Nutritional Therapy, upgradeable to a BSc with a further year’s extra study. The British Association of Nutritional Therapy, which is the self-regulating organisation that represents this profession, made me an Honorary Fellow. I am unclear about his qualifications for dismissing these professional standards or his patronising comment that anyone can call themselves a nutritionist.

    Both ION and I have previously invited Goldacre to debate the science behind any nutritional claims he wants to take issue with. So far he has not accepted the challenge, seeming to prefer to use his column to defame health professionals with a non-drug approach, rather than expose the numerous examples of distorted and poor quality research used to support the use of drugs whose side effects kill more than 10,000 people a year in the UK.”

    you could do a point by point rebuttal of all the silliness in this letter but i dont suppose its really worth it. The last point is especially ludicrous.

    Id be interested to know if ben has actually had any invites to debates from Holford.

    NB. on the same page we are offered:

    Join 100% Health
    100% Health Benefits
    Forgotten your login details?
    Do you want to

    * Increase energy
    * Lose weight
    * Boost your immunity
    * Improve your digestion
    * Balance hormones
    * Superb skin
    * Improve your mood
    * Enhance memory & concentration
    * Say no to cancer
    * Say no to heart disease
    * Say no to alzheimer’s
    * Say no to arthritis
    * Improve Your Sex Life/Drive

    Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | About this site | Print this pagePrint This Page
    © Copyright 2007 Holford and Associates. A

21. Ben Goldacre said,

    January 17, 2007 at 12:18 pm

    yeh it’s pretty funny isnt it, especially where Holford says:

    “Both ION and I have previously invited Goldacre to debate the science behind any nutritional claims he wants to take issue with. So far he has not accepted the challenge”

    he offered

    and i said yes.

    as far i can tell from searching my emails he never got back to me.

    i’ve asked him to confirm that i chickened out as he says – since all the evidence i can find says i was up for it – but he hasn’t even replied.

    what a total loser.

22. evidencebasedeating said,

    January 18, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    Holfords website fails to mention the email alert inviting paranoid parents to complete the FREE!!!! online questionnaire about your childs diet and if you’re quick enough you’ll be one of the 5000 to receive a FREE!!!! pack of Equazen.

    first the Optimum Nutrition Bible…..

    then the feeding of the 5000 – er, with something fishy!

    The Bible allegories just keep on coming.
    next ?

    the nature of the beast suggests a big PR puff! EXPERT NUTRITIONIST has DATA on the BIGGEST SURVEY OF OUR KIDS DYSFUNCTIONAL STATE caused by POOR DIET, and contributing to POOR RESULTS.

    Guess it’l be launched around Easter – just in time to get the GCSE brigade rushing for the supplements….. watch this space!

23. Ben Goldacre said,

    January 18, 2007 at 11:40 pm

    ahahahah i bet you’re right, it is a data collection exercise. that’s so so funny.

24. Ben Goldacre said,

    January 19, 2007 at 1:36 pm

    i’ve emailed holford, his PR, the “Institute for Optimum Nutritioni” front desk, and three leading people from the ION, to ask about this invitation that i’ve failed to take up.

    at least two days later and not one single one of them has replied to me.

    bizarre.

25. used to be jdc said,

    January 22, 2007 at 9:47 am

    Maybe they’re just really busy. *cough*

26. Ben Goldacre said,

    January 24, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    hahahahahhahaaaaaaa the abuse from holford’s fans is trickling in

    I see from Patrick Holford’s site that you have refused to debate him. It is obvious that you don’t know what you are talking about with nutrition, Patrick Holford is one of the world’s leading experts and he has very clearly shown the flaws in your so-called science. Now that it has been proved that you are wrong I have no doubt you will never debate him. You are nothing but a coward.

    this is the most childish thing anyone has ever done, i’ve been through all my past emails with holford, i’ve been through my past emails with ION, i’ve found one thread, he suggested a debate, i said yes, he never got back to me.

    i have tried to find out what he’s on about here. i’ve emailed him and his PR, twice, and all the ION people I can think of, david.nicolson@ion.ac.uk, reception@ion.ac.uk, aliya.dallara@ion.ac.uk, marvalyn.smith@ion.ac.uk, it’s a week later now, not one single one of them has had the gumption to reply.

    absolutely bizarre.

27. Ben Goldacre said,

    January 24, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    “IT’S PATHETIC THAT YOU WON’T DEBATE HOLFORD YOU HATEFUL LITTLE MAN”

    i must say, i’d never really given much thought to the “Institute for Optimum Nutrition” before this, but what seems to me like complicity, ignoring emails etc, has certainly alerted me to the possibility that they may be a little different to most other “.ac.uk” institutions. i honestly can’t think of a proper college or university that would just ignore emails for a week like that. like i say, absolutely bizarre.

28. Barnacle Bill said,

    January 24, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    Holford? Is that Holford in the photo? It looks more like that ex footballer who markets crisps and commentates on football matches.

29. Dr Aust said,

    January 24, 2007 at 9:17 pm

    Have you considered threatening them with M’learned Friends to get them to take down their “he refused to debate us” line from their website, Ben, since it is clearly untrue? Aren’t they impugning your reputation, and so on?

    Or how about this – do a Michael Moore, turn up at the IoN with a film crew some day when you know Paddy baby is in and ask him to debate, on camera, including why he is saying you wouldn’t debate him. Then send the film to Tonight with Trevor McDonald.

    Seem to remember Brian Deer once tried to “doorstep” Andrew Wakefield at a conference, but apart from that I can’t think of any obvious examples of putting BadSciencers on the spot. . Madeleine Portwood of Durham “fame” is another one crying out to be doorstepped, since she has “gone dark” every time Ben has tried to ask her anything

30. evidencebasedeating said,

    January 24, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    Whatever makes you consider ION supporters,and the ‘therapists’ to be in any way scientific – or even knowledgeable to the variances of nutritional theory? If they truly had any grounded knowledge in the subject and the current level of (bona fide) evidence they wouldn’t be Patrick supporters, being able to deconstruct his sweeping inaccurate statements on nutrition immediately.

    Lets examine a current example- this time int he the HOLFORD (TM) LOW GL DIET – Patrick states that if you want to ‘optimise’ GL – you need HCA supplements – er, NO, Patrick – you don’t. But don’t let excellent research by Dr Stephen Heymsfield, a REAL world renowned leading clinical nutritionist specialising in energy expenditure (at jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/18/1596, and oodles of other similar references) get in the way of your pseudomedical recommendations. Its surprising that Patrick relies so much on pills for his ‘Optimum Nutrition’ – seeing as another recent book vilifies the ‘Big Pharma’ pill-popping approach to dealing with modern illnesses…
    Nay, Patricks supporters are usually middle aged, affluent and educated (but not in nutrition) females, usually with some tragic experiences of life/ health/ other, trauma who have suddenly seen the light and paid the (therapist/ supplement company) price and have been taken in with the Lineker Looks – and the fact he is always pictured about to eat some tempting food (funny how you never see a picture of him actually taking a bite out of that damned strawberry – perhaps its just too toxic – and better leave it to the supplements for nutritional benefit).

    Think blonded females with borderline eating disorders and gym bunny tendencies, with little darlings just desperate to get into a selected entry school, and you’ve got the genre of Patricks People. Guess they aren’t drawn to your serious Oxbridge Ninja medical status, Ben. Damned if they can make their pretty little brain cells ponder the big (nutritional) science arguments….

31. used to be jdc said,

    January 25, 2007 at 11:18 am

    Ignorant people and stupid people are taken in by Holford. I’m both ignorant and stupid and consequently I was taken in quite easily. Plus if you want to believe in something it is very easy to convince yourself it’s true (just ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit your point of view).

32. pv said,

    January 25, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    Smacks of desperation by Mr Holford and his “people”. Is he so afraid his reputation and business will go down the toilet if he is exposed? Doesn’t seem unlikely to me because so much of his success, along with that of the obnoxious McTeeth, is based on his being in favour with the meeja. And if anyone is fickle, the meeja certainly is (are)!
    As the the recent Big Brother debacle has shown, things are not so secure in the vacuous world of media celebrity. If things get too uncomfortable, if he finds himself and his nutritional expertise to be exposed for the sham is appears to be, might he not find himself slightly out of favour and occupying the ejector seat on the media gravy train?

33. evidencebasedeating said,

    February 2, 2007 at 11:19 pm

    listen to the evidence!
    BBC R4 Womans Hour today concluded a series of articles promoting nutritional myths given daily by Suzi Grant, a ‘nutritional therapist’ and ‘BANT’ accredited member. A showcase piece of how little nutritional therapists know.

    www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/ram/2007_05_fri_03.ram

34. used to be jdc said,

    February 9, 2007 at 8:14 am

    Ben – he hasn’t got time to debate you, he’s too busy selling £19 tickets for seminars.
    www.foodforthebrain.org/content.asp?id_Content=1704&inc=det
    Apparently, “There have been some fascinating quantum leaps in our understanding of how to maximise mental performance over the last year”.

35. diudiu said,

    December 21, 2009 at 6:12 am

    links of london links of london
    links london links london
    links of london jewellery links of london jewellery
    links of london sale links of london sale
    links london sale links london sale
    links of london bracelet links of london bracelet
    links of london charms links of london charms
    links of london necklace links of london necklace
    links of london bangle links of london bangle
    links of london earrings links of london earrings
    links of london ring links of london ring

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

 

Δ

Stuff

• “Where did you go?” My Inaugural Professorial Lecture at Oxford!
• About Dr Ben Goldacre
  • … and upcoming public talks
  • … book me to speak
  • — Twitter
• Books
  • … Bad Pharma
  • … Bad Science
• What You Can Find Here
  • … Audio and Video
  • … The Bad Science Shop

I love them

Archives

• December 2017
• July 2017
• February 2017
• October 2016
• September 2016
• March 2016
• August 2015
• July 2015
• June 2015
• April 2015
• February 2015
• December 2014
• November 2014
• October 2014
• July 2014
• June 2014
• March 2014
• January 2014
• December 2013
• October 2013
• July 2013
• June 2013
• May 2013
• April 2013
• March 2013
• February 2013
• January 2013
• December 2012
• October 2012
• September 2012
• June 2012
• April 2012
• March 2012
• December 2011
• November 2011
• October 2011
• September 2011
• August 2011
• July 2011
• June 2011
• May 2011
• April 2011
• March 2011
• February 2011
• January 2011
• December 2010
• November 2010
• October 2010
• September 2010
• August 2010
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005
• February 2005
• January 2005
• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004
• July 2004
• June 2004
• May 2004
• April 2004
• March 2004
• February 2004
• January 2004
• December 2003
• November 2003
• October 2003
• September 2003
• August 2003
• July 2003
• June 2003
• May 2003
• April 2003
• February 2003
• July 2002
• January 2000
• January 1007

Meta

• Register
• Log in
• RSS
• Comments RSS
• Valid XHTML
• XFN