Talk:Patrick Holford/Archive 1

Holford's diploma and his claim to be published in The Lancet
I started this article, and I personally am impressed with Holford's books, but I don't want to be tricked into posting inaccurate information. I know, for example that Gillian McKeith's claims to have a doctorate are rather suspect, as it's from a non-accredited college. I gathered my information from Holford's books, and from his profile on his website.

An anon added "His only qualification in Nutrition is a diploma conferred by this, the institution he himself founded." on 26 March. I changed that, because it's rather POV; it implies that the qualification is suspect, and that he's not properly qualified. Information that is accurate (assuming that this is accurate) can still violate NPOV through its placing &mdash; when it is intended to give a particular impression.

Yesterday, another anon changed:
 * His research into the rôle that nutrition plays in children's IQ levels was published in The Lancet in 1988.

to
 * He has often stated that his research into the rôle that nutrition plays in children's IQ levels was published in peer-reviewed academic journal The Lancet in 1988. However, the medical indexes show that there has never been an article in The Lancet with Holford's name on it.

As it was added by an anon, there is no possibility of a follow-up &mdash; asking the user where and how this can be verified. I don't have access to The Lancet indexes. I don't want to insist on keeping that claim if it's not accurate. But while many unregistered users make sensible, conscientious edits, there are some who don't; and the fact that anons can change IP every time they log on means that they can't be contacted on their talk page and held accountable for their claims. I know, for example, that anons often target Institut Le Rosey and Salem witch trials, adding hoax names of former students in one case, and names of executed "witches" in the other.

After some hesitation, I removed that addition, and put the accuracy tag at the top of the article. I'd appreciate input from people who have knowledge of this issue. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 18:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said on your talk page Ann for complete NPOV the article should make it clear that the title nutritionist is unregulated in the UK and is commonly mistaken for dietition which is a professional regulated body. I think balanced criticism can be quoted from the Guardian article so I'll give it a go as I think for NPOV this should be included.  Sophia  11:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll watch out for your edit(s), Sophia, and I found the Guardian article quite interesting. Bear in mind, though, that if the title is unregulated, it doesn't mean that a particular holder of the title is unqualified. In Ireland, and probably in the UK, people can call themselves "musicians" without any music qualifications, and can set themselves up as music teachers (though they're unlikely to get a job in a reputable institute). However, that shouldn't discredit those who have, say, a BMus and an FTCL. There are also some (older) musicians who are much sought after for masterclasses, adjudicating, etc., who don't have lots of "letters after their names" simply because some of the mainstream qualifications either didn't exist or were not considered important when they were training. These people are more than capable of training younger musicians for all the prestigious diplomas. As far as I know, Patrick Holford lectures on the diploma course at his own institute, and that diploma has now been upgrated to a Foundation Degree, accredited by the University of Luton.


 * Regarding the claim about the Lancet, I looked in several of my Patrick Holford book (the "about the author" page), and found no mention of the Lancet. One of them &mdash; The H Factor &mdash; did, however, say that his research was the subject of a Horizon documentary. So I've added that, I've taken out the Lancet claim, and I've removed the accuracy tag. AnnH ♫ 12:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Usually with academic qualifications there are honorary degrees etc to sort out those problems - however the question has been asked that if an equivilent recognized body exists - why is he not a member. Usually people become experts in the established fields before they branch off. As you say all this does not reflect on his abilities but as a scientist I would treat his conclusions with caution and look for external verified evidence (no different to Jesus etc actually!) which is what I think the Guardian article is basically saying - don't ignore but treat with caution. I'll suggest any changes here before I add them to the article. I'm busy over the next couple of days (half term) so I may not do it till next week. Sophia  13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition on qualifications
The BMJ is only on-line from 1996 but in September when I begin my teacher training course I'll have access to the Uni library so can check the archives for the 1988 paper. Until then unless someone else beats me to it here's my suggestion for balance.

''In the UK nutritionist is not term covered by a registered professional body so some have questioned Patrick Holford's qualifications and expertise. ''

Any thoughts? Sophia 11:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like Ann to comment before I add it incase I've missed something. Sophia  06:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks Sophia. That's fine, though I think I'd use "title" instead of "term", maybe something like "the title nutritionist is not regulated by" etc. AnnH ♫


 * Will do with change as suggested. Sophia  10:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism re. accuracy of some of Holford's work
Added a specific example of how the accuracy of Holford's work has been criticised - the article seemed slightly too positive for a NPOV in my opinion. At the moment, there's very little in the article that would make people view Holford's research as less than reliable - whereas I would argue that some of his claims are unjustified. I'm open to suggestions, though, if people think this criticism is too critical/inappropriate etc Jon m

Removal of criticism by someone with close interest in Holford
Wikipedia user Clarkeola without explanation has removed all criticism of Holford from this page. I have replaced it. The same user has already had a page on a Holford-related project removed, and also recently created a page for another Patrick Holford project. There is clearly discussion and debate over this man's credentials and work and hopefully that can be played out in normal Wikipedia terms but this is a worrying development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clarkeola
 * This was the subject of an article in the Guardian --Shtove 14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What are his qualifications? When/where?
Just looking over his bio at the mo, I think it would be extremely useful to list his qualifications as it is a factual area that has not been covered

They are now included in the article - his relevent qualifications are a BSc in experimental psychology, and an honorary diploma from the ION Jon m

BANT as a regulatory body
On this page, there's the title "The professional body for Nutritional Therapists", though further down the page this claim is modified to "BANT acts as a governing, professional body regulating the activities, training and Continuing Professional Development of its practitioners." (observed Jan 06). Can someone give a definition of what constitutes a UK regulatory body? I can't seem to find any definitive lists of such anywhere. Motmot 16:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The BANT Website refers to The Nutrition Therapy Council as the regulatory body. NTC claims to has a scientific advisory committee. ===Vernon White (talk)  20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit odd to have a page with the title "The professional body for Nutritional Therapists" which exclusively refers to BANT itself, and then invoke the NTC, whose tagline is "the regulatory body for nutritional therapy". The NTC scientic advisory committee's scientific credentials look a little threadbare: Sonia Williams has only published one relevant journal article (on which she was not the lead author), Carol Granger has not done any at all, Ashley Grant graduated in 2004, though she(?) may by now have got her MSc. Nicki Miller and Fatima Siddiqui are still students. Paul Shattock has only published on autism. To be fair, Andrew Long, Lee Hooper, Joan Ransley each seem to have published several papers in the field. To invite a few expert researchers in related fields seems wise, but why have the NTC got unpublished researchers and undergraduates (one a "freelance chef") on something they call a "scientific advisory board"? Worth a Wikipedia, article, methinks, but that will have to wait. Motmot 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The DfES does not have BANT or the NTC listed as regulatory bodies. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/europeopen/eutouk/authorities_list.shtml. Motmot 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Food for the Brain Foundation
I have created a link for the Food for the Brain Foundation - a previously created entry for the Food for the Brain Foundation was removed in early January 2007. I am the Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Food for the Brain Foundation and the past president of the National Association of Head Teachers. Food for the Brain is a registered charity. I welcome any comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.49.36.178 (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2007 (62.49.36.178 10:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

Sorry the changes don't seem to have used my user ID. My name is Rona Tutt and I have added the above. (Rona Tutt 10:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

The external links to the "Brain Bio Centre" and the "Food for the Brain Foundation": Neither of these organisations appear to have any connection to the subject of this article, which is Patrick Holford. Unless a link can be established they should be deleted Wilmot1 10:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead says he's the director of both. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well spotted - Note to self: must read more carefully Wilmot1 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. I do the same thing all the time. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Response from Patrick Holford
This section makes no attempt at NPOV and should be deleted Wilmot1 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. This article needs facts, not an editorial. Infinitenoodles 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to strongly 3rd this, this is a supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an advertisment for his product and certainly shouldn't be a justification of it. Facts only please. Maplecelt 14:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree A personal statement from the subject of the article has no place in an encyclopaedia. SheffieldSteel 19:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This entire article on Patrick Holford seems
incredibly bias against him. There is not one positive comment about his work, or the ION. I feel this page adds little value to the discussion of nutrition and the ION and has been hijacked by a few people who for one reason or another oppose Holford and his work.Moker 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)moker
 * That is probably a reaction to this in which it is alleged he used an outside agency to edit this page.. If you have verifiable claims supporting his work, add them, help the page - its more productive than complaining Dmanning 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The other issue is that content on wikipedia needs to be verifiable. Part of the criticism of Holford is that he makes strong claims which are *not* verifiable in reliable sources (i.e. research published in peer reviewed journals).  This makes it hard to say positive things about his research (the article already notes his high media profile - which is arguably the most succcessful aspect of his work).  As has been said, if you have verifiable claims supporting his research, please add them to the article Jon m 13:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This really is a hack job of an article, full of weasel words. Right from the 4th word, calling him a 'controversial' nutritionist, inherently POV. Then a large section of criticism, followed by a verbatim response, which is not of encyclopedic quaility. It doesn't help that apparently a PR company removed all criticism. The user was rightly banned, but it's left the article bereft of any balance. Greenman 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is User:Anaalberts Patrick Holford - this isn't clear on the user page (I'm querying whether this also classes as a meat puppet). Either way, his/her contribution to the article is unsourced in part, written in the 1st person, too long, and unencyclopedic.  Does anyone want to edit this into something more appropriate - frankly, I'm tempted to either delete this or (if I've got time) cut it very heavily.  Any thoughts?  Anaalberts, if you'd like to make your content more encyclopedic, please let me know before I start hacking at it ;) Jon m 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it not be better to add a section called something like 'Beliefs' in which his various ideas about nutrition and health are summarized. Framing them as his beliefs keeps it technically factual. Anaalberts/Holford's contribution should be removed altogether or summarized as suggested.


 * I think an objective assessment of Holford's beliefs would be very good for this article. The current long-winded rant, on the other hand, is not good for this article. I'm all for removing/summarizing as well.Infinitenoodles 21:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently Anaalberts edits were just cut and pasted from a bulk e-mail Holford sent out, encouraging his supporters to modify this wikipedia article I've therefore just deleted this edit - they were unencyclopedic, POV, and probably copyrighted to Holford anyway. A summary of Holford's beliefs would be a good thing - maybe someone could look at the links in this section to extract the detail from there Jon m 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Holford's reply to Guardian article
Holford's reply is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2014245,00.html. It doesn't look very convincing to me! == Vernon White (talk)  23:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Holford's "rebuttal" of Goldacre's BMJ article
For the lively correspondence following Goldacre's article in the British Medical Journal see http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/334/7588/292. In my view, neither Burne's nor Holford's comments amount to a rebuttal, as claimed by a previous editor of the WP Holford article. === Vernon White (talk)  00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Added a summary of his bmj posting, rather than just his reply on his website. Dont think there's a need for the guardian response letter, its mostly an attack on Goldacre not being a nutritionist (which misses the point of the article IMHO) and talk about his own experience, which is already here.Dmanning 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case whether Holford's comments amount or do not amount to a rebuttal is a value judgement and thus cannot be made from NPOV Wilmot1 07:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)