Holford, gluten, casein and autism: yet more shoddy referencing

I’ve been looking over Patrick Holford‘s recent e-mail on GETTING TO THE GUTS OF TRUTH ABOUT AUTISM, ALLERGY AND MMR. I’ve been trying to analyse Holford’s evidence base – but, given the shoddy references provided as ‘evidence’, this has been a rather frustrating experience.

Holford seems pretty keen on a gluten- and casein-free diet for people on the autistic spectrum: he approvingly quotes Robert Cade arguing that, when they strictly follow such a diet in order to reduce the levels of peptides in their blood, “most patients either improve dramatically or become completely normal”. I’ll put aside, for a moment, the assumption that ‘normal’ is either an unproblematic concept or something to aspire to: there is, at any rate, not convincing evidence that dietary changes can make people on the autistic spectrum ‘normal’.

Holford’s reference for this statement is http://www.panix.com/paleodiet/autism/cadelet.txt. Sadly, however, this link doesn’t work. The closest thing I could find was a link from paleodiet.com to an archived version of Cade’s site (I’m not sure why Cade appears to have taken the site itself offline). There is a tantalisingly named ‘research’ section on this archived site; however, this is disappointing.

The site argues that “for an autistic individual, it has been found that a defect in the intestinal wall permits incompletely digested components of the original proteins to pass from the intestine into the bloodstream”. This could be very interesting – except this is simply asserted, without any evidence being provided.

The site also asserts that “[b]y removing sources of gluten and casein from the diet of autistic children, we have had immense success in at least alleviating and at times eliminating the symptoms of autism.” On seeing this exciting information, I looked over the site for details of research methodology used, control group, randomisation, verification of the elimination of autism, etc – but, oddly, these details seem to have been omitted.

The only other ‘research’ that the site provides us with is a cursory description of a “blood test called a gluten/casein screen”. While the site asserts that “we feel that it provides valuable information on the potential benefits of the diet as well as an opportunity to monitor changes”, it does not provide any convincing evidence that this test does anything useful (or even much detail on how the test might work).

The really odd thing here is that there is some evidence that gluten- and casein-free diets may benefit some people on the autistic spectrum (although not provide any kind of miracle cure, if one wants to view autism as something to cure). I’ve spent way too long chasing up Holford’s shoddy referencing of Cade’s work – but a couple of minutes of searching pubmed led me to the excellent 2004 Cochrane review of the data. When analysing the research on such diets, the review found that only “one trial met the criteria for inclusion” (none of Holford’s ‘evidence’ for the benefits of this diet met the criteria for inclusion in the Cochrane review). The review concludes that there should be more research in this area but there is some – small scale, limited – evidence that such diets may bring some benefits:

Extensive literature searches identified only one randomised control trial of gluten and/or casein free diet as an intervention to improve behaviour, cognitive and social functioning in individuals with autism. The trial was small scale, with only 10 participants in the treatment group and 10 participants in the control group. Results indicate that a combined gluten and casein free diet may reduce some autistic traits. This is an important area of investigation and large scale, good quality randomised control trials are needed.

Even where there is some evidence that dietary changes may bring benefits for people on the autistic spectrum – and where there is the need for more good quality research in this area – Holford instead prefers to reference older papers and broken links. I’m not at all sure why. At any rate, if this is Holford’s ‘normal’ standard of evidence and referencing, I really don’t think that ‘normality’ is something to aim for.



Filed under autism, gluten- and casein-free diet, patrick holford

5 responses to “Holford, gluten, casein and autism: yet more shoddy referencing

  1. Gina

    It is almost beyond belief that people are taking this ‘quality’ of writing seriously. As Holford Watch has noted, Patrick Holford is very quick to highlight supposed defects in the quality of other people’s research yet he inflicts this on people and expects it to be taken seriously.

    In the name of reasonable discussion Patrick Holford has to stop:
    citing URLs to unpublished studies and dubious websites as ‘evidence’;
    citing evidence from a presentation to a meeting that was never written up and is in no way available to even the most diligent enquirer;
    giving only one side of a research literature and ignoring the weight of evidence that supports another viewpoint.

    I note that several of Patrick Holford’s acolytes from the Institute for Optimum Nutrition have signed the petition (e.g., No 5236) but he still hasn’t signed (although I haven’t looked again since last night).

  2. Jon

    “In the name of reasonable discussion Patrick Holford has to stop…”.

    I’d certainly agree with you there, especially given the length of time I’ve spent chasing up dodgy references (and I’ve hardly even made a start on the e-mail) :(

    Maybe we should start a petition?

  3. Gina

    Well, that would certainly cut to the chase, wouldn’t it?

    Having looked at the ‘references’ I can’t decide if this is an outstanding example of truthiness backed up by referenciness.

  4. Shinga

    Jon, it seems like Holford has found his own alternative reference for Cade and it is even lighter on the research than one might have anticipated.

    I keep overestimating him.

  5. Pingback: Patrick Holford on Andrew Wakefield: He Needs to Issue an Update « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s