Holford in the Scotsman: another dubious claim about autism

I thought that – when the Scotsman published Blissett’s dire article on Holford a while after the Standard – it was just letting its standards slip, and running a poor-quality cast-off from the London media. However, having taken a closer look, the Scotsman have form on this type of ‘science’ journalism. Last year, they gave Holford the chance to share his insight into how “autistic children are almost all allergic either to wheat, milk or both”. This is an interesting claim – and very likely inaccurate.

IgE-mediated allergies are pretty rare, symptoms generally come on pretty quickly, and we do have reliable tests for such allergies. If ‘almost all’ autistic children were allergic to such staple foods as wheat and milk, one would expect that evidence-based medicine would have noticed by now. Oddly, they haven’t. The available evidence just does not support this claim.

It may be that Holford is talking about something else (e.g. he might believe that almost all autistic children are gluten and casein intolerant). However, this isn’t clear from the Scotsman piece (and even this weaker claim is not supported by reliable evidence). The article also does not make clear that – if cutting milk and wheat out of their child’s diet – parents should do this under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional such as a dietitian.

The Scotsman therefore allowed Holford to – incorrectly – give the impression that “autistic children are almost all allergic either to wheat, milk or both”. They also failed to warn parents of the need to see a qualified medical professional if removing staple foods from their child’s diet. This is horribly bad science, and horribly bad journalism. Surely the Scotsman’s readers deserve better.



Filed under allergies, autism, Food for the brain, food intolerance, gluten intolerance

2 responses to “Holford in the Scotsman: another dubious claim about autism

  1. “we held workshops for parents and radically changed the diets, adding vitamin, mineral and essential fat supplements.”
    If you had ‘radically changed your diet’, then why would you need supplements? (Presumably the radical change was from ‘unhealthy’ to ‘healthy’).

  2. Pingback: Skeptics’ Circle #73: please tick the appropriate boxes « 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