Tag Archives: addiction
Unhappy with her GP’s suggestion of more, potentially addictive, medication to help ease her dependency, Chris followed a diet and vitamin regime prescribed by holistic doctor Patrick Holford to wean herself off the tablets. [Back-Up URL version in case the Daily Mail alters the text.]
As readers will probably know, Holford is not a doctor, not even a holistic one. But, to be fair, the Daily Mail’s conferment of a medical degree has about as much standing as his own honorary qualification in nutrition awarded to him by the institution he founded. (What a thrilling and unexpected tribute that must have been.) Continue reading
We were concerned to hear Patrick Holford featuring in a truly disappointing interview on Kim Hill’s Saturday morning radio show: he was given over 50 minutes, almost unchallenged, to assert a whole manner of dubious claims. Patrick Holford – introduced as a “British nutritionist” – was allowed to share his wisdom on such things as addiction, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s Disease and cancer. I can’t deal with this all here – you really need to listen to the show in its entirety to fully appreciate how often it hits you round the head with the stupid stick – but I will note a few low/highlights. I should also say that we did e-mail the show before broadcast to raise some concerns; however, they chose to give Holford the opportunity to share his wisdom with their listeners, almost unchallenged. Continue reading
There are times, Virginia, when it’s all I can do, just to keep from breaking down. It’s not April 1 yet, somehow, Sue Arnold has put up a review of Patrick Holford and David Miller’s How to Quit in the Guardian. Gullibility exudes from every syllable, so one shrugs when Arnold reveals that she followed some EST and personal awareness courses that have left her “permanently scarred”. Sadly, she seems to have learned nothing from this encounter with people who are well-intentioned but lack an evidence-base for their enthusiasms. Continue reading
In a recent burst of autobiographical disclosure and outrage I posted The Economist: The End of a Childhood Illusion.
I can’t begin to describe my disappointment that The Economist somehow veered from its olympian standards and published a piece of such gob-smacking credulity that I was left waiting for the volte-face punchline that didn’t come. More extraordinary is the fact that The Economist links to Food for the Brain (FFTB) and lends its gravitas to that organisation by carrying this article about its recent conference (you may recall the awfulness of the lamentable Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007, details in further reading).
Treatment on a plate displays shoddy scholarship that is a strong warning sign that there is either a substantial misunderstanding or an undisclosed conflict of interest: this is not typical of The Economist…which makes this article all the more dispiriting.
Thanks to an impeccable source, we have learned the identity of the writer. Continue reading
When I was 12-years old I had a run of history and science projects that absorbed all my interest and exhausted the resources of my local library. Inexplicably, I was granted in-library reading privileges at the University Library. I was free to consult not only books but academic journals and popular reviews. For the first time, I saw publications that I had only read about: London Review of Books, Time Magazine, Paris Match, The Economist, New Yorker. I was overwhelmed by the glamour and gravitas of these periodicals: the smell and weight of the paper stock, the photo-journalism and, above all, the quality of the writing and editing. Continue reading
Nick Davies’ corruscating Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media was warmly received by some readers and commended by various commentators who welcomed his pitiless assessment of the parlous state of journalism. Other readers have produced a measured disagreement along the lines of “Yes. But not us and you’ve overstated your case“. Still more indulged in faux outrage and managed to publish their over-wrought reviews in newspapers where they happy-slapped some of Davies’ arguments; or criticised Davis in radio interviews and blog pieces. Continue reading