Patrick Holford

Holford's claim in The New Optimum Nutrition Bible that "AZT, the first prescribable anti-HIV drug, is potentially harmful, and proving less effective than vitamin C"[14] has been criticised by Ben Goldacre.[15] Goldacre writes that Holford based this conclusion on a non-clinical study where "you tip lots of vitamin C onto HIV-infected cells and measure a few things related to HIV replication".[16] Goldacre notes that the paper does not compare vitamin C to AZT for efficacy.[15] He argues that "Holford was guilty of at least incompetence in claiming that this study demonstrated vitamin C to be a better treatment than AZT."[16] Prof David Colquhoun argues that Holford's "advocacy of vitamin C as better than conventional drugs to treat Aids is truly scary".[17]

Holford replied[18] to The Guardian newspaper that:

"As [Goldacre] well knows, the author of the research – Dr Raxit Jariwalla – wrote to the Guardian (January 20, 2005)[19] the last time Goldacre made this claim, to confirm that my statement is correct on the basis of two [non-clinical] studies on HIV-infected cells. 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 seems unconcerned about the way commercial interests distort scientific research."

Goldacre replied that Raxit Jariwalla was a senior researcher at the Rath Research Institute in California – connected to vitamin salesman Matthias Rath.[20] Matthias Rath has been linked to the previous policy of the South African government to deny anti-viral drugs to HIV positive patients.[21]

Holford believes that there is a potential link in some susceptible children between the MMR vaccine and the development of autism-like symptoms.[22] This is against the overwhelming [23][24][25][26] consensus of the scientific community and many high-quality empirical studies that demonstrate there is no such link. The Wakefield et al. paper upon which this hypothesis was based has been discredited by the scientific community, was retracted from the journal, and 10 of the 12 co-authors have formally disavowed the paper's conclusions. Furthermore, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the UK National Health Service and the Cochrane Library review have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. (See MMR vaccine controversy)

The Cochrane Library's systematic review also concluded that "The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post- marketing, are largely inadequate...." Nonetheless, it noted that the vaccine has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, and that the lack of confidence in the vaccine has damaged public health.[27]

Catherine Collins, chief dietician at St George's Hospital, reported that after following Holford's advice to adopt a restricted diet, a young autistic girl participating in one of Holford's experiments suffered dramatic weight loss and sleep problems. Holford dismissed the allegations as "professional jealousy", stating that "This girl hasn't suffered. She's got better and is behaving better. Her parents are delighted with the results. It's only Catherine Collins who is not."[28] Holford claimed that the girl was already a poor sleeper, and that when placed on a less restrictive diet, she was able to regain the weight she had lost.[29]