PATRICK HOLFORD APPLICANT
versus
THE TIMES & HERALD RESPONDENT
Matter 17/10/2014
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE APPEALS PANEL
[1] At the outset, I would like to apologize to the parties that my Decision is given only now. It seems after the application was e-mailed to me late last year, it disappeared from my laptop. It was only last on 16 January 2015, when the case officer inquired about it, and resent the matter, that I became aware of the oversight.
[2] Mr Patrick Holford (“Applicant”) seeks leave to appeal against the Ruling of the Press Ombudsman dated 3 November 2014. On the other hand, The Times and the Herald (“Respondents”) oppose the application, and support the Ruling. The applicant’s complaint followed the story published by the respondents with the headline: “Vitamins ‘quack’ to train docs”.
[3] This is the context.
3.1 The applicant, a trained psychologist, had been putting himself forward as a nutricion expert and it appears had published a number of books on the subject, and delivered some lectures internationally. He was accredited as one of the people whose lectures to doctors could earn the latter some points. It is common cause that at one time he said that “AZT, the first prescribable anti-HIV drug is potentially harmful and proving less effective than vitamin C in suppressing the virus in chronically infected cells.” The respondents reported: “Patrick Holford – the man who claimed vitamin C works better than the antiretroviral drug AZT for treating HIV – has been accredited to award South African doctors professional development points”. The word “quack” was apparently used in that the applicant lacked qualifications in the field he was practising in. He was also criticized for saying that the above drug was less effective than vitamin C. Before writing the article, the respondents sought the views of medical experts, in particular, they relied on the views of a professor who was the dean of medical sciences at a university; namely, Prof Volmink.
3.2 As a result of the above negative report about the applicant, his accreditation by the relevant authorities to give continuing education to doctors on nutrition was withdrawn.
[4] Applicant’s complaint was summarized by the Ombudsman as follows: He says the story falsely states that he claims that vitamin C works better than vaccines and, secondly, states that he has no qualifications in the area of nutrition. He also says it is inaccurate to refer to him as a “quack”. The story has severely harmed his reputation and integrity.
[5] The respondents answer is that the applicant has no formal qualifications in the field of nutrition. True, he belongs to a number of bodies and has published a lot on nutrition; but he lacks formal qualifications. They contend that applicant’s views on the effectiveness of vitamin C in relation to the vaccine is discredited. On the above two arguments, as also on the basis of the view of Prof Volmink, they content that it is a fair comment to refer to him as a “quack”.
[6] The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, for the reasons he gave and which are set out in his Ruling. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the Ruling.
[7] The Ombudsman read a number of articles by the applicant posted on several websites. In essence they all rate vitamin C higher than AZT in the treatment of HIV. I appreciate applicant’s reference to “in vitiro” treatment; but it is still within the realm of HIV treatment; and when one says “the first prescribable anti – HIV drug is potentially harmful and proving less effective than vitamin C,” this can hardly be understood any differently from saying that Vitamin C is more effective and certainly even harmless. The expression “less effective,” which the applicant concedes he has used, implies comparison of at least two things. The Ombudsman was therefore correct to say applicant could not disavow what he himself had said.
[8] The Ombudsman has also, in my view, adequately dealt with the issue of lack of formal qualifications. The word “quack” was put in quotation marks, which shows that it was not a fact but an opinion of the respondents, based on that of Prof Volmink. As the Ombudsman says, for this reason, it was not necessary for the respondents to delve into whether or not the applicant truly had formal qualifications in the field of nutrition; no finding was made in this respect. The Ombudsman also dealt with the issue of harm, with reference to the Press Code; again, I agree with him. Finally, it must be borne in mind that millions of people are affected by HIV. South Africa is one of the most afflicted countries, if not the worst; there must therefore be room for robust debate about HIV and those who venture into this debate need to appreciate this. It is, literally, a debate about life and death.
[9] For the reasons given above, I hold that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel. The application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 23rd day of January 2015
Judge B M Ngoepe: Chair; Appeals Panel