Talk:Patrick Holford/Archive 1

message: Wikipedia user Clarkeola without explanation has removed all criticism of Holford from this page. I have replaced it. The same user has already had a page on a Holford-related project removed, and also recently created a page for another Patrick Holford project. There is clearly discussion and debate over this man's credentials and work and hopefully that can be played out in normal Wikipedia terms but this is a worrying development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clarkeola
:This was the subject of an article in the Guardian  --Shtove 14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of criticism by someone with close interest in Holford

message: On this page, there's the title "The professional body for Nutritional Therapists", though further down the page this claim is modified to "BANT acts as a governing, professional body regulating the activities, training and Continuing Professional Development of its practitioners." (observed Jan 06). Can someone give a definition of what constitutes a UK regulatory body? I can't seem to find any definitive lists of such anywhere. Motmot 16:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BANT Website refers to The Nutrition Therapy Council as the regulatory body. NTC claims to has a scientific advisory committee. ===Vernon White (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a bit odd to have a page with the title "The professional body for Nutritional Therapists" which exclusively refers to BANT itself, and then invoke the NTC, whose tagline is "the regulatory body for nutritional therapy". The NTC scientic advisory committee's scientific credentials look a little threadbare: Sonia Williams has only published one relevant journal article (on which she was not the lead author), Carol Granger has not done any at all, Ashley Grant graduated in 2004, though she(?) may by now have got her MSc. Nicki Miller and Fatima Siddiqui are still students. Paul Shattock has only published on autism. To be fair, Andrew Long, Lee Hooper, Joan Ransley each seem to have published several papers in the field. To invite a few expert researchers in related fields seems wise, but why have the NTC got unpublished researchers and undergraduates (one a "freelance chef") on something they call a "scientific advisory board"? Worth a Wikipedia, article, methinks, but that will have to wait. Motmot 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The DfES does not have BANT or the NTC listed as regulatory bodies. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/europeopen/eutouk/authorities_list.shtml. Motmot 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BANT as a regulatory body

message: I have created a link for the Food for the Brain Foundation - a previously created entry for the Food for the Brain Foundation was removed in early January 2007.  I am the Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Food for the Brain Foundation and the past president of the National Association of Head Teachers.  Food for the Brain is a registered charity.  I welcome any comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.49.36.178 (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2007 (62.49.36.178 10:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead says he's the director of both. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted - Note to self: must read more carefully Wilmot1 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. I do the same thing all the time. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food for the Brain Foundation 

message: This section makes no attempt at NPOV and should  be deleted Wilmot1 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. This article needs facts, not an editorial. Infinitenoodles 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response from Patrick Holford  

message: Holford's reply is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2014245,00.html. It doesn't look very convincing to me! == Vernon White (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holford's reply to Guardian article

message: For the lively correspondence following Goldacre's article in the British Medical Journal see http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/334/7588/292.  In my view, neither Burne's nor Holford's comments amount to a rebuttal, as claimed by a previous editor of the WP Holford article. === Vernon White (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a summary of his bmj posting, rather than just his reply on his website. Dont think there's a need for the guardian response letter, its mostly an attack on Goldacre not being a nutritionist (which misses the point of the article IMHO) and talk about his own experience, which is already here.Dmanning 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case whether Holford's comments amount or do not amount to a rebuttal is a value judgement and thus cannot be made from NPOV Wilmot1 07:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holford's "rebuttal" of Goldacre's BMJ article