Prof Patrick Holford’s slapdash attitude to stating qualifications and work experience seems to be strangely contagious: Holford Watch came to this conclusion after seeing the list of ION teaching staff and their qualifications that was provided to Dr Ben Goldacre earlier this year.
Several members of the list have been subject to a cursory Google and a number of them have significant associations with a variety of supplement companies which is entirely understandable; however, that is not the focus of this post.
Several of the lecturers and tutors have a background in standard and non-standard lab tests. Notable among these is Dr Michael Culp:
Dr Michael Culp
Functional Testing
MD, former Director of GSDL Laboratories, USA
Culp is particularly notable because either ION is mistaken about his qualifications or they have made a simple but significant typo when compiling his qualifications. Culp is an ND rather than an MD; he has a naturopathic medical degree from Bastyr University. Naturopaths, like Chiropractors, are allowed to work in primary care in some states of the US. Culp’s qualifications are listed in several places as MA, ND; he states them as such when he signed the Nigel Thomas Petition (currently, signatory 3013. The ND is a qualification that is accredited by the Council of Naturopathic Medical Education.
ND, MD, there is a difference.
2 responses so far ↓
pv // September 19, 2007 at 12:27 am
Just a small observation here. Holford seems to commit so many errors he would like us all to believe are oversights or acts of minor carelessness. Do we detect a pattern here? Is Mr Holford being deliberately deceptive? Cavalier with the facts? “Economical with the truth” so to speak? Because if he isn’t lying with the intent to deceive, he is surely negligent to the point of incompetence. How can anyone have any faith whatsoever in anything that fool utters or writes when, each time someone does a fairly basic check, a litany of errors is revealed.
Shinga // September 19, 2007 at 9:57 am
PV, you will know that in general, and more recently with respect to the Holford letters, we can’t possibly speculate as to whether these are inadvertent typos, mistakes etc. or any intent. It is possible that there are systemic errors that are not being caught by a copy-editor or any of the cadre of reviewers to whom Holford has referred previously.
However, it may be a different matter when one is considering the usual need for accuracy for people who hold a senior and even prestigious academic post.
Edit 13:30: that sounds pompous rather than tongue in cheek - sorry, complete failure of tone.
Leave a Comment