5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it…..(a) if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful … if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to
deceive the average consumer
…

Misleading omissions
6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account
of the matters in paragraph (2)—
(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear,
unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already
apparent from the context,
and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

for students at the School of Social Sciences and Law at Teeside University. Who have Holford as a ‘Visiting Professor’. Discuss.

Some of the research aspects of this are fascinating – which makes it all the more irritating when people dismiss them without according them they respect that they deserve – and all to promote their own commercial agenda.

I can’t remember the book review in question but I read something recently along the lines of: “Parts of this were original and good. Unfortunately, the parts that were good weren’t original. And the parts that were original weren’t good”. I feel that way about the output of some of the nutritionistas: the parts that everyone can get behind (such as the Mediterranean diet) aren’t original; but the stuff that one would hope is original (e.g., chlorophyll oxygenating the blood) definitely is not good.

I see that Wolinsky commented on the Marcoff and Thompson but I haven’t seen that as yet.

I’ve visited a couple of neighbours recently and they both remarked that at recent check-ups, their GP had advised upping the consumption of oats and wholegrains, fruit and veg etc. Plus, they had discussed alcohol consumption and the social enjoyment that they get from it and decided that on balance, they could maintain present levels. This is good, nuanced, individualised medical care and should be applauded.

The coverage of the guidelines was rather disappointing in general as there was no discussion (that I’ve seen) of the guidelines stated interest in the relative value of the Framingham Risk formula and the ones trialled in Scotland and various places where social deprivation is a useful proxy indicator for cardiovascular risk factors. There are plenty of thoughtfully considered issues and suggestions for evaluation and further research.

These are interesting guidelines and they deserve better consideration that Holford’s curt dismissal and soundbite promotion of his own commercial interests.

To summarize: PH believes that:

medicines (conventional, prescribed by doctors) are bad;

supplements (“holistic”, prescribed by nutritionistas) are good…

..and make him richer, naturally (in both senses).

Ho hum.

As I’m sure you know, nicotinic acid for lowering cholesterol is the great discovery of PH’s old mentor and co-founder of “orthomolecular medicine”, Abram Hoffer, who I wrote a bit about here. So nicotinic acid is sort of an “ur-example”, or paradigm example, for the Nutritionistas of: “something really good and natural that THEY / “Big Pharma” don’t want you to have…”

Of course, if people don’t fancy the statins, then as you point out most GPs will tell you to try and eat more fruit and veg, do more exercise and lose some weight, e.g. by buying a bicycle and/or taking long walks. That is what mine told me the last time I had my lipid levels checked.