Even by your standards, that remark about believing someone because they have “been published for so long” is absurd. Even you must see the need to withdraw that particular claim.

Why do you think that Teesside parted company with Patrick Holford? Hint – some of the reasons have been written up on this blog and they relate to his error-ridden CV and his lack of scientific credibility.

From what I have read, the people here concentrate on accurate reports of scientific evidence and fair tests: these are matters that should concern all of us. None of us wishes to be duped into spending money on something that does not work as advertised. This is true of any consumer product but seems even more important when it comes to health.

I wouldn’t want me or mine to be persuaded against vaccination on the word of someone like Holford. I wouldn’t want anyone to follow Holford’s recommendations because he doesn’t give an accurate report of that evidence.

Now – people and particularly adults are free to spend their money as they wish. But, how do you feel about our taxes being wasted on recommendations that are implemented on the grounds of shoddy science. You seem to be disdainful of this happening with treatments to which you object, how would you feel about Dore or supplements being funded when the current evidence for them is so poor?

I’d ask if you think that misleading people is OK but then you don’t really seem to read links properly.

If you think that asking for an accurate report of evidence is irrelevant when someone has a lengthy publication record why don’t you state that openly? Holford claims repeatedly to be a man of science, the people here are holding him to his word, you don’t. When you claim to be scientific, then shouldn’t your work stand up to scientific scrutiny?

If, like Holford, you repeatedly point out what you perceive to be other researchers’ conflicts of interest, should you be that surprised when people point out that you have far greater financial conflicts of interest? Did you write and complain to Radio 5 when he was caught out on this, on air, by Victoria Derbyshire?

Admin: other commenters have a history of sensible comments and ones that add to a discussion, Amanda, you don’t, so they are entitled to some leeway.
Plus, you seem to have left your sense of humour in your handbag. That was a humourous post about something that we found to be amusing in parts, it is not one of the densely-referenced scientific posts. If you were familiar with blogging and interacting with others online you might have recognised that.
Might you apply this rush of insights as to conviction about view to yourself, Amanda?
You have been published here, multiple times, so your point is as irrelevant as most of your wibbling. I don’t think you’ve been intimidated for a moment what with all those fabulous threats you were casting round about Google lawyers.
Don’t trouble your head wondering, we have paid your comments as much accord as they merit for the degree of learning, accuracy etc. that they show. As ever, repeating your questions, you have learned nothing. Just to show the quality of your comments, we are letting this stand.
Another warning – you will be relegated to OT again. And what about those Google lawyers, Amanda. Have you consulted them again? I can’t wait until they warn you that they are augmenting ASBOs by creating a special category of Asinine Commenting on Blogs Orders.

Yes, universities are fine when the money is flowing but will cut someone loose when the embarrassment overpowers the cash flow (which doesn’t seem to have manifested itself, no matter what they were led to believe).
OT – thanks for the reference to Goodnight Vienna as I didn’t know the story behind that.

Claire, one of the importuners in question is barely able to sign an X in crayon so the contract idea might be one to hold in reserve.

Admin edit: Amanda – do try and post something on-topic and correct and your posts might make it through without any edits.

Might I suggest that (somewhat officiously!) that the repeated importuner(s) be required to sign a contract committing themselves to their fair share of walkies, feeding, cleaning up the inevitable etc? I have a friend who is having to give up a lovely but demanding spaniel, bought last year for her children who begged for a puppy but all too soon lost interest & she doesn’t have time to do full-time looking after, exercising etc . She is one most upset by what is going on, though realises it’s in the animal’s best interest.

the fact that university of teeside, which employs many intelligent and hard working scientists saw fit to offer an appointment to Patrick Holford.

And it was still going as recently as late March 2008, as judged by this tribute following the death of Tansy Baldwin, mother of Cactus founder Steve Baldwin who tragically died in the 2001 Selby train crash.

I wonder whether Cactus’ shutdown will be laid at the door of (sh*t-stirring) “hard core science bloggers” too?

An alternative explanation, in the current University financial climate, would be that they had lost their funding … which might explain why they were chummy-ing up to Patrick. Though the sums of money involved were so small, as I remember it, that one wouldn’t have thought it would have made a vast amount of difference.

I suspect the real explanation will be a combination of all the above. One would like to think Teeside was duly embarrassed by the coverage of Patrick’s involvement, but my experience is that Universities will put up with a fair bit of embarrassment / adverse commentary as long as the cash is rolling in.

But if you are becoming an embarrassment AND aren’t generating the funding… it’s Goodnight Vienna.

In one sense it is a shame, in that I have nothing against investigations into dietary influences on behaviour… I just wish the people who do them would DO THE BLOODY EXPERIMENTS PROPERLY.

Of course, all that one sees of “the hand of Holford” suggests that Patrick’s involvement pretty much guarantees precisely the opposite.