The next question is whether they would read the article and be well-disposed to considering any applications to PCTs etc. (as per the appeal) that:
*they should introduce nutritional therapy into their addiction treatment centres
*they should accept contracts from private treatment centres that offer beds and this treatment.

Holford and Miller Masterclass: Nutritional Strategies for Breaking Addiction.

“Millions of people struggle unnecessarily with addiction and cravings. We need an army of nutritional therapists up to speed with what really works.” Patrick Holford

So, Patrick Holford gets money for:
*giving seminars about his book to the public
*training IONistas
*delivering masterclasses to train IONistas and allied health professionals in nutritional strategies for addiction (never mind the messy emotional stuff, family work etc. etc.)
*his book, video and supporting materials
*any sales of his recommended supplements that they prescribe
*presumably, he gets a slice of any referrals to the FFTB or Brain Bio Centre.
And all for the financial outlay of writing a book that contains no original research (qua bench research, appropriate trials in appropriate facilities) and can basically be stitched together from some Googling and linking up work by other people (Miller and Braly probably contributed their own work that hasn’t been published in one of the expected venues).

Holford has great emotional, business and financial acumen.

How utterly surprising, then, that it should present best-selling author, wealthy supplement entrepreneur and highly paid TV Nutritionista Patrick as a “plucky underdog”, in Wulfstan’s phrase.

One can only conclude that being the underdog helps shift the product.

That is…whatever the appropriate word is in this context.

@Duck, given how very young York’s Psychology degree was back then, I should imagine there was even less nutrition content than there is now.

Admin edit to fix html
Update – and crossed the correction

To borrow from Wulfstan, that’s Holford’s Weltanschauung and that’s fine. But, at the risk of sounding as if I have a bad case of the 3rd person effect, I don’t think it is fine when that interview is presented to Holford’s mailing-list as if it is evidence of a tacit acknowledgement of that Weltanschauung .

It’s getting to be pretty depressing. In the past few weeks we’ve had:
* a misunderstanding as to the source of a Holford press release that somehow looked as if it came from NTA
*an article on nutritional approaches to treating addiction in The Economist that deviated from the usual standards and was written by Jerome Burne
*a credulous piece in NHE that may or may not have been pay-to-print that doesn’t challenge Holford in any way.