He isn’t a psychiatrist, a medical doctor or even qualified in nutrition?

Colour me fooled.

I’m not sure how (gently) pointing out flaws in someone’s work or gaps in their qualifications counts as “abusive or venomous language” or “cruel and bitter criticism”. The use of the word vitriol by Patrick Holford’s supporters seems to me to be woefully inaccurate. I can remember someone calling the most accurate and least vitritolic journalist I have ever read “inaccurate and vitriolic” – perhaps that was the point at which the word was redefined?

Admin edit: ah, cher Patrique, as Dr Aust would say. Who can forget Holford’s attack on Ben Goldacre as “vitriolic and inaccurate”. But yes, in some quarters, it seems as if there is a Knee-Jerk dictionary that defines vitriol as “someone who disagrees with me using science and my own words to do it”.

If he had a degree in nutrition presumably he would not be advising everyone to take supplements and if he had finished his MPhil. he would have discovered hair mineral analysis was a load of nutri*******s so his therapists would not be able to charge us for it. But what would they then do with themselves all day if they were unable to recommend unproven treatment plans?