This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
One of the links in the external links section should be in a "see also" section. Could I create one?-- Jazzwick 09:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Can I please create a See Also section? I don't think it was fair for it to be protected in the first place...
Would the editor who wrote the above please sign their contribs with 4 "~" Wilmot1 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What on Earth was that for? I don't see any discussion on this revert. The only part of any particular controversy is the para I added to the intro, which appears to follow talk consensus.
Further to that, it's now randomly been protected. I don't see this having even been requested. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Would people please stop adding the blog? Blogs must never be used as sources in biographies of living persons. See WP:BLP and WP:A, which are policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the article currently reads:
The source given is this Goldacre article. I have definite doubts as to the appropriateness of including this.
ElinorD (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly believe that this should go back in. Dealing with the points above in order.
Given the above I will now reverse the edit. Wilmot1 12:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a few different figures online re. how many copies of this book have sold (e.g. the publisher Piatkus books say almost 500,000 [1]). Holford's website claims that all his books combined have sold over 1million copies [2]. I'd therefore suggest either amending the reference to sales to refer to a total of over 1m sales for all books, or to refer to nearly 500k sales of this one book - unless anyone can find a better source for the 1m figure. Any thoughts on this, before I make the change? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon m ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
As Elinor said, it is problematic that so many of the criticisms come from one guy. With that in mind, is it appropriate to link to some of Prof Colquhoun's criticisms too [3] - is this a sufficiently reliable source? It is on a university website, from a respected academic, etc, but given BLP policies, I thought I'd check before adding anything to the article Jon m 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of declaring Patrick Holford's commercial interests for him, I'd like to get a report on his directorships and shareholdings. It's £35, though, so I've set up a pledge for £30 total to pay for it - I'll post the results somewhere public, Wikisource if they'll take them. Please sign up, and let's add some figures to this page. Motmot 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As much as it pains me to point this out, Goldacre is actually wrong when he claims that the paper doesn't mention AZT, see here, second paragrah from the bottom, so we mightn't want to keep that accusation in (I think pointing out that it is false would be OR). -- Coroebus 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That is not what Goldacre says - he says the paper did not compare the efficacy of Vitamin C versus AZT, and this is true. 220.110.178.109 ( talk) 01:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've modified the main article to make clear that BANT is not a regulator, but a professional body for 'nutritional therapists' (to declare a competing interest in this, and provide additional info, I should say that I've e-mailed BANT to discuss this, and blogged about this issue [4] [5]). I know that linking to my own blog in the article would be very inappropriate - but describing BANT as a regulator is misleading. BANT does not claim to be a regulator anywhere on their website, and it's important that wikipedia doesn't give readers the inaccurate impression that BANT is a nutritional regulator. They do describe themselves as a professional body - so I think it's best that this is what we call them Jon m
Very poor article. Lists numerous poorly cited/uncited (and in the green tea) case, inaccurate criticisms at great length, and very little else. HIV barely gets a mention in any of his books, yet it's a major section. I'm not disputing that the topic should be there, just that it skews the balance and perspective of the article. Greenman ( talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Am tempted to take out the remaining miscellaneous criticism, but will give time for the required clarifications and citations. Specifically:
Greenman ( talk) 18:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
[User:Verbal], please adhere to Wikipedia policy. Removing a NPOV template without the points being addressed is vandalism. Please also note that autism and advertising claims have nothing to do with HIV, so I have no idea why you restored them to that category. Greenman ( talk) 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, here is the list of errors ( Personal attack removed).
I will leave it to other editors to undo the damage since Verbal seems unwilling and incapable of doing so, and I'm not interested in an edit war with this user. Greenman ( talk) 08:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
No one has responded to the query about the list of Holford's books. Perhaps the comment was buried in the general debate above, so I'll repeat it here.
The current list of books on this article is incomplete. I attempted to complete the list, but the change was reverted with the reason "A full list of Holford's oeuvre seems unnecessary". I see no justification anywhere for this point of view. Wikipedia:Notability (books) refers to articles about books. While perhaps some of Holford's books are notable enough to list as a separate article, that's not what I'm attempting to do here. Rather, I'd like to complete the list of books on this article. I can see no reason why the article should be incomplete.
Please post any objections and justification here. If there are no objections I'll make the change. Greenman ( talk) 16:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have made some additions to this page - I am new to editing on Wikipedia so please feed back if I have made any mistakes and I also want to declare myself as Patrick Holford's Marketing and Publicity Manager to avoid future confusion - however I hope the additions I have made are factual and unbiased. The additions I have made are - referring to Patrick as a Nutritional Therapist rather than a nutritionist - I am aware this is also not a protected title but it is more accurate; I have corrected the deadlink in the first paragraph - Patrick's site has been redesigned which is why the link did not work but this new link sends to a similar page on the new site; I have added info on how many books Patrick has had published and in how many languages. I've also added a paragraph about Patrick's approach to nutrition as this was not clear on the original page; I've also added a line after the line re HIV and Autism which provides a reference to examples of Patrick's position on foods versus some medicines; I've added ADHD to the list of health issues dealt with at ION. I've added in info about his career that needed updating - ie he retired as director of ION in 1998 and I've also added in a recent reward and the Nutritional Therapy Associations he is involved with and his association with Biocare. I've corrected the titles and pub dates of a couple of books and added some more external links that I thought were relevant. Stephanie Fox (user name Daphne Wolf) ( Daphne Wolf ( talk) 11:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
Not acceptable
I for one do not think it is acceptable. You are simply trying to make this page into a positively-biased advertising article for Patrick. Commercial interest has no place on Wikipedia. I personally think this article is a joke, Patrick Holford is a quack who gets people to take pointless, ineffective and above all EXPENSIVE supplements made by the company he works for, Biocare. He has NO NUTRITIONAL EXPERTISE OR QUALIFICATIONS. He was the one who set up ION for crying out loud. Being awarded a title by the so-called "nutritional organisation" he set up is MEANINGLESS. All he can boast is a psychology degree, and I'm 100% sure he doesn't get taught much about human metabolism and body chemistry in that course! It is frankly embarrassing that wikipedia has allowed this article to exist in its current publicity-heavy state, especially when the person in question has NEVER HAD ANY WORK PUBLISHED IN A PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. HE IS NOT A SCIENTIST, AND THE CLAIMS HE MAKES ARE FICTION, DEVISED BY HIMSELF AND HIS MARKETING STRATEGISTS TO PICK ON FAT OR OLD PEOPLE TO GET THEM TO BUY HIS PHONEY SUPPLEMENTS WHICH DON'T WORK. No basis in scientific fact. An embarrassment to wikipedia. 86.179.74.68 ( talk) 08:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we make it clear in the intro that this is simply what he calls himself and it doesn't mean he's a member of any kind of professional body, holder of any qualifications or accredited in any way? It still sounds vaguely medical enough to confuse the unwary. I would simply call him something like 'entrepreneur' or 'alternative lifestyle advocate'. (In addition, 'nutritional therapist' implies I can book him for a chat, which is clearly nonsense.) Blythwood ( talk) 18:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Patrick Holford. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Patrick Holford/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
My name is Catherine Collins. I am, and have been a Registered Dietitian in the UK since 1983. I object to the personal and vitriolic attack on me by Patrick Holford within his wiki entry, and request it is amended.
I welcome my name being cited as critical of Holfords approach to nutrition, and wish to keep my concerns listed. I object to the following statement on two counts: "Holford has dismissed the allegations as the product of “professional jealousy”. He writes that "[t]his girl hasn't suffered. She's got better and is behaving better. Her parents are delighted with the results. It's only Catherine Collins who is not." 1. I have no need to be 'professionally jealous' of Patrick Holford. This is a slur on my professional practice as a UK legally regulated RD working within a London tertiary teaching hospital, challenging Mr Holfords unorthodox and poorly scientific approach to a vulnerable group within the population. I request that this comment be removed, despite it giving insight into the personality of Mr Holford. 2. Mr Holford was the recipient of detailed correspondence and verbal communication stating concerns of dietitians at St Georges Hospital regarding management of a particular child. His comments are disingenuous, and are quoted freely in the knowledge that for the RDs of St Georges Hospital to retaliate would breach the code of patient confidentiality that all dietitians must work within. Attempts to correct entriesand provide a more NPOV have been quickly replaced by pro-Holford wikipedians, who are not permitting such an approach. 90.192.37.105 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
A london IP just deleted this sentence. Is there any technical way to geo-protect the page from edits by a set of IPs base off Location? L3X1 (distænt write) 03:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Patrick Holford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.patrickholford.com/biblestatementonhivWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This article does not seem to adhere to WP:BLP particularly well. It states in the lede that the author is known for endorsing a range of controversial vitamins. This is not mentioned in the article (perhaps the ASA ruling is relevant?) and needs to be removed or sourced.
It also claims that he promotes orthomolecular medicine, which may seem fairly obvious, but there is no source provided and the link needs to be expanded and sourced.
Further on, the article states that he claims a link between autism and the MMR vaccine, but the only source provided makes no mention of this.
On a more minor note, the article lists more books that he has written than is stated in the lede and elsewhere. Greenman ( talk) 14:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
One of the links in the external links section should be in a "see also" section. Could I create one?-- Jazzwick 09:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Can I please create a See Also section? I don't think it was fair for it to be protected in the first place...
Would the editor who wrote the above please sign their contribs with 4 "~" Wilmot1 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What on Earth was that for? I don't see any discussion on this revert. The only part of any particular controversy is the para I added to the intro, which appears to follow talk consensus.
Further to that, it's now randomly been protected. I don't see this having even been requested. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Would people please stop adding the blog? Blogs must never be used as sources in biographies of living persons. See WP:BLP and WP:A, which are policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the article currently reads:
The source given is this Goldacre article. I have definite doubts as to the appropriateness of including this.
ElinorD (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly believe that this should go back in. Dealing with the points above in order.
Given the above I will now reverse the edit. Wilmot1 12:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a few different figures online re. how many copies of this book have sold (e.g. the publisher Piatkus books say almost 500,000 [1]). Holford's website claims that all his books combined have sold over 1million copies [2]. I'd therefore suggest either amending the reference to sales to refer to a total of over 1m sales for all books, or to refer to nearly 500k sales of this one book - unless anyone can find a better source for the 1m figure. Any thoughts on this, before I make the change? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon m ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
As Elinor said, it is problematic that so many of the criticisms come from one guy. With that in mind, is it appropriate to link to some of Prof Colquhoun's criticisms too [3] - is this a sufficiently reliable source? It is on a university website, from a respected academic, etc, but given BLP policies, I thought I'd check before adding anything to the article Jon m 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of declaring Patrick Holford's commercial interests for him, I'd like to get a report on his directorships and shareholdings. It's £35, though, so I've set up a pledge for £30 total to pay for it - I'll post the results somewhere public, Wikisource if they'll take them. Please sign up, and let's add some figures to this page. Motmot 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As much as it pains me to point this out, Goldacre is actually wrong when he claims that the paper doesn't mention AZT, see here, second paragrah from the bottom, so we mightn't want to keep that accusation in (I think pointing out that it is false would be OR). -- Coroebus 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That is not what Goldacre says - he says the paper did not compare the efficacy of Vitamin C versus AZT, and this is true. 220.110.178.109 ( talk) 01:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've modified the main article to make clear that BANT is not a regulator, but a professional body for 'nutritional therapists' (to declare a competing interest in this, and provide additional info, I should say that I've e-mailed BANT to discuss this, and blogged about this issue [4] [5]). I know that linking to my own blog in the article would be very inappropriate - but describing BANT as a regulator is misleading. BANT does not claim to be a regulator anywhere on their website, and it's important that wikipedia doesn't give readers the inaccurate impression that BANT is a nutritional regulator. They do describe themselves as a professional body - so I think it's best that this is what we call them Jon m
Very poor article. Lists numerous poorly cited/uncited (and in the green tea) case, inaccurate criticisms at great length, and very little else. HIV barely gets a mention in any of his books, yet it's a major section. I'm not disputing that the topic should be there, just that it skews the balance and perspective of the article. Greenman ( talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Am tempted to take out the remaining miscellaneous criticism, but will give time for the required clarifications and citations. Specifically:
Greenman ( talk) 18:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
[User:Verbal], please adhere to Wikipedia policy. Removing a NPOV template without the points being addressed is vandalism. Please also note that autism and advertising claims have nothing to do with HIV, so I have no idea why you restored them to that category. Greenman ( talk) 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, here is the list of errors ( Personal attack removed).
I will leave it to other editors to undo the damage since Verbal seems unwilling and incapable of doing so, and I'm not interested in an edit war with this user. Greenman ( talk) 08:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
No one has responded to the query about the list of Holford's books. Perhaps the comment was buried in the general debate above, so I'll repeat it here.
The current list of books on this article is incomplete. I attempted to complete the list, but the change was reverted with the reason "A full list of Holford's oeuvre seems unnecessary". I see no justification anywhere for this point of view. Wikipedia:Notability (books) refers to articles about books. While perhaps some of Holford's books are notable enough to list as a separate article, that's not what I'm attempting to do here. Rather, I'd like to complete the list of books on this article. I can see no reason why the article should be incomplete.
Please post any objections and justification here. If there are no objections I'll make the change. Greenman ( talk) 16:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have made some additions to this page - I am new to editing on Wikipedia so please feed back if I have made any mistakes and I also want to declare myself as Patrick Holford's Marketing and Publicity Manager to avoid future confusion - however I hope the additions I have made are factual and unbiased. The additions I have made are - referring to Patrick as a Nutritional Therapist rather than a nutritionist - I am aware this is also not a protected title but it is more accurate; I have corrected the deadlink in the first paragraph - Patrick's site has been redesigned which is why the link did not work but this new link sends to a similar page on the new site; I have added info on how many books Patrick has had published and in how many languages. I've also added a paragraph about Patrick's approach to nutrition as this was not clear on the original page; I've also added a line after the line re HIV and Autism which provides a reference to examples of Patrick's position on foods versus some medicines; I've added ADHD to the list of health issues dealt with at ION. I've added in info about his career that needed updating - ie he retired as director of ION in 1998 and I've also added in a recent reward and the Nutritional Therapy Associations he is involved with and his association with Biocare. I've corrected the titles and pub dates of a couple of books and added some more external links that I thought were relevant. Stephanie Fox (user name Daphne Wolf) ( Daphne Wolf ( talk) 11:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
Not acceptable
I for one do not think it is acceptable. You are simply trying to make this page into a positively-biased advertising article for Patrick. Commercial interest has no place on Wikipedia. I personally think this article is a joke, Patrick Holford is a quack who gets people to take pointless, ineffective and above all EXPENSIVE supplements made by the company he works for, Biocare. He has NO NUTRITIONAL EXPERTISE OR QUALIFICATIONS. He was the one who set up ION for crying out loud. Being awarded a title by the so-called "nutritional organisation" he set up is MEANINGLESS. All he can boast is a psychology degree, and I'm 100% sure he doesn't get taught much about human metabolism and body chemistry in that course! It is frankly embarrassing that wikipedia has allowed this article to exist in its current publicity-heavy state, especially when the person in question has NEVER HAD ANY WORK PUBLISHED IN A PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. HE IS NOT A SCIENTIST, AND THE CLAIMS HE MAKES ARE FICTION, DEVISED BY HIMSELF AND HIS MARKETING STRATEGISTS TO PICK ON FAT OR OLD PEOPLE TO GET THEM TO BUY HIS PHONEY SUPPLEMENTS WHICH DON'T WORK. No basis in scientific fact. An embarrassment to wikipedia. 86.179.74.68 ( talk) 08:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we make it clear in the intro that this is simply what he calls himself and it doesn't mean he's a member of any kind of professional body, holder of any qualifications or accredited in any way? It still sounds vaguely medical enough to confuse the unwary. I would simply call him something like 'entrepreneur' or 'alternative lifestyle advocate'. (In addition, 'nutritional therapist' implies I can book him for a chat, which is clearly nonsense.) Blythwood ( talk) 18:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Patrick Holford. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Patrick Holford/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
My name is Catherine Collins. I am, and have been a Registered Dietitian in the UK since 1983. I object to the personal and vitriolic attack on me by Patrick Holford within his wiki entry, and request it is amended.
I welcome my name being cited as critical of Holfords approach to nutrition, and wish to keep my concerns listed. I object to the following statement on two counts: "Holford has dismissed the allegations as the product of “professional jealousy”. He writes that "[t]his girl hasn't suffered. She's got better and is behaving better. Her parents are delighted with the results. It's only Catherine Collins who is not." 1. I have no need to be 'professionally jealous' of Patrick Holford. This is a slur on my professional practice as a UK legally regulated RD working within a London tertiary teaching hospital, challenging Mr Holfords unorthodox and poorly scientific approach to a vulnerable group within the population. I request that this comment be removed, despite it giving insight into the personality of Mr Holford. 2. Mr Holford was the recipient of detailed correspondence and verbal communication stating concerns of dietitians at St Georges Hospital regarding management of a particular child. His comments are disingenuous, and are quoted freely in the knowledge that for the RDs of St Georges Hospital to retaliate would breach the code of patient confidentiality that all dietitians must work within. Attempts to correct entriesand provide a more NPOV have been quickly replaced by pro-Holford wikipedians, who are not permitting such an approach. 90.192.37.105 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
A london IP just deleted this sentence. Is there any technical way to geo-protect the page from edits by a set of IPs base off Location? L3X1 (distænt write) 03:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Patrick Holford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.patrickholford.com/biblestatementonhivWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This article does not seem to adhere to WP:BLP particularly well. It states in the lede that the author is known for endorsing a range of controversial vitamins. This is not mentioned in the article (perhaps the ASA ruling is relevant?) and needs to be removed or sourced.
It also claims that he promotes orthomolecular medicine, which may seem fairly obvious, but there is no source provided and the link needs to be expanded and sourced.
Further on, the article states that he claims a link between autism and the MMR vaccine, but the only source provided makes no mention of this.
On a more minor note, the article lists more books that he has written than is stated in the lede and elsewhere. Greenman ( talk) 14:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)