The Quackometer has just pointed out that Neutrahealth’s share have been going down since last year – and have recently nose-dived. Neutrahealth are the company that owns Biocare (who own Holford’s Health Products for life, and who have Holford as their Head of Science and Eduction). The Quackometer notes that
In the last few days, vitamin pill company Neutrahealth…has seen a precipitous drop in its share price…When Neutrahealth floated on the stock market in 2005 its shares were sold at 10p. This year, pharmaceutical company Elder invested heavily in the company at 16p per share, already a significant premium over their then current price. Now the stock is trading at about 2p after collapsing last week. Continue reading
This is our 350th post on HolfordWatch. Over the course of these posts, we have found a number of inaccuracies in Holford’s self-presentation and many serious errors in his work. These errors overwhelmingly remain uncorrected or inadequately corrected, and Holford has failed to respond to almost all of the issues raised (what responses we have had from Holford are not at all convincing). However, we would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Patrick Holford: despite embarrassingly poor-quality work, an inaccurate CV and very public demolitions of his research, Patrick Holford has achieved a great deal in his career, in academia and in the media.
While we have been running this blog, Holford managed to sell his Health Products for Life business to Biocare (owned by Neutrahealth, who 30% owned by Elder Pharmaceuticals) for £464,000, and currently works as Head of Science and Education at Biocare. We have ethical quibbles about taking money from the pharmaceutical industry – we don’t do it – but careers in this industry are competitive, and Holford should be congratulated for getting so much money from Biocare (and thus, indirectly, from Elder Pharmaceuticals).
Holford should also be congratulated for having his application to be a visiting professor at Teesside University approved Continue reading
Back in April you may recall an onslaught of celebrities who gave their spectacularly uninformed assessment of the Cochrane Antioxidants Review with an astonishing retread of former Visiting Professor Patrick Holford’s borrowed criticisms. That star-studded spectacle of misinformed jackdaws was enlivened by Dr Aust’s intervention and his musings on the nature of expertise. We speculated as to what had prompted Carole Caplin’s extraordinarily through-the-looking-glass stance on the issue of sponsorship and conflicts of interest. We highlighted Caplin’s comment that, “It must be obvious to everyone who hasn’t got a vested interest in supplements that [the Cochrane antioxidant] review is absolute rubbish, it contains fundamental flaws” as so strange that it deserves special note. Continue reading
BANT has a sufficiently flexible code of ethics that nutritional therapists are allowed to earn commission from selling tests and pills. That in itself is not particularly striking. What is unusual is that the therapist is under no obligation to declare this commission to the client (pdf):
In addition to supplying supplements as an integral part of a consultation, the Member may also act as a supplier of laboratory tests, or any other products related to Nutritional Therapy. The member may choose to benefit from trade discounts and commission payments when offered by the supplier on products purchased by him for such use. The member decides whether such payments, in whole or in part, are retained in his Nutritional Therapy business, or passed onto the client. [pg. 9; S 7.3 a); emphasis added.]