Talk:Patrick Holford

Can I just edit something?
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)
 * I already fixed this; it was recently reverted, and I can't figure out why. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 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)

Recent revert
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)
 * SlimVirgin, please stop reverting before making any edits. If you have particular issues with edits then they should be addressed by editing sections, not by just going back to some old version. I didn't spend time copyediting this to be overruled because you disagree with an external link. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep reverting others, so you can't complain when someone else does the same. You're making controversial changes e.g. that he only calls himself a nutritionist, rather than simply is one (what would it be to be called one, and not be one?). Please discuss your proposed changes on talk before making them. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the first time you've deigned to bother giving a response. This has previously been discussed (see the archives), and consensus appeared to suggest that this was an acceptable change. The majority of other edits were copy-edits. I'm restoring the un-reverted version, minus both sections about being a nutrionalist for the time being. Chris Cunningham 11:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said on another talk page last month, the article on nutritionists makes it clear that it's not a regulated profession, and that being a nutritionist does not imply any expertise or training (though neither does it rule them out). So there is absolutely no reason to deny or question that Holford is a nutritionist. He practises as a nutritionist; he makes money from giving advice about nutrition. It doesn't mean he's a good or bad nutritionist; it doesn't mean he's reliable or unreliable. Just leaving it as "author" means that the first impression people will get is that he's a novelist. I know that author doesn't have to mean novelist, but it is the first thing that people think when they hear or read the word. ElinorD (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As nutritionists are unregulated i would be against reversing this edit. He is an author (he has written books that have been published = author) Wilmot1 12:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And he is a nutritionist (he advises people on dietary matters relating to health, well-being and optimal nutrition = nutritionist). That the profession is unregulated doesn't indicate (to me at least) that we shouldn't say he is a nutritionist. It does indicate that we shouldn't say he's a dietician, which is regulated. But then, nobody's arguing that we should say that. ElinorD (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is that nutritionists are regulated in other countries. If, say, doctors aren't regulated in Botswana, and I'm a practising doctor in that country, it would make sense for Wikipedia to note that I practise as a doctor but in a country which does not regulate that profession. Chris Cunningham 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The nutritionist article (to which we wiki-link) is very clear that the profession of nutritionist is an unregulated one. I have never heard that it is regulated in other countries. If that is the case, then someobody should update that article, giving a list of the countries where it is a regulated profession, with sources. In any case, Holford makes his money by advising people on what to eat and what vitamins to take in order to live healthily. Therefore, according to the standard definition, he is a nutritionist. Not all teachers are qualified, but if somebody works as a teacher, you don't start removing the information that he's a teacher, just because his country doesn't regulate that profession. People don't normally think of "author" as someone who writes books about nutrition; they think of it as "novelist". ("Who's your favourite author?" "Dickens.") ElinorD (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd debate that, actually; I don't see any "negative" connotations to the term "author" in this way and refer to non-fiction instructionalists as authors all the time. But your point about teachers is a salient one and I'm fine with this being kept as-is now. Chris Cunningham 14:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blog
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)
 * I removed it. :-) ElinorD (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Elinor. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, guilty of adding the blog as an external link (once). WP:BLP doesn't seem quite clear on this, though - "Information found in ..blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject".  This clearly means you can't include info from the blog in the article; however, does this mean you can't add blogs as an external link to BLP articles, too? Jon m 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem of adding it as an external link would be that there seems little need to link to a blog that has criticised Holford once. WP:EL also covers this one, and generally no, blogs etc shouldnt be used as external links. Robdurbar 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:WL says that blogs and personal webpages should be linked to unless written by a recognized authority. I think Goldacre, as a practicing medical doctor, contributor to both the Guardian and the Lancet, and an award winning journalist is a recognised authority Wilmot1 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No third-party blogs may be used on BLPs, and BLP is policy, which trumps anything else. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Badscience.net is not a blog. And I also support what Wilmot1 pointed out. (I added the link back, it is highly relevant) --Uriel 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a self-published source and the policies don't allow self-published third-party sources in BLPs. See WP:A and WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Claims that Holford's PR agent edited his article
The last paragraph of the article currently reads:
 * In January 2007, a Guardian article written by Goldacre detailed how Fuel PR, a public relations firm working for Holford, had anonymously removed all criticism from his Wikipedia article. Holford says this was not his intention: he had intended for the PR firm he employed to add a defence to the criticisms.

The source given is this Goldacre article. I have definite doubts as to the appropriateness of including this.
 * 1) I think it looks a bit unprofessional to be making references to Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles, unless they are on a subject where Wikipedia is very relevant, such as the Jimmy Wales article. I can't imagine a Britannica article mentioning some story about Holford's agent editing his Wikipedia article, so I think it makes our sense of proportion look at bit funny if we do.
 * 2) It's a bit controversial, isn't it? Do we really need stuff like that in a biography of a living person? I know it has a source, but the source is someone who seems to have an agenda of undermining nutritionists, even though the article comes from the Guardian. With ten references in the article, four coming from Goldacre is a bit much, in my opinion.
 * 3) The article refers to Clarkeola, and speculates that the name is used on a travel website by a Stephen Clarke, and there is a Stephen Clarke who works for Patrick Holford. "Could they by any chance be related? Indeed they are, and it has now been explained to me that the deletion was a mistake (Holford says what he intended his PR to do was to add a defence of the criticism against him)." That's not the best sourcing I've ever seen. "It has now been explained to me . . ." Who explained it to him? "Holford says what he intended his PR to do was . . ." We can't just state that as a fact. If we have it at all, and I don't think we should, then at least we would have to say something like "Goldacre says that Holford says", or "According to Goldacre, Holford says", which of course would be rather clumsy. I think that section should be taken out.

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)
 * 1) It is relevant to the issue of how Holford does business that he should pay a PR firm which does this.
 * 2) If it isn't controversial that Holford did this it damn well should be. But the fact is not disputed.
 * 3) Is an attack on other matters contained in Goldacre's article but are not relevant to this point.


 * That doesn't really address my concerns. We're supposed to avoid controversial material in biographies of living people, unless the material is extremely well sourced, and definitely relevant. It's one of the most important policies we have here. I have doubts about how relevant it is. I just can't imagine any other encyclopaedia such as Britannica including such material, and I think it looks as if Wikipedia thinks it's particularly relevant because it relates to Wikipedia. I don't think it's well sourced. Goldacre doesn't say where he got his information. He does a little bit of speculation about whether that user could be Stephen Clarke, who works as Holford's agent, and then says "Indeed they are", without saying what the source is for his claim. He goes on to say that "it has now been explained to" him that the deletion was a mistake, and that Holford says he didn't intend it. Whom did Holford say that to? Does he give interviews to Goldacre? If so, why doesn't Goldacre say so? Much of that I said in my third point, which you just dismiss as "an attack", and "not relevant". I don't think it's an attack. Goldacre's blog shows that he has a huge interest in exposing nutritionists as unreliable. I don't have any strong opinion on whether he's right or wrong. But I'd like to see the BLP policy followed strictly, and I also think that it's a problem to have four out of nine references in Holford's article from the same critic. The only confirmation that we have of the identity of Clarkeola is Goldacre's "Indeed they are", and "It has now been explained to me" and "Holford says". There are no quotations from Holford, and there is no indication of when, where, and to whom he "said" whatever he said. Nor is there any explicit statement of who "explained" to Goldacre that the deletion was a mistake, or what source he has for "Indeed they are." Given the extreme importance of the BLP policy, I'm going to remove it again. I'm also restoring the word "nutritionist", as I have explained higher up on this page that Holford is a nutritionist, and that the word does not imply any qualifications, expertise, or regulation. ElinorD (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Optimum Nutrition Bible sales figures - accuracy?
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 ). Holford's website claims that all his books combined have sold over 1million copies. 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).

Linking to Prof David Colquhoun's criticisms of Holford?
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 - 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)

Commercial interests
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)

Goldacre's accusation
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)

BANT is not a regulator
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 ). 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

NPOV
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)

Miscellaneous Criticism
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)
 * Why is endorsing home testing kits "fringe science"? Home pregnancy kits are commonly accepted, and their lower accuracy is balanced by their greater convenience. What exactly about Holford's endorsements are fringe?
 * Holford does claim a correlation between elevated IgG levels and various ailments. The claims are well-cited in his books. What exactly about this claim is fringe? If it's going to be mentioned, there at least needs to be some context given.
 * That elevated levels of homocysteine correlate with various ailments seems uncontroversial, at least according to the homocysteine article on Wikipedia :). If this claim is to be criticised, it needs to be contextualised.
 * Your statements above are different than the statements attributed to Holford in the article; resolving that discrepancy by clarifying Holford's actual claims might be useful. For example, our article cites Holford as claiming that lowering homocysteine will lead to better health - a causative claim - whereas here you mention only a correlation. It is uncontroversial to say that homocysteine is correlated with some illnesses, but a large number of studies have shown that lowering homocysteine does not reduce the rate of those illnesses (e.g. heart attacks) in the general population. Without knowing what sort of "home testing" kits he endorses, I don't see how one can judge their fringiness, and our article doesn't provide this detail. I have no idea what Holford's actual claims on these topics are; perhaps you could clarify them? MastCell Talk 18:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably could source these, but in the context of the article the onus should be on those criticising the living person to contextualise the criticism. I see a user restored a number of the errors, such the citations that lead nowhere, incorrect graduation date, and mentions of autism and advertising in the HIV section. So let's deal with the attacks on the article first before I try and find more sources. Greenman (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please reintroduce them after sourcing them, otherwise they will simply be removed as this is a WP:BLP. Also, see WP:AGF, WP:NPA and remain WP:CIVIL. Verbal   chat  21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that reverting BLP violations is exempt from WP:3RR (Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)), however I hope not to have to do this. As this is material the editor has themselves questioned, I'm slightly confused by this! However, putting the material back will earn a block under 3RR or other policies. Verbal   chat  21:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, what claims am I adding that are unsourced? The one factual change I introduced was that Patrick Holford graduated in 1979, NOT 1976 as he (apparently) erroneously claimed. The source you are using as a citation on Holford's site does not exist any longer. The previous (now current thanks to your contribution) version rather humourously says he graduated in 1976, then a few lines later that, no, he graduated in 1979. Secondly, autism and advertising have nothing to do with HIV. These belong in the correct sections. Moving these is a matter of an accurate headline, not finding citations. Thirdly, the existing list of books is already uncited, but a simple check on Amazon would reveal that the expanded list is accurate. Thanks to your contributions it is now both uncited and incomplete. Your throwing about of WP policy does not make your revisions any more constructive. Greenman (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, I am slightly confused by why you chose to introduce the above-mentioned inaccuracies at the same time as removing the uncited allegations. You could have avoided a lot of confusion if you hadn't taken a step backwards at the same time as a step forward :) Greenman (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disputed your other edits too, hence the revert. But please do update the BSc ref and I'll look at it tomorrow. Verbal   chat  22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Please update the BSc ref"?? Don't try and weasel out of it. What "other edits". I've listed the damage you've done to the article in detail, which still remains in the article in its current version. At least have the courtesy to explain your trigger-happy cowboy behaviour with more than just two words. You reintroduced multiple failed citations, wrong headings and a factual error (which you now tell me to restore after reverting it three times) because...? Greenman (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those were contentious per BLP policy, and have now been fixed. The reverts were under BLP policy because of your revert of my second edit. I told you the problem yet you persisted. Plese discuss your other changes in a new section. Verbal  chat  07:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV template removed
[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)

Errors
For the record, here is the list of errors. 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)
 * Incorrect citation of Holford's graduation. changing the cite link to the active one, but rendering it nonsensical by leaving an incorrect date behind, not referred to at all in the citation!
 * Leaving sections on autism and advertising incorrectly under the HIV section.
 * Restoring an incomplete list of Holford's writings.
 * WP:NPA. Verbal   chat  08:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice how I made the changes without introducing any BLP issues. Also, the second is incorrect, and a full list of Holford's oeuvre seems unnecessary. Justify changes on talk please. Verbal   chat  08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "A full list of Holford's oeuvre seems unnecessary". So you think an arbitrary list of all his work from the beginning, to say, a random date in 2008 when the list was last updated, is just fine? And that anybody updating this list needs to "justify changes on talk"? Thanks for fixing your other mistakes. Greenman (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No let's discuss it. What are his major works, and can we find RS for that view? Verbal   chat  10:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're kidding. You want to cut the list down :) Or perhaps I should be optimistic and think you're going to apply Notability (books) to create new articles about each of his (notable) books? :) Other editors who want to contribute to the article and restore his list of works can do so from the history. I'll be interested to see how you've applied and justified your views on other author's articles, reducing the list of works of a notable author to one or two you can find reliable sources for. Greenman (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Books
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. 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)

Edits from publicity manager
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)


 * No. YOU are not acceptable. Holford is one of the few willing to tell the truth. MartiniShaw (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"nutritionist/nutritional therapist"
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Patrick Holford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091125015153/http://www.patrickholford.com:80/index.php/about/aboutpatrick/ to http://www.patrickholford.com/index.php/about/aboutpatrick/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100507222038/http://www.saant.org.za:80/files/about-saant/council/council.html to http://www.saant.org.za/files/about-saant/council/council.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

In 2006 Patrick Holford was discovered to be using his PR advisor to delete content on his Wikipedia page which was critical.
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added tag to http://www.patrickholford.com/biblestatementonhiv
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202050830/http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/ID/PIDnote_Jun07.htm to http://cps.ca/english/statements/ID/pidnote_jun07.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091026043205/http://www.iom.edu/reports/2004/immunization-safety-review-vaccines-and-autism.aspx to http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Immunization-Safety-Review-Vaccines-and-Autism.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401152328/http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_43199.htm to http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_43199.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820015900/http://www.holfordmyths.com/ to http://www.holfordmyths.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

BLP
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)
 * The source for his MMR-autism belief is the 2014 version of his won website. So, primary source within his own power. He seems to have deleted that; maybe he has got smarter since then and does not believe it anymore.
 * That passage is not how such things should be done: quote the crackpot, then quote others who contradict what he said without mentioning him. Unless there are secondary sources who say that he has that false belief, we should not mention his false belief. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)