I didn’t see anything wrong with the original article but had to post to flag up the rank hypocrisy of David Clark from Wired In. Here he seems to find it unacceptable to question Ian Oliver’s academic qualifications. But in a recent thread on Clark’s Wired In site, Clarkk and Rowdy Yates put the boot in to Pat O’Hare’s academic qualifications when he had the temerity to question the Recovery Agenda promoted by Clark.
http://wiredin.org.uk/practitioners/community/blog/entry/4385/recovery-agenda-dishonest/

I guess from Clarks point of view, if he disagrees with someone it’s fine to knock their academic status, but it’s not OK to do it with fellow travellers.

The hypocrisy is all the more ironic, as Clark routinely refers to himself as Professor Clark or ‘the Prof,’ when in reality he shouldn’t as he is now an emeritus professor, for his work in neuropharmacology, not a current professor in addiction work.

Of course none of this would end up being allowed on Wired In as, in addition to hypocrisy, Mr clark is rather keen on wielding his censors pen, to delete comments which he doesn’t agree with. Luckily he doesn’t have the same control here.

Molly0

He is simply a charlatan selling snake oil and should be exposed as such.

In this case I think it’s entirely justified.

Ian Oliver has created a reputation for himself that simply doesn’t stand up to analysis. He is not the expert he claims to be.

The blog does point out that he is entitled to use the title of doctor, but it is indeed very unusual for non-medical doctors to do so because of the confusion it normally causes.

The qualification he possesses has no relevance to the issue at hand although a medical qualification would carry some weight, to that extent his use of it is a deception.