Information icon.svg The 2019 RMF board election is about to end!
We are electing 3 board members for the 2019-2021 term.
Vote here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Malcolm Kendrick

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Expose on Malcolm Kendrick[edit]

GOOD expose on Malcolm Kendrick, Zoë Harcombe and other statin deniers currently going around on the mainstream news in the UK. I have been saying this all along, the statin deniers are wrong.

The deadly propaganda of the statin deniers: The drugs DO protect you from heart attacks but as this devastating investigation reveals thousands are refusing them

Daily Mail get something right for a change? An accurate investigation by them. John66 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen at least one other citation for Daily Mail on RationalWiki for a factual source. They're a stopped clock tabloid. Bongolian (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Why the lack of balance?[edit]

This is a pseudo-scientific hit piece. If you want to know Malcolm Kendrick's scientific views on cholesterol and statins, he has outlined them here in his response to the Daily Mail's disinfo attack: https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2019/03/03/cholesterol-games/ — Unsigned, by: Benjamindavidsteele / talk / contribs 17:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably because we, like the vast (VAST) majority of scientists, don't believe him. Scream!! (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
In that case, cite the scientific survey that proves your claim that "the vast (VAST) majority of scientists" who are informed experts in the field have never questioned or doubted the overprescription of statins that, in the research, has shown no decreased overall mortality. Otherwise, admit you're wrong, retract your position, and present an honest editing of this article. Whatever this article is, it isn't skepticism. So, what or rather whose purpose does it serve? Why not present all the available scientific evidence and all sides of the scientific debate, from The Lancet to the BMJ? That would be the scientific response to a disagreement among scientists. — Unsigned, by: Benjamindavidsteele / talk / contribs