Dr Malcolm Kendrick – deletion from Wikipedia

I thought I should tell you that I am about to be deleted from Wikipedia. Someone sent me a message to this effect. It seems that someone from Manchester entitled User:Skeptic from Britain has decided that I am a quack and my presence should be removed from the historical record.

I have no idea who this person is, perhaps it is possible to find out? It seems a bit harsh as I recently contributed money to Wikipedia to keep it going. Was this a terrible mistake?

To be frank, I am not entirely bothered if I no longer appear on Wikipedia, but I am increasingly pissed off that self-styled anonymous ‘experts’ can do this sort of thing without making it explicit why they are doing it, what their motives are, and if they have any disclosure of interest.

Perhaps user Skeptic from Britain would like to reveal himself and provide some information as to why he is so interested in trying to wipe me out? Perhaps one or two of you here could join in the discussion and see what emerges.

His reasons for trying to get rid of me are the following

Malcolm Kendrick is a fringe figure who agues(sic) against the lipid hypothesis. He denies that blood cholesterol levels are responsible for heart disease and in opposition to the medical community advocates a high-fat high-cholesterol diet as healthy. Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources that discuss his ideas. His book The Great Cholesterol Con was not reviewed in any science journals. Kendrick is involved with the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, I suggest deleting his article and redirecting his name to that. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Come out, come out, whoever you are.

594 thoughts on “Dr Malcolm Kendrick – deletion from Wikipedia

  1. Jean Carlyle-Lyon

    My friend with high cholesterol (around 7.8) aged 82 is healthier than she ever been since she stopped statins 3 years ago. No aching joints, no cough and brain power has improved. I’ll stick with you if that’s OK?!!

    Reply
    1. David Bailey

      Jean,

      Thanks for that encouraging news!

      I think that particularly as we get older, quality of life is better than quantity! I discovered just how nasty statins can be, and if they are suggested, I just say NO!

      Reply
    1. sundancer55

      It wouldn’t do any good.

      I never use or open anything from them. Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can go in and change information to whatever they want it to read. If you try to post something about cholesterol or anything having to do with health, it’s the first to be “checked and usually re-done” by someone with the exact opposite information.

      The whole site is just a big game of who can get their first and then who can change things faster.

      Avoid wikipedia. I must say, Dr. K., you’re a lot better off without that site. Most of the people I know who travel in health circles, avoid it like the plague it is.

      Reply
      1. sundancer55

        That should be “who can get there first . . . ” damn spell checker. God I’m getting so I hate computers. They think they know what you’re trying to say!

      2. Caroline

        Yes a public figure said his page is incorrect and they won’t let him change it! Every time he does it is changed back! Very unreliable!

      3. shirley3349

        If you dispute something with Wikipedia you get into a slanging match with one of their first tier editors, who usually complain you are not following one of their ridiculous, legalistic editorial formulas. You keep your cool and after a week or so of this they get fed up with you and pass you over to someone higher up who does not have a bee in their bonnet about the matter. Then you can argue your case on its merits. The only time in the past I did this I won.

    2. binra

      Don’t protest to the criminal. Illuminate the nature of the crime to a shared witness and disinvest allegiance or support to a loveless and manipulative intent.

      But you may effect a local limited exemption for Malcolm as part of a larger movement of opinion for a while.

      Rage is the driver of a hate or vengeance agenda and the will to power IS such an agenda.
      If there wasn’t power at its back, the proxies of lawless or fraudulent acts would be prosecuted or brought to account.

      Reply
      1. Peggy Sue

        Well I’d wear this as a badge of honour Dr Kendrick!
        I’m just glad I’ve never given them any money. I’ve been tempted lately as I have used Wiki as a resource at times, but in the back of my mind, it’s origin has always bothered me – now I know why.
        I discovered your blog at JUST the right time for me (thank goodness) and I simply cannot thank you enough. I’ve had enough problems as it is since I was diagnosed with high blood pressure but at least I know that my cholesterol level isn’t one of them.

    3. Robin

      I’ve given little donations over a couple years – under $10 each time. – I let them know that I am disturbed that this action would be taken on the basis of some anonymous person complaining and that the latest donation was my final one. This is a common method for shutting down opposition to any current dicta that yield big profits to the purveyors. Two who were recently shut down – Dr Gary Fettke in Tasmania and Dr Tim Noakes, Sth Africa. There are many more…

      Reply
      1. chris c

        Yes and they were both found NOT GUILTY, plus Gary Fettke received an apology, and the new head of DAA is claiming to end their sponsorship deals with Big Food.

        Same happened to Jen Elliott, and long before them Annika Dahlqvist in Sweden, among others.

        Since none of these “trials” ended well, The Anointed are now going after people in Wikipedia because there is no comeback or appeal.

        Well over a decade ago, Google Blogger closed and in some cases deleted low carb blogs because they claimed they were “spam”. So far WordPress haven’t done that. Nor Twitter, yet, although people have had their accounts suspended due to complaints so far they have been reinstated. So far.

      2. Gary Ogden

        Robin: Censorship is on the march. Pinterest (of which I know nothing) just banned the National Vaccine Information Center, hardly a radical group.

  2. wfperk@hotmail.com

    Apparently the famous say re truth doesn’t apply to Wikipedia. … and the truth shall set you free.

    Sent from my iPad

    Reply
  3. Jane Ainsworth

    Well I’ve just looked for your Wikipedia entry and it’s still there – it came top when I googled your name. It says ‘last edited by skeptic from Britain 24 hours ago’.
    So maybe someone at Wikipedia has moderated skeptic’s ‘contribution’.
    I hope your entry stays there. I’ve just donated to Wikipedia too!
    BW

    Reply
    1. liz3321

      It wasn’t there when I looked earlier – but has reappeared at the time of writing, with this comment “This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s deletion policy.
      “Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article’s entry on the Articles for deletion page.”

      Reply
      1. sue

        Amen sundancer55! Wikipedia too often is little more than a propaganda vehicle. As for google, they don’t even try to hide their tracking of everything we say, buy, everywhere we visit online etc. Google is one of the biggest surveillance arms of the government and guess what? We law abiding folks are the easiest to spy on and the most profitable because they sell every detail of our lives to whoever has the money to pay. I reject google in all its forms including gmail. I exclusively use duckduckgo.com for searches and even refuse to say “Google this or that.” Instead I say “Search this or that” with emphasis on the word ‘search.’ Small potatoes I know, but my only way of protesting.

      1. binra

        That’s right – I didn’t support war on Iraq either.
        However, informing your MP or any other body of influence, of your disquiet and concern, may provide some basis for them to speak on something rather than not and that may raise an awareness of the nature of malign influence that has invisible but systemic effect – such as to promote maltreatment at expense of help.

  4. barovsky

    You’re lucky you weren’t having you entry rewritten as my friends over at the Media Lens entry have, and on a constant basis by one individual, who evidently has spent 100s of hours defacing their entry! Isn’t the Web wonderful! So, Malcolm, you’re not on Wikipedia, but look on the positive side, think of the small amount of energy you’re saving the planet. It shouldn’t be a problem to find out who it is, maybe Wikipedia will tell you?

    Reply
    1. Elder Geek

      Hey Doc….the wikipedia phonys will not get another penny from me! “Skeptic” from Britain” indeed! Nameless, faceless morons can justify and incite publicly available information to be deleted, without even identifying themselves. One of the many reasons why Wiki-barfarama is going the way of the World Book encyclopedia. No more money for you(se)…come back…..Never!

      Reply
      1. shirley3349

        I once had a dispute with Wikipedia which was eventually resolved in my favour. I wanted to post a link to my own site, which was directly relevant to the subject of the page concerned. Someone objected and kept deleting the link for spurious reasons, why I never knew.
        Wikipedia set up an adjudication procedure which decided the other party’s arguments were without merit and permanently reinstated the link to my site.
        I suggest you something similar. A short account of your professional qualifications, experience and publications should do the trick.
        The issue in both our cases was essentially censorship. Those who run Wikipedia know that a reputation for censorship in scientific disputes or any serious academic matter will bring the whole website into disrepute and harm its ability to raise funds.

      2. Socratic Dog

        Shirley, I don’t think funding is a problem for any of the new corporate censors. It’s pretty obvious their government and quasi-government partners take good care of them.

        One definition if fascism is that the interests of government and corporations become indistinguishable. If we aren’t there already, we’re awfully close.

  5. Trudy

    A similar situation recently occurred on a home decor/design site. An outspoken, sincere professional was blocked and banned due to truth telling. It sure has become bizarro world.
    I closed my account in protest.
    So sorry to hear, please forge ahead!

    Reply
  6. gillpurple

    Appalling. I will see if I can comment on that on Wikipedia later tonight. Hope others on here will do likewise.

    Reply
  7. Gary Redman

    Typical. The great minds of history have been suppressed. It is no surprise. I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe this person doesn’t even exist. Water off a ducks back Malcolm. Who needs Wikipedia anyway.

    Reply
  8. Michael

    Well you are threatening a trillion dollar industry and he is probably a GP with holidays paid for by his big pharma Statin suppliers. However, it means people are listening to you and rightly so. Be careful, people have shot themselves twice in the back of the head for less especially here in the USA

    Reply
    1. Angelica

      In case others not from the US are confused, in 2015, there was a rash of alternative medicine practitioner deaths, chiropractor in Florida I remember, but I’ve blanked on others. Snopes, which I don’t consider to be a perfect source, has thankfully memorialized the panic at the time. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/holistic-doctor-death-conspiracy/ I’m guessing this is what you’re referring to, and yeah, I remember the fear at the time. Hyperbole, yes probably. No truth in it? No, I don’t think so.

      Reply
    2. Socratic Dog

      These dissidents also like to bludgeon themselves to death, apparently. With no questions asked.

      I use the word advisedly. There is a growing dissident movement in the West, analogous to that that grew in the Soviet Union. Malcolm has just been appointed part of it, for daring to speak truth to power. If that doesn’t give us pause…what will? The West once stood for freedom. No more.

      Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      Bill: Right you are. Wikipedia, like the social-media companies, is a propaganda platform. I never use it. Truth-tellers are a real or perceived threat to the gravy train of mandated medical products, and they must be silenced. Two of these products, statins (especially) and vaccines, have become immensely profitable. Science be damned; profit marches on.

      Reply
  9. Jan

    Well I’m not a betting gal but if I was I would be putting money on a big pharma connection either from research funding or GP incentives. It’s a low down dirty scoundrel who lacks conviction and credibility by remaining anonymous. I’ve read all sides of the story to enable an informed choice re the role of cholesterol in CHD and the use of statins. The evidence is clear. Why it can’t be seen by those in power can only be another case of the emperor’s new clothes. Ditto the role of dietary fat.
    Keep up the good work MK.
    Wikipedia should be ashamed for such censure!

    Reply
  10. Tom Welsh

    “I recently contributed money to Wikipedia to keep it going. Was this a terrible mistake?”

    On the whole, I think it was. Until a year ago I contributed small amounts to Wikipedia. Then I learned about Wikipedia’s refusal to ensure fair play for our compatriot Craig Murray. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/

    Since then Wikipedia’s appeals for funds have fallen on stony ground where I am concerned.

    I think perhaps the time has come for Wikipedia to be partitioned. The vast majority of its content, dealing with uncontroversial topics such as mathematics, most of science (i.e. not “climate science”), most of histroy, etc. should be preserved as a hugely valuable resource.

    But the part that deals with controversial topics should be separated and should have to fund itself. Just as the “casino” part of the banking industry should be rigorously separated from the old-fashioned part that simply looks after people’s savings and current accounts.

    Reply
      1. Antony Sanderson

        I also found the “Skeptic” was targeting Assem Malhotra. I read his entries in Assem’s page. How Wiki can present itself as a serious information source when such it has no means to moderate these sorts of anonymous attacks driven by those with deeply personal motives and obviously fuelled by a disturbing anger. I naively expect Wiki entries to show balance . . . but when one is presented with ad hominem attacks, such as those against Malcom and Assem, Wiki begins to lose credibility. I guess “skeptic” will be trolling others who question the cholesterol/heart hypothesis and diet advice reform) . . . Sad day

      2. robert

        Malcolm, you are in very good and esteemed company indeed. Prof Tim Noakes, Dr Gary Fettke (also anonymous charges), Dr Aseem Malhotra, and many more. Consider yourselves honoured.

        My take, like others herein have indicated, is that a group of big corporates supported by the political elite have somehow found a way to expand their greed. It covers medical health (CNCD’s), climate change, and probably other areas that I have not found yet. In the opinion of others and myself their greed and profits are more important than …your health, …your mini-ice age survival, …whatever else. These greedy people have no concern for the underclasses (they are the privileged class – Macron is demonstrating his membership). Then stir in Trump.

        However, as many will note, there is a fight back taking place – long may it succeed. Europe’s voters (and yellow jackets) appear to be objecting and voting to the right. It is very sad that your Brexit majority vote has been hijacked by the lefties, by unelected overpaid bureaucrats (House of Lords; past its sell by date), and by Brussels social marxists. Sad really sad.

        And so science will become real science again (Bradford-Hill etc.)

  11. The Informed Consumer

    Malcolm

    Don’t feel got at. There is a particular individual who spends his life having articles sceptical of anything mainstream deleted from Wikipedia, especially those sceptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I can’t recall his name offhand, and as unbelievable as it may seem, I understand he is one of only a few self styled individuals who deem it their duty to impose their will over others.

    They have been at it for years on Wikipedia and go largely unidentified other than by anonymous identities.

    Having said that, Wikipedia is a bit of a cesspool itself. I posted up a page on my father, a successful racing driver in the Far East in the 1950’s and 60’s, complete with photographs I own and scanned in. They were all removed citing something to do with copyright infringement??????

    I looked into reinstating them and incredibly, on an editable encyclopaedia, there is an appeals process a Philadelphia lawyer would struggle with.

    Reply
    1. HotScot

      That should be HotScot not Informed Consumer. I would change my initial ID on WordPress but have tried before without luck.

      Reply
    2. HotScot

      PS

      Yes it was a terrible mistake donating to Wikipedia. I was mug enough to do so once. Never again, and I avoid it like the plague whenever possible.

      Reply
      1. sundancer55

        I’m sorry but I have a rule about this kind of stuff. Do NOT donate to anything online. Get a PO Box or street address from the place you want to donate to and send them a check. I know we live in a world of “instant everything” but in this case even the Pony Express would be a better choice than doing monetary transactions online.

        The biggest one to be careful of, IMPO, is the gofundme crap. I call it go FRAUD me. Most of those are complete screw-overs.

        And please – – donate to WORTHY causes if you have money to throw around – – like The Salvation Army or LoveShriners.org . But send the donation to them, don’t do it online.

        When on earth will people ever learn?? Does EVERYONE have to get burned once to learn a lesson? It would appear that’s about 98% true, sorry to say.

  12. Dr. James Cook

    Wikipedia is a propaganda organ of the New World Order in which medicine is a form of genocide. You shouldn’t feel too badly about being deleted. It means you are standing up for the truth and are on the right track.

    Reply
    1. chris c

      Yes you’re getting up the right noses. You shouldn’t have banned that vegan, God via Ellen G White gave them permission to post everywhere they choose. Now shut up and eat your cornflakes, oh and take your statin.

      I’m also regretting contributing to them recently. To be fair they are a pretty good source for uncontroversial material like music or engineering history but they are made for censorship of the many by the few when it comes to controversy, especially when money is involved.

      Reply
  13. Graham

    Sounds like a repeat of what happened to Galileo.
    Of course the sun orbits the earth!
    Or more accurately around the banks with big pharma’s profits inside.
    Suppressing opposing viewpoints is a big problem for real science and intelligent debate.
    Keep going Malcolm

    Reply
  14. liorlosinsky

    Good luck with Wikipedia. This is how “they” play the man and not the ball. I’m 100% convinced that many of these “do-gooder” wiki editors are paid per edit to do these types of edits. I’ve seen it on many others wiki pages who challenge the mainstream thought process.

    Reply
  15. Helen Clegg

    I am really sorry to hear this about the Wikipedia deletion. We need more doctors like you who are prepared to speak out and show that conventional medicine isn’t always right. I know because I have Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. The conventional approach of treating with just T4 is rubbish. There are loads of people suffering because of the conventional approach of diagnosing using the TSH test – which doesn’t even test if your body is converting T4 to T3.

    So thank you for speaking out and sharing your knowledge of medicine with us. Conventional thinking needs to change and be open to new ideas and new evidence.

    Reply
  16. Sharon Caswell

    Well you are a hero in my mind if that helps – probably not – there are just too few people – especially in the medical field who have the courage and integrity to acknowledge and speak the truth . Thank you so much for your work.

    Reply
  17. DV

    This is no surprise; to me, it’s similar to Twitter and Facebook deleting or suppressing accounts of those with conservative (non-mainstream) views. Someone (big pharma? AHA? AMA?) is obviously threatened by your point of view.

    Originally, the internet seemed to provide full information as well as alternative information. But Google (the most popular search engine) is also suppressing or burying results. I wonder if the entire internet, including its once vibrant and illuminating parts of it, will eventually become a one-voice “channel,” similar to that being forced down citizens’ throats in China.

    Reply
    1. John Collis

      Don’t forget that Google own YouTube as well, and have already started putting warnings on videos that don’t follow the party line. Fortunately they haven’t started on the channels that promote an LCHF diet (yet). Also they have produced their own browser Chrome and, apparently, their Android phones upload a large amount of data about your location and other such things, and this is done without you being aware. There’s a video “ The wavy line” that looks at Google, Facebook and possibly Apple as well.

      Reply
      1. Binra (@onemindinmany)

        Tolkien hit the nail on the head.
        You can also read ‘Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars’ to get a sense of a technocracy of total management – with the Internet of Things bringing the real time processing of inputs and outputs into focus. What could possibly go wrong?
        I read ‘broad spectrum dominance’ as a top down incentivised subjection that applies no less to those at the top who have to sell out (betray) those beneath them’ to keep their positions and privileges.

        It can also be called settled science or scientific consensus.
        Whatever it may be called it is the ability to smear and defame, and cause fear, pain or exclusion to any who openly challenge, regardless how many Nobel prizes or distinctions.

        But if we value freedom we have to exercise it.

  18. jonilujon

    Your entry should stay so that more people can learn from what you have written. Can you recruit someone to add more to your Wiki entry? I would think stuff like this book review would be good: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2043330/ “…this book is a triumph of substance over style. For Dr Kendrick makes no statement without supplying a reference, almost always from a peer reviewed journal, and often from one of the major heart disease trials, all of which feature in the book.”

    Reply
  19. Jennifer

    Oh my goodness! Lost for words.
    Yet another example of how our society is being corrupted.
    I feel helpless about so many things these days.

    Reply
  20. Tom Welsh

    I can’t immediately find a reference online – surely not because our search enginers, like Google, are wildly biased. But I am sure I remember seeing that Ancel Keys himself acknowledged publicly that

    1. Dietary cholesterol is not related to blood cholesterol (whatever that is).

    2. Blood cholesterol is not related to CVD.

    If he did actually say those things, I am sure Dr Kendrick will be aware of the specific citations. If not, sorry for wasting your time.

    Reply
  21. Michael Lines

    Just added my 2 cents to the debate (probably incorrectly as it is my first time). Others can feel free to correct my formatting. Keep fighting the good fight.

    Reply
  22. magx56

    I agree that this sort of thing is outrageous – I expect it is someone who has been ruffled by your claims – but why deleting you from Wikipedia would have much effect I have no idea! It is after all a fairly short entry (which I have copied now so I can keep any link details for future reference if needed – so thanks for the warning!) I’m not keen on creating an account with Wikipedia, so can’t contribute to any discussion there, but if you want to use my comments for support to keep the entry alive, please do. I read your blog avidly – I don’t normally leave comments, as I am just a lay person who finds your theories entirely credible and sensible. In a world which is turning more and more frightening in terms of the power of money and influence, it is good to hear a voice of reason amidst a sea of false news, ‘nudging’, and downright lies! I recommend your blog to my friends, and I suspect this kind of communication is far more powerful than any Wiki site, so please keep up the good work! And thank you for sharing all your interesting thoughts in such language that we can all understand!

    Reply
    1. AhNotepad

      magx56, I too am just a lay person, please post whatever you would like to say. We all have information coming from different sources, continuously. Sometimes something is posted which may seem to be in error, please question it. We may all benefit, since we might not have noticed the error. We all often write something, press the button, and off goes the post complete with errors. It’s important that someone picks it up. I look forward to more of your posts. 🙂

      Reply
  23. Göran Sjöberg

    A low level attack indeed!

    It is a sad corrupt medical world we are dwelling in but we are trying to challenge this corruption at this blog with an open attitude and with Malcolm at the head. The forces that are behind this corruption have almost “limitless” economic resources at their disposal but not the science which we are pursuing.

    Reply
  24. Gordon MacGregor

    Appalling.

    I no longer suport wikipedia for this very reason. I have seen several cases of nameless. faceless, unelected wikipedia “editors” make decisions which seemed to be based upon their own personal bias towards or against some business or person. For example, one company I worked with had its wikipedia entry deleted because it was “not well known”. This company was cited in umpteen industry and business journals for its work, including WSJ, and was listed in the Gartner report for that industry as an innovation leader, but the anonymous wikipedia editor decided unilaterally that he felt it was unworthy to be in wikipedia.

    Wikipedia policies are not consistent with Western values of free speech and open intellectual debate.

    Reply
    1. shirley3349

      See my account above about challenging Wikipedia’s lower tier editors. I won and so should Dr Kendrick. It just takes persistence to outface the un-elected censors.

      Reply
      1. shirley3349

        I’m no longer so optimistic as I was two days ago. Wikipedia has changed since my victory in 2013. Then I had no problem with the English Language pages, My dispute was with the German Language pages, which were administered slightly differently.
        The present lot of editors are like robots. You can’t interact or have a dialogue with them. They just blank you out and repeat their rule derived positions. I cannot believe they are too dim to understand my arguments; they just label them as irrelevant because it suits their unspecified agenda to do so.

  25. Richard Stantiford

    Hi Malcolm, sorry to hear about the dismissal from Wikipedia – which is a great loss to anyone that uses it. This unacceptable challenge perhaps come from a mainstream medic that has a vested interested in promoting the continued mass prescription of Statins or some such rubbish perhaps.

    Don’t worry my friend myself and many of your thousands of followers will continue to read and disperse your “What causes heart disease” blog on social media so your opinions and alternative hypotheses continue to be read by HCP’s and the general public by the masses! 😉

    Best wishes,
    Richard Stantiford – Director of Take Heart Cardiac Rehab and PHCuk Ambassador

    Reply
  26. Jean Elliott

    I am really sorry to hear that and I think that Wikipedia has over-reached itself.  I know that they have deleted people in the past and have taken a skeptic materialist line on things, but I thought that they had got rid of those people.  I am not a doctor or any other kind of health practitioner.  I just stopped worrying about eating butter and cheese when I looked you up on the internet about 4 years ago.  Jean Elliott

    Reply
  27. Pentti Raaste Platan

    Hi Malcolm.
    The Dr. Rath newsletter had just an article of Wikipedia and of who controles it.
    https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr-rath-foundation.org%2F2018%2F10%2Fwikipedia-and-its-article-on-dr-matthias-rath%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0D0yxrAd66E_nEYW5BQZAk6lbBJ-7GQXOVa5bNZpxzNyzJlSprN5OR9T0&h=AT1b9MlDC6ggCAsqchx5UGXsIqFtEvdJuVDqO_KzO0RR8OWqcEEc0uu7KnWLUrQzShhZVMBbGsAXAzyhte_-4mn2mYki-SsSP39KrvDXR6n3TRlLtye7J2hOLBbjFSuJWIdsGxZ_S2tviGDddGma4crL8Nh3MiNWoNeesWSadOw7Wi4kC8S1HMnIUgzBFB23qYDBkCYTEVU7c4nj0codNWOMWnedaeBnJ6u_zDg80pV_9YM2MyroCGfrANWw_xGqEeoOaFNTt1_TyQyOar3d34KSkqJ3A4FQrcEFCQ-CEB0LbaCGWKf26JXwQIOjoXvex9omRCkXgX9aUfTUiM7uaafbhLmjCxXlTvchaePbrmk8X11JgV3cFTxg8_KgxMFhVFgnErKZQp4Vnr0Jrbl1fRxc1RuaaAaAisR2JDKl7Q4RZpFt_F8zEd8TrkVi0n0EEznBSD21m8T81UG53j2_XJdLYiFf2Q5-YQI7zp1uDJIsAyD8wBxSu3_WBXM9icsafC4rpGHzjuT2nMeSb2XWrDel54tsBZwp5dSPzrtEg_jsfxMvTuJP288PVgw1AVzK7qyaPpwEc7eLmaVn4HAUUuR7OjKevbo_8c-aW86TrnxduEHNYX5p1unx9whvoUqYhilUGWpaETHFKvhgo4j_eIJtdSo-Ahzg

    Reply
  28. John Hull

    Dr. Kencrick,
    If it’s that easy to get rid of you I wonder why it wasn’t done sooner. I’ve just sent the following message to Wikipedia.

    Hi,

    Dr. Malcom Kendrick writes that he may be deleted from Wikipedia, anonymously accused of being a quack. I’ve been reading his posts for a few years now and I don’t believe that he is. He does not, however, believe that it’s a good idea to prescribe statins to millions of people who are not suffering from heart disease. You can imagine that, as a result, he’s not well thought of in some circles. More to do with money than science I suspect.

    I like and use Wikipedia and donated C$20 just last week.

    Reply
    1. John Hull

      Wikipedia responded to my email. They noted that Dr. Kendrick’s small entry is nine years old and has no independent sources and is therefore vulnerable to deletion. Seems reasonable.

      Reply
  29. Brian Griffin

    So where were these reasons published? It is infuriating that this sort of thing can happen, or even might happen to someone like Malcolm Kendrick who is patently a truth seeker and altruistically shares knowledge and opinion in the hope of improving his fellow humans health outcomes. This coward should step into the light and justify his opinion or shut the hell up.

    Reply
  30. William Robinson

    Interesting that they know who you are, but you
    can’t know who they are. It says that “skeptic”
    edits entries on nutrition. Wonder where skeptic
    gets their info?

    Reply
  31. Karl Whitfield

    Keep fighting the good fight Malcolm, your posts are brilliantly factual, you explain the science in excellent detail.
    Instead of writing to Wikipedia anonymously, if ‘Skeptic from Britain’ is so smart, perhaps he or she should write a detailed 59-part (and growing) rebuttal to your Heart Disease series, explaining to us all why you are so wrong?

    Reply
  32. Elaine

    Wikipedia does NOT want any alternative information on their site – along with FB, Twitter and all the others. I hope someone with ethics and morals steps up and develops some good social media sites that we can trust and open to alternative opinions.

    Reply
  33. Rob

    The deleter is a mere phenomenal phenomenon of no consequence and naturally will be too ashamed to unmask itself. Truth will always prevail so keep calm and carry on. We are with you Malcolm……

    Reply
  34. mmec7

    Stunned, can’t believe it – no, rephrase, seeing what is happening in the world, afraid, am not surprised. Check for bulging back pockets, who could gain ? Don’t have to look for for the ‘umbrella’ – bought, person sent out to do a ‘job’. Pointless being angry even, as for Wiki, Ho-Hum.
    We shall not be overcome. Take care –

    Reply
  35. Linda de Courcy, MSc (@LindadeCourcy)

    Hmm…he (or she) wants you removed for questioning a hypothesis? Thought that was what one was supposed to do to with a hypothesis…
    Would suggest you contact Wikipedia and ask who this person is, throw in a few “reliable sources” and kindly ask them to leave you where you are.

    Reply
  36. MGJ

    Sadly I think it is indeed a mistake to donate to Wikipedia unless you support their relentless censorship of any and all non-Leftist views (or any other views they don’t like much). If you are on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or have a PayPal account, don’t be surprised if they are withdrawn too, as they often seem to act together.

    If however you wish to be thought of as an independent thinker – and I’m sure you do – then wear it as a badge of honour. Those who don’t like what you say will no doubt celebrate for a short while before moving on to burn the next heretic. The rest of us will continue to read your consistently excellent blog and not give two hoots about Wikipedia.

    Reply
  37. BobM

    Hmmm…a skeptic who is actually not a skeptic? 😉 Or maybe he or she should describe what they’re “skeptical” of?

    Reply
  38. abamji

    Malcolm: there is a “keep” note on your entry which I have added to. I hope the addition helps. This is censorship and unwarranted. And unacceptable

    Good luck.

    Andrew

    Dr Andrew Bamji Norman House West Street Rye TN31 7ES

    01797 227961

    Reply
  39. AhNotepad

    Unfortunately people like Scumbag from Britain do this all the time to those whose views question the religeon of the day, heart conditions in this case. Malcolm you will remember the name of the heart expert who was removed from his post courtesy of the intervention of Tony Bliar following pressure from some USA. A world expert in his field, but inconvenient in the opinion of insecure greedy megalomaniacs. I have never had occasion to look for your entry until tonight, and because of the uncontrolled editing of Wikipedia I do not trust it as a reference anyway. Something students writing papers are warned about.

    Reply
  40. Jack Williamen

    Dr. Kendrick,
    Look on the bright side. In times past, “heretics,” folks who begged to disagree, might well have been burned at the stake, beheaded, or disemboweled. Banishment from Wikipedia is just plain dumb, but at least you get to live to write more of your thoughtful columns (and please, please do). The anonymous censor cowed Wiki, but not you.

    Reply
  41. Mark Cain

    I have appreciated and benefitted from your advice for a number of years and I am sure I won’t be the first to say this, by don’t let the buggers grind you down

    Reply
    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      There is a large part of me that does not give a toss about whether or not I am on Wikipedia. My entry used to be bigger, I think, but so what. However, I am mainly interested in letting people know that obliterating free speech seems to be a rather dark and scary thing that is growing.

      Reply
      1. Jennifer

        I mentioned on your blog last week that the medical advice I received in recent days is still bonkers, but I made no attempt to contradict the garbage. Please can someone advise me as to how to refute what I truly believe is wrong, when the likes of Dr Kendrick is threatened with global gagging? I feel intimidated as a vulnerable patient, just as I did when I took the big step of coming off all my medication nearly 6 years ago, despite proving that I was right to do so.
        You are a very brave man.
        Chin up!

      2. The Wizard

        It is indeed very very dark and scary Dr K. It seems that the right to free speech only applies if you don’t rock the boat; by that I mean USS/HMS Big Pharma.

        Let us not forget that “the science is settled” and anyone who challenges the orthodoxy is automatically branded a quack. This is their modus operandi. They will never enter into the rigorous scientific debate, they will seek to ridicule, belittle, censor (as in delete) and ultimately destroy (hence the phrase ” to be Wakefielded “).

        Follow the money and you will find the culprit(s).

      3. HotScot

        ……free speech seems to be a rather dark and scary thing that is growing.
        Indeed. We seem to be unable to learn lessons from the past.

      4. DAVID MCALONAN

        Malcolm,
        I’ve followed your data for a long time and cannot in any way disagree with your findings and beliefs. However, regarding free speech and the suppression thereof, you already know the answer(s). It’s the same as book-burning, heretic-burning, and all the other agenda driven actions throughout history. You are perceived as a truth-bringer that isn’t welcome for many reasons – financial, political, corrupt chicanery, and all the other human ‘qualities’ that still exist and defy evolution and wisdom. All they have now is an updated mechanism to try and erase you and your truth. All very sad and I hope you won’t be silenced. Still, having just read about Newsguard in the USA, it seems that internet policing is ramping up its armoury and the Wikipedia thing is just a small reflection of this. Stay well.

      5. shirley3349

        Jennifer,
        If you feel intimidated by your doctor you should ask for another one more to your liking. There are plenty of good, sympathetic ones around.

  42. John Collis

    This has the hallmarks of a witch hunt. The only way science in general and medicine in particular can progress is if people question the status quo, otherwise it becomes stale and entrenched. There seems to be a quasi religious belief system attached to several scientific controversies (which I won’t elaborate here), that anyone who is sceptical is considered a heretic. This does, however, underline the fundamental problem with Wikipedia in that anyone can edit it and not justify those edits, they can raise problems without real evidence and there’s no appeal system.

    Reply
    1. mmec7

      Am glad I never subscribed / joined, and now I have no intention of ever doing so. Have used Wiki for historical and such info, but never for medical info – was once accused of being a ‘medical Wiki addict’…HaHa, nope. The last place to go for anyone rather steeped in the medical library to go for medical information…!!

      Reply
  43. robertddyson

    I too just donated to Wikipedia a few days ago. I never looked you up there and it seems an irrelevance in that if you are not on it, presumably there cannot be misinformation about you(?). I think it does have problems with pages on people. I don’t know what evidence causes deletion but in your case is worrying. I think I have to join to make a comment, but I will work that out.

    Reply
    1. Neil

      There are teams of people who have gained ‘author’ status on Wiki and they get paid to change entries, or even delete. I’m looking for the article about this and I’ll post it asap. It’s fascinating, and depressing.

      Reply
      1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

        Thank you everybody for your messages. I have known for a long time that Wikipedia has to be treated with a degree of scepticism. There is a UK doctor called de Wolf? who edits everything about cholesterol and statins and ruthlessly attacks and changes anything that does not fit with conventional thinking. I have no idea how he has managed to appoint himself to this position. But he guards his Wikilair with unsleeping vigilance, the all-seeing eye of Mordor that never sleeps.

        In general I think Wikipedia is a good thing for basic, inarguable science. However, once you start moving into areas that are contentious it becomes, essentially a mouthpiece for activists groups of one sort or another.

      2. Dr. John H

        Propaganda machines like Wikipedia should not be supported by conscious people, even if they occasionally tell the truth.

  44. mmec7

    Just in from the Mercola site – a daunting fingering scenario – easy to hide under such an umbrella – mebbe their ‘servant’ should use spell-check :-

    Be Aware of the New Dangerous Internet Watchdog

    These power brokers pull a new cat out of the bag, snatching the key to your health and freedom. This competition slayer solidifies Big Industry’s grasp on your mind and wallet forever. What’s more, they can do it with a simple check mark. Is their thumb on your neck?
    Read More >>

    Reply
  45. Stephen Rhodes

    From what I read – see Craig Millar . .Org – you are well out of it as it is increasingly becoming an organ of what is laughingly considered, by themselves, as the ‘authorities’.

    Reply
    1. Stephen Rhodes

      Sorry, late night post, that should be Craigmurray.org.uk , google Craig Murray and Philip Cross and find another ‘defender’ of ‘the system’ as he clearly sees himself. Craig has determined that he spends all his life editing other people’s wiki entries to the point that he is unlikely a single person.

      Reply
  46. Kitty

    Unfortunately I’m unlikely to be able to help reveal the identity of this spineless and flaccid fellow. I can however guarantee that my last donation to Wikipedia was exactly that. My last.

    Reply
  47. jeanirvin

    I, too, donate moey to Wikipedia because I thought it was an independent source of information by everyone and for everyone. I feel very disillusioned. What is happening to free speech?

    Reply
  48. Jonathan Bacon-Sandwich

    The poor standard of literacy and expression, plus the grovelling, not to mention the incorrect information, point either to someone who isn’t very bright or who is, and has done a fair job of disguising it. If the latter then there would be many candidates.
    Carry on the informed and erudite work, Doc.

    Reply
  49. HenryL

    That’s pretty cruddy. I’ve never got round to understanding, or thinking much about, how the editing process at Wikipedia worked – seems ludicrous one person could get something removed without wider and visible involvement to others. The process must surely require some more ‘democratic’ type process or the whole thing would be more precarious than it appears to be… Interesting and slightly horrifying – will have to try and find out a little more about how it works.
    (I also contributed to keep it going…)

    Reply
    1. HenryL

      Well, having just had a quick look it seems the page has already been edited by someone (not me – though I was about to have a go..) to remove obviously ad hominem / generally antagonistic type aspects, leaving it uncontroversially factual. And as noted somewhere by some sensible person criticising the original commenter / deletion request ‘this is an article about an author, not a diet’ ! The deletion notice is still standing, but anyway, it may be moving in a sensible direction.

      Reply
  50. Gordon ferris

    This is Stalinist. I hope Wiki fact checkers throw it out. But I will certainly send my views. Like you I am a paid supporter. If they delete/ amend your entry they will get no more money from me.

    Reply
  51. Sharron

    I just finished briefly scanning Dr Mercola’s post today titled “Be aware of the New Dangerous Internet Watchdog” and then this ….. Anonymity in these instances should not be allowed if they are to be acted on – who knows what sort of quackery Skeptic believes in? And I’d be asking for a refund:)

    Reply
  52. Dana Green

    Well………………..vilification is an honour in our modern world. Remember: ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win’

    Reply
  53. Sasha

    It is unfortunate since so many people use it as their first, and often only, stop for research. However, Wikipedia is fairly well known for this kind of bias. It seems to have a very active group of “editors” and pseudo-sceptics. I would be very surprised, though, if you got deleted from Wikipedia, you have too much of a profile.

    If there’s anything that can be done on our end such as writing to Wikipedia, please let us know.

    Reply
  54. Carolyn

    Dr. Kendrick, I can’t imagine anyone would think you are a quack. Besides, I thought Wikipedia policy was anyone can contribute. You could edit any information about yourself, couldn’t you? However, even if not, your followers, and there are lots, believe in what you are teaching us and maybe one day soon, the whole cholesterol hypothesis or whatever current thinking is will go away as people wake up to the fact that medication is not going to be our salvation in most cases. I say, business as usual. Usually crackpots are easily exposed but I think I am smelling a rat, if you know what I mean, one with big pockets.

    Reply
  55. Tim O'Rourke

    Shut down anything you don’t agree with ! Outrageous. What happened to free speech? I have written to Wikipedia on this

    Reply
  56. Deborah Beskine

    I am so sorry to hear this news, I found your blog a lifesaver, it certainly changed my life, improved for the better since stopping statins, my only regret was that I hadn’t seen it before I started statins otherwise I would never have agreed to poisoning myself. Seems like someone doesn’t want Dr Hendricks truths available to the masses. I wonder what connection ‘skeptic from Britain’ has to organisations who don’t like British free speach spreading knowledge to those who want to learn?

    Reply
  57. Lynda Morgan

    I mention your name at every opportunity, Malcolm, and will continue to do so. Appalling how some are trying to silence people like you and Tim Noakes.

    Reply
  58. P M Sykes

    Ha!  You are in the good company of true and accurate Wikipedia entries regarded as threatening the status quo.  The accurate corrections to the propagandised entry on Simon Wessely have routinely been removed.  Regard it as a compliment!

    Reply
  59. Pierre

    Didn’t even know you were on Wikipedia. I have been involved in a long protracted battle over a Wiki page before – in the end it just didn’t matter. No doubt Skeptic from Britain represents vested interests. Corporations invest large amounts of money in identifying and removing opposition – it’s a war out there.

    Reply
  60. Jessie

    Grammar fail!
    What I should have said.,,
    Your Wikipedia page has been restored, don’t know how it compares but it is there.

    Reply
  61. Paul

    As a Wikipedia contributor I have posted a response against deletion in the Talk section of the relevant Article for Deletion Wikipedia page. Anyone can create a Wikipedia account and do the same, but please read the Deletion Policy guidelines first, as simply denouncing the person who proposed the deletion will be disregarded. So far, all the responses in the Talk section are against deletion.

    Keep up the good work, Malcolm!

    Reply
  62. Paul

    PS. Jessie, the Wikipedia entry is still there at present, but it is in the Article for Deletion (AfD) process, so supporting comments posted on the AfD page will be helpful.

    Reply
    1. Dr. John H

      Well, that was telling! I clicked on the link and this message appeared:
      “Sorry, this video is no longer available.”

      Reply
  63. John Graham

    I usually donate to Wikipedia each year but haven’t yet and won’t until the threat of deletion to your entry is removed

    Best wishes

    John

    Reply
  64. Sarah Allsop

    I too used to donate to Wikipedia, believing naively that they were a positive force on the web. Yours is unfortunately one of MANY stories about the truth or even a legitimate contrary opinion, being suppressed. It is sad that something with so much promise has been converged. Oh well, I still think you’re writing is awesome and have bought your book for friends. Keep up the excellent work.

    Reply
  65. bluecat57

    Watch the Streisand Effect. I will now read his writings because I have seen others sources saying the same thing about cholesterol and fat. Bottom line: none of the medical advice us stopping anything. We are all still dying of something. The causes are just changing.

    Reply
    1. chris c

      Indeed! If They hadn’t put so much effort into banning Tim Noakes, Gary Fettke et al. not nearly so many people would have heard of them.

      Reply
  66. Maria T

    Left a response for Wikipedia, requesting to keep Dr Kendrick. Dear Dr as a health professional myself I believe it is imperative the public have access to information such as yours so they may truly make informec choices about their healthcare.

    Reply
  67. anglosvizzera

    Anybody involved in education would already know that any information taken from Wikipedia is considered to be non-factual and should not be relied on for research – that has been the case for a number of years now, as my eldest daughter told me over 10 years ago when she was at university (and her younger siblings at school said the same).

    I read an article by maverick doctor Vernon Coleman where he also complained about the misinformation about him on Wikipedia which he went in and corrected, only to find that his amendments were deleted almost immediately.

    I would never contribute financially to Wikipedia because, having an interest in homeopathy (which I have used for decades and found it extremely useful and effective) I’m constantly p***ed off by their attitude towards it, much like you’re finding about their attitude to your own field of interest. Unfortunately the general public does not realise how biased Wikipedia is, and usually completely believes what they read on that site.

    As for the censorship that’s appearing everywhere, yes, Facebook, Youtube, Google and many other platforms are starting to censor anything that doesn’t fit the current status quo. Sad.

    Reply
    1. mmec7

      Quote – “As for the censorship that’s appearing everywhere, yes, Facebook, Youtube, Google and many other platforms are starting to censor anything that doesn’t fit the current status quo.”
      Indeed, yes. See Dr Mercola’s article today titled “Be aware of the New Dangerous Internet Watchdog”. Increasingly difficult to ‘search and find’ on the internet. No doubt, an internet ‘underworld’ will spring up, with even better information and better applications.
      Them out there had better realise that they aint gotta hold of the information handle – the ‘grim’ truth will always out.

      Reply
  68. Frederica Huxley

    There seems to be a battle royal going on at Wiki over your entry – edits added and then subsequently removed over the past day! Perchance the Skeptic from Britain resides in Oxford?

    Reply
      1. AhNotepad

        “Resides in Oxford” something connected with the initials RC perhaps? I think though, the poster’s name is misspelt, ans it should be Septic in Britain, in which case a megadose of vitamin C should be prescribed.

  69. DrDH

    Keep up the great work. I also donated to Wikipedia….. 😦 You are a true scholar who questions, argues and reasons. The biggest risk to medicine is for practitioners to stop thinking and blindly follow “guidelines”, “evidence” and rely on excessive, misplaced investigations. This is happening now and I’m glad my practising days are over. Also happy with my “high” cholesterol and my LCHF diet ….. Will never have lipids tested again!

    Reply
  70. Jeff

    Outrageous, deletion is just not unacceptable !
    The most that should be allowed is criticism backed up by any facts or evidence preferably from credible science journals.

    Reply
  71. Sylvia Brooke.

    Dr. Kendrick,

    I can’t begin to tell you how much you, and so many of your followers from around the world, have helped me in so many ways since I started reading your blog. Please don’t give this coward the satisfaction of thinking that you care two hoots about his/her actions in trying to damage your good name.

    Don’t let this half-wit get you down. Keep on doing a wonderful job as always. We need people like you.

    Best wishes.

    P.S. It’s nearly bedtime now, so sleep well. Tomorrow is another day!

    Reply
  72. james

    I am actually surprised Dr Malcolm that you did not get hit earlier. However I do not feel that after some research this will become effective. Your ideas and theories may sound controversial for some, but you are not the lone star anymore. So me thinks it is a hoax.

    Reply
    1. mmec7

      Indeed, no, not a lone star anylonger… The wheel turns, slowly the questions are asked, and slowly there are answers – no longer a lone voice, but more a lode star.
      Thank you Dr Kendrick, huge appreciation for all your work and excellent blog, the ‘community’ salutes you.

      Reply
  73. Jean Humphreys

    What annoys me more than somewhat is that you already walk such a fine line to avoid breaching professional etiquette and then you can be indirectly attacked anonymously by some paid moron.

    Reply
  74. simon tilley

    Dear Malcolm I have just looked on Wikipedia. You appear to still be there. Whatever the outcome keep up the good work, scepticism some would say. I have been shocked since buying your books at the number of people of my age group whom doctor GPs surgeries are trying to statinise. It is now a common discussion point at dinner parties. Those who have gone down this route mention side effects frequently. Fortunately, many people are choosing to not to take these dubious chemicals and make their own health decisions. The whole role of incentivising gps needs to stop. Failure to do so will ultimately bring the GPs role into contempt. Yours sincerely Simon Tilley

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Reply
  75. Carol R

    Absolutely outrageous that some jerk who is such a coward that he won’t leave his name or any scientific proof can do this. This reeks of Big Pharma or a Doctor stuck in the dark ages because Malcom, you are a breath of fresh air. I have your books and look forward to every blog, so keep going with the truth and yes, who needs Wikipedia anyway? I once asked a cardiac surgeon ( I was a rep for a heart valve company) if all his patients had high cholesterol levels before their ops. His answer…..nowhere near all. So WHY is the medical profession stuck on this??

    Reply
  76. anglosvizzera

    In addition to my previous comment, I think that if I were in your shoes, it would be better not to feature at all on such a dubious site as Wikipedia where they misinform the world about your research and status, wouldn’t it?

    Reply
    1. LA_Bob

      I think I agree with anglosvizzera. Why should any of us go to the trouble to keep you on Wikipedia when there might be an even greater risk that the article about you could be filled with misinformation in the future? And what a mess of a battle that would be to keep cleaning it up, monitoring it, protesting, and so forth!

      Nah, if someone wants you off Wikipedia, they might just be doing you a favor. Still I’m sorry I donated $6 to them just today, a few hours before I found this post.

      Reply
      1. binra

        But if ‘any of us’ do something from the current sense of informational integrity – including giving financial support to a project or idea – then they do so because that – in that moment – is who we are. No need to devalue what we were because we have a different perspective now.

        The issues are – to my seeing – not of ‘saving Malcolm’ but of awareness of the different ways in which smear and censorship are being used on others AND Dr kendrick – such as Tim Noakes and Aseem Malhotra. All three have amenable characteristics along with dedication to a better health education – from which to make better choices and share in better outcomes. But this is not what the ‘established powers of influence’ are thinking or supporting – for any number of self-serving reasons that may of course be outrageously unreasonable to be revealed – which means they fight against exposure as for their lives.

      2. LA_Bob

        Hi, Binra,

        I hope you understand I’m not “devaluing” any of Dr Kendrick’s supporters here. I’m as annoyed with Skeptic from Britain and as supportive of Dr Kendrick as you are. But, this is Wikipedia, not the BMJ or an Official Firing Squad. And the “article” in question is really just a stub. Nice that Dr K is mentioned there, but it isn’t as though the world will beat a path to his blog over a Wikipedia stub. And, as anglosvizzera originally pointed out, it might be better if he’s not there to vilify.

        By contrast, Tim Noakes was charged with professional misconduct and held to answer to the Health Professions Council of South Africa. That’s pretty serious. I’d easily go to the mat for our host for something as Inquisitional as that.

        But Wikipedia?????? That’s chump change. Try looking up “Ronald Krauss” on Wikipedia. His stub is even smaller than Dr K’s.

      3. binra

        You either know nothing of the exoneration of Dr Tim Noakes in a landmark case – very worthy of anyone’s further education – of a ‘David against Goliath’ or you are a smear tactician, dedicated to the breaking of health for the sucking of power from its wreckage.

        Speaking truth is becoming a ‘revolutionary act’ in a society based on lies, given power.
        However the lie does not thereby become true by denying and attacking it.
        But will replace a true appreciation of life in the minds of those who do so.

      4. LA_Bob

        I’d like to reiterate a suggestion I made many blog entries back. Dr K should install a tip jar on the blog, and those so inclined could donate here instead of Wikipedia.

        I have a suspicion I know why Dr K hasn’t done so up to now. Still, it would be nice to know there’s some place to contribute where the money would do some real good.

  77. John Wright

    Hi Malcolm
    1. Identify and sue. Similar happened to colleague friend here. Happy to talk some more.
    Moreover, another who defamed Joe, on social
    media, went to ground (as cowards do) when threatened thus.
    3. I think you could, if necessary bring the great and the good to provide a character reference. I doubt Wikipedia will act without review.

    Reply
  78. Chancery Stone

    Sadly this is the norm on Wikipedia. Its nature is its own downfall. Because it is open to all to edit, it can be used for personal vendettas, particularly if the editor is well-known in the Wikipedia community – that gives them carte blanche to vent their spleen in any way they see fit.

    There are talk and discussion pages on your entry, as there are on all Wikipedia entries – you can go along and fight your own case there, if you feel up to being embroiled in that, but it’s a dangerous pursuit and can backfire badly. I had my entry as an author deleted from Wikipedia some years ago, done purely for malicious reasons by another author who, sadly, was a regular Wikipedia contributor. I didn’t have that clout so she wiped the floor with me and I was gone. It’s a sort of internet Old Boys Club.

    Anyway, I’ve contributed to the discussion in the hope that it helps you, but Wikipedia is like Amazon without the money: it makes its own laws and there is no court of appeal. And no, you shouldn’t give them money, on point of principle. I admit to delighting in using the site without ever giving them a penny. We must take our petty revenges where we can…

    Reply
  79. Bill In Oz

    Malcolm the point of your own medical professional work, is to promote healing & health in your patients. We here on this blog are not your patients. ( Not allowed to be by law. ) But the point of this blog is exactly the same : to promote healing and health in those of us with CVD problems.

    Unfortunately in our rather bizarre world there are individuals who simply are incapable of seeing or understanding this. And they attempt to undermine you. T’was ever thus !
    Be not disturbed or discouraged..

    Perhaps we here should nominate you for the Nobel prize in medicine ?

    Reply
  80. Tim M Mathews

    Your voice is a beacon of truth amid the lies and spin. There is too much censorship, banning, deletion and no-platforming these days. Wikipedia is an organ of “correct thinking”, which should be understood in the Orwellian sense. Pay it no attention and do not fund it.
    Thank you, Dr Kendrick!

    Reply
  81. HenryL

    Well, I contributed three ha’porth to the Wikipedia ‘talk’ page re (anti) deletion. At least I hope I did – I don’t really know how to drive it.. It seems there may be some – perhaps not entirely unreasonable in some circumstances – suspicion about new members suddenly popping up and weighing in to defend something or other, but hopefully at least it will help dispel any impression of lack of interest. From what little I have half understood so far from poking around it seems that one of the criteria used in deciding whether a page stays or not is ‘notability’ (of a book author, say), another principle says that just because a minority of people may be interested in something is not reason enough to delete it. It looked to me like the original attack was largely dismissed but I wonder if it may succeed in triggering a ‘notability’ issue. There were various comments made by people which to my mind were very good on this front, but if anyone’s knows how this game is played on Wikipedia it might be a good aspect to bolster appropriately. Whatever misgivings we might have about Wikipedia it would seem to be better to keep a signpost up there to Dr.K’s work?

    Reply
  82. Fungi

    This person is obviously open minded and well educated. If their statement had ended in ‘Sad,’ I might have guessed Donald Trump.

    Reply
  83. Ursula

    He’s saying there is “ a lack of reliable sources that discuss Kendrick’s ideas”
    Go back to Ansell Keyes flawed research that sent us on this low fat/cholesterol fad and take that as a lack of reliable data for a start.
    He needs to wise up. Any vested interest behind him from major pharma????
    Sugar growers??? Wheat growers???

    Reply
  84. Dr. John H

    Malcolm,

    No big loss getting banned from “Propaganda-Pedia”. Your very well respected in my circles, and have helped my confidence greatly when I tell people to “just say no” to statins.

    Reply
  85. PamSandy Nichols

    The coward ! Of course It is about the money… follow the money and reveal the motive!

    Sent from my iPhone

    Reply
  86. Michael Carey

    For starters, very basic protocol not to mention common courtesy, who is he? If he is not into disclosure perhaps he is also not qualified. The entire group of survivors of the Keynesian lipid hypothesis would love to know about him. Does wilipedia take instructions from anonymous skeptics?

    Reply
      1. chris c

        Haha, Milton Keyes, a new town with statues of giant celery

        (yes yes I know Milton Keynes isn’t actually named after John Maynard, I might even have read that on Wikipedia

  87. Maria

    Dear Dr Kendrick

    As a long term health professional myself, I immensely enjoy reading your narrative and detailed reports on health matters.

    Consequently I have posted, an appropriate to Mr Skeptic on Widipedia, levelling a substantial assault against myself.

    Good luck with Mr Skeptic, whomever that person is they are determined that someone is going to pay the price for something that happened to them

    Kind regards

    Maria Toman

    miacol43@tpg.com.au

    +61 402 129 841

    Skype: mariatoman

    Reply
  88. Chancery Stone

    You may well have found your way to this already, but you can see your current ‘defences’, such as they are, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick

    If it is any comfort, Skeptic for Britain appears to have no arguments other than everyone objecting to your deletion is a “sock-puppet”. This is always the fall-back argument of any censor who is not hearing the ‘correct’ responses form his audience.

    Reply
    1. HenryL

      The linked page is a different debate page to the ‘talk’ page mentioned elsewhere – both seem to have some debate/positions/defences stated on them – what is the primary forum for the deletion debate and decision process? Can you throw some light on the process?
      You seem by your choice of words (‘such as they are’ and the scare quotes around ‘defences’) to be scathing of the defence efforts so far. If so,could you clarify In what way they are lacking or missing the point, how they could be improved? Or is it simply a matter of numbers of defenders?

      Reply
      1. Chancery Stone

        Hi Henry, I didn’t mean to create an impression that the defences were lacking (I wrote several of them – hence my ‘such as they are’!), I put it in inverted commas because it is not a court of law and Dr Kendrick is not up before the judge for some heinous illegality, although those editors who would like to see him gone behave as if he is. I was merely trying to deflate their self-importance and give a sense of perspective of their true value as critics. As to what page you should contribute to, I’d go with the one in the link I’ve given. That’s where the real action is, as it were, but it doesn’t hurt to do them both.

  89. Martin Back

    I am very disappointed in Wikipedia. I have also donated to them in the past. Silencing someone who presents an alternative. well-reasoned point of view smacks of Stalinism. There is a process going on all over the internet of shutting down dissenting persons. Note they play the man, not the ball. How many people have quietly become un-persons and we will never know why?

    I shall certainly comment on the deletion, once I figure out how.

    Incidentally, years ago I was interested in biodiesel and the Wkipedia biodiesel article mentioned a South African company selling biodiesel refineries to small municipalities. It was exposed as a scam in the local press and I put a note to that effect plus a link to a reputable web page. Two days later it had disappeared and the company looked completely legitimate again.

    Reply
    1. Martin Back

      Now that I have thought about things, I believe that the Wikipedia editors may be correct to delete Dr Kendrick’s entry on the grounds of “notability” as defined by Wikipedia.

      It was unfortunate that allegations of sock-puppetry and conspiracy theorists were flung at some commenters who like myself initially believed that Dr Kendrick was being deleted in order to prevent his ideas getting wider publicity.

      Reply
      1. AhNotepad

        Martin, you may be correct about the notability point, but I think Septic in Britain was possibly just using this as a suitable excuse.

      2. Martin Back

        Ah, I’m fairly certain that Skeptic has an ulterior motive, given his other targets. But rules are rules. Dr Kendrick doesn’t get a free pass just because he’s a doughty fighter for the truth.

  90. Judith Caunter

    I’ve stopped using Wikipedia, fed up they’re always asking for money. I try and find info on other websites. I read “the Great Cholesterol Con”, Dr K, brilliant.

    Reply
  91. Hilary Wallace

    How can it be that one person’s, and an anonymous one at that, opinion can alter or remove a Wikipedia post with no other input. Maybe I just don’t understand Wikipedia.

    What makes me smile is that Skeptic from Britain mentions in his post ‘the lipid hypothesis’ and that is just what it is and has been for decades, a hypothesis. If these people are so keen on this hypothesis why don’t they concentrate their efforts in trying to prove prove it rather than attack those who come up with credible alternatives. They don’t because they can’t.

    This is, unfortunately, one more example of how rigid our society has become in its thinking and how closed we’ve become to good old-fashioned (and good natured) debate.

    Don’t worry Dr. Malcolm, whether you are on Wikipedia or not doesn’t matter to those who really value your critical and rigorous thinking.

    If only there were more like you!

    Reply
  92. gallusgail

    I am really sorry this has happened to you. I have tried to leave a comment on Wikipedia but I can’t work out how you do this. I was prescribed statins as my cholesterol was 7.9. I have no other risk factors for CVD. The side effects were intolerable. Had I stayed on them they would have ruined the quality of my life. I am really glad that I read widely on this subject including your book, articles and blogs. How terrifying to think that one day all anti-establishment views could be supressed. Please keep up the great work you are doing I really appreciate it.

    Reply
    1. Fiona Weir

      Perhaps the mention here of “Scotland-related deletion discussions” has some relevance? Is someone envious of Malcolm being different from the many American writers?

      Reply
  93. Penny Meakin

    Absolutely outrageous and extremely petty. It smacks of corruption and vested interests, of which we are very use to here in South Africa with the persecution of Professor Tim Noakes.

    Reply
  94. mmec7

    If anyone would like to pick this up and run it to Wiki, then please do so – Grist to the mill of Dr Kendrick it is :-
    https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2008/01/15/vytorin-dis-enhance-d/
    The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.
    A critical look at nutritional science and anything else that strikes my fancy – Vytorin: Dis-Enhance-d
    A long awaited study – the Enhance study – indicates that the combination medicine Vytorin not only doesn’t stop the growth of plaque but may actually increase it, which isn’t particularly pleasing to Merck and Schering-Plough, the pharmaceutical giants that make the drug. (more…)

    A wonderful chuckle – except for the fact that ‘n’ numbers of yet more persons will be injured by pharma. Sigh.

    Reply
  95. Anup

    I have hardly ever referred to WIKI as reliable source of citation. Never donated money to them. Never will.
    That skeptic sounds more of a failed dietitian/nutritionist from the the VEGAN brigade. A crook essentially hired by the mafia. Have seen this “Appeal to Authority” logical fallacy coming from VEGANS a lot so makes me say what I mentioned.

    Reply
  96. jenjlin

    This is outrageous! Difficult to know whether it is an ‘amateur’ protester or part of a more concerted campaign by sectors of the conventional medical lobby. It is worth noting that whoever complained to Wikipedia used the US spelling of ‘skeptic’! I am aware of all sorts of nonsense on Wikipedia so this concerns me considerably.

    Reply
  97. Teresa Elvidge

    This is the way big pharma and its cohorts work, anyone out of line just gets obliterated – off the subject, hundreds of alternative docs in US have simply disappeared…..bound to happen, strange world when the truth gets trampled underfoot……

    Reply
  98. Linda

    I recently sent money to wiki, because it’s useful but not accurate. I wouldn’t worry too much as you’ll be back in there soon enough as the ‘dr who told the truth’!
    The pages on thyroid issues aren’t accurate as they seem to favour the pro hormone T4, when it’s T3 that’s the active hormone.
    Please Dr Kendrick keep talking and telling us the truth about we need to know about medicines, and human physiology.

    Reply
  99. Josephine Pretty

    Pain equals money so that every time you visit your GP with pain, a pill i.e a plaster is given.
    The root cause of the pain is rarely found it’s because if it were found the Big Pharma would go out of business. They unlike you love to keep us sick it’s big bucks. We are so glad to have you please keeping sending us more and more.

    Reply
  100. John Scott

    I sent this to the foundation.

    Hello
    I was about to setup a donation however this is on hold pending your answer to the following.

    Very recently a UK respected Doctor has had his entry marked for deletion.
    His name is Malcolm Kendrick.
    This has been undertaken by someone who has not put their name to this and prefers to be regarded as a sceptic.
    This is outrageous and has no place in any democracy.
    Once the entry has had the marked for deletion removed and this person stands up for their belief, then I will make a decision on my donation.
    I have followed Dr Kendrick’s wordpress blog for many years and I can assure you he is highly respected. Indeed he himself I am sure would welcome open debate.
    By allowing this treatment of one of your entries has sadly shown your foundation in a poor light.
    If anyone out their amidst your foundation reads this then my advice is to deal appropriately with this single edit, before it becomes the many. Such inconsiderate editing will in the end undermine the very basis of this foundation.

    John Scott

    Reply
  101. David Carter

    Sorry, Malcolm, but, yet again, your crusade against statins resembles the other scourge of our time – Global Warming! Anything that doesn’t agree with the group think is removed or altered. In the case of GW, the Medieval Warm Period was removed completely from Wikipedia despite the fact it is well known and accepted (but it rather upsets the current requirement to show a recent upward trend of temperature.) When it was replaced it was again removed.
    Don’t be too upset, it shows you are right – those who know it want you silenced!

    Reply
  102. Chris McGorrigan

    Have e-mailed Wikipedia’s donation dept to effect that I will never donate again should Dr Kendrick be deleted. I just wish I could do more. Any ideas? Chris McGorrigan

    Reply
  103. Katerina Pavlakis

    This is outrageous but perhaps not surprising. Wikipedia are known for some time to be extremely hostile to what they call ‘non evidence based’ medicine and practitioners, be it homeopathy, or nutritional science/practitioners of the ‘wrong colour’, and now doctors, it seems (this is a random but perfect example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Holford).
    Perhaps better to be deleted than be ‘discovered’ of correcting your own entry so it doesn’t look like one long foot trample!
    Surely such systematic bias has a source well hidden behind the ‘general public’. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if pharma money is behind this bias and that the ‘Sceptic from Britain’ is actually employed by Wikipedia! Outrageous!

    Reply
  104. Dr Rob Evans

    Ah, medical science, a true oxymoron. I think Skeptic needs to look up his own definition. As with Brexit, one mustn’t shake the establishment tree!
    Kindest Regards
    Dr Rob Evans

    Reply
  105. fusspot57

    Outrageous that an anonymous creep can do this. How terribly “Nineteen Eighty-Four” of them.
    Hasn’t got the bottle to say who they are……. whadda guy!

    Reply
  106. Tibolt

    Dr Kendrick, please don’t take it personally that a crank has asked to have your Wikipedia deleted, (though it’s natural to feel a bit hurt/angry).

    1. When such a request is made, the page is not taken down. Instead “the Wikipedia community may discuss its (the requests) merits for a period usually no less than seven days” after which a Wikipedia administrator makes a determination.

    2. You can view the discussion relating to your site here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick and here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick

    3. Should it be deleted and you “disagree with the outcome, (you can) contact the administrator who deleted the page. If you are still not satisfied after discussing it with the deleting admin, you may then start a deletion review.” See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help,_my_article_got_nominated_for_deletion!

    4. There is very little on your Wiki page and what’s there is purely factual, so I doubt if any Wiki reviewer would delete it. (The page is still live incidentally).

    Malcolm, I think the work you’re doing is incredibly important. But, no doubt, you are up against extremely powerful forces. I salute your bravery! Someday you will be rewarded. (Sir Malcolm has a nice ring to it, but ah, I just remembered, you’re Scottish!!)

    Reply
    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      To be honest I am not enormously bothered. I am only trying to highlight the fact that there is a shadowy world of people out there who have no interest in a debate, and merely want to silence those who disagree with them. This needs to be stopped.

      Reply
      1. Carolyn

        That’s good to hear. I was worried that you were worried. You don’t need to worry. I believe truth will win. As you can see, you have a lot of support. Thank you for getting the truth out there. Anyone trying to silence it will only bring it out there more, at least that is what usually happens. We found that to be true in the library field when someone tried to censor an obscure book, it would make us all want to read it.

      2. LA_Bob

        I don’t think it’s a shadowy world at all. Of course, some such people may lurk in the shadows. But most of those people are very upfront about their attitude toward “minority positions”. You name the subject. In the US, you can name the universities that have explicitly disinvited various speakers because their messages are “controversial”.

        By contrast, on the Talk page to your Wikipedia entry, there is a comment from one “Swampf0etus”. He clearly reads this blog or parts of it. He clearly does not like you. His criticism, in my opinion, is off base. But I give him credit for at least citing a specific post of yours to make his point. I think he is wrong, but he does not appear to be trying to shut you down.

  107. Angry chef is my hero

    Kendrick is a pseudoscience advocate and quack. We shall have to wait til Science-Based Medicine run a piece on this guys nuttery.

    High-fat high cholesterol diet is healthy? Absolute nonsense. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/high-cholesterol/

    No doubt many of the loons on this blog commenting support for Kendrick are probably over-weight.

    Kendrick should be put in prison, his dangerous medical advice is misleading the public. Anyone claiming a high fat or high cholesterol diet is healthy is by default a charlatan and LIAR.

    Enjoy your greasy bacon breakfasts.

    Reply
      1. Bill In Oz

        Trolling to disrupt your own blog Malcolm. I know you are letting these through to allow us to see the nature of their attacks. But do please treat them as the trolls they are and moderate them ou of all future posts..

        Dopey buggers will always attempt to disrupt the presentation of the truth.

    1. anglosvizzera

      I feel sorry for you, “Angry chef is my hero”, if you use NHS advice as a basis for complaint against Dr Kendrick! It’s NHS advice that’s brought about the obesity and diabetes epidemic, which never existed in the days before the ‘low-fat’ recommendations some time in the 1970s. Maybe you weren’t around back then, but I was and can vouch for it myself.

      I think my opinion is more swayed by a medically qualified doctor who has spent years looking into this subject, plus the hundreds of people who have benefited from low-carb/high-fat diets whose blood lipid profiles have become normal, who’ve lost weight, who’ve reversed diabetes etc than your crazy rantings!

      Reply
      1. Jennifer.

        anglosvizzera…too true. I commenced as a mature student nurse in 1983, and couldn’t understand the ‘new’ nutritional guidelines introduced back then. ( 55% carbs with fibre, ( recipes were like eating cardboard); oils pressed from seeds; minimal animal fats, ( damnation to hard cheeses, butter and double cream) and root vegetables (OKish) Of course, I had to incorporate the guidelines in my practice….but now, long since retired, I am doing what we know is correct….I thank every day that I do not have to spout off the badly researched garbage regarding the high carb, low fat mantra. A very nice endocrinologist asked me 5 years ago how I had turned my ill health round….and my answer was that I had decided to incorporate what I had learned in the mid sixties….thus turning the 30 year old NHS guidelines through a full 180 degrees. He advised me to carry on….minus most of the meds too.
        Some of the comments in the last 24 hours are contemptuous….the ignoramouses haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

    2. Göran Sjöberg

      I always wonder why there is such a low level on the commentators of your kind. Big Pharma should be able to pay for more intelligent people.

      Reply
      1. Frederica Huxley

        More intelligent people tend to do their research, and aren’t likely to become cats paws for industrial/pharmaceutical causes!

      2. chris c

        Hahahaha yes they don’t exactly demonstrate much brilliance of thought do they?

        This one appears to be suffering from roid rage. Steroids or haemorrhoids I’m not sure, maybe both. That would not be much fun.

      3. Binra (@onemindinmany)

        The framework you are using is appeal to reason. The framework the manipulator uses is provocation to reaction. Manipulation via subconscious entrainment is the job of PR, social engineering, mind control or post truth politics.

        Put it another way and look at the functions of Britain’s ‘cyberwar defence’ for threats to national security such as anyone or anything that threatens establishment interests and agenda.
        To sow doubt and division and disinformation is one of them.

        I regard it as an education in undoing unreasonable doubts to unified purpose of an honest witness. Even if the forms of its teaching are consciously sickening or hateful in their intent.

    3. AhNotepad

      Angry chef is my hero, you have a lot to learn, but then you are possibly young, or perhaps a paid troll. FYI I must be one of the overweight ones at 5’11” I weigh 11st. Perhaps that’s morbidly obese in the world of anorexia. I did indeed enjoy my greasy bacon breakfast, with my mushrooms and an omlette fried in butter, and I shall enjoy the same tomorrow, but just before I ate all that, I had a bowl of fruit with a 1/3 mug of whipped doube cream, unpasteurised of course. For lunch I had about 6oz of cheese too, sometimes I have 8oz.

      Now you’ll have to excuse me as my egg, mushrooms, and a plate of stir fried vegatables (all in butter doncha know) has arrived. Yummy !! 🤪

      Reply
    4. Joyce

      p.s. God doesn’t exist, Black is really white, and the earth IS flat? Go have a lie down, your ignorance is embarrassing.

      Reply
    5. Rock Dr.

      I do indeed enjoy my wonderfully greasy bacon and not just for breakfast. I at least can say I have done my research and support the position of Dr. Kendrick. What is your evidence in support of your hypothesis and please do not resort to an appeal to authority?

      Reply
  108. Göran Sjöberg

    Here is “another one” of the same sort – trying to get rid of a “dissenter” in medicine – Peter Gotzsche.

    I had this note from Uffe Ravnskov who is heading the the THINC group (a body of concerned MD’s joined against the cholesterol scam) where Malcolm is one professional member.

    Please sign

    Göran

    ———————-
    Hi,

    I wanted to tell you about this petition that I just signed:

    “Letter to Danish Minister of Health against dismissal of Peter Gotzsche”

    https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/letter-to-danish-minister-of-health-against

    I really care about this cause, and I’d love it if you joined me in supporting it. It’s free and takes just a few seconds of your time.
    Thanks!

    Uffe

    Reply
  109. Kathleen Robertshaw

    It won’t change our total support for your ideas one jot. Incidentally, I always warn my students to be wary of quoting from Wikipedia.

    Reply
  110. Alison Hall

    ‘Skeptic from Britain’ sounds more like a blinkered dogmatist – and a sneaky one at that – than any sort of skeptic.

    Reply
  111. keith james

    The only surprise is that it has taken so long to get to this point. Ancel Keys was an expert at attacking the person (no the science) and more recently the South Africans moved against Tim Noakes.
    If Wiki are so blind as to allow this sort of anonymous and unscientific attack then to hell with them.
    As for NICE etc how do they justify their silence – do they not have contrary evidence?
    Malcolm, use this as a driver to challenge the establishment full-on. The hollow silence is failing everyone (believers in your arguments or not).

    Reply
  112. eagle2610

    Does anyone think that Wikipedia is some sort of neutral observer ? The UK ” Skeptics ” are a bunch of phonies , totally dedicated to the promotion of the official , orthodox , authorised, Establishment , State , corporate … version of everything . They do this through smoke, mirrors, waffle , diversion , slogans , mantras … and , above all , insults . Their main raison d’etre is as a vocal front for The Disease Cartel : they never use evidence-based argument . I upset them when What Doctors Dont Tell You published by complaint to the Met, Police , re. The Charities Act contravention – false information – carried out by £627 million collected per year ; ” ‘ Cancer Research ‘ ‘UK ” . They are a source of amusement however … and .. calling themselves ” The Skeptics ” is nice touch : credit , where it is due .

    Reply
  113. Elizabeth Joan Wade

    Dear Dr Kendrick

    I’m absolutely appalled by what I have just read. I support you 100%. You are not a quack you are an unusually honest hardworking GP working in Cheshire who ignores NICE guidelines on statins ­ that’s your problem! I too have just paid money to keep Wikipedia and you are welcome to send them this email.

    Clearly the person who has written this to Wikipedia has a vested interest in the pharmaceutical industry. These people will stop at nothing to silence opponents and shut down debate. Dr Graveline would be appalled too at your mistreatment but not surprised of course.

    Ten years ago I suffered a life-threatening 20mg Lipitor statin-induced adverse drug reaction and almost died of polyneuropathy and heart failure. I was left housebound for 6 months and abandoned by the NHS that’s been covered-up ever since. I’m victimised and blacklisted too. My serious physical injuries caused by the side effects are irreversible including rhabdomyolysis/muscle wasting that is clear to see and I have photos to prove it.

    I am considering making a YouTube video to this effect. I suggest you go to the media with this story and I would be prepared to assist you in any way I can.

    My phone number is: 01903 418581.

    Yours sincerely

    Elizabeth Joan Wade

    From: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick” Reply-To: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick” Date: Monday, 3 December 2018 20:10 To: Elizabeth Joan Wade Subject: [New post] Dr Malcolm Kendrick ­ deletion from Wikipedia

    WordPress.com Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted: “I thought I should tell you that I am about to be deleted from Wikipedia. Someone sent me a message to this effect. It seems that someone from Manchester entitled User:Skeptic from Britain has decided that I am a quack and my presence should be removed fr”

    Reply
  114. Elizabeth Joan Wade

    Dear Dr Kendrick

    I’m absolutely appalled by what I have just read. I support you 100%. You are not a quack. You are an unusually honest hardworking GP working in Cheshire who ignores NICE guidelines on statins ­ that’s your problem! I too have just paid money to keep Wikipedia and you are welcome to send them this email.

    Clearly the person who has written this to Wikipedia has a vested interest in the pharmaceutical industry. These people will stop at nothing to silence opponents and shut down debate. Dr Graveline would be appalled too at your mistreatment but not surprised of course.

    Ten years ago I suffered a life-threatening 20mg Lipitor statin-induced adverse drug reaction and almost died of polyneuropathy and heart failure. I was left housebound for 6 months and abandoned by the NHS that’s been covered-up ever since. I’m victimised and blacklisted too. My serious physical injuries caused by the statin side effects are irreversible including polyneuropathy and rhabdomyolysis/muscle wasting that is clear to see and I have photos to prove it.

    I am considering making a YouTube video to this effect. I suggest you go to the media with this story and I would be prepared to assist you in any way I can.

    My phone number is: 01903 418581.

    Yours sincerely

    Elizabeth Joan Wade

    From: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick” Reply-To: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick” Date: Monday, 3 December 2018 20:10 To: Elizabeth Joan Wade Subject: [New post] Dr Malcolm Kendrick ­ deletion from Wikipedia

    WordPress.com Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted: “I thought I should tell you that I am about to be deleted from Wikipedia. Someone sent me a message to this effect. It seems that someone from Manchester entitled User:Skeptic from Britain has decided that I am a quack and my presence should be removed fr”

    Reply
  115. anglosvizzera

    Just had a look at “Skeptic from Britain”‘s profile on Wiki and followed the link to the “WikiProject Skepticism” – in the list of “Promoters of Pseudoscientific Ideas” they include Sir Isaac Newton. So it seems you’d be in good company!! They are also calling for more people to help them with their task of “putting things right”…

    I’ve written to Wikipedia giving them my view of their untrustworthy website, and I’m starting to hope that if they don’t get enough funds donated, the whole ‘encyclopaedia’ will die completely! Good riddance!

    “WikiProject Skepticism is a WikiProject dedicated to creating, improving, and monitoring articles related to Scientific skepticism, including articles about claims which are contrary to the current body of scientific evidence, or which involve the paranormal.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skepticism#Topics

    Reply
  116. Debunker

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malcolm_Kendrick

    Kendrick is a GP and doesn’t have any background in lipidology, yet sells contrarian books about the lipid hypothesis, suggesting a missive multi-decade conspiracy. He uses well known conspiracy theorist tactics, such as cherry-picking, quote mining, misrepresentation of evidence, etc. E.g. He likes to state that, in studies, those with low cholesterol suffer more all cause mortality, but he fails to mention co-morbidity or reverse causation. He even made a ridiculous blog post stating that saturated fat cannot raise LDL cholesterol [1], despite nearly 400 metabolic ward studies proving this [2]. There is no mention of the meta-analysis of these metabolic ward studies in his blog post. Why? Because he likes to confuse, distract and sell books.

    1. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/07/03/why-saturated-fat-cannot-raise-cholesterol-levels-ldl-levels/
    2.https://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112.long

    Reply
    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      I would suggest getting a friend to read your contributions before you write them and post them. Because, I hate to say it, you do yourself no favours. In fact last year I was asked to go to Scotland and present my ideas at the Scottish Lipid Forum, so maybe I have a bit of knowledge about the area?

      Perhaps you would like to explain ‘reverse causation’ to other readers on this blog. But be careful because reverse causation has been accounted for in many studies- and it does not actually exist.

      Reply
  117. Sylvia

    One of our most important rights, freedom of speech and the right to disagree. Please anonymous person or persons, have courage, may we know your ideas, and your identities.
    This is not yet a totalitarian country and followers of this blog are intelligent polite exchangers of views. Dr Kendrick presents another view about CVD, it is backed up with research that you could choose to explore if you have the inclination. some of us do not always follow the herd, having a curiosity about many things, i suggest you widen your horizons.

    Reply
  118. vjadams2014

    This is symptomatic of a current trend where many people think it is preferable to eliminate opinions that they disagree with, rather than confronting them and arguing the case. If we’re not careful, free speech, such as it is, will be just a remote memory.

    Reply
  119. Mike Bedford-Stradling

    This proposal flies in the face of numerous clinical studies that raise doubts about the role of cholesterol in CVD. Dr Kendrick’s voice is one of many amongst qualified medical practitioners that call into question the accepted “facts” about the causes of heart disease. Dr Kendrick’s views are well substantiated and promote a healthy discussion about this topic
    To remove his ‘voice’ because someone disagrees with it is draconian and stamps on free speech. It serves only to promote the unacceptable practice of silencing those with whom you disagree. Outrageous.

    Reply
  120. Howard Kendall

    So much for freedom of speech – and of the right to present alternative views to the mainstream ‘big pharma’ take on things . Has he been put up to to shut you up . I stinks.
    Howard Kendall

    Reply
  121. Andy Bryant

    I have added to the debate opposing the deletion and asking the credentials and identity of ‘Skeptic from Britain’

    Reply
    1. Wikipedia editor

      Aseem Malhotra, Gary Taubes, Malcolm Kendrick, Nina Teicholz, Robert Lustig, Tim Noakes, Mark Hyman, David Perlmutter and Uffe Ravnskov are all kooks and quacks who peddle dangerous advice in promoting low-carb or high-fat diets.

      A top Google search for these peoples names is Wikipedia. I will be making sure plenty of criticism is on the Wikipedia articles for these charlatans, there is already plenty but more must be added. It is fantastic that Wikipedia can debunk these people. I simple click of their names on Google and people can see these quacks debunked. I hope their “reputations” are ruined. They are in it for the money by selling books, not science.

      Reply
      1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

        And who might you be, my friend? And on what basis do you believe you have the right to dismiss people as charlatans. Do you have any reasoned arguments. I am always willing to discuss the science. I cannot really discuss whether or not I am a quack or a kook, because these are not really scientific opinions – are they. They are simply personal insults – are they not?

      2. Chancery Stone

        Goodness, ‘Wikipedia Editor’ you’re not a great advert for the rational, logical and reasoned editorship of Wikipedia, are you? Do they know you’re out and about hurling insults – with a side order of name-calling?

      3. anglosvizzera

        Ha ha. Whereas charlatans like Dr Paul Offitt aren’t ‘in it for the money’ or selling books…he conveniently ignores science when it slaps him in the face!!

      4. Bill In Oz

        Does Wikipedia know that somone has seized this handle and is using to distort their onine encyclopedia ?

        Feels like a troll wanting to waste your their and our time.

      5. EJW

        If I were any of the doctors and/or scientists named above described by Wikipedia’s editor as “kooks, quacks and charlatans” I’d be heading to a libel lawyer for legal action against Wikipedia.

      6. TS

        The usual ploy of accusing someone of wanting to sell books when you have no grounds for your stance against them.

      7. TS

        “”Wikipedia editor”

        You must know how little money is made from books like Malcolm Kendrick writes. It cannot possibly compensate materially for all the years of toil. No, Malcolm is altruistic, make no mistake. You probably have some difficulty understanding altruism? Are you jealous of Malcolm because he is respected for his efforts by intelligent people rather than showing off to friends by writing derisory online comments?

      8. Rosie

        There was ongoing contention about the results and meaning of intervention studies undertaken before the introduction of statins.[24][25][26][27] A meta-analysis of cholesterol-lowering trials found that trials that were supportive of the lipid hypothesis were cited almost six times as often as those that were not, and although there was a similar number of trials unsupportive of the hypothesis, none of them were cited after 1970; some of the supportive reviews also exclude and ignore certain trials which were less favorable to the hypothesis. This meta-analysis, including the less-cited trials, found that mortality was not decreased by lowering cholesterol, and that the lowering of cholesterol was unlikely to prevent coronary heart disease.[28][29][30]

        The above section copied and pasted directly from the Wikipedia entry for ‘lipid hypothesis’. Another entry needing your ‘editing’ attention?….

        Like many of us here I rarely comment, but have followed avidly from the very beginning.
        Malcolm, I will be forever grateful to you. Never give up the fight.

      9. chris c

        OK I think I’ve got this one. All the same buzzwords and the roaring indignation can be seen on Twitter under several usernames with different pictures of musclebound hunks. Or should I say musclebrained?

      10. BobM

        Dr. Kendrick, you’re in some good company, there: Aseem Malhotra, Gary Taubes, Malcolm Kendrick, Nina Teicholz, Robert Lustig, Tim Noakes, Mark Hyman, David Perlmutter and Uffe Ravnskov.

        Uffe started me on my travels into questioning everything. Gary and Nina are great. The others are lesser known for me (though I watched with incredulity the Tim Noakes saga), but still important guides to many of us.

  122. Fleur Brown

    It seems that Dr Rath has had censorship of his profile on Wikipedia too….. more info on these on his website http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org>

    Dr. Rath Health Foundation Newsletter
    29 November 2018

    Wikipedia: The George Soros Connection
    Although Jimmy Wales, the public figurehead of Wikipedia, tries to give the world the impression that his website is an independent entity, the reality is that the Wikimedia Foundation, of which Wikipedia is a project, has been directly dependent upon support from super-wealthy benefactors with connections to the pharmaceutical investment business.

    U.S. Department Of Defense Revealed To Be Editing Wikipedia
    In further evidence of the extent to which Wikipedia has become controlled by special interests, the Dr. Rath Health Foundation can reveal that over fifty IP addresses located within the U.S. Department of Defense Network are being used to edit articles on the online encyclopedia. A significant proportion of these articles relate to matters that are evidently of direct interest to the Pentagon. With this editing in some cases being clearly at odds with Wikipedia’s rules on conflict of interest, the ongoing involvement of an official government agency on the site raises serious questions regarding its independence and reliability.

    The Facts Aren’t Welcome
    Between February 2008 and April 2009, aided by some willing assistants, we attempted to correct some of the key factual errors and blatantly biased statements in the Wikipedia article on Dr. Rath. It proved to be an eye-opening experience. On many occasions our efforts were reversed within hours – and sometimes within minutes. This was even the case when our edits were completely consistent with Wikipedia’s core rules, such as the requirement to be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

    Jimmy Wales Admits Free Access To Health Knowledge Has Strict Limits On Wikipedia
    Like others in the natural health community, our Foundation has long realized that Wikipedia functions as a vehicle to influence and control public opinion worldwide. As we have learned over the years, any positive scientific information on natural health approaches that gets posted on the online encyclopedia is quickly removed. If you’ve ever wondered where this dictatorial policy ultimately comes from, you need look no further than Wikipedia’s founder and self-styled “spiritual leader”, Jimmy Wales.

    US Department Of Defense CAUGHT Editing Wikipedia
    Providing further evidence of the extent to which Wikipedia has become controlled by special interests, this video reveals that over fifty IP addresses located within the U.S. Department of Defense Network are being used to edit articles on the online encyclopedia.

    Reply
      1. HenryL

        All publicity is good publicity of course but that’s one conspiracy theory too far. I won’t believe it of you Dr.K !

  123. S. BOLT

    Clearly a jumped up know it all who has not bothered to fully look at the research, as you clearly do in all your very reasoned articles.

    Reply
  124. Mags Logan Turner

    A well paid up member of big food, big pharma, Public Health England may be? Thanks for all you do will endeavour to enjoy your new book (pre-ordered). 👏😀

    Reply
  125. Soul

    Best of luck Dr. Kendrick. The shadowy world not looking for debate but looking to silence decent does appear to be more active than normal of late.

    Reply
      1. Carolyn

        Oh dear, here we go with the fighting. I hate fighting. The above comment with all my favorite people, most of them anyway, is really disappointing to read. I can only imagine they are on some kind of strange diet that keeps them from functioning properly especially their thought processes. Maybe if we ignore it, they will go away, or be so blatantly irrational no one will care. Besides, how can you prove anything that no one wants to study because there is no potential for financial gain?

      2. Joyce

        Think you’ve picked up a nasty little troll Malcolm. Sadly, they are incapable of proper discussion. Destruction is what they get off on. Don’t feed him. Ignore him and he’ll shrivel up and die(unfortunately only metaphorically).

      3. Frederica Huxley

        I somehow doubt that the naysayers on your blog are inclined, or even capable of, engaging you in discussion. Their main stance is based on ad hominems, not facts.

  126. Carolyn

    I read your heading and skeptic being one of the hats you wear made me think this person trying to silence you is also a skeptic. Maybe you need to create a FB page or some equivalent for questionable skepticism. Of course, you don’t have time, but someone will. You watch. Well, there are bits and pieces here and there where people report conflicts of interests and I’ll bet there already is something like this somewhere. I’ll keep my eyes open. I learned in college to sort out where information was coming from and what was the underlying philosophical assumption or any many cases, the financial advantages of certain information being protected. I don’t like to be negative, but I do like good information I can trust. Our lives depend on it.

    Reply
  127. James White

    Skeptic from Britain and another user Alexbrn have a long history of attacking what they consider “fad diets” on Wikipedia. See what they say here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexbrn#Malcolm_Kendrick about Anthony Warner

    Skeptic from Britain lives in Manchester as does Alexbrn according to his userpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexbrn. Apparently Anthony Warner also lives in Manchester. Is all this a coincidence? I suspect Warner is involved somehow!

    Reply
  128. James White

    Skeptic from Britain and Alexbrn are now editing Aseem Malhotra’s Wikipedia article. Dr Malcolm Kendrick have you informed Dr Malhotra and others this is happening?

    Reply
  129. Carolyn

    Interesting spelling of sceptic. I’ll have to get used to it. I don’t get riled up about much these days, but this did it for me. Let us know if there is anything we can do to help.

    Reply
    1. Angelica

      Oh dear. I think I know this part of internet history. There was an outspoken troll on AOL forums before AOL fully moved to the open internet whose handle was Skeptic. I don’t know if the person from Manchester knows that history because it’s pretty clear the troll was from the US, unless he moved. I had forgotten until @Caryolyn just reminded me. I don’t know if that’s amusing or tragic. Both really.

      Reply
      1. anglosvizzera

        I noticed that “Skeptic from Britain” used the word “gotten” rather than “got” on the Wiki discussion page, which usually indicates someone from across the pond (although I have noticed it creeping into British English recently)

  130. Michael W. Perry, medical writer

    Dr. Kendrick, keep in mind that real ‘movers and shakers’ don’t have time to volunteer for Wikipedia. I suspect a survey would turn up that many of those who serve as gatekeepers on controversial topics are out of work and living in their parents’ basement. Wikipedia is how they fill their empty hours and acquire a distorted sense of power.

    Reply
    1. Binra (@onemindinmany)

      While grafiti can in effect be posted on wikipedia’s wall, the ability to replaster with mud (smear) is a highly dedicated and persistent outgunning of any attempt to hold a true account.
      The other side of this is the permission or collaboration of the sire with being abused. There are any number of ways of inducing people or firms to cooperate with private or confidential agenda.

      Reply
  131. Charles Gale

    Some comments on this on Dr Mike Eades’ twitter from Dr Eades and Ivor Cummins

    Dr Eades, in response to Ivor Cummins, writes:

    “Dr Kendrick is one of the smartest, strongest and most rational voices out there declaiming against much of the stupidity of modern medicine. I’m not surprised the dissenting voices would rather ban him than debate him”.

    Here’s the link:

    Reply
  132. A J MOLENAAR

    I support Dr Kendrick
    The request for deletion has come from someone who has forgotten about Kock’s principle’

    Are they a vested interest?

    Reply
  133. Wendy Hanawalt

    Well, that IS the downside of Wikipedia, isn’t it? I recently your recent book and given the fact that it has more scientific reference than any “pro-lipid-theory” book I’ve ever read, I’m inclined to think that the whole “quack” thing is a grotesque slander. Glad I don’t use/trust Wikipedia very much.

    Reply
  134. David Bailey

    Dr Kendrick,

    In my opinion, Wiki is useful for simple factual questions – such as chemical formulae, or the formulae for statistical tests, but in general it should be treated with caution.

    What he writes rather gives the game away:

    “Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources that discuss his ideas. His book The Great Cholesterol Con was not reviewed in any science journals. ”

    In other words, journals don’t need to explain what is wrong with your ideas – just keep quiet and hope you go away!

    I once gave a little money to Wiki, but I have long since stopped – the whole purpose of Wiki is to give people unfettered access to ideas, once these are censored, that ideal has gone.

    Reply
  135. Joyce

    You know why they are doing it Malcolm. You are slowly, but surely, de-railing their Gravy Train! Take heart from the fact that you are hurting them so badly. Go get em!

    Reply
  136. Ann Walker

    I went to the Wikipedia site to state my objections, but it is a difficult site to work out for a non blogger. I will try again. I seriously regret giving them money only a week or so ago if they really are going to take Dr K off their site and I certainly won’t be giving them any more.

    Reply
  137. Christopher Palmer

    It is an outrageous act of anarchy on the part of Skeptic from Britain. And how annoying it is that the attack upon your character has been done under the veil of anonymity. I am sure you have learned from hosting your blog that people who post comments under a real name instead of one that assumed generally post remarks of better quality, and I am astounded deletion from Wikipedia can be done in this anonymous way.
    Wikipedia could be and can be a great force that democratises the availability of facts and truths, but on many occasions it falls short simply because it is powered by the human element.

    Reply
    1. AnnaM

      Some of my best friends are anarchists and this is not at all an example of anarchy, which believes in live and let live, is nonauthoritarian.

      Reply
    2. AnnaM

      Christopher,

      Anarchy is a real thing. I’m not one, so I can’t describe it too well, but some people feel that all government is illegitimate and that humans should be able to govern themselves. Sometimes it seems troublemakers before the old revolutions were called anarchists and they are associated with violence like black bloc, but apparently this is a very different thing. It’s probably closest to libertarianism.

      Reply
  138. Helen

    A couple of weeks ago, I received an email from Jimmy Wales asking me to donate again to Wikipedia again this year, as I did last year and the year before. I’ve explained to him briefly why I will not do so again and invited him to read the comments under this blog for his further edification.

    Reply
  139. Joyce

    Good Lord Malcolm! You’ve really set the cat among the pigeons over on Wiki! They don’t know what’s hit them over there. Bet they’ve never seen the likes of this before! Love it and Hate it in equal measures!

    Reply
  140. Angelica

    You have plenty of historical record, but you still don’t deserve what they’re doing. It’s a troll bait tactic, that’s how they try to make you invest time in their glory hole. And there are plenty of arguments and edit wars to make future historians think twice about Wikipedia’s importance.

    It only comes top in searches because Google and Yahoo want it that way, and even write little apps into their search to bring little sidebars of info from it. The still young internet loves free info and has loved it since Netscape became Mozilla and soon after, Sourceforge provided a place to anonymously collaborate on software.

    However, the peer review system has taken a darker turn on Wikipedia in regard to medicine. Only the most orthodox information stays and censorship and hostility is very strong on Wikipedia. Sometime about 10 years ago I realized that the popularity of skeptic TV shows in the US was affecting Wikipedia. Even the magicians, Penn and Teller had a ‘mythbusting’ show that quickly turned into a bow to authority on anything medical.

    The old American TV show, “Andy Griffith Show” had a good example of a medical scam, when Aunt May gets scammed by someone selling alcohol as a pain medicine. It’s actually very poignantly and well done. Scams do exist. Look up OmegaXL product and try to verify how much Omega-3 is in it. It was sold to my MIL in magazine subscription fashion, at $80+ a month! The elderly do suffer such scams right now. I think that’s the impetus for trying to destroy any gray areas in medicine, but it’s a “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” situation.

    I hope in the future, historians will realize that Wikipedia was a great forum for argument and debate, and a great view into how power structures can insinuate themselves into things that are supposedly democratic and collaborative. After two edit wars on Wikipedia, I realized that they have bots that are more important than people, and they prefer less information over more information. In medical things, they are another arm of censorship and orthodoxy, along with RationalWiki and Quackwatch. The articles seem to be copied from one to the other websites, each providing legitimacy to the next in round robin fashion.

    I have found that they do not adhere to their own policies of low or no bias, lack of hostile tone, and that they intentionally edit out pertinent information, even if it’s verifiable.

    My browser allows me to filter google results. I’ve filtered wikipedia out because it wastes my time. Don’t fall into their sticky trap or you’ll still be arguing with them a month later and just reap a harvest of anger. Best to ignore them.

    These days they say you fight censorship by countering ugly free speech with more speech, but that’s just foolish. Who wants to spend their life shouting just because everyone else is? This isn’t a rock concert, it’s my health, and I prefer to hear all sides of the arguments… calmly.

    There is a scholarpedia that’s much more interesting, but not written for everyday people or by everyday people. Since the wiki platform is usable for other things, I suggest that alternative doctors create a ‘gray areas in medicine’ wiki, the way that people with ME/CFS have created MEpedia. There are plenty of ‘with it’ young MDs who aren’t afraid of technology or orthodoxy. You’re actually pretty tame, Dr. K, when compared to some of the alternative US doctors I’ve seen.

    Reply
  141. Martin Back

    Skeptic from Britain originally called for the deletion because “He denies that blood cholesterol levels are responsible for heart disease and in opposition to the medical community advocates a high-fat high-cholesterol diet as healthy. Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources that discuss his ideas.”

    It seems that this is not really grounds for deletion, so the attack has switched to the question of Dr Kendrick’s “notability”. Basically, they are saying he is not famous enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

    They might have a point. While our small group know him well, to the wider world he is virtually unknown, more’s the pity. I made a couple of comments as MartinFromWoodstock, but I fear I don’t know enough about Dr Kendrick’s wider presence to be effective.

    Even so notable a person as John Ioannidis, who wrote one of the the most-cited medical papers ever, has had his notability questioned. Fortunately, he had been profiled in some of the more prestigious publications, and that probably rescued him from obscurity.

    So I fear Dr Kendrick is going down, unless he can marry a Kardashian or engineer a painless Brexit.

    But his message can live on. We could closely monitor appropriate articles and make sure the alternative story gets out there, using the same editing tactics as have been used against Dr Kendrick. (Just be factual and respectful, don’t fling accusations of conspiracies about.) A couple of places to start:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin

    Reply
  142. Charles Gale

    Not sure what happened with my link to Dr Mike Eades’ twitter entry on all this (all good stuff anyway)…it missed out (when it appeared here after moderation) the quotes from Dr Eades and Ivor Cummins. Just google Dr Mike Eades twitter.

    When I read comments by, for example, “Wikipedia editor”, perhaps it’s best to shut down the whole thing and get back on topic and deprive them of oxygen.

    Reply
    1. mmec7

      Charles – Your tweet is further up, at 3.57 : Tweets by ‎@DrEades
      It was a good link.
      Four of your comments placed in succession.

      Reply
  143. nightskywp01

    Malcolm. There are trolls everywhere on the web who, because they have nothing much to offer, think that attacking those they perceive to be successful, will imbue them with some of that success.
    In my opinion the best way to combat them is to ignore them. A reaction is what they seek. Best not to give them such satisfaction.
    Your books and blogs have inspired many including me, and continue to do so..
    A big thanks to you.

    Reply
  144. Gary Redman

    Looks like your back on Malcolm. Chalk one up to common sense or people power. Hopefully it stays. Secondly to Mr anonymous you filthy little twerp. To say there is scarce science backing up Dr Kendrick’s comments. Do you have your head up your own arse? There is a myriad of real science backing him up. Your science on the other hand is as flimsy as a steak at a vegetarian convention. I’ve proven all of Malcolm’s comments correct. Dr Kendrick along with a few others saved my life end of. We need more Malcolm Kendrick’s not less.

    Reply
  145. martin cronshaw

    I’ve just added Dr Kendrick to wikipedias page, a list of scientific skeptics. one of the most noted scientists on there was Edward Jenner and the up to date Brian Cox. looks like Malcolm is rubbing shoulders with the greats! maybe on a par with Galileo?

    Reply
    1. AhNotepad

      Martin, I think it might be an error to associate decent people such as Dr. K. with frauds such as Edward Jenner. His life was by and large a fraud as was his disease spreading vaccine for smallpox. Read Suzzane Humphries (thoroughly decent) “Dissolving Illusions” for a detailed account. Rubbing shoulders with Edward Jenner could possibly kill you, though I expect he would be revered by “Septic from Britain”

      Edit: oops sorry, did I miss out a “k”?

      Reply
      1. Martin Back

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick

        – The issue that Wikipedia editors are concerned about would appear to be Notability. It may be of interest that Dr Malcolm Kendrick is on Wikipedia’s list of “notable people that promote or practice scientific skepticism” here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_skeptics Paul W Ellis (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

        – Gosh, you’re right! Of course, that’s because one of your fellow puppets added it earlier today. Now removed since it’s unsourced. EEng 01:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

        43 minutes is all it took for them to lumber you. You can’t win against such vigilant censoriousness ;o)

      2. AhNotepad

        Martin, they don’t have to be vigilant, they just set up a page change detection bot and sends them an alert. Then they probably just cut and paste. No thinking required or allowed.

  146. colettebytes

    Does this individual not know that you are a bona-fide GP and something of a TV and Radio celebrity?

    I have followed your blog for a long time. I find it inspiring that you look for evidence, rather than following the dogma put out largely by pharmaceutical companies who have convinced (falsely I think) doctors of the safety of Statin drugs. Perhaps this individual works for big Pharma?…You then, would likely be a threat. Always look behind the scenes for ulterior motives.

    Reply
  147. george lourie

    Example The Framingham Study for example was never I suppose close to True Science not even close ,,, thinking outside the box is simply not very popular,
    Dr Malcolm Kendrick,s patients are beyond a shadow of doubt very lucky indeed
    Keep up the Good Work we are your followers and learning from your thoughts,, you are a real MD,teaching is so vital especially in the realm of medicine
    Thank you for that

    Reply
  148. Martin Back

    What is needed is a name for the Kendrick/Ravnskov/Whomever theory.

    For example, in a contentious field like diet, as soon as you say “LCHF” or “vegan” or whatever, people know what you are talking about, have opinions on it, and can discuss it. If enough people discuss it, it becomes “notable” and Wikipedia and serious publications have to take notice.

    My suggestion is the “endothelial damage” theory, i.e. the plaques causing heart attacks result from damage to the endothelium, they don’t result from a surplus of cholesterol.

    Not very catchy, I admit, and someone could come up with a better name. But once we have a name we can marshal evidence in support, opponents can marshal evidence against, and we can actually get a rational debate going rather than the “cholesterol good”/”cholesterol bad” shouting match we have at the moment.

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      Martin Back: Dr. Kendrick used the term “thrombogenesis,” which I think perfectly descriptive, and would fit the bill. The Thrombogenetic Hypothesis. Sounds good rolling off the tongue.

      Reply
    2. Angelica

      I agree with this. People need a codicil to use when discussing something. Otherwise, critics can just call the dissent a “denialism” and dismiss it. To disagree with something widely accepted requires not only courage, but also dedication to the truth, and people who disagree with the mainstream tend to develop a “we don’t know everything yet” type of proper “academic discourse” attitude toward what they study. Real academic discourse doesn’t deal in facts, it deals in accepted theories that are repeatable. When you have putative academics acting like accepted theory is fact, there is a basic problem.

      I like the phrase endothelial damage theory, it’s descriptive and leaves a lot to be discovered. I think the theory=fact crowd won’t like it because the reason they’re trying to fool people in to accepting a theory as a fact is, it would instantly call into question the process of taking a vein and replacing a part of an artery with it. In the blood pressure article, Dr. Kendrick makes a very good point about the difference in arterial and venous bp, and how that can cause endothelial damage when you move a vein to a location that is an artery. It means they have to admit they are the cause of bypasses failing, not the patient (who is currently assumed to eat gluttonously and so the problem is theirs).

      It’s heartbreaking that bypasses have been based on a theory so likely to be wrong. But it’s the people who dissent who have the courage to admit a mistake and try to make it right. As a society we’ll have to swallow a bitter pill to accept a new theory on heart disease. But better that, than more people die needlessly.

      Reply
  149. Old fogey

    For me, there are two surprises here: First, that Dr. Kendrick actually had an entry on Wikipedia despite his contrarian views toward world-famous profit-making drugs; and secondly, that so many of the good and sensible commenters to this blog contribute to Wikipedia on a routine basis. It would never dawn on me to contribute to Wikipedia, an institution that exists solely to tell you what you should believe about the subjects it covers.

    Reply
    1. anglosvizzera

      I was quite surprised about people contributing as well, as I’d heard about the pitfalls of information gained via Wikipedia a long time ago. Still, hopefully all of us will be telling our friends and contacts about their dirty little games and maybe it will eventually shrivel and die the way it deserves to

      Reply
  150. Göran Sjöberg

    When it comes to covering medicine Wikipedia seems to be a really “stinking” place and obviously governed by Big Pharma.

    It struck me this very morning as I am reading a great and newly released book, “Superfuel” by Dr. James Dinicolantonio and Dr. Joseph Mercola. From this book I now learn a lot about the importance of the ratio between omega 3 over omega 6 for our health. Very convincing reading in my eyes!

    Then I couldn’t help but Google on Mercola and went to “his” Wikipeida entry and was actually shocked be the elaborated slander he is exposed to.

    There are indeed strong economical forces we are challenging by using our own brains to make scientific approach to medicin to get well!

    The prevalent corruption in medicin is about the most disgusting in today’s world to me!

    Reply
  151. David

    Keep up the good work Malcolm.Judging by their immature names and the quality of their posts those trolls are recent products of the “taught what to think,not how to think” infesting our whole education system nowadays.

    Reply
    1. Joyce

      Sadly, it’s worse. They are of the “taught nothing, think even less brigade”, who infest numerous websites every day of the week. Most of them never did progress to “joined up letters”, never mind grammar! lol. Best ignored. Believe me they hate that! 🤯

      Reply
  152. Lynne Garwood

    Dr Kendrick, just please keep up your good work. There are only a handful of doctors in the UK from whom we can here the Truth eminating from extensive experience, knowledge, research and freedom of thought. Typical of the new breed of doctors and consutants today, my new Rheumatologist, replacing the previous professor of many years and heading up the Rheumatology department at a large UK teaching hospital, told me that his job was the management of patients on medication and as i refused any he saw no point in he or any other rheumatologist in his dept seeing me further. I had for nearly 20 years received support from the previous rheumatogy professor as a patient with my diet/lifestyle approach. What an endightment of the UK health service of today. It seems to me that instead of the NHS becoming more enlightened that it appears to be encouraging narrow mindedness and promoting a dictatorship. Dictators forever feel threatened. Love, love your books and Blog and recommend highly to everyone 🙂

    Reply
  153. Vegan Warrior

    The only healthy diet is plant-based diet. John A. Mcdougall is the man. Check out his book “The Starch Solution”. A low-fat High-carb diet is healthy. The vegetarians and vegans have it right. I hope Kendrick’s article on Wikipedia is deleted he is giving the world false information about health.

    Reply
    1. Dr. John H

      Over 30 years ago when I was young and stupid, I went vegan for 2 years. It almost killed me, I got very sick on it. Now, as a natural medicine practitioner I’ve had 30 years to clinically observe how peoples diet affects their health. I very rarely see a healthy vegan/vegetarian, and have come to the conclusion that only a very small number of people can tolerate eating that way. What I have found that turns peoples health around the most consistently is a traditional foods diet as taught by the Weston A. Price Foundation.

      Reply
      1. chris c

        repost

        Been there did that, on an Ornish-style high carb low fat grain-based vegan diet I passed my first gallstone and had my first attack of gout.

        I couldn’t care less what other people eat, but these vegans want to control what everyone else eats.

        There are a LOT of people who had health problems on vegan and vegetarian diets, and even more on “low fat” diets.

        Curiously not nearly so many on the constellation between low carb, paleo, keto, ancestral etc. Nowadays I eat very much like my Gran (1885 – 1975) except for the pastry and jam as I’m not in the Women’s Institute. So do a lot of the fit healthy old folks around these parts. When we’re gone no-one will be left to remember that there was actually a time before there were “epidemics” of obesity, diabetes and so many other metabolic diseases. Then they’ll be home free to ban meat.

    2. Bill In Oz

      Veganist troll back again… And just we Wikioedia is being prompted to get rid of your entry..Ummm ? Could we have all upset some vegan. in our discussions / Enough to lodge a complaint with Wikipedia ? Probably…

      Reply
      1. Bill In Oz

        Seems like the troll upset my capacity to spell correctly…. Which I suggest is something that these troll also want. Apologies all…

      1. Angelica Nelson

        It does mean totalitarian. Seek out the “why I’m not vegan anymore” videos on youtube, and the many fake “why I’m not vegan anymore” videos that vegans make to mislead people who are seeking answers to why their vegan diet makes them sick. They don’t care if they’re damaging you, they care that their ideology is followed.

    3. Christopher Palmer

      Vegetarians and vegans are ideologists; while ideology is always a second rate alternative to science. There are many sound reasons to become vegan or vegetarian but the most genuine among these have very little to do with nutrition or health.
      A vegan diet can be healthy. An omnivorous diet can be healthy. So what?
      But committed vegans seem not to be aware of the potential perils of lectins; and the perils may catch up with them over time.

      Reply
      1. anglosvizzera

        I know a couple of vegans who maintain (at least in the short term) that their health improved dramatically when they started eating that way. I politely suggested that perhaps it was more to do with the fact that they’d eliminated some element of their diet that was causing the problems – but they won’t accept that. So, let’s see how they feel a few years down the line…they may be people who are suited to that diet (although any diet that requires vitamin supplementation can’t be ‘natural’ in my view) – or they may find that they’ve built up enough deficiencies that their health is suffering. I’m quite concerned about those who bring up children on a vegan diet – if they don’t really know enough about what they’re doing. They may be doing permanent damage to those poor innocents.

      2. binra

        Oh we don’t know what we do – and the innocents keep coming.
        Have a read of Dissolving Illusions on conditions associated with pre and early vaccination history and see that evils change shape rather than actually disappear.

        I feel to note that much ‘natural’ food is relatively hollow in terms of nutrients and minerals

        all the best
        Brian

      3. chris c

        But . . .but . . .but . . .GOD told Ellen G White and she invented dieticians and they told the rest of us. What could possibly go wrong?

        Yes it scares me to think of children being brought up vegan. It scares me more that most dietetics organisations in most of the world endorse it. The exact same organisations that warn against the “extreme dangers” of not eating grains, or otherwise excluding an “entire food group”. I assume they think meat is not a food group but toxic waste.

        I’ve read of diabetic children being taken into care because they were found to be eating low carb, and a (Type 1) diabetic adult who was committed with an “eating disorder” because she chose to eat low carb and gain excellent control of her diabetes. They wouldn’t release her until she ate carbs in their presence.

        True there have been a few cases of vegan children dying or failing to thrive but in general they get a free pass. Well I mean their parents.

        To be fair I know a couple of seemingly healthy vegans and even a couple of low carbing vegans, though they are quite fat despite not eating many grains. Unlike the characters on the internet though, they don’t proselytise or attempt to have veganism imposed on the entire population. Frankly I’m looking forward to my heart attack before this happens.

    4. brwims

      What a pompous ass. “The only healthy…” Codswallop!. There is no way that plant eaters could have evolved into humans. The nutrition just isn’t there. Where would a hunter gatherer get sufficient energy, protein and vitamin B12 from? There no vegans alive who do not depend on modern technology to get their B12 requirements.

      Reply
      1. Gary Ogden

        brwims: He/she left out “. . .for cattle and other ruminants, koalas, gorillas, pandas, etc.. . . .”

      2. Binra (@onemindinmany)

        I understand many millions in India have been vegetarian over some millennia?
        I have a sense that we are extremely ignorant of the role of the environment and in particular our gut biota. I don’t need to argue one way of the other – but nor do i subscribe to such narratives as yours. I rate Pollack’s work highly and consider it a true breakthrough. he is closely acquainted with scientists who have studied people who for long periods of study – don’t eat – breatharian is a pigeon hole – but such instances are documented.
        Energy flows to its functional result, and in the body alive is an amazing capacity to workaround ‘problems’ such as toxicities, scarcities and deprivations.
        I don’t trust anyone who needs to tell me what I should or shouldn’t eat or do, they are seeking reinforcement.
        Narrative wars are all at cost of genuine communication. There are no winners.
        The true of it is not a good v evil win and lose drama – but more of an ever deepening self-honesty – which of course is a humility – but also an inner knowing that does not translate to ammunition so much as a discernment in the moment.
        I didn’t watch the video and am not interested in vegan as anti omnivore, or omnivore as anti vegan – but I side with freedom on all sides of any real dialogue. Guilt is a deep human psychic-emotional issue that operates as a killjoy. And seeks it instead in the denial or invalidation of the other or the scapegoat. This also is getting a sense of one’s own life from another’s death.

        And yes – there is a top down USE of veganism by corporate agenda that is NOT a grassroots movement so much as the astroturfing of one – but I discriminate the USE it is being put from a free choice that another may engage in and learn from.

        If people could simply discriminate between the form of something and a masked agenda in the form of something, then manipulators would be more likely to seek honest work.

      3. AnnaM

        Binra,

        So far as I know most vegetarians in India eat dairy. Whether there are even truly areas where people have not eaten meat or eggs or fish for generations is an interesting question.

      4. mmec7

        Binra’s comment, quote : “Binra : So far as I know most vegetarians in India eat dairy. Whether there are even truly areas where people have not eaten meat or eggs or fish for generations is an interesting question.
        Total vegans, yes, the Jain peoples. Who wear masks so as not to breath in and kill andy insect. Who sweep the path ahead of them in case they tread on, kill or maim even one insect ! How many who ‘now’ follow such rules, strictures, I don’t know, but, have observed the Jain peoples when I lived in India.
        As for ‘no’ “meat, eggs and fish for generations”. Yes. South Indian Brahmins. Though they do take milk products : milk; ghee; butter; yogurt; soft cheese. All products from the cow and the goat, except for the meat. Also up in the hills, Ooti. Brahmins. Generations who are vegetarians, but who do take milk products. They raise the Gir breed of cows. Really beautiful and gentle creatures, whose milk is creamy and delicious.

      5. mmec7

        Erratum. I inadvertently wrote Ooti (tut-tut !) no, please read, Mount Abu; Rajasthan, N.West India, the only hill area in the region – there is also a famous Jain temple there, Delwara Jain temples. Also famous for their horses, the Marwhari horse, with the inward curving ears. Gentle and biddable temperaments.

    5. anglosvizzera

      Chris c – I too am rather worried about the fact that when our generation has gone, there won’t be anyone who will remember ‘the Good Old Days’ pre-obesity, when type 2 diabetes only occurred in some elderly people, when asthma was rare, when autism was rare, when allergies were rare…it will all be taken as ‘normality’ and the drug companies will have even more success than they are having now! I’m trying my hardest to educate my 4 adult children about how things used to be when I was young and how dodgy advice about diet etc has taken us to where we are today.

      Reply
      1. Jennifer

        Anglosvizzera, I see your point about us oldies remembering better nutritional times, ( by which I mean our postwar childhoods), but as to educating our decendents, I feel at a loss, because, you see, I too was caught up in the ‘soft margarine and breakfast cereal trap’ whilst a young mother. So, my adult offspring look back on their childhood and replicate what they ate. And their ( now adult) offspring know even less about sensible nutrition. Not many youngsters that I know actually see much of granny these days in order to glean advice from the mistakes of the last 50 years. In fact, the present generation can’t be blamed for thinking that fast food outlets and exorbitant coffee parlours are the norm. You know, as a child I honestly believed that Mars Bars were healthy, because I could not contemplate that anything sold to be consumed could possibly be bad for us. Such is the power of advertising. But to complain is to be put in the Nanny State category.

      2. chris c

        Yes I wish I’d recorded or videotaped some of my mother;s reminiscences, she was a teacher from the thirties to the seventies.

        Grans don’t always get it right though, I can remember mine recommending Trex – sort of the UK equivalent of Crisco – for pastry. I think mother had a cookery book published by the manufacturers. For some reason my father liked margarine – called Crelos – but as an occasional alternative rather than a replacement to butter.

        I was suckered into grains and vegetable oils. I regret laughing at my father for eating meat three times a day, despite having a damaged heart (Graves when young) he lived to be 82. Now I know it was because of rather than despite the saturated fat and meat. Wikipedia wants me not to know this.

      3. anglosvizzera

        @Jennifer – although I didn’t ever give up butter (margarine was too vile!) I did start to eat ‘brown’ everything in the late 70s as we had a wholefood co-operative at the Art college I attended as well as a branch of Cranks that opened in Guildford. However, I did take on the ‘low-fat’ advice for many decades which I feel now was responsible for the death of my gallbladder. The poor thing was probably completely unused and the bile within constantly crystallising. I was a radiographer for many years and used to wonder how the different types of gall stones came about…didn’t occur to me that maybe the lack of a fatty stimulus actually contributed to those. Thankfully, being naturally rebellious and cynical, I kept up with the latest information regarding the bad health advice we’d been given and feel far, far better these days.

        @Chris C – yes, my mother used Trex too! My boyfriend’s mother always used lard and I wondered why mine didn’t. But my mother did keep to butter all her 93 years, so was doing something right. My dad used ghastly things like Bertolli, but he always ate real food that either my mother or he cooked from scratch. He lived till he was 90, and also took a number of supplements daily.

      4. shirley3349

        When I was a child in the 1950 s, there was plenty of cheap meat around, including traditionally raised veal and all kinds of offal. My mother made a delicious stew of lambs’ hearts, but she sadly never managed to cook liver properly: you could have soled your shoes with it!
        Her generation lived through WWII and years of rationing. So we had to have some sort of meat or fish every day. The huge Sunday joint would last four people at least three days. Nothing would ever be wasted.
        But there was far less variety of other foods, especially vegetables. The first time I saw a green or red pepper was when I went to Vienna aged 15.
        But where are the calves’ livers, lamb sweetbreads and other delicacies? Exported, presumably to the continent, where they fetch far higher prices.

      5. chris c

        You can still get the likes of liver from our local butchers and farm shops. There was a fascinating TV series “Back In Time For Dinner” where a family dressed, acted and ate through every decade of the 20th century: back in the first decades they cooked and ate masses of meat and offal – the father complained of “meat sweats” – what they ate was based on records from the time. Note the lack of diabetes and heart disease despite what the vegans claim.

        Yes we also had the roasted leg of lamb with roast spuds, followed by cold lamb, followed by what my mother called “lamb tart”. Most of our vegetables we grew ourselves which explains the relative lack of variety, not much flown in from other continents (which of course causes no “greenhouse gas emissions” unlike the lamb and beef). Or so we are told.

        In retrospect I couldn’t handle the carbs but not as badly as all the brown rice and muesli and home baked bread I subsequently filled my face with. The low fat also gave me gallstones: a clueful consultant back in the eighties had more or less worked out metabolic syndrome and the increases and changed incidence he saw in “genetic” diseases, but he was convinced the cause was “too much fat”. Well it was the eighties, he just needed to take one step away from Conventional Wisdom and he would have nailed a lot of things.. Thirty years later and doctors who do take that step get deleted from Wikipedia.

  154. Alison Morton

    As a former nurse (in Macclesfield) and health visitor and now a medical herbalist (ie: health care professional for over 45 years) I eventually realised that the dietary advice being given in conventional circles did not ‘fit’ with my knowledge of physiology and that the whole issue of cholesterol was not as straightforward as was implied. As a herbalist I have seen very many patients whose symptoms exactly fitted the side-effect profile of the drugs they were prescribed, yet their doctors refused to believe that side effects might be their problem, instead prescribing more and more drugs. I have grave reservations regarding the motivation behind the current slavish prescribing habits of many doctors, while also understanding the enormous pressures under which they work and the extent to which this must affect their ability to appraise critically the messages they receive from the pharmaceutical reps. I tell my patients that if they find an open-minded doctor (my ophthalmologist is one such), hang on to them as they’re worth their weight in gold. Your blog is a breath of fresh air and I direct many of my patients to it – Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information and should be viewed with caution in my opinion – there are many other more reliable sources. Keep up the good work, consign Wiki to the scrapheap on which it belongs. Thank you for your efforts – if I still lived in Macclesfield I’d be signing up to your surgery. Feel free to move to Buxton anytime!

    Reply
    1. anglosvizzera

      I agree. When I was practising homeopathy, I always checked the listed adverse effects of the drugs that patients were on, as well as when they were first prescribed. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to see what was going on – but to try and get their GP or consultant to review their medications was almost impossible! Some of the more elderly patients wouldn’t have a word said against their doctor, even when provided with good-quality evidence regarding the effects of their drugs.

      Reply
  155. Jytdog

    The skeptics are winning, your article will be deleted. No- woo peddlers on Wikipedia! (unless of course bulks of criticism can be added to their pages) I had fun editing Wikipedia for years 🙂

    Reply
  156. John G Thompson

    Dr. Kendrick, As of this moment your biographical page is still on wikipedia. If the decision is made on merit, as it is supposed to be, your page should stay. Given all the talk above, that could be a good thing, a bad thing, or a non thing.

    For some perspective, this has been happening for years. Back when the Internet ran on 9600 baud modems (1980’s), these flames wars would consume people’s lives and make a newsgroup unusable.

    Wikipedia’s moderator and rules are supposed to stop this activity. As you can see from the activity around Dr. Kendrick, it is not totally successful.

    I’d suggest ignoring it. Wait a year or two and if you feel like it, put up a new and improved page. Or not.

    JGT

    Reply
  157. Martin Back

    Extracts from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

    Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.

    1. The person’s research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

    Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.

    Dr Kendrick doesn’t do original research because he is a working doctor, not a researcher, and doesn’t have the time or the money. But what he does do is “pioneer or develop a significant new concept” to explain better the research done by others whose results are reported in academic journals, and of course any observations made by him in the course of his work.

    The problem, from Wikipedia’s point of view, is that the concept hasn’t yet got enough traction in the academic literature to generate a “substantial number of references”.

    Unfortunately, as Dr Kendrick wrote in 2005, “It is almost impossible to become an ‘opinion leader’ unless you do the clinical trials paid for by the pharmaceutical industry. These are the biggest, highest profile studies, and the results are presented at major medical meetings, and published in the high profile medical journals.

    Ergo, opinion leaders are almost all supported and promoted by the industry. From the very start, they are a self-selected group. Pro-industry, pro-drug use. Usually, pro-specific drug.

    These people write the editorials and speak to the press and take part in discussion and symposia and presentations. They are then invited onto prestigious committees that decide on the medical treatment for all of us.”https://www.thincs.org/Malcolm3.htm

    I’m not sure what Dr Kendrick can do, except to keep plugging away and hoping the tide will turn.

    Reply
    1. AhNotepad

      Martin, there are others who support the LCHF diet and are mentioned on wikipee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Noakes
      Another link:
      Billy Connolly
      September 2013. Crawley, Jennifer (28 February 2014). “Launceston surgeon Gary Fettke diagnoses Billy Connolly’s Parkinson’s in hotel lobby encounter”. The
      73 KB (8,812 words) – 22:30, 3 December 2018 also a supporter of the LCHF benefits
      https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Gary+fettke

      Let’s stick this in too:

      This is how the New York Times put it:

      …”First, the guidelines have moved away from achieving target cholesterol levels.
      Americans have long been urged to focus on their laboratory numbers. Many people are obsessive about checking their cholesterol levels and pursuing even better numbers. Doctors have been told to focus on these numbers and, in some cases, the quality of their care was assessed by the percentage of their patients with low cholesterol levels.

      Those days are over. The new guidelines recognize that for patients who have exhausted lifestyle efforts and are considering drug therapy, the question is not whether a drug makes your lab tests better, but whether it lowers your risk of heart disease and stroke. Studies over the past several years have shown that improving your lab profile with drugs is not equivalent to lowering your heart risks.”…

      Don’t worry about cholesterol levels! This is a remarkable U-turn and not only that. For years I’ve been saying that the targets were a nonsense and now this is what one of the most influential cardiologists in the world, Steven Nissen, has to say about them: “The evidence was never there” for the LDL targets, he said. Past committees “made them up out of thin air,” he added.

      Reply
      1. Martin Back

        Ah, from memory Dr Kendrick does not promote any particular diet but he has said saturated fat is not harmful. As to Tim Noakes, the widely-publicised trial has clearly put him in the “notable” category, although he was already notable for his work on running, particularly on the dangers of over-hydration, something not recognized until he pointed it out.

        Gary Fettke is also listed because of the controversy of his banning, not because of his dietary theories.

  158. sue

    Dr. Kendrick, you must have heard the saying, “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.” At age 69 I can say that I have observed this to be true. It was true for me when I found you. I’m sure others here have had the same experience. So don’t be troubled about people who need you not being able to find you. They will, regardless of wickedpedia. I seldom ever use it because, with anyone at all having the opportunity to alter the facts, how can I trust what I read there? So I just don’t waste my time. I found you at the perfect time to make the most of your advice, and others will too. Thank you for being brave enough to speak truth to the power of the main stream, i.e., bought and paid for, medical media machine.

    Reply
    1. Martin Back

      I found Dr Kendrick easily via Google after my doctor prescribed statins and I decided to find out more about them before taking them. As a result, no statin has ever passed my lips.

      Reply
    1. Angelica Nelson

      This is an act of naked desperation, not science. It has the earmarks of the failing vegan experiment in US diet fads. Even Alex has abandoned them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-BM4dm4rX8 Remember the movie, Supersize Me? and the rebuttal, Fat Head? Yeah, that’s the Alex I mean. The hilarity starts when you realize Alex was inspired to become vegan by Grary Null, another person scorned on Wikipedia as a quack. These vegans have no consistency of thought.

      Gary Null is scorned because he (gasp!) sells supplements. Dr. K doesn’t sell supplements even.

      Random ideological wars aren’t information.

      Reply
      1. JDPatten

        As I’ve said before, wikipedia represents the lowest common denominator – by its own definition – of information and thought and now, apparently, of intelligence.

  159. JanB

    I’m so shocked by this. Really upset. I’ve always been take it or leave it about Wikipedia because of the dubious information it gives out that any fool can edit. This outrage confirms my suspicions.
    Your writings are of immense importance to the followers and contributors of this blog, so carry on carrying on, Dr.K. We all have your back.

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      I wholeheartedly agree. Dr. Kendrick not only does his main job of helping his patients heal, but he is doing real science, real science of crucial importance to all. Real science involves evaluating evidence, all the evidence, searching for black swans. So many of our institutions, governmental, academic, and scientific are now so thoroughly corrupted by commercial interests (and personal ambition among academics and politicians) and sophisticated propaganda operations that the internet is our salvation. That is why the globalists are working night and day to figure out new techniques of censorship.

      Reply
  160. Sally Macgregor

    Dear Jimmy

    I’ve had enough too – of paid editors with serious conflicts of interest , for instance the recent deletion of one prominent but respected doctor’s page (Dr Malcolm Kendrick) simply because he proposes an alternative view on a contentious medical issue – the role of cholesterol in heart disease and the promotion of statins. There must be room on Wikipedia for alternative views, properly referenced. This isn’t the first time this matter has arisen – particularly in relation to the pharmaceutical industry.

    Wikipedia makes much of its usefulness as a primary source of unbiased information . In fact, its convoluted systems for controlling rogue editing are anything but transparent – pity the person who tries to follow the schoolboy nature of sock puppets sandboxes barn stars and the like. After discovering the widespread corruption of information about prescription drugs by arguably a network of paid editors a few years back I wrote to say I would never donate again. Since then I have advised against consulting Wikipedia for anything but basic information, although the pharma content seemed to have cleaned up its act. But as the practice of removing or altering information about heretical voices seems to be continuing I shall reinstate my boycott and spread the word again – avoid at all cost and do not donate.

    If this reply fails to reach you, despite the (fake?) appearance of a personal message then perhaps the person reading this would kindly forward it.

    Kind Regards

    Sent from my iPhone

    On Dec 6, 2018, at 10:09, jimmy@wikipedia.org wrote:

    Wikipedia
    Dear Sally,

    You have been a Wikipedia donor
    since 11/29/2014 and have unlocked:
    2 Badges

    Hydrogen
    Badge

    Carbon
    Badge

    Nitrogen
    Badge

    Oxygen
    Badge

    When you gave £10 in 2014, you kept Wikipedia thriving for yourself and millions of other readers.

    We need your help this week. Will you match your last gift?
    JimmyWales
    The buying and selling of user data as if your privacy is a mere commodity—the paywalls that block access to those who can’t afford it—the ads that bombard you whenever you open your browser: I’ve had enough. I love the internet and the power it has to move the world. I wish more of it looked like Wikipedia.

    We’re a non-profit. Only 1% of our readers give, but we manage to serve hundreds of millions of people per month. Imagine if everyone gave? We could transform the way knowledge is shared online.

    Every year, I’m happily stunned by the response from our donors. But we haven’t reached our fundraising goal, and we don’t have a lot of time left. We’re not salespeople. We’re librarians, archivists, and information junkies. We rely on our readers to become our donors, and it’s worked for 17 years.

    This year, please consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia.
    If everyone who used Wikipedia tihis year donated, we wouldn’t need to fundraise for years to come. But only 1% of our readers give. We’re sustained by the support of our donors, who choose to do something exceptional.

    Renew my donation: £10 »
    Give £10 »
    Give £20 »
    Give £50 »
    Give another amount »
    Thanks.
    Jimmy Wales
    Wikipedia Founder

    Renew my donation: £10 »

    Image of Jimmy Wales CC BY 2.5, found on Wikimedia Commons.

    All badge images CC0, found on Wikimedia Commons.

    You are receiving this email at sallymacgregor55@gmail.com as a valued donor of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you do not wish to receive any future emails from the Wikimedia Foundation, unsubscribe now. If you’ve already donated recently, we may have an alternate email address on file for you. Please let us know it! We’ll be happy to unsubscribe any old email addresses.

    Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
    P.O. Box 98‌‌204
    Was‌hi‌ngton, D‌‌C 20‌0‌90-82‌04
    United S‌ta‌tes of Am‌erica

    Reply
  161. Sally Macgregor

    Just received an email from Wikipedia asking for donations and replied – desperate hamfisted attempt to copy/paste on my phone as currently laid up in bed. Same thing happened a few years back in a different contentious area of medicine hence my reply (above). Wikipedia hides behind ridiculous schoolboyish coded systems and places enormous importance on protecting its ‘editors’ which makes exposing paid misinformation impossible. None of this would matter two hoots except that people seem to turn to Wikipedia first for information so actually it does matter. Thanks for your work and blog Dr Kendrick –

    Reply
    1. shirley3349

      Just noted that Dr Kendrick’s Wikipedia page has been deleted yet again. If anyone has the text saved, please restore it. This could go on for days yet. Please don’t throw in the towel.

      Reply
      1. Stephen Rhodes

        Probably related to the shameless attempt in the press today to persuade the uninformed to take even more statins. They are, however, very careful to say that it is the risk that will be reduced not that those taking statins will actually be spared stroke or heart attack.

  162. Bill In Oz

    OFf Topic but I think lets get back to medicine & healing..Bugger the trolls !

    I have justv read a report that single injection of chondroitinase ABC enzymes initiated the restoration of spinal function in rodents with damaged spinal cord injuries..

    chondroitinase ABC enzymes looks a lot like Chondroitin Sulfate which I take every day as part of my CVD prevention program..Bloody wonderful stuff eh ?

    https://www.worldhealth.net/news/one-time-injection-restores-function-after-spinal-cord-injury/

    Reply
  163. Morag Robertson

    HI,

    I LOVE YOUR BLOGS DR KENDRICK. BEING A JADED MEDIC MYSELF, I’M ALWAYS KEEN TO READ THOUGHTFUL OPINIONS. PROF D DIAMOND IN STATES TAKES A SIMILAR APPROACH TO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE AROUND THE CHOLESTEROL ISSUE, AS I’M SURE YOU ARE AWARE.

    I’VE LOOKED AT THE DELETION DISCUSSION AT WIKIPEDIA. I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE THE LEVEL OF PERSONAL INSULT IT HAS DEGENERATED INTO. YOUR BLOG IS THE FIRST I HAVE EVER FOLLOWED APART FROM FRIENDS. I’VE CERTAINLY. NEVER CONSIDERED AN ACCOUNT FOR WIKIPEDIA AS I HAVE BEEN RELATIVELY SLOW TO ADOPT E TECHNOLOGY. NEWLY RETIRED. HOWEVER, HAVING READ SOME OF THE CONTRIBUTORS TO DELETE/KEEP ARGUMENT OVER YOUR PAGE, I ALMOST WISH I HAD!

    HERE’S HOPING COMMON SENSE AND FAIR PLAY TRUMPS.

    I’M NOT SHOUTING, I DON’T SEE VERY WELL AND USE UPPER CASE FOR EASE OF READING!

    REGARDS,

    MORAG L ROBERTSON ________________________________

    Reply
    1. Jennifer

      MORAG, FIRSTLY, I HOPE YOU ARE ABLE TO READ MY REPLY COMFORTABLY.
      I TOO HAVE COME ACROSS PROF DIAMOND, ONLY THIS WEEK ACTUALLY, AND WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH HIS EXPLANATIONS.
      WHAT A WEEK THIS IS TURNING OUT TO BE, AT LEAST IN UK……
      1) THIS DREADFUL ATTACK ON DR KENDRICK, AND ULTIMATELY OTHER INTELLIGENT CONTRIBUTORS REGARDING LIPID THEORIES. ….ALTHOUGH I FEEL THEY ARE PAST THE ‘THEORY’ STAGE BY NOW.
      2) THE SITUATION WE ARE FACING REGARDING BREXIT ….ENOUGH SAID…I DON’T WISH TO START A POLITICAL DEBATE.
      3) THE TOTAL LACK OF CLARITY REGARDING IMPORTATION OF ESSENTIAL MEDICATIONS TO UK, POST-BREXIT. MY MAIN CONCERN IS LIFE-SAVING DRUGS (INSULIN IN PARTICULAR) ….AND THE GAGGING OF BIG PHARMA REGARDING SAME.
      4) THE LOSS OF FREE SPEECH, WHICH OUR FOREFATHERS FOUGHT FOR.
      5) THE LOSS OF GOOD MANNERS ON THIS GREAT BLOG, AS WE HAVE GENERALLY ENJOYED.

      Reply
  164. Kate Jones

    Whenever I hear your name quoted, I light up with delight, it means good advice will ensue. Reading your Treating Thyroid Patients Like Children ignited a respect for your approach to health, which led me to read more of your blogs. I love your no nonsense wit.
    Seems all of the BIGs are behind censoring anything which puts a hurdle in their way of getting their greedy hands on our health and hard earned money, for their collosal profits.
    There’s a wiff of fear as current science is being threatened. Keep doing what you’re doing.

    Reply
  165. Leigh

    I’m pretty sure we don’t have ‘skeptics’ from Britain. ‘Sceptics’, yes, but not ‘skeptics’…

    On another more serious note though, although I have very little time for wikipedia as a resource for anything more complex or contentious than a list of FA cup winners, lots of people do use it and the more and more frequent attempts to expunge people or ideas and to effectively re-write history, and indeed the present, are rather worryingly Orwellian.

    And even more so when someone like yourself is threatened with removal, while the like of David Icke retains an entry describing how the world is actually run by a secret group of shape-shifting lizards….I must have somehow missed the ‘reliable sources’ for that one….

    Reply
    1. Binra (@onemindinmany)

      I don’t regard David Icke as a reliable source of unbiased information, but if you consider the ‘reptilian brain’ or amygdala as being effectively ‘captured’ by the dominance of the fight-flight fear-response then you start to understand why a predatory drive runs our society. And manufactured ‘truth’ or masked agenda – such as ‘War on whatever’ – are all forms of shapeshifting by which to phish or bait the unwary into voluntary support for weapons intended to be used against them.

      The growing of the new ‘paradigm’ is not the fight to change the old, so much as to replace it. Was it Max Plank who said that science advances one death at a time?

      Reply
      1. chris c

        I liked John Brunner’s description of the human brain as “a man riding on a dog, riding on a lizard.

        Some of these people are built the other way up.

  166. Chancery Stone

    I’m afraid you (or at least your entry!) is doomed. I’ve been beavering away for the last few days, but to no avail. The deletes are comin gin thick and fast and I can smell the blood in the water. They have now closed down the discussion page to allow only regular editors, in other words the lesser users can go ‘f’ themselves; we don’t need to hear from them – they’re all ‘sock-puppets’ (Wikipedia has its own definition – actual, it has its own page – of what a sock-puppet is: basically any new user posting in a discussion, especially if they disagree with the Wiki’s consensus).

    Ironically, the fame of this “lively debate” has spread beyond those editors would normally have chipped into it and it is attracting unrelated editors like flies, even although they have no interest in the subject. It’s partly the nature of the beast (Wikipedia editors tend to be jobsworths and love their rule books) and partly because they are seeing the ramparts being breached. This, in turn, is providing the illusion of vindication for them in their need to delete – you must be a fringe crackpot because all your ‘fans’ are besieging the place. It’s a no-win situation – lost if you don’t speak up and damned if you do.

    They’ve got into an entrenched position now and don’t want to be seen to back down. This is why I wasn’t sure about carrying on with the argument (I gave in at some of the idiocies and rampant hypocrisies today and went back in to answer a few even although I swore I wouldn’t!). Sometimes more onslaught just creates exactly this problem rather than strengthens your case.

    However, all that said, I fear you would have been history anyway. Once Skeptic From Britain got his teeth into you, all was lost. On the upside… it has actually given you some populist ‘fame’, which can only add to your rebel cachet – no-one argues about something that doesn’t matter. The public is nothing if not apathetic!

    On past experience, I shall be VERY surprised if your entry survives this. They are now making all the right reasoned noises about how they can put you back in once you have established notability through “secondary sources”, i.e. once mainstream medicine has said your ideas have validity you’re in! So don’t hold your breath…

    Best of luck. Hope I’m wrong and they let your entry stay.

    Reply
    1. A friend

      “how they can put you back in once you have established notability through “secondary sources”, i.e. once mainstream medicine has said your ideas have validity you’re in!”

      The more likely path is that notability will be established once there are secondary sources noting Kendrick as a well-known pseudoscientist. At the rate he spouts nonsense that shouldn’t be long.

      Reply
      1. AnnaM

        I wonder if there should be some sort of rule that contentless posts might not be put through? If I were refereeing a debate, ad hominems would bring automatic dismissal from the platform.

      2. Binra (@onemindinmany)

        I read zero tolerance as ‘merciless’.
        I agree if there is NOTHING but ad hom.
        But if someone is seeking to communicate but LEAKS their frustrations, then is it not ok to invite a better way of rephrasing what they are saying. or retracting the attack on the person and addressing the issue.
        Knee jerk reaction feels good in the moment – and then leaves consequences. IE: If someone get banned for bad behaviour that is not indicative of their whole contribution here – does everyone else post in fear. Aspiring to address issues without resort to the tricks by which to seem to be superior or ‘win’ (Schopenhauer’s 38 points), is a self-educative process.
        Unless such a culture wakes from the spell of groupthink, Malcolm may not find many able or willing to engage in any debate of a genuine willingness to uncover or arrive at a true or more truly aligned appreciation of why things work as they do – or indeed fail to.

      3. Chancery Stone

        Have you been using your psychic abilities for long, Friend? I was amazed to discover that you already know “notability will be established once there are secondary sources noting Kendrick as a well-known pseudoscientist” and that it won’t be long till that happens. Fabulous clairvoyance, but I do wish you’d spoken up sooner and saved us all a lot of bother trying to fight Wikipedia’s censorship, especially if we’ve been up against psychics with special powers all along. How could logic, rationality and good science possibly fight that?!

      4. AnnaM

        Binra,

        I agree completely. I’m not into zero tolerance at all, and I certainly think fair warning should be given, especially as some people are just not used to comporting themselves civilly or even really understand what reasoned debate means.

        But you will notice that the 2 or 3 Wiki trolls who posted here gave not one sincere answer to any of the several responses. In other words, a person of basic sincerity can be dealt with, but lacking that it is rather hopeless. Then it becomes a waste of time.

      5. binra

        Whoever they were, they merely came to dump insult and provocation.
        They could be trained GCHQ operatives or 11 year olds. Hard to tell the difference at times.
        Malcolm chose to give them the floor? Perhaps to see if any actual communication would result?
        I think that insult and provocation promotes division and polarisation and should be called up on a point of order and NOT engaged with in the terms of its framing. IE :

        “I understand that you have your own personal feelings but if you want to engage in this blog commentary, you have to express yourself in a manner respectful to its purpose and the persons of those taking part by addressing the issues and being prepared to substantiate your points when asked or challenged to do so.

        The likelihood of a scientific debate is inversely proportional to the acceptability of personal insult.

    2. Valda Redfern

      I saw your arguments – well played. Wikipedia’s process is reminiscent of a witchcraft test: just throw the accused into the river. If she floats, she’s a witch; if she sinks, maybe she was innocent, but we’ve got rid of her anyway.

      Reply
    3. HenryL

      Good work. (Also thanks for your earlier response to my question, some miles back)

      Not here to fix Wikipedia as such but the shenanigans of good science vs the world are all here.

      Not in response to your own comments specifically:

      This has been a bit of an eye-opener for me, inasmuch as I’d never seen or been concerned about this side of Wikipedia before, just used it for looking up odd ‘established mainstream factual’ bits and pieces of info, and it has undeniably been useful for USB Plug Type Nomenclature, all albums released by Artist X, and the like – I had just vaguely wondered how on earth it worked. Now it is painfully obvious that it can’t possibly work well in it’s current form for almost anything that could be considered to be Science, Medicine, Health, History, Politics… as it is just too open to interference and abuse. It’s much more like other social media lifeforms, and about as edifying. Of course the less open channels (journals, textbooks etc.) which largely go to define a mainstream are not without problems either! So what to do?!

      Personally I have also used Wikipedia for articles on scientific topics, historical, etc. but always read them with a background caveat in place, I expected them to mainly just reflect the current mainstream view – which changes over time – or perhaps an individuals personally somewhat biased editorship (perhaps a minority interest that did not motivate much ‘expert’ consensus forming editorial activity) – similarly all taken with plenty of salt.

      Somewhat like the comments made by someone else in the mass of comments here it seems the only viable way of making Wikipedia work would be for it to be partitioned into categories with different editorial/oversight rules. The idea of a ‘fringe’ channel and a ‘mainstream’ channel seems pretty horrible and unworkable though, as at the very least there would be a lot of border skirmishes which would probably be pretty similar to where we are now. Perhaps Science, Medicine, History, Health, Politics etc. all have to go into ‘Fringe’ bunkers! But unless free editing/censoring of the type we’ve been seeing is prevented then it still won’t work. Without editorial input it would just become a kind of web hosting service for individual views. More strict controls on who can edit, vetting, and perhaps insisting on all editors names being publicly prominent would just tend to take us away from the basic Wikipedia philosophy and more like the ‘normal’ scientific community operation.

      Conclusion: Give up. There may be (is) some useful stuff in there. There is some added value from genuine efforts of multiple authors/editors with expertise and knowledge in various areas. But keep spreading even more sensible warnings about it (perhaps should automatically be on the top of every Wikipedia page?!) and keep it positioned firmly as a whole as more of a sideshow than it seems to have become. Treat it as being on the same level as any other social media activity in terms of scientific value or reliability. It’s their game, they can play it like that if they want – but we’d better resist it going to their, or anyone else’s heads unchecked. Don’t pay for it unless you really want to play this game.

      Reply
  167. Vegan for life

    Kendricks Wikipedia article was DELETED!!!! Other high-fat quacks NEXT.

    The vegan community is loving it!!!! I emailed Michael Greger about this.

    Reply
    1. AhNotepad

      Vegan for Life, I don’t quite understand how your “burning books” approach to life benefits anybody. But then I suppose you dont have any impure thoughts as you don’t eat meat. How, pray tell, do you live with yourself? Since you consist in a large part, of MEAT.

      Reply
      1. Rock Dr

        AhNotepad

        You have hit the nail on the head. Vegan for Life is a walking bag of meat and therefore must atone for this sin as veganism is a religion not a lifestyle. I take some comfort in knowing that such ridiculous antics by the veggie crowd has not changed a single mind as they live with dogma instead of evidence. Removal from Wikipedia is irrelevant to the wider world and does nothing to stop followers of this blog from changing minds one conversation at a time using facts and encouraging people to educate themselves. As for the doctor vegan for life mentioned, somebody should tell him that contrary to the book “How not to die”, none of us get out alive statins or veggies notwithstanding!

      2. Binra (@onemindinmany)

        If hate can provoke a hateful reaction it can indeed gloat. What is ’emotional reaction’?
        Is it the way reasoned debate can be undermined, diverted, subverted and rendered impossible?
        How likely is it that any of us can out deceive the deceiver?

    2. JanB

      I like to think that we who read and contribute to this excellent blog are, with the occasional exception, kind, intelligent, polite, mutually supportive people, tolerant of each other’s differing views and eager to learn and gain a wider understanding of the issues raised by Dr. Kendrick.
      Nuff said, I think.

      Reply
    3. Joyce

      Vegan, you need to put down your lentil casserole and get out more. We live in a free country and having your narrow views forced upon us is quite boring. You’ll be insisting there’s no God next! lol

      Reply
    4. Joyce

      Vegan for life. You need to go to Wikipedia, search “freedom of speech” and read it! Maybe Jimmy Wales could cast his eyes over it too, before he comes begging for donations to his “selective information” website. I’d Never trust it, or visit it again. I like two sides to a story then I can make up my own mind. Go chew on your nuts.

      Reply
    5. Christopher Palmer

      Vegan for life,
      I don’t think you realise how impressionable and stupid you choice of words makes you seem.

      Reply
    6. Chancery Stone

      Vegan for Life, I am mystified by your sneering reference to Dr Kendrick as a “high-fat quack”. The average vegan diet is awash with fat, due to the fact that the diet lacks the umami of meat (or any animal product) and this has to be compensated for with spices, flavourings and fat. Coconut oil, that most ‘healthy’ and beloved of vegan fats, is, I believe, a staggering 86% saturated fat – just as ‘bad’ as animal fats, and just as disapproved of by the medical community.

      If you want to see “high-fat quackery” in action go to any vegan restaurant, most of which fry the majority of their food, or drizzle it in oil, or serve it with an oily side dish like avocado in order to ensure it is tasty. Of course, I wouldn’t refer to them as “quacks”, merely people who choose to eat differently, but then I don’t get my knickers in a knot about other people’s diets, nor do I sneer and gloat if I see a vegan or a vegetarian being censored or bullied. In fact, I’m likely to speak up for them. I guess I’m just not as enlightened as you….

      Reply
    7. AnnaM

      But the problem is you want to deny other adults the ability to hear all arguments. Please tell me the truth: Do you believe free speech is a good value to have?

      Reply
    8. Jerome Savage

      Mixing 2 different arguments here.
      One is to do with the morality of eating meat, (meat has always featured in the human diet)
      Second, given that meat does feature in human diet, what are the health implications for humans ?
      Your opinion is based on sentiment /emotions. Your argument is not relevant here, belongs elsewhere.

      Reply
  168. Bill In Oz

    Wkipedia has been gamed by Vegans….. And they are gloating about it…Dear me..What morality is this ?
    Please block all vegans from this page Malcolm.Let them die of CVD at their own ill informed leisure..

    Reply
    1. Binra (@onemindinmany)

      No Bill, vegans are being gamed as a proxy minority by corporate agenda that also uses agencies such as Wikipedia. It isn’t the minority interest that is a problem, but what it is being nurtured and funded FOR. No I am not a vegan and yes I object to guilt being used as a political ‘correctness’ whether through ‘carbon guilt’ for wiping out billions of computer modelled humans in a projected future, or carnivore guilt for eating animals and animal products – or as in veganism the ‘movement’ both together.
      Top down agenda are not so hard to spot, and the militants by no means represent an actual ‘community’. But the narrative can be pushed in Media and Corporate and political PR to prepare for global guidelines that are then ‘negotiated’ into law – by various inducements – as with the switch to a carbon guilt economy. Top down agenda is nothing to do with OUR interests or the Planet’s interest except insofar as to mask in a seemingly benign form.
      What does ‘health care’ actually signify but sickness management.
      So I say take someone on their merits. If a poster merely comes to dump or provoke doubt, division and disinfo, then by all means, don’t give give it airtime in your own living room.

      Sceptics are requiring further evidence before accepting something true and are therefore open to the possibility it may be true. Cynics may hide in the mask of scepticism – as a cover for hateful attack or denial of any change in self-convictions gullibly believed.

      Reply
    2. Jeffrey Dun

      Why block all vegans Bill ? We shouldn’t censure those with whom we disagree.

      Besides, the trolls who have been posting here condemn themselves with their own words. Let them speak I say – they are only damaging their cause.

      Reply
      1. Bill In Oz

        Well perhaps not ALL vegans Malcolm. If they come humbly cap in hand and ask on a bended knee to be allowed to learn about the true causes and reasons for CVD, then by all means let them stay. But the rest ? No, cast them out into the outer darkness ! 😉

      1. Binra (@onemindinmany)

        The parting shot is your own little gloat. Why give gloating any currency at all?
        The intent to humiliate is only a symptom of self-hatred. No one who has love or compassion for themselves takes joy in hating others – as if a release of pressure in mitigating pain can actually become a joy.
        It is the hollow who are captured by ruses such as low fat low cholesterol high statin diets. The hollow merely follow what seems to give some sort of power or protection without actively engaging in any real relationship.
        In order to bash my head in once, a gang of thugs sought to elicit any response that they could use to justify doing so and provocative hate baiting ‘scanned my system’ for a way to hack itself into my life. Thanks – but no thanks!
        Hatred seeks a like company. All vibrational resonances operate ‘communication at a distance’ in terms of negative or positive synchronicities. I hate hating – and so when I feel it I endeavour to really feel it – in the desire to release it and be healed of it. Note that terms like stress do not qualify the context – where distress does and a sense of being locked or trapped in distress is of course hateful and rage inducing – which is then a source of anxiety and guilt if expressed or depression and impotence if suppressed. All this – if not cleared, is dumped on the body in various pictured symptoms.
        So take a walk in nature. Love those you share life with and lighten up on yourself.

  169. Clathrate

    To the vegan & Sceptic (sic) trolls – I’ll have an extra steak for each of you who’ve commented on here. Oh I do love eating animals – they are so tasty. Hope you all enjoyed the crowd in Brighton who stood up as they loved red meat. Hopefully more of this is going to happen.

    About the Wikipedia deletion, it is better to be off Wikipedia. I think as someone else commented, it is useful for the likes of past FA Cups winners but I’d never treat it as valid for anything scientific, engineering, other than basic facts – I supervise MSc dissertations and I would re-educate any student that referenced Wiki (and question any student in a viva on the reliability of anything drawn from a Wiki reference). I’ve seen the begging bowl requests of Wiki and it has never crossed my mind to contribute when there are so many deserving causes in the real world: however, I will now ensure that I actively dissuade anyone who might be tempted to contribute.

    To the vegans & Sceptics who’ve trolled & succeeded in the deletion, the knock-on effect is that people searching for Dr K won’t find a Wiki page (which apparently didn’t provide anything much anyway) but will lead those same people directly to the homepage where they can study the blog entries and read the comments, as well as to other reliable sources of information. So in reality what you have achieved is a favour to people interested in their own health (and you will directly lead to more people eating more meat, eggs, butter, cream and animal products – you all know that the superpower of the pig is to make bacon and of the cow to convert grass and water into milk and beef).

    The vegan & Sceptic trolls don’t appear to have the mental capacity to realise that a rationale reader does not fall for lines that state someone is a quack or looney and provide no justification for such accusations. They’ll also be pleased to know that I’ve got many family members and friends / work colleagues to increase their consumptions of animal products and get over their phobia’s & guilt of consuming too much fat & cholesterol (& salt if cutting out processed food), some with exceptional health improvements (and reduced, or eliminated, medication).

    So, as sung at all the televised darts tournaments, STAND UUUPPP IF YOU LOVE THE DARTS*. STAND UUUPPP IF YOU LOVE THE DARTS**, STAND UUUPPP IF YOU LOVE THE DARTS***, STAND UUUPPP IF YOU LOVE THE DARTS****
    * READ MEAT
    ** EATING ANIMALS
    *** SATURATED FAT
    **** CHOLESTEROL

    Reply
  170. brwims

    There’s this…. https://infogalactic.com/info/Malcolm_Kendrick

    I have and will never contribute to Wikipedia. It is dominated by primarily left-wing activists, so if it is possible to bias whatever it is you are researching they will do so. Sadly certain topics in science/medicine have become politically biased, so you need to go to many different sources to compare and contrast.

    If I followed advice from the NHS, I would literally be dead now.

    Reply
      1. chris c

        Uncyclopedia is a joke and is meant to be.

        Wikipedia is becoming a joke but they take it seriously.

        Poking around in Infogalactic and it looks like what Wikipedia wanted to be.

    1. Chancery Stone

      Brwims, on what do you base your theory that Wikipedia is dominated by “left-wing activists”? I’m about as left-wing as you can get and I can’t stomach Wikipedia, have had two fairly major run-ins with them and don’t approve of anything they do in terms of practice (they are exceedingly censorious). If I’ve found them to be dominated by any one type of person I’d say it was rule-obsessed little jobsworths whose primary motivation in life is to run around like prefects and control everything everyone else does because it gives them a fleeting sense of power that they singularly lack in real life. That personality type doesn’t belong to a particular political affiliation in my experience.

      Also, given that the chief reason for censorship, aside from human prejudice and fear of change, in science and medicine is usually profit-led by food & drug companies, why would left-wingers be more involved? I’m afraid when it comes to powerful government lobbies they are far more likely to target the right-wing, as they are staunch capitalists and believe that pharmaceutical and food companies should be allowed to do what they like without fear of restraint or reprisal.

      With all due respect, you cannot possibly know the political leanings of the thousands of editors on Wikipedia and it certainly does not show a left-wing bias in its entries; quite the opposite. Try looking up the Talk page for their entry on Tony Martin (the farmer who shot & killed the burglar who broke into his house) if you think there is a left-wing bias on Wikipedia. It is like attending a National Socialist rally, only more right wing.

      Reply
      1. AhNotepad

        Chancery Stone, your comment is interesting but I wonder if bwims has some slight justification for the statement. I think the problem is, as always, is what someone writes received in the way it was sent? I have just watched George Friedman in https://youtu.be/scVSEAhvRD4. Of particular interest is a comment by rob hanson, this is in the section started by bob23456 bob. I can’t say that he’s right as I don’t know enough, and as with history, it is very much an interpretation of the details. If there is some truth in there then the “leftist” may be the “uncritical beings” who are easily led, and stirred up by suggestions of conspiracies. This then becomes destructive, which may be what was intended by, perhaps the KGB. Could wikipee be manipulated similarly? Then again I could be completely wrong, and there will be many that say I am off my trolley. I wonder what their agenda is.

      2. Gary Ogden

        AhNotepad: I think you’re on to something here, but I’m having too much fun living to bother to dig into it. I’m off my trolley, too. Welcome to the club!

      3. Gary Ogden

        Chancery Stone: The man behind the curtain at Wikipedia is none other than George Soros, a hedge fund gazillionaire notorious for behind-the-scenes funding of leftist groups and activities. As for the pharmaceutical industry they have as much ownership of Democrats as Republicans. I am a reformed left-winger myself, currently wingless, without a political home. As for how it is run, it sounds like technocrat heaven. I pay no attention to it at all.

  171. Göran Sjöberg

    When you have come to realize that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around it is just impossible back off intellectually from this insight if you have normal brain functions – no matter what ignorant insults you are subjected to.

    The cholesterol scam is just another take on this!

    Science/reality is strong in its essence!

    Reply
    1. Dr. John H

      The only valid reason to be vegan is the belief that not killing animals is more important that one’s health. It is an irony that eating animal products is in harmony with nature and results in better health. Not eating animal products is out of harmony with nature and most often results in poor health. I encourage people to eat for their bodies and not for their minds.

      Reply
      1. anglosvizzera

        @John Pollard – I’d like to see a vegan surviving healthily (or thriving, maybe?) on local produce from the UK – surely the ethical argument extends to a food’s air-miles? It seems to me that a lot of things they choose to eat come from a long way away and may also be causing environmental problems out there, or depriving the local community of their essential foodstuffs. Many ‘vegan’ foods offered for sale are also highly processed – I try to eat foods that are as natural as possible, so for me, meat, eggs and dairy form essential items in my diet. We’re seeing food manufacturers rubbing their hands with glee to provide vegan foods, much as we saw them churning out the ‘low-fat’ rubbish that we’ve been told to live on for the past few decades.

      2. binra

        Yes the opening of a new processed food marketed to the masses on PR of top down fake science. That’s part of it. If they can hitch up with carbon guilt on stats for grazing vs growing veg, you get a bigger whip hand to the regulators. Meat taxes = perhaps not in France just yet – and meat crime for bringing home the bacon or telling a porkie. (pork pie = lie – cockney slang).

    2. Binra (@onemindinmany)

      Note that ‘health’ is dictated through Dr ‘WHO’ et al – and moral outrage is fuelled by PR aka propaganda by shadow administrators who reframe minds and laws by supporting proxy minority vendetta and manipulating new guilts by ‘moral’ coercion.
      The push for the shift to a ‘carbon guilt’ economy weaves any and every possible ‘support’ and militant veganism makes guilt-deniers of anyone who persists in such ‘crime’ after having been ‘educated’. First they came for the smokers… (what’s this someone dares to NOT demonise the smokers!)

      The push to a medically managed life from (before the ) cradle to the grave, is already an ‘economy’, and with only a little more push, the ability to think will have been engineered our of the livestock.

      HG Wells (Time Machine) posited a future split into humans who seemed cultured but were eaten and those who seemed uncultured and ate them. This isn’t quite literally true but very similar to pharming humans for war and sickness. The system is a management of induced dependency is it not? But anyone who speaks to break the illusion of the ‘protection’ to reveal the racket, is not only walled out, but smeared and held up as open season for mob hate. It goes with the territory.

      I have to live with myself, and that is where I attune for integrity of being relative to what I think and say and do. So for me ‘moral’ has NO sense of imposition of guilt, shame and coercion on self or on others – to conform them to MY ‘say’ – for you are your own choosing. I cant nor want, to, tell you how to live. All thought has consequence at some level – and all behaviour stems from it.

      The willingness to extend or share communication and indeed share and grow a culture of education and discovery, is a symptom of health. Focusing in health is what the mind of sickness is designed to interject and block. The investment in sickness, division and the power gotten from it, is ‘too big to fail’.
      But that simply tells me to withdraw my investment or allegiance to such thinking.
      The belief in a false sense of protection or control is real in the mind of the believer – as effective against deeper fears. Otherwise who would take all these ‘side’ effecting interventions?

      Risk management. But who is protected against risk? The patient? No, the system itself to which the patients are fitted.

      Reply
  172. shirley3349

    I can respect those vegans who have made a choice not to eat animal products themselves because they believe it is cruel. But they have no right to force their opinions and dietary practices onto other people.
    To judge from my grand-daughters, who have a vegan mother, their reaction to becoming vegan themselves is, “No way!” So there is hope yet.
    Like them, I love meat and dairy products and am far healthier and thinner now I eat a diet mainly consisting of such food. However, I know many commercial farming practices are undesirable and support a return to traditional ways of rearing animals. This will require a shift of subsidy from grain to meat production to keep costs to the consumer down. This can be justified on the grounds it will improve public health.
    Despite much provocation, I don’t wish a early death on anyone.

    Reply
  173. Helen

    I have had very high cholesterol for many years so I got a bit frightened & did extensive testing on my heart about a month ago. I found out that I have an extraordinary healthy heart! No calcium deposits. I have refused taking statins for years! My friends who take them are always trying to scare me about my high cholesterol. Now I feel redeemed.

    Reply
  174. John Collis

    Not directly related to the Wikipedia situation but today, Saturday 8/12, both the i and daily express are reporting that daily doses of statins should be increased following research undertaken by Imperial College London and Leicester University.

    Reply
    1. Stephen Rhodes

      Explain why you can categorically state that the removal of an anti-statin campaigner from wikipedia is not related to the new push for statins.

      Reply
    2. abamji

      The full paper in JAMA appears to show a 40% reduction in relative risk without quoting the absolute risk. Also the study relates only to high risk patients – and was funded by Amgen with all the authours having extensive conflucts of interest.

      Of course if statins are anti-inflammatory then higher doses will reduce risk. The cholesterol lowering is incidental !

      Reply
  175. Charles Gale

    EVEN HIGHER DOSAGES OF STATINS NEEDED TO SAVE LIVES

    Strangely, coincidentally, in the week that Dr Kendrick’s wikipedia entry is under threat of removal, today’s UK newspapers are headlining on the front page in large type face with this headline.

    Seems like “forces” out there are on the warpath.

    Thinking rhetorically, what is the mechanism/procedure for getting headlines like this? And the lack of headlines claiming the contrary point of view?

    Reply
  176. Charles Gale

    Bill in Oz

    “let’s get back to medicine and healing…bugger the trolls!”

    I agree.

    However, at this point, I’m reluctant to post comments of this nature (CVD/medicine/healing) in this current Wikipedia entry (361 comments so far) for fear of them getting swallowed/lost/missed and, as you say, it would be off topic too.

    And I’m also reluctant to post them on the previous instalment part 59 (274 comments) for similar reasons and also because previous blogs tend to get visited less.

    Anyway, I am still mulling over some proposed names for the theory e.g. Martin Back’s “endothelial damage theory” and Gary Ogden’s “thrombogenetic theory”.

    We’ve come a long way since Dr Kendrick’s “Great Cholesterol Con” published back in 2008 (I think) in which, essentially, Dr Kendrick:

    – cast doubt on the role of cholesterol and
    – put forth his stress theory.

    As of part 59 (dated 27 Nov 2018), coronary artery damage and repair is covered and reiterated.

    Of the two, I’m not sure how much theory remains with the repair process as opposed to the causes of damage. In part 59 we find Dr Kendrick bullet pointing 35 aggravators/causes of damage off the top of his head. Many of which may or may not be hypotheses. Well, they will be to mainstream cholesterol advocates.

    Thus, perhaps any theory naming should concentrate on the multiple causation side of things, perhaps starting with the prefix “poly” (many): the “poly something…something hypothesis???

    Reply
    1. Bill In Oz

      Charles, twas not Gary Ogden who proposed the name “thrombogenetic theory”. Twas Malcolm himself in post 59.

      For myself I am reading less here as I regard this wikipedia stuff as a distraction from the main purpose of Malcolm’s blog on CVD.

      But it has achieved one curious result : I have tended to be very ‘believing’ when using Wikipedia in the past. Now frankly I do not trust it and will not be using it for anything beyond basic elemental stuff. Effectively this arrogant and triumphalist Vegan has shat in the Wikipedia nest. And who ever would want to bed. down in dung ?

      Reply
    2. AnnaM

      Could thrombogenetic be changed to thrombogenesis theory? The word genetic has different connotations for most people.

      Reply
      1. Bill In Oz

        Genetic here means simply ‘ starting or initiating’..Similar to The Book of Genesis in the bible.

  177. AnnaM

    I don’t think he should do that. This isn’t tit for tat. If reasoned debate is a value we hold, we should not squelch them. If they persist in not understanding what reasoned debate it, that might be another story.

    Reply
  178. Jerome Savage

    Study referred to in todays Times advocating increased statin prescription is headed by
    PROFESSOR KOSH RAY who states that he
    “received research grants including from the British Heart Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi, MSD, and the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS)”
    It would be relevant information to know how much support came from Pfizer among others.

    Reply
  179. Anthony James Oliver

    If Skeptic from Britain” really is from Britain why is he/she using the American spelling of “sceptic” rather than the British? I smell a rat, particularly as it coincides with stories in several of today’s daily newspapers suggesting that higher doses of statins save lives. Or am I being overly sceptical?

    Reply
    1. JDPatten

      I can’t believe that all people here are patting themselves on the back with outrage over what I’m sure most understand to be the site representing the lowest common denominator of knowledge and thought – Wikipedia – when you might be spending that energy defending Malcolm et al at theskepticalcardiologist.com where it would matter.
      This is an actual physician with scores of patients and a greater blog following.
      This is who he quotes:

      “Harriet Hall wrote an excellent analysis of THINCS 10 years ago at Science-Based Medicine and her concluding sentences are still highly relevant:

      ‘to reject the cholesterol connection and statins entirely is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In my opinion, THINCS is spreading misinformation that could lead patients to refuse treatment that might prolong their life or at least prevent heart attacks and strokes.’ ”

      His conclusion:
      “The evidence for the benefit of statins is based on a deep body of scientific work, which will not be changed by any one new study. There is a very strong consensus amongst scientists who are actively working in the field of atherosclerosis, and amongst physicians who are actively caring for patients, that statins are very beneficial and safe. This consensus is similar to the consensus about the value of vaccines.

      Science moves incrementally, and new studies inform those with open minds. The studies in this area that have been most significant in the last few years have actually strengthened the concept that drugs which lower LDL-C without causing other issues lower cardiovascular risk (see here on PCSK9 inhibitors and here on ezetimibe.)”

      Set him straight!?

      Reply
      1. BobM

        Science never moves incrementally. There was no E=mC^2, then there was. There was no “the Earth rotates around the sun”, then there was. There was no “bacteria cause ulcers”, then there was. (Now, it took a while for those ideas to become mainstream, but the initial idea was not “incremental”, it was a complete rethinking.)

    1. Stephen Rhodes

      Indeed.
      Would the HPV manufacturers be pushing this dubiously efficacious vaccine if they could be sued into bankruptcy in the courts.
      No.
      Which is why they continue.

      Reply
    2. Angelica Nelson

      Yeah. 😦 I was following her career at the time. She was jailed for taking her notebooks with her when she left her job. Anyone who’s taken even one semester of science knows that those are legal documents belonging to the scientist. She was jailed for taking her own property. The judge later boasted that he had been paid off by the company she worked for. In Nevada, that seems like it either isn’t a crime (to bribe a judge), or it’s never enforced. The US is a network of fiefdoms.

      She was one of the researchers who helped find a treatment for AIDS when there wasn’t one. The she switched to ME/CFS because it looks so much like a retrovirus, the way it behaves. Then she noticed similarities with Autism, and started to raise an alarm about the safety of vaccines. She wasn’t saying don’t vaccinate, she had a specific safety improvement she wanted to see. And at that point, she was intentionally destroyed.

      Now she IS an anti-vaxxer. She wasn’t before. This is how science becomes polarized and grows so self absorbed with political argument, that it stops helping people. If she in fact, found out how to cure ME/CFS right now. Nobody would listen. The wellbeing of ourselves, our families, our economies don’t matter because she is now discredited. Her name is Judy Mikovits, PhD.

      Reply
      1. AhNotepad

        AnnaM, when I read Jayne Donegan’s foreword to Dissolving Illusions, there seemed to be no case for vaccination on medical grounds. When you look at the US they have a level of sickness that appears to be associated with vaccinations. Now that Australia, which has it’s export economy protected by the US navy, they have started this vaccination evil too. We will be able to see the level of damage increasing there if the vaccines are the problem. I know which way I would bet.

      2. Martin Back

        “Before the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) was established in 1988, the wild poliovirus (WPV) was present in 125 countries, with approximately 1000 children being paralysed each day. In 2017, the world saw only 22 cases of polio caused by WPV, limited to just Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, the path towards eradication has not been straightforward. More than 99% of the reduction was achieved by 2000, but the last mile of eradication has proven to be the most difficult. As of 6 December, there have already been 28 confirmed WPV cases in 2018.”https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/12/12/building-health-security-into-health-systems-one-legacy-of-polio-eradication-that-must-not-be-lost/

        The anti-vaxxer position is that public health initiatives like provision of clean drinking water have cut the infection rate, not the vaccine. I think the above quote demonstrates that this position is incorrect, since polio rates have been cut in many third-world countries where effective public health remains a dream. It is only vaccines administered by dedicated health personnel working often in difficult circumstances that have achieved this level of success.

        Even in war-torn Syria with infrastructure bombed to pieces, vaccination has managed to quell virus outbreaks. http://polioeradication.org/news-post/syria-polio-outbreak-stopped/

      3. AhNotepad

        Martin Back, I don’t see that the report you quote indicates that vaccine does any good at all. First, are the cases actually polio? There are conditions that have been mistaken for polio, DDT poisoning is one, that vaccines are a pointless treatment. Second, It appears India has a huge problem with vaccine induced polio, https://realfarmacy.com/confirmed-indias-polio-eradication-campaign-caused-47500-cases-of-vaccine-induced-polio-paralysis/. Nutrition and sanitation will provide conditions that diseases in general will be less of a problem. Vaccines cause more problems than they cure, unless you subscribe to wikipee.

      4. Binra (@onemindinmany)

        WHO gets to define the goalposts? I challenge you to read the historical documentation gathered in Suzanne Humpries “Dissolving illusions” – if you care.
        I know a woman who had – against her father’s warning, (He worked in research) used a pre public access sample of DDT on her settee to rid it of fleas. She went into Intensive care for some months and has never been free of various neurological and walking difficulties since (probably 50+ years). No one had a clue as to what had happenned to her. Years later she confided the fact to her GP who showed interest but then she did not want to burden him with such trivial matters as one woman’s history when he had so many in need who required his attention. (Irony of a presumed lack of importance).

        The cover story for corporate industrial poisoning is infectious disease – and the ‘industry’ of their ‘treatment’. Toxicity initiates the breakdowns of function that the body then mobilises to attempt to clear. Where the toxicity is too great or the depleted and malnourished state of immune function too low – the sickness is blamed for the harm – but in this sense ‘sickness’ is part OF immune response.
        Narratives fed by PR from a top down power to persist their assertion no matter what – operate a corporately owned realm in which the predators farm their assets.
        When vaccine, pharma or pesticides and chemical or biological weapons are outlawed in the developed countries, they are then sold on to those who have never been allowed to develop – such as the ‘third world’ because they have a lot less of a voice than we do, and much more likelihood to be ‘disappeared’ or simply tortured and killed than in ‘civilised’ countries. Note that Zika is nothing new and nothing to be alarmed about and nothing like its PR cover story, but opened the way for GM mosquitos and vaccine development. Much that there is to be alarmed about is routinely IGNORED.

        I suggest that the ‘wild’ polio is innate to human biology and is usually of no great consequence. The methods of treatment that nurse through illness while supporting the retention of function as well as the health of the sufferer are known (were known) but ignored. PR runs the show because there is no love of truth – and an association of penalty with truth-telling.
        Dr Klenner reported his unqualified success with intravenous vit C for not only treating but reversing polio to a meeting of the AMA and was totally IGNORED. The whole agenda was already in motion. PR. If it is a sickening possibility to consider fraud from the very top, then is it not actually more sickening NOT TO BE AWARE of being so manipulated?
        Lets have a proper scientific focus on vaccination – and bring it out of the ‘answers’ that cant be questioned. Start with a controlled trial of vax and non vax – with apples and apples – in other words don’t pre frame to study to determine the result. How can ‘studies’ be guaranteed to be independently set up and carried out? I don’t know that they can when Trillion dollar forces are involved.
        Do your want a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs? (To the Afghan leadership from the US)
        Un-transparent and accountable vaccine administration is biological experimentation on human beings and a vector of weaponry of the State (or corp-captured state) upon its own or other peoples.
        I read that R Kennedy Jr and ICAN effected a FOI for documentation of the legally required checks as to safety and efficacy for the last 38 years. There are none.
        At the very least don’t presume that because you are TOLD they are perfectly safe that they are risk free and at least open a curiosity to check that what we all grew up believing has foundation in fact and not in ‘consensus or settle science’ that can be ‘denied’ but can never be criticised or challenged. This is ‘vaccinating’ our minds against the possibility of an education so that any questioning of vaccination brings up the ‘deny the denialist’ antibody liek a steel shutter.
        As William gates says – you don’t want to listen to ‘baby killers’ do you?. The very usage of such terms is a giveaway to the agenda. If the benefits were obvious – you would not need to use such base tactic to terrorise people into compliance. Perhaps statins could be switched into a biological intervention – so that you cant ‘forget to take them’. Your medical and vax record is a vital part of the Internet of Things.

      5. Gary Ogden

        Martin Back: Paralysis is still with us. When the vaccine was introduced they changed the diagnostic criteria to make it appear that polio had declined. Not an ounce of truth to it. It is now called AFP (acute flaccid paralysis), or something similar. The polio scare was a scam. Read “Dissolving Illusions” and the late Dan Olmsted’s fine piece of investigative journalism, “The Age of Polio” on the Age of Autism website. That a virus or any other microbe can be associated with a condition does not mean it is causal, any more than the presence of cholesterol in plaque means it is causal in atherosclerosis. Just as it is a mistake to trust Wikipedia, the media, or mainstream health advice, it is a mistake to trust WHO, or any of the other public health agencies. There is money to be made, vast sums, from quackery.

      6. Martin Back

        Ah, from 1,000 polio cases a DAY to less than 30 a YEAR I consider enormously impressive. As an engineer with Water Affairs who worked in rural areas I know that only a small proportion of this can be attributed to infrastructure developments like clean water supply and water-borne sewerage. The rest must be due to mass vaccination.

      7. AhNotepad

        Or maybe the number of cases have fallen dramadically because of Doctoring Data. (That might be a good title for a book 🤠)

  180. molly Cham

    Am sure that the following presentation by D Aseem Malhotra addressing the European Parliament : Killing For Profit – at the European Parliament ! #LCHF Aseem Malhotra

    Pertinent to the discussions and to Dr Kendrick’s stance.

    Reply
    1. Bill In Oz

      Ummm ? It’s already ‘occupied’. I looked. There is no entry for Dr Malcolm Kendrick.The entry for Cholesterol says high Cholesterol causes CVD. The entry for Vitamin D3 has no really uefull information about it’s health benefits for the elderly when taken with K2. The entry for K2 is just basic facts without any of the health benefits ….

      I suspect any sustained attempt to help improve these and other related entries would be viewed as an attempt at forced change by those already occupying.

      But Elenor you are welcome to go ahead & try…Let us know how you go…

      Reply
      1. Bill In Oz

        Your evidence ? As apart from your ‘sincere’ beliefs about this. And t’would seem that Wikipedia is occupied by vegans and similar cult like folk..So what do you suggest ?

      2. Binra (@onemindinmany)

        I have no doubt but that while it serves purpose ‘thisism’ and ‘thatism’ will be supported by insider bias against correction or challenge. ‘Somethingists are not in themselves important any more than provisionally useful to the social engineering that undermines old structure in order to make a new world odour.

        Vegans are no more capable of ‘occupying’ wikipedia than any other nurtured and supported minority group with a grievance. But wtshtf it is the patsies or proxies who are sacrificed to the mob – (who of course are but cultivated ‘populists’ working as an energy source for a Trumped up replacement for an eloquent pretence in reasoned argument and discussion – but that’s another story).

        So my red flag is when people who could know better, propagate the lie by buying into its false flagged framing. What imposition of ‘moral guilting’ upon others by a minority opinion would be able to stand up and bully, unless it was set up and supported by socially engineered PR across a spectrum of influences? It is such hidden persuaders that set the agenda, and your reaction. In terms of wikipedia it is a weighting of insider support, blind eye or a policy of cooperation with key support networks – that may include gov agencies and corporate entities. So your ‘vegans’ could as well be GCHQ on your own taxpayer funding protecting the macro ‘economy’ as well as a vector of population control. I meant that innocently as a means of simply controlling the mind of the masses – but I cant guarantee that The new world audure is not hitting the fan right now.

        I called it moral guilting when it is in fact a guilt DUMP. In this game of pass the parcel – I pass on the game. Just refuse to play. Stick to sharing what is worthy rather than trying to bolster a divided sense of self. “Hey – they’re all gloating at us over there”. No they are not. That’s just bollocks. Don’t take the bait or treat it as valid currency. Truth doesn’t gloat or become true as a result of defeating illusions. It is the substance in which illusions have none.

        The politics of manipulative deceit runs on guilt and fear as the back door by which to capture and direct the mind. Its not wrong to have hidden from what we could not face, but it is wrong to dump it on others and attack them for our own projections. This kind of pattern extends into every kind of fake moral manipulation.

        Why does no one call out the sly magician? Because they are all watching what they think they are seeing! And if you get wise, he’ll add a layer of flattery for you so that you can think you are one up, while being shafted.

        There’s a flip side to being lied to. It’s called wanting to believe it.
        If a lone editor with a name including vegan has the power to set the wikipedia agenda, with a bunch of gloating ‘vegans’, then you can sleep more easily, and get an extra boost of moral bolster from meat as an identity – instead of sustenance within a communion of life that the little mind cannot grasp.

  181. mmec7

    Pertinent to present discussions and to Dr Kendrick’s blog – Dr Aseem Malhotra addresses the European Parliament – Killing for Profit –
    youtube.com/watch?time_cont…

    Reply
    1. Lary Philbrick

      It seems to me that Dr Kendrick’s post ” What causes heart disease – part 59″ refutes the conclusion in this video.

      Reply
  182. Jerome Savage

    Following the shocking article in Times on 8th, thank G for the telegraph today, nevertheless pulling punches ! (Anyone for litigation??);
    “Dr Rita Redberg, a cardiologist and professor of clinical medicine at the University of California in San Francisco, and editor-in-chief of JAMA Internal Medicine, has also questioned the use of statins for those of low risk, believing the harm may outweigh the risk for millions. Debate rages on, while millions more prescriptions for statins are doled out. The one thing we can conclude for certain is that the evidence continues to stack up for an urgent independent review.”
    Mmmm hard to compete with monetary muscle of BBP big brutal pharma.

    Reply
      1. AhNotepad

        chris c, ofthen things are better left unsaid. You would be dangerous in a time of conflict as careless talk costs lives.

        This should be born in mind by all the other people who want to talk (why they want to I don’t understand). Stop mentioning names, or have I stumbled on the internet equivalent of name dropping?

        Here is a snippet I picked up from Septic in Britain posted on wikipee, referring to THIS BLOG!!!!

        Actually, I got the idea to nominate this guy from predictions, in that blog, that “Uffe will be next”. It was very helpful of them. We could probably get a list of other likely nonnotables by looking the blog over carefully. EEng 00:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

        So please consider what you are about to blurt out for all to see.

      2. chris c

        Yes I saw that. I mentioned Feynman because of his dangerous quote

        “I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned”.

        That goes directly against what Wikipedia is currently doing, along with most of the mainstream media.

        I don’t expect these lowlifes to actually read the blog for its content though, they might learn something, which would hurt. I wonder if they will go back through all the scientific references Malcolm and his contributors provide and ensure they are also deleted.

        I wonder if Jimmy Wales knows what his “editors” are up to, that quote demonstrates book burning. Perhaps we should forward it to him.

  183. andrew

    One of the “skeptics” known as Jytdog commenting here against Malcolm Kendrick was banned from Wikipedia last week. He got into an argument with a low-carb diet proponent. He found their personal phone number and decided to give them a harassing phone call !!!!!!!!

    Jytdog knew he was going to get banned so quickly decided to close his account before this happened. Users here probably don’t have time to go through the entire case, but Jytdog left his final comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jytdog#That's_all_folks

    “The call went very badly. I shouldn’t have called them, I shouldn’t have allowed it to become an argument, and I shouldn’t have ended the call the way I did.

    In the past, I violated the OUTING policy by posting off-WP information here. That was also a terrible error in judgement.”

    A list of his contributions, he was on Wikipedia for 10 years !!!!!!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jytdog

    Reply
  184. Alethea Black

    Fat is reversing my mother’s Alzheimer’s. Fat plus taurine. Taurine is already clinically proven to recover cognitive deficits in Alzheimer’s mice. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28849459 Cell membranes are comprised of lipids, and when they lose their integrity, nutrients (including insulin) cannot get in, and waste cannot get out. My mother was experiencing taurine wasting from sodium : potassium imbalance, which is extremely common (see “Potassium, Your Invisible Friend” on this site). Insufficient taurine meant insufficient bile production which meant insufficient fat metabolism and consequent loss of membrane integrity. Taurine (1-3 g daily) is restoring her body’s electrical potential.

    Walt Whitman said “I sing the body electric,” and he was right. We are electrical beings, and we’ve failed to solve our diseases because we’ve failed to see this. I look at human health through the lens of quantum physics at Welcome to Heaven (dot) com, where I propose a mechanism for the core etiology of cancer. The New York Times links to and quotes from my article “The Physics of Consciousness and Its Implications for Human Health” in its recent review of my illness memoir, You’ve Been So Lucky Already, a few weeks ago.

    If they take you off Wikipedia, Dr Kendrick, they will simply have to reinstate you when you are proven right, in the end. Personally, I class you with William Carlos Williams and Anton Chekov — physicians who tried to see the big picture, and who spoke their truth, no matter what the cost.

    Reply
    1. binra

      I concur regarding bio-electrical function being vastly left out of the picture.
      Heart, blood, cellular communication and of course all the chemical processes are electrical.
      The sunspot correlations with heart issues is electrical.
      Our ph regulation is electrical and the so called sodium potassium pump is not in fact a pump requiring energy input but an electrical charge membrane that automatically balances the intra cellular charge with its medium. Cowan’s latest work alerted me to Ling who I then found to have inspired Pollack to essentially write up Ling in a more understandable way (which I’m getting for Christmas). “Cells, Gels & the Engines of Life: A New Unifying Approach to Cell Function” by Gerald Pollack.
      http://www.gilbertling.org
      This guy is not exactly finding official acceptance either. But I don’t think it is because he is wrong. My first search for a link came to a page that didn’t acknowledge him which I found odd – but par for the course.
      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131004105233.htm

      Reply
    1. John Collis

      I also noted the conflicts of interest statements, which of course get overlooked by the sensationalist headline writers

      Reply
    2. binra

      Yes – its the headline across the media that ‘works’ and maybe the first para. I see this sort of PR as being crafted as both propaganda and as a carefully worded treatise of plausible deniability.
      Short of a coup, the Media is effectively captured. Little leaks get through but not a joining of the dots. I also have sometimes met what seem like leaks of something true in the MSM but on going to the front page to re-find it – cannot.
      I could be premature, but the idea is that we each are served a bubble or our world so that we find the self-reinforcements for our target identity.

      Reply
  185. Guillaume Belanger

    Good morning Dr Kendrick, I think what is unacceptable is Wikipedia’s response to this one anonymous criticism. I think we should rally people to send a letter to Wikipedia and point this out. They are supposed to present unbiased information about whatever we are interested in reading about. Everyone is entitled to reading about what you do, what you believe, and what you are trying to do in educating people about heart disease. Hence, my suggestion is for you to compile a list of all of us who want to support your plea, draft a short statement to Wikipedia, and have us sign it before it being submitted to them. (You could probably use some publicly available petition platform.) When you’re ready, circulate it through your blog so that we can also share it further. I think this is the most effective way to gather support and have clout when contacting Wikipedia.

    Reply
    1. Andy S

      Interesting video by Ivor re. LDL traversing artery wall. This would be a systemic occurrence affecting arteries and veins. LDL particles appear to have a tough time crossing the endothelial layer. An easier way for LDL to enter the sub-endothelial space would be via the capillaries. Stopping LDL from glycating and oxidizing is a good strategy to reduce CVD.

      I love cholesterol skeptics!

      Reply
  186. Guillaume Belanger

    Dear Wikipedia,

    I am a monthly donor and strong supporter of Wikipedia because its mandate to to offer free, wide-ranging, objective information about whatever we are interested in reading and learning about. I am a high energy astrophysicist at the European Space Agency with a strong interest in health, physiology, biochemistry, metabolic medicine, and natural healing. I use Wikipedia all the time, and I have always assumed and expected that it upheld its own self-defined mandate to Protect the Right to Speak and Learn Freely, and Defend Free Expression: https://wikimediafoundation.org/advocacy/

    Dr Malcolm Kendrick is a very well-informed physician who has been for years researching, writing, and speaking about the question of the role of cholesterol in the genesis of heart disease. I have learned tremendously from his book and especially from the posts published his blog. This morning, I read this post in which he says Wikipedia wrote to inform him that his page would be deleted after the receipt of an anonymous message: https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/12/03/dr-malcolm-kendrick-deletion-from-wikipedia/#comment-112353

    This is totally unacceptable.

    How can Wikipedia make such a decision on the basis of a single anonymous comment? Even if the message actually was from an individual and not a drug company proxy.

    How can Wikipedia not do its own research? If Wikipedia had done its due diligence, it would have found that the message was in fact unfounded, because they would have seen the rigour with which Dr Kendrick approaches the problems he addresses in his writings, and would have replied to the anonymous sender to explain this in the rejection of the request.

    How can Wikipedia so quickly, easily, and arbitrarily erase from its records the work of such a well-informed, articulated, and important defender of objectivity in medical science as is Dr Kendrick? Science is about emitting hypotheses, and evaluating them against experimental evidence in an objective and unbiased manner. Wikipedia, if it is to continue being what it claims to be, has to responsibility to support this endeavour, and it should do its utmost to fulfill this responsibility. Dr Kendrick is a remarkable person and scientist that has and continues to bring great benefit to the global human family. He deserves not only a page, but a spotlight on Wikipedia for all the work he has and continues to do in defending the right to know, the right to question and disagree, the right to informed choices, and the right to health, especially in protecting people against the misinformation disseminated by the pharmaceutical industry lobbyists.

    With the immense reach that Wikipedia has, there is no room for mistakes of this kind. I expect a prompt correction of this oversight, and a more careful approach to similar issues in the future.

    Kind regards,
    Guillaume

    G. Belanger (LinkedIn profile)
    Astrophysicist
    European Space Agency – ESA/ESAC
    Camino Bajo del Castillo
    28692 Villanueva de la Canada
    Madrid, Spain

    Reply
      1. chris c

        Agreed! It’s not rocket science . . . oh wait . . .I will be writing something similar to the person who thanked me for my contribution, including a link to here so she can see how her editors behave and what their motivations are, and a link to the previous post so she can see the contribution you make to human thought. Not that I expect it to do any good.

  187. Charles Gale

    Mark Sissons on his Daily Apple website has provided a link to this instalment entitled “deleted from Wikipedia for questioning the narrative”.

    It can be found on his Weekly Link dated 7 Dec.

    Reply
  188. Charles Gale

    LDL-P (particle count)…which is cropping up a bit more frequently in the comments of recent instalments (including this one)

    Many thanks Guillame Belanger for your comments and also for posting a link to Ivor Cummins’ LDL-P presentation, which I hadn’t seen.

    Clocking in at 31 mins and 51 seconds, it’s worth checking out and covers, to quote Ivor, the “process of atherosclerosis from the LDL particles getting into the artery wall across the endothelium”. Essentially, Ivor states there are 4 barriers or layers the particles have to get through:

    – glycocalyx
    – endothelial cells
    – proteoglycans and
    – HDL efflux.

    And he provides much more details on the processes.

    For example, high carb meals and smoking will damage the 1st barrier, the glycocalyx.

    And it all starts to get confusing again. If I’ve read Dr Kendrick’s comments on LDL particles in recent blogs, it can’t happen e.g. Dr Kendrick’s comment dated 1 Nov 2018 in part 57 “Particles cannot go through and round endothelial cells. End of.”

    Do the 2 disagree?

    N.B. Ivor does state at about the 3 min point that the particle count may not matter for those with healthy vascularity – the particles float around benignly. If there’s damage, however…

    And perhaps supporting his comment is that cholesterol is found in areas of damage as part of the healing process.

    All of which had me digging out my notes and lipid profiles and reminding myself of the 4 possible competing cholesterol hypotheses:

    – LDL-C is the villain
    – LDL-P is the villain (the more particles in your bloodstream the more chance of them getting through)
    – LDL particle size is the villain: small dense particle size (grating away like grains of sand causing abrasive damage) versus the large, benign, fluffy particles which can’t penetrate and
    – LDL oxidised particles are causing the damage,having a pathogenic role in atherosclerosis.

    And if this worries you, most of this (not sure about oxidised LDL) can be measured by NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance). Try asking your GP/cardiologist for getting that done!

    That was another dead end for me, either trying to find a lab which did it or getting a referral.

    But all is not lost concerning particle size. You can work out your particle size from your lipid profile.

    I think (and depending on what you read and believe) you need to divide your tryglycerides by your HDL. The ratio of the 2 should be below 5, less than 1 is fantastic e.g.

    1.09 (trygs)/1.5 (HDL) = 0.7266 = less than 1 = low ratio = LDL particles are large and fluffy and not harmful.

    Reply
  189. AnnaM

    All you unfortunate people who now don’t know whom to donate to, might want to consider this:
    https://foundationformetaboliccancertherapies.com/donate

    This is based on Dr. Seyfried’s work on the mitochondiral theory of cancer. They are looking to do some research into effective mitochondrial therapies. The DNA theory is down and out and not a moment too soon. If there is one area of medicine that is most scammy and most tragic, it is cancer treatment. The book, Tripping Over The Truth is hard to put down. An article that introduces some of this is:

    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/12/16/metabolic-mitochondrial-disease.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=artTest_A5&utm_campaign=20181211Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM253096&et_rid=491724351

    Reply
    1. AhNotepad

      AnnaM, I had a look at the foundation for metaboilc cancer therapies to try and understand, well, anything. I am having a hard job getting my head around it, and I think the page describing the therapies could have been written much more clearly. It’s vital if people are going to understand it. Mercola’s page is not much better. Getting a model inside your head so you can understand this topic seems difficult (for thickies like me anyway). I have the feeling I would not get very far reading Tripping Over the Truth.

      “Metaboilc Therapies for Dummies” anyone?

      Reply
      1. Göran Sjöberg

        “Tripping Over The Truth” is a light version Seyfried’s “Cancer as a Metabolic Disease” but the latter I found to be rather a challenge. I Don’t think that “Tripping Over The Truth” should pose any problem to you.

      2. binra

        There may be various reasons for this. The specialist becomes thoroughly familiar with their own thought processes and relating within their specialisation.
        I feel a similar relationship of Gilbert Ling and Gerald Pollack – as noted somewhere on this page.
        The experience of those who uncover more light upon our condition only to then be denied is a rude awakening by the psychic emotional defences against light (awareness) that effectively operate systemically, is itself part of our experimental feedback. ‘Seek and do not find – but only to keep the search going’, is a perfect cover.

        “Needs more research” is a better way to safeguard one’s career in research than, finding something that undermines established revenue streams or credibility. So it’s also possible that scientists intuitively mask their findings so as not to attract penalty of social exclusion by invested interests.

      3. AnnaM

        AH,

        That is an important criticism, because I guess I have been into this for some time and didn’t notice it. I would suggest you give them that feedback! Cuz you’re no dummy.
        Basically, cancers have a number of genetic mutations, and so it was theorized for the past 5 or 6 decades that genetic mutations drive cancer and are causal. This turns out not to be true, and of course the hints were always evident, just as the hints that margarine was not a health food or cholesterol not the driver of heart disease.
        Warburg got a Nobel back in the 30’s for discovering a metabolic problem with cancer, and it is in the mitochondria. Very big and complex subject, as all things biological are, but the mitochondria don’t make energy in the usual way in cancer cells. Yes, keto helps starve them because they ferment sugar, but they also like an amino acid and even iron. The big question in my mind, and not covered by the article I linked, is what causes the mitochondria to malfunction. I still suspect an infective agent. But by at least honing in on where the problem truly is, that is a big, huge step forward. It isn’t exactly mainstream yet, but I think this one is coming. Naturally, finding fairly effective therapies will be a short-term boon but longer term money loss for big pharma.

      4. Binra (@onemindinmany)

        Your plea didn’t find answer yet, but cellular health as the basis of all other health issues is associated with toxicities, nutrition and exercise – in physical expression as well as psychic-emotional relation. Mitochondria are asserted to be our source of energy – but I wonder if that is the whole truth? (Currently researching Pollack and Ling on the nano-protoplasm as the most elemental ‘organisational unit’ of living matter). In this (as I am sure in the mitochondrial function), electrical properties are key. (For what else is PH – but the electrical gradient or difference of charge? What else determines the nucleic and molecular bondings, adsorbencies or solutions that constitute the ‘material and biological realm?).

        So I am not qualified to give your answer in terms of that particular research but when you lose your connection, you run on emergency batteries, and when you can no longer hold enough charge for those strings of proteins to fold and unfold to fold again, they cease functioning as living matter. The whole thing disintegrates through an escalation of emergency workarounds that are miraculously evidence of the will to live and not simply a random result of mechanical operation of forms of life. Unified purpose is in our cells – and I cant recall who and where but intercellular communication is the territory of relation that a focus on specifics is very adept at blanking out and ignoring.

        Dive into the complexity like a new kid on the block without demanding you understand it all – but like a new language – that starts to become in you, at least as a sense of no longer being bullied or intimidated by it.

        Elitism can be defined as only those qualified to understand, be allowed influence. If there were a true meritocracy to such qualification, then this would hold at least an argument to engage with. But it works as the exclusion of all but trained and selected insiders to the decisions that affect everyone else but which the insiders are by their own actions well protected in their privileges.

        Blinded by science?

        It is a stark fact that the search for causes and explanations as to the workings of biology (or any other science) opens an ever expanding complexity – and not a unifying appreciation. This in itself is, for me, evidence of pursing the wrong questions. We stand on the mistakes of the shoulders of giants. Or rather we adhere to narratives that suit our charged condition – much as water gels are adsorbed to the cells or artery lining. Are we busy trying Not to die instead of living and thereby appreciating (growing in) what we have? What would reconnection to a greater environmental or pervasive energy source feel like? Maybe such a quality would release the fixation in perpetual fear chemistry/mentality?

      5. Binra (@onemindinmany)

        I make definite statements rather than mask in vague self depreciating ambiguities. These of course can be ignored or engaged with and are not more or less that idea.
        The belief that it is impossible to know anything becomes an inability to understand anything except support for vague self-depreciating ambiguities. This is exactly the cynical gullibility that gives power to ‘experts’ or ideologies. Cynical because self-depreciating and gullible because it simply wants to give over responsibility to someone or something else.
        If you were – in fact – curious you could either follow up or reframe your statement.
        Cellular health is fundamental to every cellular function. If the intra cellular and extra or indeed inter-cellular communication is blocked, degraded, or breaks down the functions are lost within the muscle, the blood cell, the brain cell etc
        I don’t mean to invoke blame for self depreciation but to note that a lack of health and a lack of self appreciation are related. There is no real substitution for life lived – regardless what protocols or procedures are adopted – and after all such is the point of being healthy or supported in functional endeavour. Self-depreciation also operates psychologically as a basis from which to extend a lack of worth to others or invite them to join in a mutually self-reinforcing sense of lack.
        If indeed you believe yourself unable to understand – this may be the central issue to look at before proceeding. Children learn by immersion and induction – as a relational willingness and persistent intent. Hence I invited you to be with or abide in what your mind cannot currently grasp or ‘define and control’ in its own terms, because understandings can then dawn on you in a relational way rather than being learned by rote as part of acquiring a structure of ideas ABOUT something that stuff information without necessarily making any real connection.

        My sense is that we get in our own way by the nature of our focus – wanting to grasp and possess and control and be displayed in having become successful is not the basis for a relationship – and so will never induce more than a transient honeymoon effect – such as Ancel Keys on the cover or Time magazine. He was only ‘famous’ for the purpose of an agenda that cared nothing for him or for science, but only to establish a narrative belief from which to gain in power over captive revenue streams – otherwise known as people.

        It might be worth identifying what the current or active scientific, medical and health paradigms are and have been – because they frame our thinking without being questioned – because they have the status of fact when they generally operate a narrative cover story over where we do not want to look. So in some sense they WORK as a cover story but at a cost. Thus the consequence of such a cost can itself be masked in another cover story – such as so called side effects being diagnosed as a disease, or of toxicity being defined as an infection.

        Reading the recent coverage on Johnson’s baby talc and cancer was – I thought – a probably typical example of how no evil intent, but an established business, persisted in selling product despite possible serious adverse health consequence and yet internally sought to minimise the risks, but also minimising the risk to their business survival. Once they knew enough to know too much, they crossed a line of hiding the risks and knowingly concealing a danger to health and life in baby products. From there on the liabilities multiplied to moral culpability of intent.
        It isn’t the mistake that condemns us, but the hiding or concealment of it. Plausible deniability is a sort of legally defensible ability of being able to claim not to know. If – as eventually occurs, internal documents are forced to the view of a court action, it is then shown to have been a mask of deceit all along.

        No one want to lose what they have – while what they cling to possessing is defined in GETTING from (unfelt) relationships. I feel the LOSS of relational communication is the key factor (on all levels) and that blame and hate in seemingly moral hatred enact the destruction of relational communication AS IF an ANSWER. As if health is the ability to persist in destructive non-relational ‘getting’ without consequence – or without true accounting for consequence.

        I enjoy what I write so you don’t have to. But perhaps cynicism cannot by definition accept or recognize – make sense of joy. Cynicism does not regard itself hateful but ‘right’ and delight in finding the ‘wrongs’ OUT THERE’ or at least – somewhere else. Hence the endless search for causes that exonerate us of any implicit responsibility – because responsibility is not associated with awakening freedom to respond differently, but with blame, shame and penalty in pain and loss. Guilt EXPECTS punishment and effects defences that then bring it on as a self reinforcing or circular proof. You are not an idiot AH unless of course you insist. In which you embody the attributes and attract the results to your decision. I walk with you in freedom – which embraces ‘not knowing’ as a condition of curious receptivity – not of self-judgement that then ‘shares on in like kind’.

    2. AhNotepad

      The Mercola article is interesting “An important side note to this is that excess carbohydrates in particular, when eaten late at night, result in a backup of electrons, causing the production of superoxide. While not a pernicious free radical in and of itself, if you have high iron levels combined with high superoxide, it produces hydroxyl free radicals, which is one of the most harmful.

      LC might be a good move.

      Reply
  190. abamji

    It is a sad day when people resort to trolling rather than listening to reason. The argument used by User Skeptic from Britain appears to be that Malcolm’s book has not received any reviews from reputable people. However Mr User Skeptic dodges the issue. If someone comes up with a hypothesis it can be refuted when the facts don’t fit it. This is precisely what Malcolm has done and if anyone wishes effectively to refute his counter-hypothesis then they must produce the facts that do this.

    When there is clear proof that research conclusions have been manipulated then it does not require a Nobel Prize winning scientist to point this out. After all, the emperor’s new clothes were outed by a small boy. The cholesterol heart hypothesis is a fraud. There ate too many factual inconsistencies for it to be otherwise. Others have already said this and have not been sued for libel.

    The Wikipedia campaign against Malcolm is trolling, fake news or both.

    Reply
    1. David Bailey

      That is a superbly clear presentation!

      Looking at actual medical statistics is so revealing. I mean, the data that Dr Kendrick presents can’t really be denied, because it is the data the other side use – they just never explain it properly! Dr Kendrick’s books have lots of links to these studies – and the only reply is to kick him out of Wikipedia!

      Reply
      1. AhNotepad

        Life’s not kind sometimes (often?) nor was I when I sent Jimmy a reply saying I wouldn’t be contributing to a truth mangle like wikipee.

  191. BobM

    Why is it that Dr. Kendrick seems to be less well known than Dave Feldman, Ivor Cummins, etc.? While I like those two, and other low carb/keto people, Dr. Kendrick seems to be a relative unknown. I can’t understand why.

    Reply
    1. JanB

      BobM – it’s because we Kendrick followers are greedy and want to keep him all to ourselves. He’s precious. 👏👏

      Reply
    2. LA_Bob

      I think Dr K puts his efforts into reading, thinking, and writing clearly and carefully. He doesn’t seem to be much into the speaking circuit or making videos or doing the sorts of things that draw a lot of public attention. Despite the claims of his Wikipedia “critics” he really doesn’t say a lot of especially controversial things. Yes, I know his overall position is controversial, but he’s not mounting a white horse and going forth to slay dragons in the style of say, Robert Atkins or even Gary Taubes. He seems to be a pleasant laid back fellow slogging away in the mud of fact-finding, much like one of his heroes, Elspeth Smith. He does not tell us what to do or what to eat or offer magic cures. I think of him as more thoughtful teacher explaining his work than anything else. That he is an MD is inconvenient for his critics.

      If Dr K can quietly draw an audience of medical people and show them a different way of thinking (and he has said such people do read the blog), he can do more damage to the Empire than all the “keto” diet books and low-carb forums combined. Especially since Dr K’s scope is far broader than diet.

      Dave Feldman by contrast is a layman explorer of the lipid hypothesis, and he’s doing things with a growing circle of friends and associates that researchers should have done long ago. He has an aggressive and strong media presence and a pleasant personality, so he draws attention. That’s fine, but he can be easily dismissed just because he is a layman and how dare he challenge what we know, that rabble-rouser, etc etc. He is sort of a media-savvy William Banting of his time, so to speak.

      But Dr Kendrick is far from unknown. The other day I saw a comment mentioning Dr K on Tom Naughton’s (Fathead movie) blog. Of Dr K, Naughton said, “That man has a way with words”. How true.

      Reply
      1. Joyce

        I personally have no doubts that Dr. Kendrick could draw/convince an audience of medical people to his way of thinking. However, sadly there are too many destructive forces out there who can and would destroy any one of them for daring to disagree with their “Masters”. We are not all multi-millionaire independents. Speaking out, when your livelihood is threatened is not as easy as it seems. Shameful I know. Money is a God these days, worshipped over truth. Sadly, the truth will rarely out if there is a pot of gold on the other end of the seesaw. Just keep spreading the word, and hopefully, it will be absorbed by some of the people, some of the time. You certainly got me Malcolm Kendrick! Thank you, from “one satisfied customer’. May the force be with you, as Luke would say. lol

    3. Bill In Oz

      Who is ob Feldman ? And as for Ivor, yes I have heard of him. But he does not write with the clarity and simplicity of Dr K.

      Reply
    4. BobM

      I frequent low carb locations and by and large, Dr. Kendrick is an unknown. I am the one who sings his praises (primarily because I think his theory is correct). Other doctors such as Dr. Peter Attia seem to have a larger presence.

      I don’t think a scientific explanation for something should ever be “controversial”. When Dr. Seyfried appeared on Dr. Attia’s podcast, the title had to have the word “Controversial” in it. Why? It’s not controversial — it’s another way of looking at cancer.

      https://peterattiamd.com/tomseyfried/

      When Dave Feldman appeared on the same podcast, he was basically attacked for his theories that cholesterol is primarily an energy transport mechanism. It’s a potentially valid way of looking at this system.

      https://peterattiamd.com/davefeldman/

      Similarly, to me, Dr. Kendrick’s theories are not “controversial”, they’re just a different way of looking at how CVD develops. That should be the way science operates, through an exchange of ideas and also through scientific studies to test those ideas.

      I realize Dr. Attia is a fan of the lipid hypothesis (even takes a statin because he thinks it’s healthy), but I don’t see why one can’t believe in that and also test it.

      You know, if E=mC^2 fails once, it fails. Yet the cholesterol/lipid hypothesis (whatever that happens to be, LDL-P, LDL-C, TC, etc.) fails all the time, and keeps going as if nothing happened. If that’s the case, maybe the cholesterol/lipid hypothesis is wrong?

      Reply
      1. chris c

        But it MUST be the cholesterol, because statins. Or because animals. Or both.

        I think it was Peter at Hyperlipid who pointed out that is was not the cholesterol, or the LDL, or the small dense LDL, but the sky blue pink cholesterol with polka dots that was the real culprit.

        What I like about reading Malcolm, and other thoughtful people, is that when you look away from the cholesterol for a moment a whole bunch of other factors come into view, My current suspicion is that “cholesterol” is an indicator rather than a cause of anything – when the lipoproteins are damaged they don’t work properly, and the factors that damage the lipoproteins are probably the same factors that damage other tissues, including but not limited to the endothelium. Rather than banning cholesterol with drugs we should be looking at improving it.

    5. Jerome Savage

      Dr Kendrick doesn’t offer easy solutions, no quick fix. His analysis has some light moments but he makes no statements without due care or without careful referencing.

      Reply
  192. Sue Richardson

    I think the number of replies and comments of outrage here show how much support you have Dr K. It’s actually been helpful to me because until now, I assumed whatever was on Wickepedia was mostly correct and put there by people who wanted to be of some service to the public. As far as I am concerned I will from now on take everything said with a bucket or two of salt. Whoever the culprit is, he’s probably got shares in Big Pharma.

    Reply
  193. AhNotepad

    Malcolm, please consider pulling/blocking/deleting posts which mention names of other researchers who may become targets for deletion, as Septic from Britain is using this blog as a tool to find the next victim.

    Reply
  194. AhNotepad

    For a wider view of the idealogical quashing of free speech, as exercised by wikipee editors, have some light relief while thinking of the lipid hypothesis.

    Reply
    1. Jerome Savage

      Mr Steyn is a contrarian and entertainer / clown behest to the corporate world. Not to be confused with Dr Kendrick and other serious researchers behest to proper analysis and independant reporting.

      Reply
  195. Martin Back

    Note that ‘deletion’ is a sword that cuts both ways. If Dr Kendrick gains sufficient notability to be included on Wikipedia, he cannot be kicked off by someone who merely disagrees with his theories. There have to be much stronger reasons (although I don’t know what they might be).

    Reply
    1. Bill In Oz

      Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia…Including ‘everything’. But we now know it is ( to the appropriate American jargon ) a “redactapedia”….of just the simple stuff thought suitable for the ignorant to know

      Reply
  196. Charles Gale

    Here are Tom Naughton’s thoughts on the disappearance of Dr Kendrick (and others) from Wikipedia:

    http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2018/12/13/the-anointed-and-free-speech-part-six/

    He comments on speculation on who Skeptic from Britain is (working for Big Food? Or his own theory that Skeptic is (1) a disciple of the Church of Holy Plant-Based Food and (2) Wikipedia has been taken over by social justice warriors (SJWs)

    There is more on SJWs, University policy and free speech.

    Well written with humour too.

    Reply
  197. Marshall

    First they ignore you,
    then they laugh at you,
    then they fight you,
    then you win.
    — Mahatma Gandhi

    Looks like we are on step 3 of 4!

    Reply
    1. AhNotepad

      One of the pictures possibly sums him up, it has a notice “#Lonley”. Perhaps he might find some company, and grow up, and develop a less closed minded attitude.

      Reply
    1. Bill In Oz

      I am astonished. Astonished that this was tried. Astonished that it was written up as an experiment. Astonished that that parachtres had no effect on the death rate of individuals jumping out of the plane. And finally astounded that the plane was on the ground when folks jumped out !

      Can we nominate this for an In-Noble ?

      Reply
  198. anglosvizzera

    Censorship is rife! I got this in my mailbox this morning, regarding Pinterest and the website GreenMedInfo (created by medical researcher and author, Sayer Ji, whose partner is the highly-respected and successful psychiatrist, Dr Kelly Brogan – who no longer uses pharmaceutical drugs for her patients). This is what they wrote to him,

    “Hello,
    We removed your Pinterest account because it or your linked website violated our misinformation policy. This policy includes things like promotion of false cures for terminal or chronic illnesses, and anti-vaccination advice.

    “While we understand that this topic is very personal, our policy doesn’t allow Pinners to save content from websites that promote advice where there may be immediate or detrimental effects on a Pinner’s health or on public safety. We rely on information from nationally and internationally recognized institutions, including the CDC and WHO, to help us determine if content violates these guidelines. We apologize for any confusion or frustration this may have caused.”

    So, as with Wikipedia, Pinterest’s ‘reliable sources’ of medical information are the CDC, WHO, national and internationally ‘recognised’ institutions – the very sources that we know are still promoting unhealthy advice to the masses.

    Link to the ’email’ message – https://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=7f494613c5ad4db1b93e647ad&id=630d6e66a6&e=606b6f939f

    More about GreenMedInfo: “GreenMedInfo.com began in 2008 with the vision of founder, Sayer Ji, to provide a resource where consumers and health care professionals could access evidence-based, clinical data without the complexity of searching and navigating multiple health institutions.

    “Today GreenMedInfo.com is the world’s most widely referenced, evidence-based natural medical resource, averaging one million visits per month, and with over 250,000 subscribers to its popular daily newsletter.”

    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/page/about-us

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      Anglosvizzera: GrennMedInfo is a wonderful resource. I find particularly useful the archive of published papers. Those of us who’ve had the good fortune to have had our immune systems properly primed through childhood infectious diseases would do well to read the Benefits of Measles section. Who knew? Perhaps this is one of the reasons I never get sick, even without my tonsils, which I nevertheless managed to hang on to until age 14.

      Reply
    2. Frederica Huxley

      I have great respect for GreenMedInfo, and was also appalled and saddened when I read this morning of their expulsion from Pinterest.

      Reply
  199. Charles Gale

    Great pic (on Dr Mike Eades’ Twitter) of Dr Kendrick and Dr Mike Eades at CrossFit HQ in Santa Cruz, holding the appropriate T shirt!

    Reply
  200. AnnaM

    Well, apparently it is here. Censorship. The latest from Green Med Info is that their pin ter est account was shut down because of a misinformation policy. That includes promoting false cures (for which I probably owe my life) and advice against vaccines.

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      AnnaM: Yes, it was his linking to the National Vaccine Information Center, which was started more than 30 years ago by Barbara Loe Fisher, whose son, like many others. was seriously injured by the DTP vaccine. This vaccine was withdrawn by 1997, when the acellular version of the pertussis vaccine was licensed, thus we have DTaP (the DTP is still produced and shipped to poor countries). The acellular vaccine doesn’t work; it makes the vaccinees into asymptomatic carriers. Thus the increasing numbers of whooping cough outbreaks in the U.S. in recent years. (the vaccine promoters, such as Dr. Cherry, from UCLA freely admit that this is the cause). The DTP injuries caused so many lawsuits, which parents were winning, that Congress passed, and President Reagan signed, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, in 1986. This fully eliminates pharmaceutical company and provider liability for vaccine injury. They have no incentive to care about the safety of their products. It also mandates HHS to conduct safety studies, and report to Congress every two years. They have never done any safety studies, nor produced a single report in more than thirty years. Evil really is in charge, and they are tightening the screws.

      Reply
  201. TS

    A quote from ‘21 Lessons for the 21st Century’ Yuval Noah Harari

    “As we come to make the most important decisions in the history of life, I personally would trust more in those who admit ignorance than in those who claim infallibility. If you want your religion, ideology or world view to lead the world, my first question to you is: ‘What was the biggest mistake your religion, ideology or world view committed? What did it get wrong?’ If you cannot come up with something serious, I for one would not trust you.”

    Reply
  202. Eric

    In a similar vein, this was right up on the opion pages of today’s NYT:

    Right out of Sir Rory’s playbook and beyond. She wants web censorship.

    Sad thing, if she had bothered to search rather than rely on her spoonfed cache of holy truths, she might have found that the lady in question might have had an issue with clotting factors.

    Reply
      1. AhNotepad

        Eric, quote from the report

        ”Numerous studies have shown that the benefits of statins far outweigh the risks, especially for people at high risk of heart disease. But they have been targeted online by a disparate group that includes paranoid zealots, people selling alternative therapies and those who just want clicks. Innumerable web pages and social media posts exaggerate rare risks and drum up unfounded claims, from asserting that statins cause cancer to suggesting that low cholesterol is actually bad for health. Even stories simply weighing the risks versus benefits of statins, a 2016 study found, were associated with patients’ stopping the cholesterol-lowering drugs — which is associated with a spike in heart attacks.”

        “Numerous studies”, but according to Dr K (whom I am prepared to trust) none since 2005.
        “Associated with “ a hint that this should be read as the cause when supported by no evidence.
        “Unfounded claim……low cholesterol is actually bad for health”. Best get rid of it altogether then.

        Yours ever,

        Paranoid Zealot. (Dummy and Click Collector)

  203. Martin Back

    I searched for “wikipedia lchf”. Google returned “Low-carbohydrate diet”, “Low Carb High Fat”, and a bit further down the page, “Curse of Ham”.

    Are vegetarians into witchcraft now? ;o)

    Reply
  204. Kane

    Jimmy Wales the FOUNDER of Wikipedia is actively DEFENDING skeptic from Britain on Wikipedia!! You can see Jimmy Wales vs Jimmy Moore battle it out on twitter:

    Jimmy Wales “Perhaps you should look up what the word means: wicked or criminal. You accused me personally of wicked or criminal deeds. I am asking you to retract that and reboot the conversation. Or I can just block you and ignore you.”

    Who is paying Skeptic from Britian? Why Would Jimmy Wales personally defend this person? Paid editing? Big Pharma?!

    Reply
  205. Norman

    Someone working for Professor Sir Rory Collins or similar, I assume. Yes, choose the easy targets first.

    They’ve partly failed with the BBC anyway. It broadcast a programe differentiating between different types of carb. and pointing out that vegetables and fruit can be quite healthy despite contining some carbs. whereas others may be less so for insulin resistant people. Also the journalist Michael Mosley and the politician Tom Watson have both reversed type 2 diabetes via an improved diet.

    Maybe they’ll be attacking the NHS directly next for putting a friend of mine who’s T2D on a low-carb. diet with max 30 g per meal of Cs. Come now, if this is done widely it’ll reduce drug sales. We can’t have that.

    Reply
  206. David Bailey

    I don’t think we should get this social media censorship out of proportion. The basic internet underpinning these sites is very free. That is both a curse (e.g. it enables child porn to flourish) and a blessing – it is very hard to stop information spreading on the internet. Anyone can set up a website and use it to spread information, including links to many other such sites. Even if GOOGLE were to start to censor its links to protect the big pharma-medical alliance, there are many other search engines available.

    The censorship is certainly wrong, but in some ways it may backfire on those whom it is trying to protect, because hidden information always has a certain lure!

    As ‘brwims’ already pointed out above, the infogalactic was set up to thwart Wiki censorship – we should try to use it in preference to wikipedia, even when the choice will make no difference.

    Whenever you hear the expression ‘fake news’, remember that it may really mean valid news that someone doesn’t want you to hear.

    When they need to censor the truth they are getting pretty desperate!

    Reply
    1. Binra (@onemindinmany)

      My response is not particular to the ‘vandalism’ or contentions of individuals to submitting or editing wikipedia – but to consider the multi-billion dollar interest in being able to either manipulate any such service or employ ‘damage limitation’ by erasure or smear of rival narratives.
      Back door access is likely enjoyed by the certain aspects of the ‘national security’ services in one way or another. NDA agreements can also accompany having to ‘cooperate’. Then there are nefarious of backdoor methods by any and every imaginable route depending on the nature of the need – but can include compromised or paid informants or assets within the company – including of course the boss.

      This applies to ANY agency of influence.

      The idea that we live in a truth loving or truth willing freedom of information flow is the world where there cant be a cancer cure because if it had, everyone would know and the world would change. My research indicates that interfering with pharmaceutical cartels regulatory captured revenue streams is (or vectors of control by guile and stealth) is likely to be defended against and not given welcome. (The free Burzynski documentary – Cancer Is Serious Business – makes this starkly clear).

      However, we can a willingness for the receiving and sharing of information we believe truly worthy of sharing, and yet may of course need to realise we are then opposing the psychological defences set against it – rather than running them unawares.
      I don’t like the term psychological defences because it is itself a defence against the fact that psychic emotional associations trigger all kinds of defence against uncovering anything that would be considered threat to our own sense of safety – even if the program goes back beyond conscious memory – as much of such defences do.

      There are some who uncover such as Dr kendricks work, recognize that the world is not as they believed – yet retreat back into the certainties of doing what the ‘doctor or medical authorities’ proscribe because they are not yet ready to release the SENSE of security for what feels like stepping off the edge of the world. And for various reasons – such as unwillingness to ‘argue’ with a medical professional – on whom they depend for all sorts of other things as well as (eg – statins).

      Reply
    2. Angelica Nelson

      “… is increasingly dependent on the encyclopedia to provide information for its question-answer functionality. Even if the Wikipedia community quickly undoes the bad edit, these third-party tech companies could retrieve content during the short window of vandalism, and the bad information can remain on Siri, Google, or Alexa for a longer period. ”

      Wow, so censorship is foisted on all because the richest companies in the world won’t pay for protected content? This can be solved by not using any social media in your algorithm. Wikipedia is a social media platform, regardless of any claims of impartiality etc… it’s open to vandalism in a way that Brittanica (among others) is not. Pure corporate laziness.

      Reply
  207. PeteM

    Wikipedia’s editor Skeptic from Britain has become MatthewManchester1994 – I don’t think the poor lad outed on the FatHead blog has anything to do with this business. From his comments this editor sounds to be English and youngish (1994 fits). He has made over 4000 edits in ten months of activity. He knows very well how to play the Wikipedia rules regarding notability but there is some push-back from more experienced editors/administrators – not every attack is successful…

    Reply
    1. Alex Davis

      Skeptic from Britain is clearly the Ellis guy. The age range and diet matches. Now he has been outed he quickly changed his username as a false flag to detract attention and confuse. Note that Skeptic from Britain submitted Fat Head for deletion yesterday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Head. He is clearly angry at Tom Naughton for being outed and wants revenge. I doubt he lives in Manchester, looks like another false flag to me. His editing history matches a US timezone.

      Reply
  208. Vegan person

    I am a vegan and I support what Ellis has done. Eating meat will never be ethical. This LCHF craze is killing animals and destroying the planet. I hope more lowcarbers are erased from Wikipedia and that he wipes you all off there.

    Reply
    1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

      I have nothing against a vegan lifestyle – nor most vegans. Although a disturbingly high proportion appear driven by moral righteousness, and a belief that the ends justify the means. The scientific argument here does not concern the ethics of killing and eating animals. The scientific argument concerns biochemistry and physiology. LCHF is not a ‘craze’ and using words like this reveal you for what you are.

      I will repeat, if you want a scientific debate do two things:

      1: Reveal your true identity
      2: Discuss the science

      Otherwise go away, and stay away. I am concerned about the immediate health issues of humanity, because I think humans are more important than animals. You, clearly, do not.

      Reply
    2. AhNotepad

      Vegan person, is it ethical to eat plants? to consume crops produced largely in momocultures? Monocultures which rely on fossil fuel fertiliser inputs, Pesticide inputs, you know those ethical chemicals which ensure little or nothing can live other than the cultured crop. Monocultures, the creation of which resuts in the wholesale destruction of the habitat of many species of……………………animals !!!!!

      Reply
    3. Binra (@onemindinmany)

      If Malcolm feels any post is inflammatory and unhelpful, then I trust he will not let it publish in ‘his house’. That isn’t censorship, but wisdom. Health requires not accepting toxic garbage as if it is food, or one merely throws life away to a loveless agenda.

      It isn’t LCHF that is in the target of fraudsters, but ANYTHING true that threatens the bubble of a mind-capture. But in openly going after LCHF educational awakening is openly declaring war on dietary advice backed by not only sound science but reversals of diabetes – which is a vector through which a whole not more shit hits the fan. And then it shows up – that it never was about loving animals but hating humanity – as if to escape one’s own.

      Using animals or vegans as a political manipulation is not merely ‘unethical’, its deceitful. But without any integrity Everything becomes deceitful and leaves only the ‘science’ of what works to block, or subvert and distort communication to a private agenda.

      Wikipedia is erasing itself. The whole ‘power game’ of deceit is erasing itself and taking everyone with it – who is willing to align in hate. Masked or presented in all the tricks and deceits that have worked over and again through the generations.

      Reply
    4. Gary Ogden

      Vegan person: And what about the blood-curdling screams of the plants as you murder them? I apologize to them and thank them for their sacrifice every time I pick in the garden. Truly helpless they are, unable to escape.

      Reply
  209. Cam Cunningham

    Keep up the good work Malcolm -I read your book the Great Cholesterol Con many years ago which is why I stopped taking statins -the science behind the cholesterol theory would fail a GCSE science practical!! ….. but being deleted by Wiki is the least of your worries – in USA you get deleted for real!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s