TV programme Tonight with Trevor McDonald, statins

[Ray Holder]

For UK members, there will be a half hour programme with contributions to its subject matter from myself, (not visible), xrn and others at 8.0pm on ITV on Monday evening, 19th November, Tonight with Trevor McDonald. I hope it will be helpful, but only time will tell.

I sent them, today, the link to Dr Graveline's Hour 3 interview, but it is probably too late for it to get into the broadcast.

I wonder which way the presentation will go, the reporter to whom I spoke was acquainted with the name of a lady from Oxford who writes articles saying that statins are very safe!! I once sent her an Email saying that she should get out from under the gleaming spires into the real world. I had no reply!!!

Ray

[Dee]

Ray, If that show has a link on the web, please post it if possible. It would be nice if we could see it too.

I hope that lady in Oxford takes her statin every day. Some ppl deserve what they get. One advertisement over here in the States, that gripes me to no end is "Dr." Robert Jarvik, pushing Lipitor. He now says he takes Lipitor himself, and I REALLY hope he does.

*http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16039753/

[Dee]

Hi Ray,

I found a link to the show. I hope we can at least read about it after it airs. Sounds like you can only view the video if you are in the U.K.

*http://www.itv.com/News/tonight/default.html

[Brian C.]

The synopsis in next week's Radio Times describes a reporter testing a theory that a new diet could be an alternative to statins after a month long experiment.

Do me a favour!

Brian

[xrn]

the show will not go out as intended. It will be a half hour on an experimental diet by a so-called nutritionist. All controversial material has been cut. The TV company were supposed to have been threatened with multiple law-suits by Pfizer. How and ever, it has been stripped of any worthwhile content. I am currently trying to work with THINCS to remedy this poor public profile that the anti-statin lobby have to deal with. More anon.

xrn/Jeff

[cjbrooksjc]

xrn: Good to see your hand again. Seems to me the media could be clever enough to provide a set of personal, on-air interviews with those damaged by statin use along with verifiable statistics relative to the 'cholesterol myth' that would be frightening enough to stun the public yet slippery enough to avoid a suit. Also seems to me that a reaction so obviously caustic by Pfizer would do nothing but steel the resolve of any good journalist. This 'being held ransom' would really gnaw at me. If my assumptions are faulty, is there ANY avenue of public (internet excepted) recourse not fraught with these legal pitfalls, and/or is it all (successful) sabre rattling by Pfizer?

Best,

Brooks

[Dee]

Brooks,

I agree. That is just one station. That kind of cave in attitude makes Dr. Graveline and Dr. Whitaker look like warriors for the cause...and they ARE.

Nice to see you Jeff, don't be a stranger:)

[Ray Holder]

I watched the programme, it was was mostly about cholesterol lowering by diet change, but there were several who had statin problems on there, and Malcolm Kendrick and a USA law firm representative, the write up is on *www.itv.com/tonight and go to The Heart of the Matter

Ray

[xrn]

My frustration is probably now evident (to anyone reading this) after my seeing the programme on TV. I had written to THINCS in an effort to generate a sense of coherence and to try and foment some action. herewith...

Re: The ITV programme "Tonight" - UK TV (oh dear me)

Oh dear me. I could not have been less prescient and more wrongheaded, when I had used the phrase "another confusing presentation of anodyne frippery" for this TV programme before it was broadcast. It was a complete whitewash... in the pejorative sense of the word... it was a camouflage, a deception, a façade.

Any sense of balance was completely absent from this execrable example of the TV programme maker's art. The take home message was repeatedly drummed home... bad cholesterol needs to be dealt with either by some sort of wild-eyed diet (sorry, "lifestyle", in a nod to the good Dr Jarvis) or being told that we must have statins to reduce our bad cholesterol. Her gushing to each of the three guinea pigs, over the apparent reduction in risk, was acutely embarrassing. It was merely the back of a cigarette packet statistics, for the hard of thinking. Bah!

[Please Note: the word 'wild' has replaced another perfectly acceptable word... when juxtaposed with the word 'eyed' but this site had inserted a row of asterisks so I have changed the word so that the sense of the paragraph is largely unaltered.]

Where were the incisive interviews with medical professionals? Why was the doctor from Pfizer allowed to have so much air time? How could he be permitted to dismiss the damage as minor and only affecting a few people, with no balancing counter-argument to be seen or heard? Why were just a few members of the public, who had the misfortune to have had bad experiences on statins, the only 'evidence' for possible harm. No Uffe? No Malcolm? No Duane?

The programme was a shocking travesty of journalism, with an indecent disregard for facts, combined with a deliberate obfuscation of truth. Disgraceful and odious TV at its worst and the only time it will be acknowledged as such, is when a TV producer/director is forced to take statins or has a close relative who is statin-damaged.

It would be inhuman to hope that any family member or friend, of the TV executives who were responsible for the broadcasting of this sordid programme, has to become statin-damaged before the instructional elements of such a happenstance become obvious to the miscreants who had a hand in approving this egregious TV programme.

I urge the THINCS community to consider the value of the THINCS organisation, without a public face. Agreeing with the converted may well produce a nice warm fuzzy feeling but it will not be doing much to bring about the necessary change in attitudes within the medical profession nor will it have any substantial effect on public opinion. The power of the drug company cash was obvious from this 30 minute programme. I am of the opinion that if THINCS started to talk to the public directly, it would contribute something to short circuiting the power of the drug companies.

Is THINCS up to the task of changing opinions? The medical profession opinion is formed by the opinion makers like Dr Solomon Grundy, or so it would appear. What strategies can THINCS offer in the face of such overwhelming (and approved of) power? Where national governments are being dragged around by their nose rings, what hope does THINCS have
of changing perceptions.

What lies ahead (in the UK at any rate) is the increasing use of pharmacists to advise the public on their health. Oh wait... they also sell over the counter statins. So the issues discussed on the THINCS forum are much wider than... should medic A, be prescribing
substance B, for condition C. The public have no-one to trust their healthcare to and the situation is not about to get any better.

I ask these questions in all seriousness because I believe that I can see some very serious people using this forum to ask pertinent questions about the wisdom behind the mass statinisation of innocent victims. I would opine that what is needed are more simple statements like the TV image of Malcolm eating a cream cake. It would surely provoke people to say... "well that doctor was eating a huge cream cake so cholesterol is clearly not worrying him". (indeed, we should not be restricted to watching just Malcolm eating cream cakes... I say cream cakes for all!)

I don't see how public opinion will ever be engaged by abstruse and erudite medical debate, especially since they are unlikely to see it written down or to hear it. Nevertheless, the drip drip of the cholesterol/heart hypothesis and the bad cholesterol message, is corrosive and unhelpful but getting through and becoming a standard mantra. It is being seen and heard daily, by medics, as well as lay members of the public.

The outcome is that the cholesterol/heart hypothesis is no longer a discredited theory but a living fact that we must all act upon (or die?). Dr Jarvis was clear that her patients who did not reduce their bad cholesterol by the dietary changes she supported, would 'have to' take statins. This is new... telling patients what they must do. I guess it must be the thought of all those lovely QOF payments that is causing this particular blind spot.

While I have enjoyed the recent illuminating comment from Leib (and others) and have watched the spirited defence (Anthony) of some issues... it amounts to little more than a 'hill of beans'. I can stand back and admire the stance taken by Henry David Thoreau (Walden and Civil Disobedience) yet the selfish approach of divorcing oneself, from that
which irks us, does not fix anything that may be wrong with the society we inhabit. Had statins been put into Thoreau's water without his knowledge, his stance would have been utterly meaningless.

Once again, I implore the THINCS community to consider what ought to be done, what needs to be done and then to work on a strategy to actually do something, en masse so that it has the authority of like-minds, rather than restricting the group to discussing the merits and demerits of any particular academic argument, for, in my view, it is tantamount (albeit unintentionally) to fiddling while Rome burns.

In an impromptu straw poll, how many of the THINCS membership would agree with the notion that statins are bad?

Respectfully,
Jeff

[cjbrooksjc]

xrn: Bummer!

Brooks

[xrn]

Bummer indeed, Brooks. What follows is my open letter to ITV production staff... FWIW

Dear Karolina,
You have invited me to write to you with my thoughts. herewith...

What a black day for freedom of speech and investigative journalism. I have watched the TV programme, The Heart of the Matter, and I do not understand why anyone would want to bother to produce such a thoroughly distorted view of the relevant issues. This worthless, tawdry little programme, was a very long distance from being an incisive and impartial look at why a large number of people are being routinely poisoned by statins and having their lives turned upside down by the misuse of drugs, promoted by a rapacious pharmaceutical industry. It was a grave disservice to the public weal and one could be excused for demanding to know just who was paying the piper. It was a TV programme with no message other than the Pfizer approved one and journalism that was devoid of integrity.

I know that this must come as something of a surprise to ITV production staff but investigative journalism requires that something should actually be investigated. This programme turned out to be little more than blatant self advertising for Amanda Ursell, Sarah Jarvis and Pfizer (the company that halted a clinical trial at the end of 2006 because an independent monitor had noticed that they were killing a larger number of people than were hitherto expected to die) and yet another mad message about lifestyle and health. The sole objective appeared to be to generate a climate of fear among the public so that they would all rush to their respective GP's or (heaven forfend) Amanda Ursell.

Our medical doctors are paid around an extra £62,000, to keep people pointed toward government targets in the domain of care of the cardiovascular system (QOF payments) despite the mounting evidence of harm wrought on the hapless patients who have trusted both the government and the healthcare system to care for them. This is in addition to the large sum of money that is used to pay medical doctors their salary (£106,000) for working in the field of ministering to those unfortunate people who have become unwell.

The idea that this TV programme provided a balanced argument for and against statins is a very poor joke and I would expect any normal three year old to see the obvious falsehood. The presentation of the issues was carefully doctored to present ordinary people stating that they had been harmed by statins... as a tiny minority of unusual cases. As they were not medically qualified, the presentation of the case for statins was given more legitimacy, by using the Pfizer medical director and Dr Sarah Jarvis as the proponents for statins.

No Dr Uffe Ravnskov? No Dr Malcolm Kendrick? No Dr Duane Graveline? Just a few ordinary people (with the implication that they must have been mistaken or unlucky) trying to make a case against statins. The notion that the "direction of the programme had changed slightly in the production process" would be a huge joke, were it not for the dreadfully serious implications of the failure of ITV to address years of media imbalance, sustained by a cash rich pharmaceutical industry that can buy the loyalty of doctors, advertise falsely to mislead the public and stifle any debate as in the case of this intended TV programme... that was delayed/postponed and then had an appraisal that led to the near miraculous "direction of the programme had changed slightly in the production process".

Dr Jarvis was clearly partisan and made it obvious that any of her patients who did not get their 'bad cholesterol' numbers in order were going to 'have to' take statins. Don't you see anything wrong with a family doctor ordering patients to do something? Is doctor Jarvis and internationally recognised authority on statins? As for her inanely gushing to her guinea pig patients, about their great reductions in risk after just 6 weeks on her miracle diet/lifestyle change, words fail me! Quoting ersatz statistics that did little more than demonstrate her rather poor grasp of statistical significance and her even poorer understanding of mathematics, is something that the program producers ought to be ashamed of permitting.

The take home message was this... lower your cholesterol by any means and if you must then please use our nice safe statins to help you to do so. What is wrong with you people that you cannot see a bald truth when it stares you in the face? There is no proven relationship between cholesterol and heart disease, despite decades of research. There is no such thing as 'bad cholesterol'. Statins are profoundly toxic and disrupt many of the biochemical process that are essential to life... in addition to the billions of dollars of profit that they generate for the pharmaceutical industry. One can only hope that you people will wake up to the truth spontaneously because it would be inhuman to hope that you learn the truth through the failing health of a relative or a close friend or colleague.

Deeply saddened
Jeff Cable

[Brian C.]

Looking on the bright side, the whole affair has been highly educative.
Just a local glimpse into "the way things are done" around the World.

Puzzled why the human race keeps falling on its face?
Because it is constantly being tripped up.

Watch, listen and learn.

Brian.

[Allen1]

Hi to everyone,

I know that the program was watered down and the cholesterol myth was exaggerated beyond belief and what Jeff and everyone else has said it true, but this may also be an awakening for other reporters to try and uncover the truth and make a name for themselves as proper investigative reporters.

A lot of what we are used to seeing today would have shocked us or be talked about in a hushed manner just a few years ago, things like mixed race couples, sexual orientations and the likes. Most of us have friends that also fit into these settings and nowadays we accept this without a second thought and see your friend for who they are and not what category they fit into.

Most of what we accept today was brought on by TV showing mild forms of stories leading to stronger stories/reporting, then to what we take as an everyday part of life.

This program could also be a start of stronger reports leading to people getting the truth about what statins and other drugs actually do so it may not have been that bad if it does lead the way to stronger reporting.

No offense is meant in my examples above, I have friends that fit almost any category and they unfortunately have me to put up with as a friend :-)

[cjbrooksjc]

xrn: ... must be particularly disappointing for you, being this insult to our intelligence came from the UK, and you so intent on raising the alarm there and elsewhere. But perhaps Allen is right, and this is just the first pebble dropping. Still, to labor and labor in hope only to give birth to a mouse in fact. It must be upsetting. At least there is SOMETHING happening there. With the exception of some well-intentioned but rather arcane broadcast events - nothing here at all. NOTHING on the public airwaves. Keep your powder dry.

Sympathies
and Best Regards,

Brooks

[Neetka]

For the benefit of our American friends, the british ITV station is not the part of the BBC. It is a commercial structure, so that one can make their own conclusions.

[Ray Holder]

While browsing the BBC website, I noticed that they are collecting information from people who have high cholesterol and whether they are taking statins, not bothering, or whether they are worried about their cholesterol level, for a program on the ONE show on BBC 1 tv, which goes out at 7.0 pm in the evening.

The web page for comments is via the bbc website *www.bbc.co.uk, find The One Show via the alphabetic index, then high cholesterol will be seen as a link. They ask for a postcode or a region, and give a space for 2500 characters for your comments, not anywhere near enough for what I would like to write. Some UK members may like to enlighten them.

I hope they don't have Dr Sarah Jarvis, a regular one on the show, to deal with the comments, she may make for interesting TV, but her comments on the Radio 4 Case Book item about those who did not believe cholesterol was the cause of heart disease, as believers in a flat earth. I would say that those who believe the opposite are the ones in that category.

She did make a remark on a health matter the other evening, repeating Hannan Ashwari's remark that you couldn't be just a little bit pregnant, and following it with "or a tad dead". Now that struck a chord with me, because statin damage sufferers are a tad dead, in all sorts of places not visible to those who don't understand how how it can happen. I know I have several parts of me which really are a little bit dead, and are likely to remain so until the rest of me catches up with them.

I wonder if a show like this is really the best place to argue the anti statin case, I fear it may not get a sufficiently serious treatment. Anyway, its too good a chance to miss altogether.

Ray

[xrn]

Thank you Ray... on the basis that saying something is better than saying nothing, I have written the following to Adrian Chiles.

Jeff (aka xrn)

Dear Mr Chiles,
The dangers of cholesterol levels are being overstated. The fear that is induced in the population is a form of social control. The GPs are paid a bonus of around £62k per year to meet government targets, that are based on shoddy science that is unproven to this very day.

My own cholesterol level is 8.5 and my GP wanted me to take statins. When I asked why, he stated that it was because "I fitted the profile". I could get no information from him, Cholesterol UK or the department of health, despite my trying to warn them of the danger to the public health.

As a nurse, I had recalled whispers about statin-related problems. I suspect my GP just wanted his £62k bonus payment. According to government statistics, the average GP practice will claim a further £121k pa in QOF payments (Quality and Outcomes Framework payments) in addition to their £106k salary.

I have been running a global e-Petition against statins, in an effort to see who else had suffered because of them. Notwithstanding the selected sample type an analysis of 100 signatories comments shows that statins are far more damaging than the healthcare professionals or the government will acknowledge. The facts speak for themselves and I invite you to look at the petition at the following URL...

*http://www.gopetition.com/online/11757.html

and then to read the analysis of just 100 commentaries, go here...

*http://talkingstatins.com/page4/page33/page33.html

I can supply the analysis as a pdf document if you should prefer it.

The statistics are no less shocking for being self-reported by the patients and the frequency of the fatal disease (ALS) far outstrips that which could reasonably be expected in this small sample size. The number of cases should be 2 per 100,000 in the global arena and have not yet seen 250,000 signatures. On my small sample the incidence is closer to 5% of the statin taking population.

It is to be hoped that real investigative journalism is not yet dead for this issue has been kept from the front pages of the world for far too long. It would make my licence fee worth the cost if the BBC would finally get to grips with this issue. I can probably enrol the assistance of the world's leading scientists, if you should want to know more.

[bunnylady]

Dee- I scream at the t.v. everytime Dr. R Jarvak is on t.v. promoting Lipitor- I hope he takes 20 mg a day or more and I hope he gets sick from it- will serve him right for promoting it- what a traitor- and all for the almighty $$$$$$$

[Dee]

bunnylady,

I know just how you feel. I seriously wonder if he really is taking it, and if so I expect him to still be hawking the stuff from a wheelchair one day.