And so, we reach the final end to the court case. You may think it all finished months ago, not so. The final, final act is when we have the reading of the Statement in Open Court (SIOC). This took place Thursday the 5th of December 2024. Which is five years and nine months after the articles in the Mail on Sunday were published.
I could not talk or write about the SIOC before it happened, or the Judge would be most upset and angry. And you don’t want an upset or angry Judge. I have also been constrained, until today, in what I could write or say. You may not think so, but I have. The entire legal process is exceedingly slow, controlling and thin-skinned. There can be no criticism of any aspect whatsoever. There we go.
You may wonder what a statement in open court (SIOC) is. I find myself virtually unable to put it in plain English because I am not entirely sure myself. The first thing to say is that the defendants in a libel case are not obliged to make any apology. Something I did not know until recently.
So, the Mail on Sunday, and/or Barney Calman did not need to apologise. And you will note that Barney Calman, the gentleman – and I use this word loosely – who devised and wrote the articles has remained tight lipped. The word ‘sorry’ has not, and I suspect never will, pass his lips.
Had you ever met him, this would not surprise you. The word unpleasant does not do justice to the man. In this case, he basically accused me of being a mass murderer and clearly thought it rather amusing. Oh titter, titter. ‘Yes, sweetie a dry martini would be gorgeous.’
In lieu of an apology, the party that wins the case – in this case me and Zoe Harcombe, are entitled to have ‘their’ statement read out in open court. This has to be signed off by the Judge and read out in court. Which means that it represents the approved ‘legal’ summary of the findings of the case. The defendants can argue for changes – and they have done so. But it is not far off what we wanted, if rather dull.
Our lawyers, Carter Ruck, who I must say have been utterly brilliant and clever, also crafted a Press release, to go along with the SIOC. It is below. Further down is the SIOC itself.
What are my thoughts on what happened? Firstly, the articles were clearly a hatchet job designed to destroy my reputation. And Zoe Harcombe’s reputation. And quite possibly drag the GMC in, so that I would lose my job. In Barney Calman’s own words ‘we’re planning a big takedown of statin deniers.’
But what did he base the take down on? At one point in the planning stages for the articles Barney Calman wrote. ‘I must admit I have not read Malcolm Kendrick’s book.’ Yes, he decided to attack me, without reading my latest book at the time ‘A Statin Nation’.
In court he also admitted he had not read any book or paper I had written. The only thing he managed to quote was some words from the back cover of ‘A Statin Nation.’ Pretty exhaustive research there, Barney.
My arguments and scientific papers were of no importance to him, for his mind was made up. Based on … a fly cover. At another point, during a WhatsApp conversation with a mysterious cardiology expert called ‘X’ he asked the question of her. ‘So, Kendrick is right?’ They replied. ‘I’ve never actually read him Mea Culpa.’
It seems that no-one involved in writing these articles had made any effort to find out what I had so say, about anything, I was to be found guilty of the terrible crime of – something or other. For which, I was to be duly punished. There could be no discussion, or argument. My guilt had been established on the basis of … nothing! Further clear evidence of my guilt was to be accused of authoring a scientific paper – which I had nothing to do with.
In truth the entire episode would have been funny, had it not been so serious. The Keystone Cops of the mainstream media world. Don’t bother to read anything, don’t bother to try and discuss anything with your intended targets. Get your facts wrong. Admit you have no idea how to read and understand clinical papers… in court under cross-examination. Then accuse Zoe Harcombe, who did a degree in mathematics at Cambridge, of making up statistics to suit her arguments.
Why on Earth did Associated Newspapers (the publishers of the Mail on Sunday) not give up immediately? It would sure as hell have saved them a lot of money. Amazingly, as long as two years after we sued it appears their lawyers had not bothered to speak to Barney Calman.
What actually happened?
In my opinion, or should I say ‘allegedly’ what actually happened here was that Barney Calman had heard from various cardiology experts that cholesterol and statin ‘deniers’ were causing people to stop taking their drugs. This was clearly a dreadful thing, ‘worse than the MMR scandal’ according to Professor Sir Rory Collins. Such people needed to be exposed for the dangerous idiots that they are.
Barney clearly thought this was the basis of a good story, as part of his ‘fake news’ series. Heroic researchers, such as Professor Sir Rory Collins had dedicated their lives to the good of humanity. Their brilliant and groundbreaking research had proved that statins were wonder drugs that saved thousands of lives and had no side-effects whatsoever. All the evidence supported this. Had Barney ever read any of it?
Despite this mountain of unimpeachable evidence, there were still this band of unscientific unbelievers who dared to question the mighty statins, and even the mighty cholesterol hypothesis itself. They needed to be crushed and humiliated in public, in one of the most widely read newspapers in the world.
Barney Calman almost certainly thought this would be a slam dunk. On one side he had lined up various professors, including the chairman of the British Heart Foundation itself. As icing on the cake, he got a quote from the Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock. A man whose knowledge of cardiology literally has no beginning.
On the other side he had a few pipsqueaks who were never going to able to fight back. Too costly and dangerous for them. The lawyers who checked the piece almost certainly thought the same thing. Yup, probably libellous, but we have all these professors supporting us. Off you go Barney, publish away – allegedly.
Bong!
We did fight back, and we won. We won because of the lazy assumption that all the ‘experts’ must be right. Therefore, we must be wrong. There was no need to check facts, or to find out what we were saying, or why we were saying it? Waste of time, clearly unscientific idiots.
To quote from the SIOC itself:
“in the context of the public interest defence, perhaps the most serious omission of Mr Calman was his treatment of the Claimants’ right-to-reply responses”. The failure to consider the responses and the materials in them properly was said by the Judge to have “rendered the right-to-reply process hollow and superficial”, and the Judge also described Mr Calman’s attitude towards the Claimant’s responses as “dismissive”.
Sadly, this is how a great deal of ‘scientific’ debate now takes place. There is the agreed mainstream narrative, and here are all the ‘experts’ who support it. They do not need to defend their position, they just band together to attack and ridicule anyone who dares question them.
Luckily, when you go to court, this defence counts for little. Judges are unimpressed by eminence. The ‘do you know who I am’ argument cuts little ice with them. I imagine Judges have seen enough eminent people spouting lies and rubbish to last a lifetime. Justice is, or at least tries to be, blind.
And so, the Judge decreed that Barney was talking libellous nonsense. The punishment for Barney? As our lawyers had predicted, almost immediately after the Judgement was made – he was promoted. This, allegedly, is the way that Associated Newspapers says *$%k you.
I can only hope that a little voice whispers into his ear at night.
What I mainly hope, and one of the main reasons why I took on this fight, is that ‘others’ will take note that. First, that you don’t attack me, or Zoe, ever again. More importantly, you cannot just spout libellous nonsense on the basis that the ‘experts’ have your back.
You might, horror, of horrors, have to debate the science itself.
Press Release
Date: 5 December 2024
The Mail on Sunday apologises and pays substantial damages to doctor and academic in “statins” case
Dr Zoë Harcombe PhD and Dr Malcolm Kendrick have secured a full apology, substantial damages and their legal costs from the publisher of The Mail on Sunday, as their long-running libel claims come to a successful conclusion.
The case related to articles published in March 2019, containing allegations that Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick had made knowingly false statements about the cholesterol-lowering drug, statins; and that they had thereby caused large numbers of people not to take statins, causing harm to public health.
A statement in open Court, read today on behalf of the Claimants, recorded that these allegations were and are completely untrue, as The Mail on Sunday has now acknowledged. Dominic Garner of Carter-Ruck told the Court that in particular, “neither Dr Harcombe nor Dr Kendrick is a challenger or a ‘denier’ of scientific fact, or a purveyor of lies about cholesterol or statins”. To the contrary, the Court heard that the two Claimants “have always been passionate believers in evidence-based science and open scientific debate, who defend the principle that impartiality and objectivity are called for in the evaluation of scientific evidence, including in relation to the use and prescription of statins”.
Each of them considers strongly “that the debate about the balance of the benefits and harms of statins remains ‘alive and kicking’”. However, they “do not believe that the Defendants treated them fairly in the articles of which they complained”.
The conclusion of the case, through agreed settlements, follows a landmark judgment delivered in June this year, in which Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the The Mail on Sunday’s public interest defence. The Judge found among things that The Mail on Sunday’s right-to-reply process had been “hollow and superficial” and that the journalist’s attitude towards Dr Harcombe’s and Dr Kendrick’s responses had been “dismissive”, whereas the journalist’s own experts had been allowed to have “a very significant”, and “undue”, influence over the editorial process and the terms of the articles.
In agreeing now to resolve the claims – more than five years following publication – The Mail on Sunday has withdrawn its articles and published a full apology to the Claimants, accepting that its allegations “are untrue and ought not to have been published” and recording that the publisher is “happy to set the record straight, and apologise to Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick for the distress caused”.
The Mail on Sunday has undertaken not to repeat its allegations and agreed to pay the Claimants substantial damages, as well as their legal costs.
Dr Harcombe said of the conclusion of the case:
“I am delighted and relieved that this case has been resolved in our favour. This has been a long and complex case, but one that I felt compelled to bring given the scale – and unfairness – of The Mail on Sunday’s public attack on our integrity.”
Dr Kendrick has said:
“I am very happy, and relieved, to have secured complete vindication for what were unfounded smears on my reputation and professional integrity. The Mail on Sunday’s articles should never have been published. The publisher chose to rely on the views of experts who sit squarely on one side of the statins debate, without even acknowledging that there is a legitimate public debate about the use and efficacy of one of the most widely prescribed drugs. Those who do not hold mainstream views on statins should not have their views rejected out of hand or be wrongly cast as dishonest propagandists, as the Mail on Sunday did here.”
Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick were represented by Claire Gill and Dominic Garner of Carter-Ruck and by Adrienne Page KC and Godwin Busuttil of 5RB.
NOTES:
Dr Zoë Harcombe is a professional researcher, writer and public speaker on the subject of diet, health and nutritional science. She is a graduate of the University of Cambridge in economics and mathematics and has a PhD in public health nutrition.
Dr Malcolm Kendrick is a recently retired general practitioner, writer, and lecturer, with a specialist interest in the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease. He has authored books including “The Great Cholesterol Con” (2008), “Doctoring Data” (2015), “A Statin Nation: Damaging Millions in a Brave New Post-Health World” (2018) and “The Clot Thickens: The enduring mystery of heart disease” (2021).
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim Nos. QB-2020 000799
QB-2020-000801
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
BETWEEN:-
ZOË HARCOMBE PhD
First Claimant
-and-
- ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
- BARNEY CALMAN
Defendants
AND BETWEEN:-
DR MALCOLM KENDRICK
Second Claimant
-and-
- ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
- BARNEY CALMAN
Defendants
STATEMENT IN OPEN COURT
Solicitor for the Claimants
- My Lord/Lady, I appear for the Claimants in this matter, Zoë Harcombe PhD and Dr Malcolm Kendrick.
- Dr Harcombe is a professional researcher, writer, and public speaker on diet, health and nutritional science. She is a graduate of the University of Cambridge in economics and mathematics and has a PhD in public health nutrition. Her thesis was titled “An examination of the randomised controlled trial and epidemiological evidence for the introduction of dietary fat recommendations in 1977 and 1983: A systematic review and meta-analysis.”
- Dr Kendrick is a general practitioner, writer, and lecturer. As a medical practitioner, he worked in general practice, intermediate care and out of hours for two NHS Trusts in Cheshire, the East Cheshire NHS Trust and the Central Cheshire Integrated Care Partnership (CCICP). As a writer and lecturer, he has a specialist interest in the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease. He has authored books including “The Great Cholesterol Con” (2008), “Doctoring Data” (2015), “A Statin Nation: Damaging Millions in a Brave New Post-Health World” (2018) and “The Clot Thickens: The enduring mystery of heart disease” (2021). He was an original member of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine at the University of Oxford and of The International Network of Cholesterol Sceptics, the latter comprising scientists, doctors and researchers who share the belief that cholesterol does not cause cardiovascular disease. He has also worked for the European Society of Cardiology and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
- In the course of their research and publications in their specialist fields, both of the Claimants have, to different degrees, contributed to ongoing public debate concerning the use and efficacy of statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs widely prescribed for cardiovascular disease.
- The First Defendant, Associated Newspapers Limited, is the publisher of The Mail on Sunday, and the operator and publisher of the MailOnline website and associated applications. The Second Defendant, Mr Calman, is the Head of Health for The Mail on Sunday, having formerly been the publication’s Health Editor.
- On 3 March 2019, the Defendants published in The Mail on Sunday a series of articles as part of a special report under the headlines “Deadly Propaganda of the Statin Deniers”, “Statin Deniers are putting patients at risk, says Minister”, referring to the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock MP, and “There is a special place in hell for the doctors who claim statins don’t work”. The articles were published in similar form online on the MailOnline website on 2 March 2019, where they remained until June 2024. The articles featured prominent photographs of both Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick, who were identified as so-called “statin deniers” who published “fake news” about statins.
- Several paragraphs of the articles included reference to remarks given to the Defendants by Mr Hancock, known as “the Hancock Statement”. Other paragraphs referred to a scientific paper produced primarily by researchers working at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the University of London and published in the British
Medical Journal known as “the LSHTM Paper”.
- Following substantial pre-action correspondence aimed at resolving the Claimants’ complaint without the need for litigation, the Claimants issued proceedings for libel against the Defendants in February 2020. In answer to the Claimants’ claims, the Defendants relied upon substantive defences of honest opinion; truth; reporting privilege under Section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996 (in respect of the Hancock Statement); reporting privilege under Section 6 of the Defamation Act 2013 (in respect of the LSHTM Paper); and publication on a matter of public interest.
- The Claimants’ claims went to trial in July 2023 to determine a series of preliminary issues, including the public interest defence; privilege; meaning; whether the publications contained defamatory statements of fact or of opinion; and if and insofar as opinion, whether Mr Calman had held these opinions. A finding that he did not would invalidate a defence to the claims of honest opinion.
- The Court was not asked to determine, nor did it determine, who is “right” in the statin debate.
- In a Judgment of 25 June 2024, the Court dismissed the Defendants’ public interest defence in its entirety. The Judgment itself may be found in full on the National Archives and Bailii websites. In relation to the way in which the Defendants had gone about the preparation of the articles, the Court found that there had been a number of significant failings in the Defendants’ approach.
- The Court held that Mr Calman was an honest witness who had approached his work honestly, and an allegation of malice against him was dismissed. A key issue for the Court was whether or not Mr Calman reasonably believed that it was in the public interest to publish the articles. In that context the Court assessed Mr Calman’s journalistic approach: “what inquiries were made, what did [Mr Calman] know, what information did he receive, what opportunity did he give to the Claimants to comment and respond to the allegations to be made against them and how ultimately did he present all of this material in his Articles?”
- After a detailed analysis of how Mr Calman went about writing his story, the Court concluded amongst other things:
- The use made by the Defendants of the Hancock Statement “gave readers a completely misleading impression of what Matt Hancock had said” and “Mr Calman knew that”. This was described as a “serious error” on the Defendants’ part.
- The portrayal of a patient “case study” used in the coverage – which referred to a heart attack patient at Hammersmith Hospital in London identified as “Colin” – was “misleading”.
- That “in the context of the public interest defence, perhaps the most serious omission of Mr Calman was his treatment of the Claimants’ right-to-reply responses”. The failure to consider the responses and the materials in them properly was said by the Judge to have “rendered the right-to-reply process hollow and superficial”, and the Judge also described Mr Calman’s attitude towards the Claimant’s responses as “dismissive”.
- That Mr Calman had allowed the experts who had helped him with his story to have “a very significant”, and “undue”, influence over the editorial process and the terms of the articles.
- That “[w]hilst there is an important area for editorial judgment in what is reported in any article, it is not in the public interest for a publisher to misstate (or ignore) the evidence it has available. That remains the case even if the underlying material or evidence is complex.”
- Informed by these conclusions, the Court held that although Mr Calman believed that publishing the articles was in the public interest, the Defendants had failed to demonstrate that this belief was, in all the circumstances, reasonable, with the consequence that the Defendants’ public interest defence failed. Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick welcome that finding, since each of them believes, and has always believed, that the debate about the balance of the benefits and harms of statins remains “alive and kicking” as Dr Fiona Godlee, a former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal, put it[1], and that accordingly where the press wishes to criticise individuals who hold non-mainstream views on statins the public interest demands that the scientific evidence supporting their views should be properly and fairly scrutinised and presented to their readership, not rejected out of hand. They do not believe that the Defendants treated them fairly in the articles of which they complained.
- At trial, the Court found that the articles defamed the Claimants by conveying to readers the defamatory meaning that each of Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick had repeatedly made public statements about cholesterol and statins that they knew to be false; that there were strong grounds to suspect that each had made these knowingly false statements motivated
by the hope that they would benefit from doing so either financially or from enhanced status; and the direct effect of the publication of these knowingly false statements by Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick was, first, to cause a very large number of people not to take prescribed statin medication; and second, thereby to expose them to a serious risk of a heart attack or stroke causing illness, disability or death; that in consequence, each of Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick was rightly to be condemned as a “pernicious liar”, for whom there was “a special place in hell”, whose lies, deadly propaganda, insidious fake news, scare stories, and crackpot conspiracy theories, had recklessly caused a very large number of people to stop taking statins, risking needless deaths and causing harm.
- These allegations were, and are, completely untrue. In particular, neither Dr Harcombe nor Dr Kendrick is a challenger or a ‘denier’ of scientific fact, or a purveyor of lies about cholesterol or statins. To the contrary, they have always been passionate believers in evidence-based science and open scientific debate, who defend the principle that impartiality and objectivity are called for in the evaluation of scientific evidence, including in relation to the use and prescription of statins. Accordingly, the articles’ allegations went to the core of the Claimants’ personal and professional reputations, by directly impugning their academic integrity and motivation, and attributing to them a risk of having caused a serious public health scare, on a scale said to have been worse than the infamous MMR vaccine scandal.
- In particular, to have such allegations made of a dedicated practising GP, Dr Kendrick, was a particularly serious and unjustified slur.
- In fact, neither of the Claimants has knowingly made false statements as alleged by the articles. Indeed, Mr Calman acknowledged in his evidence at trial that he did not intend for the articles to allege dishonesty on the part of Dr Harcombe or Dr Kendrick, nor had he seen anything in his research that would suggest Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick were dishonest. It is therefore highly regrettable that articles were published by the Defendants which went so far beyond what they said they had intended in terms of a critique of the Claimants and that this serious error on their part was not recognised by them sooner than it was. The Claimants are appalled that, until they were removed from the MailOnline website in June 2024, these grave libels continued to be published there – in unqualified and unamended form, despite requests by them for qualification and amendment – for more than five years.
- Furthermore, there is no evidence linking any published views of Dr Harcombe or Dr Kendrick about statins to a reduction in statin uptake, let alone any evidence linking their published views to illness, disability or death consequential upon a reduction or cessation
of usage of statins. Specifically, the LSHTM Paper, to which the articles referred, did not have as its subject matter anything that Dr Harcombe or Dr Kendrick had said or written, but rather was concerned with a general debate on statins taking place in the mainstream media following publication of two papers in the British Medical Journal in October 2013 which were not authored by either Dr Harcombe or Dr Kendrick. The LSHTM Paper simply should not have been deployed against Dr Harcombe or Dr Kendrick by the Defendants in the way it was; there was no justification for doing so.
- Finally, the books that Dr Harcombe has written are about diet, not about cholesterol or statins. She does not blog regularly about cholesterol and statins. She has not – and there were no grounds for alleging, contrary to what was implied in the articles, that she had – profited financially from having a stance on statins. As for Dr Kendrick, while he has written several books, articles, blogs and scientific papers about statins, there were no grounds to allege in his case either that he had profited financially from his stance on statins. At the time he wrote and published the various books, articles and papers about statins, he was working in full time employment as a GP, and that was always his primary concern and almost exclusively his source of income. He has derived only modest income from his books and none at all from his articles, blogs and scientific papers.
- In its Judgment, the Court stated that in consequence of its decision on the preliminary issues the Defendants’ pleaded defences of truth and honest opinion could not be maintained in the form in which they had been advanced. The Defendants were afforded an opportunity to amend their Defence to bring it in line with the decisions made on the preliminary issues.
- The Defendants did not seek to do so, but instead offered to settle the Claimants’ claims in their entirety on terms which the Claimants accepted. As well as undertaking not to repeat those allegations that the articles were found by the Court to bear, the Defendants have published an apology both online and in the print edition of The Mail on Sunday, which accepted that the allegations are untrue and ought not to have been published. The Defendants have also agreed to pay each of the Claimants very substantial damages, in addition to their legal costs.
On this basis, and on the footing that this statement will be read publicly on their behalf in open court, Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick are satisfied that they have secured proper vindication in this matter, and feel they are able finally to draw a line under these proceedings
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(17)30721-3.pdf
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick 
Dr Malcolm, Well done! Finally got there….keep up the good work. Kind regards, George Hewitt
Goodness! Sounds like a plot worthy of a Kafka novel. Glad you made it through to the end.
you are living legends and a ray of medical hope in a profession that seems to be blindly heading into an abyss..Thank you
Malcolm, congratulations to yourself and Zoe. Great news, justice has been delivered. Quite rightly. Hope you can put your feet up, relax and enjoy a nice whisky or two after all the inevitable stress and hard work involved in getting to this great outcome. And well done to your legal team.
Many thanks for all your efforts throughout this truly hideous process. I hope the damages were, as indicated, ‘very substantial’ and that they allow you to enjoy your (apparently) recent retirement to the full.
I hope (but don’t expect) that BC had to pay his share of the damages personally. ‘Head of Health’ indeed.
Similar message to Dr Harcombe as well (apart from the retirement bit).
Malcolm and Zoe, best wishes to you both. Thank you for being steadfast for the truth.
Well done Doc & Zoe, glad you kept at it. Best wishes James Bee
I have no idea why that last comment (which is awaiting moderation) is listed under the name’enemyspooky99dcc62d28‘.
I am happy for it to be published under my own name – Alan Elgey
Congratulations! So glad you prevailed.
What a load of arrogant shills.
You are still my big hero!!!
Respect!
Excellent! Delighted to see he truth vindicated. Kind regards, Stan
Many congratulations, Malcolm. I hope the damages are really really substantial. You have not just won for yourself but have performed a public service taking on the odious Mail and winning.
Fantastic news and I’m sure it was an exceptionally stressful time for both of you & your families.
Please keep writing on this site as you truly are an inspiration to so many people. Hopefully, with the right legal support the tide will turn against this “ no debate” science for others too.
Thank you,
Trish B.
Very relieved for you both and chuffed that you went ahead with the case. Hope you are able to relax and enjoy Christmas & you are keeping well. I wish there were more people like you out there in this dreadful time, on so many fronts, for so many.
Dear Dr Kendrick,
I’m sooooo pleased for you and Zoe… Justice at last!
I hope my GP reads about this case. Better still, that she reads your books!
Best wishes, Susannah
I’m not sure it got the publicity it deserved
Well Done Dr.Kendrick! Owen Simpson
Well done to you and Zoe Harcombe and your legal teams for this win against Big Pharma and their media bully boys!!!! I’ve read all your books and thank you for your work!!!
Brilliant!!!
Congratulations – I just hope the damages really were ‘substantial’ given the protracted stress/cost this case must have caused. Doctors everywhere should be very grateful to you for helping preserve evidence-based debate and individualised medicine discussions with patients. As noted, the statin debate is ‘alive and kicking’ – perhaps now the relevant drug companies will release all their research data so that this debate can continue (as per highlighted in a BMA editorial)?
My only quibble is that it was deemed Barney Calman was not ‘malicious’. Possibly. However, if this is so, surely the only other explanation is that he is a/ incompetent AND/OR b/ stupid? Both of which would have made you unemployable, if you were, say a GP, but at least for now standards are a little higher in medicine than they are in journalism.
CONGRATULATIONS!!! : ) This was a terrib
Huge congratulations.
With all his detailed scientific and medical knowledge, it is astonishing that Matt Hancock did not immediately issue a statement in defence of your position in this litigation, given that the Defendants had apparently used a quotation from him in support of their defamatory attack. Especially since he is acknowledged as such a Giant in the field of population health management (just ask Bareness Whitewash). Roger W.
Well done Dr Kendrick! A well deserved victory over the gutter press!
Hello Malcolm,
I am sure your inbox will be flooded with well wishers expressing congratulations on your court win-now public. I want to join the throng as an avid follower of your incredible work. Kindest regards
Jonathan
>
Hi Malcolm,Well done for your science-baed-based and honest exploration of cholesterol, heart disease and statins over the years. It is a credit to the British justice system that it protects free speech and the right to disagree, and protects the public from conspiracies to quash freedom of thought and expression via personal attacks. Keep up the good work. Best regardsKevin McHa
Congratulations again Malcolm, the whole episode confirms that confirmation bias is everywhere, in science, in politics, in the media, and this case encapsulates all three. Now more than ever we need to be alert, educate ourselves and withold our trust until its deserved.
Fabulous. How good to read your account in words back to their perky best. No disrespect meant there, many of us enjoy your humour and honesty. Not surprised there’s still some anger there though. Both you and Zoe have been sane and reassuring voices, particulalry recently, and if all your followers raise a glass to you this evening, there may be a shortage over the festive period. Well done.
Full vindication, congratulations – but not so sure about justice: bring back the cane, horse whip, stocks, gallows!
A great outcome for you both.
A great outcome for you both. Do hope the strain and stress of the case has not been to harmful to you both.
I was once told by a wise man, “The only thing you can’t fight in this world is stupidity!” However, you and Zoe proved otherwise and publicly showed just how stupid your opponents were and which was their undoing. Hurrah for justice! We raise our glass to you both and your gallant team with heartfelt thanks.
Many, many congratulations! It is so tough and mentally draining to have pursued this. Well done, both of you, hope you can take a deep breath and enjoy the relief and sense of vindication.
The rest of us are in your debt.
England is now celebrating!
Cheers Andy Lowings
Bloody brilliant! One in the eye for the utter morons who seem to be running our institutions.
On the back of your fabulous books, I have managed to encourage some of my clients to look closely at the damage that these drugs have done.
Thank you both!
Annabel Andrew
>
Most sincere congratulations. I did not give up statins after reading your book. I gave up
Great vindication Malcolm and Zoe. It is such a rarity for honesty to come up on top nowadays. Reading your summary is so good and one would hope that it would caution further incidents of lazy libellous journalism.
I rather doubt it – but this victory is sweet and your families can have an excellent celebration – its been a pleasure seeing the normal man win in the tortuous legal system we have …brilliant effort!!
I’m so glad for you that it’s now over. But whether it’ll make the fact checkers actually check facts in future, I very much doubt. Ah well.
I wish I could stop buying the Mail on Sunday but to have bought it in the first place would necessarily mean that the supermarkets had run out of loo paper
A superb response.
The only downside is that this idiotic farce has perhaps steered your laser-like intellect from the oversized pachyderm, lolling about in its own “quaccinated” girth, wondering when you’re going to shoot it?
Congratulations on a fight, long fought and won, not only for yourselves but, for the masses. This sordid tale just reinforces that we all must take responsibility for our own health by reading and informing ourselves. I have read all of your books and personally hope there are more to come!
Well done, Dr K. I’m so proud of you and Zoe Harcombe. You have been brilliant and your writings certainly changed my life for the better. Hurrah! Your dedication to the truth is laudable. Well done, well done!👏👏👏💖💖💖
Congratulations Malcolm and Zoe. And thank you for standing up for truth and integrity, which are in short supply these days. I hope you are able to enjoy retirement, but please, keep us in mind . In this dark world we are very short of leaders like yourself who use their knowledge and experience for the good of all.
Happy to see it is over and you got a fair measure of satisfaction. Thanks to your books and your questioning of the status quo, I am glad to be on a different path apart from mainstream medicine in deciding how to maintain my health.
The current state of the court system (over 60 months for a proper hearing?) as well as the current state of medical practice are indeed abysmal and disconsolate. I feel you are someone to trust and pay attention to.
Justice done…congratulations. what a relieve.
Hello Dr. Kendrick,
Thank you. Wow.
I haven’t read all of your books, but I did read Doctoring Data some years ago, and it was so illuminating. At the time, I had horses, and I’d get to some astounding part in the book and think “Holy moly, I can’t process all this!” and I’d have to run down to the barn and muck out like mad, all the while rehashing what I had read. I am so appreciative of all you do. I’ll get to your other books… having retired and moved to a lovely spot by the ocean in Nova Scotia, I will now have more time to read. By the way, my husband has “prediabetes” (hmm) and has managed to fight off the statin pushing docs. Doing fine, good diet, less stress, and plenty of beach walks with our dog Polly!
Best wishes to you and Zoe. Three cheers for you!
Sincerely, Margo Harris
A fabulous result and great response. There are still impartial judges out there then? Sadly, speaking out against the “Quaccine democide” still likely to be career suicide though.
Dear Malcolm So pleased for you and Zoe that it’s all over and that you were both fully vindicated, Regards. Ray Battersby
Sent from my iPad
>
Well done, finally. And thank you. It’s the bravery and intelligence of people like you and Zoe who may just save this human race…. With gratitude, Malcolm. And for all your writings.
Thank you for defending the right to investigate and present evidence on a matter of scientific interest. It gives me hope that the legal system did work in a fair and disinterested way. This is a big crack in the wall that vested interests build to stop discussion. Having read all your books and blogs it is hard to think that the result could have been otherwise but sometimes big money finds ways to win.
Well done 👏 and Thankyou for staying so strong & honest . Justice can happen – life has been many campaigns !Sincerely,Susan phoenixwww.susanphoenix.comSent from my iPhone
Congratulations on winning your case. (For giving that pompous, nasty idiot Calman a bloody nose and gaining one up on a propagand driven newspaper.
keep up the great writing. I love your work.
Claire Gajeckyj, North Wales
Malcolm, Well done, Great Work
Yours in admiration Winston
>
Well done Malcolm, nice to see eminence based medicine take a kicking.
The single malts are on you!
” However, they “do not believe that the Defendants treated them fairly in the articles of which they complained”.”
I guess you couldn’t really say “However, they do believe that the article was a complete hatchet job.”
Too bad.
I am just so thankful for professionals like yourself and Zoe and countless others who are brave enough to stand up against the propoganda and downright lies peddled by the likes of Barney (Rubble?), and who pursue the scientific method, rather than ‘the science’. For those of us trying to pick our way through the minefield, you are a beam of light showing the way.
Thank you.
Joanna
Dr. Kendrick and Dr. Harcombe: I am delighted that your long battle has finally come to a conclusion. It must be an immense relief to finally be able to put this to pasture. I bought your book “The Clot Thickens” and found it very interesting and informative and I have to say the information and conclusions I drew from it, correspond to many other intelligent articles and other sources that I have found. I believe that current research will eventually prove that indeed, cholesterol is not the cause in itself, of coronary heart disease, and that the taking of statin drugs, although indeed it does bring down cholesterol numbers in serum samples, does not prevent the occurrences of either stroke or heart attack. The fact that there are numerous dangerous side effects of taking statins seems to have become irrelevant, sadly. The fact that taking statins does not extend life in any meaningful way is also ignored. I feel such a sense of outrage that people like yourselves cannot offer science-backed opinion, without becoming a target of main-stream medical and pharmaceutical organizations. Big Pharma, indeed has a vested interest in protecting it’s status: unfortunately, this vested interest has nothing to do with the health of the general public, but solely to do with it’s own profits and market dominance. Medical authorities throughout the world continue to stand behind Big Pharma to a great extent. “Woe be to anybody who seeks truth” seems to be their credo.
I have sent you a link to a very interesting YouTube video that I think you will find fascinating. Are you aware of Dr. Ben Bikman from Brigham Young University in Utah? He is a professor and research scientist and a fat specialist. He has a very interesting video on statins and their effects, and side effects. If you have not see it, I think you will be really interested in this. I offer the link again here.
Dr. Kendrick, I appreciate your dedication to science and truth, and the desire you have to help people. I think the world needs more people like you. Once again, congratulations, and have a nice expensive bottle of champers to celebrate!!! I wish I could join you!
Robin Goodhand
>
My Dear revered Dr Kendrick MD.
Brilliant news for you both.
I can only imagine the gods have bestowed you two with the mental fortitude and courage to be the able to survive this conquest by the evil and darknside. It would have been revealing to see the claimants bank accounts. Was he also funded by the dark side. Hence his utter arrogance. His promotion maybe be an indicator to such support he had before beginning his crusade against reason. Your well founded research and reason. Both of you are to be celebrated and revered by us who have followed you stories, read your books, promoted your thinking.
sadly even my GP refused to read any of your books or articles. He simply returned them unread though accompanied with a paper of evidence supporting statins.
My greatest sadness is I wanted to be a patient of yours. I’ve relocated from NZ to be so.
Please let me know if there is anyway for this to happen in any capacity. I pay my own way. Always have.
My kindest heartfelt regards to you both.
Always
Deane Compton.
Congratulations both on a great win over The Mail on Sunday and Barney Calman.
Best wishes
Az
Dear Dr Kendrick,I want to extend my congratulations to you
p.s. I have printed out all fourteen pages of your comments, SIOC and press release which I have now sent to my GP as he is someone with whom I can have an honest conversation with. This will certainly make him think.
Thank you so much for giving 5 years of your life to bring the Media to heel. A win like this will encourage others to stand up and simply say – no, this is not right.
Fantastic ! But thoroughly deserved. Well done to you both !!!
Well done in taking on this poor sensational reporting. I have read your book A Statin Nation but decided to take a statin as I have a condition called Essential Thrombocythemia and I had read a study that indicated it could be beneficial in reducing my risk profile. Had I not had this condition, I would have avoided them as I found your book very well written and backed up with research papers.
Congratulations, Malcolm, on having the courage to fight false accusations made against you.
In my 50 years as a holistic physician in Minnesota, I did not have the time or energy to fight the false (and derogatory) claims made against me. So, I REALLY appreciate you doing that rather distasteful job.
Thank you. Truth is a wonderful thing.
Bill Manahan, MD
(Retired physician now living in Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Dear Malcom,
Huge congratulations to both of you for staying the course and then winning the battle!!
I got elected to South Dublin county council earlier this year and ran in the General Election last week. I didn’t quite get the TD (MP) seat but having fun ruffling feathers in the council 😂😂.
God bless,
Linda de Courcy MSc., BHlthSc., Dip. NT, m.NTOI
A horrific experience for you both. I’m so glad it’s finally over. Enjoy your well deserved and needed, retirement
What a relief for you both.
Jan Munroe
>
Dr. Kendrick,
Congratulations on your and Zöe’s win.
Ref Samantha Brick : you may by now have seen this interview from 2014? https://www.responsesource.com/bulletin/interviews/interview-with-samantha-brick-writer-broadcaster-and-author-of-head-over-heels-in-france/
I’d like to see that *** Hancock forced to make a public statement about his involvement therein. I draw some satisfaction from the thought that the SAS may have pissed in his tea when he was on “Who Dares Wins”.
Regards,
Graham Wheatley
Hello Dr. Kendrick,
I read your email with delight and forwarded it onto my aunt, Patricia McKeever, who is also delighted, and is forwarding it on to her friend whom is a retired sheriff in Scotland.
I hope you can get some peace now
I have tried to get hold of the articles that the Mail on Sunday wrote against you. Both my aunt and I would like to read them. Do you have links for them.
Thanks
Patricia Wolfenden
Some good news to brighten out grim times.
Congratulations! So glad your long ordeal is over. I’ve learned so much from your books and hope another is in the works.
Kathi Walker Texas USA
I was going to say that Barney Calman only looked you up on Wikipedia, but you’ve been removed from Wikipedia.
Fantastic news. Congratulations.
“Mr Calman acknowledged in his evidence at trial that he did not intend for the articles to allege dishonesty on the part of Dr Harcombe or Dr Kendrick, nor had he seen anything in his research that would suggest Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick were dishonest.”
That’s interesting in light of a headline that says they have a “special place in hell“.
Dr. K, I hope you are now free to express yourself more fully.
It would seem that Mr Kalman found _nothing_ in his “research” – if indeed he did any.
Congratulations Dr. Kendrick! I have long known the dangers of statins as my husband was put on them for a cholesterol level just slightly over 200. He ended up having to have a liver biopsy and his sugar levels climbed. He is in his late 60s now and has normal cholesterol numbers. However, even if they weren’t within normal range, I would never, ever let him take them again. We have your books, appreciate your willingness to write them in the face of such hostility and believe you are on the right track. I also had a friend whose husband died of Fronto-Temporal Lobe Dementia. She took him to Massachusetts General Hospital for a full work up and the doctor there said he is seeing many more cases of Motor Neuron Disease and other neurological conditions and he too believed that it was related to overuse of statins. You will be proved, by history itself, to have been on the winning side. But in our home, you are already a hero.
CONGRATULATIONS!!
Well done
I’ve recommended your books to many people
Thanks
Brida Ni Bheaglaoich 🙏
Sent from Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef
Bravo Both.
Hopefully this gives more doctors confidence to stand up for what they believe is right.
Brilliant news. You and Zoe are heroes. We can only hope that others will follow your lead. The most damaging thing is the destruction of scientific debate, which I hope your victory will help to restore. There are significant areas of broken science that are causing damage immense harm in the current climate.
Many warm congratulations on your well-deserved victory.a very great victory indeed and your courage has been most admirable.
I do hope that you are both happy with this outcome. The stress it must have caused is unimaginable. Hopefully now your retirement will be peaceful and enjoyable unencumbered by this nasty episode in gutter journalism.
Unfortunately of those unable to question or argue against statin prescriptions, some will be harmed. A cycling companion of mine has only recently been taken off them after clinical evidence (creatine kinase elevation) that she had sustained significant muscle damage. She was so affected that she stopped cycling! At least her GP was receptive to her complaints of severe fatigue and investigated.
So on we go. One day there will be more awareness that scientific evidence should guide practice rather than mantra.
Merry Christmas
Must feel good to have all this behind you now. Great work, but a hard won battle for free speech.
Dr. Kendrick.
I send HUGE Congratulations and a heartfelt thank you for having the courage to speak the truth.
Kindest Regards,
Dr. Timothy Wilson San Diego, CA
P.S. Your books are fantastic!
Finally, it has ended, good for you Dr.
Keep us informed as you do so well.
It’s good news and hopefully the end of the matter. I hope you will be able to resume writing freely about matters which are of interest to your readers here and not have to remain silent any longer.
Huge congratulations to you both.
Have followed your blog for years and never commented till now.
I admire your determination and bravery for taking them on.
Have a well deserved rest now, possibly in France ! Enjoy your win.
Prue STRANG retired RN
I’m glad it’s finished finally.
I have been following u for years. I wish more people (including my husband who takes statins)would read (or listen) to what u have to say. But….as my mum used to say….’u can lead a horse to water but u can’t make it drink’.
I’m hoping for big changes here in the usa when RFK when (If) he is confirmed for Health & Human Services. 🤞
I think a more important position will be Jay Jay Bhattacharya to lead the NIH. He is a good man, thoughtful and will get things done rather more quietly, but effectively. I have met him a couple of times, and I was impressed.
I suspect that the NIH position will put Bh. in a position to be bought off. His ethics will be severely tested.
I have read and recommend reading “The 48 Laws of Power” by Robert Greene, which shows how power politics is used to corrupt people.
I hope not, and I don’t think he will, be bought off. But the inertia and friction he will have to fight against may defeat him. Changing large organisations is like running full speed into a massive blancmange. You think you’re getting somewhere, but gradually you slow down and become trapped within a great sticky blob of goo, that refuses to move. And you become too exhausted to get any further.
Also to be the fate of all other Donald Trump change agents.
I agree that will be their expectation. But if anyone will have a cunning plan to dissolve the blancmange it will be Musk.
Congratulations on your victory in court, well deserved. Trusting the experts has never sounded so hollow. Hopefully it inspires GPs and Doctors to be more open to voicing new ideas and challenging established narratives.
I tip my hat to your and Zoe’s grit and fortitude in standing up to the powerful forces of the main stream media for five long years and nine months. That it took so long for truth and justice to prevail is a scandal in itself.
As for the journalistic professionalism and ethics on display, it is disturbing how low standards have become. Gone are the days of <i>”Respect for truth and the public’s right to information“</i> to quote the UN. It’s all advocacy journalism i.e. propaganda these days. God forbid that they let slip any truth or information that might shake the public’s confidence in their advertisers or the ruling class.
A great example of good people standing strong – all is not lost!
‘…the publisher is “happy to set the record straight, and apologise to Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick for the distress caused”.
I suspect there is some economy with the truth in that statement. I cannot imagine big smiles, party poppers, and champagne in the Mail’s offices. They may have admitted they were wrong, but I am pretty sure they are not “happy” about any part of it. Particularly the publicly revealed evidence that the Mail doesn’t much care about truth, as long as it sells papers.
I don’t think the Mail gives a damn about their reputations! The bottom line is return on investment and the online Mail is a money spinner and it’s driven by stories like this one. The payout is just ‘business expenses’.
Ah well, Prudence, we are two or three years past COVID restrictions so there is no problem in the Mail having parties, with or without party poppers – and cake. Except they might all be working from home!!
Every cloud has a silver lining, eh?
Alan
*When this is posted, if it is under my spurious ‘enemy….’ tag, then I have no idea why!
AE
WELL DONE MALCOLM AND ZOE!!!
Fantastic outcome and most thoroughly deserved!. Pleased for you guys. I find your discourse on the events extremely disturbing in the way the media can impress their thoughts/whims on the public with little chance of kickback. My imagination wont stretch to contemplate what you can had to process mentally during the five years plus its taken to bring about victory, for surely, that’s what it is. I am sure the compensation is small reward set against the crap that you have had to endure and the effect on your families. Now you can move on with your life and maybe a holiday to re-balance.
Kindest regards.
Dear Dr Kendrick
I am very glad it has finally come to an end for you both, also pleased you have not been financially wounded by it all, you are very brave man, and we all need more like you.
I notice you are now retired as a GP, my guess is all your patients will miss you, as will we all, have a long and happy retirement, with some good health thrown in, you have worked long and hard, so enjoy it all
Regards
Philip Watts
I did once write in the replies section of your blog a while back, detailing my own issues with heart disease by way of supporting your blog commentary. I mentioned that after nstemi no 4 that | was discharged and told that there was nothing further that could be done for me and was presented with a parting gift of a large bottle of Oramorph to take home on my discharge.
I also mentioned that when nstemi no 5 followed at home, that I took my morphine and didn’t call the paramedics because of the previous discharge comments and because I had opted to have a DNAPR certificate.
Later blood tests taken by my GP, confirmed the troponin levels meant that despite not attending hospital as an emergency patient, that I was correct in my self-diagnosis – as if by then, I needed a blood test to recognise the chest pain as the return of my old foe!
Humour me…. there is a point to all this.
In December last year I was getting dressed to go to a relative’s funeral when nstemi no 6 occurred. A wit would naturally comment that it was potentially my own demise and funeral that was on the cards. I couldn’t get relief from the oramorph and so I opted for a call to the paramedics purely in the desire for more effective pain relief. As I had the aforementioned DNAPR I was not taken to the acute care hospital. However, on arrival at the hospital I was questioned by several learned doctors/consultants who couldn’t understand why l had chosen not to want resuscitation.
Long story short, they assessed me and asked me to consider rescinding the DNR and let them try to intervene. They had access to my records and the previous damning angiogram. I was gobsmacked to say the least – this was the same hospital that had discharged me after MI no 4 saying there were no further interventions that could be performed.
I agreed and I was transferred to the main hospital the following day. They did an angiogram confirming previous diagnosis with further deterioration and I was taken off the table so they could seek surgical opinion on bypass surgery. After being seen by the third consultant I then had my very first stemi and I was rushed into the lab where, by good fortune, they succeeded against all the odds, in getting a stent inserted. I was informed at clinic after discharge that I would have died had they not succeeded with the percutaneous intervention.
Two of my arteries are completely occlude and the third severely diseased. I am now the owner of discharge papers recording that I now have Severe Triple Artery disease within which the two stents inserted twelve years ago are deeply buried. I really shouldn’t be here – I am indeed, an incredibly lucky bunny!
I’m as astounded as everyone else that l am still alive after seven MIs. I would also thoroughly recommend a peek at the work of Dr Pradip Jamnadas consultant cardiologist and his fasting method to treat disease. If you don’t know of him, seek him out on YouTube…he is an entertaining orator despite his trademark Star Trek head scarf and alongside your good self and Zoe, is pointing the way forward in future treatments of heart disease. I wished I had stumbled across him years before.
In the past seven days I have been out in the garden removing two mature tree stumps digging down deep to cut roots and remove stumps…no angina or recourse to gtn spray. If you had suggested a year ago that I would be doing this, I’d have laughed in your face….and yes, I’m still refusing statin therapy because to my mind it’s about as logical as blood letting, as a cure for all ailments in the Middle Ages. It even looks like I may yet get to draw the first instalment of my old age pension in six months time….Hurrah!
I write this for no other reason than to highlight that there is, as you frequently state in all your books, a need for thorough independent research into heart disease and the causes behind the inflammation and not automatically blaming the cholesterol which is after all actually performing its role in the healing process.
Although I am not likely to see that day, I too hope for the future, that just like one of the now disproved treatment of heart patients was complete bed rest, it will also be laid to rest that cholesterol and statins are not the primary causation and only treatment.
The consequences of your victory will hopefully echo through the ages and people will look back and wonder how on earth you and Zoe could ever have been derided – however the history of medical science has often been corrupted through individuals’ pride and jealousy preventing progress since the beginning of time.You have both fought the good fight and won through your determination and because truth cannot be submerged forever.
I hope you have a brilliant retirement, the occasional good malt and above all, thoroughly enjoy the monetary compensation you deserve.
In 1955, my father, who was 47, died from coronary thrombosis, as it was called then. The treatment? He died after two weeks of bed rest and no other treatment, including me not being allowed to see him, I was too young at ten years old.
Bravo!
Congratulations Dr. Kendrick! I cannot begin to imagine what a difficult and frustrating process this has been for you and Zoe. I’m sure the stress caused has taken its toll on you both. Thank you so much for all of your research and published work over the years. There are many of us who have found your work invaluable. I hope you are able to enjoy some very well earned rest now that you have retired.
Thank you and congratulations. What a difficult period the last 5 years must have been. Victories such as this are so important, particularly in the times we are currently living in. I became aware of your work, probably like many others, during C-19.
I will endeavour to share this article with as many people as I can as it needs to be heard.
Regards,
Matthew Grainger
Hearty congratulations to you both. Now we need this to be well publicised.
You’ve given us all a lovely Christmas present.
Congratulations on the court victory. And thanks to you and Zoe for your courage and perseverance in defending science.
Wouldn’t it be nice if, as an added bonus, we saw the expression “don’t be a Calman” or something like it enter the lexicon?
eg. When the former New Zealand prime minister says (as she did) “We will continue to be your single source of truth” a response could be: “don’t be such a Calman”; or maybe: “careful, that’s a very Calmanious thing to say”.
All the best.
It’s an idea. May see if I can start a meme
Ha ha ha,
Hee hee hee,
Warm congrats,
From me to thee.
Enjoy a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Lang may yer lum reek.
Dear Dr. Kendrick, My hearty congratulations to you on the outcome of this long trial.
I look forward to reading your books on the cholesterol hypothesis. Have you offered an alternative hypothesis to LDL as the cause (or main cause) of CHD? I am preparing a short paper on this subject, focusing on liver disease as key to the pathogenesis, based on years of reading the literature.
Best wishes, Tony Mawson
From the good doctors own blog from 2026. I did think that more recently Dr K put increasing emphasis on the stress hormone, very similar in make up to steroids. Ultimately, it’s to do with accelerated inflammation of the artery walls.
EXTRACT -“In short, with CVD, if you are going to explain it, you need to be able to explain how, for example, the following factors increase risk, and through what single mechanism, or process. [This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but these are all definite, and potent, causes]:
Sorry – 2016
jer Savage
Congratulations & well done!
So glad you were both vindicated. I for one have found your blogs
👍 You and Dr Zoe Harcombe have my respect plus lots of good wishes for your future without any further unnecessary stress.
Congratulations, Dr. Kendrick.
I don’t have heroes, but if I did, you would be way up there.
well done; so pleased for you both; tremendous staunchness to live through all this; so well earned and deserved
“, the Defendants have published an apology both online and in the print edition of The Mail on Sunday,
which accepted that the allegations are untrue and ought not to have been published.
The Defendants have also agreed to pay each of the Claimants very substantial damages, in addition to their legal costs.”
great; somewhere I had got the impression that they would NOT apologise”
I hope you now can afford the occasional cigar in St Tropez! .. and a sip of fizz.
Congratulations Doctors, you are a fine example of ”I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith”
Well done indeed.
The nominations for People of the Year 2024 are…
Well there are only two…
Drs. Zoe Harcombe and Malcolm Kendrick…
No contest…
🥂🍾🥂
Yes, wouldn’t that be lovely!
But alas it’s the time of the year for my illustrious poem again:
Now we know just how to be
Be a fool for all to see
Be a twat with all your might
Then you may be made a knight.
Superb Tish… 👍
magic!
don’t know why; but I see shitty witty and evil balance; the wicked twins
Congratulations. Thanks for fighting for truth.
It occurred to me while reading this that your writing style is GK Chesterton like.
Hearty congratulations Malcolm and Zoe. Interestingly I was introduced to your books by an eminent journalist and commentator Nick Turner from New Zealand who was a tenacious searcher for the whole truth unlike the lightweight pseudo ‘ commentators’ employed to discredit you and Zoe.
All the best for your retirement and thank you both for daring to raise legitimate questions of the big drug companies. That old saying of ‘if you want truth then follow the money’ is, I suspect, especially relevant here.
kindest regards Roger
NZ
https://vietnamwar.govt.nz/veteran/mr-nicholas-turner
https://nz.vlex.com/vid/reflections-nick-turner-recalls-correspondent-53152549
this Nick Turner? A journalist when they asked questions; no-one owned them; and they challenged authority; now ………… not so much!! I remember friends of mine in NZ talked of the Erebus enquiry to me one boozy night; the journalists holding up score cards; mocking witnesses; the journalists awarding scores out of 10 for lying; those were the days! Justice Mahon; greatly revered; feigning ignorance at what was happening ……….
Dear Dr Kendrick,
” As our lawyers had predicted, almost immediately after the Judgement was made – he (Calman) was promoted. What I mainly hope, and one of the main reasons why I took on this fight, is that ‘others’ will take note that …. “
In addition to congratulations and the happy though of you both recuperating on the sun-drenched beaches of the Mediterranean, THANK-YOU for illuminating HOW this whole incident was played. Your candid and satirical expose’ has accomplished your main hope.
Not surprising Calman would get a promotion – a loyal reptile and useful for the future. (This would be in addition to the adolescent inference “Associated Newspapers says *$%k you”.) Although he is only one of a predictable network of toads, all backed by big bucks, they are hardly criminal masterminds – striking stupidly and leaving lots of evidence!?
“Not surprising Calman would get a promotion”
they do say
“T*rds float to the top ..”
Dear Malcolm,
So happy you were both victorious! Thank you for slogging through it for all of these years. Another victory for truth against the Know Nothings in the world. This case joins the case of Dr. Tim Noakes who was also accused of death dealing misinformation by a nutritionist.
https://www.nmsociety.org/the-scene/noakestrial
Also, my newest grandson was named Malcolm! It is an unusual name here in the States but I loved it of course.
Well done Malcolm (The bearded guy sat next to you at the conference in Glasgow)
A thousand congratulations to you both – incredible courage in the face of egregious intimidation. Please keep fighting for there truth. A very, very merry Christmas to you both and a prosperous 2025.
Look at this, came today from Medical News Today, American email today 30 December:
“January: Could a vaccine lower your cholesterol?
The year began with an intriguing development in cardiovascular health: Researchers made progress toward a vaccine that could help lower cholesterol levels. While still in animal testing phases, this breakthrough could eventually offer an alternative for the millions who have difficulty with statin medications.”
Note particularly:
“could eventually offer an alternative for the millions who have difficulty with statin medications.”
And, I need my cholesterol thank you very much!
I love your last comment
many GP’s Do not know how to read cholesterol readings correctly or don’t understand how cholesterol works in the body
Great news,
Dr Kendrick, a kind of connected question to you:
I read, in several sources, eg BHF etc, that several studies show that (high doses of) statins stop, halt, reduce, plaque breakimg off from artery walls, thus preventing strokes from occurring. Is this true?
From what I’ve read, it’s not clear if it’s reducing cholesterol that stops this from happening or that it’s the reduction in plaque itself that stops it?