[ASC-list] Was and probably still is Statins but more like balanced science reporting
forbes-ewan at tassie.net.au
Wed Nov 13 09:10:36 UTC 2013
In response to Susan Kirk's claim that there is no reason why Catalyst
should adopt a balanced approach in relation to the use of statins, the
article at the following URL provides more evidence that the 'case for the
prosecution' put forward by Catalyst is not consistent with current
best-practice guidelines for treating cardiovascular disease:
I am among the many professional nutritionists who are appalled at
Catalyst's biased treatment of an issue that has implications for life and
death for tens of thousands of Australians.
From: ASC-list [mailto:asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Susan
Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2013 9:10 AM
To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
... In the case of the statin reporting, balance was lacking? Really, how?
The statin hypotheses stands. Catalyst was going after the 'other' opinion.
If you think about 'balanced' reporting the statin hypotheses was not
balanced. Did catalyst try and get other 'expert' opinions to balance the
reporting. Yes they did but these experts refused to comment.
Does the public have the right to know this information is (one of) the
criteria for journalism and I think typifies what balance means. Balance
means that the public knows both sides. If the journalist can't get both
sides then give either side and let the people decide. That, I believe, is
what happened here ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ASC-list