[ASC-list] Was and probably still is Statins but more

Susan Kirk skirk at iprimus.com.au
Thu Nov 14 04:44:29 UTC 2013


Actually Chris what I said was IMO I believe they did adopt a balanced
approach within the criteria of what balanced reporting is.  I didn't say
that there is no reason why Catalyst
should adopt a balanced approach in relation to the use of statins.  Nowhere
did I say that.

Exactly what is that link?  Spam?

S


On 14/11/13 6:00 AM, "asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au"
<asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au> wrote:

> Send ASC-list mailing list submissions to
> asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.asc.asn.au/mailman/listinfo/asc-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> asc-list-owner at lists.asc.asn.au
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ASC-list digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Was and probably still is Statins but more like balanced
>       science reporting (Chris Forbes-EWan)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:10:36 +1100
> From: "Chris Forbes-EWan" <forbes-ewan at tassie.net.au>
> To: <asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
> Subject: Re: [ASC-list] Was and probably still is Statins but more
> like balanced science reporting
> Message-ID: <002d01cee050$3744bbe0$a5ce33a0$@net.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> 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:
> 
>  
> 
> http://foodandhealth.com/new-cardiovascular-disease-prevention-guidelines/
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
>  
> 
> Chris Forbes-Ewan
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ASC-list [mailto:asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Susan
> Kirk
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2013 9:10 AM
> To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
> Subject: 
> 
>  
> 
> ... 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...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.asc.asn.au/pipermail/asc-list/attachments/20131113/a97fde08/atta
> chment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ASC-list mailing list
> list at asc.asn.au
> http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of ASC-list Digest, Vol 108, Issue 17
> *****************************************






More information about the ASC-list mailing list