Kendrick/Harcombe Trial: The Conspiracy

By Malcolm Kendrick

In 2019 I was attacked by a UK newspaper The Mail on Sunday. This newspaper has the largest readership in the UK, with many millions more who read the on-line version worldwide. The main accusation was that I, and Zoë Harcombe* were spreading misinformation about statins and cholesterol.

*Aseem Malhotra was also attacked, but due to major family issues he did not join the lawsuit.

This misinformation had led to hundreds of thousands of people stopping their statins, causing a vast number of unnecessary heart attacks, strokes, and deaths.

We sued for libel, we won.

In this first article I am trying to explain how, and why, this attack happened. And who was responsible.

Was it a conspiracy against us?

Conspiracy (meaning). A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

“She served five years in prison for taking part in a conspiracy to sell stolen art works.”

The action of plotting or conspiring.

“They were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.”

Similar:

Plot, scheme, stratagem, plan, machination, cabal, intrigue, palace intrigue, deception, ploy, trick, ruse, dodge, subterfuge, sharp practice, frame-up, fit-up, racket, put-up job, complot, covin.

To be honest, I have never heard of complot, or a covin. But a conspiracy, or a conspiracy theory… These terms get flung around all over the place nowadays. Usually as an insult. “You are a conspiracy theorist.” Translation – “Do not listen to this fool, they are a nutjob who has lost touch with reality. They live in their own weird parallel world.” Often to be found crouched in a basement wearing a tinfoil hat.

Most certainly do not waste time arguing with them. Because they will never listen to anything you have to say. Instead, they will twist everything round to fit with their deranged view of… (insert specific deranged view here).

Nutjob conspiracy theorists have been around for a long-time. Salem witch trials anyone. Except, of course, the nutjobs in this case were the leaders of the community. The ones who were accusing everyone in sight of working with the devil.

In Salem, the belief that half the community were witches was a ‘fact’. One that all sensible people knew to be true. Which means that it wasn’t a conspiracy theory at all. It was the mainstream view. Until, one day, it wasn’t.

McCarthy’s ‘Red scare’ in the 1950s. A time where he set up Congressional hearings to accuse almost everyone in sight of being a communist spy. For a short while he was the establishment poster boy. However, he did transform to nutjob conspiracy theorist in double quick time. At which point, various politicians rushed about bumping into each other to confirm they never believed anything he had to say in the first place. “No, siree.”

Despite many one hundred and eighty degree turns, during which conspiracies switch from one side to the other (Carl Beech in the UK anyone – look it up and gasp in amazement) accusing people of being a conspiracy theorist remains a remarkably successful tactic as smearing and silencing people.

If that doesn’t work, you can go one step beyond ‘conspiracy theorist’, as Professor Steven Nissen did a few years back, with his article entitled Statin denial: An Internet-Driven Cult with deadly consequences. I wonder if a cult member is even more deranged than a conspiracy theorist – discuss..

Cult (meaning): a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

“the cult of St Olaf“

You mean you have never heard of St Olaf – never mind, neither had I.

Here is what Rationalwiki has to say about me. Who runs Rationalwiki, who are they, who writes their stuff? We have: Bongolian, CorruptUser, KarmaPolice, Plutocow, Spud, and Technopriest… I suspect these may not be their real names. But it seems they are obviously too cowardly to let anyone know who they may be. Hard to sue people for libel, or even communicate with them, if they hide behind pseudonyms like wee cowering timorous beasties.

Anyway, here is a selection of their disjointed ramblings:

“Malcolm Kendrick is a General Practitioner (GP), conspiracy theorist author, cholesterol denialist and low-carb diet advocate who has spent decades promoting the Atkins diet and more recently the carnivore diet. He is best known for his unsupported claim that low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and total blood cholesterol levels do not increase the risk of heart disease.”

Unsupported… cheek. Have they read any of my books, and peer-reviewed papers? Anyway, it seems that according to various sources I am a cult member, a conspiracy theorist and a denialist (as in Holocaust denier). In the case of Rationalwiki I am specifically a cholesterol denialist. Whatever a cholesterol denialist may actually be.

As an aside, I have never actively promoted the Atkins diet. Although I have always believed it to be perfectly healthy. Certainly, far healthier than most people currently eat. Crispy Crème donuts, anyone?

Further admission. I do believe that cholesterol exists. It is not some deranged molecule of myth. Ergo, I am not a cholesterol ‘denialist’ after all. In fact, I rather like cholesterol. Indeed, I think it is a wonderful, health-giving molecule, which the liver synthesizes in bounteous quantities before sending it out to be taken up and used by grateful cells around the body.

It also forms the backbone of many vital hormones and vitamin D [which is actually a hormone]. In addition, it protects neurons, and creates synapses in the brain which store your memories and, and, and… And without it, you would, very quickly, be dead. I am really much more of a cholesterol supporter than a denialist.

As for the concept of ‘bad’ cholesterol. Excuse me whilst I bang my head repeatedly on my desk in frustration. This is not science.This is some strange, mangled fairy tale for three-year-olds. Cholesterol is a chemical compound, which comes in only one form. There are not two types: ‘bad’, and ‘good’, you idiots. And breathe.

As to my conspiracy theories.

“Kendrick’s personal blog and books are filled with Big Pharma and government conspiracy theories. He also thinks a group of vegan activists deleted his Wikipedia article and are targeting other high-fat advocates.

“He claims anyone that promotes a high fat low carbohydrate diet is somehow ‘silenced’ around the world.”

They don’t actually say what my conspiracy theories may be. Nor do they give any specific examples. Although it is true that I have written a great deal over the years. Far too much to bother searching for a stray comment here or there. So, it may be possible that few things could be unearthed by an obsessive Rationalwiki researcher. Warning, the previous sentence may contain tautology.

Having said this, and thinking back over the years, I am pretty certain I have never claimed any Government, anywhere, is part of a conspiracy against me – why would they bother. I am a pipsqueak.

Nor have I ever claimed that Big Pharma is in a conspiracy to do anything. Unless I was joking, which I sometimes do. Unfortunately, jokes are not recognized by Rationalwiki editors. I suspect they don’t really understand humor on their home planet ‘Literal Boring V’.

As far as I am aware, most pharmaceutical companies operate independently, and jealously guard their secrets from each other. Each pharmaceutical company views the others as mortal enemies in their endless battle to conquer the world market for something or other. In short, there really is no such thing as ‘Big Pharma’.

Yes, ‘big’ pharmaceutical companies exist, and they truly are behemoths. But I don’t know if one pharmaceutical company can form a conspiracy all by itself.

Don’t you need to join up with someone else to get a proper conspiracy going? The US Government, and the CIA. Or Merck and the FDA. Or Oxford University and the British Heart Foundation… and various pharmaceutical companies. The World Economic Forum and all billionairess everywhere.

And how, exactly, are proper conspiracies run? Do you need to hold regular meetings, and keep minutes? Is there a need to register the conspiracy on an official website? Or must it all remain furtive and secret?

The scene…A dark alleyway somewhere in Europe, the moon flitting behind dark clouds. Lightning flashes, thunder rumbles. A hidden door, a very large and scary man guarding the entrance. Spooky organ music playing.

“Ah yes, come in number two, you were expected. Today we discuss world domination, and the elimination of Dr Kendrick and the other dangerous fools who threaten us.”

Now that would be a proper conspiracy. Bald man stroking white cat, a sliding floor with sharks circling below. A massive testicle frying laser beam.

“First, let me tell you in detail our plans for world domination, before we kill you in some extraordinarily complicated way.”

What could possibly go wrong?

If you do try to establish what people mean, when they accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist, their accusations tend to crumble under pressure.

“Who am I conspiring with, and for what reason? With specific examples please.”

“Well, them. You know…them. The Government…and…them.”

“Ah, I see now.”

In truth I’ve never believed there is any need for ‘formal’ conspiracies to exist to enable large groups of people to come together and act, seemingly, in unison. Those who sit in positions of power need only imply what needs to be done, with no requirement to spell it out. To quote Bob Dylan. “You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

Humans are naturally cooperative, and mostly subservient to perceived power and authority. We all read the signs, and most of us know full well which way the wind blows. And what to say and do. Or at least we think we do.

“Will no-one rid me of this meddlesome priest.” Something King Henry II is reported to have said about Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. Four knights, upon hearing these words, then rode off and murdered Becket. Good job.

Afterwards King Henry was ‘officially’ distraught, aghast even. “I never told anyone to murder him, he was my BFF, we played together as children.” Or words to that effect. Plausible deniability, I think it is called. Or, ensuring you carefully imply what you want to happen, without ever directly saying it. And you sure as hell don’t write it down anywhere.

How did Henry II reward the knights for carrying out, or maybe not carrying out, his wishes.

“He encouraged the murderers to seek penance from the Pope in Rome. William de Tracy, who had already confessed his sin to the Bishop of Exeter, went first. After receiving penance of 14 years’ exile in the Holy Land, he returned from Rome to England, to organise his affairs – only to find parts of his estates now owned by the Crown. Hugh de Morville followed him to the Papal Curia, then Reginald Fitz Urse, and finally Richard Brito.

“By 1173, all four were in the Holy Land, visiting Jerusalem ‘barefoot and in hair shirts’, giving money to the Templars and charities to distribute to the poor. All had died there before 1182.”

To the outside world it looked like we had a pretty clear-cut conspiracy. The King instructed his knights to ride off and kill the Archbishop of Canterbury. But… you just try and prove it.

Unless something very specific was committed to parchment, such as. “I would like Thomas Becket to be murdered, and I would like the following four knights to ride off to Canterbury and murder him.” Signed, Henry the Second, King of England. In front of the following witnesses. “And here is my seal”…firmly presses ring into hot wax.

That was never going to happen. As with all perceived ‘conspiracies’ this one proved tricky to nail down, or even to agree existed. In real life, actions and words tend to flow and ebb and swirl, and flicker in and out of existence. A game of innuendo, raised eyebrows, and the careful clearing of the throat.

Did the knights believe they were part of any conspiracy? I very much doubt it. I think they would have been highly offended by any such suggestion. They almost certainly felt they were simply doing the needful on behalf of their glorious King. On return they would be hailed as heroes. Poor fools.

This deliberate ambiguity is why conspiracies exist in the twilight zone. They exist, and they don’t. From the outside you see a conspiracy. From the inside it is just ‘sensible’ people doing sensible things in order to stop dangerous people doing damage.

It is also true that many those who may appear as conspirators, are nothing of the sort. They have just worked out which way the wind blows before rushing off to do the bidding of the ‘King’.

“In a 2017 appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI director James Comey testified that US President Donald Trump had told him that he “hoped” Comey could “let go” of any investigation into Michael Flynn; when asked if he would take “I hope”, coming from the president, as a directive, Comey answered, “Yes. It rings in my ears as kind of ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?‘

The trial

Which, in a roundabout way, takes me to my trial. A trial where Zoë Harcombe and I sued The Mail on Sunday and Barney Calman for libel. He was health editor at the time. It seems such a long time ago now when this all kicked off.

The articles were published as far back as March 3rd, 2019. As mentioned at the start, they stated, in essence, that we had caused many hundreds of thousands of people to stop taking their medication through our articles and blogs and lectures. This led to tens of thousands suffering unnecessary heart attacks, and strokes, many of which were fatal.

Or, to put it even more bluntly. We were directly responsible for killing and maiming thousands of people. All far worse than Andrew Wakefield and the MMR scare – a point emphasized in the article(s). In addition, it was made clear we knew we were just telling lies, and we only did so to make money.

In case you think I am exaggerating the breadth and intensity of the attack, here are some sections from the judgment. These outline what the Judge considered the articles said about us. His summary of their intent, if you like. This is taken directly from the Judgement itself, words unedited:

“….the direct effect of the publication of these knowingly false statements by the Claimant(s) was (a) to cause a very large number of people not to take prescribed statin medication; and (b) thereby to expose them to a serious risk of a heart attack or stroke causing illness, disability or death;

“..and in consequence, each Claimant 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, like Colin, for whom the proven benefits of taking statins were demonstrated by indisputable scientific evidence, to stop taking them risking needless deaths and causing harm on a scale that was worse than the infamous MMR vaccine scandal.’

“…each Claimant had made false public statements, knowing that they were false.

“Put shortly, the Articles alleged that the Claimants had a venal* motive for their lies. This was one of the aspects that made them so deserving of contempt, and a ‘special place in hell’.”

*A venal motive is a corrupt or evil motive, especially one that is motivated by a desire to be bribed or to act dishonestly. For example, a judge who takes a bribe to reach a certain verdict is considered venal.

Some synonyms for venal include: Bribable, Corruptible, Dishonest, Purchasable, and Mercenary.

Venal people are often considered sleazy and untrustworthy, and they are sometimes criminals.

The conspiracy

As part of the trial, all the background communication that led up to publication had to be disclosed… or else. It is not a great idea to withhold information when the court requests it.

As it turns out, there were thousands and thousands of pages of emails, and WhatsApp messages and drafts, and interviews. What stood out most clearly, to me, was that Barney Calman had high-level support behind the scenes from many international ‘experts’ in heart disease.

Various eminent professors and institutions all worked closely together to ensure the articles were as harmful as possible. There was, for example, Professor Sir Rory Collins from Oxford University.

Here is just one email that Professor Sir Rory Collins wrote to Barney after the articles were published.

Dear Barney

What a pleasure to see such a hard-hitting evidence-based article on fake news related to statins … and the page 2 article with Matt Hancock’s very direct comments was an unexpected bonus.

Best wishes.

Rory

Below are a couple of examples of the work that went on behind the scenes.

“Thank you again, for everything you’ve done to help so far.” The killer comment from Barney to his ‘co-conspirators’, as I like to think of them.

Other names on these emails include the chairman of the British Heart Foundation. Also, Fiona Fox, the chief executive of the Science Media Centre. Liam Smeeth, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. In addition, Barney Calma also got hold of Matt Hancock. UK Health secretary in 2019 to obtain a quote to make it clear that Zoë and I were pernicious liars. (Peddlers of pernicious lies.)

So, we have, working together:

Oxford University and the Medical Research Council, via the Clinical Trials Service Unit. Including the population research unit
The British Heart Foundation
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
The Science Medica Centre
The UK Health Secretary

(There were others, too numerous to mention e.g. Professor Peter Sever. And if I were to write anything about him, it would contain far too many insults for the average reader to cope with.)

The fact that the great and good were all working closely together to attack us was made clear in the court disclosures. These are available to the public, so there is nothing at all confidential here. And, also, nowhere to hide… professors. Yes, your secret plan did not remain secret.

To my mind there can be no doubt that a powerful conspiracy was brought into existence to crush me, and Zoë, under a rock. However, if you were to ask Professor Liam Smeeth, for example, if he thought he was part of a conspiracy then… Well, I have no doubt he would be outraged. He was merely doing what he thought to be ‘right’. I am also certain he believes that cholesterol causes heart disease, and that statins are hugely beneficial drugs.

In addition, he probably thinks that conspiracies are things that dark, dark, people join, to do dark, dark, things. A conspiracy is not the sort thing which right thinking people, like him, would dream of doing

Conspiracies are, after all: “A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.” And he would never do anything unlawful, or harmful. Although he must have known the articles were written to be as destructive and harmful as possible. I suppose he thought we deserved everything we got.

However, when you are on the other end of an attack, where a large number of people from different organizations band together, it does look very much like a conspiracy. Thomas Becket probably didn’t think to himself. “Oh well, here’s a bunch of good guys, who just think they are doing the right thing. I can live with that.’ ‘What, blame the King… not me, never.”

When Giles Cory was being crushed to death under heavy stones, to force him to admit his wife was a witch in Salem, he too may have thought that there was an honest to God conspiracy going on. But, of course, conspiracies very much depend on which side of the rock you find yourself on. One man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist… and all that.

A clear-cut conspiracy to crush

The truth is that I don’t think you are ever going to get more clear-cut evidence of a conspiracy than what happened here. Professor Sir Rory Collins virtually pressed his ring into hot wax. “Obliterate these people, with my blessing, Barney.”

Of course I knew, right from the very start, who was lurking behind the articles. At one point, Barney Calman gave me twenty-four hours to respond to questions. Without telling me in any detail, what the articles were actually going to say. His email began…

Dear Dr Kendrick – The Mail on Sunday plans to publish an article this weekend on growing concerns about claims you and a number of other individuals have publicly made about statins, the role of cholesterol in heart disease, and the allegations that researchers into the drugs are financially conflicted due to payments made to the organisations they work for, and so the evidence they provide about the effectiveness of these medications, and their side effects, are in some way untrustworthy.’

…

Your stance on statins and the link between cholesterol and heart disease amounts to misinformation. There is no evidence* you work in NHS practice, or as a GP in private practice.

…

If you wish for any comments to be included in our article, please send them to us by midday this Friday.

*No evidence…Unfortunately I informed them in no uncertain terms that this was utter nonsense, and they withdrew this allegation. It would have been better had I let them publish it.

One the 1st of March 2019 I wrote back to Barney:

Listen, we all know where this attack is coming from. The CTT* and Professor Rory Collins and Baigent et al. They attacked Aseem Malhotra and Professor Abramson, then the BMJ, for publishing articles by Aseem and Abramson suggesting statins caused adverse effects in around 20% of people.

Collins attacks were severe, and the BMJ was required to hold an investigation, in which Collins attacks on these papers were judged to be unfounded.

*Cholesterol Treatment Triallists collaboration. An organization set up by Professor Sir Rory Collins to promote statins, and cholesterol lowering in general.

So, yes, I was fully aware there was a long-standing conspiracy going on to crush anyone critical of statins. This is not restricted to the UK. I had been waiting for this attack for many years, and I knew precisely where it would originate. One of the main reasons I sued for libel was to expose those working behind the scenes…hopefully.

The irony, of course, is that I am being accused of being part of some great ill-defined conspiracy to do something or other, somehow or other, for some reason or other. In reality, the conspiracy exists entirely on the other side. You think not? You think that this was not a conspiracy?

A conspiracy is defined as “A secret plan to do something unlawful or harmful…” As the Mail on Sunday and Barney Calman were found guilty of libel, their plan was found to be unlawful. Tick. They also clearly set out to do harm. Tick. They brought together a group of people to do this behind the scenes, in secret. Tick. What they did fits the definition of a conspiracy perfectly. Unlawful, tick. Harmful, tick. Secret, tick.

Around the world, over the years, many of those who have tried to make public any negative evidence about cholesterol lowering and/or statins, finds themselves under attack, in exactly the same way that we were. Using exactly the same words. I will discuss the worldwide attacks in the next article. Then we can search for the puppet master’s hand of commercial interests. Guess who.