A Long and Winding Road

In February of 2023 Dr. Kendrick spoke at BSI’s event in Phoenix, AZ. Malcom’s presentation recaps the history of the diet-heart hypothesis, the supposed link between cholesterol and cardiovascular death, and how drug companies have fooled doctors into prescribing medications that are harming patients rather than helping them.

Transcript

Thank you very much. How do I follow that? I think I’ll just… I’ve treated a patient too, they got better and, everything. Just saying…

This is a t shirt that Greg gave me, uh, four years ago when I got booted off Wikipedia. I can’t believe it, I really can’t believe it. I’ve lost my microphone. I said that would happen.

So, yeah, you think being cancelled is a Covid thing? I was getting cancelled years ago. I was cancelled, and cancelled, and now, Oh, what’s this? What’s this thing? Right, ah, which I need. Right, I’ve got two minutes to do my presentation. We’re about to enter “The Outer Limits”. Do people remember this?

Yes. Yes. Well. I was managing to do a number of clever things with the presentation, but – there we go! It does that! That’s scary. So scary that we even have William Shatner. That’s scary. There’s not much as scary as him is there? So, no, I just wanted to kind of get you thinking, get you out of your comfort zones.

You’re already out of your comfort zones, I think, from what we’ve heard already. Next slide. Blue pill, red pill. We’ve all seen this one. Blue pill, red pill. What makes you go into the strange world where we’re all harvesting for electricity? Well, whichever one it is. A lot of people don’t want to be harvested for electricity.

Or they don’t want to know they’re being harvested for electricity. So they’re quite comfortable. Getting people out of their comfort zone, I think, is the hardest trick we got here. Because, you know, people like to feel they’re being protected. They like to feel that what’s happening is all big grown up people looking after them.

Once you become a big grown up person, you realize we’re not really grown up at all. And you shouldn’t rely on me to look after you. Next Slide Let’s start by saying Western medicine is miraculous. This is a diagram from sometime in the 19th, 18th, mid 18th century. This is how to amputate old style. What I have to say is, if you amputated like that, there would be a lot of blood around, so this would be a dead person amputated.

But now, can you imagine? Next slide. It’s, it’s a, during the 19th century, hospitals were known as the gateway to death. And medical students crowded into large halls to watch the patients suffer. I mean, what is going on here? We have somebody, , I don’t quite know what the guy is doing with his arm. It looks like he’s, trying to come under his, I don’t know, I have no idea what he’s doing what he’s doing. What’s the guy doing in the back? Is he vaping?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. It’s just a, it’s just the expression as well, it’s like, Okay, next slide please. And this is from Robert Liston, fastest knife in the West. Before anaesthetics became available, amputations happened when patients were awake and could feel the pain of the surgery.

Can you imagine? So doctors who removed limbs the quickest were the most popular and Robert Liston, a Scotsman like myself, he gained a record for amputating a leg in 30 seconds. I mean, 30 seconds, it’s going. So he’s the fastest knife in the West End and he ran the surgery in London. And, the first anaesthetic was used in 1846.

On one occasion, he was so quick to amputate the leg, he chopped off his patient’s testicle as well. I mean, okay, he was quick, but he wasn’t very accurate, was he? And during the surgery, he gained a 300 percent mortality rate because he accidentally cut off three of the fingers of his assistant. Spectator was frightened to death, and he died when Dr. Liston wielded his knife back at him, like, swiping it like this.

And the patient Spectator fell down dead from the shock, so he killed the patient, his assistant, and, and, and a spectator. So, that’s how medicine works. It wasn’t good. So we have anesthetics. Hooray! We have sterile operating techniques. Hooray, we’ve got antibiotics. Thank God. So, you know, things might not be great now, but you really don’t want to have yourself operated on 200 years ago.

Next slide, please. They say, nothing is perfect. I’m aware of that. Click on and it’s just that there’s no perfect system. Click on again. Personal bias and beliefs have been there ever since we’ve started medicine. And again, so you can go back one. The, uh, things that we’ve done that have been really stupid.

Miasma, the infection is spread by nasty smells. Removal of the toxic colon, commonest operation in the 1920s. Whatever your symptoms were, they removed your toxin, colon, radical masectomy, tonsillectomies, strict bed rest following a heart attack. This must have killed hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions.

Next slide please. And this is like, plague is transmitted by unpleasant smells. So you can imagine, you’re feeling pretty ill. Someone says, the doctor’s coming. So knock on the door. It’s like, AH! This is what they look like. So you think about PPE nowadays. This is PPE proper old style.There’s a mask, There’s a leather coat.

There’s gloves. There’s goggles of some sort. And a stick to beat people away with. I quite fancy one of those. Just go out of the room. You’re annoying people. This is my bedside lamp. But it must be better than this guy. The mask had holes into which was placed theriac and or nutmeg. Now nutmeg was placed into the mask.

It was believed that nutmeg’s smell prevented you from dying of the plague or catching the plague. There’s two islands where nutmeg was produced off the Philippines and the Dutch and the British fought a war for a hundred years over nutmeg. And in the end the British said, you can have these two little islands and we will have New Amsterdam.

So, Britain took over New York, and that’s why you’re speaking English in this country, rather than Dutch. All because of this thing, Theriac. I never heard of it. Next slide, please. Theriac. This was preventive medicine for 2, 000 years, based on bethradatism. Bethradatism being you take a small amount of something, and you will gain, resistance.

You get immunity. Theriac. It was hugely expensive. This is where I, you know, whatever came from, from Shakespeare. They used to make this stuff and it was enormously expensive. And it contained hundreds of different things. And people took it and they paid a fortune for it. And nowadays you can put it in a statin and, a blood pressure lowering agent.

A small dose of poison to build up immunity. How does that sound? Well, at the time when Theriac went. Late 17th century, along came vaccination and also homeopathy. You take a small amount of something and that protects you in the future. So it’s interesting. The transformed idea. Because no one had any idea why a vaccine would work when it first came out.

Or even if it did. Next slide please. So how I used to be, like this, the doctor. I was happy. Medicine was going smoothly, it was a great thing, I was doing a great thing, I was curing people and everything, it was fantastic. Next slide please. How I am now. Because it’s kind of gone a bit really. Next slide please.

So, my own red pill, this starts with, let’s put this It’s from Alice in Wonderland, which is one of my key texts that I use to understand medicine I particularly like this one. It says, Can you do addition? What’s one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one ? And I don’t know how to say that. I’ve lost count. Now, that’s something I’m going to say a couple more times.

I’ve lost count. A lot of the stuff that we see now is because people have just lost count. Next. Michel de Montaigne. You’ve never heard of him a French philosopher. The father of the essay, he wrote "Essais" to try in French, and he was the first essayist in the world. Difficulty is a coin to learn and make use of, like jugglers, to conceal the inanity of their art.

It’s also something pharmaceutical companies do to conceal the inanity of their art, slightly. This is where I started off. Think this hotel is posh, I’m going to show you this one. This hotel is so posh, Americans come to stay in it. It’s in Scotland. And it’s got about 800 golf courses, and it’s got Princess Anne’s got stables there, it’s got croquet on the front lawn, you know, if you’re a big croqueter.

And I went there, on a freebie from a pharmaceutical company. Yes!. These were happy days. And, and at that conference, they, they came up with the, it’s like, the MRC, uh, trial, Medical Research Council. Uh, this is the first trial on lowering moderately raised blood pressure. Prior to this, no one had ever done such a study.

The MRC was set up to do this, and we were there, and we were going to be presented with the glorious results of the trial. Next click is the primary results. Next one. The stroke rate, which reduced 60 strokes, occurred in a treated group of 109 in a placebo group. I’m going to say after 17, 354 participants.

No difference in coronary events, 220 events on active treatment, 234 in a placebo group. There was no difference in mortality from all causes. This is the number one thing. You can, you can misdiagnose all sorts of things, but you can’t yet misdiagnose whether somebody’s dead. This is a critical thing.

Next point, please. There are 248 deaths in the treating group, 253 in the placebo group. Now, yes, we know it’s not statistically significant. But I just thought, for my life, for a bit of amusement, we have here a trial lasting 17, 354 patients over 5 years. So there’s 5 less deaths after 43, 000 years of treatment, which is 8, 600 years to prevent one death.

So it’s like saying to someone, given that I’m an antibiotic, I’ll have to take this for 8, 600 years. I’m sorry about that. This is a place in Turkey. It’s a 9, 000 year old city that was being excavated. Well, if one of those people would still be alive as they had been started taking antihypertensive treatment at the time.

Is that how statistics works? Next slide please. If you’d been at Stonehenge, you’ve still got another 3, 000 years to wait. This is a relatively new thing. Next slide, please. So, this was everybody else at the meeting. They all sat there, and they wrote it down. And, next slide. And this, this, this was me.

Look again. I sat there and I thought, What?! That’s it?! Come on. Next slide, please. So I started my long and winding road. I know the CrossFit people here have seen that long and winding road and go "Yeah I did it." And I’m more like, get your bus and be. Well, next slide, please. But once you’ve kind of woken up and taken the red pill.

You can come across stuff like this. This is much more, much newer by the way, but I find it quite useful. Click, and then click on that to go. The United States long standing vaccine safety program closely and constantly monitors the safety of vaccines. Fantastic. A critical part of the program, the immunization safety office identifies possible vaccine side effects and conducts studies to determine whether health problems are caused by vaccines.

Click on. One more click. Data show that the current use of vaccine supplies is the safest in history. Next one, next slide, and click on. And this was a letter sent to the CDC, under Freedom of Information. I’m not an anti vaxxer. I’m not an anti vaxxer. Is everyone listening? I’m not an anti vaxxer. Anyway. They asked all documents in the CDC’s possession which compare the health outcomes between children that have received vaccines and children that have never received any vaccines.

Have you got any information, please? And this was the reply of the CDC. A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. The CDC has not conducted a study of health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. Next slide please, now. What?! I mean, come on! And when the red pill also gets you is, this is, uh, from, uh, uh, the Daily Mail.

We already had the Daily Mail. I love the Daily Mail. Uh, this is me. The Daily, this is, uh, almost four years ago. The deadly propaganda of the statin deniers. These drugs do protect you from heart attacks. But as this devastating investigation reveals, thousands are now refusing them. Because of me, Dr.

Martin Kendrick, Dr. Zoe Harcombe. You can’t come because she doesn’t get any vaccines. And Dr. Aseem Malhotra who decided not to join us in our libel suit. And our libel suit is still going on. And it will still be going on in four years. And, and I can’t talk about vaccines because of this. Right, next slide please.

My love of winding roads is more, this is more my kind of love of winding roads.

It started with a diet heart hypothesis, which as we all know, looks something like this. We have, uh, the eat well plate, otherwise known as the drop dead plate. Um, we can see you can eat lots of bread, potatoes, and whatever else is there. It’s a funny colored stuff there at the top. Uh, vegetables and lentils.

Wonderful, carbohydrate, carbohydrate, carbohydrate, carbohydrate, . And you can’t eat very much of anything else. Um, I don’t know why butter didn’t get the dairy section. But then we have a McDonald’s cheeseburger, which is the most deadly thing known to man. I’d like to point out that the McDonald’s cheeseburger is primarily made of a bun.

There’s a bit of cheese on it, which you’re allowed. There’s quite a lot of vegetables and not much meat. So actually, I’ve decided the McDonald’s hamburger is the eat well plate made real for us all. We think not. Next slide please. Well, I’d start to look at this and thinking, hell, this is bunk, isn’t it?

The guy, now known well, James Le Fanu, wrote a book, Eat Your Heart Out, 1987. Controversial bestseller that exposes the healthy eating con. Basically saying that, you know, the idea that eating fat is bad for you is, is nonsense. Next slide, please. So, I like, this is what I now started to look at. I need to click on, my goodness.

Deaths from heart disease across Europe. These figures all come from Europe. And as you can see, stop stop stop stop stop stop stop. The new one is coming. As you can see, if you’re gonna die of heart disease, live in Russia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, etc., ex Soviet Union countries. As you move to Western Europe, the rates of heart disease fall and fall and fall.

We now, now let’s look at energy per fat in the diet. Yes, thank you. And here we go, bang. Dark red countries eat the most fat of all the countries in Europe. Um, uh, it’s like, you know, have a look at that and tell me that eating fat causes heart disease. Go on. This, this data comes from 20 years ago. The reason why is that they stopped providing the data for fat, and saturated fat intakes, these statistics, you can’t get it anymore. If you click on , it’s just showing you have to go on a way back machine to actually see this. Click on here. And then the next slide, I took out the data that existed. So here are 10 countries. The 10 countries that eat the least saturated fat are Georgia, Azerbaijan, the Ukraine, Russia, Israel, and the ones that eat the most saturated fat, which is Spain, Italy, UK, Switzerland, France.

Now if you see the cholesterol levels on the right hand side, by the way, these are, these are the world’s measurements. The U. S. uses a weird milligram per deciliter measurement. The rest of the world uses proper measurements. 200 in the States is 5. 2 millimoles per liter. As you can see, if you had less saturated fat, you tended to have lower cholesterol levels.

As with more saturated fat, you tended to have higher cholesterol levels. But as you can also see in Georgia, at the least saturated fat and at the lowest cholesterol level, the rate of cardiovascular death was ten times that in France. Ten times as high. Saturated fat is obviously terribly bad for you.

Next slide please. And in Scotland, where I graduated from, it has a review of, what, this is all deaths, not just cardiovascular deaths, the things that mean you’re most likely to die of, of anything in the next ten years. So at the top, so it’s already a very complicated graph, at the top you have previous myocardial infarction.

So unsurprisingly, if you’ve had a heart attack, you’re quite likely to die. Next I have plasma fibronigen, you’ve never heard of that, I’ve just written a book about it. Why does clotting cause you to die? Move down, and you can see at number 5, it’s urine potassium. And the minus sign means that’s protective.

So having a high potassium intake is enormously protective. As protective as smoking cigarettes is damaging. How many people even have heard of this? You move further down, you get to number 11. Urine sodium minus 11. In other words, having a high sodium intake is protective against dying. Get to number 21, total cholesterol.

The NS means not significant, in other words, could just be a chance finding and I know we’ve talked about all that probabilistic stuff. So essentially, this study, we just click on this, is done in Scotland, and this is the type of information I was looking at with, what are we talking about here? Next slide. This next one is a real, and let’s bet.

So this is looking 181 countries in the world and there’s only 189 countries in the world, and looking at the level of cholesterol versus the risk of death, the one on the left is for men and the one on the right is women. So as you can see, lots and lots of dots all over the place that you can, if you’re very clever, draw a line through them.

You can see the line here is from, uh, basically the higher your cholesterol is, the less likely you are to die. And for men, that’s quite a significant result. For women, it’s an enormously significant result. Such that, weirdly, the line crosses zero at 5.5. So according to this, the cumulative was above 5.5, which would be about 250.

You’ll come back to life. And so we’ll have zombies wandering the world with high cholesterol levels. Going "I feel alright". Then you go to your doctor and you go, Well, you’re looking alright. It’s kind of surprising. But, but, you probably need a statin. Next slide please. And this is another really complicated job that it amuses me because in the UK they’ve done a huge Biobank study and also, a heart health, health survey, English and Scottish health survey looking at things that cause you to die, in this case cardiovascular disease.

And they’re looking at the same things, and the figures are slightly different. So, at the top they have HbA1c, which as you can see has a ratio of 3.86, in other words, that’s pretty dangerous. You go down to self reported cardiovascular disease. Surprisingly enough, if you’ve already got cardiovascular disease, you’re more likely to die of cardiovascular disease.

And, you keep moving down and we get to total cholesterol. Alright? Total cholesterol per 1 millimole per litre increase, which is 32. 84 milligrams per deciliter. And as you can see, as your cholesterol goes up, absolutely nothing happens to your risk of cardiovascular death. At all. It remains exactly in the same place.

So, as you can see, I ended up thinking the cholesterol hypothesis is bunk, which is why I ended up in t shirts like this. And, uh, next slide please. But we’re not asking you to believe this, you know, answer is 2 plus 2 equals 5. 1984 is my other book I use as a reference for medicine. In the end, the party would announce 2 and 2 made 5, and you would have to believe it.

And this is the kind of stuff we’re supposed to believe. Natural herd immunity should not be used as a means of pandemic control. We should need to focus on using successful virus suppression strategies until we reach herd immunity with the new vaccines. In other words, the vaccines are better at protecting you from a secondary infection than getting the natural infection.

Now you can believe that if you want. I just looked at statements like that and thought, no. This is utter, utter, utter, crap. Somebody just sent me something this morning saying that they’ve actually now admitted that if you’re natually infected you are, I think, three times more likely to be protected against the next infection if you’ve gotten seriously ill at the time.

Next one please. two plus two equals five, why does this happen? This is money. This is actually a guy named Sepp Blatter from the Federation of International Football Association. Uh, which was entirely corrupt and everything was run by money. If you wanted to have the World Cup in your country like Qatar, which is a great place to have a football World Cup.

As we all know, it’s got a huge footballing tradition. And it’s 150 degrees in the shade in the summer. And your football stadium is just the place for this. I know what you mean. But what’s football is football . I know, I know that Americans call it soccer. But, you know, you’re not actually kicking it in football in America are you? You’re throwing it. They should call it handball.

Next slide please. But this is just, this is, uh, just looking at the FDA however, you would hope, is not a corrupt organization. and of course it’s, it’s not. And, uh, Doctor Robert Califf, who’s Obama’s nominee for the head of the FDA. Next, click again. Senator Lamar Alexander in Tennessee, he said, we’ve made an exhaustive vetting process to make sure he has no conflicts of interest, next click.

My staff tell me they haven’t found anything to call into doubt your ability to lead the FDA. Click on. This is, Robert Califf when he’s happy, smiling. Next picture. Conflict of interest statement. This took me five seconds, by the way, to find this conflict of interest statement. Click. Again. And, and here’s the conflicts of interest.

Mark Roche. Bayer. Janssen. Lily. Schering-Plough. Amylin. Novartis. Just, you name a pharmaceutical company, he’s been paid by them. Next. Click. We need some money, so click again. My staff tell me they haven’t found anything. Okay, next slide. Next one. And, the next one. This slide, I’m taking on the role of a small child. And there’s a woman taking on the role of Senator Lamar.

My staff tell me they haven’t found anything that would call into doubt your ability to lead the FDA fairly and impartially, he said. Yeah, right. Next slide, please. Again. And this is where we’re at. This is, this is, uh, Marcia, Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years. She’s written a lot of critical books.

It’s simply no longer possible to believe that much in clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authorities and medical guidelines. In other words, we can’t trust anything anybody is telling us anymore. Just think about the implications of what that means.

Next slide, please. And somebody’s already talked about Richard Smith. He’d been the editor of BMJ for about 15 years. Click on. The poor quality of medical research is widely acknowledged, yet discriminately, the leaders of the medical profession are only minimally concerned in their current efforts to find a solution.

Next slide. The next one is, is Richard Horton. The case in that science is straightforward, but much of the scientific literature is perhaps half way simply untrue. Science has taken a turn towards the darkness. These are the editors of the biggest medical journals in the world. And here is Richard Horton.

I don’t know why he’s holding a shoe. Perhaps we could give him the boot. Anyway, I’m here all week. We’ve already heard about John Ioannadis, this is the most downloaded paper, so we don’t need to go in, just look through. So basically, for many scientific fields, the claimed research findings are often simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias and it’s more likely for a research claim to be false than true.

And that’s why most published research findings are less likely to be correct. Next one, next slide. So I’ll give you a concrete example. That, that’s concrete. I’ll give you an example. Alright, so let’s talk about, uh, the very exciting stuff, so the Proprotein Convertase Subtilisn Kexin Type 9 Inhibitors, of course.

There will be a test, you’ll be asked what that means. Basically, they lower LDL Cholesterol by far more than statins, and they’re injectable. And a statin in the UK costs about 40 pounds a year. If you click the next slide, the PCSK9-inhibitor is about 8,000 a year, click on, which is 200 times as expensive. And then for, let’s click on it again, yeah.

If the UK, if everyone had taken a statin and took these things, it would cost 80 billion a year, which is half of what it costs for the entire National Health Service. In the UK, in the US, it would cost about 800 billion a year. Next slide, and so, by the way, I just chose somebody with a stethoscope around their neck to say, that’s a doctor.

I haven’t got a stethoscope around my neck , but that’s, that’s the uniform. So they did a trial. I mean, they actually did a trial on it, Evolucamab, Repatha is the graduated drug, Evolucamab, M A B at the end means monoclonal antibody means, boy, you have no idea how expensive this is. any drug, any M A B. Landmark outcomes show that the REPATHA decreases LDL C to unprecedentedly low levels and reduces the risk of cardiovascular events with no new safety issues.

Fantastic. Click on . So, this is where we’re coming to the one and one and one and one thing. As reported in Medscape, the study, which included more than 27, 000 participants with CVD, had already received a statin showed that patients who received injections of REPATHA had a 15 percent reduced risk for composite, what does that mean?

You don’t know, do you? of MI, stroke, CV death, coronary revascularization, and unstable angina. One and one and one and one and one and one and one and one. How many 1’s was that? No idea. What does that mean? Have a look at another thing, a key secondary end point. What’s a key secondary end point? M I, stroke, and CV death. Next.

The studies show a 20, not 5%, ladies and gentlemen, not 10%. A 20 percent reduction in risk for the Evolucamab group. P is 0.0000000000. How many zeros is that? One. Who cares? Next slide. Can you do the addition on this? This is where the trick is. It’s all done in plain view. All these statistics are just junk.

Just made up stuff. It’s like saying, the combined endpoint of having a heart attack or a broken fingernail. We found that it was reduced by 50%. It was a reduction in cardiovascular death, but the broken fingernail numbers were really high. And the other thing together, we find we had a combined endpoint and it really made sense.

Next slide, please. So this is what actually happened. This drug was licensed purely for this effect, of lowering LDL bad cholesterol by 60%. It was assumed this would reduce cardiovascular death, so no studies done before this drug is approved. Next slide. Then was the Fourier study. Click on again.

And for a key secondary endpoint, MI, Stroke, CV Death, this short study showed a 20 percent reduced risk reduction for the group. Click on . Myocardial infarction and stroke. Remember, this is important. You don’t know why it’s important, you’re going to find out. Next, click. Repatha, overall mortality.

This is the one that really matters. There’s 426 deaths in the placebo group. How many deaths in the Repatha group? 444. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is an elephant in the room. And it’s sitting, standing right there and it’s going, Woo! Woo! Whatever noise elephants make. It’s not an elephant, is it, They might go UGGLUG.

But it’s not an elephant you see, because it’s a non significant element. It’s not statistically significant, this element, so it’s not actually there. And although there were more deaths, there weren’t really more deaths. There was actually no more deaths. And they were ignored, I figured, because we had a 20 percent reduction in something else.

And so it’s Anyway. This is a slide with American people applauding. You know they’re American because English people have rubbish teeth

and we never get as happy about that as any, nothing makes us as happy as that. This is as happy as I get. I look nothing like that. Anyway, what happened was, some people, they started up this thing called Restoring Mortality Data. And they look at trials and they say, let’s have another look at it. So Restoring Mortality Data, the Fourier trial in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Next. So then we looked at all the data. After re adjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group. This is cardiovascular origin. This is a drug that’s supposed to stop you getting cardiovascular disease. Suggesting possible cardiac harm. At the time, the trial was terminated early.

It was a bad thing. There was a non significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab. And this was numerically greater than our re adjudication. In other words, the original trial did not pick up a lot of the stuff, so they felt complete restoration of the FOURIER trial data, and it is required, because they’ve done what they can, but they don’t have all the data.

In the meantime, so the Clinicians should be skeptical, No, they should just stop prescribing it! I did say when these drugs came out, if they reduce cardiovascular disease, that I’m going to change my mind about the LDL hypothesis. I haven’t changed my mind. In the meantime, clinicians should be skeptical about prescribing it with established for patients with established cardiovascular disease.

There were 113 deaths from cardiovascular disease in California. 88 the placebo group. Don’t worry, that’s all. You might think that’s an elephant. Not. It’s a not. Not statistically significant element. Elephant. Elephant. Elephant. It’s something else. Just ignore it. Next slide, please. So there is a group called Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials Group.

The Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials Initiative looks at trials that weren’t completely published, or they were just abandoned, or they didn’t publish them at all, or they just said, we don’t like the results of this and no one’s going to see it. And that’s happened a lot of times. This is a really important thing people are doing.

And that’s why I applaud them for it. The next slide is, is, is a boring bit. I’m just, this is the last one, the last stretch. Don’t worry, Emily. I know I’ve lost it. You told me, you told me I had two and half hours. I’ve only got another 52 slides to go through. We can go on and on. Next slide, please.

Listen, the Fourier re analysis. This is where it gets absolutely critical. We were surprised to learn from our re adjudication of FOURIER. The cause of death was undetermined for more than a third of all deaths. They didn’t know what anybody actually died of, next slide this is absolutely key. Similar unrecognized uncertainties probably apply to the apparent results of many other trials.

In other words, we have a situation where people don’t know what the, the participants in clinical trials are. Well, they know in some cases, but for a very large percentage, they have no idea what they’re dying of. We were surprised to find no evidence that an autopsy was performed. They didn’t do autopsies. And if you don’t do an autopsy, how do you tell, you know, if somebody died?

For sure, you don’t answer. Next. So the Fourier re analysis. We observed, we found that 91 deaths, alright, were classified by the local investigators as undetermined. But they didn’t stop and say, well, we don’t know what they died of. What, what, what they found was that, that, that the Fourier, clinical-events committee, anyone who suddenly died would be put down as a sudden cardiac death.

without any clinical evidence to support this change. They just said, oh, it’s probably cardiac. Now, if you could start making shit up, which is what this is called technically.

You’re just making shit up. And then you’re publishing it. And then the FDA had this data. And, you know, it is misleading to categorize death depending on the cause of sudden cardiac, because the latter term implies a relationship to acute myocardial infarction. You can’t just make shit up. There’s a Cochrane review looked at thousands of sudden deaths and found that only 41 percent of them are actually due to myocardial infarction.

So, they made shit up, and they ignore other people’s stuff. And, and then, this, this, this thing has been launched as an effective way of preventing cardiovascular disease. A critically important error in the New England Journal of Medicine reporting for you is the adjudication of all sudden deaths as sudden cardiac death without supporting evidence.

So they just made shit up. Next slide. And somebody else looks at PCSK9 inhibitors, all of the new ones, and exetimibe. and said, do they actually work? They both lower LDL, so you should be causing a great benefit. Next. Click on. Ezetimibe and PCSK inhibitors may reduce non fatal MI and stroke, but remember, all the trials made shit up.

So we don’t know if they do or not. But this is only the very highest cardiovascular risk. But nothing, you can see nothing that is a moderate to low cardiovascular risk. Which is almost everybody that takes, that would be taking those drugs. So, basically, adding, adding, ezetimibe or a PCSK inhibitor in statin-tolerant adults.

Had no significant effect on all causes of cardiovascular mortality. No effect. And they’re launched, and they’re out there. So what do we know? We know many trials are buried. I’m not going to talk about MCE because I don’t have time. Next. We know that investigators are just making up causes of death.

We know the FDA doesn’t do its job. And we know that PCSK 9 inhibitors make billions and will make many more. And I’m just, uh, just, uh, looked at the next slide. This is what we call a double faced palm. Which is worse than a single faced palm.

It’s very bad, you gotta slap it as well. I mean, honestly, it’s that’s it anyway. The current U.S. market value for PCSK9, which is 3 billion dollars a year, this is expected to go up to 13 billion dollars a year in the next 10 years. It’s a projected growth rate of 15. 8 percent for a drug that kills people.

Fantastic. We live in wondrous times, do we not? Still, WebMD and others are going, what do you need to know about it? Well, I say, what do you need to know about it? Is whatever you do, don’t take them!

Look, they’re still saying, PCSK inhibitors SLASH LDL levels by average of 47%. Well, they do all that but they increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and we still say that cholesterol and LDL causes heart disease. Come on. This protects your heart , even though they died, but they said you reduce the risk of heart attack by 27%.

Well, what is 1 and 1 and 1 and 1? How do they get that figure? Where? Where did that one come from? Next Slide please. So, you can understand how I am now. I don’t smile much. I don’t go out much. It’s simply not possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.

You don’t say. Final slide.

Medical research is utterly and completely and irredeemably – is it irredeemable? We’re here, you know, we’ve been invited to start hopefully start something. It looks, even though everybody has said we can’t do this, we can’t do this, it’s impossible. I’m going to say, well, at least we can have a go. In the middle ages they built cathedrals, and it took 300 years to build, and the people who were, you know, putting the first bricks on didn’t give up.

They just survived making cathedrals. So I think we have to look at it in terms of, it ain’t going to change tomorrow. Unless you give me a machine gun. Laughter And,  I’ll leave you now.  So I think we have to try, but at the moment we are in a terrible situation.

And that was me, thank you very much. Applause