The total number of people involved in the study was nearly 70,000, but only 9 of the 19 studies actually included deaths from heart and circulatory disease.
https://www.bhf.org.uk/get-involved/how-your-company-can-help/our-corporate-partnersDoes the bhf receive any funds ng from any pharmaceutical companies with an interest in statins?
Or do any of its board/governing members have any association with companies/individuals with a pharmaceutical interest?
I ask because I only recently found out that the head of the dieticians professional body was an executive with coco cola before this appointment. I am sure that there is no conflict of interest.
Furniture manufacturers might have a hidden agenda to supply bariatric seating.Says it all really. I can't help wondering why so many furniture manufacturers/suppliers are sponsors though, and I had to laugh at the Funeral Plans one.
I would hope that as a charitable organisation BHF will be audited regularly and be required to return annual reports that should show that info. Whilst it is by no means a fool proof system, the checks and balances should at least balance the cheques. I think they are required to declare publicly all significant donations.The problem is that these are the easily seen ones. It's the hidden ones that are the problem. Like the coco cola executive running the dieticians group. Sorry, ex executive. I saw this on the zoe hardcombe site.
And of course, flora have no interest in keeping us all worried about cholesterol!
I would hope that as a charitable organisation BHF will be audited regularly and be required to return annual reports that should show that info. Whilst it is by no means a fool proof system, the checks and balances should at least balance the cheques. I think they are required to declare publicly all significant donations.
There is an old black and white film called '12 Angry Men'. If you have seen it you will get my point immediately. Informed choice can only be made when all the evidence is put in front of you and when that evidence is irrefutable. In the case of statins the scientific knowledge is incomplete and will remain so until the knowledge of the full roles of cholesterol is understood. No matter what statistics say about mortality re cholesterol how can an individual decide when the evidence remains piecemeal?
The problem as I see it is new research costs billions. Even if some well meaning organisation/charity wants to do some research they need financial backing. Only those with an interest in the outcome will come forward with that backing, and these are the food organisations and big pharma. The only other method is to look at all the old research and re-analyse it, which is what happens mostly, but what is needed is new impartial research.