Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Blog
    • eLetters
    • Feedback
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Blog
    • eLetters
    • Feedback
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
The Back Pages

Book review

Chris Godwin
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (537): 336.
Chris Godwin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
Malcolm Kendrick The Great Cholesterol Con John Blake Publishing 2007 PB, 384 pages, £9.99, 1844543609 Graphic

Dr Kendrick has produced a very readable book, almost conversational in style, in which he dissects the evidence on which current thinking on heart disease is based. The non-medical public will have little difficulty in following the text, as all basic concepts are clearly explained. Medically trained readers will either be entertained by his writing, or be irritated by it. For example, ‘Run for the hills, hide your children’ he says, ‘here in all its terrifying glory is a saturated fat’. But this book is a triumph of substance over style. For Dr Kendrick makes no statement without supplying a reference, almost always from a peer reviewed journal, and often from one of the major heart disease trials, all of which feature in the book.

The diet–heart hypothesis is dissected first, with a history of the evolution of the hypothesis and the evidence (or otherwise) behind it. WHO figures for 1998 round off the chapter, showing the seven countries with the highest saturated fat consumption having far lower rates of heart disease than the seven countries with the lowest consumption.

Cholesterol is the main theme. Increased mortality with low cholesterol is shown in various studies, and familial hypercholesterolaemia, when looked at in more depth, is shown to be poor evidence of the danger of cholesterol. Plaque formation is analysed, and the difficulty in demonstrating any plausible way in which lowering LDL cholesterol could remove cholesterol from plaques drives Kendrick to incredulity.

There are other themes in the book, but perhaps the most immediate issue for those of us prescribing statins is the lack of evidence, according to Kendrick's detailed analysis of the trials, of any benefit to men or women in primary prevention in terms of overall mortality, and of any benefit to women even in secondary prevention. For men with established disease, increased survival of a few days per year of taking the drugs is acknowledged, but Kendrick does not accept that this is anything to do with lowering cholesterol. He gives evidence of harm from these drugs, which he feels is greatly underestimated.

The scientific method of Karl Popper is cited, whereby any good scientific statement or theory should be disprovable. The single black swan among a 1000 white swans is sufficient to negate the statement that ‘all swans are white’. When Kendrick has presented all his evidence, he creates a powerful image of cholesterol experts clustered round a rather threadbare white swan, with a large flock of black swans flying overhead blocking out the sun.

Malcolm Kendrick says he has great difficulty in finding any expert or researcher who does not depend for his reputation and/or income on pharmaceutical companies, and furthermore that the companies increasingly design the trials and decide on the presentation of the results. He does not go so far as to express the hope that none of the large pharmaceutical companies is also a manufacturer of polonium 210, but it is clear that he feels his views are unpopular in some quarters.

This book should make us all uneasy. For those of us who lack the time or mental energy to check all of Kendrick's work, it would be helpful to know that Sir Michael Rawlins had a copy and was preparing either a rebuttal or a recantation of NICE advice.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2007.
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 57 (537)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 57, Issue 537
April 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Book review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
Citation Tools
Book review
Chris Godwin
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (537): 336.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Book review
Chris Godwin
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (537): 336.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

The Back Pages

  • Development of undergraduate family medicine teaching in China
  • The ethics of listening and responding to patients' narratives: implications for practice
  • How big is your society?
Show more The Back Pages

Digest

  • Book review
  • Exhibition review
  • Template for a junior doctor
Show more Digest

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

 

Register Now for the BJGP Research Conference, 12 March 2020

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Blog
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2019 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242