Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Kendrick

Kendrick is a GP and doesn't have any background in lipidology, yet sells contrarian books about the lipid hypothesis, suggesting a missive multi-decade conspiracy. He uses well known conspiracy theorist tactics, such as cherry-picking, quote mining, misrepresentation of evidence, etc. E.g. He likes to state that, in studies, those with low cholesterol suffer more all cause mortality, but he fails to mention co-morbidity or reverse causation. He even made a ridiculous blog post stating that saturated fat cannot raise LDL cholesterol^[1], despite nearly 400 metabolic ward studies proving this ^[2]. There is no mention of the meta-analysis of these metabolic ward studies in his blog post. Why? Because he likes to confuse, distract and sell books. He is a menace to society, suggesting people should eat an unhealthy diet, high in saturated fat, as well as refusing to take statins when prescribed. Swampf0etus (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kendrick, a respected doctor, thinker and writer, has much to contribute to the current thinking around the causes of cardiovascular disease. Deleting this page simply because one person (of unknown motivation) requests it seems to be a very short-sighted and unprofessional means of operation.Louis.Dia (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Louis.Dia (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Kendrick is not a fringe figure but is in the forefront of the necessary revision of the current orthodoxy as to the cause of heart disease. His viewpoint is becoming more mainstream as evidence emerges that avoiding fat is not the way to avoid heart disease. I don’t know who the person is who has requested deletion but they seem to very prolific with edits and I for one will cease to support Wikipedia financially if opinions contrary to current orthodoxies in science are removed. The whole basis of the scientific method is to move forward by erecting a new hypothesis and showing that the old is incorrect. Dr Kendrick May be incorrect or correct in his viewpoint but he is honestly and openly sharing his reasoning unlike the anonymous and in my opinion dangerous person who has sought his deletion. In my opinion his edits need to be rigorously checked after this blatant attempt to shutdown someone who honestly and sincerely disagrees with the current - but weakening - concensus. GS120748 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — GS120748 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Kendrick is a practicing medical doctor in Macclesfield,in Cheshire (UK). He is registered with the General Medical Council -reg. no: 2552080. If there were anything untoward about his conduct or utterances, he would be subject to disciplinary action by the Medical Council and the NHS, which he is not. Contrary to being a fringe figure, he is a well respected doctor, author and speaker. To remove his page because one reader - a self titled "Skeptic from Britain" - objects to some of his views, would be a travesty. Tibolt1 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Tibolt1 — Tibolt1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are good reasons below not to delete the article. Wikipedia should not muffle controversy. A special consideration to keep in mind in the case of persons or articles dealing with health is that institutional medicine (for various reasons not all bad) likes to claim consensus when there is none. I think Wikipedia could be forgiven for posting cautionary notes on articles that seem to its editors to offer potentially harmful views but please not deletion. I don't think we need to debate whether Dr. Kendrick's views are correct here, but I would like to note that 1) aside from what he says, I have found his bibliographical references useful and substantial and 2) it is a rare pleasure to encounter a medical writer who, like Dr. K, "does no harm" to the English language. [[User: D Lidov}} 01:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Davidlidov (talk) — Davidlidov (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Deletion Policy contains a non-exclusive list of 14 reasons why an article might be considered for deletion.

The present short article on Dr Kendrick does not appear to give rise for concern on any of the 14 grounds.

His views may be at odds with current NHS advice to GPs on the prescription of Statins and the significance of Cholesterol on the risks of CHD and stroke, but they have been developed over a long period of medical practice and are clearly set out in his books.

Simply holding views that are not those of the medical "establishment" is not a ground for deletion of the article. Wikipedia is one of the bastions of free speech and holding contrarian views should be encouraged, not subjected to censorship.

Paul W Ellis (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Paul W Ellis (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Kendrick presents a modern, considered, yet to be supported by research; point of view on health. Having worked a life time in community, aged and most recently emergency health care, I enjoy reading the new perspectives that Dr Kendrick brings to the table. Removing such perspectives would be a detriment to the promotion of accessible, collaborative and current health care information; that increasingly people search for on the web today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miacol43 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Miacol43 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Who is this person "Skeptic from Britain"? We can see his/her/its fixation in the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Skeptic_from_Britain

  - Kendrick challenges current scientific dogma, and his books are bristling with data to support his arguments.

So who is "Skeptic from Britain"? Where are his/her/its books and scientific arguments?

The debate on the relevance of cholesterol in coronary vascular disease will continue as indeed it must

- whatever about the axes that anonymous incognitos wish to grind...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Cummins (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)  — Ivor Cummins (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to his extensive work on heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular complaints, Dr Kendrick has made valuable contributions to the care of the elderly, especially those confined to nursing homes.

Fuller details of his "deprescribing" policy would help round out this portrait of an outstanding medical practitioner.

Anarchie76 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to delete would appear to be an attempt to remove information about someone on the basis that ideas they have explored and promoted are at odds with current mainstream views and positions and hence is apparently an attempt to quash open debate and inconvenient ideas.

Dr.Kendrick is notable for his work in promoting critical thinking in the interpretation of medical science and its application, and in his particular focus on exploring the causes of and treatments for cardiovascular disease. If anything the page would benefit from being expanded to give more information on the major themes of his work, and as it is the short summary is hardly contentious in terms of identifying some basic facts about him as an author.

Hellovitch (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Hellovitch — Hellovitch (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The medical community have committed create fraud, it is exposed by Malcolm Kendrick in his book. This is censorship to removed Dr Kendrick's article. Cholesterol Con (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/12/03/dr-malcolm-kendrick-deletion-from-wikipedia/ Support from Malcolm Kendrick (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of people are worried about their cholesterol, and are put on statins. There is a group of medical professionals, including Dr Kendrick, who believe that the role of cholesterol in heart disease has been exaggerated, and that statins are in many cases not needed. There is research published in reputable medical journals that backs this up. Those with high cholesterol who wish to know what alternatives there are to conventional medical dogma and to take charge of their own health need people like Dr Kendrick who do the hard work of combing the medical journals and bringing the information to the public in a form the ordinary layman can understand. Dr Kendrick is no quack. He is a practicing physician and a serious medical researcher whose blog I have been following for years, to the benefit of my own health. MartinFromWoodstock (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a doctor and like many Doctors there is a desirable and necessary part of our job to keep updating and re-evaluating the current evidence base. If like me you have followed the debate for years and like Dr Kendrick you have decided that current narrative of wholegrains and statins are a manipulated evidence base which is not in line with current scientific evidence you should join the discussion rather than be arbitrarily deleted. Indeed there is a rise of informed patients who are now embarrassing their doctors with superior knowledge of disease. To give you an example, instead of following the guidelines one of my patients was encouraged to read about nutrition and as a result decided to go a ketogenic diet which meant he could stop taking 4 anti-hypertensive, lose 27kg in weight, drastically improve psoriasis and come off an unnecessary statin - has the 38 year old been harmed as a result? But there are countless others who have also achieved the reversal of diabetes, improvement of pain, depression and sleep through evidence based advice about lifestyle. Unless you work on the frontline and realise the drugs provide very little benefit to some patients please inform yourself. There is a difference between what happens in practice and what happens in research. We have for too long accepted, simplistic outdated models of physiology that don't work. Ask yourself how many doctors are looking at the root cause of disease and indeed how many understand what true good health looks like, evaluate the context in terms of all the data (RCTs through large epidemiology) if having done that and observed the diabetes/obesity epidemic you still want to advocate for calorie counting and statins - try it! No informed individual who has studied the data carefully for years has ever picked that option for themselves. Furthermore I do not advocate for the removal of ridiculous documentaries on Netflix like "what the health?" which uses blog posts stating eggs are more dangerous than smoking. Thank you Dr Kendrick. I support wikipedia and free speech although if this is removed it will save me my annual donation! docsprot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docsprot (talk • contribs) 17:57, December 4, 2018 (UTC) — Docsprot (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Docsprot: We have plenty of articles on quacks — that's not what this is about. This discussion is about whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia, that is, whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Bradv🍁 18:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Docsprot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strikerforce^Talk 18:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue that Wikipedia editors are concerned about would appear to be Notability. It may be of interest that Dr Malcolm Kendrick is on Wikipedia's list of "notable people that promote or practice scientific skepticism" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_skeptics Paul W Ellis (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, you're right! Of course, that's because one of your fellow puppets added it earlier today. Now removed since it's unsourced. EEng 01:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Skeptic from Britain no longer holds an account on this site, I strongly urge you to reverse any and all edits that user made as well as any decisions concerning pages that were influenced by them. Their refusal to maintain their account, and thereby receive comment on their work, should not be tolerated. The vitriol and namecalling coming from EEng also ought not be tolerated. Thank you. Rekleov Rekleov (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just noted on your talk page, there is no policy that supports what you're asking for. The user is still on Wikipedia, but under a different user name. Even if they were not still on Wikipedia, there are no grounds to "reverse any and all edits that user made as well as any decisions concerning pages that were influenced by them." As to your allegations against @EEng:, that's another subject entirely. If you feel there is an issue there, you are encouraged to use the proper Administrator's Noticeboard to make a report and allow a discussion to transpire. Strikerforce^Talk 20:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by everything I've said. EEng 21:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word meatpuppet in particular is offensive to me Rsterbal (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]