In response to Susan Kirk's claim that there is no reason why Catalyst should adopt a balanced approach in relation to the use of statins, the article at the following URL provides more evidence that the 'case for the prosecution' put forward by Catalyst is not consistent with current best-practice guidelines for treating cardiovascular disease:
I am among the many professional nutritionists who are appalled at Catalyst's biased treatment of an issue that has implications for life and death for tens of thousands of Australians.
From: ASC-list [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Susan Kirk
Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2013 9:10 AM
... In the case of the statin reporting, balance was lacking? Really, how? The statin hypotheses stands. Catalyst was going after the 'other' opinion. If you think about 'balanced' reporting the statin hypotheses was not balanced. Did catalyst try and get other 'expert' opinions to balance the reporting. Yes they did but these experts refused to comment.
Does the public have the right to know this information is (one of) the criteria for journalism and I think typifies what balance means. Balance means that the public knows both sides. If the journalist can't get both sides then give either side and let the people decide. That, I believe, is what happened here ...