The legal case – naming a few names
When the Mail on Sunday published their libelous articles about me on March 3rd, 2019, I was expecting it. I wasn’t expecting them to arrive on that precise date, or in that specific newspaper. But I had been waiting for something very unpleasant to appear, somewhere. Although I have to say that the level of […]
When the Mail on Sunday published their libelous articles about me on March 3rd, 2019, I was expecting it. I wasn’t expecting them to arrive on that precise date, or in that specific newspaper. But I had been waiting for something very unpleasant to appear, somewhere. Although I have to say that the level of malice was far greater than anticipated.
But it was entirely predictable what the main thrust of any article was going to be.
I, Dr Malcolm Kendrick, with or without other co-conspirators, would be accused of spreading misinformation about cholesterol and statins. This misinformation would have resulted in many thousands of people giving up their medication and suffering heart attacks and strokes as a result. With thousands dying.
The spectre of Andrew Wakefield and the MMR ‘scandal’ would be raised. With the words ‘far worse than’ to be found somewhere.
I make no claim to be Nostradamus 2.0. But I am capable of adding two and two to make four. I had also taken note of many other attacks around the world. Storing away the accusations made, and phrases used. So, I was well aware of what was heading my way. At least some of it. It was simply a matter of time.
Why do these attacks happen?
The hypothesis that a raised cholesterol level causes heart disease [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)] is possibly the single most powerful idea in medicine. If not the most powerful. It has long since reached the hallowed status of a ‘fact’. It is also entirely resistant to all contradictory evidence. To quote from the film Inception.
‘What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient… highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it’s almost impossible to eradicate. An idea that is fully formed – fully understood – that sticks; right in there somewhere.’
The pharmaceutical industry put their weight behind this idea very early on and shoved mightily. They recognised there were vast fortunes to be made in lowering the cholesterol levels of hundreds of millions of people, if not billions…for life. The perfect money-making machine, sorry medicine.
And lo, the search began for drugs capable of doing this. Starting with nicotinic acid, then clofibrate in 1958. The first drug capable of blocking cholesterol synthesis in the liver was Triparanol, introduced in 1959. It was rapidly withdrawn due to horrible adverse effects. Which could have acted as a warning – but didn’t.
However, it wasn’t until statins were first launched in the 1980s that the money really started to flood in. Statins became the most widely prescribed and profitable medications ever. With sales of nearly one trillion dollars. Today, there are several new cholesterol lowering drugs to keep the party going – and the money flowing.
And while there were nasty attacks on anyone who questioned the mighty ‘cholesterol hypothesis’ from early on, it wasn’t until the mid-1980s that they became truly vicious and seemingly coordinated. A strange coincidence… or perhaps not.
In parallel, a massive nutritional market grew. Low fat foods claiming to reduce cholesterol created a modern day trillion-dollar industry today. And if you dare to suggest the idea that low-fat foods do not protect against heart disease, you get much the same treatment. Which can be distilled into the following statements.
‘You are stupid and dangerous and understand nothing about science. You are also a conspiracy theorist, and your actions are killing thousands.’ Message ends.
Of course, you can never engage with anyone over the science itself. The attacks are lobbed over the castle walls, where your enemy sits safely, refusing to engage on the battlefield. ‘Just pour a little more boiling oil on their heads, if you would be so kind? Their criticism is becoming tiresome.’
Why do these attacks happen. Money, mainly.
Who got attacked first?
I think it was John Yudkin – but I know someone will almost certainly correct me on this.
In 1972 Yudkin wrote the book ‘Pure white and deadly’ where he outlined why sugar was a probable cause of heart disease, not fat(s). Even before this he had been subjected to the full boiling oil treatment. As outlined by the Telegraph newspaper in the UK:
‘The British Sugar Bureau put out a press release dismissing Yudkin’s claims as “emotional assertions” and the World Sugar Research Organisation described his book as “science fiction”. When Yudkin sued, it printed a mealy-mouthed retraction, concluding: “Professor Yudkin recognises that we do not agree with [his] views and accepts that we are entitled to express our disagreement.”
Yudkin was “uninvited” to international conferences. Others he organised were cancelled at the last minute, after pressure from sponsors, including, on one occasion, Coca-Cola. When he did contribute, papers he gave attacking sugar were omitted from publications. The British Nutrition Foundation, one of whose sponsors was Tate & Lyle, never invited anyone from Yudkin’s internationally acclaimed department to sit on its committees. Even Queen Elizabeth College reneged on a promise to allow the professor to use its research facilities when he retired in 1970 (to write Pure, White and Deadly). Only after a letter from Yudkin’s solicitor was he offered a small room in a separate building.
“Can you wonder that one sometimes becomes quite despondent about whether it is worthwhile trying to do scientific research in matters of health?” he wrote. “The results may be of great importance in helping people to avoid disease, but you then find they are being misled by propaganda designed to support commercial interests in a way you thought only existed in bad B films.”
And this “propaganda” didn’t just affect Yudkin. By the end of the Seventies, he had been so discredited that few scientists dared publish anything negative about sugar for fear of being similarly attacked. As a result, the low-fat industry, with its products laden with sugar, boomed.’1
Lesson number one. If you launch a really venomous attack on one scientist, it tends to deter all the others. Can’t think why.
Then we had Dr George Mann. At one time he was the associate director of the Framingham Study. Which remains the single most influential study on cardiovascular disease, ever. But…
But then he realised there was no relationship between dietary fat or ‘cholesteremia’ – as a high blood cholesterol was called at one time – and heart disease. He discovered this by using the conspiratorial activity called…research. He went to Africa to study the Masai. The men ate almost nothing but meat and drank blood and milk… yuk. As for heart disease, there was none.
Following these, and many other contradictory findings, he formed the Veritas society and edited the book ‘Coronary Heart Disease – the Dietary Sense and Nonsense.’ Of which I have one of the few remaining copies. It cost me fifty pounds…fifty pounds, can you believe it. The things I do for science.
At one point George Mann attempted to arrange a meeting of scientists who agreed that the diet-heart/cholesterol hypothesis was bunk. He ran into problems:
‘Many declined because they felt that participation would jeopardize their grants and perks or, sadder still, because they believe their academic positions would be threatened… when he tried to organize a conference he was told. ‘I believe you are right, and that the diet-heart hypothesis is wrong, but I cannot join you, for that would jeopardize my perks and funding.
As he went on to say: ‘Vast profits are made selling products with trumped up, dishonest health claims. Physicians are co-opted by the media and the “detail men” (salesmen) to prescribe worthless diets and dangerous drugs.’
In the book itself, Professor James McCormick stated:
‘Future generations will look back at this present preoccupation with cholesterol with the same mixture of horror and incredulity with which we now regard colonic irrigation, bleeding and purging.’
James McCormick was a GP and professor of community health at Trinity College Dublin. He was especially critical of health promotion and health screening.
As he once wrote. “Health promotion mixes the obvious and widely known with the questionable and unproven.”. Good man. He described himself, and a few colleagues, as ‘abominable no-men.’ A few brave souls who dared to question the inexorable drive to ever greater health promotion and screening.
Most people are unlikely to have heard of Mann, or McCormick, or the few other brave souls who did turn up to the conference – which was held forty years ago. But they are all heroes of mine. Shunned, de-funded and attacked – in no particular order. I know exactly how they feel.
I could give many more examples of those who have been obliterated. And I will, in later articles. But it is not just personal attacks that are used to underpin profitable ideas and keep science at bay. Scientists are paid directly to promote what are, in essence, corporate lies. I have written about this before:
‘Influential research that downplayed the role of sugar in heart disease in the 1960s was paid for by the sugar industry, according to a report released on Monday. With backing from a sugar lobby, scientists promoted dietary fat as the cause of coronary heart disease instead of sugar, according to a historical document review published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Though the review is nearly 50 years old, it also showcases a decades-long battle by the sugar industry to counter the product’s negative health effects.
The findings come from documents recently found by a researcher at the University of San Francisco, which show that scientists at the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), known today as the Sugar Association, paid scientists to do a 1967 literature review that overlooked the role of sugar in heart disease.’2
Just in case you think this sort of thing died out years ago, of course it did not. In the Sunday Times of April 23rd, 2017, this article appeared, entitled ‘Kellogg’s smothers health crisis in sugar – The cereals giant is funding studies that undermine official warnings on obesity.’ Just to choose a few paragraphs.
‘One of the food research organisations funded by Kellogg’s is the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). Last year if funded research in the Journal Annals of Internal Medicine that said the advice to cut sugar by Public Health England and other bodies such as the World Health Organisation could not be trusted.
The study, which claimed official guidance to cut sugar was based on “low quality evidence”, stated it had been funded by an ILSI technical committee. Only by searching elsewhere for a list of committee members did it become clear that this comprised 15 food firms, including Kellogg’s, Coca-Cola and Tate and Lyle.
In 2013 Kellogg’s funded British research that concluded “regular consumption of cereals might help children stay slimmer.” The study, published in the Journal Obesity Facts relied on evidence from 14 studies. Seven of those studies were funded by Kellogg’s and five were funded by the cereal company General Mills.’
Just one small area filled with corruption, corruption and yet more corruption. It is a swamp.
Those behind the attacks
When Barney Calman wrote his articles attacking me, Zoe Harcombe and Aseem Malhotra, I wasn’t really bothered about him. I knew he was simply the patsy who had been dressed up in armour, given a shiny new sword to hold, and kicked out of the castle gate to attack us on behalf of his masters.
‘You go get them, you brave seeker of the truth. Hack away. Sever a few limbs. We may enjoy a few more glasses of red wine before joining you. Can’t tell you exactly when my dear boy. But don’t worry, we have your back. Toodlepip.’
Unfortunately for Barney, to mix metaphors, he hadn’t the slightest idea that he had turned up at a gun fight with a knife. He clearly believed this was going to be a one-sided battle where his victims would put up little or no resistance. And if we did fight back, he had the great knights of the castle to back him up if needed. [Rule One, never trust the knights].
Maybe he really thought he had truth and justice on his side. I have no idea what he thought, and I don’t much care. Whatever his motivations, he set out to do as much damage to me/us as he possibly could. His aim was to destroy. He hacked and sliced about him with gay abandon. He clearly believed himself to be invincible, and untouchable.
Unfortunately for him, one good thing about going to court is that all the discussions leading up to the articles have to be revealed to the prosecution. This would expose all the background discussions.
As Barney stated in an e-mail of the 4th of Feb 2019 to a fellow Mail on Sunday employee:
‘Can you take a look at this – we’re planning a big takedown of statin deniers.’ This comes from the media and communications list.3
‘A big takedown’… It was rather more than that. Virtually every insult known to man was brought to bear. In case you think I am exaggerating about the sheer vitriolic nastiness of what he wrote, here are some sections from the judgement.
These outline what the Judge considered the articles said about us. A distillation of their intent, if you like. This is taken directly from the Judgement itself, words unedited:
‘….the direct effect of the publication of these knowingly false statements by the Claimant(s) was (a) to cause a very large number of people not to take prescribed statin medication; and (b) thereby to expose them to a serious risk of a heart attack or stroke causing illness, disability or death;
..and in consequence, each Claimant was rightly to be condemned as a pernicious liar, for whom there was a special place in hell, whose lies, deadly propaganda, insidious fake news, scare stories, and crackpot conspiracy theories, had recklessly caused a very large number of people, like Colin, for whom the proven benefits of taking statins were demonstrated by indisputable scientific evidence, to stop taking them risking needless deaths and causing harm on a scale that was worse than the infamous MMR vaccine scandal.’
‘…each Claimant had made false public statements, knowing that they were false.’
‘Put shortly, the Articles alleged that the Claimants had a venal* motive for their lies. This was one of the aspects that made them so deserving of contempt, and a “special place in hell”.4
Yes, according to the judge, Barney Calman stated that we lied, and that we knew were lying in order to make money – our ‘venal motive’. Our pernicious lies, deadly propaganda, fake news, scare stories and crackpot conspiracy theories caused needless deaths. For which we were fully deserving of contempt and a ‘special place in hell.’ That is the Judge’s summary of the article’s intent. And if you are going to suggest that is not what the articles actually said, you could find yourself in contempt of court.
Well, I don’t know about you. But where I come from that there’s ‘fighting talk.’
So, we fought, for five and a half years. Yes, obviously I wanted to clear my name, but I was also keenly interested in something else. Which was to reveal the ‘experts’ lurking in the background. Those who I believe represent the organ grinders to Barney Calman’s dancing monkey. To mix my metaphors once more.
Fortunately, the Judge ordered that all e-mails and WhatsApp messages, indeed everything, and everyone involved, would be made available to the public – should they ever wish to read such things. Nothing here is confidential. Which means I can publish all three thousand pages, give or take, should I so wish. Praise be.
And lo, the great knights from the castle hove into view. Of course, I already knew who they would be. They included the usual suspects from the University of Oxford. Professor Sir Rory Collins and Professor Colin Baigent were two of the leading lights, baying for our blood.
This is one message that Professor Sir Rory Collins sent to Barney Calman after the articles were published.3
Dear Barney
What a pleasure to see such a hard-hitting evidence-based article on fake news related to statins … and the page 2 article with Matt Hancock’s very direct comments was an unexpected bonus.
Best wishes.
Rory
But, but…but. There was nothing in the articles that could prove to be an ‘unexpected’ bonus for Rory. Because he played a considerable role in editing the articles. Below are a couple e-mails taken from the Court Disclosures. One page among several thousand.
[I intend to publish a great deal more, to make it entirely clear that there were a group of ‘experts’ working hard in the background to destroy us.]
Yes, the great knights were brought together to terminate us, or at least terminate our reputations. And to be fair to them, they did a damned good job. In addition, they all played a significant part in editing the articles. As the Judge commented on this issue:
‘Although they were not able to dictate what Mr Calman included in the Articles, they nevertheless had (and Mr Calman allowed them to have) a very significant (and in my judgment, undue) influence over the editorial process and the terms in which the Articles were ultimately published.’
Where was the money lurking behind this? Well, Professor Sir Rory Collins and Professor Colin Baigent run the Clinical Trial Service Unit in Oxford. Which is, essentially, a contract clinical trial research organization.
It now sits under the banner of Oxford Population Health… in some complicated way, no doubt designed to throw people off the scent. The funding from Industry can be seen here 5. Under the heading ‘Independence of Research.’Hollow laugh.
I added up the funding this unit has received over the last nineteen years (although the CTSU has been around longer than that). After checking a few times, the figure I arrived at was £311,549,300.00p [See Appendix]. This is just over three hundred million pounds (~$400m).
Yes, Professor Sir Rory Colin and Professor Colin Baigent of the University of Oxford run an organisation that has received hundreds of millions in sponsorship. The vast bulk of which comes from the pharmaceutical industry, and the vast bulk of that is used to study drugs designed to lower cholesterol.
This, of course, has not had the slightest influence on anything they say or do with regard to statins, other cholesterol lowering agents, or the cholesterol hypothesis. How could anyone possibly think such a thing of the great knights in their mighty Oxfordian Castle. These eminent figures. Sir this, Professor that, Professor the other. The great and the good.
Of course, they are all desperately insistent that industry funding does not, indeed cannot, have the slightest influence on their research, or what they way. After all, no-one working there receives a penny directly from industry. Emphasis on the word, directly.
‘Research at Oxford Population Health is funded in a number of ways. Much of the funding is peer-reviewed*, which involves other experts independently assessing the Department’s planned research. Such support is provided by a number of government institutions and charities, including the Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK and Wellcome. In addition, funding is obtained from healthcare companies, particularly for large studies of the treatment and prevention of disease. The department’s research is conducted independently of the funding sources**.5
*How do you peer-review funding, exactly? What does this mean? It is simply gibberish made up to make all the commercial funding seem above board. This is not just pharmaceutical company money. It is ‘peer-reviewed’ pharmaceutical company money. Who did the peer-review. A bunch of hedge fund managers? Rory Collins’ bank manager?
**So, a pharmaceutical company provides forty million quid to study their drug in heart disease, and Oxford Population Health (OPH) then heads off to use their money to study another drug in cancer research? I don’t think so. And OPH have absolutely no discussions with the company about the study, at all? I have read some utter bollocks in my life. This sits very near the top.
Maybe I should hire someone to go down and find out where Professor Sir Rory Collins lives and how much his house is worth. And spy on him to see who he hangs out with and suchlike. It would only be fair, as this is what the Mail on Sunday did to me.
Here is an e-mail to Barney Calman from Mark Wood. Barney had asked Wood to find out details about me. Where I lived, how much my house was worth, where I got my income from. I include part of the -email here. [I blanked out my address, as I think that is getting a little close to home, so to speak].
—————————————————————————————————————————–
From: mark wood
Sent: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:55:43
To: barney.calman@mailonsunday.co.uk
Subject: statin deniers
Sensitivity: Normal
Hi Barney
Below are some details on your three statin deniers which I’ve been able to collate so far. Got home addresses for all three, and Company House records on any directorships they have or have previously held.
I appreciate the thrust of this is to try and discover how they are benefitting financially from their anti-statin stance…
Dr Malcolm Kendrick
DoB: 17/09/1958 (Age 60)
On his blog describes himself as ‘a GP living in Macclesfield, having graduated from Aberdeen medical school many moons ago.’
He lives in executive detached house at
Property Location:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Property Description:
Detached
Council Tax Band: G
Average Property Value:
£ 733,709
Socio – Demographic Code:
Business Class – Alpha Territory
Property Sale Date:
27/09/1996
Property Sale Price:
£ 217,000
Author of: The Great Cholesterol Con…etc. [There is more].
——————————————————————————————————————————-
No doubt what they really wanted a picture of me lolling about in my luxury apartment in St Tropez, quaffing champagne and laughing uproariously in the company of Andrew Wakefield, whilst lighting a cigar with a fifty-pound note. I wish.
My wife calculated that, given the hours I spent working in my study on research and writing, I have earned about £5/hour from book sales, and the occasional lecture. I think that may be overly optimistic.
Next. A roll call of previous attacks on the ‘statin deniers.’ Then, what should we do about the ever-increasing corruption of medical research? Pitchforks at the ready. Burning torches will be provided to all those who turn up.
3: KINGS BENCH DIVISION IN THE HIGH COURT Claim Nos. QB-2020-000799 QB-2020-000801
4: Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 1523 (KB) Case No: QB-2020-000799 QB-2020-000801
5: https://www.ndph.ox.ac.uk/about/independence-of-research
APPENDIX ONE – FUNDING
Received by the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, since 2005
ACE trial of acarbose (2008-2017)
Bayer: £135K *
ASCEND trial of aspirin and fish oils (2004-2017)
Abbott/Solvay/Mylan: £2.1M plus drug supply Bayer: £1.8M plus drug supply
ASCEND PLUS (2021 – ongoing)
Novo Nordisk A/S: £39.4M
Assessing the potential for SenseCam to fight the current global health crises of increasing obesity and physical inactivity (2010-2013)
Microsoft: £69K
ATLAS trial of tamoxifen duration (1997-2018)
AstraZeneca: £1.0M plus drug supply
BEST-D pilot trial of vitamin D (2012-2014)
Tishcon: free drug supply only
Big Data Institute (2018-2021)
Novartis Pharma AG Switzerland: £272K
Can wearables improve the prediction of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer in UK Biobank? (2022-25)
Swiss Reinsurance Company: £645K
China Kadoorie Biobank (2002-ongoing)
AstraZeneca: $300K
Bayer AG: £300K
GlaxoSmithKline: £3.6M
Merck: £200K
Novo Nordisk A/S: £341k
Development of digital biomarkers for dementia (2016-2022)
Eli Lilly and Company USA: £600K
Development of digital biomarkers for dementia (2016-2022)
Roche: £600K
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy Treatment with Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation a Randomised Controlled Trial (2018-2020)
St Jude Medical Europe Inc: £52K
Doctor Referral of Overweight People to Low Energy Treatments (2015-2020)
Cambridge Weight Plan Ltd: £35K
DYNAMIC CONSENT USCF (2015-17)
Oxford University Innovation Ltd: £28K
Economic burden of malignant neoplasms in the EU (2011-2012)
Pfizer: £36.5K
Elinogrel feasibility trial (2010-2011)
Novartis: £500K
EMPA-KIDNEY (2017-ongoing)
Boehringer Ingelheim: £106.3M
Establishing Fuwai-Oxford research centre (2010-ongoing)
Merck: £1.1M
Estimating acceptable non-inferiority margins for antibiotic stewardship interventions using discrete choice experiments (2021-2023)
Mars Petcare UK: £25k
EXSCEL trial of exenatide (2009-2017)
Amylin: £473K *
FOXFIRE trial of chemotherapy with or without radioembolisation for bowel cancer that has spread to the liver (2009-2017)
Sirtex: £228K *
Genomic Data Working Group (2020-2025)
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc: £107K
Heart Protection Study follow-up studies (2003-2010)
Merck: £1.2M
GlaxoSmithKline: $400K
Liposcience: £50K
HPS2-THRIVE trial of niacin/laropiprant (2005-2015)
Merck: £53M plus drug supply
HPS3/TIMI55-REVEAL trial of anacetrapib (2010-2022)
Merck: £108M plus drug supply
HPS 4/TIMI 65 – ORION-4 (2017-ongoing)
Novartis Pharma AG Switzerland: £73.7M
HPS 5/ORION-17 (2020-ongoing)
Novartis Pharma AG Switzerland: £1M
Integration of medical imaging and genetic data using machine learning for identification of micro and macro vascular disease targets (2021 – ongoing)
Novo Nordisk A/S: £1.2M
Large-scale multi-omics assays in China Kadoorie Biobank (2020 – 2023)
Bayer AG: £1.58M
LENS trial in Non-proliferative retinopathy in Scotland (2016-2022)
Mylan: free drug supply only
MaatHRI Project (Ultromics) (2018-2022)
Ultromics Limited: £79K
Measuring sleep characteristics using machine learning in wearable datasets (2020-2023)
Novo Nordisk A/S: £135K
Mexico City Prospective Study (2021 – ongoing)
AstraZeneca UK Ltd: £1.81M
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc: £1.78M
NAVIGATOR trial health economics analysis (2013-2014)
Novartis: £15K *
Next generation sequencing analysis – a clinical study (2011-2014)
Life Technologies: £125K *
Non-invasive rapid assessment of liver disease using magnetic resonance (2016-2019)
Perspectum Diagnostics: £273K *
Novo-Nordisk Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme (2021-2023)
Novo Nordisk A/S: £221.3K
Observational study of a multi-cancer early detection test (2021-2023)
Grail Bio UK Ltd: £101k
Oxford-Janssen Human Genomics Fellowship Programme (2020 – ongoing)
Janssen Biotech: 1.22M
Oxford Participation & Activities Questionnaire (Ox-PAQ) Phase 2 Study (2014-2017)
Actelion: £58K
OxPod (2021-27)
Podium Analytics: £75K
Pandemic Science Institute Investigator Allowance (2022-23)
AstraZeneca UK Ltd £5k
Pharmacogenomic analysis of the Heart Protection Study using a CAD polygenic risk score (2020 – 2025)
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc: £143K
PROCARDIS genetic study (1998-2011)
AstraZeneca: £1.7M
SEARCH trial of simvastatin dose (1997-2010)
Merck: £22.7M plus drug supply
SHARP trial of simvasatin/ezetimibe (2002-2013)
Merck/Schering: £40M plus drug supply
SHARP3 (2022-23)
Boehringer Ingelheim: £1.8M
Small open reading frames in drug discovery: from genetics to mechanisms to new therapies (2022-24)
Novo Nordisk A/S: £49K
STICS trial of rosuvastatin (2011-2014)
AstraZeneca: $100K
TECOS Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (2008–2022)
Merck & Co Inc: £140k *
Therapies for Influenza (2019-23)
Oxon Epidemiology Limited: £77K
The Transthyretin (ATTR) Amyloidosis Questionnaire (ATTRAQ) (2020-2022)
Pfizer: £147K
Thrombotic Microangiopathy associated Pregnancy Acute Kidney Injury in the United Kingdom: Incidence, Outcomes and Risk Factors (2021 – 2022)
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc: £32K
UK-HARP-III pilot study of LCZ696 (2013–2018)
Novartis: £2.6M
Using data from wearable devices to identify novel targets for cardiometabolic disease (obesity, T2DM, NAFLD, & heart failure) (2021 – 2024)
Novo Nordisk A/S: 1.25M
Using Whole Genome Sequencing Datasets to Identify Novel Disease Genes and Mechanisms (2020 – 2022)
GlaxoSmithKline Research & Development £359K
3-C trial of transplant rejection (2009-2017)
Pfizer: £530K
Novartis: £350K
* Funds received by the department’s Health Economics Research Centre for trials led by other Oxford University departments or Institutions.
What's Your Reaction?
