JUPITER STILL IN THE DARK : ANSWERS of Michel de Lorgeril to P. RIDKER about his article in the American Journal of Cardiology (November issue)

In the 2010 November 1 issue of the American Journal of Cardiology, Paul Ridker published 5 full pages to address some of the questions raised by our article (in the 2010 July issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine) about the enormous clinical inconsistencies seen in the JUPITER trial.
Nothing really new in the Ridker’s text which could explain (solve) the problems seen in JUPITER.
Thus, JUPITER is still in the dark!

This is not very surprising.
We have shown other examples of “spin reporting” by Ridker (about overall mortality curves) in a previous PDF, here.
However, some comments regarding the article by Ridker may be useful for readers (physicians and patients) who are not aware of the many technical aspects of clinical research.
Thus, we have decided to submit a letter to the Editors of the American Journal of Cardiology.
In addition, in a short paragraph, Ridker reports about the Lyon Diet Heart Study in a very surprising way, intentionnally distorting the true results of the trial; something like a disinformation to discredit the investigators of the Lyon trial (including myself) and therefore lighting a sort of smoky backfire to dissimulate the JUPITER problems!
Of course, it was not possible not to respond to these lies and this was the second reason to submit a letter to the Editors of the American Journal of Cardiology.
And we did!
Please have a look at the following Document in PDF.
Here is the complete [no word is lacking] answer of the Journal:
” Dear Dr. Michel de Lorgeril, I think the “Archives of Internal Medicine” gave you a nice platform to present your views on the JUPITER trial. I think your views have been made clear, and they do not have to be published again in the “AJC.”  My best,
William C. Roberts, MD, Editor-in-Chief American Journal of Cardiology (AJC)”.

This is a very good illustration of a connivence between investigators working for the pharmaceutical industry and the medical media.
Thus, for these people, the “right to reply” does not exist.
No additional comment is needed!