A BBC article highlights the problems of making sure the figures in any report are correct - even from scientific professionals. In this case it is the controversial articles in the BMJ where two researchers both managed to get the same bit of evidence wrong. Although corrections were made, the BMJ is now going to review the articles fully to see whether they should be withdrawn completely.
Sadly, if the articles are wrong, the damage to the Statin debate has already been done.
The evidence that you refer to was only an adjunct to the main thrust of each article. The articles were highlighting the role of saturated fat and CVD and the prescription of statins to low risk patients. The idea that the articles may be withdrawn smacks of an attempt at censorship.
Not sure what "damage to the statin debate" you are referring to?
The comments on the BMJ article are very interesting. The use of statins remains controversial.
Doesn't sound like censorship to me - sounds like the editors having a genuine worry about the accuracy of what they are publishing.
By damage I mean that if a debate is informed by wrong information (either through ignorance, a mistake or deliberately) then the debate itself can end up being misleading and can lead to misinformation and confusion.
Is there any evidence for the bullet-proof coffee craze?
Blood Test for Depression and Efficacy of CBT?