Is the role of chloresterol in heart disease a political topic somewhere I'm not aware of? I'm not here to argue about whether or not other biases exist on Wikipedia.
You specifically claimed political bias and I specifically challenged that claim. If you'd like to retract that claim and walk it back to bias against medical unorthodoxy, that's ok with me.
I'd suggest that it is political insofar as money = power. Consider how valuable an editor could be to a company with an interest in keeping criticism of its product(s) out of the public eye — WP's lack of transparency makes questions about the above possible.
At the same time, note I also said or policy-wise — there are plenty of vested interests with government backing for standardized care policies, which can include prescriptions (side example — government diet standards trickle down into the food provided for everyone in Federal care of one sort or another). Standards of care put requirements on doctors, and maintaining those standards of care is of quite some importance to those who have built reputations and careers based on certain drugs and procedures, and to a host of other parties. If these sorts of things aren't political, and tied to political interests, I'm not sure what could be.
This is just generic speculation about how the issue could be political. Yes, if someone is influencing governments to say chloresterol is bad because they benefit from a related drug/procedure - that _would_ be political.
However, all we have so far is baseless speculation. You are yet to provide any evidence to support any of the claims that:
- Kendrick's ideas are political in any other way (not imaginations about how they could be political with no evidence)
- The poster of the AfD has a political bias against Kendrick (ex. they support anti-chloresterol lobbyists)
Unfortunately, this discussion is looking more and more like those I've had with conspiracy theorists, so I assume any future posts you make still won't contain any proof of these claims - please prove me wrong.
You specifically claimed political bias and I specifically challenged that claim. If you'd like to retract that claim and walk it back to bias against medical unorthodoxy, that's ok with me.