Misleading, but not necessarily untrue...
I'm in agreement with you Tails, but there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. I just pulled this from an article I read the other day. I haven't read through the other cited articles yet, but they're out there if people want to build an argument.
"Effects of the toxins from Varanus have usually been ascribed to bacterial infections caused by a virulent oral bacterial flora (Gillespie et al., 2002), but recent systematic and toxinological analyses have discovered the presence of venom glands and venom in Varanus (Vidal and Hedges, 2005; Fry et al., 2006). It should be borne in mind that only few Varanus species have been examined in this way (V. acanthurus, V. mitchelli, V. panoptes rubidus, and V. varius), but V. griseus, V. komodensis and V. scalaris bites on humans have also shown signs consistent with envenomation (Sopiev et al., 1987; Ballard and Antonio, 2001; Fry et al., 2006; Fry and Scheib, 2007)." (Arbuckle, 2009...AKA Your European Quack?, 2009)
Personally, I believe that's it's bacteria and think these shows like Wild Recon and Life use the term "venom" in a misleading way. They are not incorrect, but they use the general definition of venom: "material that is poisonous". It's very irresponsible of them to use it in this way, especially because television seems to be the main source of education for the majority of Americans (if not the world).
I don't believe that something like this can be proven in only five years. It takes awhile to obtain a varied population of animals to test, let alone performing the actual tests and compiling the data. You would need WC's, CB's, LTC's, etc...to cover every variable and then you would still have to monitor what they eat, what their prey eats, etc. Funding for studies like this is what the zoological community is all about. Without these "quacks" we wouldn't have 90% of the knowledge we have today.