Judge rules Mail on Sunday’s report on ‘Statin-Denying Doctors’ was ‘seriously misleading’
The ongoing libel case brought by doctors has continued following the judge’s ruling that the newspaper misled readers by quoting then-Health Secretary Matt Hancock.
An ongoing libel case judgment has determined that a series of articles by The Mail on Sunday, labeling three doctors and academics as “deadly statin deniers,” were “seriously misleading.”
Two out of the three individuals mentioned in the 2019 articles are suing the newspaper’s publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), and its health editor, Barney Calman, for defamation at the High Court. They will proceed with their claim after Tuesday’s ruling, which dismissed The Mail on Sunday’s defense of “public interest.”
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a GP, and obesity and food researcher Zoe Harcombe took action against the articles for accusing them of spreading “fake news” and causing “grave harm” through their questioning of the official consensus around statins.
While the third individual named in The Mail on Sunday reports, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra, is not directly involved in the libel action against the newspaper, he welcomed the preliminary judgment on social media platform X, stating, “THIS story is NOT over.”
ANL and Mr. Calman are defending the libel claim. The judge found that allegations of impropriety regarding the use of a statement from Matt Hancock were unsupported by proper evidence.
‘An Entirely False Impression’
Despite the newspaper’s defense, Mr. Justice Matthew Nicklin stated that the usage of the Hancock Statement was misleading and gave a false impression on whether Mr. Hancock criticized the individuals in question.
Related Stories
“The Hancock Statement was a comment by Mr. Hancock, as Health Secretary, on the general issue of misinformation about statins and the risks that such misinformation posed.
Neither Mr. Calman nor anyone at [ANL] involved in the publication of the articles could have failed to appreciate that. As I have found, neither Mr. Hancock nor his office were aware that his statement was going to be used in an article that would make serious allegations against three named individuals.”
The judge remarked, “There is perhaps a palpable irony in the fact that the Defendants, in Articles that so roundly denounced those alleged to be the purveyors of misinformation, so seriously misinformed their own readers.”
During the seven-day hearing in July 2023, the judge referred to the case as “the most significant piece of defamation litigation that [he has] seen in a very long time.”
‘The Clot Thickens’
Dr. Kendrick authored the book “The Clot Thickens,” which delves into the so-called “contradictions” in the official medical narrative around cholesterol. Meanwhile, Ms. Harcombe has published papers and books on diet and has criticized the COVID-19 and lockdown narratives, as well as statins.
The judge concluded that the claimants’ argument that the reports were motivated by “malice” had not been proven. He believed that Mr. Calman approached the task honestly and that being mistaken did not equate to acting maliciously.
No ‘Public Interest’ Defence
The judge determined that the newspaper failed to prove a “public interest” defense for publishing the articles, as argued by its lawyers.
“The public interest defense fails and is dismissed for all publications. The Court found that the Defendants had demonstrated that the articles were published on a matter of public interest, and that Mr. Calman believed that publishing the articles was in the public interest. Nevertheless, the Judge found that the Defendants failed to demonstrate that this belief was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.”
Statins are commonly prescribed for high cholesterol and high blood pressure to reduce the likelihood of conditions like heart attack and stroke. Approximately 8 million Britons are on these drugs.
The top-selling statin, atorvastatin (Lipitor), became the top-selling pharmaceutical in history in 2003, with sales of $12.4 billion (£6.2 billion) in 2008, as reported by Pfizer.
Due to legal reasons, the libel case is divided into two separate trials. With the first trial concluded and ANL and Mr. Calman failing in their public interest defense, the case will move to a second trial to address remaining issues, including potential truth and honest opinion defenses.
According to lawyers for the claimants, Carter Ruck, The Mail on Sunday did not apologize or amend its articles after complaints from the claimants.
In a statement, Ms. Harcombe expressed her satisfaction with the court’s findings, mentioning the complexity of the case and the acknowledgment of the unjust public attack on their integrity.
Dr. Kendrick also welcomed the Judge’s ruling in their favor and criticized the publishers for their unfair treatment of the claimants.
