Doctors sue British tabloid for libel and win first battle round
Doctors sue British tabloid for libel and win first battle round
This case shines a light on how journalists cover scientific issues and discredit those who challenge the official narrative.
Two doctors have earned a major win in the UK’s High Court, in a case described by the Judge as “the most significant piece of defamation litigation” he has seen in a very long time.
The case shines a light on how journalists cover scientific issues, and how media seek to discredit those who challenge official narratives.
For decades, Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner, and Zoe Harcombe with a PhD in nutritional science, have publicly challenged the role of saturated fat and cholesterol in heart disease, as well as the widespread use of statin medications.
Their views are contradicted by the ‘medical dogma’ which contends that high intake of saturated fat raises cholesterol and causes heart disease. Some proponents of this hypothesis argue that cholesterol-lowering statins are so safe that they could be put in the water supply.
In 2019, journalist Barney Calman began working on a series of articles to promote the benefits of statin drugs, and attack doctors he called “statin deniers.” It was part of the Mail on Sunday’s campaign to ‘Fight Fake Health News’ and counter medical misinformation.
In the articles, Calman branded Kendrick and Harcombe as “pernicious liars” who put millions at risk of debilitating heart attacks and strokes, responsible for a “public health catastrophe” with far graver consequences than the MMR scandal.
Calman went so far as to suggest there was “a special place in hell for the doctors who claim statins don’t work.”
Calman and his publishers, Associated Newspapers Ltd, refused to apologise, remove or alter the offending articles. Kendrick and Harcombe sought legal advice in March 2019, and subsequently sued for libel in February 2020, arguing the articles “caused serious harm” to their reputations.
The counterargument put forward by Calman and Associated Newspapers Ltd was that the articles were simply “honest opinion,” published as a “matter of public interest” and therefore protected under the Defamation Act 2013.
In June 2024, however, Justice Matthew Nicklin issued a 255-page judgement and dismissed a “public interest defence” because the articles in question had “seriously misled readers.”
The ruling now opens the door for Kendrick and Harcombe to proceed to the next phase of the lawsuit.
Evidence so far
Upon reading the judgement, evidence in the case portrays Calman as a journalist with tunnel vision who “planned a big takedown” of his targets, and who misrepresented the facts in order to fit a pre-determined narrative.
Justice Nicklin suggests that Calman allowed himself to be used as a patsy, and to be unduly influenced by well-known professors whose primary interest was to advance their own agenda.
‘The Professors’ included Rory Collins, Peter Sever, and Colin Baigent who co-authored a 2016 review in The Lancet which promoted the wider use of statins, even for people at low risk of heart disease - a view that Kendrick and Harcombe had publicly challenged.
Their advocacy of statins to lower cholesterol is well-known.
Collins told Calman that anyone who thinks LDL-cholesterol does not “cause” heart disease is akin to “flat earthism” and “in the same realm as claiming that smoking does not cause lung cancer.”