MAIL ON SUNDAY FORCED TO APOLOGISE FOR DEFAMATION OF TWO DOCTORS

"We accept that these allegations are untrue and ought not to have been published"

TODAY we are re-publishing a story that first appeared in The Conservative Woman about two doctors who won a defamation case against The Mail on Sunday.

By Sally Beck

TWO doctors have won ‘the most significant piece of defamation litigation’ a judge has seen in the British High Court for a very long time. Dr Zoë Harcombe and Dr Malcolm Kendrick launched libel proceedings against The Mail on Sunday after they became targets of a ‘medical misinformation’ hit-piece accusing them of peddling ‘deadly propaganda’, which the judge ruled was itself misinformation.

Mr Justice Nicklin said: ‘There is perhaps a palpable irony in the fact the defendants, in articles that so roundly denounced those alleged to be the purveyors of misinformation, so seriously misinformed their own readers.’

Retired GP Dr Kendrick said: ‘The ferocity of the accusations was at the extreme end. Accused of being a venal and pernicious liar, whose actions had killed thousands, was devastating. I am a doctor, and I have always wanted to help people.’

The case illustrates how cancel culture has taken hold and how journalists try to discredit qualified health professionals who dare to challenge the official narrative. It used to be a source of pride that journalists interrogated the actions of those dictating to us, but no longer, it seems.

In March 2019, The Mail on Sunday, published by Associated Newspapers Ltd, launched a campaign to root out ‘medical misinformation and disinformation’. A five-page article in their Good Health supplement focused on endorsing statin drugs that are prescribed by doctors to reduce cholesterol.

The gist was that medics who do not agree statins are wonder drugs are idiots putting patients at risk of certain death. The article was adamant that statins prevent heart disease and glossed over the possibility of harsh side effects and the latest evidence that cholesterol is good rather than bad.

Health and nutritional science expert Dr Harcombe told the paper at the time: “I have examined the entire data provided by the World Health Organisation and found that higher cholesterol is associated with lower deaths from heart disease and all-causes, in men and women, for all 192 countries in the world.”

The Mail on Sunday disagreed and their headline suggested that questioning statin efficacy could be fatal. It read: ‘The deadly propaganda of the statin deniers’. Written by Good Health editor Barney Calman, the feature accused Dr Harcombe, author of the best-selling book Stop Counting Calories & Start Losing Weight, and Dr Kendrick, who has an interest in heart disease and is author of The Great Cholesterol Con, of making false statements about statins.

Cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra was attacked too, although he did not join the libel suit. The article also suggested that by discussing the alternative statin narrative the doctors knowingly made false claims, were simply motivated by money and stood to cash in.

The feature failed to mention the vast sums Big Pharma receive from statins – around £11.5billion a year, predicted to rise to £27bn by 2030. Every year, the NHS spends £100m on statins, issuing 70million prescriptions.

When it comes to anything medical, comparing doctors to the unfairly maligned Dr Andy Wakefield – who first researched a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, after parents associated the jab with the neurological condition and bowel disease – is damning. It was a big scandal at the end of the 1990s with Dr Wakefield the first doctor to be cancelled for challenging a narrative and subsequently blamed for a global drop in MMR vaccine uptake.

Yet the paper did not hesitate. They explained in their apology: “At trial, the court held that our articles had accused Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick of knowingly making false statements about statins and that a very large number of people ceased to take statin medication and were exposed to serious risk of heart attack or stroke on a scale worse than the MMR vaccine scandal as a result of those false statements.”

The 2019 article also included quotes from Matt Hancock, who was Health Secretary at the time, which suggested he had said that the doctors’ statements were ‘pernicious lies’. The apology said: “We accept the findings of the court that the inclusion of the Hancock quote created a misleading impression of what he said. We also accept that these allegations are untrue and ought not to have been published.”

The attack was so vicious it could have permanently affected the doctors’ careers. Dr Kendrick said: “Of course I was in fear for my livelihood. The GMC could have stepped in at any time to remove my licence to practise.”

Apologies in national newspapers are rare and hard won, as are libel cases which can seldom be fought by the plaintiffs for less than a five-figure sum. Generally, the defendants will spend double and cases can run into millions. Most apologies are just a few lines buried somewhere towards the ‘back of the book’ – ‘book’ being a description used in newsrooms to describe a newspaper, but The Mail on Sunday’s was 244 words, over four paragraphs, printed on page three of the health section last Sunday.

It took over five years and nerves of steel, for Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick to win their case and apology. The articles have been removed online and the paper has also agreed to pay for the mistake.

The Mail on Sunday apology states: ‘We are happy to set the record straight and apologise to Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick for the distress caused. We will not repeat the allegations and have agreed to pay substantial damages and costs.’

Top libel lawyers Carter-Ruck are used to fighting and winning libel cases against national newspapers and broadcasters, including the Times and the BBC. They represented Dr Harcombe and Dr Kendrick, with barristers from the firm 5RB.

Dr Harcombe tweeted: ‘I’m delighted it’s finally over. Five-and-a-half years after the articles were published, they are down and an apology has been made.’

Dr Kendrick added: ‘The judgement was a relief and a vindication. I hope to move forward with exposing the corruption that lies beneath.’