Invisible Illness A History, from Hysteria to Long Covid, 2026, Mendenhall (book)

Trish said:
I wonder whether an FOI to Wessely's university would enable someone to access his 17 page 'review'.
Click to expand...

I would love to get my hands on that of course. if it's anything like the "response" to my initial trial by error series from the PACE team, which was published and then rebutted on Virology Blog, it would be a complete nonsense and easy to point that out.
 
Utsikt said:
Wow, I googled it and found one news article saying that cost in UK might be 100 times higher than elsewhere in Europe. Please excuse my ignorance then!

Although that means that it would be equally expensive for Wessely, and I can’t find any mention of him actually going through with one.
Click to expand...
It’s crazy here, right?
As I say it’s the threat which is enough that you wouldn't chance it. Your legal team would not advise you to “fight” entirely on the basis of cost, not on the basis of your chances of winning. In many cases, your legal insurance wouldn’t support it very far, they’d probably settle (or ditch you if you wouldn’t settle).
UK Defamation is really a “wallet waving” exercise. That’s also why you hear a lot of cases between newspapers and royals/big stars (only they have deep enough pockets).
 
Last edited:
MrMagoo said:
It’s crazy here, right?
As I say it’s the threat which is enough that you wouldn't chance it. Your legal team would not advise you to “fight” entirely on the basis of cost, not on the basis of your chances of winning. In many cases, your legal insurance wouldn’t support it very far, they’d probably settle (or ditch you if you wouldn’t settle).
UK Defamation is really a “wallet waving” exercise. That’s also why you hear a lot of cases between newspapers and royals/big stars (only they have deep enough pockets).
Click to expand...
By the way there is a term/concept for this which might be useful for us.

SLAPP — Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
Click to expand...

From wikipedia

Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Utsikt said:
This government page says that peer reviewed acadmic publishing is protected in the defamation act of 2013.
www.gov.uk

Defamation laws take effect

Libel laws in England and Wales are being significantly reformed from tomorrow to provide clearer, better protection for people publicly expressing opinions.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Click to expand...
Anyone think it would be worth writing to the journal, diplomatically pointing out that their cowardice is a clear breach of academic freedom? They can't not understand that this is wrong.
 
MrMagoo said:
It’s crazy here, right?
As I say it’s the threat which is enough that you wouldn't chance it. Your legal team would not advise you to “fight” entirely on the basis of cost, not on the basis of your chances of winning. In many cases, your legal insurance wouldn’t support it very far, they’d probably settle (or ditch you if you wouldn’t settle).
UK Defamation is really a “wallet waving” exercise. That’s also why you hear a lot of cases between newspapers and royals/big stars (only they have deep enough pockets).
Click to expand...
One odd thing here, since defamation is a personal grievance, wouldn't Wessely have to cover the costs himself? It would make no sense for an institution to pay for personal grievances, especially in a context that is literally protected by academic freedom. Even the book, though not published in an academic journal, deserves that protection as well.

This is honestly an extreme attack on freedom of thought and expression, on academic expression and so many other issues. There is simply no defence for anyone abusing their influence this way, everyone should be offended by this. But of course he has been doing that successfully for decades, and hardly anyone seems bothered by it. A system that rewards bullies. A health care system that promotes bullies and their bullying. What an absurd species we are.
 
rvallee said:
One odd thing here, since defamation is a personal grievance, wouldn't Wessely have to cover the costs himself? It would make no sense for an institution to pay for personal grievances, especially in a context that is literally protected by academic freedom. Even the book, though not published in an academic journal, deserves that protection as well.

This is honestly an extreme attack on freedom of thought and expression, on academic expression and so many other issues. There is simply no defence for anyone abusing their influence this way, everyone should be offended by this. But of course he has been doing that successfully for decades, and hardly anyone seems bothered by it. A system that rewards bullies. A health care system that promotes bullies and their bullying. What an absurd species we are.
Click to expand...
So my knowledge of Defamation (more libel than slander) comes from a media perspective, I really don’t have enough knowledge of the subject to answer your question - but it’s a great question and I’d like to know the answer.
My guesses would be the institutions involved in previous publication/research referred to may see it as defamation and want to defend their name too. I can imagine it wouldn’t just be his “personal” crusade because he rarely acts as a private citizen in these matters, it’s as an expert of x institute/professional body/hospital etc.
Secondly he probably does have the means to engage a top level lawyer to fire off some letters, if his initial bluster doesn’t work.
Thirdly, he will have professional supporters who also may be willing to bankroll any claim.

It would be interesting to see how far he would push it; I can’t see any scientific journal wanting to “poke the bear” because he’s a powerful figure so why would you invite his ire?

ETA defamation isn’t only personal and in this case it wouldn’t be criticism of his personality or personal conduct (it wouldn’t say “he pinches people under the deal and whispers mean things to junior researchers” it’s criticism of his research/work.
 
Last edited:
Trish said:
This is the most shocking part of Emily Mildenhall's article:
https://emilymendenhall.substack.com/p/bluesky-blowup?r=58lot&triedRedirect=true
Click to expand...
I probably don't need to say this but this is the kind of evidence that needs to be collected and preserved: a senior professional deliberately using their influence to suppress legitimate criticism of their work. There are a lot of examples of SW and other BPS eminents doing this and I think more will come to light once he is no longer in power.

I believe he and others have also used this influence to stop biomedical research into ME/CFS. Perhaps we would be further on if not for that.

And someone ranty attempted to neuter the NICE guidelines in a similar way.

This is important historically. But it may also be important in other ways too in the future.
 
V.R.T. said:
I probably don't need to say this but this is the kind of evidence that needs to be collected and preserved: a senior professional deliberately using their influence to suppress legitimate criticism of their work. There are a lot of examples of SW and other BPS eminents doing this and I think more will come to light once he is no longer in power.

I believe he and others have also used this influence to stop biomedical research into ME/CFS. Perhaps we would be further on if not for that.

And someone ranty attempted to neuter the NICE guidelines in a similar way.

This is important historically. But it may also be important in other ways too in the future.
Click to expand...
you have to laugh though.........remember this?

Online activists are silencing us, scientists say​

 
MrMagoo said:
It can bankrupt you defending the claim - that’s the real threat. It’s famously expensive, a notoriously complex area of law and therefore frequently very lengthy.
The truth is an absolute defence to defamation, but you still have to spend years and money arguing. It doesn’t mean you will win or it will be thrown out because what you said is true.
Click to expand...
I have the film 'Denial', staring Timothy Spall.... about an author being sued for libel. It's a real lesson on the libel law, both here and in America.

en.wikipedia.org

Denial (2016 film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
MrMagoo said:
It can bankrupt you defending the claim - that’s the real threat. It’s famously expensive, a notoriously complex area of law and therefore frequently very lengthy.
The truth is an absolute defence to defamation, but you still have to spend years and money arguing. It doesn’t mean you will win or it will be thrown out because what you said is true.
Click to expand...
 
Yann04 said:
I’m not sure where you got that impression?

The article has a UK section where it talks about SLAPP in the UK?

Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


You’ve quoted the section on juristrictional variations, the UK is listed there because it has different laws, specifically Defamation is cited.

The Introdution section talks about court cases in Denver? And the First Amendment of the US constitution.

You may wish to state that something meets the test of being “SLAPP” but I don’t see how that helps? The UK never drafted any specific legislation so it remains a concept rather than a part of the legal landscape
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5081.png
    IMG_5081.png
    659.5 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
MrMagoo said:
You’ve quoted the section on juristrictional variations, the UK is listed there because it has different laws, specifically Defamation is cited.

The Introdution section talks about court cases in Denver? And the First Amendment of the US constitution.

You may wish to stats that something meets the test of being “SLAPP” but I don’t see how that helps? The UK never drafted any specific legislation so it remains a concept rather than a part of the legal landscape
Click to expand...
I’m not exactly sure I understand? Wikipedia is generally written from a Us centric perspective.

But SLAPP seems a specific concept intended to describe the behaviour of suing to silence criticisms by threatening long legal battles.

I think it’s agnostic as to the specific legal particularities/system.

Hence the sections saying there is anti-SLAPP activism in the UK and EU. That seems to imply its a concept that can be used throughout legal systems
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom