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

This kind of debate is why I say defamation is incredibly complex. What I understand about it is that I know very little. But I know enough to know that it’s complex, requires specialist legal advice and is costly. It’s absolutely a quagmire and not something a lay person should attempt.
 
Yann04 said:
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.

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
Click to expand...
Just a concept. There is no law. The law is defamation.

In any case I’m not discussing it further because it’s a pointless exercise for a non-lawyer.

Anyone wishing to take such a case can seek proper legal advice.
 
I’m not particularly interested in the legal particularities. Just that there seems to be a useful concept that includes frivolous lawsuits as a tool of silencing through the threat of long legal cases (ie. high fees).

I think that concept is useful for us to recognise if there is a pattern of the Psychosomatisers doing it, so we can begin to properly characterise and document that.

Sorry I don’t mean this to be a debate I’m just a bit confused as to the point you were making.
 
Yann04 said:
I’m not particularly interested in the legal particularities. Just that there seems to be a useful concept that includes frivolous lawsuits as a tool of silencing through the threat of long legal cases (ie. high fees).

I think that concept is useful for us to recognise if there is a pattern of the Psychosomatisers doing it, so we can begin to properly characterise and document that.

Sorry I don’t mean this to be a debate I’m just a bit confused as to the point you were making.
Click to expand...
Point is it’s not enforceable.
The first test is would you win defamation? I already write about that.

Second test is would invoking SLAPP in the UK result in any action? No, there aren’t any laws or legislation relating to SLAPP in the UK. Parliament has never drafted any and there’s a lack of case law. It would be different in the USA though.
 
MrMagoo said:
Point is it’s not enforceable.
The first test is would you win defamation? I already write about that.
Second test is would invoking SLAPP result in any action? No
Click to expand...
Oh I agree. Its not a law as such. If it was a law the concept probably wouldnt need to exist. I’m just more interested in having a name for this silencing behaviour Wessely used.

Im absolutely clueless as to fignting it I think I should be the last person consulted on that front.

More interested in documenting it and perhaps using it politically to show the repression we’ve faced,
 
Yann04 said:
Oh I agree. Its not a law as such. If it was a law the concept probably wouldnt need to exist. I’m just more interested in having a name for this silencing behaviour Wessely used.

Im absolutely clueless as to fignting it I think I should be the last person consulted on that front.

More interested in documenting it and perhaps using it politically to show the repression we’ve faced,
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t risk defaming him by suggesting it meets SLAPP unless you’re legally advised.

People on the internet throw about accusations of things like defamation in the casual conversational meaning all the time, it’s very frustrating. Instead of confusing the matters using legal terms with legal definitions, it would be easier if they just described the behaviour.

Rather than “this is SLAPP“ you could just say “I think he uses the implied threat of a costly legal fight to get people to withdraw criticism”

I suppose my point is you’re trying to invoke something somewhat inappropriately because you don’t have a full appraisal of what it is, in any case it’s not necessary.
 
MrMagoo said:
I wouldn’t risk defaming him by suggesting it meets SLAPP unless you’re legally advised.

People on the internet throw about accusations of things like defamation in the casual conversational meaning all the time, it’s very frustrating. Instead of confusing the matters using legal terms with legal definitions, it would be easier if they just described the behaviour.

Rather than “this is SLAPP“ you could just say “I think he uses the implied threat of a costly legal fight to get people to withdraw criticism”
Click to expand...
But thats exactly what SLAPP means? I’m not in the UK anyways?

I just personally like to learn terms for things if they exist because it helps me conceptualise and name things easier even if its just for my inner memory ahah.

I assumed I should share the concept on the thread incase others are like me in that sense but perhaps not ahah.
 
Yann04 said:
But thats exactly what SLAPP means? I’m not in the UK anyways?

I just personally like to learn terms for things if they exist because it helps me conceptualise and name things easier even if its just for my inner memory ahah.

I assumed I should share the concept on the thread incase others are like me in that sense but perhaps not ahah.
Click to expand...
But Simon Wessley is
 
There is no doubt whatsoever that he is using the threat of lawsuits in an attempt to silence critics. That is just a matter of fact.

If the lawsuit is baseless depends on what was written by the author, but defamation requires that the statements are untrue and we know there is a lot to pick from that would place him in a very unflattering light.

It also means that pointing out that he is using lawsuits for that purpose can’t be defamation.
 
Felis Catus said:
Long COVID Advocacy substack has a post by a guest writer, Dr Elke Hausmann (I don't know anything about them): https://longcovidadvocacy.substack.com/p/these-are-not-verifiable-conditions

Looks like Elke tried to write a balanced post and started with positives but ran out of them quickly.
Click to expand...
I thought that commentary by Dr Elke Hausmann on the book Invisible Illness was excellent and well worth a read.

Skimming this thread, it looks as if there are two issues:
1. Mendenhall suffering censorship by Wessely for a journal article that criticised him (and PACE?), and
2. Mendenhall contributing to the confusion about psychosomaticism in her book (i.e. promoting the ideas that stress is a contributor to the onset and perpetuation of chronic complex diseases, and things like meditation and CBT as effective treatments).

It's a bit confusing, I haven't read enough first hand to understand things well. I think this might be a case that illustrates how chronically complex the politics around 'chronic complex diseases' is.
 
Diane O´Leary says in a comment that she had a similar experience:

quote:

I had a similar encounter with Wessley, who was selected as a reviewer for an article on ME/CFS I submitted to Journal of Medical Ethics. Reviewers messed with that thing for a full year! Finally we got it into a form that everyone was excited about - even Wessley - but he had raised some serious legal concerns along the way.

open.substack.com

Diane O’Leary on Long Covid: An Anthropological Perspective

I had a similar encounter with Wessley, who was selected as a reviewer for an article on ME/CFS I submitted to Journal of Medical Ethics. Reviewers messed with that thing for a full year! Finally we got it into a form that everyone was excited about - even Wessley - but he had raised some...
open.substack.com open.substack.com
 
Excellent analysis and summary from Long Covid Advocacy. I hope it's ok to share a long quite:

Wessely, Mendenhall and the Reproduction of Medical Power

quote:

It is important to note that Invisible Illness has an admirable aim: to challenge the ways medicine dismisses, marginalises, and gaslights people with chronic, poorly understood conditions. Mendenhall positions herself as an ally and has been open to critique and dialogue - which is inherently valuable.

So to conclude, Mendenhall falls into three main traps:

The first is the unfalsifiable threshold framing, widening the scope through biological, psychological, and social entanglements. The book would have been an excellent addition to Long Covid literature without this framing.

Instead, she created an asymmetry: the authority of the theorist over the patient. Her interpretive narratives of a marginalised group moved into epistemic overreach. Patients became illustrations of theory rather than subjects whose accounts do not need premature closure. This is where her allyship falters.

The second is a category error as Mendenhall grouped a fluid, poorly delineated and wide range of conditions under a single holistic umbrella. Proceeding to speculate that:

there might not be one pathway that can or should explain every case. The concept of thresholds enables us to sit within the grey areas of health and disease. (Mendenhall).
Click to expand...
Patients will argue that it is precisely this grey area of medicine where we do not want to be located. In fact, it is the proclaimed favourite area of Sir Simon Wessely, which leads us to the third trap.

Mendenhall holds a position of false balance when narrating the PACE trial. Placing each side as equally valid is a false equivalence and is damaging for the ME community. Yet, we know now that this was because of the silencing technique of legal threat that Professor Simon Wessely used.

There is a way forward, though; we would encourage Mendenhall to see this as a reflexive moment, where the analyst becomes part of the study, and the power dynamics can be narrated.

longcovidadvocacy.substack.com

Wessely, Mendenhall and the Reproduction of Medical Power

How Invisible Illness Missteps on Holism, Psychologisation and Epistemic Capture
longcovidadvocacy.substack.com longcovidadvocacy.substack.com
 
I think this situation illustrates very well the huge dangers of anthropologists assuming they understand and have value to add to complicated medical situations where doctors don't agree. It's all too easy to imagine all views hold equal validity when they clearly don't to anyone with any scientific understanding.
 
Trish said:
I think this situation illustrates very well the huge dangers of anthropologists assuming they understand and have value to add to complicated medical situations where doctors don't agree. It's all too easy to imagine all views hold equal validity when they clearly don't to anyone with any scientific understanding.
Click to expand...
I agree, I think social science people getting interested can be valuable.

But they need to
(1) Understand anecdotes mean basically nothing in medicine
(2) Have the humility to realise they aren’t someone who can magically find insight to create a middleground in a deep, technical methodological schism.

So basically, stay descriptive.

And maybe listen to 17 pages of pushback by patients not just by the most powerful and controversial person in the field!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom