Judge: Mail on Sunday’s ‘Statin-Denying Doctors’ Report Was ’Seriously Misleading’

The Daily Mail flag and clock are shown outside the headquarters of British newspaper the Daily Mail in London, on Oct. 6, 2013. (Leon Neal/AFP via Getty Images)

A judgment in an ongoing libel case has found that a series of articles by The Mail on Sunday labelling three doctors and academics as “deadly statin deniers” were “seriously misleading.”

Two of the three individuals referred to 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, and will proceed with their claim following Tuesday’s ruling, which dismissed The Mail on Sunday’s defence of “public interest.”

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a GP, and obesity and food researcher Zoe Harcombe took action after the articles accused them of spreading “fake news” and causing “grave harm” through their questioning of the official consensus around statins.

The third individual named in the Mail on Sunday reports was cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who became known for questioning the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 jabs after his father died following vaccination. Dr. Malhotra is not involved in the libel action against The Mail on Sunday but welcomed the preliminary judgment on social media platform X, saying, “THIS story is NOT over.”

An investigation published by The Mail on Sunday under the headline “The Deadly Propaganda of the Statin Deniers,” referred to the public challenge by a group of doctors and researchers to established medical opinion about the efficacy and side effects of statins, which are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the UK.

ANL and Mr. Calman are defending the libel claim, with lawyers for the publication arguing that “allegations of impropriety” about the use of a statement from then-Health Secretary Matt Hancock were “unsupported by any proper evidence.”

‘An Entirely False Impression’

However, Mr. Justice Matthew Nicklin said in his 255 page judgment that “the way in which the Hancock Statement was used was seriously misleading and gave an entirely false impression of whether Mr. Hancock had criticised the three individuals (he had not).”

“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 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 was going to make serious allegations against three, named, individuals.”

The judge added, “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.”

The judge said during the seven day hearing in July 2023 that the case amounted to “the most significant piece of defamation litigation that [he has] seen in a very long time.”

Dr. Aseem Malhotra. (Courtesy of Dr. Aseem Malhotra)

‘The Clot Thickens’

Dr. Kendrick is the author of the book “The Clot Thickens,” which examines so-called “contradictions” in the official medical narrative around cholesterol; while Ms. Harcombe has published papers and books focused on diet and appeared in the media as a critic of the narratives around COVID-19 and lockdowns, as well as statins.

The judge found that the claimants’ argument that the reports were motivated by “malice” was not proven as he said he believed Mr. Calman had “approached his task honestly” and that being “mistaken” was not akin to acting maliciously.

A Mail on Sunday article, published on March 2, 2019, said that Mr. Hancock had made “a passionate intervention” and “thrown his weight behind the newspaper’s campaign to fight ‘fake’ claims about proven medicines.” The present version of this online article does not name the claimants, but the other articles naming them remain on the website.

No ‘Public Interest’ Defence

The judge found that the newspaper had failed to demonstrate it had a “public interest” defence for publishing the articles, as its lawyers had argued.

“The public interest defence 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 has found that the Defendants have failed to demonstrate that this belief was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.”

Statins are prescribed for high cholesterol and high blood pressure and are claimed to reduce the likelihood of conditions such as heart attack and stroke. Some 8 million Britons now take the drugs.

The best-selling statin is atorvastatin, also known as Lipitor, which in 2003 became the top-selling pharmaceutical in history, with manufacturer Pfizer reporting sales of $12.4 billion (£6.2 billion) in 2008.

Unusually and for legal reasons, the libel case is split into two separate trials. Now that the first trial has concluded and ANL and Mr. Calman have failed in their defence of public interest, the case will proceed to a second trial in which the remaining issues, including potential truth and honest opinion defences, will be determined.

Lawyers for the claimants, Carter Ruck, said in a statement that The Mail on Sunday had “refused to apologise or even remove or alter its articles” after the claimants complained.

Ms. Harcombe said in the statement: “I am delighted by the findings of the court today, in what is a hugely complex case. I am grateful to the Judge for his detailed and careful analysis of all of the facts and pleased that he has recognised the enormity and unfairness of the public attack on our integrity.”

Dr. Kendrick said in the statement: “I am very pleased that the Judge has found in our favour, and that he has dismissed the public interest defence. It was always our position that we had not been treated fairly by the publishers, and the Judgment sets out clearly how badly we were in fact treated.”