From:
justinreilly@hotmail.com
To:
tdelamothe@bmj.com
CC:
fgodlee@bmj.com;
jsmith@bmj.com
Subject: RE: your response BMJ - Let's proceed with nonesnee
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:28:22 -0700
Dear Mr. Delamonte,
Thank you for printing my comments on BMJ.com.
I am a lawyer and I don't know anything to suggest that "Magical Medicine" is defamatory. To be defamatory, at least in the USA, a statement must have a proveable substantive false statement of fact which will hurt someone's reputation. In the case where the statement is made by someone who has entered the 'public arena' as Prof. Wessely has, it must also be shown that the writer knew the statement was false. I do not know the specifics of the British law on defamation, but it is probably almost identical (with the possible exception of the 'public arena' requirement- I just don't know), as American law is based entirely on British common law.
I have only read about 125 pages so far, but nothing has struck me as a false statement of fact. Merely voicing a 'nasty' opinion or including facts that put Dr. Wessely in a bad light are clearly not defamatory.
Can you please show me what was defamatory in "Magical Medicine." I want to know the full truth about the Wessely school approach to ME/CFIDS and this would further that end. If you cannot show me that "Magical Medicine" is defamatory, I of course wish my comments to be published in their entirety. Thank you.
After writing the above, I have read the article in this weeks BML on libel. It seems that the law does differ in the details, but the larger ideas are roughly the same. A curiousity is that the defendant (not plaintiff) has the burden of proof of showing everything is truthful. This seems very unwise.
Since this is the British law, I can see why you would not want a link to "Magical Medicine." But if that is the case, I am sure that you should take down much of Wessely's writings from your site, since he skates very close to defamation, and perhaps sometimes goes over the line, on a regular basis.
Things like saying that the WPI cohort was entirely from the Tahoe outbreak, when it was published on the WPI website that a quarter came from Peterson's practice and the rest from around the country; that most "CFS" researchers found the XMRV- 'CFS' link implausible; that 'CFS' patients are somaticizing, suffering from false illness beliefs, 'augmenting' symptoms, even defining CFS by the Oxford Definition may be libel.
Sincerely,
Justin Reilly, esq.
Boulder, CO 80302