Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Monday 19 July 2010
What do you do, as a campaigner for libel reform, when a litigious millionaire calls you a liar? This ethical quandary was presented to me last week when twitter account of Gillian McKeith – or to give her full medical title, “Gillian McKeith” – called my book “lies”.
Now, firstly, there is little doubt that this is actionable, and probably undefendable. “Lies”, I can tell you from personal experience, is one word you can never use in England: even if you can show that someone was obviously wrong, even if you can show that they probably knew they were wrong, you still need to show that they deliberately distorted the truth, and that’s almost always impossible, without direct access to their thoughts. They might just have been mistaken, after all. Or sloppy. Or stupid.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Musical accompaniment written and performed by Doghorse.
So I have an amusingly strong case against the litigious millionaire. And I have a reasonably good reputation for honesty to defend. And although I believe libel laws stifle debate in science at great risk to public health, there’s no issue of science here.
But I’ve always believed that in most cases a simple correction, with the same prominence as the initial libel, should be sufficient. That’s why I contacted @gillianmckeith, firstly to explain that I’d be happy to debate my concerns about her work, and secondly, to make a simple request: could she please just tweet “Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is not lies”. That would be fine with me.
But by now all hell had broken loose. @gillianmckeith’s twitter feed was filled with the abuse of a random passing twitterer, and long, detailed tweets from McKeith explaining how her PhD from a non-accredited correspondence course college was entirely valid. Then they all disappeared. Then the tone shifted: instead of first person stuff about Gillian’s life, lots of third person PR tweets appeared. Then they disappeared. Then, as over 1,000 people were tweeting about her, making it the top trending topic on Twitter, @gillianmckeith announced “do you really believe this is real twitter site for the GM?”
Yes, replied the geeks. Well, the twitter account @gillianmckeith is linked to from gillianmckeith.info, explained some. Then that link was deleted. But, explained others, only half-deleted. If you look at the “source code” for the page, the link is still there, just temporarily inactivated. And that twitter account is still linked from gillianmckeith.tv, Gillian’s youtube page, and in fact her whole empire. Yes, yes we really do believe this is the real twitter site for the real Gillian McKeith. If you’re going to play silly buggers online, at least do it competently. And really, very seriously, don’t call investigative journalists liars. You never know: we might sue too.
Links:
Sorry for no images, I’m having a nice time in a field. There is an excellent account of the incompetent and integrity-torpedoing attempts to cover up for this, and records of the original embarrassing posts, at legal blog JackOfKent, and lots of other excellent blogs:
jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/07/integrity-and-honesty-of-gillianmckeith.html
I contacted Gillian McKeith last week to ask when she was posting the correction on Twitter. She has not yet replied. We shall see what happens next.
The full story of Gillian McKeith’s legal threats can be read here and here.
No dreary libel of Dr McKeith in the comments please, I’m not interested.
cat said,
July 21, 2010 at 10:28 am
@rod liddle
“She thinks you’re lying, let her have her say. She’s wrong.”
While I agree with your opinion of McKeith and would say she’s embarrassed herself enough in this instance, and agree that suing would be petty, I have to point out that she does not think Ben’s lying.
She is well aware that he isn’t.Which is why she rather noticeably has declined to specify any of his “lies”. She is, however, lying. And it’s a tad infuriating.
Andrew G said,
July 21, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Hilarious!
The ‘institution’ that gave Ms McKeith her ‘PhD’ has apparently closed. I wonder what they will do with the copy of her ‘thesis’ that they presumably hold in their library? Might be worth checking local garage sales!
Colonel_Mad said,
July 22, 2010 at 9:35 am
Keep your dignity Ben.
An asylum warder wouldn’t sue for libel if one of the inmates called them a liar.
Enjoy the moral upper hand for a while. You now have a powerful position in your relationship with her and her kind. Use it wisely to promote right over wrong.
They say nothing is black and white but it is when you’re talking about chlorophyll oxygenating human blood.
Jonathan
NorthernBoy said,
July 22, 2010 at 10:11 am
Come on now, Rod, have some integrity just once in your career, and own up when you got something so completely wrong.
People can forgive you not being very bright, and not being very nice, as neither of these qualities really matters in journalism, but being wrong quite so consistently is a bit of a bigger problem.
As others have suggested, if you want Ben to succeed in his aims of bringing some quality into science journalism, you are not doing him any favours by associating yourself with him.
outeast said,
July 22, 2010 at 12:26 pm
@Colonel_Mad
They say nothing is black and white but it is when you’re talking about chlorophyll oxygenating human blood.
That’s a claim that reads very, very oddly.
pv said,
July 22, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Oh dear. Rod Liddle doesn’t know the difference between telling someone they are wrong and calling them a liar.
Tis to be expected I suppose!
jhaaglund said,
July 22, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Are you really petty enough to sue someone over being called a liar on twitter?
I loved your book and I regularly read this blog, but this is unbelievably childish and hypocritical.
Steve August said,
July 23, 2010 at 6:21 am
On page 123 of the Fourth Estate paperback version of ‘Bad Science’, you mention Gillian McKeith’s PhD is from the Clayton College of Natural Health. Now you may have had another New Zealander or Australian point this out, but to those of us who watched television out here in the 1970s and early 1980s, there is something inadvertently very funny about this concept.
Over that time, a common TV ad was for a non-alcoholic whisky-looking drink called a ‘Clayton’s’ (or ‘Claytons’). A bloke in a bar says he doesn’t feel like a drink, he’ll have a Claytons instead. “What’s that?” “Oh, that’s the drink I have when I’m not having a drink.” It was a worthy attempt against drink-driving. I think it went down like a lead balloon.
Anyway, for those of us of that generation, it’s entered idiom. So that a ‘Clayton’s holiday’ would be one where you were actually working all the time. Or a ‘Clayton’s climbing trip’ would be one where you were hut-bound the whole time. It’s the thing you have when you’re not having the thing you intended, even though it’s got the same label.
Hence, in the same vein, the Clayton College of Natural Health would be…. the College of Natural Health you have when you’re not having a College of Natural Health. Ho ho ho. (Unless you find it was started up by Antipodeans, which would put a whole new slant on it..)
Steve August said,
July 23, 2010 at 6:23 am
Hi Ben.
I know you’ve seen this but as G. McKeith is top of the pops at the moment, I thought others might get a grin also.
Best wishes,
Steve August.
On page 123 of the Fourth Estate paperback version of ‘Bad Science’, you mention Gillian McKeith’s PhD is from the Clayton College of Natural Health. Now you may have had another New Zealander or Australian point this out, but to those of us who watched television out here in the 1970s and early 1980s, there is something inadvertently very funny about this concept.
Over that time, a common TV ad was for a non-alcoholic whisky-looking drink called a ‘Clayton’s’ (or ‘Claytons’). A bloke in a bar says he doesn’t feel like a drink, he’ll have a Claytons instead. “What’s that?” “Oh, that’s the drink I have when I’m not having a drink.” It was a worthy attempt against drink-driving. I think it went down like a lead balloon.
Anyway, for those of us of that generation, it’s entered idiom. So that a ‘Clayton’s holiday’ would be one where you were actually working all the time. Or a ‘Clayton’s climbing trip’ would be one where you were hut-bound the whole time. It’s the thing you have when you’re not having the thing you intended, even though it’s got the same label.
Hence, in the same vein, the Clayton College of Natural Health would be…. the College of Natural Health you have when you’re not having a College of Natural Health. Ho ho ho. (Unless you find it was started up by Antipodeans, which would put a whole new slant on it..)
Guy said,
July 23, 2010 at 9:29 am
Outeast “That’s a claim that reads very, very oddly.”
Welcome to the whacky nonsense world of McKeith pseudo-science.
Guy said,
July 23, 2010 at 9:33 am
Posted on Skepdic
21 July 2010. According to Consumer Health Digest, Clayton College of Natural Health (CCNH), a diploma mill notorious for selling health-related “degrees,” is shutting down. The non-accredited correspondence school boasts such “graduates” as Jillian McKeith and Hulda Clark. Future “nutritionists” or “naturopaths” looking for a quick degree to impress the unsuspecting need not worry. The folks at Clayton claim that the recession has been bad for business, but the stagnant economy has not deterred the folks at a place called the Institute for Integrative Nutrition (IIN). They’ve taken out an ad on Google for “Clayton College” searches, with the heading Clayton College Closed. Clicking on the link takes you to an IIN page where you are told that a “limited number” of partial tuition scholarships are available to students “enrolled” at Clayton College. IIN promises:
We can help you stay on track and become a certified Health Coach with a deep knowledge of holistic nutrition and wellness.
A certified “health coach”? Whatever it is, you can start practicing midway through the program, which is delivered on a “gorgeous red iPod completely customized with the course materials including, video, audio, lectures from world-renowned experts, and more.”
End of quote – So good news if you wish to follow in Gillian’s illustrious academic footsteps. The door closed but is open again!!
T.J. Crowder said,
July 23, 2010 at 10:16 am
What, still no response from Ms. McKeith?
skyesteve said,
July 23, 2010 at 10:16 am
@jhaaglund – I think you are missing the point. Whilst I fully respect Ben’s approach here (and he is probably taking the right line) the decision to sue would not be about petty vindictiveness. GMcK didn’t just call Ben a liar in a playground kind of way – the Twitter feed specically accused Ben of writing lies in his book about GMcK. Some of us see this as the perfect chance to get the lady to stand up in a public court of law and prove that what Ben has written is lies. That’s the point because in that court her reputation would stand or fall.
bjc said,
July 23, 2010 at 11:07 am
Apologies for being a little off topic but this has potential for annoying you more!
www.familynutritioninpractice.com/
was interviewed on BBC 5Live Drive yesterday to comment on a study looking at the relationship between meat consumption and weight gain.
A nutritional therapist commenting on real scientific research of all things!
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00t4n7c
Go to 1hr 53 mins into the show (1:53.15) for a wondeful description of how food provides calories and how acidic meat unbalances your body.
The study for reference:
Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592131?dopt=Abstract
bjc said,
July 23, 2010 at 11:14 am
Further apologies for bad linking..
It’s Maria Griffiths from www.familynutritioninpractice.com/
JMS said,
July 23, 2010 at 3:22 pm
@bjc Off topic certainly, but stunning. Do you think that the nutritionist even read the abstract of the paper she was invited to comment on? I must admit that’s all I’ve read, I’m not a biologist so I probably wouldn’t get much more from the paper than I would from the abstract. Anyway as far as I can tell she failed on the first question. Is it all meat or just some kinds? According to the paper’s abstract no distinction was made between calories from red meat or poultry. So according to this research the answer is presumably – don’t know. She seemed to be suggesting that she had undertaken her own research, did the Imperial college paper cite her work?
She also suggested that the reason why eating meat should make you fatter had to do with the calories in the meat. The abstract of the paper says that total calorific intake was controlled for, I take this to mean that the calories in the meat cannot be the explanation for the weight gain observed.
Finally, we are alkali and meat is acid apparently. I thought we were essentially meat, does being dead make that much of a difference? I seem to remember from O-level biology (yes I am that old) that the stomach is full of concentrated acid, my guess is this is much more acidic than any meat, so what is she talking about?
jhaaglund said,
July 23, 2010 at 4:01 pm
@skyesteve, well as Ben Goldacre points out in the article at the top, the case would stand and fall on whether he deliberately set out to mislead, not the truth value of the claims he makes in the book.
sime said,
July 23, 2010 at 4:12 pm
And now over to Stephen Barrett, M.D. and his apply named site Quackwatch.
It would appear that Ms Gillian McKeith who is apparently “The world’s top nutritionist” and Clayton College of Natural Health have already been sussed by the good Doctor.
“Clayton College of Natural Health: Be Wary of the School and Its Graduates” … ouch!
Meaningless “Accreditation”… looking good for Ms McKeith then.
“Unscientific Teachings…” Who would have thought eh
And the good doctors final words…
The Bottom Line
CCNH does have one potentially valuable aspect. Its credentials are a reliable sign of someone not to consult for advice.
Sliced and diced…
www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Nonrecorg/clayton.html
Enjoy
skyesteve said,
July 23, 2010 at 4:38 pm
@jhaaglund – I am no lawyer but I thought libel was about reputation not intention. If someone claims that what Ben wrote in his book amounts to lying then the ramifications of that, given that much of what is in the book has been published or said in some form or anotehr elsewhere (e.g. The Guardian, on Tv and radio, etc.), is that his lying goes beyond a single book. In my “book” (no pun intended!) that amounts to a damaged reputation. As I say, I think Ben has taken the right approach in this instance (more’s the pity) but if he did decide to sue I can’t for the life of me see how his action could be described as “petty, childish and hypocritical”.
bjc said,
July 23, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I’ve realised the error of my ways and will post other off-topic remarks on the forum.
With regard to McTweet-gate, I think the heat has got to be kept up, as there is the chance that a well publicised apology or if it’s the only way, a libel case, may then be followed by a debate/recognition in the media that people such as McKieth and Griffiths are not to be continually referred to – to give out “expert” advice to a public who assume that this is bona fide nutritional info from an educated source.
bladesman said,
July 29, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Funny how in the ‘Latest News’ section of Ms McKeith’s official website they proudly announce a “Great editorial feature in the MAIL on SUNDAY (13th June 2010), one of the UK’s highest circulation newspapers” but nothing about her alleged twitter comments…….
Guess humble pie isn’t that nutritious?
Antares said,
August 3, 2010 at 1:23 pm
@JMS: That whole “teh acids will murders you” is a typical alt-med thing. It is practically a mile-wide exaggeration of actual metabolic acidosis, combined with utter misunderstanding of pH and the acid-base balance.
You can read a few claims here (Caution, woo site)
gaia-health.com/articles201/000225-acidosis-the-cure.shtml
and a respectfully insolent takedown here
scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/09/your_friday_dose_of_woo_acid_base_or_woo_1.php
starbuck said,
August 6, 2010 at 7:01 am
She is an idiot. Sue me.
jjad said,
August 20, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I can’t wait for the “Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is not lies” T-shirts! Keep the pressure on: it was a silly claim to make and could be quickly retracted with such an apology. Not apologising is, in effect, maintaining that the author of the tweets still believes the book to be “lies”.
I note that the ‘Gillian McKeith Official Website’ (gillianmckeith.info/) still has the link to the originating twitter site (twitter.com/gillianmckeith), albeit hidden, in the source code.
T.J. Crowder said,
August 22, 2010 at 11:55 am
So here we are, a month later, is anything happening on this front?
wardin said,
August 27, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Has anyone seen this twitter account? Seems like that slipped through the cracks, oh Gilly.
> twitter.com/gillian_mckeith
Let the real Gillian McKeith stand up?
Cheers
wardin said,
August 27, 2010 at 11:48 pm
In case it ‘disappears’ I have a screenshot available here:
imgur.com/38kB6.png
wardin said,
August 27, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Never mind that seems to have been old news : )
Synsei said,
September 26, 2011 at 11:40 pm
Off topic but it’s my first visit on this blog and I wanted to say how awesome I find it. Though I listen to a lot of skeptics podcast, I never found this one before.
I wish we could have a bigger and more active skeptics movement in France, where I live, and some people like Ben, Simon Singh, the guys from Skeptic Zone, Skepticality, Skeptics guide… Keep up the good work!
09philj said,
June 17, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Your story about getting your dead cat the same membership as Gillian McKeith was so funny I became hysterical with laughter.
RKC said,
October 7, 2013 at 4:26 am
I trolled Gillian McKeith and I’m 12. Her email seems to be info@mckeithresearch.com