But TSP carefully doesn’t make any medical claims. The legal team will have been all over it, from the initial scene of the diagnosis where TW represents the consultant as saying it’s not a firm diagnosis because it can only be confirmed at autopsy to check it’s not making claims beyond ‘walking seems to have improved Moth’s condition, it’s not clear why’. (Just talking about TSP here, not what sounds like much larger scale claims about brain scans in LL.)
Again, many readers clearly think TSP did make medical claims, and again, I’m not minimising for a moment their experience, and particularly not the distress of readers suffering from disabling neurological conditions or their families, but the book holds back from making explicit claims and there’s a very clear disclaimer which says that (1) ‘the author has stated to the publisher that ‘the contents of this book are true’, except insofar as details have been changed to protect others’ privacy, (ie, we are not claiming the contents of this book are true, only that the author has signed a contract saying they are) and that (2) ‘any medical information in this book is based on the author’s person experience and should not be relied on as a substitute for professional advice.’
Finally, ‘the author and publishers disclaim, as far as the law allows, any liability arising directly or indirectly, from the use, or misuse, of any information contained in this book.’
Basically, the legal responsibility for whether this book is true is on the author, not her publisher, no one should think Moth’s improvement is a claim that other people would benefit from long-distance walking, and if you have a degenerative condition, try to walk a LD trail and deteriorate or die, the author and publisher disclaim any responsibility in law.’