Thread 18: To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?

[DisappointedReader]

Hello all. I've simplified the opening post as I don't think we need to keep reposting all the links, timelines and so on at this stage of proceedings.

The Observer's original exposé: The real Salt Path: how a blockbuster book and film were ...
First thread: To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film? | Mumsnet
Links to threads 2-16, the other 20 Observer articles and videos to date, Raynor Winn/Sally Walker's statement, our timeline and sources can all be accessed in the OP and first few posts of Thread 17: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5403285-thread-17-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

New posters joining us in the genuine spirit of our civil discourse are welcome. It would be helpful to get the background from at least some of the Observer exposé items before posting.
To all - Please be extremely cautious when it comes to naming or implicating people and addresses not in the public eye or with no direct connection to the story, and around the understandable health speculations, especially where details are unclear or still emerging. Remember, even Hollywood rabbits attract the odd flea. Please do not engage with drive-by scolders who seem to have their own agenda and seek to derail. Avoid @'ing and quoting them as - from experience - this will only encourage them back to the threads. We have done amazingly well together for 17 very interesting, very serious and very silly threads so far. I can't be here as much as I'd like so all help with keeping our discussion walking along in our usual reasonable and respectful fashion is very welcome.

Now three months in, if these threads could wear slogan t-shirts they would be Mark Twain's often misquoted 'The report of my death was an exaggeration'. Applications in writing from correspondents seeking supply parcels of fudge and cider will be tolerated.

Here we are again
Disappointed as can be
All good pals and jolly good company
Strolling round the path
Happy on a spree
All good pals and jolly good company

Never mind the weather, never mind the rain
Now that we're together, whoops we go again!
Whoops, we go again
La-di-da-di-da, la-di-da-di-dee
All good pals and jolly good company

Keep to the path. No saltiness. May the fudge and cider be with you.

Thanks @Freshsocks. Is it the case that any medic doing the reporting would have to be 100% about a diagnosis (or lack of such) before they can report? What would constitute misuse and how could it be proved? There seem enough people falsely claiming eg cancer (far less difficult to disprove than BCD) and starting go fund mes but I don't recall any doctor coming out and saying publically they are lying.

The whole Timoth health thing is so confused and confusing that I wonder if even the doctor who wrote the letters would be 100% confident to say "well, we don't believe he was that ill in 2013". I know NHS computer systems are not great at being joined up and who knows what the consultants were told.

It seems a right minefield, all round. Just my thoughts and really want to see thar documentary! Is it December yet?!

If he does, then he's a medical mystery.

Well @Uricon2, my thinking is that the consultant neurologist, knows who TM is, he gave permission for his diagnosis to be published by Salray, so he knows who TW is and what has been claimed, that he gave a diagnosis in 2013, he knows he gave that diagnosis in 2015. So he knows that it has been miss represented in print, in order for Raynor Winn to make a lot of money, profit. Even if he was unaware until this exposé, he knows now. He knows they have profited from miss representation of a diagnosis he gave, for profit.

As to medical claims and such, morally someone should say something, to counter miss information at the least. I hope this documentary is going to answer these questions for us.

Sorry @Uricon2 just read my last post, I am getting tired, you have probably gone to bed :) I realise I didn't really answer your question. I think in this particular case, the consultant didn't know until some point after the book was published, that the diagnosis had been retrofitted. At the point they did become aware, even if this was when Salray approached them for her rebuttal, they would then have known their 2015 diagnosis had been retrofitted (unless they didn't read the book, or know anything about what had been claimed) At this point they should have realised that Raymoth had profited from this book, which sold largely on the basis of the diagnosis and portrayal of Moth suffering from a terminal condition.

Confidentiality for a patient exists, but if a doctor or consultant is faced with this kind of situation, a patient is not allowed to use a diagnosis in order to profit, they should take advice from their supervisor or regulatory body. It is not a consultants fault, if someone says they have been given a diagnosis of cancer then tries to get money, as you suggest, it's only if the doctor or consultant becomes aware, that they have a duty to report it, to their supervisor or regulatory body.

In straight forward cases of when a clinician should report, for instance, a patient is given a diagnosis of epilepsy and is told not to drive but continues to drive, putting others lives at risk. If the doctor/consultant becomes aware that the patient is still driving, they have to report the patient to DVLA or the police, they can do this with the support of their supervisor or regulatory authority. If they don't and people are hurt the doctor/consultant could be in court explaining why they didn't report them to prevent harm to the public.

In the Raymoth case, the consultant knows his diagnosis has been retrofitted, and that it has been used for profit, he cannot deny that he knows, It is not his fault that Raymoth did that, but when he became aware, whenever it was, he should have gone to his supervisor or regulatory authority to alert them so as not to be implicated.

We don't know if this consultant has now reported the matter, they have allowed the 2015 diagnosis to be posted on Salray's website. I wonder if the consultant in question has thought about why his patient Timothy Walker, who he knows one hundred percent is Moth Winn, didn't tell him about the 630 mile walk, when he was giving his medical history at the first neurological consultation in 2015. Surely he must have thought about this since he became aware of the book and Raymoth's true identity, whenever that was. The fact that the consultant's letters have been shown to the public, now requires answers for the public, otherwise this consultant could be seen as condoning this patient retrofitting their diagnosis for profit.

I just checked and I can still see it, @izzywizzyletsgetbizzywynthomas…

Fascinating information, thank you. We were asking (threads ago!) why his doctor wasn’t presenting the truth - or indeed why Moth wasn’t being hailed as a medical marvel and the conclusion we came to at the time was simply that it would break the patient and doctor confidentiality. However, it seems that they have a duty of care to tell the truth in this instance because the Walkers have definitely misrepresented his diagnosis. Thank you so much for this @Freshsocks @Uricon2

Is she on Facebook, X?

Is the RW SM feed regularly updated? I don’t use any SM at all but do have a very dusty Facebook account.

The article below has been shared before. It is concise and clear, to those of us who do not know about neurological disorders, but far superior to other articles that were published. I find it very helpful re: the medical disorder especially concerning "brain pathways".

Why 'Salt Path' brain disease CBD can be so hard to diagnose

But she’s also put the consultant’s actual correspondence out in public (she says in her statement that this was ‘on the advice of TW’s neurologist’), so that his actual words can be read — therefore it’s clear that the actual diagnosis is both more tentative and referencing an atypical form of the (possible) condition than the misrepresentations made of it in her books. I assume he feels his responsibility ends there

Yes, that’s true. That was certainly enough for him to have been dropped by the charity and to have his videos withdrawn. Of course SW can’t understand this or the backlash.

It was certainly an odd, short-sighted decision to put the medical correspondence out there in the statement, apparently under the impression that this was a ‘magic piece of paper’ on which the mere mention of CBD/CBS would be an immediate ‘gotcha’, rather not recognising that the dates and the very tentative actual diagnosis do far more to support CH’s version of events than SW’s.

Yes, I think they had not come under such thorough scrutiny before. She did, for a while, by her employer and the police but they borrowed the money and moved on. I feel that is what they have always done (we do not have the evidence to go further back) when someone finds them out about something - not doing any work, expertise, lying, stealing, they set out on a different tack.

Thanks so much @KettleSmocks for the very clear explanation. I knew about the obligation to report to DVLA (and one or two doctors who have shown reluctance to do so, at times) but didn't realise that responsibility extended to people profiting from incorrect representations of illness. I really don't think that Moth's consultants could believably say that they didn't realise he was Tim Walker and question how the diagnosis had been presented in book and on film at this stage post scandal.

The nephew who posted on LI that his uncle and aunt were pathological liars who perennially leave a trail of destruction in their wake wasn't far wrong!

The list of people they have stolen from or misrepresented include:

• those who entered the Gangani Prize draw under the misapprehension that the house was mortgage free
• the organisers of the Christopher Bland RSL Prize (probably)
• Martin Hemmings
• two garage owners in Pwilheli
• the French Gvt (unpaid taxes on their house in the village de Dropt)
• the neurologist Rhys Davies
• Pwilheli Social Care services
• Cooper (childhood friend)
• the creditors of Cooper's failed business who took over the outstanding £100k debt
• the lady who ran the Angels experience at Glastonbury
• the three ladies in the library at Combe Martin who "mistook" Moth for SA
• the cafe owner at Mullion Cove
• the shop owner at Rock (where they nicked the fudge bars)
• Lee Abbey
• the squaddies they mat at Braunton sands who gave them a lift
• the organisers of the pheasant shoot at Clovelly
• the Liverpudlian and his dog 'Buster' at Gillan Creek
• Gorran Haven (being called drunken tramps by the gull feeding couple)
• the coast guards at St Alban's Head
• the campsite attendant at Treen
• the cast of Iolanthe at the Minack
• the Parsons
• the old American lady in search of her friend John Le Carre
• the blind mystic at Culbone church
• the tortoise walker at Polruan
• the campsite owner at St Ives
• the tarot reader at St Ives
• the man with glaucoma whom they met at Lantic Bay who saw the peregrine in Sept 2013 and Sept 2014

Doubtless there were many others!

The patient is Tim Walker. There is no way that the consultant should breach TW’s confidentiality because his wife writes a book that doesn’t match up with TW’s diagnosis. It would be totally unethical for the consultant to go public on this & they would rightly be struck off if they did.

The consultant is not permitted to breach TW’s patient confidentiality just because TW’s wife writes a book under a pseudonym that doesn’t apparently accord with the facts.

Thank you for explaining this. What I don't understand is the fact that the consultant wrote a positive book review for TSP for a medical journal.

But didn’t say that TW was his patient. I know someone shared the text of this at some point, but what I mostly remember was the review just saying something platitudinous about how a positive mindset was always a good thing.

All this is making me wonder if another reason why Timoth has largely been kept out of the spotlight (in addition to him not appearing as unwell as might be expected) is to avoid any questions being put directly to him about his diagnosis/prognosis with any answer then being 'on the record', truthful or more importantly not.

I agree @PrettyDamnCosmic and of course the first thing a doctor or consultant would need to do is talk to the patient and establish the facts, SW has written the book, but TW is profiting just as much as she is, the consultant knows this. Despite that knowledge the consultant has allowed the medical letters to be used as some kind of defence. I know confidentiality is a very serious area that is only to be broken if the situation warrants it.

A doctor/consultant could decide not to report a small benefit fraud, if they felt it would do more harm than good. They can also refuse to continue to write supporting letters, for instance if they suspect a patient participating in insurance fraud. It is on a case by case basis, there is also the aspect of harm to the wider public. So yes @PrettyDamnCosmic a lot of the decision rests with the clinician involved and it is not black and white.

A doctor or consultant who suspects a patient is fraudulent can seek advice without breaking the patients confidentiality. This consultant seems to be condoning Raymoth's deception, yes it is Timothy Walkers wife who has written the book and not TW, so why is he letting Timothy Walker's wife use the medical letters concerning his patients confidentiality, to prop up her deception?

At the moment we are only able to speculate that the consultant who wrote the review is the same consultant, he described it as a feel-good read for clinicians.

@Freshsocks I remember we did, more recently, get to see the unredacted letters with the name clearly displayed .... I thought it was about the Parsons, in The Australian, but it is behind a paywall now.

Somehow I didn't see that, I thought we were still speculating @BeguiledBrandy I haven't named this person, but I can see others have. I do understand what you are saying @PrettyDamnCosmic and you are right to defend the right to patient confidentiality and I would respect a clinician who talked to their patient and tried to get them to not do whatever it is that should not be doing, before deciding what action to take. First asking them not to drive, if they are not fit to do so and only taking things further if they have to.

I don't want to see this consultant in trouble, but unfortunately they have become involved in this situation. Money has been made, quite substantial quantities and health claims have been made, that it could be argued have the potential to harm. So it is down to this consultant to decide if they want to continue to support this deception, the confidentiality of the patient is gone.

I have been following these threads from the beginning as I was incensed by what this pair got up to. I really appreciate that so many of you have kept the threads going and so eloquently! I hope you don’t mind me chipping in.
It seems to me that Tim and Sal have always been in it together and that is a fundamental part of the reason they have succeeded. I used to be familiar reading letters written by doctors and consultants as my work involved receiving referrals. When I saw the medical letters posted on the RW website, I couldn’t understand at first why they put them up. They quite obviously showed that no diagnosis had been made at the time they lost their home and did the walk. Presumably, however, it was because the letters demonstrated that they didn’t make up mention of CBS/CBD themselves, which SW and TW see as getting themselves out of trouble. Possibly though, from Tim’s consultant’s point of view, he/she may have been happy to show that they definitely did not advise them that Tim only had two years to live! Maybe this is why they were given consent to publish? It represented an opportunity for him/her to set the record straight without breaking Tim’s confidentiality. We don’t know exactly what the neurologist was asked after all. Unfortunately, having someone in the extended family who is akin to Sally Walker, I would suggest that a case is always presented in order to elicit the desired response.

Some other questions that occur to me are whether PRH thought that RW would eventually be writing a book as a widow? Or were they invested more in a so called “miracle cure”?
At what point was the idea for the book conceived? My guess is firstly in 2013 but it was shelved because they didn’t feel like completing the SWCP, then resurrected once the CBS diagnosis was suggested and a new angle for the book appeared. Like everyone here, I think the diary purely for Moth idea is an invention. Although I do accept that CBS/CBD would have been completely devastating to hear. I think they could well have imagined/dreamed of a bestseller because I sense they are inclined to grandiose ideas. It would also provide security for SW and that could have been a motivating factor for TW as he probably believed he would die relatively young.

I am not surprised they didn’t file for bankruptcy as they would have had to declare all their finances and assets and that isn’t their style. Also, I assume they didn’t need to as only their house was collateral for the mortgage. It was one of the things that I noted in the book; they had indeed never lost everything in the way they claimed.
As an aside, I was surprised that my ancient and battered copy of “500 mile walkies” sold so easily in Spring of this year. I wish I had held onto it now!
Apologies for inflicting all my ramblings on you all!

@Innermagnolia You are most welcome. Thank you for your interesting contribution ... and I hope we will see more from you!