Thread 21 : To feel disappointed - and now disgusted too - after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?

[DisappointedReader]

NO POSTS PLEASE UNTIL THREAD 20 IS FULL

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?

Thread 18: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5422393-thread-18-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 19: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5437058-thread-19-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 20: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5454438-thread-20-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 and ploppers 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. Over 5 months we have done amazingly well together for 20 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.

Keep to the path. No saltiness. Our Cardboard Mascot Our Simon has had his head stuck back on and is wearing a very fetching tinsel boa. The charabanc is bedecked with fairy lights and very well stocked up. May the seasonal fudge and mulled cider be with you one and all. 🎅🌲🎁❄️🎄

These threads are the gifts that keep on giving:
New:

• Salt Path: A Very British Scandal, available from Monday 15th December Sky Documentaries and NOW TV
• ‘Don’t look for the money. I’ve taken it all’: Salt Path author Raynor Winn’s ‘confession’ that she stole from her family | The Observer

Up and coming:

• Observer Newsroom: The Real Salt Path Story, Thursday 8th January 2026 6.30-7.30pm. More information and to book via this link observer.co.uk/our-events/the-real-salt-path-story
• Podcast series from The Observer's award-winning Investigative Journalist Chloe Hadjimatheou
• BBC Documentary (NB Not involving Our Chloe)

*MNHQ correcting above 'Documentary' to 'Podcast' at request of author

NO POSTS PLEASE UNTIL THREAD 20 IS FULL

I was interested to come across this, in an article in The Hollywood Reporter from shortly after the initial Observer report:

"The scandal has prompted so much outrage that many have been waiting for Anderson, Isaacs and those involved with the making of the film, to comment. THR has reached out to reps for the actors as well as Penguin and Number 9 Films. A BBC Film spokesperson declined to comment."

We don't know for certain that the reviewer is most definitely the 2015 consultant, we are pretty sure that they are. This is the point @Peladon, if they are one in the same, why did they not reveal a professional interest, if they are and read the lies about the date of the consultation and the diagnosis, why have they remained silent. I do not mean going public, talking to journalists, before anyone reminds me again about patient confidentiality :)

But if this consultant is one in the same, they should have reported the matter to their superior, a diagnosis that they have given has been misused for financial gain. That would have become obvious to them when they read the book. The way it has been reviewed I think the consultant lives in la la land, he seems to think himself that Raynor and Moth are fictional characters.

It’s as if he’s not taking it seriously, a bit of walking that may be of interest to our colleagues in rehab etc.

I don’t think anyone has been thinking about the timing - then or now. Apart from the charity perhaps who dropped them like a hot potato - almost with too much haste? Were they suspicious before?

Thanks @ThisQuirkyRaven

If the reviewer is fully independent, it would be interesting to know whether or not his thinking about TSP has changed at all since he wrote the review.

If the reviewer had a professional involvement, I assume he would be unable to say anything further (unless TW were to permit it).

I think if the reviewer is the same consultant @Peladon, and there is significant evidence that he is, then he will be needing to answer questions put to him by his profession body, it will be nothing to do with Tim Walker, until Tim is asked why he let his wife miss use his diagnosis to help sell a book for profit, at the same time making health claims, not in the publics interest.

Please can CH have managed to unearth the actual bailiffs who showed up at the house? 'Hiding under the stairs?' No, remember it well, there was no one there at all.' Or 'Hiding under the stairs? You're having a laugh. The two of them ran out swinging punches and screaming!'

Didn’t the farmer next door see them leave at 2am while he was baling? The bailiffs came the next day. They never hid under the stairs etc I think we have to accept that most of the events of the books are at best ‘based on’ events and at worse utterly fabricated .
The Salt Path is a clever book, designed to tug at the heart strings. Didn’t one of CH’s reports talk about the various drafts of ‘Lightly Salted Blackberries’ including the death of the mother ? This was moved to The Wild Silence. The author plays about with events and timelines for maximin effect.

Here is the article that deals with the 3 different years the Penguin books give to the mother's death and Moth's initial diagnosis:

The Salt Path: what did the publisher actually know?

I'm a retired A&E consultant & I'm sure that I have corrected you on this point previously but no consultant would breach patient confidentiality in the manner you describe. Another point is that consultants don't have a superior. You keep banging on about this but there is nobody to report anything to without compromising patient confidentiality. Without the patient's permission a court order would be necessary before patient details could be discussed.

BTW The book review itself is a mild attempt to introduce a lighter article in a stodgy professional journal. It includes this disclaimer

"I must say that Raynor Winn (et al!) provide a compelling (if not scientifically irrefutable) case for the benefits of positive action and of physical therapy, even for the ghastliest of neurodegenerative conditions."

Even if it is the same neurologist who wrote all three letters & the book review he has done nothing wrong & is bound by patient confidentiality. No answers are going to be put to him by his professional body.

Patient confidentiality is not an absolute unlike the priest's confessional but can only be disapplied in the most extreme cases e.g. murder where the doctor feels their obligation towards society outweigh confidentiality. The bar is very high & this case doesn't come anywhere near to the seriousness that would justify breaching confidentiality.

If it was the same consultant that diagnosed Moth as ‘terminal’ the light, airy tone & reference to ‘ghastliest’ of conditions doesn’t point to any belief re: Moth’s inevitable & relatively speedy decline to my mind.

@PrettyDamnCosmic Even if it is the same neurologist who wrote all three letters & the book review he has done nothing wrong

He comes over as being very decisively 'played' - we know that he is not told important facts and is lied to about Tim's mother's death. The book review, to those of us outside the profession, is shockingly trivial.

He recommends the book as a "feel good" read for clinicians, and its positivity as being potentially beneficial for patients diagnosed with terminal neurodegenerative conditions

Thoughts on TSP, by someone who herself sleeps in tents in the rain, after The Observer's first article. Search for "rainy night". Apologies if this has already been posted.

https://lizardyoga.wordpress.com/category/culcha/book-reviews/page/2/

I know you have 'corrected' me about this before@PrettyDamnCosmic, what on earth do you mean that consultants don't have a superior? of course they have a superior they have somebody who leads their unit, a clinical manager, they have regulatory bodies, they are answerable to them. Please contact the general medical council, did you have this belief all your working life that you were answerable to nobody?

I think it's rather rude of you to tell me that I keep banging on, this is something that I feel very strongly about. I think that you have said this before, about patient confidentiality only being broken in cases such as murder, I have thoroughly checked, yes patient confidentiality is protected, but not to the detriment of the rest of the population. If a patient continues to drive with the knowledge of a consultant who has asked them not to for medical reasons, that consultant should talk to the patient and try to persuade them, but if they will not stop, the consultant should contact DVLA, if they don't and that person gets in their car and hurts someone, the consultant will having to explain why they did not report the patient to DVLA.

There are many situations involving harm to a patient, yes reporting anyone to the authorities is not going to happen lightly, but a consultant who suspects that their patient is in danger or for any concerns, can discuss it with their clinical manager or regulatory body.
There are also rules about people financially gaining from a medical diagnosis, and protecting public health. I have researched these things and contacted the regulatory bodies for advice.

Finally, we do not know for certain that this reviewing consultant is the same consultant, who diagnosed Tim. We have to wait and see, Chloe's investigation will continue and eventually the truth will out. You have your opinion @PrettyDamnCosmic and I respect that, mine differs from yours.

I'm not so sure it is possible to say he has done nothing wrong. The vague CBS diagnosis he gave and persisted with for 10 years seems wrong for starters. Where is his insistence seeking second or third opinions? He isn't even a CBD specialist. There's a lot we don't know and with so many unanswered questions I can't see how it is possible to say he has done nothing wrong. That said, I'm sure we will never know.

I very much agree with you @Freshsocks but let’s not forget that Walker’s books differ from reality in the first place. What seems incredible to me is that the authors of the medical letters did not read the books and say - “I never said that? I wonder why they thought this?”
The book reviewer is very jocular and I agree, trivial. It’s clear to me that he doesn’t see any discrepancies between the diagnosis that is written in the book and the behaviour of the man it was supposedly given to on or off the page. It’s very frustrating. Walker writes about a miracle in her books which ought to have prompted the author of the medical letters to consult with them again about a second diagnosis or at least to correct them and reassure them about Tim’s current health and future.

In practical terms consultants are generally not answerable to anyone which is why every so often there will be reports of a rogue surgeon. Consultants have an annual appraisal with an independent doctor but this is generally a tick box exercise to ensure general compliance with Good Medical Practice (the GMC's 'bible'). If I were Tim Walker's neurologist & had spotted anomalies between TSP , TWS etc & my personal knowledge of his clinical state then I might well discuss it in confidence with my appraiser but it would go no further.

You seem to have forgotten that it was me who mentioned that I have legitimately breached patient confidentiality by referring someone to the DVLA who had been told not to drive after having a seizure.

Sorry, but you do keep banging on about this when you don't understand how doctors work or are regulated which is something that I do know about from years of experience. I think it's rather rude of you to be sarcastic about my medical practice. You seem to think that the neurologist should 'out' Tim Walker in some way but honestly this is a dead end & a distraction. It ain't gonna happen & nor should it.

Why on earth would you expect the consultant neurologist to have read the books? TSP wasn't even published when the 2015 letter was written.
I agree that the book review is trivial. It's meant to be an alternative to the dull medical papers in the rest of the journal. Unless this review really was written by Tim Walker's neurologist the reviewer would have no knowledge of any discrepancy between Moth in the books & Tim in the clinic.

I wondered what your thoughts were about the 3 neurologist's letters that were published by Sal, dating from 2015,2019, 2025. Is it likely that that there were other neurologists letters that have not been published, perhaps because they cast doubt on the original diagnosis. Is it strange that no second opinion on the CBS diagnosis has been sought in view of the 20 year time lapse between original symptoms appearing and the current time, a survival period for somebody with CBS that is apparently unprecedented? Does it seem likely from the omissions (walks undertaken and planned) and the details about Moth's mother) in the original diagnosis, that the Walkers to some degree engineered the 2015 diagnosis (perhaps to obtain enhanced levels of PiP)?

Finally, to me as a layman, it seems extraordinary that a neurologist has published a letter in 2025 appearing to confirm the 2015 diagnosis (although acknowledging that Moth's case history was unique), yet no other neurologist specialising in CBD that CH has interviewed has been willing to back up that diagnosis. Doesn't there come a point when a neurologist is forced to examine the original diagnosis and admit that maybe, because it is so unique, that in fact it was a misdiagnosis?

I'm sorry if you feel that I am being sarcastic, I am more exasperated, I don't understand why you want to keep picking me up about this. I'm very sorry, I've tried to remain very polite in past posts, put a little :) and asked you not to scold me. You have just said yourself there is a route if you have a problem about a patient, you can take it to somebody other than yourself. I have told you also in the past that I worked, not as a consultant, but in a capacity where I had to respect patient's confidentiality, but there was a process for taking advice and action if necessary.

I do remember you saying that you had taken action, you did the right thing, you had a duty to do that. If you hadn't and that patient had killed somebody you could have been in court, you had a legal responsibility.

In earlier posts, I did think the consultant should have outed Tim to his clinical manager, most definitely, then you shot me down, and another poster, when I continued with this process, you posted that, 'you have already been told ' so I contacted the GMC to take advice. I am not trying to disrespect you or your professional knowledge.

No, I mean now or at least since the books have been published I expect the original author of the medical letters to read the books especially since there has been huge publicity about the stories within them and the shocking truth which has emerged in the last few months. From a personal and professional interest, I would have thought? I don’t believe that any such consultations happened as written in the books and I do believe that this fact and fiction needs to have a clear distinction, that the books should not continue to profit from what is clearly a deliberate attempt to reinvent truth and peddle a miracle that nobody involved in Tim’s consultations has privately queried with them, as far as we know. If they did, we wouldn’t hear it from Sally and Tim Walker.

John Sturgis, journalist, writing on X, suggesting Moth the author of books not Ray, Interesting but don’t think stands up to scrutiny.

The margin comments in the PD guide to the SWCP that appears on the PRH website do appear to be Moth's not Sal's handwriting and the phrasing of the comments isn't what you'd expect from somebody jotting down notes at the end of each day's walk. They read very much as if they are written as an aide memoire sometime after the walk was completed.. Somewhat strange.

I think they retrofitted & plugged gaps after a brill idea, as they saw it, after the doctor apt turned out to be anything but…

The whole scheme scam was a collaboration. As much plotting as Canoe 2, but events overtook.

Yes, I think there was discussion about that on one of our earlier threads and I agree with your thoughts that it probably wasn’t him. Even the parts of the book that appear to have been written for a ‘male gaze’ do not veer from Sally Walker’s narrative style. She either inserted those scenes and characters to please him, inserted them at his request or they serve to make her appear vulnerable and self conscious which she thinks other women will identify with or even to ridicule the obviousness of men’s lust.