The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Case Law: El Naschie v Macmillan – claim against scientific publisher dismissed – Gervase de Wilde

One of the longer-awaited libel judgments of recent times was handed down on 6 July 2012, having been reserved for a period of over 5 months.  Sharp J produced a comprehensive, 383 paragraph judgment comprehensively dismissing the claim by an Egyptian scientist against the scientific journal Nature (El Naschie v Macmillan Publishers Ltd  (t/a Nature Publishing Group) & Anor [2012] EWHC 1809 (QB)).


Much of the background to the case can be found in this Inforrm news story from November 2011. The Claimant, who was a litigant-in-person, assisted by his former wife Lydia Thorsen-El Naschie, was editor-in-chief and founder of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (“CSF”), which is a journal “in the interdisciplinary field of Nonlinear Science, and Nonequilibrium and Complex Phenomena” and is published by academic publishing giant Elsevier. The Defendants did not admit his claim in the pleadings to be an eminent and highly respected academic, scientist and scientific publisher in the fields of Structural Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Applied Mechanics and Nuclear and High Energy Physics.

The Defendants were the publisher of one of the world’s most respected scientific publications, Nature, and one of its experienced science journalists Quirin Schiermeier (“QS”), who is based in Germany. In its 27 November 2008 edition, Nature carried an article by QS headed “Self-publishing editor set to retire” (“the Article”). The Article was pegged to the Claimant’s departure from his position as editor, and highlighted the number of papers by the Claimant which appeared in CSF, also questioning both their quality and the peer review processes in place at  the journal. It carried comments from the Claimant himself, critics and supporters, and a representative of Elsevier.

The Claimant, who divides his time between England, Germany and Egypt, brought a claim against the Defendants for libel, and in his amended pleadings referred to “a form of conspiracy” involving them and others (particularly what he described as “the despicable blog” El Naschie Watch). An interim judgment ([2011] EWHC 1468 (QB)), handed down by Eady J on June 10 2011 in response to a number of applications by the Defendants, dismissed the allegations of conspiracy as irrelevant, and considerably narrowed the number of issues in the case. A subsequent application by the Claimant for an adjournment was refused.


The Defendants advanced the defences of justification, honest comment and Reynolds Privilege. Before turning to these, the Judge first considered the meanings attributed to the article by the Claimant, and the Lucas-Box meanings justified by the Defendants. Although there were differences between them, these played no part in her conclusions on liability overall. The Defendants also defended three comments for the purposes of the defence of honest comment, which were identical to meanings justified in their Amended Defence.

The bulk of the judgment focuses on the defence of justification. Sharp J considered the expert evidence advanced by the parties, finding a range of fundamental problems with the Claimant’s experts, including, strikingly, the fact that one of them was his ex-wife.

Although the allegations that the Defendants sought to justify were divisible, the Judge identified

“a nexus between self-publication, quality, quantity (that is, excessive publication) and lack of peer review.”

To put the evidence into context, and by way of explanation, the Judge considered in detail the ethics and norms of scientific publication, and the nature of citation within academic journals (the original article had referred to CSF’s “impact factor” as possibly being a result of a high rate of self-citation).

The first meaning justified by the Defendants was that the Claimant had abused his position as CSF’s editor in chief by publishing an excessive number of articles written by himself. Considering the volume of self-publication both in itself, and in comparison with the practices of editors of comparable journals, the number of self-published articles was found to be excessive. What the Judge found was their poor quality meant that they were excessive in number, and that publication of them was an abuse of the Claimant’s position.

The Claimant’s practices did not comply with the norms of scientific publishing, and his approach was “deeply flawed” in a number of ways: first, his case that the ordinary rules did not apply to his journal was not open to him on the facts; second, there was no separation between objective science and opinion-led journalism; and, third, it did not meet the need for a level playing field with regard to publication in academic journals.

The second meaning was that the articles were of poor quality. The Defendants adduced the evidence of the eminent, internationally recognised theoretical physicist Professor Neil Turok. He identified fundamental defects in the Claimant’s work, including a failure to define terminology and concepts, conclusions unsupported by reasoning, and meaningless, obscure and simply wrong statements. The Claimant, and his expert witness, Dr Marek-Crnjac, failed to respond to these criticisms, failing to answer Professor Turok’s conclusion that the papers which he assessed “do not fulfil the most basic requirements of any paper deemed to be publishable in the Field.”

The third meaning was that the Claimant’s articles had been subjected to (at best) very poor peer review before publication. Beyond its fundamental importance to the scientific community in general, peer review is, said Professor Turok, of critical importance to the maintenance of high standards, and to the health and reputation of the field of theoretical physics. The Claimant had asserted that his papers were always subject to the appropriate level of peer review.

However, three aspects of the Defendants’ case contradicted this position: first, there were defects in quality in the Claimant’s papers which meant that they could not have been subject to adequate peer review; second, the dearth of documentary evidence (there was an “implausible absence of documentation”) supported the allegation that the process did not take place, or was flawed; and, third, the Claimant’s case on how the editorial processes operated at CSF did not disclose an appropriate system of review.

The fourth meaning was that CSF’s Impact Factor may have been inflated by excessive citation of the Claimant’s own articles. The citation of the Claimant’s own papers did have an inflationary effect on CSF’s Impact Factor, and Sharp J held that this citation was excessive, first because the majority of citations within the Claimant’s own papers were of papers written by him, and, second, because of the poor quality of the Claimant’s papers, which meant that they should not have been cited by him or any other author.

The fifth meaning was that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the Claimant’s imminent retirement was connected to his faults in that role, alternatively that the Claimant was dismissed or forced to retire because of those faults. Contemporaneous documents released by Elsevier contradicted his case that it was his own decision to retire because, according to his pleaded case, he “found Elsevier’s increasingly commercial approach to its publication intolerable”. They showed that they had terminated their agreement with him, finding him difficult on a personal level, and flawed as an editor.

The sixth meaning was that the Claimant was cavalier about his academic and professional affiliations, alternatively that he had claimed affiliations to which he knew he was not entitled. The two specific groups of misrepresentations pleaded by the Defendants were those that appeared on his website, and on CVs submitted to academic conferences. In relation to claims made about positions at Cambridge, Frankfurt and Jiao Tong Shanghai Universities, the judge was satisfied that the Defendants had established the truth of the higher meaning complained of by the Claimant: that he was not merely cavalier about his affiliations, but had claimed affiliations to which he was not entitled.

The final meaning was the Claimant had used, or caused others to use, fictitious names to respond to enquiries about his editorial practice. Sharp J described this as a “curious… even bizarre” feature of the case. The original article featured references to P. Cooper and P. Green, claimed on behalf of the journal to be the editorial board’s spokesperson and legal adviser respectively. A number of other purported staff members emerged in the course of correspondence between the journal and contributors, QS and others. Sharp J found it “implausible” that the Claimant left others to deal with pressing matters concerning CSF when he regarded it as “his” journal.

The defence of honest comment pleaded by the Defendants covered three of the principal allegations complained of, regarding peer review, poor quality papers and inflation of the Impact Factor. The disputed elements of the defence were whether the allegations were conveyed by way of comment or fact, and whether they were opinions which an honest commentator could express on the subject-matter concerned. The Judge held that the defence was made out: the three were recognisably comments, and were pertinent to the subject matter.

The defence of Reynolds privilege was the final plank of the Defendants’ case. Detailed evidence was provided of the research and inquiries undertaken by QS in preparation for the publication of the article. QS had retained both email exchanges and handwritten notes of telephone conversations with those he had spoken to about the proposed story. The Judge identified 17 stages in QS’s research and preparation for it, including analysis of the nature and frequency of the Claimant’s citations.

The Judge found that the article addressed matters which “are and were of high public interest”. Given the significance of publication records to Nature’s readers, and the wider scientific community, the specific allegations against the Claimant “were integral to the public interest element in the article”. She found that the tone of the piece was “moderate and balanced”, as were the picture and captions used. The Claimant’s side of the story was responsibly dealt with and conveyed by the article, and he was given the chance to respond, although he did so in a convoluted way both in person and, apparently, via pseudonyms.

Internal emails showed that extensive verification was undertaken by the Defendants. Three drafts of the article were produced, and it was only finalised after legal advice. The judge found that the process overall was “responsible and fair”. She specifically referred to the article’s approach to the Claimant’s qualifications, his self publication and citation, the quality of his work, the approach to peer review, and his departure from Elsevier, concluding that the article “was the product of responsible journalism”. The Reynolds defence succeeded.


The Claimant’s defeat could hardly have been more comprehensive, with all of the Defendants’ defences succeeding and his own integrity, as a scientist and as an individual, questioned by Sharp J throughout her judgment. If his intention was to suppress questioning or criticism of his work then the strategy backfired spectacularly.

The success of all three defences testifies to the scrupulous attitude of Nature to a controversial subject. Working with two editors, the journalist ensured that all the parts of the Article stood up, carrying out an unusual amount of research and analysis for an 800 word news item, including the citation analysis detailed in the judgment. As well as being “a public interest story par excellence”, in many ways the Article was a model of responsible journalism with a moderate tone adopted, and the Claimant (and his supporters) given ample opportunity to put his side of the story. The decision  emphasises the value of this careful approach.

More generally, the case has received extensive comment in the media. A news item in Nature acclaimed the publication’s victory but emphasised that the law was still having a chilling effect on the kind of journalism it produces. A Sense About Science spokesperson told the magazine that

“It’s not really a ‘win’ [for Nature] if it took three years and cost enough money to bankrupt a normal person”.

Nature also ran a more personal piece by QS about the experience of being involved in the litigation, entitled “I was sued for libel under an unjust law”. His criticisms focus largely on the burden of proof which, he says “falls too heavily on the defendant to prove what they said was true”. Speaking to The Guardian, the Defendants’ solicitor, Niri Shan at Taylor Wessing, commented that the Claimant’s ability to bring the matter to trial

“highlights the urgent need for libel reform in the area of science reporting, as the law, as it currently stands, is stifling scientific debate.”

Science-focused publications such as Wired and New Scientist also carried items about the case while El Naschie Watch has sustained its relentless coverage of the Claimant and his activities in the aftermath of the judgment.

How does the decision reflect on prospective libel reform, or the concerns of campaigners? This year’s Defamation Bill extends privilege to peer reviewed statements in academic or scientific journals in Clause 6. However, the scope of this action was delineated by the Judge from the start, and she was clear that it was about “the integrity of editorial self-publication and peer review”, and did not concern the correctness of any theories advanced by the Claimant, or anyone else practising theoretical physics:

“It has not concerned the qualities of the Claimant as a scientist generally, or the substantive merits of his theories which are matters which could and should be capable of being addressed (if not resolved) within the scientific community by ordinary scientific discourse and debate.”

The Claimant’s profession, academia, has, like any other, widely accepted standards which set the bar for participation or recognition within it. The Article questioned whether the Claimant’s work met these standards, not whether his ideas were sound in themselves and Clause 6, the utility of which is in any case questioned by Mullis and Scott in this Inforrm Note on the Bill, would have been of little use to the Defendants.

Campaigners such as Libel Reform call for the extension of a “public interest” defence, but the Reynolds defence employed in this litigation, and now codified in the Bill at Clause 4, was more than adequate to protect the rights and interests of Nature. Setting the parameters of such a defence would be a tricky task which would, commentators say, risk promoting freedom of expression disproportionately vis-à-vis the right to reputation.

The real issue here, and in similar cases, appears to lie not in the law itself but in the cost of litigation. Large media companies with deep pockets can afford the robust approach which leads to them defending claims in the High Court over the course of several years, others cannot. Reforms currently being debated in Module 4 of the Leveson Inquiry, such as the establishment of a Media Standards Authority or Tribunal in which dispute resolution was cheaper and faster, might, in a similar situation, offer the best solution for claimants and defendants alike.

Gervase de Wilde is a former journalist at the Daily Telegraph and a student barrister.


  1. Jason

    Gervase, this is the best post-judgment piece anyone has written about the case by a wide margin. Thanks for acknowledging El Naschie Watch! I should mention that the Nature cover with El Naschie giving a thumb down isn’t real but rather an old photoshop of mine, in case it’s not obvious.

  2. Gervase de Wilde

    Thanks Jason, and for the link from your pages.

  3. silver account

    While the awarding of legal fees and costs to the defendants in the case described in the accompanying article is highly unusual, the dismissal of a peer review suit isn’t. Peer review committees are well insulated from legal challenges under state and federal laws that grant immunity to committee members and confidentiality to the review proceedings. The AMA has publicly opposed attempts to breach that immunity and confidentiality, arguing that those protections are necessary to encourage physicians to participate in candid reviews of their colleagues’ performance.

  4. Mohamed El Naschie

    To Google with love about your relations with Wikepedia – the free encyclopaedia:

    Did Wikepedia become partially, unintentionally or intentionally a vehicle of mass defamation and misinformation? This is a vital subject which has to be addressed and to answer the question massive real investigation has to be undertaken by concerned governments, international institutions and everyone who is worried about the excessive power of the internet and the foggy alliance between giants like Google and entities like Wikepedia and the like. Of course no one knows who writes this sometimes revolting, inaccurate and frequently criminal information in Wikepedia. There are employees, maybe too many, working as freelance for Wikepedia. Those individuals can misuse the power they have and blackmail famous and rich people. Apart of that there are unscrupulous so-called volunteers who unchecked or controlled add or subtract information freely at will again with the intention of blackmail or because they are hired by individuals and institutions to settle scores with their enemies and competitors. Even in the scientific domain, thought to be objective and above this demeaning level, it is more frequently the case that scientists are promoted or demoted, in fact sometimes scandalized, for hard cash, favoure or simply for the lust of revenge, jealousy and downright meanness. The despicable campaign against the Egyptian engineer and theoretical physicist Mohamed Salah El-Din El Naschie may be one of the most obvious cases and a good illustration for the misuse of Wikepedia and the like via providers like Google to spread their lies and defamation whenever commissioned. Look at the site in Google of El Naschie. You will find that on the orders of you know who, a photograph is taken without permission, disregarding all copyrights, and put there with a malicious legend taken from Wikepedia emphasizing one little untrue story, namely the controversial editor etc. etc. – all lies of course dressed in serious pseudo-scientific jargon, carefully thought out to be as damaging as possible. Nearly all the data and information given in Wikepedia about Prof. El Naschie is wrong and one can only conclude that it is intentionally so. Google relies upon Wikepedia and Wikepedia relies upon a criminal lunatic living in Seattle, USA who earns his worthless living by being paid, what for his standing, must be a lucrative monthly sum of money to proudly watch Mohamed El Naschie day and night and defame him day and night. Without a trace of shame, Wikepedia wrote for the last six years that they could not obtain information on whether Mohamed El Naschie has a Ph.D. or not. The stupidity of Wikepedia goes as far as pretending that for six years or so they were trying to contact University College London to find out if Mohamed El Naschie was really a Ph.D. student and if he really got a Ph.D. Of course they know better. They seriously want us to believe that a man who could join Cornell and Cambridge, be an Editor in Chief of an Elsevier journal and write about 1000 papers in all conceivable fields of knowledge, can do all that without a Ph.D. and no one has discovered it. It is difficult to decide what is more pronounced in Wikepedia, the impertinence or stupidity to write such nonsense and insist upon writing it despite dozens of emails and letters drawing their attention to the malicious lies they are spreading to damage a man because a few important bosses here and there in politics and science perceive Mohamed El Naschie as dangerous for their homogony over the developing world, particularly in politics. Here is some information for you: Ahmed Zewail, who hijacked Nile University and shamelessly renamed it Zewail City of Science, put a Vice President of Google on the Editorial Board of Directors of what he stole – God knows why but Ahmed Zewail knows his trade very well. It is media propaganda and media propaganda, propaganda and propaganda. Is all what he needs. With the weapons of mass deception, namely modern media you can collect billions as he did under false pretences, steal universities, get the most sought after prizes in science and politics and destroy States and send them into civil wars and descend with a parachute to become a President and saviour of a country just as Mr. Zewail and Mr. ElBaradeitried to mastermind together with the help of their backers of international imperialism. Anyone who stands against these villains and truly evil people are immediately classified as anti-Semitic or a communist. Subsequently, as in the case of Mohamed El Naschie a master criminal plan is prepared to liquidate him morally and if needed, physically. Miraculously he survived and he has a fantastic story to tell the free world. This story is supported with irrefutable documents and proof and it will be published on the internet and probably by Google because modern methods of communication are a double-edged sword and works both ways. When the documents related to a High Court Judge in a so called democratic country are revealed, this story will be destined to play a similar role to the disgraceful trial of GalileoGalilei.That is actually what an American philosopher and scientist Dr. Olsen said in open court and the court record is there for everyone to see and read provided this person has not been paid by those who forge information in Wikepedia. We urge Mr. Richard Holmes of the University Ranking Watch to read these lines, research the subject and amend his little article accordingly. We also urge Ahmed Zewail to repent his deeds before he meets his creator, whether his bone cancer is political or real. There is always time to say sorry and ask God for forgiveness.

  5. Mohamed El Naschie


    Despite the above heading this case far from being over. Of course Nature spent the better part of 5 million British pounds to buy themselves a whitewash via a complex, intricate and very expensive British libel law. They hired a Queen’s Counsel, called in England a Silk in addition to an army of solicitors via the largest law firm in the country. They went as far as causing the resignation of a Lord Justice because he wanted them to apologise to Prof. El Naschie and call it a day by finding an out of Court settlement. They claimed this natural request by an experienced Judge prejudiced the case. They worked very hard to replace him by a relatively inexperienced High Court Judge who just happens to have graduated from the same Chambers from which the QC representing Nature comes with all sorts of strings attached. Never the less because Prof. Mohamed Salah El-Din El Naschie was not legally represented the case will go on in the Court of Appeal without any time limitation and after that there is still possibly the House of Lords but definitely the European Courts of Justice in Strasburg. El Naschie maintained from the outset that this is a case for the Old Bailey, i.e. criminal court and turning it into putting science on trial is a perversion of the legal system of Britain and is comparable only to the Vatican putting Galileo’s theory on trial. The background of this case is well known from the documents which are available for the public to read, being Court documents of a British court case. Even the most gullible person will know that the campaign against El Naschie was orchestrated by those who hired a German journalist based in Munich and another German gutter press journalist based in Hamburg. In addition those behind the conspiracy hired a psychopath confined to a wheelchair working in Seattle USA as an expert of character assassination. He established a disgusting website called ElNaschieWatch to assist Nature in this trial by spreading lies and defamation around the clock against Prof. El Naschie. In addition they hired people working for Wikipedia as well as Google apart of their association with disgraced Egyptians such as Ahmed Zewail a Nobel Laureate in Experimental Chemistry who badly wanted to replace Hosni Mubarak as President for Egypt after the so called Arab Spring Revolutions which swept the Middle East via an artificial wind coming from the West. There is far more to this story than meets the eye and it is more disgusting than frightening and shows to which degree otherwise respectable institutions and people are ready to degrade themselves to steal other peoples’ work. The solicitor of Nature found it acceptable to enlist the help of a fractal spacetime imposter to lie under oath in open court as an expert witness who really knows nothing about the subject he was talking about. The idea of fractal spacetime started in earnest with the work of British Canadian physicist Garnet Ord and subsequently French astrophysicist Laurent Nottale and finally Egyptian engineering scientist and theoretical physicist Mohamed El Naschie who in addition to giving up differentiablity, halso gave up continuity in the spirit of the highly mathematical theory of the continuum hypothesis and ultimate L of Woodin. The problem which the people behind all this are now facingis that Mohamed El Naschie is not dead. He is alive and kicking and as active as ever. The assertion of Peter Woit that Nature ended El Naschie’s career is multi-fold wrong. El Naschie never considered theoretical physics and his theory a career or professional work. It was, it is and will always be his hobby, love and passion, nothing more. Incidentally in his witness statement, the fake fractal spacetimewitness described Peter Woit as a non-scientist who was never a professor of physics anywhere and who works merely as a trouble shooter for the computer facility of an American university. Why Peter Woit is suddenly full of praise for this imposter is something worth thinking about, or maybe not. The fact is Mohamed El Naschie was not deterred by this savage attack. In fact it produced the opposite effect on him and his surroundings. He is now publishing more papers than ever having been relieved from the burden of running Chaos, Solitons& Fractals which consumed a lot of time and was at the end a thankless job which brought him nothing. In fact he was supporting the journal out of his own pocket while Elsevier, the truly Dutch publisher were filling their pockets with hundreds of thousands of dollars which are now drying up since Mohamed El Naschie left the journal which he founded and ran as one of his hobbies. Of course Nature’s friends and the people behind the disgraceful defamation campaign are trying to put an embargo on El Naschie’s publications. More frequently than not, these things produce the opposite effect. Rather than despair El Naschie surprised everyone with his recent work in effect showing that there is a critical parameter or scaling component at which spacetime undergoes a fractal space transition. This parameter is closely related, in fact identical, to the dark energy density measured by WMAP and supernova analysis which earned the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics. It is also identical in concept to the ‘t Hooft/Veltman/Wilson dimensional regularization procedure. An up to date summary of this work may be found in the following paper ‘The meta energy of dark energy’, Open Journal of Philosophy, 2014, 4, p. 157-159 and ‘Cosmic dark energy from ‘t Hooft’s dimensional regularization and Witten’s topological quantum field pure gravity’, Journal of Quantum Information Science, 2014, 4, p. 83-91 (both and Deriving E = mc2 of Einstein’s ordinary quantum relativity energy density from the Lie symmetry group…, American Journal of Mechanics, 2014, 2(2), p. 6-9 ( Amazingly about 1300 read this article. This was too much for someone in Google it seems. Of course they stand for the truth, but only their own truth. Not surprisingly therefore someone in Google took this article out of Google. The person responsible for that is easily found. Search for those who spend five million pounds in order not to apologise for blatant defamation and you will find who took this article out of Google as well as those responsible for the blatantly wrong article they commissioned Wikipedia to publish to pull the wool over the eyes of the scientific community as if they were immature children who need Wikipedia to tell them what is right and what is wrong and who should be cited and who shouldn’t and all under the slogan of long live the freedom of the internet but of course we mean only as long as it suits Wikipedia and not to forget the prestigious tabloid behind them.

  6. Mohamed El Naschie

    This was addressed to the Media Lawyer of the Press Gazette (

    We are confident that this site is a respectable blog which expresses legally and morally founded opinion and not some biased opinion prompted by various favours and monetary income via advertisements as so many blogs are nowadays. I spoke with Prof. M.S. El Naschie and I do not think he will object on expressing a balance and fair account of what really happened far away from the bravado and mutual admiration which journalists and media have for each other when the other side is the public with no media interest or financial backing of press moguls and media conglomerates. Let us start with the view and questions contained in this article.
    1. You say what a pity that such a case takes three years to settle. What a pity indeed but pity for whom? You may ask your good self how could such a case take three years when Nature employed an army of solicitors, a QC with a high reputation and questionable techniques while Prof. El Naschie was not represented. Would this not say on its own for any objective person that Nature had such an extremely weak defence but an enormous amount of money to spend in order to show that might is right. Would this not be a fair comment for a fair person?
    2. You said people would like to forbid a corporate to take an ordinary person to Court for libel. However the case of El Naschie is exactly the opposite. It is an ordinary university professor, and I say ordinary although he is Egyptian, who sued a giant media mogul Nature/Macmillan who with a wink of their finger can get any amount of expert witnesses on their side for the benefit of later on being able to publish in Nature with the good will of its Editorial Board all apart from being able to spend five million or so pounds without a blink of the eyes because easy come, easy go. It is Macmillan after all who pays and what are they defending? They are defending basically a German journalist, not a scientist, who was hired by a clique of scientists who were determined to defame Prof. El Naschie for reasons discussed at length in the Court. In fact it was one of the main demands of Prof. El Naschie to transfer this case to a criminal court.
    3. The awesome expenses were not a problem for Nature. It was a colossal problem for the university professor who sued them. At the end because of the pressure exerted by Nature’s worldwide web, Prof. El Naschie’s lawyer asked to be relieved from their agreement of no win, no fee which unlike the USA is not that common in the UK. So at the end El Naschie stood alone in Court.
    4. The Court did not see 80% of the proofs that Quirin Schiermeier knowingly defamed El Naschie due to court procedural steps which a layman did not know or take. For instance his request for the Editor in Chief of Nature be called as a witness was rejected and the log books of the refereed papers which Boehm brought to the Court were rejected and the Judge did not meet Boehm who travelled extra from Germany to see the Judge.
    5. This is only a sample of what happened in this extraordinary mistrial and mistrial it is. I am assured, failing some new development, that this trial is not the end. There will be higher instance on the UK level as well if needed, on the European and international level.
    6. You should see Prof. El Naschie’s record of publication since the end of the trial and resigning as an Editor in Chief of the journal which he founded and partially financed, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. While Prof. El Naschie’s citation since 2011 have at least doubled and the number of his published papers has tripled, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals under the new orchestra of Elsevier, plunged into near nothingness reflecting the general trend of Elsevier’s reputation. Please check these facts for yourself and read the mickey mouse letter for an out of Court settlement which Nature’s Editor in Chief was forced to write to Prof. El Naschie and which Prof. El Naschie rejected because it required him to lie. Please check the chequered background of Die Zeit’s journalist friend of Quirin Schiermeier in Hamburg and please check the despicable blog called ElNaschieWatch which was erected specifically to defame Prof. Mohamed El Naschie around the clock with instructions from Hamburg. Please check the connection of the whole thing with Dr. Mohamed Albaradei and Dr. Ahmed Zewail, two minor figures in the so called Arab spring. All this is in Court documents if you have the time to read them and you will know the extent of this disgraceful conspiracy which went as far as perverting the course of justice by false witness, paid for and coming extra from Canada.
    7. If you are a solicitor interested in justice you should find it sad that individuals have no chance of getting justice when it comes to fighting a media mogul.
    By the way how do you know that Nature is the most respected scientific journal? Nature has an impact factor that is true. Therefore many people read it, some of them not scientists at all. Politicians read it and that is how it influences their funding policy. Consequently Nature has the funding policy of science of at least England in hand. Nature magazine is two parts, scientific papers and the rest is gossip conducted by people like Quirin Schiermeier, the doubtful German journalist as far as El Naschie is concerned. It was Quirin Schiermeier who wrote the article without the approval or the knowledge of the Editor in Chief. Dr. Campbell was not in the country and it was his Deputy who approved publication. It is a well known secret that Dr. Campbell fired his Deputy when he came back and knew for the first time about the story through Prof. El Naschie’s letter of complaint. So far Dr. Campbell’s behaviour was correct. Dr. Campbell erred when he thought that protecting falsely the reputation of one of Nature’s employees is more important than the truth and stuck to his guns and the millions of dollars at his disposal from the infinite funds of Nature/Macmillan. And even if we grant that Nature has an impeccable reputation, why should this be a reason that a minor journalist of thousands working for Nature and Macmillan should be susceptible to bribery for all sorts and behave illegally and improperly. Suppose the janitor of the sanitary equipment in the Vatican commits an illegal act in or outside the Vatican, why then should the present Pope who probably has the best reputation of all Popes for a long time be responsible or why should the janitor be by definition not guilty because he basically works for this exceptional Pope. There is really a comical side to this constant praise of Nature as if it is a single human being. Nature’s quality varies with the quality of the Editor in Chief and their current staff as well as the people who write in it. Quirin Schiermeier is one of the worst examples in the history of Nature and this defamation case against El Naschie which has not ended until this moment will be one of the worst cases in the history of Nature and in fact in history from the time after the second world war and you can quote us on that. I hope you find the reasons given here and as I said they are nothing but a fraction of the various reasons which are not given due to space limitation and fear of prejudicing the case of Prof. El Naschie. Thank you for publishing these words of truth uncensored.

  7. Mohamed El Naschie

    Appendix: Declaration of Interests

    Declaration of Interests

    The following interests were declared:

    Lord Bew declared an interest as incoming Chairman of the Anglo-Israel Association and with regard to his involvement in a legal issue with one of his history books in the Republic of Ireland.

    Sir Peter Bottomley MP declared an interest as someone who has taken action for defamation or libel against one television company and four newspapers.

    Rehman Chishti MP declared an interest as Deputy Chairman of the Saudi Arabia All-Party Parliamentary Group.

    Lord Grade of Yarmouth declared an interest as a Commissioner at the Press Complaints Commission.

    Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town declared an interest as the paid Chair of the Legal Serivces Consumer Panel until the end of July 2011.

    Dr Julian Huppert MP declared an interest as an Officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Libel Reform Group and as an Associate of Sense about Science and the Libel Reform Campaign.

    David Lammy MP declared an interest as someone who had previously worked with the Times newspaper’s defamation team.

    Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames declared an interest as a barrister who has from time to time undertaken defamation cases and as someone who has given informal advice without charge in relation to defamation and malicious falsehood.

    Stephen Phillips MP declared an interest as a Queen’s Counsel in private practice but never undertaking a case involving the law of defamation.

    Andrew Caldecott QC, Specialist Adviser, declared an interest as a Queen’s Counsel who had appeared for many claimants and media organisations as a barrister and was likely to continue to do so—in the defamation field. He declared an involvement in the following litigation, to which reference was directly or indirectly made in the course of oral evidence:

    Rath v Guardian
    Reynolds v Times Newspapers
    Spiller v Joseph
    Tesla v BBC
    El Naschie v Nature

    He also declared an interest as a Member of the Early Resolution Group Committee and a prospective member of the panel of arbitrators.

    A full list of Members’ interests can found at the Register of Lords’ Interests: and in the Register of Commons interests:

  8. Mohamed El Naschie

    5 hours ago
    Boost Post

    الدكتور محمد صلاح الدين النشائى
    17 hours ago
    نصاب الألقاب محمد عبد الصمد يقترح انتخابات علميه جداً بدون معرفه اسم الدولة ولا تعدادها

    ربما يعرف بعض الأخوة قصه باجى سقا. هذه قصه حقيقيه من تاريخ أفغانستان الحافل. استطاع احد قطاعي الطرق من الاستيلاء على قصر شاه أفغانستان ونصب نفسه شاهنشاه لعدد من الأيام وبعدها ألقى الجيش القبض عليه وتم وضعه فى فم مدفعا وفجر جسده. ومع الفارق جاء عبد الصمد ونصب نفسه نصاب شاه على مجلس افتراضي لا يعرف لا اسماء أعضاءه ولا عددهم. لا أكاد ان اصدق ان ثقتى فى نفسى او ثقتى فى هذا المحتال المبتذل أعمتنى عن ان ارى ما كان واضحا لمن هم اقل منى خبرة وسننا وعلما. صحيح لا يقع الا الشاطر ولكن أواسى نفسى أننى لم أقع يوما فريسه للمكابره وإخفاء اخطائ بأخطاء جديدة. عندما أكون مخطئا اعترف فورا بالخطأ ولا ارتكب اخطاء جديده لتغطيتها. فآلمزيف عبد الصمد يريد ان يضع غمامه فوق أعين الناس بانتخابات افتراضيه لمجلس علماء مصر المشؤوم. لا احد يعرف عدد الأعضاء ، فكل ارقام التعيس عبد الصمد مغشوشة ولا سند لها. لا احد يعرف اسماء الأعضاء فهو يعين من يشاء بشرعيه شفره موقع المجلس فى الفيس بوك الذى يتحكم فيه وحده ويزيف حسب مزاجه المعلومات بنشرها فى هذا الموقع المشين. ويساعد عبد الصمد فى ذلك مجموعه من صغار صغار الصحفيون الذين ينشرون أكاذيبه فى اخبار قصيره فى صحف إلكترونيه اغلبها مغمور ولا يدري رؤساء تحريرها عن ذلك شيئا حيث ان الأخبار المدسوسه عن شخصه المغمور لا تظهر فى الطبعة الورقية. على كل حال اذا استطاع المحتال ان يكمل التمثليه الهزلية بانتخابات مزورة بهذه الفجاجه فسوف يكون مسمارا جديدا فى نعش الكذابين والمحتالين الذين يساندون هذا الغشاش المفلس وسوف تنضم هذه الأوراق الى الملف الموجود فى النيابه ضد منتحل شخصيه العلماء الدكتور الفالصو محمد عبد الصمد او باجى سقا عصر ما بعد الثورة.

  9. Mohammed Mustafa Mohammed

    G. Mahdi Says:
    November 6th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
    Quite honestly I trust Prof. Mohamed El Naschie far more than I trust the judgement of Nature. I do not consider it outlandish to suggest a Nobel prize for El Naschie. Let me give you the rationale behind my conclusion. Surely you heard about the two genius Russian born scientists Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov. I was present at a talk involving the two lucky but deserving winners of the Nobel Prize of this year (2010). What they recounted speaks for the magazine Science and speaks against Nature. They said their paper was eventually published when they submitted it to Science. They added it was rejected twice by Nature. Something very unnatural is happening to Nature. Instead of publishing defamatory tabloid articles against El Naschie they should have at least published the paper of the two ingenious Nobel winners of this year. Nature also refused to publish the paper reporting the experimental discovery of the golden mean in quantum mechanics by the Helmholtz Center and Oxford University. It was again Science which published the article. A year or so later after the publication in Science, Nature overcame themselves to publish a short article about the article published in Science. When one of my colleagues who is aware of El Naschie’s papers and findings on the golden mean in quantum mechanics wrote a comment about El Naschie’s achievement and sent it to Nature, they refused even to acknowledge the bare facts. It is really becoming a personal war declared by Nature against El Naschie. The looser is the scientific community and science. In fact Nature is losing in a big way by publishing doubtful papers on climatology and ignoring fundamental and path breaking work because they will otherwise be forced to mention the name of El Naschie. It is unreal. Who thought Nature would behave in such a fashion? There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the way Nature is being run at present. Of course Nature is the world’s most famous science magazine for everyone. The sooner they undertake self correction, the better it will be for everybody.

  10. Mohamed El Naschie

    Detail display
    Previous page Next page
    On being a man who wants to know everything: G. `t Hooft’s 60th birthday address
    Author / Creator: El Naschie, M. S.
    In: CHAOS SOLITONS AND FRACTALS; 30, 2; 257-258
    Supplier: Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam.
    Year of publication: 2006
    Size: 2 Pages
    ISSN: 0960-0779
    Type of media: Articl

    • Mohamed El Naschie

      Media is the modern True Weapon of mass deception. lik hiring a killer you can hire a journalist like that of ……namly Mr…Q…Sh …for caracter assessination in this case mohamed el naschie and Nature magazine of Macmillions wll pay the millions namly 5 milions ligal fees and leave Britich setsent in paverty

  11. Mohamed El Naschie

    Citizen Journalists
     Citizen journalists: no formal training
     Opinion as fact, rumor as reportage, innuendo as information
     No ethical restraints
     Effortless
     Free
     No connections or access to information
     “The responsibility of the journalist is to inform us, not converse with us”
     Hurricane Katrina
     Initial reports were exaggerated
    – Inflated body counts

  12. Mohamed El Naschie

  13. Mohamed El Naschie

    if you are not workig secretly for Nature or the Mafia whay not up date your records of el naschie many new papers?

  14. Mohamed El Naschie

    2 / 0 · 2 hours ago Mohamed El Naschie Mohamed El ……/posts/J4dUzNnJTdp
    Mohamed El Naschie
    8 hours ago – Mohamed El Naschie · 56.94 · 559.48 · Alexandria University Alexanderia Egypt OK. I took NATURE TO THE HIGH COURT in LONDON BECAUSE A GERMAN …
    Mohamed El Naschie
    8 hours ago – EL NASCHIE WINS LIBEL CASE, NATURE IS DISGRACED ……/posts/E9awkP8H9QV. Mohamed El Naschie 2 Jun 2014 – Even the most …
    Professor Mohamed El Naschie Engineering Scientist …
    M.S. El Naschie, born 1943 in Cairo, Egypt. He received his entire education in West Germany (Hamburg and Hannover ) and later on in England where he …
    You’ve visited this page many times. Last visit: 03/02/15

  15. Mohamed El Naschie

  16. Mohamed El Naschie

    Dr. Mohamed El Naschie
    Posted by Mohamed Naschice · 8 hrs ·
    2 / 0 · 2 hours ago
    Mohamed El Naschie
    Mohamed El Naschie · 56.94 · 559.48 · Alexandria University Alexanderia Egypt
    OK. I took NATURE TO THE HIGH COURT in LONDON BECAUSE A GERMAN JOURNALIST OF WHOM I HAVE THE LOWEST opinion was induced by a mixture of science politics as well as pure politics besides prize money to target me with the help of an army of internet criminals and corrupt defamation for money internet sites . Instead of admitting the crime and calling it a day the greatest most famous SCIENTIFIC TABLOID in the world declared HITLER TOTALEN KRIEG against poor me for how dare I answer back the spoiled daughter of MACMILAN PUBLISHING EMPIRE and according to them, they spent 5 milion pounds to uphold a blatant lie . I am an Egyptian and 5 million in EGYPT is 50 million so I was not legally represented and they won in first go a cheap but expensive victory by force on technicalities and silk barister bla bla bla which they are trained for plus false witnesses plus plus… including a court judge discussing quantum gravity. A complete mistrial ending in a farce for 5 m. . Any case i did not whither away or die as the poor Editor in Chief hoped. I made a substential recovery and started sending my papers to NATURE with many famous co authors . We sent 20 papers. All were rejected withen 12 hours without a single referee report. This is good news for science because NATURE WHO virtually bought some so called scientist who has never worked in my field to appear as what I feel as an embarrasment witness could not find a scientist who was ready to write a false refree report. So much for refereeing unproceedures in NATURE so far. But who knows, maybe the present Editor or a future one will ond day find the courage for the truth and admit a shamefull mistake to stand beside a cheating journalist to uphold the illision of a false pride in a historical reputation which cannot stand in the age of open access and tens of thousands of new journals for poor Egyptian like my humble self even though I did cost them 5 M to teache me that I am not a member of the old boys club….. and so on…..and so on
    1 / 0 · an hour ago
    Amir Causevic
    Amir Causevic · 9.51 · University of Sarajevo
    Dear Marcel,
    Interesting note on lobbying strategies. Having diner with editorial board members, etc. :XD Cheers to You!
    1 / 0 · an hour ago
    Mohamed El Naschie
    Mohamed El Naschie · 56.94 · 559.48 · Alexandria University Alexanderia Egypt
    amir this is harmless compared to what realy happens in reality
    1 / 0 · 53 minutes ago
    Mohamed El Naschie
    Mohamed El Naschie · 56.94 · 559.48 · Alexandria University Alexanderia Egypt
    this is a documentation for the real case
    Mohamed S. El Naschie Interview 1/3 – YouTube
    Video for el naschie against german journalist▶ 8:42
    9 Apr 2010 – Uploaded by elnaschie
    Read more about this amazing guy at the El Naschie Watch Blog: …. They are defending basically a German journalist, not a scientist, who was … in the history of Nature and this defamation case against El Naschie which has …
    el naschie wins libel case, nature is… – الدكتور … – فيس بوك…id…
    El Naschie and call it a day by finding an out of Court settlement. … the campaign against El Naschie was orchestrated by those who hired a German journalist
    Read more
    Mohamed El Naschie originally shared:

    Mohamed S. El Naschie Interview 1/3
    El Naschie Interview with subtitles. The show is Elbeet Beetak ( البيت بيتك ) or “make yourself at home”. The interviewer is Khairy Ramadan ( خيري رمضان ). T…
    10 people reached

Leave a Reply

© 2023 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑

%d bloggers like this: