I am writing to you concerning the above article “Could a drug for Narcolepsy change the world?” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/09/could-a-drug-for-narcolepsy-change-the-world
I would be grateful if you could consider my request for a “Right to Reply” as a matter of some urgency given the article is both inaccurate and discriminatory on a number of counts and requires both an apology and a right to reply so that we can set the record straight.
For clarity, I have outlined the main inaccuracies below.
The columnist talks about being “sent down a rabbit hole of research” and this strikes me as staggeringly inaccurate given the total lack of research evident in the final published article.
The drug referred to is not a cure for Narcolepsy. There is no cure.
Referring to someone as “narcoleptic” implies someone is defined by their condition alone. https://www.narcolepsy.org.uk/resources/narcoleptic-or-a-person-with-narcolepsy/
The test for type one Narcolepsy referred to is merely one of a number of tests used to diagnose this chronic neurological condition and the suggestion that people with Narcolepsy have a “grip on consciousness more or less the same as a house cat” completely failed to take into account the seriousness and implications of this condition.
The authors suggestion that she “sometimes goes to sleep on the tube just because she is pleased the tube has arrived” also fails to take into account the devastating nature of cataplexy and the affect it can have on peoples lives.
I believe that my request is entirely reasonable given the article repeats a multitude of lazy and inaccurate tropes concerning Narcolepsy, a chronic neurological condition, its diagnosis and treatment. What is also of great concern to me is the discriminatory attitude expressed throughout the article, something I would not have expected from The Guardian although you seem to have a fixation with the comedic value of Narcolepsy having previously published this article below, choosing to pursue cheap laughs at the expense of people with protected characteristics rather than make the most of an opportunity to actually educate your readers about a rare and debilitating condition.
I look forward to receiving your reply.
Kind Regards,
Matt O’Neill
Chair