Consumer watch group sued by alties

[Eos of the Eons]

So how do the alties cope when their beloved herbal producers try to suppress any information that is not complimentary to their chosen products?

Did anyone really believe that the alties were proud paragons of virtue and truthfulness (apart from the alties themselves, of course)?

http://thesecondsight.blogspot.com/2006/06/big-altie-pharma.html

I am tired of hearing people tell me the sCAM folks are victims of big pharma suppression.

I am tired of hearing people tell me sCAM products are not studied because big pharma doesn't want competition.

I'm certainly not surprised to see sCAM reaction when their junk is proven to be the junk it is. If it actually did work, then their claims would be for drugs, and those need to be regulated so that people aren't harmed by overuse and side effects.

Hypocrisy rides on, and the consumer health group shot itself in the foot.

 

[blutoski]

http://thesecondsight.blogspot.com/2006/06/big-altie-pharma.html

I am tired of hearing people tell me the sCAM folks are victims of big pharma suppression.

I am tired of hearing people tell me sCAM products are not studied because big pharma doesn't want competition.

I'm certainly not surprised to see sCAM reaction when their junk is proven to be the junk it is. If it actually did work, then their claims would be for drugs, and those need to be regulated so that people aren't harmed by overuse and side effects.

Hypocrisy rides on, and the consumer health group shot itself in the foot.

This is also one of the reasons I'm trying to encourage the formation of skeptical organizations: libel insurance is expensive.

For those who aren't aware: one of the reasons (if not *the* reason) for the formation of the JREF was to provide Mr. Randi with a safer environment within which he could operate. The Geller trials were financially devastating, and he did not have an independent organization willing to run interference at the time.

One of the ironies of criticizing quacks or scam artists with financial success is that effectiveness carries great risk. If you don't make a difference, they leave you alone - if you actually look like you're changing public opinion, they can be vicious and motivated. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch has been in and out of courtrooms monthly, for almost thirty years.

For example, if I were to publish something that caused Adam Dreamhealer to lose $5M in business, it is worth $5M in legal fees for him to silence me. I don't personally have that kind of scratch, so I think three times about what I write and say. Establishing an independent legal entity and getting libel insurance will reduce some of this stress.

 

[Mojo]

Meanwhile, over on the UK Skeptics forum, We have a guy called Frank Eeken spamming the accusation that Quackwatch are trying to "silence critics by intimidating them with expensive, energy consuming litigation".

I imagine he's spamming the same stuff elsewhere in his many threads about "Jomanda". He seems to be a major cut-and-paste artist.

 

[blutoski]

Meanwhile, over on the UK Skeptics forum, We have a guy called Frank Eeken spamming the accusation that Quackwatch are trying to "silence critics by intimidating them with expensive, energy consuming litigation".

I imagine he's spamming the same stuff elsewhere in his many threads about "Jomanda". He seems to be a major cut-and-paste artist.

Quackwatch is certainly involved in a very important lawsuit right now, although I'd hardly call it an attempt to silence critics. What triggered it was personal attacks, not techincal criticism. Polevoy et al have never sued for professional disagreement: only for accusations of a personal nature.

What is at stake here is more than just a lawsuit about healthfraud, though: it's about personal accountability for anonymous webforum postings. It is part of the reason that the JREF forum is "not associated with" the JREF.