Doctor's Data sues Quackwatch

[Ranb]

http://www.quackwatch.com/14Legal/dd_suit.html

Back in 2010 Doctor's Data sued Stephan Barrett over comments he made about their practice of provoked testing with chelating agents. Unfortunately the great majority of websites with updates on the lawsuit are written by Tim Bolen.

Anyone have an update on the lawsuit? The latest I could find was at the above link;

Status of the Suit
The suit complaint contained 11 counts. In January 2011, I asked the court to dismiss it for failure to plead the allegations necessary to support the elements of of the complaint. In judging an early motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true any factual allegations in the complaint. The judge denied the request for an injunction; dismissed four counts and part of a fifth; and ruled that discovery court proceed until June 2012, a date subsequently extended for three more months. After that, we can ask the court for another ruling based on evidence rather than mere claims. Since the suit is unfounded, I believe the rest of the suit will be dismissed soon afterward. Unfortunately, the work involved in defending the case is quite time-consuming and will have considerable cost.

Thanks.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I had been looking for updates over the years and eventually forgot about the lawsuit. It seems that it was settled back in July 2017.

https://www.quackwatch.org/14Legal/dd_suit.html

The libel suit filed by Doctor's Data (DDI) against Dr. Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, Inc., and the National Council against Health Fraud, Inc., has been settled amicably. The suit, filed in 2010, charged that Dr. Barrett had improperly criticized DDI on Quackwatch.org and other sites that he controls.

DDI is a CLIA- and OSHA-certified laboratory that provides specialty testing to health care practitioners. One of its tests measures the levels of lead and other toxic metals in the urine. The lawsuit centered around an article by Dr. Barrett about how doctors were using test reports on urine specimens that had been obtained after administering a chelating drug to the patient. This test process—called "provoked" or "challenge" testing—has been criticized by the American College of Medical Toxicologists and other mainstream medical organizations.

In 2009, Dr. Barrett posted an article describing how doctors who submitted provoked specimens to DDI were improperly telling patients they had heavy metal poisoning for which chelation is needed. DDI's lawsuit charged that the article falsely implied that DDI was responsible for how doctors interpret the test reports. In settling the suit, DDI and Dr. Barrett acknowledged that:
•It is not appropriate for a doctor to use a provoked test to tell people they have heavy metal poisoning.
•Provoked testing should not be the sole basis for recommending chelation therapy.
•Blood testing is the most appropriate test for lead poisoning.
•DDI is federally and state certified to offer blood and urine metal testing in accordance with CLIA, OSHA, and state regulations.

The settlement agreement has other terms that will remain confidential.

I wonder who came out on top? With DDI acknowledging the above I'm leaning towards them not gaining anything with their lawsuit.