Why did QuackWatch lose the trial?

  • Thread starter SF
  • Start date
  • #1
SF
Here's a report from the crackpot's PoV:
herballure com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=435&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

The Court also declared that top quackbusters Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) "were found to be biased and unworthy of
credibility."

The quackbusters lost in a PUBLISHED case. The quackbuster premise failed. Not some of it, not most of it - but ALL of it. The "quackbuster" measuring stick for how to evaluate health care has been completely discredited. Official quackbuster credibility is now ZERO.
Why did the judge rule against QuackWatch?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
685
My take: Science and the law operate under different premises. QuackWatch attempted to bring scientific premises into the world of law. In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Someone with a hypothetical cure for some ill must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that their claim is valid. In law, the burden of proof shifts dramatically, particularly so in civil law. A quack can make a claim for a product, and it is up to the plaintiff suing the quack to prove the quack is wrong.

It also doesn't hurt that the quackery industry is very deeply involved in funding politicians. Federal and state regulations have been weakened substantially since the 1970s.
 
  • #3
Evo
Mentor
23,172
2,914
They lost because it was in California which has some bizzare approach to crackpot medicine. Your link is from 2003.

From your link
On appeal, NCAHF acknowledges that, under current California law, a false advertising plaintiff bears the burden of proving the defendants advertising claim is false or misleading. NCAHF contends, however, that we should shift the burden of proof to the defendant to facilitate the campaign against health fraud. NCAHF argues that federal law shifts the burden to the defendant in false advertising actions."

In response to the NCAHF's demands, the Court said: "We conclude there is no basis in California law to shift the burden of proof to a defendant in a representative false advertising and unlawful competition action.
What this is saying is that in Califiornia I can sell the snot out of my nose and claim it cures cancer and I don't have to prove it. If someone takes me to court, they have to prove my snot can't cure cancer. It is the most ridiculous and backasswards thing I've ever seen.

I haven't checked to see if the ruling was reversed or if California has now inacted consummer protection laws since this nonsense.

Quackwatch is very alive and well.
 
  • #4
DrClapeyron
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Evo
Mentor
23,172
2,914

Related Threads on Why did QuackWatch lose the trial?

Replies
78
Views
25K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
11K
Replies
20
Views
10K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Top