Why did QuackWatch lose the trial?

SF · May 25, 2008

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?

D H · May 25, 2008

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.

Evo · May 25, 2008

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.

DrClapeyron · Jun 7, 2008

Wow. Did they (quackwatch) hire a lawyer? http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bolensuit.html Says mainly they sued due to what was stated in emails and internet message boards.

Evo · Jun 7, 2008

DrClapeyron said: ↑

Wow. Did they (quackwatch) hire a lawyer? http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bolensuit.html Says mainly they sued due to what was stated in emails and internet message boards.

This is quackwatch's suit of libel against the Bolens.

Log in or Sign up

Why did QuackWatch lose the trial?

SF

D H

Evo

Staff: Mentor

DrClapeyron

Evo

Staff: Mentor