Anti-alternative "Quackbusters" Have Giant Court Losses on Two Continents

Holland, Pennsylvania & California Courts Rule Against Them

Recent rulings in Amsterdam, Pennsylvania and the Supreme Court of California are heavy blows to the Quackwatch anti-chiropractic and anti-alternative medicine organizations.

After years of being labeled a"quack," and defamed and ridiculed professionally, Dr. Maria Sickesz won a great victory in Amsterdam, Holland early June
 2007.

The Netherlands Appeals Court ordered the "Vereniging tegen de Kwalzalverij" (Association Against Quackery, which is the Dutch version of the so- called "Quackbusters" ) to cease and desist from using the demeaning, subjective and pejorative term "quack." This group is linked extensively on their website with the American "quackwatch" headed by Stephen Barrett, who also has suffered several legal defeats recently.

The Justices recognized that this group's affinity for giving demeaning labels to doctors with whose practices they disagreed was a way of shutting down emerging science. They were also ordered to publish a public retraction in two widely circulated newspapers. It has been estimated this will cost them around thirty thousand euros (~US$40,350) and has been written that this will bankrupt this highly controversial association whose work is attempting to destroy alternative practioners in Holland.

Dr. Sickesz developed a kind of healing called orthomanual therapy which integrates chiropractic practices. For several decades the quackbuster organizations around the world have waged legal and public relations wars against chiropractors and other non traditional practitioners, demonizing them with their biased campaigns.

In June, for the second time, Barrett lost a case in a Pennsylvania Appeals Court against a local and respected chiropractor in his hometown of Allentown, PA.

Related information
 
Comments 1 - 8 of 8  
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

Barrett is a well known debunker (pseudo-skeptic) according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunker Most professional debunkers are pseudo-skeptics members of radical and depamogic pseudoscientific/pseudorationalistic groups like CSICOP (now CSI). More information: http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/skeptic.htm http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/criticizingskepticism.htm http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/

Posted on 12/08/2007 at 8:12:00 AM

Helena & DG make some excellent points. Thanks for the heads-up on two excellent articles, Helena. I posted them on Usenet for wider distribution. The quackbuster operations are the epitome of pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism. Far from questioning or even doubting on-going medical controversies such as the reality of multiple chemical sensitivies and Gulf War Syndrome, Barrett trivializes them mis-labeling them as "fad diagnoses." Environmental illnesses are complex and multi-faceted, and yet Barrett has waged a war against those investigating these syndromes, even having the audacity to encourage going after their medical licenses. He posts the conventional industry opinions on vaccinations, HRT, amalgam ... the opposite of what a true skeptic does. Definition: skeptics: someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs Are you aware of the 2500 doctors and scientists his questionable NCAHF put on a "quack list"? You're right ... ad hominems have no place

Posted on 09/02/2007 at 8:09:00 AM

I agree with Dan. Science should be used to test any kind of therapy or medicament. Alternative practitioners should use the scientific method to test their therapies and procedures. However, the above concept isn't a reason to defame any person. We don't need to use ridicule and ad hominem attacks or pejorative labels to make the point. It's more a kind of propaganda than a scientific reasoning. And it's also a sign of pseudo-skepticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_skepticism http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html I don't know any proof in favor of any alternative therapy. So, I use only conventional medicine when I suffer of any disease. However, I'm also very critical of conventional medicine and we need to recognize its flaws, limitations and deficiencies: http://www.noblindmen.com/Is%20US%20Health%20Really%20the%20Best.htm http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/newman20020725

Posted on 08/28/2007 at 4:08:00 PM

Dan raises a valid point. Surely we can all agree that there are "quacks" out there; individuals who are profiting by misleadingly promoting ineffective and potentially harmful treatments that have not been adequately tested. I support, in principle, any person or organization that ferrets out "quacks". Seems like a noble mission to me. It's not at all suprising that those who may have been rightly labeled as "quacks" have protested adamantly and counterattacked their accusers; after all, their livelihood depends on their ability to stay below the radar so that they continue to mislead the public and profit from their ignorance.

Posted on 08/10/2007 at 2:08:00 PM

Thanks for your comments, Anne. I definitely believe that "quackery is in the eye of the beholder" and is not the dominion of a partisan, closed minded, biased public relations operations against alternative medical practices and practitioners. The international "quackbuster" team does not stop with labeling people with insulting terms, but wages multi-level legal attacks and smear campaigns and attempts to destroy the careers of those they go after. I remain very, very pleased that the Dutch Justices recognized the organized operations to harm Dr. Sickesz and made a step forward in protecting emerging and non traditional medical practictioners from the Dutch "quackbuster" group. Best from Ilena http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com

Posted on 06/30/2007 at 8:06:00 PM

"cease and desist from using the demeaning, subjective and pejorative term "quack"...After years of being labeled a"quack," and defamed and ridiculed professionally." You applaud this , then in the next breath claim, "suit against me ruled that calling someone a "quack" was expressing an opinion... I truly believe that quackery is in the eye of the beholder....none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." So is it defamatory, or not. This reader can only conclude that you play both sides, thus truly believe neither.

Posted on 06/30/2007 at 10:06:00 AM

Hi Dan. I really appreciate your comment. Alas ... there is an enormous amount of controversies ongoing about "which" scientific standards apply. Pundits on both sides of many issues label the 'other side's side ~ "junk science" or "quackery." There is a gigantic public relations industry selling "a" version of "sound science" ... most of which equates with "industry science." The Superior Court Judges in Barrett's SLAPP suit against me ruled that calling someone a "quack" was expressing an opinion. I agree with him. After working for 12 years with women harmed by breast implants and hearing thousands of stories ... I truly believe that quackery is in the eye of the beholder. Best from Ilena http://breastimplantawareness.blogspot.com http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com

Posted on 06/29/2007 at 4:06:00 PM

Science is the best known way to determine the safety and efficacy of medicines and procedures. Those who refuse to apply scientific standards deserve to be called quacks.

Posted on 06/28/2007 at 12:06:00 PM

Comments 1 - 8 of 8