…and this is a 
I don't envy Stephen Barrett at all, but this is going to be good. Barrett is the doctor behind QuackWatch a wonderful resource for exposing bogus medical claims. Among the many subjects of common charlatanry he's taken apart, one is the use of invalid tests to justify useless treatments, like chelation therapy, which is a goldmine for quacks. Do the doctory thing of drawing a little blood while wearing a white lab coat, send it off to a 'lab' that does a few tests and sends back a very official looking mass of data, and then the quack gazes into it and announces that you need powdered newts' eyes, or whatever nostrum he's peddling that day.
Barrett explained in thorough detail how the reports of one such 'lab', called "Doctor's Data", were jiggered to create unnecessary fears in patients.
Now Doctor's Data is suing him.
This is going to be such a hassle for Barrett—a pointless, frivolous suit by con artists who don't like the fact that he has publicly exposed their scam. But it is also deliciously ironic, because the suit will also make Doctor's Data more widely known as a fraud. Everyone should go read the relevant articles on QuackWatch:
Spread the news far and wide. Make sure everyone knows Doctor's Data is a fraud.
And if you want to help out monetarily, Quackwatch accepts donations.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: Zeno
|
July 4, 2010 9:41 AM
My check to Dr. Barrett is in the mail! (Actually, I used PayPal.)
I did not, however, send any money to the Quietus fraudsters.
Posted by: humanizzm
|
July 4, 2010 9:43 AM
Spreading information like this quickly and widely is one of the best uses the internet can be put to.
There are few things that I find more repulsive than scams exploiting the insecurities of people in need of medical help.
Posted by: Travis
|
July 4, 2010 9:45 AM
Here is to hoping this falls apart like Staurt Pivar's silly lawsuits against PZ. I hope this does not go far.
Posted by: Cory Meyer
|
July 4, 2010 10:03 AM
I love Quackwatch. Evidently Doctor's Data is a fan of the works of Barbara Streisand, because the Barbara Streisand Effect is when an overt attempt to censor backfires and creates more publicity than if you had shut the fuck up.
Posted by: DaveL
|
July 4, 2010 10:09 AM
My favourite part, from Dr. Barrett's second reply to DD's lawyers:
DD: We demand you retract false statements you have made about our clients!
Quackwatch: Which statements are those?
DD: Never mind that, you just see that they're taken down!
Now, the question is: do these lawyers have the balls to try this trick with a trial judge?
Posted by: eeanm
|
July 4, 2010 10:12 AM
Just made my donation. Everybody now! We can do more then crash polls. :)
Posted by: StThomas
|
July 4, 2010 10:15 AM
"And we got nothing to be guilty of...."
I gave 60 odd quid yesterday ($100). Any doctors reading it, it's a wonderful resource to steer your patients to.
Posted by: Dave A
|
July 4, 2010 10:25 AM
I can't waste precious resouces on quack watch. I need every extra dollar for my acupucnture treatments.
Posted by: scottfmessinger
|
July 4, 2010 10:26 AM
Just donated $20... thanks for the info!
Posted by: Orac
|
July 4, 2010 10:36 AM
My favorite is how they're demanding that the link about CARES being sued be taken down. If you look at the link it's nothing more than the text of the actual lawsuit with a brief explanatory paragraph in front of it. Given that the lawsuit complaint is a publicly available government document that anyone could get if interested, this makes it obvious that this suit is not about accuracy; it's about intimidation. DD doesn't want the text of the lawsuit easily obtainable, even though anyone can obtain it:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/06/more_legal_thuggery.php
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 4, 2010 10:41 AM
Good old Quackwatch. I used to drive some of my family members mad using Quackwatch as a woo-debunking source.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
July 4, 2010 10:45 AM
I just sent an e-mail to the law firm asking if the letters really did come from people working for the firm. I made out that I suspected that people were claiming to be them as part of a scam since the letters were so unprofessional and that they surely could not employ such people.
Posted by: Jordan
|
July 4, 2010 11:28 AM
I love it. We're seeing a new age of companies trying to intimidate people into silence, but they're not having any of it. They want their day in court, they can have it, but they'd better be ready for a serious counter-suit or the judge awarding legal feels or whatever to those that waste the court's time.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
July 4, 2010 11:35 AM
Maybe if we have some JDs reading this one of them can fill us in on terms such as "malicious litigation" and "abuse of process." Even if a state does not have an anti-SLAPP law on the books, someone perpetrating a fraud using the court as a club to whack people over the head with seldom ends well. After losing the case they idiot can keep on losing when the counter-suit hits. Cow-tipping a Minataur. Good luck.
Now for the trivia question: is this an example of the Streisand effect or the McLibel effect? Both?
Posted by: lizditz
|
July 4, 2010 11:45 AM
Go here (scroll down, it's toward the bottom) if you want to see a list to date of blogospheric reactions.
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2010/07/health-consumer-activist-subject-to-legal-threats.html
This is not going to end up the way Quackwatch's enemies want...
Posted by: Midwifetoad
|
July 4, 2010 11:49 AM
Dover was in some sense a pointless trivial case, but it got the facts out under oath.
Before launching actions having legal consequences, one should consider the truth of one's position.
Posted by: recovering catholic
|
July 4, 2010 11:57 AM
Just used PayPal to donate $100 to Quackwatch. Brave people like Simon Singh and Stephen Barrett deserve to be supported. I'm just sorry they have to go through the stress of lawsuits by frauds who have been called out and are terrified of losing their lucrative bilking businesses.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 4, 2010 12:08 PM
No irony in suing "Quackwatch," eh quack? OK, it could be a fraud like your title "doctor" (if properly awarded, misused into uselessness) but the evidence is to the contrary.
I guess if you can't be just a fraud, be a spectacular fraud.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: RationalMind
|
July 4, 2010 12:08 PM
Don't these people learn. Muck-donalds lost a lot more in reputation over the Mclibel Affair
there is a growing list of these Simon Singh being only the latest of them . More people than ever looking into Chiroquackery than ever.
Posted by: bgcamroux
|
July 4, 2010 12:32 PM
I'm curious about the prevalence of such testing and treatment in Canadian jusrisdictions. I thought we were all taught about the dangers of comparing apples with oranges way back in grade school. Guess I was wrong.
If I weren't a student trying to save to pay for my final year, I'd send money for sure. I'll just have to remember to donate at a later date when I can afford it.
I'm curious also what it is that Glen Davidson considers to be a doctor. Ph.D. = Doctor. M.D. = Medical doctor/practitioner.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 4, 2010 12:42 PM
I'm curious why bgcamroux thinks he is competent at reading. See, lackwit, it is actually possible to read the words in parentheses:
If you're too stupid to read it right the first time, you're probably too stupid to read it right the second time, though.
It's like Dr. Dr. Dembski, where "Dr." is nothing more than a means of bamboozling people.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: procrastinator.myopenid.com
|
July 4, 2010 12:52 PM
@Glen D: Add me to your lackwit list. I read your comment twice before I thought I had parsed it correctly but still wasn't sure.
Posted by: Multicellular
|
July 4, 2010 1:07 PM
@Glen D: I too had the same issue with your initial comment. You need to consider that it is perhaps not lack of wit by readers but lack of comprehensible content before resorting to ad hominem statements.
Okay, enough of that; I'm off to donate to the cause.
Posted by: mck9
|
July 4, 2010 1:58 PM
See the Bolen Report, by Tim Bolen, who bills himself as a Consumer Advocate.
Bolen defends Doctor's Data and attacks Barrett. He does not address the scientific issues at all, but merely smears Barrett through name-calling and innuendo.
At the bottom of the page, however, Bolen does us the considerable service of linking to what purports to be the text of the complaint as filed with the court, along with the exhibits.
Posted by: Metallicus
|
July 4, 2010 2:17 PM
Any doubters as to the toxic woo enabled by Doctor's Data should check out this "integrative medicine blog" interview with David Quig, PhD of Doctor's Data.
Here's what our intrepid scientist blames for supposed mercury toxicity:
"Amalgams, fish, vaccines, and now we have these wonderful new, green light bulbs that contain mercury."
Wow, another anti-amalgam filling/antivaxer - who would've thunk it (there is no good evidence that amalgam fillings expose people to significant amounts of mercury, and mercury-based preservative in vaccines (also never demonstrated to cause harm) has been absent from virtually all vaccines for years).
Quig also believes that your body needs supplements to help rid it of "toxins", promotes chelation and argues that to fight "toxins" you need to make sure your intestinal tract is "clean of pathogenic organisms".
His interview is not reassuring to those who wonder if Doctor's Data is on the side of health quackery.
Posted by: nekura-ca
|
July 4, 2010 2:37 PM
I went to Doctor's Data website to see, and under their Urine Toxic Metal test (link) the very first line of the description is:
and further down recommends most collection times as six to nine, and as low as two, hours, with only one up to twenty-four hours.
On Quackwatch an employee of Doctor's Data is quoted as:
but directly from their website:
Their own website shows that Dr. Barrett's statements are true.
The fact that Doctor's Data refuses to provide any specific refutation shows that they either don't have any valid objections, or don't want to expose their "evidence" to even more criticism before trial. At least this is in the US and not England.
Posted by: AdamK
|
July 4, 2010 3:51 PM
I knew it! Now that dastardly Big Pharma is beaming toxins into me, to further weaken my immune system! (But they don't know that I know that tin foil, properly folded and worn, reflects their nefarious green rays!)
Posted by: mck9
|
July 4, 2010 4:01 PM
I've been looking at the complaint, available from The Bolen Report that I referenced earlier. It features seven exhibits, and details its objections to each. I here summarize the discussion of Exhibit A.
This exhibit is a poorly scanned image of Barret's webpage, the same one cited by PZ, titled How the "Urine Toxic Metals" Test Is Used to Defraud Patients. More precisely, it's an image only of the top screenful.
-----------
Paragraph 33 objects to Barrett's statement that Doctor's Data "caters to nonstandard practitioners, a term with negative connotations meant to insult and denigrate Doctor's Data."
In other words, they're complaining about tone. What a surprise.
The complaint does not allege that Barrett's description is inaccurate. Indeed, since they say the term is virtually meaningless, they could hardly address its accuracy.
Actually the term "nonstandard" is applied to practitioners, not to Doctor's Data. Hence it cannot be defamatory with respect to Doctor's Data. I suppose it might be probative of Barrett's intent.
------------
Paragraph 35 cites Barrett's use of certain language:
-- "Many patients are falsely told..."
-- "How a urine test is used to defraud patients"
-- "Why Provoked Testing is a Scam"
This language is arguably defamatory. However it is not libelous if true. It is also not libelous unless there is malice (an intent to do harm), or a reckless disregard of the truth.
I'm probably not expressing the legal nuances properly. The point is that, to show libel, it isn't enough to show that the defendant said something bad about you. He has to have said something false, either knowing that it was false or not caring whether it was false.
----------
The complaint acknowledges that the language to which the complaint objects refers to the practitioners, not to Doctor's Data. However, it claims that "Barrett and the other defendants insist that the management at Doctor's Data is involved in conspiring with 'nonstandard practitioners' to defraud payments."
Nothing in Exhibit A says anything about such a conspiracy. This allegation of the complaint is utterly unsupported by the evidence entered, at least as regards Exhibit A.
------------
According to Paragraph 37, Exhibit A mentions a lawsuit filed in Illinois by a lawyer from Los Angeles. It makes a big deal of the fact that the lawyer was not licensed to practice in Illinois, and had to seek leave to appear pro hac vice.
So what? Pro hac vice is just legal jargon meaning that the lawyer can appear for a given case without being personally licensed in the local jurisdiction. Normally the out-of-town lawyer teams up with a local firm. Requests for leave to appear pro hac vice are routinely asked and routinely granted. It's nothing sinister. It's standard operating procedure, and the judge know that. The plaintiff is playing to the gallery here.
Apart from the pro hac vice silliness, what is the point? The complaint does not allege that Barrett has misrepresented the cited case in any way. Posting factual information about a legal case cannot possibly be defamatory.
In any case, the allegation is not properly pled, so far as I can see. Barrett's web page lists some legal cases at the bottom, but Exhibit A includes only the top of the web page (assuming that The Bolen Report's copy of the exhibit is complete). The allegation is based on facts not in evidence.
--------------
I haven't looked at the other exhibits yet, but so far I'm not impressed.
No matter how weak their case, Doctor's Data can force Barrett to spend a lot of money on lawyers. Even dismissal with prejudice will not come cheap.
The other threat is discovery. The plaintiff can demand to see the private records of the defendant in order to find more evidence, and courts are often very generous in granting discovery. In The Bolen Report, Bolen fairly rubs his hands in glee at the prospect of examining Barrett's emails and financial records.
Of course, two can play at that game. It might be interesting to see what a thorough course of discovery might turn up at Doctor's Data.
Posted by: blf
|
July 4, 2010 4:02 PM
You're apparently unaware that Big Pharam control, sometimes directly but mostly indirectly (through front companies registered in various tax havens), all the world's aluminium and tin supplies, and specify the formulae for the alloys (esp. the alloy used to make consumer-grade tinfoil). The alloy formulae are secret, and not even Obama can find out just what's in them or other details of tinfoil manufacturing.
Posted by: TsuDhoNimh
|
July 4, 2010 4:27 PM
Barrett explained in thorough detail how the reports of one such 'lab', called "Doctor's Data", were jiggered to create unnecessary fears in patients.
It's not that the test's results are faked ... they probably do get those levels of metals from properly calibrated systems. Metals tests are not hard to do.
It's that they report out the results on anything except a lab miscellaneous report slip or one made especially for the challenge urine samples. Printing the results for the tests on the form used for reporting metal levels on non-chelated individuals is knowingly and deliberately misleading.
Those results should properly be reported out on a lab slip with "NON-STANDARD LAB TEST NO ESTABLISHED CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT LEVELS" in bold print. But that wouldn't give the ordering physician what they need ... something showing that the patient has extremely elevated levels of something they can sell a treatment for.
Giving a chelating agent, then collecting a sample soon afterwards, and claiming that the results mean you have heavy metal problems is like having you run a mile, take your pulse and treat you for tachycardia (excessivley fast heart rate).
Posted by: mck9
|
July 4, 2010 4:39 PM
Ooops, I take it back.
Exhibit A, as linked from the Bolen Report, is a complete copy of Barret's web page. I thought it only had the top screenful because I was using the wrong scroll bar on my pdf reader.
My other points stand.
Also I should have included the standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice.
Posted by: bgcamroux
|
July 4, 2010 4:50 PM
@Glen D: Thank you for your stunning assessment of my reading abilities, based on nothing more than a single instance. If you wish for people to understand exactly what you are saying, perhaps you should learn to write clearly. I'm sure there are writing classes available in your city.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 4, 2010 5:04 PM
THIS is the biggest reason we constantly warn people about the dangers of "harmless" homeopathy.
You want to kill your loved ones like this?
Posted by: brianjordan
|
July 4, 2010 9:33 PM
At least this version of chelation therapy claims to be related to heavy metal contamination. What about the major woo of infusing people with EDTA to clear their arteries of heaven knows what? The amazing thing is that it doesn't also pull their plasma calcium into their boots and kill them straight away. If there's not enough EDTA to do that, it's unlikely to unblock "calcified" arteries.
I'm more than curious because I know of a man who was - I was told - declared to be in a very poor way by a conventional medical consultant, bought EDTA treatment from an "alternative" clinic, then was allegedly declared to have made a miraculous recovery by the original cardiologist.
I don't believe the woo merchants but the (admittedly anecdotal) tale of the pukka finding? Is there any reliable evidence at all that EDTA infusions can improve cardiovascular health?
Posted by: j-brisby
|
July 4, 2010 9:47 PM
My mom is being suckered by precisely this scam, run by the Vitalia Healthcare naturopathic clinic in Vancouver.
I couldn't have made this name up if I tried, but the place is run by a Dr. Tasreen Alibhai. There's your first clue.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 4, 2010 9:54 PM
My mom is being suckered by precisely this scam
did you show her Quack Watch?
if so, what was her reaction?
Posted by: j-brisby
|
July 4, 2010 10:19 PM
@Ichthyic I sent her the article just now. Stay tuned.
Posted by: bgcamroux
|
July 4, 2010 10:22 PM
@j-brisby:
That is an unfortunate opinion. Her name and ethnicity have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she was trained in quackery. It's almost unfortunate that "Doctor" Alibhai is so beautiful - it tends to be a disarming psychological factor, quickly putting people at ease.
I'm sorry that your mother is being subjected to said quackery. Just don't blame her ethnicity. Racism is never an appropriate response.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 4, 2010 10:39 PM
I think he means that Alibhai sounds like ALIBI. Not racism
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 4, 2010 10:40 PM
@bgcamroux,
May be wrong, but I actually think j-brisby was responding not to "Dr." Alibhai's perceived ethnicity but to the surname's surface similarity to the word "alibi." I guess it may still be somewhat racist, similarly to how some viewed PZ's amusement over Dr. Woo as questionable, but it is certainly not as directly or overtly racist as you imply.
Posted by: bgcamroux
|
July 4, 2010 10:45 PM
@Ing: If that's the case, then I apologize for the racism comment. But I still contend that it is never an appropriate response.
Posted by: sendittodevnull
|
July 4, 2010 11:15 PM
Oh wow, I looked up ,A HREF="http://www.vitaliahealthcare.ca/autism.html">her website. How can this: "At Vitalia Health Care, we know that autism can be treated. We provide a full range of bio-medical services that can help heal the underlying problems so your child can have a fuller, healthier life." not be actionable under misleading advertising regulations?
It certainly ducks like a quack...
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 4, 2010 11:23 PM
@bgcamroux,
I find it somewhat grating that you're "still contending" against something nobody appears to have done or argued in favor of. But on the other hand, we did have some stupid "anti-PC" racism a couple of days ago on the Perversely Abnormal thread, so I guess I do understand the hair-trigger.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
July 4, 2010 11:32 PM
Thanks to those who clarified, and yes, I was commenting on her name's similarity to 'alibi'.
Posted by: defides
|
July 5, 2010 2:52 AM
Surely to goodness this can't be happening in the USA? After Dr Singh assured us in England over and over and over again that he was being subject to defamation claims made by quack healing peddlers ONLY BECAUSE of the perverse nature of the English law of libel?
Say it isn't so.
Posted by: mww
|
July 5, 2010 4:47 AM
How clever of DD Inc to choose a company name which describes exactly what it does.
Posted by: mww
|
July 5, 2010 5:07 AM
Doctor's Data - Give us the data, we'll doctor it!
Posted by: csrster
|
July 5, 2010 7:51 AM
Good old Quackwatch, indeed. It takes more than a frivolous lawsuit to intimidate Dr. Barrett. He's been sued more times than PZ has committed blasphemy.
Posted by: philosopher.animal
|
July 5, 2010 8:09 AM
brianjordan: Yeah, chelation is not only not effective for anything claimed by these folks (for all intents and purposes) and is outright dangerous.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 5, 2010 5:16 PM
To all libertarians...and this is why we regulate business. So those that can afford to harass people through the courts and run the poor into even greater poverty defending frivolous suites, shouldn't get away with it. The fact that they can is a abomination on our system.