ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags lawsuits , quackwatch , Stephen Barrett

Reply
Old 7th May 2013, 10:29 AM   #1
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,594
Doctor's Data sues Quackwatch

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;
Quote:
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

Last edited by Ranb; 7th May 2013 at 10:32 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 12:43 PM   #2
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,594
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

Quote:
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.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.