California Appeals Court BLUDGEONS Quackbusters...
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim
Bolen
April 23, 2003
A California Appeals Court,
yesterday, April 22, 2003, bludgeoned the National Council Against Health Fraud
(NCAHF), and their whole argument about what constitutes good and bad health
care. The quackbuster's operating theme, the argument they use against
alternative proponents, came under a major American Court's scrutiny. The
Court, basically, in their decision, said the the quackbuster's arguments were
hogwash, and they had no business meddling in California's system.
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.
In a minute I'm going to give
you a link to the Appeals Court decision. But first let me give you a road
map.
Here's what happened...
The quackbuster's flagship, the
self-proclaimed National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) decided, one day,
to sue about 43 "Alternative Medicine proponents" in California,
basically claiming that all of them were engaging in health fraud "because
what they were doing wasn't scientifically proven."
Their argument was that "the
defendant has to PROVE their products work, or it's health fraud."
California was the wrong place
for them to try this stunt. Here, health freedom bills tend to pass through the
legislature UNANIMOUSLY. We like to be healthy. It's our life style.
The very first case that came to
trial was called NCAHF vs, King Bio (a manufacturer of about 50 homeopathic
products). The NCAHF lost badly. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Haley
Fromholz wrote a long decision, virtually battering the quackbusters for wasting
the court's time with their silly case. The quackbusters had accused King Bio
of false advertising. At issue was the credibility of the NCAHF's witnesses,
Stephen Barrett, and Wallace Sampson MD. The Judge thrashed their arguments.
You can read the Judge's words in this original case decision by clicking
here.
You can find out who King Bio is by going to their website
www.kingbio.com
The NCAHF appealed. And, boy
did it cost them. You need to read the decision. It is written in plain
language, not legalese, and is clearly understandable. Read the footnotes also.
Pass this around to anyone under attack by the quackbusters. Their attorneys
will love this precedent setting case.
To me one of the more important
statements is the last footnote in the Appeal Court's decision, for it attacks
the whole quackbuster operation It says, "The trial court concluded NCAHF
failed to prove a false or misleading statement. King Bios expert testified
the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the
Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines. NCAHF presented no
evidence that King Bios products were not safe and effective, relying instead
on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or
experience with, King Bios products, and who were found to be biased and
unworthy of credibility."
But more occurred. "At trial, NCAHF proceeded on the theory that there is
no scientific basis for the advertised efficacy of King Bios products. NCAHF
performed no tests to determine the efficacy of King Bios products and
presented no anecdotal evidence. NCAHF instead argued that King Bios products
were drugs, and the scientific community required representations regarding the
efficacy of drugs to be supported by acceptable scientific evidence. NCAHF
asserted that the burden of proof should be shifted to King Bio to prove its
products efficacy. 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. We conclude further that the Legislature has indicated an intent to
place the burden of proof on the plaintiff in such cases. Finally, we conclude
federal authority is not apposite."
What
this means to the North American Health Freedom Movement...
This is a PUBLISHED case. It is
PRECEDENT setting. It can (and should) be used in any case in the US where
quackbusters are involved. The quackbusters have been court tested - and they
lost. Their whole argument against alternative medicine has been thrown in the
trash. Their credibility is zero.
The case was handled, on our
side, by famous California litigator, Carlos Negrete. You can read his comments
on the case at
www.healtfreedomlaw.com.
You can read the whole case
decision by clicking
here.
What I want to know is "Who
funded the quackbuster's lawsuits?"
My advice to you: If you are the subject of derogatory remarks on top
quackbuster Stephen Barrett's website
www.quackwatch.com, or Robert Baratz's website
www.nachf.org, you might want to consider showing this newsletter, and the
court decision papers, to your attorney. This might be a good time for your
attorney to send them a letter pointing out their new legal problems - and
demanding removal of the information from their website within 24 hours... Your
attorney might want to ask for compensation...
Stay tuned...
Tim Bolen - Consumer
Advocate
This
"Millions of Health Freedom Fighters - Newsletter" is about the battle between
"Health and Medicine" on Planet Earth. Tim Bolen is an op/ed writer with
extensive knowledge of the activities of a subversive organization calling
itself the "quackbusters," and that organization's attempts to suppress, and
discredit, any, and all health modalities that compete with the allopathic (MD)
paradigm for consumer health dollars. The focus of the newsletter is on the
ongoing activities, battles, politics, and the victories won by members of the
"Health Freedom Movement" against the "quackbusters" It details "who the
quackbusters are, what they are, where they are operating, when they appear, and
how they operate - and how easy it is to beat them..."
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820
"What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?"
-- Sandy Gottstein
"Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?"