Following the recent case of the British Chiropractic Association against Simon Singh, a lawsuit which was eventually dropped leading BCA to implode under its own absurdity, there is now yet another libel lawsuit against a critic of pseudosciences and dubious practises: Doctor’s Data Inc. against Stephen Barrett, MD.

For those unaware, Stephen Barrett runs the Quackwatch family of websites, exposing bad science, pseudoscience, and “strange” claims in the domain of medicine and health. Quackwatch is a consistent source of important and, at times, entertaining material, so this libel suit could potentially do a lot of damage to the healthy skeptical world.

Stephen wrote a piece on Quackwatch, “How the “Urine Toxic Metals” Test Is Used to Defraud Patients“, critisizing the tests and analysis from Doctor’s Data Inc laboratories, that have been leading “patients” into dubious treatments for apparent heavy metal poisoning; treatments including chelation therapy. That article makes for an interesting read on its own.

Back to our issue at hand though, Doctor’s Data Inc. (DDI) don’t seem to have any strong case at their hands, and they have probably used this tactic in an effort to intimidate Stephen Barrett and shut down anything that criticizes them -in typical fashion for people engaged in pseudosciente and alternative medicine. From quackwatch we can follow the exchange of letters between some random lawers representing DDI, and Stephen Barret. Read and weep at the free-fall of public enquiry and free speech:

[...]

“It is never libelous,” you have said, “to criticize an idea.” However, you have gone way beyond the idea stage, and our client will not tolerate it. You apparently have carried on this conduct in an intentional manner and with the assistance of others. It is clear that you have a specific intent to harm Doctor’s Data, and this conduct must stop immediately.

We demand that you cease and desist any and all comments regarding Doctor’s Data, which have been and are false, fraudulent, defamatory or otherwise not truthful, and make a complete and full retraction of all statements you have made in the past, including those which have led in some instances to litigation.

[...]

To which Stephen Barrett replied:

[...]

I take great pride in being accurate and carefully consider complaints about what I write. However, your letter does not identify a single statement by me that you believe is inaccurate or “fraudulent.” The only thing you mention is my article about how the urine toxic metals test is used to defraud patients: (http://www.quackwatch.org/t). The article’s title reflects my opinion, the basis of which the article explains in detail.

If you want me to consider modifying the article, please identify every sentence to which you object and explain why you believe it is not correct.

If you want me to consider statements other than those in the article, please send me a complete list of such statements and the people to whom you believe they were made.

DDI didn’t bother to provide any such statements, so they merely reiterated their desire to proceed by suing in case the “defamatory” material were not removed on time. Stephen stood his ground:

My letter asked you to identify the claims that you believe are false. You have not identified a single sentence that you believe is inaccurate. Since you have failed to do so, I have no choice but to assume that you cannot. My offer remains open, as it is to anyone who is criticized on any of my sites. If you identify anything that you consider inaccurate, I will seriously consider what you say and act accordingly.

…and the case will now go to court. As I understand it though, the US laws are much more balanced than the UK libel laws, and hence Stephen will not have to go through what Simon Singh went through over the last couple of years. Still, temporary sanctions could be imposed (shut down site until case resolved? remove relevant material?).

So please remember to help keep the libel laws out of science, and follow closely the case for reform of the English libel laws.