They can’t win on the science; so they try to suppress criticism through legal action. I don’t know enough of the details of the suit to determine whether Handley’s case had any merit or not, and I’m not a lawyer anyway. However, I am pretty sure I have deduced Handley’s intent, as his e-mail and postings on Ao A certainly leave no doubt as to his attitude. Offit and his lawyers decided to settle rather than fight, with the settlement being an apology, an agreement to correct the passage in dispute, and a ,000 donation to one of Jenny Mc Carthy’s favored autism charities, all of which to me sounds very much like a very minor settlement–a token. Offit just didn’t want to go through the pain of a full trial, which is, of course, the point of such legal actions. On the other hand, Offit’s settling is a huge propaganda victory for Handley, which he has been trumpeting on his blog, and another possibility to be considered is that Handley didn’t really want Generation Rescue and himself to be subject to discovery.I also know that it’s very interesting that, as Squillo points out, Handley’s lawsuit was not filed on the basis of libel, but rather on “false light invasion of privacy” rather than for libel (a form of defamation), probably because false light is less well defined than libel and easier to prevail, perhaps as a result of Dr. My further guess is that Handley may have had just enough of a case plus a set of pockets deep enough to make a lot of trouble but probably not a good enough case to have had a high likelihood of prevailing if it had gone to trial. Offit I highly doubt that Handley’ would have agreed to what is in essence a tiny token settlement. Unfortunately, Handley’s apparent success appears to have emboldened other anti-vaccine activists, and this, I suspect, is why Ms. But when it comes to mandating vaccinations, Offit says, Fisher is right about him: He is an adamant supporter.Paul Offit, Amy Wallace, who quoted him in her excellent article published in WIRED Magazine in October (for which J. Handley waxed all misogynistic on her), and Condé Naste, WIRED’s publisher.
I was the token consumer representative." What she observed was lack of oversight of this huge enterprise. You have the federal health infrastructure that funds the state public-health infrastructure.
Together they have decided they are going to use vaccines to eradicate disease-causing microorganisms from Earth.
And I haven’t even mentioned -quack Matthias Rath trying to silence Ben Goldacre through litigation The most recent flavor of anti-science groups using the law to silence critics seems to be anti-vaccine activists.
And, I’m sad to report, I’ve learned from Peter Bowditch that this time around it is Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) who is suing Dr.
My lawyers live to investigate and sue people like you.
This, of course, sums up the attitude of all too many anti-science activists. S., libel suits can be so intimidating that they will effectively silence criticism.
In marked contrast, on skeptical forums, almost anything goes. Indeed, at the anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism, comments are ruthlessly censored, and anyone who disagrees too strongly with the prevailing “wisdom” that vaccines cause autism will soon find himself permanently banned.
True, the occasional supporter of woo who finds his way onto a skeptical forum will face a lot of criticism, some of it brutal. One consequence of this, I believe, is that the adherents of such views become progressively less able to defend their views with reason, because they simply aren’t used to having them challenged based on evidence and science.
However, rarely will he be banned, unless there are other reasons, such as insulting or abusive behavior. Many no longer even know how to react to criticism other than by lashing out.