Sunday, December 12, 2010

Will PZ Myers "Cease and Desist" Concerning ND Maloney? - We'll Know This Week

here, I list some of the relevant pages in the ND Maloney - Pharyngula issue somewhat organized chronologically [as near as I can tell]:

2010-02-17 - Myers posts "Christopher Maloney is a Quack":

"Maloney is a naturopath in the state of Maine, where quacks like him get to call themselves 'doctors' [...] a student, Michael Hawkins, dared to criticize him, pointing out that 'naturopathic medicine is pure bull' and stating that naturopaths are under-qualified and do not deserve the title of 'doctor' [...] Maloney took action to silence him [...] not only is Maloney a quack, but he's a stupid quack [...] now a much bigger blog is going to spread the word that Christopher Maloney is a quack [...] let the whole world know that Christopher Maloney is a cowardly quack."


2010-02-18 - Myers posts "Christopher Maloney: Still A Quack":

"that quack, Christopher Maloney, has written to me now... with a nice little edge of hysteria and paranoia [...] 'u can call me an idiot and a quack, but when you repeat the fact that I am not a doctor and not qualified, that is a written lie or libel. I am a doctor under Maine state law and meet the qualifications of that title' [...] the plot thickens. Maloney denies getting Hawkins' site shut down."

Note: related to this, Myer's posted on 2010-02-18 "Andreas Moritz is a Cancer Quack", Steve Novella posted on 2010-02-18 "Naturopaths Can Silence Critics Too" with Maloney using the name Quackalicious in the comments, and fellow ScienceBlogs.com blogger Orac posted on 2010-02-19 "Andreas Moritz and Trying to Shut Down Valid Scientific Criticism: A Sine Qua Non of a Quack" and fellow ScienceBlogs.com blogger Joshua Rosenau posted on 2010-12-08 "Christopher Maloney is a Quack".

2010-07-27 Steve Novella posts "Maloney Declares Victory":

"made clear by this exchange is the difference between the science-based approach and Maloney’s approach, which is typical of naturopaths. I look at all the evidence for plausibility, safety, and the reasonable potential for benefit. If I am convinced that I can offer my patients the probability of benefit in excess of harm, I will use a treatment (no matter how it is labeled) with proper informed consent. But I will then closely follow the evidence and will stop using a treatment if good clinical evidence is negative. Or I will start using a treatment when new evidence shows that it is safe and effective. Maloney, on the other hand, appears to trade in wild speculation. In my opinion he has demonstrated sloppy, black and white thinking, an inability to understand the implications of published research, a bias against science-based medicine, and a willingness to prescribe treatments based upon the flimsiest of scientific justifications. He then accuses me of being 'dismissive' and has the stones to declare victory in our exchange because I eventually tired of his evasiveness and crank tactics."

Note: Maloney's compilation is here.


2010-12-07 - Myers posts "I Get Mail":

"some people just don't get it. Christopher Maloney wants to silence a message he doesn't like on the internet by serving a cease and desist order. The last time I mentioned Maloney was eight months ago, and even then it was to point and laugh at his page throwing crazy paranoid accusations at me. So now [...] he has decided to stir the pot and remind everyone that Christopher Maloney is a quack and that he keeps on quacking? [...] once again, the web will start echoing the Christopher Maloney is a quack message. It must be handy for a quack to marry a lawyer, but I don't think she's giving him good advice in this case. You might as well serve a writ on the tides to stop flowing as ask the internet to erase a piece of its data."

Note: Maloney's compilation is here.


---
The deadline for the cease and desist request is 2010-12-14.  We'll see what happens this week.
Post a Comment