Penultimate
06-06-04, 01:43 PM
Lately a lot of people have been posting articles critical of ADHD and ADHD meds. Most of the articles are based on the opinions of quack doctors and/or researchers who are funded by Scientology. Before you post such an article I recommend you do the following.
1. Look up Scientology on the Internet. Read some of the anti-Scientology sites. Much of what you see in the anti-ADHD articles comes straight from the Scientology playbook. Learn to recognize that playbook and ignore that sort of articles.
2. Check out Quackwatch (http://www.quackwatch.org/index.html) and the Millennium Project. (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/health1.htm) They have excellent lists of health frauds. Quackwatch also has lists of organizations and individuals who perpetrate these kinds of frauds. I am sure there are many other good sites like these out there.
3. Remember that the fact that a scientific theory is mentioned in a lawyer’s pleadings for a case does not make that theory true. Not even if that lawyer wins the case.
What a lawyer needs to win a civil case is a ‘victim’ (someone who has suffered damages), a ‘deep pocket’ (a person or organization with money), a theory linking the victim and the deep pocket (often a scientific theory), and a court that will allow the theory to be heard by a jury.
The rules of evidence were changed about a decade ago to allow for more novel theories to be heard in court. Under the old Frye standard, from Frye v. United States, 54 App. D. C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923), an expert opinion based on a scientific technique is inadmissible unless the technique is ‘generally accepted’ as reliable in the relevant scientific community.
Under the newer Daubert standard, from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the court is given more flexibility in allowing scientific theories to come before the jury.
Getting the theory in front of the jury is half the battle. Most jurors are not scientists and, like the general public, many believe in conspiracies and other crackpot theories. More information about Daubert is available here : http://www.daubertontheweb.com/
Erin Brockovich is a good example of what I mean. It turns out that the case she became famous for had no basis in scientific fact. In fact later analysis showed that PG&E was not at fault. They settled the case because it would have cost millions to defend it even if they won and it would have meant years of bad publicity.
Recently Brockovich’s firm was rebuffed when they tried to claim that students at Beverly Hills High School (read: deep pocket) were becoming sick because of oil wells on campus. The case was booted out of court for lack of merit.
Always remember that a lawyer is not a scientist. The lawyer is interested in making money, not in finding scientific truth. You should be very skeptical about any claims made by lawyers in support of litigation. Even if they win!
1. Look up Scientology on the Internet. Read some of the anti-Scientology sites. Much of what you see in the anti-ADHD articles comes straight from the Scientology playbook. Learn to recognize that playbook and ignore that sort of articles.
2. Check out Quackwatch (http://www.quackwatch.org/index.html) and the Millennium Project. (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/health1.htm) They have excellent lists of health frauds. Quackwatch also has lists of organizations and individuals who perpetrate these kinds of frauds. I am sure there are many other good sites like these out there.
3. Remember that the fact that a scientific theory is mentioned in a lawyer’s pleadings for a case does not make that theory true. Not even if that lawyer wins the case.
What a lawyer needs to win a civil case is a ‘victim’ (someone who has suffered damages), a ‘deep pocket’ (a person or organization with money), a theory linking the victim and the deep pocket (often a scientific theory), and a court that will allow the theory to be heard by a jury.
The rules of evidence were changed about a decade ago to allow for more novel theories to be heard in court. Under the old Frye standard, from Frye v. United States, 54 App. D. C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923), an expert opinion based on a scientific technique is inadmissible unless the technique is ‘generally accepted’ as reliable in the relevant scientific community.
Under the newer Daubert standard, from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the court is given more flexibility in allowing scientific theories to come before the jury.
Getting the theory in front of the jury is half the battle. Most jurors are not scientists and, like the general public, many believe in conspiracies and other crackpot theories. More information about Daubert is available here : http://www.daubertontheweb.com/
Erin Brockovich is a good example of what I mean. It turns out that the case she became famous for had no basis in scientific fact. In fact later analysis showed that PG&E was not at fault. They settled the case because it would have cost millions to defend it even if they won and it would have meant years of bad publicity.
Recently Brockovich’s firm was rebuffed when they tried to claim that students at Beverly Hills High School (read: deep pocket) were becoming sick because of oil wells on campus. The case was booted out of court for lack of merit.
Always remember that a lawyer is not a scientist. The lawyer is interested in making money, not in finding scientific truth. You should be very skeptical about any claims made by lawyers in support of litigation. Even if they win!