SoH, still bullying and blustering… and losing the plot.
25 October, 2007
The Society instructed lawyers to write to the Internet Service Provider of Dr. Lewis’ website because the content of his site was not merely critical but defamatory of The Society, with the effect that its reputation could have been lowered. Dr Lewis, in his article, stated as fact highly offensive comments about The Society and it is for that reason that The Society decided it had no option but to take action. The very crude abuse posted on various websites and e-mailed to The Society since our action suggests that these bloggers/authors are not people who are interested in a real debate on the basis of either science or the public good but who simply want to attack homeopathy, for the very sake of it.
Due to the unpleasantness and surprisingly vitriolic nature of the postings on the Quackometer website and others, The Society has taken a conscious decision not to respond to these bloggers.
Anyone who has tried complaining to the SoH, along with anyone acquainted with their comedy code of ethics, will know that Andy Lewis’s article was the epitome of restraint and factual to a degree to which the SoH seems incapable of aspiring. The Society of Homeopaths has a serious problem with honesty. In fact, just like the quackery they promote, their “justification” for their Stalinist approach to comments they just happen not to like is demonstrably dishonest. They were not defamed in any sense of the meaning of the word. Nothing false was printed, merely factual observations which they cannot deny. Any defamation, as I see it, is all coming from the SoH.
The fact that Andy Lewis’s observations were not flattering to the SoH is really neither here nor there. It is clear to me however that the Society’s censorship action was a monumentally incompetent attempt at a public relations exercise to counter what it sees as mounting bad publicity. It had nothing to do with any facts of the case, offensive or otherwise, as anyone with the ability to read English could easily discover. One might be tempted to come to the conclusion that their acquaintance with public relations and its purpose is as vague as it is with science or medicine.
It would not be defamatory to label someone who molests children as a paedophile, or someone who maliciously sets fire to property as an arsonist. In the same way it would not be defamatory to label an organisation that flouts its own code of ethics, allows its members to do likewise and ignores all complaints about ethics code violations, as a bunch of fraudulent shysters.
What the censorship of the Quackometer and the shoddy attempt at its justification show is that what lies at the heart of the contemptible marketing organisation masquerading as a professional body, known as the Society of Homeopaths, is unpleasantness, arrogance and mendacity.