Drug giant General Electric uses libel law to gag doctor

[panzerfaust]

Source: Times (London)

General Electric, one of the world’s biggest corporations, is using the London libel courts to gag a senior radiologist after he raised the alarm over the potentially fatal risks of one of its drugs...

...When asked by The Sunday Times to highlight any part of the presentation that explicitly stated wrongdoing by GE Healthcare, a spokeswoman for the company was unable to do so. The writ states that the defamation may have been “by way of innuendo”.

His case will trigger a fresh row over the draconian use of Britain’s libel laws to stifle scientific debate and silence critics. Thomsen {the radiologist} now refuses to discuss the possible risks of the drug in any UK public forum.

Evan Harris, a former hospital doctor and the Liberal Democrat science spokesman, who is leading the parliamentary campaign to reform the libel laws, said: “It is hard to conceive a stronger public interest than scientists and clinicians being able to discuss freely their concerns about drugs or devices used on patients. Libel laws should not be used in this way.” ...


Read more: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6962865.ece

---

British courts are becoming a threat to science, to reason, to academic discourse, to free speech, and to democracy throughout the world.

General Electric is, of course, simply being the typical international corporation & attacking anything that might hurt its income - no matter how many people might suffer illness or death.

An even more egregious example of this was the recent Secret Super-Injunction that oil trading firm Trafigura recently was discovered to have obtained to cover up its illegal dumping of toxic waste - Trafigura even attempted to prevent Parliament from being able to discuss the issue, or even to mention it.

As many have pointed out, one of the UK's few areas of growth is in Libel-Tourism.

Shameful

[Better Today]

1. So why don't these truth tellers just take a trip to France or Germany

to make their comments? Why not send an article to publications not printed in Britain? I'm a bit confused.

[Celebration]

4. well, look at this from the article

"GE Healthcare said it had launched a libel action against Thomsen as a “last resort”. It is also suing Thomsen for an article in a medical magazine published in Brussels, but he said his name had been put on an article that he had not written."

[panzerfaust]

5. Jurisdiction

If someone can show that they may have been libeled within the UK, then, under UK libel laws, they can sue in the UK.

The classic example of this is the judgement that Khalid bin Mahfouz won against the US author Rachel Ehrenfeld, who alleged (correctly most would say) in her 2003 book "Funding Evil" that Mahfouz was a major funder of terrorism.

"Funding Evil" was published only in the U.S., but a few UK citizens (fewer than 40 as I recall) purchased the book via the internet, and thus Mahfouz (a Saudi) was able to claim status to sue Ms. Ehrenfeld (an American) in England (where neither lived, and where the book was not sold).

What this means is that UK libel laws (which are much different than are own, even, I believe to the extent that truth is not always a defense) can be used to sue people no matter where the live, or where the alleged libel may have taken place: all that is needed is to get standing in a UK court.

Take note that Tiger Woods recently obtained a court order prohibiting any publication of nude pictures of him ("which may or may not exist") and he obtained it from a UK court.

Like where does Tiger live?

[Better Today]

8. Thanks, I had no idea and didn't make the TW connection at the time at all.

[Lionel Mandrake]

18. Another classic example is the suit by the writer David Irving

against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in 1996. The suit had no merit, but Lipstadt had to devote a great deal of effort to the defense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/709128.stm

[izquierdista]

21. Big whoop

What does a judgment from a court in that soggy island mean? I think it means even less than a fatwa from some Islamic pudwhacker.

[snagglepuss]

2. K&R Thanks for posting. nt

[sharesunited]

3. It's not really a drug.

It's a contrasting agent to help GE's medical imaging equipment work better.

[panzerfaust]

6. So - it is a pharmaceutical. What is yur point??

Have not looked it up, but if it is an iodinated radiographic contrast agent, then it can also be used as a "drug" in some circumstances.

Which changes the point of the article, of GE's actions HOW?

[sharesunited]

7. Just clarifying. I was like GE Makes Drugs? When Did That Start?

[Lionel Mandrake]

9. It is legally a drug.

It has been approved by the U. S. Food and DRUG administration (FDA) for use with MRI equipment. It is like other contrasting agents that include iodine. All such agents are classified as drugs.

[katkat]

11. still it's a foreign substance

I had no idea the stuff they use in medical imaging was a risk, until I happened across a mention of a woman who had a side effect from one and I realized holy cow that's likely what caused my situation. (It can turn your skin leathery in areas.) There seems to be nothing in place to warn patients of the potential problems of this type of stuff.

[sharesunited]

13. I know, right? Our equipment works great. Here, drink this plutonium milkshake.

[upstandingcitizens]

14. It can ruin your day

I know someone who went into cardiac arrest when she was dyed for a kidney stone. They ask if you've ever had any problems with any of the contrast dyes before they administer one. If you don't know or have had a problem then they'll put in an IV port so they can get quicker access if something happens. If you've had it before with no ill affects then they'll just fire it right on in a vein.

[defendandprotect]

10. kick

[alp227]

12. This is putting the cart before the horse

I thought that libel laws are not supposed to stifle academic debate! They're really intended to protect people from public statements that are intentionally malicious! Tort abuse gone wrong, seriously.

[Puppyjive]

15. The US is just ast bad

People have to sign gag orders all of time in the US in order to receive settlements from big business. You can have your settlement but you cannot talk about it. You have to agree with the company that they did no 'wrong doing' when they harmed you. It is bullshit, It is a violation of free speech and it keeps hidden the real consequences of what happens when companies violate the law.

[Fading Captain]

16. The US is not as bad as Britain

As far as legal press censorship goes.

[Lionel Mandrake]

19. The US is better in some ways and worse in other ways.

Here in the US, it's not a crime to divulge classified information UNLESS it harms the national interest. In other words, we have no official secrets act. The prosecution here must prove that harm has been done.

Our libel and slander laws are more reasonable, of course.

On the other hand, the Brits do a better job of selecting juries. They got rid of peremptory challenges. We should do the same. That would put a lot of jury consultants out of business and reduce the number of books in law libraries devoted to gaming the system.

[laughingliberal]

17. I remember finding out about UK's libel laws when Greg Palast wrote some sort of expose

that involved the Bushes. I know they were threatening to sue him. In reading an article on it, I saw that truth is not a defense against libel there.

[Goldom]

20. UK libel laws are a big problem for science

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/
for more info.

[New Dawn]

22. The West is controlled by monopolies.

So much for "freedom of speech."

[TexasObserver]

23. Recommend