Recall that on April 21, the court quashed an incredibly broad subpoena from attorney Clifford Shoemaker, who represents Sykes. Shoemaker did not just request that Seidel release her correspondence with Bayer; he also demanded all of her documents pertaining to the issues she has written about on her Web site, as well as all of her correspondence with attorneys, physicians, the federal government, non-governmental political organizations, religious groups, and scientific and academic boards. To make matters worse, Shoemaker tried to defend his discovery demands by accusing Seidel and Bayer of conspiring to defame Sykes.

On Tuesday evening, Public Citizen, on behalf of Seidel, filed papers arguing that sanctions against Shoemaker were appropriate because the requests in his subpoena were irrelevant to the lawsuit against Bayer and “abusive and burdensome.” In its brief, Public Citizen cites the Supreme Court case Reno v. ACLU to support its argument that anyone can present “findings and conclusions” freely on the Internet if he or she so chooses, and argues that the use of discovery to harass a critic warrants sanctions. For more information, visit http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/CaseDetails.cfm?cID=477.

@Club 166, I’d also say, ours is a legality and lawsuit obsessed culture, and the use of the law to intimidate and defame is especially troubling.

@Joseph, Maybe we should start talking about the mercury police….

@Regan, Yes.

Autism is like the quack science jackpot.

This is much more than several misinformed parents and sloppy researchers. This is what happens when you combine scientific illiteracy with a culture used to instant gratification and greedy practitioners of all stripes eager to capitalize on both.

Joe

The intent is to chill dissent. It will be a sad day for freedom of speech if they were to succeed in that effort even a little.

Most of the other parents I meet are trying some type of alternative treatment. I bite my tongue a lot. Science based approaches to treatment have regretably offered parents very little hope. Meanwhile, “responsible” advocates promote an atmosphere of fear, shame, guilt, and desparation.

I personally can not suspend disbelief long enough to follow the herd down the alternative “medecine” path, but in the absence of good autism science, I do understand the lure.