Ian Cheong wrote:
At 9:35 pm +1000 24/7/06, Ken Harvey wrote:
David Guest wrote:
I am interested in the legal basis for
suppressing the report.
The "reasoning" given by Justice Greenwood for granting an
interlocutory injunction under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
(Cth) is publicly available at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2006/868.html
The rationale of the judge is clear in the judgement. This case is
*not* about scientific truth, but about the delivery of "justice" in a
case littered with competing commercial interests and a due regulatory
process. The legal technicalities are open to ongoing legal argument.
An independent examination of the facts and evidence by an independent
organisation might get a different response.
Ian.
I have now read Justice Greenwood's reasons for judgment.
Three thoughts come to my mind:-
- Ken should have spent some time in general practice. General
practitioners always believe what others tell them or at least pretend
they do.
- www.consumerhealthwatch.net.au does not look like a commercial
website to me. The link to Auspharmacist.net.au is not prominent and
would only be of interest to pharmacists. If you are really keen you
can use their search engines to find out how good Tebonin is.
- I wonder whether it would have been legally safer to blog this
report, perhaps even after sending it somewhere like Tim's
pubmedcentral. Maybe Consumer Health Watch needs a group blog.
Oh well, musn't get too worried about all this stuff. I've got my brand
spanking new issue of "The Journal of Complementary Medicine" to get
through. Is Vitex agnus-castus the herb for PMS?
David
P.S. Had one of my highly anxious, mildly depressed patients through
this morning. He's got hold of this new stuff called EGb761. Apparently
it's very good for tinnitus.
David
|
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
