<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Olga Bourlin wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid001301c57540$8a58f690$6600a8c0@brainiac"
type="cite">Academic freedom at issue in this important lawsuit.
<br>
<br>
"The defamation case is an almost unheard-of attempt to punish
academics for comments made in their professional capacity, said
experts on libel law and academic freedom. Although UIC is not a
defendant in the suit, officials there said they are so concerned about
protecting scholarly speech that the school is picking up Olshansky's
legal bills.":
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0506190345jun19,1,4537823.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0506190345jun19,1,4537823.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
For those who don't want to go through the registration process (since
bugmenot.com's offerings are no longer working for this particular
site), here's the complete text. <br>
<br>
It's easy to lose sight of in this article, but it's saying that the
anti-aging folks at AAAAM are suing the people criticising their work.
The "academic freedom" involved is the freedom of people who think HGH
is BS to say so. <br>
<br>
Personally, I think it's good if snake-oil gets exposed. I want
anti-aging treatments that are truly effective. If calling for people
making claims of efficacy for anti-aging products to provide proof of
such claims is defamation, then we need to re-define defamation. <br>
<br>
I'm normally on the side of the anti-aging folks (heck... I sell many
such products on my website). But trying to bully academicians into
silence through lawsuits just because it cost you $20 million is
reprehensible. I predict-- and hope-- this suit will be thrown out of
court.<br>
<br>
Joseph
<br>
<br>
Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.humanenhancement.com">http://www.humanenhancement.com</a>
<br>
New Jersey Transhumanist Association: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta">http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta</a>
<br>
PostHumanity Rising: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/">http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/</a>
(updated 6/14/05)
<br>
<br>
------<br>
<br>
<font id="text"> Over the years that S. Jay Olshansky has blasted the
Chicago-based American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine as a peddler of
baseless ideas about how to reverse the aging process, he says he
always saw their dust-up as a scientific dispute like many others.<br>
<br>
But in an unusual $120 million lawsuit now winding through Cook County
Circuit Court, leaders of the anti-aging group contend the University
of Illinois at Chicago professor and a colleague were aiming at much
more--a "ruthless campaign" and conspiracy to discredit their work and
destroy their careers.<br>
<br>
The defamation case is an almost
unheard-of attempt to punish academics for comments made in their
professional capacity, said experts on libel law and academic freedom.
Although UIC is not a defendant in the suit, officials there said they
are so concerned about protecting scholarly speech that the school is
picking up Olshansky's legal bills.<br>
<br>
"It's the job of a
university professor to search for the truth and to speak it," said UIC
spokesman Bill Burton. "In fact, that's the purpose of a research
university. Professor Olshansky was doing his job, and the university
is defending its purpose."<br>
<br>
The plaintiffs, osteopathic
physicians Ronald Klatz and Robert Goldman, say the 1st Amendment's
free speech protections do not cover the actions of Olshansky and
co-defendant Dr. Thomas Perls of Boston University. Klatz and Goldman
blame the defendants' criticism for a series of recent professional
setbacks, including cancellation of an anti-aging conference to have
been held this month in Singapore, and termination of a contract to
develop anti-aging products that could have been worth $20 million.<br>
<br>
Many scientists have targeted the anti-aging group for spreading what
they say are unfounded claims that products such as human growth
hormone can "de-age" patients. In one of his books, Klatz called growth
hormone "the first medically proven age-reversal therapy." Researchers
such as Olshansky, a biological demographer, say those claims are not
supported by clinical studies.<br>
<br>
"In the world of science,
disagreements are desirable because they advance the field," Olshansky
said. "In the world of anti-aging medicine, perhaps these notions are
less desirable. You don't see opposing viewpoints presented at their
meetings."<br>
<br>
Klatz and Goldman declined to comment for this
article. Their attorney, Sigmund Wissner-Gross, argues in their suit
that Olshansky and his colleagues crossed the line in March 2004 by
giving a mock "Silver Fleece" award to products developed by Klatz and
Goldman. The line of dietary supplements and skincare products got the
award for making "the most ridiculous, outrageous, scientifically
unsupported or exaggerated assertions about intervening in aging or
age-related diseases," Olshansky said in a UIC press release at the
time.<br>
<br>
Olshansky made his statements "outside the classroom and
far removed from any claimed `professional' conduct," Wissner-Gross
wrote in an e-mail reply to questions.<br>
<br>
"No one is immune from making defamatory statements."<br>
<br>
Just as reporters often are sued for libel, academics can be held
accountable for their comments, but the latter is far less common,
experts said.<br>
<br>
"I can't think of a situation where a faculty
member has been sued for what they're writing," said Jonathan Knight,
director of the program on academic freedom and tenure at the American
Association of University Professors.<br>
<br>
Beyond the defamation
claim, the suit contends that Olshansky went out of his way to derail a
lucrative contract Klatz and Goldman had with Market America Inc.,
which makes the products that received the Silver Fleece award. They
say Olshansky made threatening and defamatory statements to a Market
America executive at an anti-aging conference in December 2003,
including that the anti-aging products were "virtually useless." The
company later pulled out of its contract with Klatz and Goldman.<br>
<br>
Olshansky said he spoke with a Market America representative in the
exhibitors' area of the Las Vegas meeting, one of many that he has
attended in his routine monitoring of anti-aging claims.<br>
<br>
"It
was a very friendly conversation," Olshansky recalled. "I asked him,
have these products been evaluated for safety and efficacy? He said no.
I said it probably would be a good idea."<br>
<br>
Although the
complaint Klatz and Goldman filed contends the products had been
rigorously tested, their attorneys declined to provide documentation
for that contention, citing the pending case.<br>
<br>
Judges tend to
set a high bar for bringing defamation cases to trial because of the
risk of discouraging free speech, said Sandra Baron, executive director
of the Media Law Resource Center in New York.<br>
<br>
"Suits are
sometimes a way for individuals or organizations to chill their
critics, to force their critics to tone down the language they use if
not hold back altogether," Baron said.<br>
<br>
That doesn't seem likely for Olshansky, who spoke freely about the
disputes mentioned in the suit.<br>
<br>
"I will not back down," he said. "It's not like this suit is going to
influence us."<br>
<br>
</font><font id="text"> Although Klatz and Goldman accuse Olshansky of
harboring a long-term vendetta against them, he said he actually agrees
with some of their causes, such as improving health through diet and
exercise.<br>
<br>
-------<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>