Time and time again, we have opposed efforts by one side of a scientific dispute – typically involving a prescription medical product – to attempt to sue the other side of that dispute into silence. We came to that position through the crucible of litigation, since plaintiffs in the Bone Screw litigation sought to sue a variety of medical societies because they supported the (at the time) off-label use of bone screws for pedicle fixation. We have tried to be consistent.

• Supporting scientific articles as First Amendment-supported speech, here in 2009.
• Celebrating scientific free speech, here, on the Fourth of July in 2013.
• Criticizing attempts to sue publishers of scientific content, here in 2011, and again, here in 2013.
• Opposing attempts to use False Claims Act litigation to adjudicate scientific debate, here, in 2014.
• Praising the defeat of governmental attempts to compel products to be labeled with “warnings” of doubtful scientific validity, here, in 2019.
• Condemning attempts to sue those who set certification standards, here, in 2022.
• Rejecting anti-vaxxers attempting to sue the Center for Disease Control, here, also in 2022.
• Ridiculing a blatantly unconstitutional Missouri statute that sought to silence pharmacists critical of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as treatments for COVID-19, just yesterday.

Thus it should not be surprising that the area of scientific free speech is one of the few instances in which we are willing to disagree with the litigation position...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiU2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmxleG9sb2d5LmNvbS9s...