Chiro.org - Chiropractic Resource Organization.     Support Chiropractic Research!

Legal Issues

Home/Media/Legal Issues

The Difference Between Scientific Evidence And The Scientific Method

By |April 23, 2012|Legal Issues|

Source Litigation and Trial

Scientists, even those in the “hard” sciences that are based primarily on empirical observations and mathematical analysis, have their own dogmas, prejudices, incentives, and conventions. That’s of course not to say that science is bad or wrong or useless — the only reason you can read this on your computers is because thousands of scientists over the years came to exactly the right conclusions about electricity, metallurgy, chemistry, mathematics, quantum theory, and information theory — but just to admit the obvious, which is that scientists are people and science happens under many of the same constraints as every other social endeavor. As much as we’d like to trust scientists as objective experts whose assertions should be accepted ipse dixit (a phrase that dates back to Pythagorus and is today routinely used by lawyers trying to discredit their opponent’s expert), the truth is that courts shouldn’t be afraid to look at scientists as people and evaluate them accordingly.

Continue reading…

Fake Conferences Alert!! Beware of E-mail Invitations

By |November 25, 2009|Fraud, Legal Issues, News|

The newest type of internet scam is looking like ID theft attempts. The imagination of these jokers is getting rather sophisticated. The authors of The Scientist Blog have reported two of them just in the last 4 months!! The first was on Aug, 19th 2009. It had reported;

A month or two ago, David Iovannisci, a geneticist studying heart disease at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute in California, received an email invitation to speak at the “1st International Cardiology Conngress” in Shanghai, to be held on 5-7 December of this year. The email, signed by Alex Li, provided a (now defunct) link to the conference program at www.internationalcardiologycongress.com, which listed several speakers from well-known institutions, both in the US and abroad.

The second, posted just yesterday, Nov 24th 2009, asks the question, “Are phony academic conferences the new Nigerian princes of the internet?” Well they just might be, only time will tell. The post goes on to say;

Last week, I received an email from someone going by the name of Alyssa Logan, who claimed to be “Youth Leader” at a group called the Action World International Organization (AWIO) and a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross. In the message, Logan invited me to the “Seventh Annual International Global combine Conference on Global Economy and Human Welfare” that AWIO was hosting.

To read more on these scam reports you will need to register for a free account on The Scientist Blog’s website. They will not end up sending you out a bunch of spam email, only email alerts that you decide you wish to see. So don’t let the fear of that prevent you from using this excellent resource. The two posts can be accessed directly below.

Another fake conference?
[24th November 2009]

Conference kerfuffle hits scientists
[19th August 2009]

Class Action Suit Filed in NJ US District Court

By |August 1, 2009|Legal Action, Legal Issues, Media|

A class action suit was filed July 29, 2009 in U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey by Buttaci & Leardi, LLC and the renowned class action law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP. These firms have been retained by the Association of New Jersey Chiropractors (ANJC) on behalf of it’s membership, chiropractors and other health care providers. The suit alleges that Aetna’s post-payment audit process is violative of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (‘ERISA’). It further alleges that Aetna’s post-payment audit process and its pre-payment claim review process violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (‘RICO’) and calls into question the retroactive application of Aetna’s clinical policy bulletins in order to deny provided services previously paid under their claims. These clinical policy bulletins are being used as the basis for demanding refunds of payments for services rendered, and previously determined as payable, as experimental and/or unproven to be clinically effective.

Further information about the suit (case # 3:09-CV-03761-JAP-TJB) can be found through the following links;