Pursuit of the truth requires more than imagination: it requires the generation and decisive elimination of alternative possibilities until, ideally, only one remains, and it requires a habitual readiness to attack one's own convictions.
- Thomas Nagel, The View From Nowhere

December 14, 2011

Chiropractor's fiancee' threatens me with legal action

e

For those of you who do not know me, I am a skeptical blogger who has been writing since September of 2009. I mainly focus on topics, as my blog header indicates, dealing with atheism, theism, and philosophy.

This year, I've started writing about the claims a local chiropractor named Dr. Dan Golaszewski makes because I follow many science blogs and noted that Dr. Dan is injecting theological claims into his practice. My first post on Dr. Dan was on June 16 followed by an Examiner.com article on December 10 [with comments from Dr. Steve Novella] and most recently on December 13.

As is typically the case on my blog, my intention was to examine his claims and see if they had any merit (as I did). I did not, in any way, misrepresent his position or pull claims out of the sky, but rather took information from his radio show, his website, and from literature in his office. Despite this, the chiropracter's fiancee' sent me an e-mail last night at 8:08 PM:

... The reason I am e-mailing you is to request that you leave Dan and his practice alone. He will not be engaging in any debate or discussion with you, Kenny Luck, or affiliates. Your requests for answers aren't stemming from a genuine interest in Chiropractic, wellness, or healthcare; But rather a place of wanting to disprove. You seem like a very intelligent man and I respect you and your views. Please respect his. Dan is not forcing care or his beliefs on anyone. If a patient or potential patient does not agree with chiropractic; they leave, it's very simple. If the slanderous posts do not stop; He will be taking legal action. Many thanks for your understanding.

I was quite alarmed to read this because my treatment of Dr. Dan's claims has been more than charitable, I e-mailed him the initial blog post welcoming comments, and made sure that I took claims directly from him instead of simply pulling ideas out of the sky.

As a blogger and a writer, I have the freedom to write about what I want and who I want as long as I am not making false claims that may damage persons' reputations. I have, of course, freedom of speech as a United States citizen. I've responded to the claims of many people including Dr. Oz, William Lane Craig, John Haught, Bill Donohue, Rick Perry, Michael Voris, and many more. I have never received any threats of legal action from them and did not expect to.

The internet is an open forum in which people can share their ideas and, when doing so in a fair manner, should not fear legal action or otherwise a 'chilling effect' which should stop or threaten to stop persons from expressing their opinions and responding to others' opinions.

Dr. Dan has a radio show and a website in which he is more than happy to express his opinions and I, likewise, have a blog, an Examiner.com page, and a podcast in which I am happy to express my opinions. If we happen to disagree, we should be able to talk about our disagreement without threat of legal action. Dr. Dan, if he would like, is more than welcome to respond to any of my blog posts or spoken words, but he has not done so to my knowledge.

Returning to the e-mail...

Dr. Dan's fiancee' asks me to leave Dan and his practice alone. She can request this all she wants, but I'm not going to stop writing about what I want to write about. I want to respond to Dr. Dan's claims and express what I think about them. I have every right to do so.

She claims that I am genuinely not interested in chiropractic, wellness, or healthcare and notes that I am only interested in disproving. This claim has no merit and even if it were true, it would not matter. I started to write about Dr. Dan, anyway, precisely because I was interested in the claims he was making and decided to take some time to investigate his claims. After some research, I found many of the claims he made were dubious and had little to no merit, so I authored my findings in order to share with my readers.

She wants me to "respect" Dr. Dan's views and notes that he is not "forcing beliefs" on anyone. I don't see why I should be morally compelled or otherwise to "respect views." Views have no cognition and can not be offended. Further, disagreement is not disrespect. In the 'wide world of the internet,' claims are made and claims are responded to. If one wants 'beliefs respected,' one should probably not share his/her beliefs with the general public. In posts on Dr. Dan, I have identified claims that Dr. Dan has made and have responded to them. How is this 'disrespect?'

I'm not quite sure what 'forcing beliefs' means and how this is applicable. Regardless of whether Dr. Dan is forcing beliefs or not, I can and should respond to the claims he is making if I desire to do so. I write about many, many, many topics on this blog and am, in no way, 'singling out' Dr. Dan as a big target of this blog, but rather have authored two blog posts and an Examiner.com article dealing with Dr. Dan. If Dr. Dan wants to put his ideas in the public sphere, he should expect for his ideas to be critiqued; it should be no surprise when persons are responding to his claims. He is, after all, a public figure.

Additionally, I am not, in any way, forcing people to stop going to Dr. Dan's office, reading what he has to say, listening to his radio show, etc. I am merely responding to his claims and offering my take.

She notes that if people do not "agree with chiropractic" they leave [the office]. So be it. I, in fact, visited Dr. Dan's office during a free trial period, "did not agree," stayed for the spinal examination, and left. I went to find more information and further investigate the claims that were made. Indeed, no one is forced to stay in his office or assent to the claims Dr. Dan is presenting...and no one is forced to read my writing or assent to the claims I am making. Like Dr. Dan, I am presenting information for listeners/readers and the 'decision' is 'on them.' Persons have the ability to 'make up their own minds.' Welcome, Dr. Dan, to the internet.

The biggest claim, as you might image, is that I am slandering Dr. Dan in my posts. In a written format, there is no such thing as slander, but rather there may or may not be libel. In my posts, though, there is no libel. I take claims from Dr. Dan's radio show, website, and office literature and respond to them. I am not, in any way, slandering Dr. Dan nor am I libeling Dr. Dan.

In my original post, I wrote:

All of the statements I made about him and his works are not intended to defame him or cast him as a 'bad guy,' but rather are to critique his beliefs, his work, and his methods. Posting like this is protected free speech. I gave my readers examples and direct quotes from Dr. Dan's website, podcast, and from my visit to his office. I welcome feedback from Dr. Dan.

My criticisms and comments are not even unfounded. In a recent interview I had with Dr. Steve Novella of Yale University, Novella responded to Dr. Dan's claims. I, of course, am not a medical doctor, but Dr. Novella is. Here is some text from my Examiner.com article with comments from Dr. Novella:

Dr. Steve Novella -- clinical neurologist, Director of General Neurology at Yale University School of Medicine and host of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast -- commenting specifically for this article, says that Golaszewski is “blurring the lines between medicine and faith healing” and explains that the sublaxation theory Golaszewski endorses "is pseudoscience, has not been demonstrated to exist, has no validity and is part of a pre-scientific superstitious belief system that has long ago been eclipsed by understanding of anatomy and physiology.”

Golaszewski, in the April 30, 2011 episode of his radio show, says that people should ask what they can do naturally to get off their "toxic medications" and notes that vaccines, flu shots and fluoride contain toxins that should be avoided. Golaszewski also says that “medications will not create a healthier body, but rather will create a sicker body” while also saying that people should continue taking medications and listen to their doctors. Dr. Novella notes that Golaszewski “wants to have it both ways and be protected from consequences.”

Dr. Novella says that “everything is a toxin at some dose, but the substances in vaccines are in small doses, safe, do not cause health problems and are studied extensively. There's no health risk at all. [Golaszewski] is scaring people without scientific backing.” Fluoride,” Dr. Novella notes, “ has been studied, makes people healthier, reduces cavities and poses no health risk at the level given.”

Golaszewski claims that “we were created for at least 80 years of incredible health and happiness” and also claims that “[o]ur bodies were created in perfect harmony and to sustain a state of balance, function, and healing” Dr. Novella says that this is “not based on anything” and says, “Prior to science-based medicine, we lived into our 40s and lived physically miserable lives. We now live to 80 because of science-based medicine.”

Dr. Novella explains, “Practitioners of 'alternative medicine' think they have the secrets, but they've made up superstitious nonsense. There is no secret information. If [Golaszewski] had actual knowledge of or demonstrated sublaxations, everyone would be doing it, but they are not because the evidence is against it.”


Dr. Dan and his fiancee' have no basis whatsoever to sue me for slander. As I blogger and an American citizen, if have the right to write about whatever I want and express my opinion. If persons happen to disagree with me or I happen to disagree with them, we can write about our disagreement.

As always, I encourage readers to share my content and am happy when they do.
I encourage my readers to share this post, my previous posts about Dr. Dan, and author their own criticisms of Dr. Dan's claims. Let Dr. Dan know that it is inappropriate to threaten legal action when people are sharing their opinions on the internet. If Dr. Dan can make claims, so can we.

My original blog post on Dr. Dan:
http://www.justinvacula.com/2011/06/my-skeptical-adventure-with.html

My Examiner.com article on Dr. Dan with comments from Dr. Steve Novella:
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-scranton/dr-steve-novella-chiropractor-dan-golaszewski-practices-pseudoscience

Additionally, Kenny Luck was mentioned in the e-mail. Here is his post on Dr. Dan:
http://www.theluckreport.com/2011/12/chiropractic-quackery-dr-dan.html

Thanks.


Update:
I received another e-mail from Dr. Dan's fiancee', this time alleging that I am harassing Dr. Dan:
http://www.justinvacula.com/2011/12/chiropractors-fiance-threatens-me-with_14.html

29 comments:

  1. I just love when people threaten legal action when no laws have been broken. You can't just sue a person because they disagree with you or cast you in a less than favorable light. If you make medical claims, you need to be prepared to back them up with facts when someone disagrees with you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You haven't received any 'threat of legal action' from the others you named because would-be journalists like yourself are a dime a dozen X 100 on the internet and to follow up on every person with a computer who fancies himself a writer would be their full-time job. They realize too that most of you are read by such 'count 'em on one hand' numbers that there is no point.

    I say that if you believe you haven't 'slandered' the Dr., take your chances and see if legal action comes your way. I'm sure the huge salary you pull down for your insightful missives would be more than enough to absorb the costs of defending yourself in court.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just one question: is Dr. Dan gay? Because a fiancé is a man engaged to be married. A fiancée is a woman engaged to be married. http://www.writing.com/main/books/entry_id/306904

    ReplyDelete
  4. Awwww.... she stood up for her man =) Chivalrous but lame.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some really interesting posts about 'maximized living' chiropractors - has the ring of celebrity cult.. http://chirotalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=cult&page=2&thread=3009

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find excessively vitriolic responses from presumably disinterested third parties to be interesting in the same way as people watching at the Social Security Administration: it fuels my imagination with tragic tales and fuels feelings of wistful pity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's suprising how often people will be cowed by idle threats of legal action or by abusive language. Too many people interpret religious freedom to include an iviolable right to base baseless claims. I have a hard time coming up with examples of statements which cannot be reasonably questioned.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Responds to IrrelevantDec 14, 2011 10:42 AM

    Can a post be flagged for stupid?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why does anyone care *at all* what Dr. Dan's *girlfriend* says? Even if she's wearing an engagement ring, she's still *irrelevant*.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Justin wouldn't have to pay a cent for his defense; suing for court costs is an awesome thing we have built into our legal system, and Dr. Dan has no case whatsoever, and would in turn be stuck paying the court costs when he lost.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Actually, the Golaszewski's should be pretty careful, since threatening someone with legal action without cause can skirt quite close to blackmail laws... It's a thin line, and they should take care not to cross it...

    ReplyDelete
  12. I take it all back, I am a moron. Sorry. I will now go get moar edumakashun.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Derrick SwedeliusDec 14, 2011 02:15 PM

    Nice try, Dan's girlfriend.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Also, slander is spoken. In print (or in type on blogs) its libel.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Examination and criticism? HOW DARE YOU!?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hear Hear! I hope you do.

    ReplyDelete
  17. But this is AMURICA!

    ReplyDelete
  18. The chilling effect of such threats is a serious problem and should be challenged. Criticism is not slander or libel.

    ReplyDelete
  19. They call this move "sock puppeting". Did you think you were the first one who thought of it?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Why on earth are you calling him Dr Dan? Surely "Dan" would be more appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The 11th Red Flag of Quackery is "responds with legal threats when asked for scoientific proof"

    Not a good sign on ntheir part.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yeah, threats of legal action (even if baseless) is usually enough to get people to back off. Few people know the law well enough to realize that a legal threat is baseless. It's a sad state of affairs. I applaud Justin of making a stand.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sean O'DohertyDec 15, 2011 09:34 AM

    Dr. Dan Golaszewski is a quack....
    He smells like one, he acts like one, he looks like one.

    This is my opinion, and it is mine. Too bad 'Doctor" Dan....

    ReplyDelete
  24. Your blog comes across as vindictive and it paints you as a very angry person. You're as relentless as a preacher. I can certainly understand why Dr. Golaszewski feels attacked. If you are this egotistical and negative in your blog I can only imagine what you must be like in person. What you are doing is bullying. Nothing to be proud of!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yesiam1964, I posted this email and felt the need to comment because this recurring theme of 'alt med' practicioners (and anyone else) is a real problem that should be illuminated and should not be tolerated. What I mainly do here on this blog is respond to arguments, consider claims, and offer criticism of that which is dubious. In the case of Dr. Dan I did just that in, I think, a very charitable, professional, and respectful manner.

    I don't understand how responding to claims being made by a practicioner who has a website and a radio show is considered bullying, vindictive, relentless, etc.

    Legal threats aimed at quelling fair criticism are not ok...and I wont even go into the possible harm that can be a result of the many claims Dan makes...

    ReplyDelete
  26. What he's doing is exposing a quack that takes people's money for quackery. That is something to be proud of. Bullying would be when someone makes threats at another...like threats of legal action.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I found myself thinking the same thing. Dr Dan should have replied himself....

    ReplyDelete
  28. MegaglemyegggoDec 20, 2011 06:05 PM

    Dr Dan sounds funnier?

    ReplyDelete

Please Consider Donating

I update this site on a very frequent basis, am passionate about what I do, respond to comments from my readers and engage my audience, am very active beyond the keyboard, and am not in any sort of 'ivory tower.' Unfortunately, blogging is no full-time well-paying position by any means. If you enjoy my work and would like to donate something -- even a dollar that you would never miss -- as a sign of appreciation, I would be very appreciative. Thank you!