Junk Science

What is Junk Science?

Junk science is questionable, unfounded or misleading information
that is put forth as medical or scientific fact. Junk science is
medical or scientific claims that are not supported by fact and not
validated by others within the scientific and medical community.

What are Signs of Junk Science?

Some warning signs of junk science include:

• Doctors and scientists who provide expert opinions outside
  of their areas of expertise or without having the necessary educational
  background and training.
• Doctors or scientists who are paid on the basis of their findings.
• Sensational
  “findings” and “studies” that are released through the media without
  the endorsement of other scientific or medical experts.

Why is Junk Science a Problem?

Junk science can needlessly confuse and scare consumers and is often
used to support junk lawsuits and questionable claims. These baseless
cases clog our courtrooms and delay justice for the truly injured.
Additionally, so-called “expert” witnesses who peddle junk science
undermine the integrity of our legal system, the medical profession and
qualified expert witnesses.

Examples of Junk Science

• Fen-phen litigation: An independent review
  of 120 echocardiograms diagnosed with heart damage by two cardiologists
  hired by plaintiffs’ attorneys in the fen-phen litigation found that
  only 6 percent actually showed heart problems. One of the doctors who
  diagnosed the claims received an extra $1,500 for every positive
  reading. The other doctor’s sonographer was trained by an employee of
  the plaintiff’s attorney. (“Tough Questions Are Raised On Fen-Phen
  Compensation,” The New York Times, 10/7/03; “The Fen-Phen Follies,” The American Lawyer, 3/1/05)
• Silicosis:
  In 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Jack of the Southern District of
  Texas tossed out many silicosis claims as manufactured diagnoses. One
  doctor had his secretary fill out patient diagnoses on blank forms,
  while another analyzed 1,239 patients in 72 hours. Many of the alleged
  victims in the lawsuit had at one time been diagnosed with and filed
  claims for asbestosis. (“A Break For The Defense,” BusinessWeek, 11/7/05)
• Asbestosis:
  A study comparing x-ray analyses of asbestos-related lung damage
  revealed that while physicians hired by the plaintiff’s lawyers
  reported that 95.9 percent of 492 chest x-rays had possible
  asbestos-related lung damage, unaffiliated doctors found that only 4.5
  percent of them showed possible damage (“Comparison of ‘B’-Readers’
  Interpretations of Chest Radiographs for Asbestos Related Changes,” Academic Radiology, 8/04; “The Great Asbestos Deception,” San Diego Union-Tribune, 8/13/04)
• “Toxic” mold:
  In California, Dr. Gary Ordog has appeared as an expert witness for
  $9,800 up front plus $975 an hour in (by his estimate) hundreds of
  lawsuits to testify that mold can cause a terrifying array of diseases,
  from lung cancer to cirrhosis of the liver. The American College of
  Occupational & Environmental Medicine and the Federal Institute of
  Medicine say there’s no evidence for such claims. The vice president of
  Ordog’s own professional association, the American College of Medical
  Toxicology, agrees. (“Dr. Mold,” Forbes Magazine, 4/11/05)
• Welding rod litigation:
  Seventy percent of the 4,500 patients involved in welding rode related
  lawsuits before a Cleveland federal judge were “diagnosed” in mass
  screenings. Of these cases, only 14 percent of the patients incurred
  medical expenses due to treatment for illnesses associated with the
  alleged negative health effects of welding rods. In addition, 40
  percent of this patient group have previously filed lawsuits alleged
  negative health effects due to asbestos or silica exposure.
  (“Plaintiffs in Welding-Fumes Case Win a Skirmish in Federal Court,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/26/05; “A Break For The Defense,” BusinessWeek, 11/7/05)