The San Diego Union Tribune, kissing Big Pharma’s ass, wrote a nasty article about Hulda Clark. Just below is Clark’s attorney’s response to that article.
————————————————————————————-
Dear Mr. Merriman:
As you are aware, our office represents Dr. Hulda Clark, Century Nutrition S. Der.L.DE.C.V., and New Century Press.
This letter is written in response to the article entitled “The 95 percent Promise?” and the article entitled “High Hopes, False Promises” written by Penni Crabtree and Sandra Dibble, with contribution from Michelle Gilchrist and published on February 24 and 25, 2002, respectively.
At this time, on behalf of my clients, we hereby demand an immediate retraction of the articles, as they are clearly tantamount to libel and place my clients in a false light. Both have caused irreparable harm and losses which are actionable.
Libel is defined as “A false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” Cal. Civ. Code § 45; Polygram Records v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 543; 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) § 480.
False light is defined as “The wrong inflicted by publicity which puts the (plaintiff) in a false but not necessarily defamatory position in the public eye.” Werner v. Times-Mirror Co. (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 111; 57A.L.R.4th 902.
A careful review of these articles leaves no question that the elements of libel and false light have been met and if the articles are not retracted immediately, my clients will have no alternative but to seek legal action.
Although the articles, in their entirety, are objectionable to my clients, there are several sections that are specifically offensive and/or false.
Dr. Clark has been recognized around the world as a leading authority in the field of alternative therapies. She has enjoyed acceptance by thousands people who have read her books. She has received hundreds of reports of individuals that have been cured by following her various published therapies. Hundreds of followers of her published natural healing methods have reported successful outcomes and cures. We have provided Ms. Crabtree with several of these success stories, but she has refused to acknowledge them and, instead, focused on one person’s self-interested statements.
Lack of Objectivity and Personal Bias
First of all, we take exception to the Union Tribune’s and Ms. Crabtree’s refusal to acknowledge her personal bias in the writing of this article despite the confirmed fact that she has a direct financial conflict of interest in reporting this story. On numerous occasions, prior to the publication of these articles, I personally provided notice to Ms. Crabtree, and yourself, as to the existence of the conflict. Indeed, we formally requested that another reporter be assigned to this story. Apparently, our request was completely ignored.
As you are surely aware, Ms. Crabtree’s husband, Richard Pittner, is employed by Amylin Pharamaceuticals, Inc. as a Senior Director of Cell Biology. Amylin Pharmaceutical’s website states that they are “committed to improving the lives of people with diabetes and other metabolic disorders through the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative, cost-effective medicines.” The operations and research performed by Amylin are in direct conflict with much of the research performed by Dr. Clark and her findings on diabetes. Amylin is in direct competition with Dr. Clark’s published therapies.
This is clearly an ethical and legal conflict. We are dismayed that a newspaper, such as yours, would allow Ms. Crabtree to write an article wherein she clearly lacks the objectivity necessary to provide a balanced report. Knowledge of the conflict, and willing participation in the publishing of the article is analogous to more than just negligence by the Union Tribune.
On at least 10 occasions, we requested that Ms. Crabtree either be removed from the reporting of this story or, at the very least, a statement be included in the article that disclosed her direct financial links to the pharmaceutical industry. This should have been accomplished by minimal effort.
One can only question whether Ms. Crabtree’s true intent was to further her own husband’s position and/or gain personal economic benefit.
Notwithstanding this, it is inexplicable why Copley Press and/or the Union-Tribune, or yourself, did not take any action to resolve this conflict. The only logical action would have been to remove Ms. Crabtree from the assignment.
Refusal to Use Doctor Clark’s Title
As an example of Ms. Crabtree’s intent to cast Dr. Clark in a false light and disparage her, there is an inexplicable absence of Doctor Clark’s professional titles, even though she has earned a Doctorate, Ph.D., and Naturopathic, N.D., degree. The election to ignore the title is clearly a means of casting Dr. Clark in a false light, and degrading her professional status by minimizing her professional degrees. As was made clear in my letter to Ms. Crabtree on December 6, 2001, The Associated Press 2001-Stylebook and Briefing on Media, which Ms. Crabtree claims to rely upon, specifically sets forth, at Page 76, the following pertinent industry standards and guidelines for dealing with this exact situation:
“Doctor Dr. in first reference as a formal title before the name of an individual who holds a doctor of dental surgery, doctor of medicine, doctor of osteopathy, or doctor of podiatric medicine degree: Dr. Jonas Salk.
The form Dr., or Drs., in a plural construction, applies to all first-reference uses before a name, including direct quotations.
If appropriate in the context, Dr. also may be used on first reference before the names of individuals who hold other types of doctoral degrees. However, because the public frequently identifies Dr. only with physicians, care should be taken to assure that the individual’s specialty is stated in the first or second reference. The only exception would be a story in which the context left no doubt that the person was a dentist, psychologist, chemist, historian, etc.
In some instances it also is necessary to specify that an individual identified as Dr. is a physician. One frequent case is a story reporting on joint research by physicians, biologists, etc. …”
Accordingly, there can be no ambiguity that Dr. Hulda Clark should have been referred to as “Dr. Hulda Clark, a cellular biologist” or Hulda Clark, PhD. in cellular biology and Naturopath. There can be no plausible argument as to why Dr. Clark’s professional title was deleted.
This refusal to recognize Dr. Clark’s title has been pointed out to you and Ms. Crabtree on numerous occasions, both in person and in writing. Ms. Crabtree has made no effort, whatsoever, to point out that Dr. Clark has earned a doctorate degree
Furthermore, the use of the pejorative phrase that Dr. Clark “lacks a medical degree” has been obviously used to cast Dr. Clark in a false light as a person that is required to possess a medical license or is otherwise acting in violation of law. As you are well aware, a nutritional consultant is not required to have a license based upon California and Mexican law. .
In my prior correspondence to you and Ms. Crabtree, I specifically provided you with notice as on this point. Apparently, such notice has been intentionally ignored for the purpose of engaging in a malicious effort to denigrate Dr. Clark and her body of scientific work by means of minimizing her professional titles.
Use of Pejorative Terms
The article is also replete with pejorative terms such as “reaped” sales. This term is clearly meant to cast Dr. Clark in a false light. Such terms are unacceptable and should be retracted at once. Furthermore, the use of the term “diagnose” is also inappropriate. As we have repeatedly told Ms. Crabtree, Dr. Clark does not “diagnose or treat patients.” Dr. Clark is a nutritional consultant (Naturopath) and provides such nutritional consultation within the framework of the laws of the country of Mexico and the State of California.
The use of the term “diagnose” implies that Dr. Clark is practicing medicine without a license and thus committing a crime. The charge of commission of a crime is libel per se, and is actionable without proof of special damages. 50 Am.Jur.2d; Boyich v. Howell (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 801; Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) §§ 481, 482.
Moreover, Ms. Crabtree misuses this term in order to suggest that Dr. Clark is illegally diagnosing patients. She blatantly uses this term to extract comments from third parties, such as the Medical Board and various physicians, to support her misleading position that Dr. Clark is acting unlawfully. This suggestion has been denied and is without basis.
It should also be noted that trade libel [the intentional disparagement of the quality of practice] in these articles concerning Dr. Clark’s naturopathic consultations is also actionable. Trade libel can consist of only false statement of fact or opinion. Disparagement of property or services, which implies business dishonesty is also recoverable on the theory of libel per se. Erlich v. Etner (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 69, 73.
Blatant Misrepresentation of Facts
Another example of the maliciousness and falsity of these articles is Ms. Crabtree’s and Ms. Dibble’s practice of reporting comments out-of-context and blatantly misrepresenting facts in their attempt to “spice up” the article. The comment “I believe we could determine the true cause of the disease” was clearly taken out-of-context in order to defame Dr. Clark. As was the comment quoted from Geoff Clark: “You either dump (patients) out on the street with no communication whatsoever, and that’s morally wrong, or you get them finished up and get them on their way home, and that’s legally wrong.”
The comment “They paid $1,500 for a zapper” is an outlandish lie. As Ms. Crabtree is well aware [inasmuch as she purchased a Zapper on the day she conducted the interview for these articles] a Zapper sells for under than $100. There is no Zapper that is sold for $1,500 or apartment rented for $1,200 per month from Dr. Clark. Dr. Clark is not in the rental property business.
In addition, Ms. Crabtree is well aware that the Smiths sold their home long before they received treatment at the clinic. More importantly, Ms. Crabtree was informed that the Smiths sought out treatment from another individual before seeking out Dr. Clark. Rather than point this out in her article, Ms. Crabtree suggests that the Smiths sold their home to pay Dr. Clark for treatment
Had these statements and information been pointed out to us for comment, they would have been vigorously denied as all out lies.
As “reporters,” Ms. Crabtree and Ms. Dibble should have been more cognizant of their obligations to report comments that are accurate, truthful and not taken out-of-context.
Affiliation with NCAHF and Quackwatch
It should also be noted that Ms. Crabtree not only misrepresented the facts within the article, but she also misrepresented her affiliations when she was conducting the interviews for the articles. I specifically asked Ms. Crabtree, on more than one occasion, if she had any contact with Quackwatch or its affiliates, or used them as a source for information, to which she always responded in the negative. However, the articles quote Robert S. Baratz, president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, and Dr. Wallace Sampson, a board member of the National Council Against Health Fraud. The National Council Against Health Fraud (“NCAHF”) is an entity known to be affiliated with Quackwatch. Clearly, Ms. Crabtree did not want to reveal her association with members of Quackwatch.
Both Quackwatch and NCAHF are organizations that are engaged in litigation with Dr. Clark, Century Nutrition and New Century Press. Such litigation is based upon NCAHF’s and Quackwatch’s dissemination of false information.
Ms. Crabtree is well aware of the litigation as we had discussed it on several occasions.
Indeed, NCAHF and Dr. Sampson’s qualifications and experience to render medical opinions as to alternative therapies have been found to be unsubstantiated, inappropriate, insufficient and irrelevant by a Los Angeles Superior Court. A case, we may add, that was frivolously filed by NCAHF and was LOST by them with an order that it pay the defendants’ costs.
Even though Ms. Crabtree relied upon NCAHF’s false information to report the story, she did not even bother to seek a comment of this information or her source by either myself or my clients. More significantly, she negligently failed to even perform minimal background investigation as to NCAHF’s known bias and adversity to alternative therapies. Had she done so, she would have discovered that NCAHF is nothing more than a radical group of militants advocating the abolition of alternative and non-pharmaceutical therapies, including the Nobel Prize winning work of Linus Pauling.
NCAHF has known ties with the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies. Such companies have a significant threat of losing obscene profits if alternative therapies gain acceptance. Something that is already gaining momentum around the world.
NCAHF has already been found [in court] to have made, unsubstantiated, unqualified attacks and accusations against alternative therapies. None of this was reported by Ms. Crabtree. Quite the contrary, she embraces NCAHF’s unqualified statements and uses their unqualified members in order to advance her vicious attack of Dr. Clark.
Lack of Professionalism
As you are surely aware, Ms. Crabtree was granted the opportunity to interview my clients prior to the publication of these articles. Notwithstanding this fact, Ms. Crabtree never allowed the opportunity to comment on statements made in the article such as: “The Smiths sold their home to raise money to take Courtney to the clinic.” There is no plausible explanation as to why Ms. Crabtree failed to inquire about these statements, other than, of course, writing a one-sided irresponsible “hit piece.”
In fact, all of the comments reportedly made by Geoff Clark were taken completely out of context and used to cast a false light and defame Dr. Clark.
Ms. Crabtree’s actions and lack of professionalism and ethics included illegal conduct. You should be aware that Ms. Crabtree attempted to make an illegal unscheduled, unauthorized, and unannounced attempt to break into Century Nutrition on January 4, 2002. It was only after I informed her that any further attempts would result in the reporting her actions to the local police authorities and the obtaining of a restraining order that Ms. Crabtree ceased her illegal conduct.
In fact, her entry into Mexico for this purpose was in violation of Mexican penal and immigration law.
The Union-Tribune’s apparent ratification of Ms. Crabtree’s actions is, quite frankly, shocking to us and lacking in journalistic ethical standards.
Assurances of Retraction of prior Misinformation
As a condition to Ms. Crabtree be granted an interview with Geoff Clark and Dr. Clark, she specifically represented to me that the false reports in her prior articles concerning fines by the Mexican government with respect to the Century Nutrition would be corrected. I was repeatedly assured that the prior references of fines being stated in pesos, rather than dollars (reportedly over one hundred thousand dollars – which was completely false) would be retracted in this article.
We relied on this representation and went forward with the interviews. Once again, Ms. Crabtree ignored her representations and breached her promises and, instead, failed to correct this error out. This, even though, she makes reference to the fines in the article.
Damage to Reputation & Economic Impact
Ms. Crabtree obviously intended to use her direct financial bias to design her article to destroy the reputation of Dr. Clark and harm sales of her various books by means of writing false information. It is transparent that Ms. Crabtree wanted to defame and libel the trade of my clients. 5 Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th ed. 1988) § 573.
Unless and until the articles are immediately retracted, there can be no question that Dr. Clark, Century Nutrition and New Century Press will suffer further damage and harm.
DEMAND FOR RETRACTION
Frankly, we are shocked that these articles were published. It was expected that the Union-Tribune maintain its reputation for fair and unbiased reporting.
As set forth above, demand is hereby made that the Union-Tribune address the points herein discussed and retract the articles with respect to Dr. Clark, forthwith.
At the very least, it is hereby demanded that this letter be published, in its entirety, with the same placement as the original articles.
We await the immediate retraction of the articles.
Please be advised that in the event that a written response to this letter is not received within two (2) days from the date of this letter accompanied by an assurance that a retraction is forthcoming, my clients will have no other choice but to seek legal recourse.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF CARLOS F. NEGRETE