Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

Where are the laws that protect us against people like Andreas Moritz?

Andreas Moritz is a New Age therapist who claims that cancer is not a disease but a survival mechanism in reaction to the root cause of cancer, which has to do with unresolved spriritual conflicts and unbalance.

When the patient resolves these, he will be cured.

Now, where have we heard that before?

On his website, Moritz says:

“…cancer does not attempt to kill the body; to the contrary, it tries to save it.”

And:

“…cancer is a desperate and final attempt by the body to stay alive for as long as circumstances permit – circumstances that are, in fact, in your control.”

This is a very comfortable paradigm for any therapist. When the patient is cured, it’s the therapist’s achievement. If the patient is not cured, he just didn’t try hard enough to attain the necessary spiritual state and resolve his conflicts.

Orac of Respectful Insolence gives a thorough deconstruction of the ideas of Andrea Moritz.

Moritz also claims that:

“…cancer patients who do not receive any treatment at all, have an up to four times higher remission rate than those who receive treatment.”

This is completely untrue, which is probably the reason why Moritz fails to present any  back up for his claim.

Michael Hawkins, a student blogging on WordPress, wrote a critical post on Moritz’s ideas. Moritz promptly complained to WordPress, who then pulled Michael Hawinks’s blog. Shame on you, WordPress!

(Apparently, Michael Hawkins’s blog is up again, but under another name; let’s hope it stays).

Moritz had the goodness to explain to Michael Hawkins just why WordPress had no other choice but to remove his blog:

Michael Hawkins,

You may blame me for having your blog pulled. WorldPress had to remove your blog because otherwise it would have faced a hefty lawsuit, given the nature of the defamation campaign you had launched against me, and having positioned your blog link second place on the search engines.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Andreas+Moritz&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I have not yet decided whether to sue you for defamation. I have asked my attorneys to assess the damages your defamation campaign has done to my work, business, and reputation since your blog has been up. I know that they are significant, but if they turn out to be an excessive loss of revenue and reputation and/or if I see any more defaming publications by you or your blog friends against me or Dr. Makoney, I will not hesitate to launch an expensive lawsuit against you that you will not forget for a long time. I have collected all the data of your blogs and publications involving me. Your last email to Dr. Makoney clearly shows that you are instigating a new defamation campaign, at least against him.

My investigations show me where you live and where you study (Augusta, Amine), and if I hear or see any further activities that involve me or Dr. Makoney you will need to hire a good attorney to defend your slanderous actions and campaigns.

My close friend, Dr Deepak Chopra, who in addition to Dr Makoney and myself have been viciously attacked by your friend, the fish zoologist, PZ Myers, are considering a lawsuit against him. Slander is slander, whether it is done online or offline. If your friend is wise, he will immediately remove those blogs from his site.

Just in case you are not aware of it, below are stated the laws that protect people like me against people like you.

Sincerely,
Andreas Moritz

Which got me wondering: where are the laws that protect us against people like Andreas Moritz?

9 responses to “Where are the laws that protect us against people like Andreas Moritz?

  1. seulomonde February 24, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Quelle tristesse tout cela! faut pas se laisser intimider, faut continuer à dénoncer!

  2. beatis February 24, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    Oui, c’est vraiment triste, et tres lâche aussi de WordPress! Mr Moritz a écrit a Michael Hawkins: il-y-a des lois qui me protègent contre les gens comme toi. Alors, je me demande: où sont les lois qui nous protègent contre les gens comme Andreas Moritz??

    Et bien sûr, on continu!

  3. Nescio February 25, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Je pourrais sembler dur, mais je commence à me demander si nous avons réellement besoin d’être protégé contre des gens comme Moritz. Je doute qu’il pourrait gagner une action en justice partout en dehors de l’Angleterre, et la menace est probablement un bluff de toute façon. Et si quelqu’un est assez bête pour croire ce que disent les charlatans, peut-être le patrimoine génétique serait mieux sans eux. Je pense que la disponibilité d’informations précises est le plus important. Peut-être que les écoles devraient enseigner aux enfants comment faire des choix judicieux sur le traitement médical. Il pourrait leur sauver la vie où ils sont plus âgés!

    Google traduit assez bien l’anglais, n’est-ce pas? Avec un peu d’aide de mon collégien français.

  4. beatis February 25, 2010 at 6:33 am

    Hi Nescio,

    Well, there have been a number of law suits in the UK, for example the one of Matthias Rath against The Guardian. Rath claims his vitamin pills cure cancer and aids. Who would believe something like that? The Guardian wrote a critical yet very polite article about Rath, but nevertheless Rath filed for libel. Only in the final instance the judge found for the Guardian. The case cost the Guardian a huge amount of money. Rath was ordered by the judge to pay damages, but has not come up with the money as yet.

    As long as libel laws in the UK haven’t been changed, I’m not so sure we don’t need protection against the likes of Moritz. Even if you win a case, it can cost you a fortune.

    On a vu plusieurs de poursuites judiciaires en Grande-Bretagne, par exemple celui de Matthias Rath contre The Guardian. Rath dit que ses pilules de vitamines peuvent guérir le cancer et le sida. Qui pourrait croire une chose comme ça? The Guardian a écrit un article critique, mais aussi très poli à propos Rath, mais néanmoins Rath déposée pour diffamation. Ce n’est que dans la dernière instance le juge a décidé en faveur du Guardian. L’affaire a coûté la Guardian beaucoup d’argent. Rath a été ordonnée par le juge à payer des dommages, mais n’est pas venu avec l’argent que pour le moment.

    Tant que les lois sur la diffamation en Grand-Bretagne n’ont pas été changé, je ne suis pas si sûr que nous n’avons pas besoin de protection contre les gens que Moritz. Même si vous gagnez un cas, il peut vous coûter une fortune.

  5. Nescio February 25, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Hi Beatis,

    That’s why I mentioned England – our libel laws are a disgrace and are in urgent need of reform to prevent the sort of abuse you describe. Hopefully, reform is on its way.

    I think Rath dropped his libel suit, once he realized he had no chance of winning, and has paid over £200,000 in costs so far. A number of cases where people have tried and failed to sue critics of their unconventional views for libel, e.g. Holocaust denier David Irving, might put off others seriously considering such a course of action.

    There is a campaign to reform English libel laws here http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/

    I think that if people are allowed to promote ideas that fly in the face of accepted knowledge, which I would support in the name of free speech, others should be allowed to criticize them without fear of litigation.

    Please forgive me for not translating into French – no time!

  6. beatis February 25, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Yes, you’re right:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/12/matthiasrath.aids2

    I think that if people are allowed to promote ideas that fly in the face of accepted knowledge, which I would support in the name of free speech, others should be allowed to criticize them without fear of litigation.

    This is the heart of the matter I think; Moritz should be free to say what he wants without fear of litigation, but then, also his critics should be just as free to speak their mind.

    We either have free speech – for everybody – or we don’t.

  7. Martin May 9, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    I agree with beatis above. But, I urge all of you who criticize the work of people like Moritz or Rath to do you home work, and I mean real home work. “Common scientific knowledge” fails completely at it’s task. 1 out of 2 people will get cancer now, for instance. Exactly what more do you need to start really looking into this on another angle? The WHO was accused of faking the last H1N1 pandemic by european officials. I’m just throwing recent examples. You know I could go on all day. So what’s blocking common sense in your reasoning? It’s the fear of having to realize and acknowledge that the world you live in isn’t what you thought it was.

    Have the courage my friends, to criticize both parties and to ask : Who benefits? How much money does a guy like Rath make selling supplements when the proceeds all go to further his top-of-the-line research? Compare him to the anti-quack campaigns funded by big pharma? Who benefits from those? A gigantic cartel who stands to lose billions if Rath is right. How much money does Moritz make by informing people through his books? Not a lot compared to what’s at stake for the chemotherapy, radiation and surgery business with disease.

    Wake up.

  8. Linuz Bengtsson April 6, 2014 at 11:14 am

    Andreas nailed that punk. Haha.

  9. JennyJo April 6, 2014 at 11:39 am

    And where’s Andreas now?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: