Tag Archives: court decisions

YLE ja ankka: Suomalaistutkija ei ole paljastanut Viiltäjä-Jackin

Famously failed ripperologist Jari Louhelainen gives strange expertise in finnish court. Against scientific proof and international consensus, Finland’s media still treats him as the man who identified Jack the Ripper.

YLE Uutiset nosti vanhan ankan pöydälle: Suomalainen maailmankuuluisa DNA-tutkija olisi paljastanut Viiltäjä-Jackin (eli Jack the Ripper) ja tuli nyt Suomeen todistamaan oikeudessa koirasusi-jutussa. Mahdollisesti suuri osa maan susista olisi koirasusia.

yle-ankka-susi

Ei se nyt näin ollut.

Se on totta, että mies vieraili Suomessa todistajana. Loput väitteistä ei pidä paikkansa.

Pahamaineinen brittilehti Daily Mail (nk. tabloid1 eli roskalehti) oli Syyskuussa 2014 kertonut, että eräs harrastuskriminologi olisi suomalaisprofessorin kanssa paljastanut vihdoin ja lopullisesti Viiltäjä-Jackin henkilöllisyyden.[<1>] Satoja muita oli väittänyt saman jo ennen tätä (ja lukuisia sen jälkeen), mutta tällä kertaa kaikki olisi toisin. Kuuluisa DNA-tutkija olisi saanut yhdeltä tekopaikalta otetusta huivista DNA-näytteen, joka paljasti varmuudella 1:290.000 Aaron Kosminski murhien tekijänä. Erittäin harvinainen mutaatio olisi löytynyt Kosminskin elävältä jälkeläiseltä sekä huivista.

Tutkijan nimi on Jari Louhelainen. Hän oli mm. Helsingin yliopiston dosentti, ja työskenteli silloin Englannissa, Liverpoolin John Moores Universityn professorina. Louhelainen ei ole huippuasiantuntija. Hän on piirissään varmasti arvostettu, niin kuin jokainen professori on. Louhelaisella on yli 20 DNA-tutkimuksiin liittyvää julkaisua vertaisarvioiduissa tiedelehdissä. Siitä pelkästään yksi on oikeuslääketieteellisestä DNA-tutkimuksesta.[<2>]

Alan asiantuntijoilla on kymmeniä, joskus satoja sellaisia artikkeleita. Joukko osaajia, mukana mm. DNA-sormenjäljen keksijä Sir Alec Jeffreys kävivät Louhelaisen kertomukset läpi. Sieltä löytyivät karmeita virheitä. Pääväite, eli että näytteistä olisi löytynyt harvinainen mutaatio (314.1C) oli myötähäpeää laukaisevalla tavalla virheellinen. Louhelainen oli laskenut väärin, oikea numero 315.1C kuuluu mutaatiolle, joka on lähes jokaisella (99%).[<3>]

Vielä pahempi on huomio, että Louhelainen puhuu “1:290.000” todennäköisyydestä. Käytössä ollut tietokanta sisälsi 29.000 eri markeria, eli jos mutaatio on vain yhdellä koko tietokannasta, pienin mahdollinen todennäköisyys on 1:29.000. “Kuuluisa tutkija” oli siirtänyt desimaalin saadakseen paremman tuloksen.[<4>]

Finnish faker flees furious forensics (from file)

Finnish faker flees furious forensics (from file)

Siihen kaatui viiltäjätapauksen valheellinen ratkaisu.[<5>] Tulokset eivät ole vielä olleet missään aikakausisarjassa, vertaisarvioitu artikkeli puuttuu yhä, kolme vuotta skandaalin jälkeen. Siihen on kaksi mahdollista selitystä: 1.) Louhelainen tiesi itse, ettei kannattaa julkaista huuhaa-tutkimuslöytöjä; 2.) hän on lähettänyt artikkelin vertaisarviointiin, mutta laatu oli näin alhainen, ettei yhtään journal halusi edes julkaista tätä. Luulisin, että vaihtoehto 1 sopii. Ei tämä professori ole tyhmä.

Tieteellisesti Louhelaisen väitteet siis eivät ole edes olemassa. Alan huippunimet tyrmäsivät täysin Louhelaisen väitteet. Silti YLE pitää hänet viiltäjätapauksen ratkaisijana. Oikaisu olisi paikalla.

Tämä koskee käytännössä Suomen media kokonaisuudessaan. Asia oli ollut Iltalehdessä,[<6>] Ilta-Sanomissa, Hesarissa, Suomen Kuvalehdessä, yms.  Kansainvälisestä kritiikistä kirjoitti ainakin Ilta-Sanomat.[<7>] Suomalainen tiedesankari ei voi olla huijari, ja siksi toimituksen neropatit antoivat Louhelaiselle tilaa puolustautumaan heikoilla lausunnoilla:

”meillä on myös muuta kuin kirjassa esitettyä dna-profilointitietoa, kuten juuri haplotyyppidataa”.

Tämä tarkoittaa, että DNA antaisi yleiset piirteet tekijästä, kuten hiusväri tms. Koska nuo vihjeet eivät voi paljastaa tietyn henkilön tekijäksi, Louhelainen itse julistaa tieteellisen vararikonsa.

Tohtori lupasi lisää todisteita. Hän ei ole antanut niitä. Louhelainen lupasi, että riippumattomia asiantuntijoita saisi nähdä kaikki tietoja. Siihen se jäi. Tohtori matkustaa puhujana ympäri maailmaa. Tulevassa sensaatioelokuvassa hän halusi – ja tämä ei ole vitsi – Johnny Depp näyttelevän Jari Louhelaisen rooli. Leffa ei koskaan tehtiin, koska välillä kävi totuus ilmi.[<8>]

jaridepp

Kyseessä on puhtaasti tiedehuijaus.

Jos katsotaan koirasusijuttua, joka on vireillä Varsinais-Suomen käräjäoikeudessa, kuviot ovat samanlaisia: Asiantuntijat tyrmäävät täysin Louhelaisen väitteet, jotka tohtori tekee palkkiota vastaan.

  • Louhelainen väittää, että Suomessa käytetyt menetelmät olisivat vanhentuneita ja epäluotettavia (väärin)
  • Vertailukannassa mahdollisesti mukana olleet koirat/hybriidit tekisivät koirasuden tunnistamisen mahdottomaksi (hatusta vedetty)

Luonnonvarakeskuksen suurpetotutkija Katja Holmala ihmettelee Jari Louhelaisen lausuntoja oikeudelle. – Hän ei ole villieläinten genetiikkaan liittyen mikään huippuasiantuntija, Holmala sanoo. (…)

– Eläimen päästä tehtyjen DNA-analyysien perusteella asiasta ei ole mitään epäselvyyttä. (…)

– Kyseessä oli 6–9 kuukauden ikäinen suden pentu

Myös viiltäjätapauksessa Louhelaisella oli taloudelliset intressit. Lausunnoillaan tehty propaganda on edistänyt liikekumppaninsa kirjan myyntiä. Tutkija sai palkkionsa ja sen jälkeen luentopalkkioita sekä media huomiota, joka toi taas rahaa.

Valitettavasti toimittaja ei pystynyt tutkimaan todelliset taustat. Tässä olisi hyvän jutun aineksia ollut.
 

 

Update 10/2020:
Louhelaisen artikkeli julkaistiin Maaliskuussa 2019 Journal of Forensic Science-lehdessä. <link>. Siinä Jari ei toistanut yllä olevia väitteitä, eli surullisen kuuluisa “1:290.000 todennäköisyys” ja DNA-jälkien täsmällinen sopivuus jälkeläisten kanssa ei esiintynyt enää siinä. Sen sijaan se on case report-formaatin väitelmä, että löydökset sopivat epäiltyjen piirissä eniten Kosminskiin (silmä- ja hiusten väri). Samalla todetaan, miten Lontoossa silloin suuri osa väestöä – jopa 80% – kantanut samoja tunnusmerkkejä.

Toisin sanoen, olin oikeassa – Louhelainen ei uskaltanut väittää samaa niin kuin 5 vuotta aiemmin kirjassa – kyseessä oli feikki. Perinteisesti toimittajat Suomessa eivät lue alkuperäistutkimuksia (tai eivät ymmärrä), joten uutisoitiin 2019 taas miten suomalainen on ratkaistanut tapauksen.

Police: Blogging this equals a (interrupted) killing spree

Old news: The earlight maker Valkee Ltd, with its reputation as the most questionable company in Finland, tried to get me persecuted for this blog. With little success – besides that my postings about Valkee’s stalking had >>100.000 visitors so far.

The company accused me of aggravated defamation, for which the finnish penal code [PDF] promises a fine, with a maximum punishment of 2 years imprisonment.

defamation

 

Now to somehow different news.

On the evening of December 5, 2016, only hours before the celebrations of Finland’s 99-year independence started, the police in Kuopio got several “911” (i.e. 112) calls from a McDonalds restaurant at the central market (tori).

A man had pulled a loaded 9mm gun in the overcrowded burger restaurant, and waved it around to the horror of bystanders. Police units, which usually hang around there, rushed in immediately, and within minutes got the guy arrested some 150 metres away. He had decided to leave without firing a single round. Witnesses described the scene as very, very disturbing – not surprisingly, as the recent news of mass shootings and terror in Europe are present in everybody’s mind.

the restaurant in question

The restaurant in question.

Just two days earlier, a shooter had killed three women in front of a restaurant in Imatra, some 230 kilometres away [details here].

The offender in Kuopio turned out to be a 50-year old man from Kainuu, a remote region which has traditionally one of the highest per capita rate of murder and manslaughter in the country. He did not want to explain his actions.

 

The man did not cooperate – who would do that in his situation -, and so the case is handled now as a firearm offence (ampuma-aserikos). The penal code holds for that a fine, with a maximum punishment of 2 years imprisonment.

ampuma-ase

This is the same police department, and the same prosecutor’s office that erraticly handled Valkee’s case against me, and needed a year to confirm that I’m not guilty of anything.

Nothing to see here, move on folks !!1!

Don’t use HumanCharger for Seasonal Affective Disorder: Valkee fools the FDA

As reported earlier on earlightswindle.com, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has refused the import of Valkee’s HumanCharger earlight headset into the States, when it was misbranded as a therapy device. But now Valkee Ltd actually did a rererere-launch of their hokuspokus in Canada and the US. How is this possible?

Valkee’s resellers explain on amazon.com, how Valkee circumvents FDA requirements.
Hold on to your seats!

“Doesn’t this need FDA approval?”

valkee-fuck-fda

“Only if advertised for use in Seasonal Affective Disorder. The product is advertised for Winter Blues”

It can not make any effectiveness claims, it gets no FDA approval – but it works “for winter blues”? That’s a synonym.

The USA is a known minefield for health fraud businesses like Valkee’s, because of class action suits. Power Balance, the magnetic wrist band sellers, had to return most of their shady businesses’ profits, because they made false health claims.

Valkee really doesn’t know better than to fool around with U.S. legislation. On the other hand, there is nothing to regain from Valkee, as the Company has no assets. They didn’t make even profits.

Congratulations to Merieux Developpement, TEKES and SITRA for making these shameful maneuvres possible. This is what sustainable businesses look like (in Finland)!

How to handle an unwanted blogger – the Valkee solution

Imagine the following: You have a company selling some unproven wonder treatment to naïve customers. You get maximum-level political support – even from the President of the Republic and the PM. You’re getting multi-million public and private funding enabling you to produce “research” to bolster your marketing.

But the target population still doesn’t believe you. An ugly makeshift website with an unfriendly blog draws as much attention as your glossy campaign. Although it is maintained anonymously, it has higher credibility. The facts presented there are a threat to your business, you want to get rid of that. What shall you do?

Here is, what Valkee Ltd did.

 

1. Send a threatening letter

in which you demand to shut down the website.

cease-and-desist letter by Valkee's CEO Somerto

 

If unsuccessful,

2. Let your lawyers send a threatening letter.

cease-and-desist by Borenius law firm

Luckily, you have Borenius, a leading law firm, at hand – at the expense of others.

 

If unsuccessful, start some

3. Text message stalking

somerto-sms1

Send the messages preferably in the morning (before 7:30 a.m.) or at night (after 8:00 p.m.). You may achieve a good shock-and-awe effect when the target is with the family, not expecting anything bad.

somerto-sms2

 

If unsuccessful, make a

4. Denunciation to the police.

The outcome may be disappointing (detailed description of the case here), because the website/blog does nothing illegal. The presented facts are correct, as you know.

 

Anyway, if unsuccessful, try a

5. Second complaint to the police

in which you decry the activities of that blog as a vital threat to your business. Urge the police to do anything soon. At least, it will keep the blogger busy and under pressure.

lawsuit2-4[1]

 

If all those methods are unsuccessful,

6. Hire a private investigator.

This may be outsourced to some of your pals. Their growing concerns about the failing investment could make them try a whole bunch of unconventional measures. You must convince them, that all negative publicity is caused by that blogger and his friends, not by your foul claims.

valkee-amateur-spies

Security expert Dave may find out interesting things about one’s personal life (cut out from the JPG above). Keep it for later use. But next time avoid leaking the memos, because of your sheer incompetence with web techniques.

  • Guessing game: Who hired David as a private eye?
    • Hint 1 (symbolic picture):
      (symbolic picture only)
    • Hint 2: it begins with M.

 

If still unsuccessful,

7. Contact the blogger’s employer.

This is, of course, a do-not for a civilized person. Use only if despair strikes. You may try to find out more details about your target. Or simply ask random things, to make clear you’re despicable enough to actually play that card.

Be aware, that the HR department may be used already to 3C-requests (criminals, crooks, and crackpots) due to the nature of that institution. Your questions may be redirected instead and cause further damage.

update: Pekka Somerto contacted my employer via phone and from a DNA welho.com e-mail (probably he changed it now to Elisa.fi). I received a HR call at home on my day off, and had to explain. An uncomfortable situation, as you may understand./-Ed.

 

If all is unsuccessful,

8. Leave the company

after all you’ve done.

thelastoneswitchesoffthelight

Your pals/investors could help with parachuting you into a leading position elsewhere – even with comparable pay checks.

valkeelisa

Then resume where you stopped: Selling flimflam devices. Enjoy life!

***

Valkee Ltd vs. Earlightswindle.com: Shutdown Attempt, Legal Action Fails (2. update & document)

The “HumanCharger” manufacturer Valkee Ltd. sent forth lawyers and tried to misuse police force in a failed attempt to silence this website, which is criticizing the company’s practices. The prosecution was stopped now by the officials, declaring there has been no wrongdoing.

The full document set is not yet available to the public, because it may still be sealed by the authorities. However, according to Finland’s laws on Freedom of Information, after any investigation the material shall be in the public domain. Earlightswindle.com tries to get the scans as soon as they become available. By now it can only describe and cite without revealing the acting persons’ names. It shouldn’t be so hard to guess. See update section below.

 

Behind the scenes

Valkee Ltd demanded to close this website within weeks of its establishment in late 2012. Until then, the critical view on the once-applauded, self-declared startup firm had less than 50 visitors. The first deadlines set by Valkee’s board expired without effect.

valkee-letter-2013

Strangely, all communication was sent to a certain person which Valkee claims to be behind this project. There’s never been any message to the e-mail address given for this purpose from the very first day. They did not demand factual corrections. Instead, the earlight firm made clear that this website had to disappear before it could be noticed by the general public.

The successive additions to earlightswindle.com during 2013 coincided with Valkee’s problems after reports by a now-critical mainstream press, and the widely recognized 2012 FlimFlam award. Social media picked up the Valkee story in August 2013, overshadowing the launch of the Valkee 2 device. The company had a defensive reply attached to its most important campaign in years. A catastrophic event in marketing terms, followed by the even more devastating independent trial countering their 2013 Christmas campaign. Something had to be done.

 

Police is called in

A Valkee representant made a complaint to the finnish police in January 2014. Earlightswindle.com was said to cause massive damage to the company. The person they made responsible should be punished, and convicted to pay compensation.

In May 2014, a renewed complaint came in. Valkee saw this site as a vital threat to its operations and shareholders. It urged the officers to act immediately, because now a twitter account EarLightSwindle existed, making the information available to an even bigger audience.


Warning: Clicking this is hurting Valkee (says Valkee).

lawsuit2-4[1]

(update: p.4 of complaint no.2, Valkee’s CEO said this post to be a pure canard. OMD)

Legal grounds

Finnish libel law only covers insults against persons. It rules out punishment for criticism made about one’s business, or science. But there is a foxhole: If the criticism is too sharp, and may directly harm a specific person, it leads to prosecution. Such cases went through the High Court with considerable sentences. The criticism on this site is extreme, and the things told here are likely to hurt persons involved. Yet, it had to be false and mendacious. The truth cannot be unlawful.

  • First, [X] declared to be Valkee in person (“Valkee henkilöityneenä”). Everything said about the company would mean him, because he was speaking for it on countless occasions, and is presumed to be its face.
  • Second, criticism of his work would ruin his career as a researcher.
  • Third, authorities had never investigated Valkee for fraud or anything else, and therefore it cannot be called a scam.

Would that have gone through, it would have enormous impact on free speech in Finland: It would be a punishable offence to use the word swindle, scam, hoax (“huijaus”) without a court decision.

480px-Free-speech-flag

Unthinkable? Not for Valkee, the innovative young firm from Oulu Helsinki.

Fortunately, earlightswindle.com is in English and made for an English-speaking audience. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines a health fraud scam as:

products that claim to prevent, treat, or cure diseases or other health conditions, but are not proven safe and effective for those uses.

Valkee Ltd has sold, or is selling, the HumanCharger earlight devices for

  • Migraine
  • Shift work disorder
  • circadian rythm shifting
  • optimizing cognitive performance
  • Bipolar Disorder (!!), and
  • Seasonal Affective Disorder.

It has no accepted evidence for any of those claims. It has only an approval for SAD. So Valkee’s “HumanCharger” per definitionem a scam, or health fraud, or however one may call this. Practically, and in legal terms. The FDA exculpates that fully, without any need to explain, or to understand scientific details.

 

Closing the case

After one year, the officers working on the case and the prosecutor made the decision to end the investigation, because it is highly unlikely to lead to a conviction under these circumstances. There has been no wrongdoing. Valkee has left only the possibility to call on a civil court. The chances to win the facts are near zero, after it was made clear that nothing unlawful happened. But the company has money left. It would not surprise if they make a last stand.

The important message is, that here is no slander, no lies, no defamation. Don’t expect Valkee to accept that. Be sure, Valkee will not be prosecuted for … at least not for their false claims about earlightswindle.com.

 

Some words in private

This thing has caused me sleepless nights, as you may understand. Not so much because of the criminal case in itself – the website was considered court-proof from the beginning simple because of its factual correctness. It shocked me, after all I’ve seen from Valkee, that they are willing to misuse authorities and to mislead them with such bogus claims.

Oskari Onninen seems to be correct when he notices:

This is Valkee, a company of two truths. One the company’s own, the other the outside world’s. Comparing them is like reading Russia Today and the New York Times at the same time and trying to assess whether Vladimir Putin is a good guy or a crook.

And if a Valkee-truth is collided with another truth, the company is instantly at your throat.

The original, 50+ pages lawsuit material contains absolutely incredible misconceptions, false translations and awesome claims by Valkee. This post may be updated with that if readers wish so.

I never told about these Valkee activities before, though I know that “the Internet” hates such commercial censorship. I was just so fed up with the evil. On the other hand, the finnish scam company knew what they were taking on. They knew it would become public one way or the other.

Now I need some time out.

CU./-ed.


UPDATE 2.4.2015:

Mr [X], who filed the complaint for Valkee Ltd, did not want the documents online – for personal reasons, he said. Fine with me, although disappointing for some readers: Saves time and money. His decision demands no comment.

I have the complaint scans here, and if someone wants them, you’re free to check it, if you don’t put them online. I gave my word.

Then I discovered, that Valkee’s PR-mistress kittikatti alias Christina Forsgard was retweeting foul and despicable claims about me to over 6.600 persons. These may not be aware of the role she played in the scandal.

forsgard-crackpot

– The prosecutor would’ve had stopped the investigation because only a fine (= and no jail term) was to be expected. As if our “too liberal justice system” prevented a conviction. Absolutely awful. Just think a moment: If that would be a reason for stopping, how could anybody be fined at all in Finland? Forsgard must have known that this is rubbish.

– The prosecutor’s decision would not tell, if there had been a crime or not.

– The prosecutor would have looked, if I did harm to [X]’s family. This is an extremely abject claim, and there was not a single word about this even in the complaints. Of course the prosecutor didn’t check this. Unbearable.

So here is the prosecutor’s decision in full. See for yourselves.

 prosec000  prosec001  prosec003

 “… THE CASE:

[X] is suspecting [Ed.] to have committed defamation by making untrue claims and hints about Valkee Ltd. and [X] on the website earlightswindle.com. [Ed.] is also suspected to have maintained the website korvavalohuijaus.com, where also Valkee Ltd’s earlight device was criticised. [Ed.] had also given an interview in the YLE TV program MOT: The Earlight Tale. (…)

GROUNDS:

(…) the investigation shall be stopped on grounds of the crimes’ negligibility, because the prosecutor would not be able to bring a charge. Also, there is no important public or private interest in bringing a charge.

(…processual law tells, that) the official prosecutor may abstain from bringing a charge, if the expected sentence is no more than a fine… or if the crime can be seen as negligible.”

It tells, that the prosecutor is allowed to drop charges, if no more than a fine is expected. Only then. This is the condition for stopping, not the reason.

The next paragraph cites the defamation chapter of finnish penal law, and that criticism of one’s business, science, politics, etc. is not libel, if it can be seen as acceptable. As I told in the post above.

“In the present case, [Ed.] has criticised the company founded by [X] and the device which is developed and manufactured by them. Therefore his criticism is about business and science. It is a new product, about which absolutely no independent study results are available. [not true, /-Ed.]

Taking into account the newness of the device and the method, and the lack of evidence, it is understandable that it is met also with fierce criticism.

The vast majority of [Ed.s] claims are about the efficacy of the device produced by the company and its possible benefits for users. That is criticism related to business and science. For that, the criteria of defamation according to penal law are not fulfilled. Even if some of the claims would be false, these would be negligible. [Ed.s] claims and his criticism of Valkee Ltd. and [X] do not exceed the acceptable.”

Then the points of the 2 leading GROUNDS paragraphs are affirmed.

For those who are familiar with finnish lawsuits, the prosecutor is going very, very far, as he can, in making clear that there is nothing punishable. The statement even rules out that charges could be brought for other claims.

The text even tells, that it is OK to criticise Valkee Ltd, because there is no accepted evidence. Thanks for that nice feature, Mr Pyykönen!

It is absolutely disgusting to see, how Valkee’s PR people work. Making statements for those, who do not check the facts anyway. Or for those, who aren’t aware that Valkee’s words always have to be checked. They are seldom true.

FYI: Valkee Ltd told it has nothing to do with that lawsuit. Ok. Readers know by now, that everything written here is provable and correct. Just because lawsuits are expected. QED. I see this as a nice joke, and there is no need to answer that nonsense defense.

Finnish Government gives Science & Ethics a GFY, promotes Valkee’s Chairman

The Finnish Government (valtioneuvosto) has promoted Valkee’s chairman, Ex-CEO and investor Timo Ahopelto to the board of the tax-funded TEKES agency. The man who has wasted millions in this scam. The person who was in charge when a fake publication by Valkee lured TEKES into throwing more millions on the company.

This is the most bizarre and absurd political move possible – at a time when Valkee’s fast demise became apparent. Ahopelto is now responsible for TEKES spending policy, he decides about projects greater than 3 M Euros.

Now a few words in private. No, I don’t expect Valkee to get another 3 M€ from TEKES. But I expect that they went finally too far with this.

The policy makers could hardly say it more directly: Fuck the public opinion. Fuck science. Fuck ethics. Here is money to be spent.

Simply incredible.

Media council favors Valkee, weakens freedom of the press

The Council for Mass Media in Finland has handed out an official notification about misconduct to the Suomen Kuvalehti magazine, part of Otava Media. Valkee Ltd had complained to the council about an article which had analyzed Valkee’s science, much like earlightswindle.com.

The logical conclusion: Valkee’s health claims are bogus. That conclusion was left unchallenged. But the company wanted to present its “dissenting opinion” – i.e. marketing message – along with the criticism.

From the council’s decision:

“the company got very negative publicity from this article […] because the efficacy of the device manufactured and marketed by [Valkee Ltd] was denied completely. […] The company was not heard … There are conflicting expert opinions and understandings of the studies regarding the earlight headplugs, and the final truth is not found yet. For these reasons, [Valkee Ltd] had the right to a representation.” [rough translation]

The council thus decided in favor of the so-called Balance bias, a phenomenon which competent journalists worldwide seek to avoid. The textbook example for catastrophic misinformation resulting from a neutral viewpoint was the row about global warming. The media made it look as if the climate skeptics’ points would be actually discussed in the scientific community. Actually, there was, and is, clear scientific consensus. A representation of scientific facts skewed by “neutral” reporting.

Just the same as in the Valkee case: Nobody except company-affiliated persons ever claimed that the device works. So, how could somewhone claim “the truth is not found yet”? The device does simply not work. Efficacy must be proven, not its non-existence.

With the same logic, a documentary about the Apollo Missions would have to include the dissenting viewpoint, that it’s all a NASA fake. This idea, too, was brought up later by crackpots. Does it mean that “the truth is not found yet”?

The Council for Mass Media in Finland is not alone with its uninformed view. Numerous such cases are documented, some sound funny, others tragic. The BBC was attacked for misrepresenting astrology in an astronomy programme. Public discussion about vaccination risks, started by an now-convicted charlatan, led to a drastic fall in MMR vaccination rates in the UK. (Read the excellent BMJ article in full.)

There have been numerous court cases in Europe, where companies tried to stop negative reports with just the same arguments like Valkee Ltd. It reminds very much of a legendary german trial: 40 years ago, the pharmaceutical firm Nattermann, backed by the industry lobby groups, tried to stop reports about the inefficacy of one of its blockbuster drugs. The final decision by the Köln Apellate Court (OLG Köln) had a remarkable rationale:

[the journal] acted with legitimate interest… [In medicine,] it’s crucially important to inform […] timely about negative findings, to save the patient from possible harm.

If the positive sides [of the product] are brought into prominence by massive advertising, the press has every right to pick negative statements and to cite them, even if the same publication, where the quote is taken from, contains also positive opinions.”

Valkee Ltd has a long tradition of suppressing inconvenient information on the net, and now it takes on the old media. Where’s the actual court decision which gets things right?

update 7.7.2014: there’s a twitter storm going on about this just now. Better late than never. See Longplay.fi and #valkee.