Argue the facts when you have them; change the subject when you don't

Thanks to Junkfood Science for another gem illustrating tactics of purveyors of junk science.  Dietitian Sandy Szwarc describes the case of an attorney attempting to intimidate a housewife/mother-blogger who was defending against charges that vaccinations lead to autism.  The attorney's heavy-handedness prompted a New Hampshire judge to demand he account for his charges.  His "priceless" response struck Szwarc as "better than a soap opera."

It's not fair and must be some big conspiracy network (with "co-conspirators"), he says (in essence), because she's just a girrrrl. A "mother and housewife" can't possible be smart enough to able to research the internet and medical journals, and write such well-researched pieces. She couldn't just be a concerned mother of an autistic child, somebody had to be helping her, he says, and she must be "either an agent of the defendant or of industry." Therefore, he wanted to find out who she was working for or with. Yes, she must be an industry shill.

The Salt Institute is familiar with this line of attack.  On us it goes:  Salt Institute spokespersons aren't medical doctors, so they are not capable of either quoting recognized experts or summarizing the results of the scientific studies we call to public attention.  After all, they say, what's important is who they represent.  Of course, they are reduced to this misdirection because (apparently like the "girrrrl" blogger somehow the messenger makes a better target than the irrefutable message.

Szwarc tells the story with more pizazz.  And the blogger's post is even better.