The way I read this, he isn't being sued for publishing his opinion, but for knowingly publishing false testing and presenting it as fact, and straight out saying Fireclean is ripping everyone off by repackaging canola oil at a 10,000% markup This would rise to the definition of libel in this layman's oponion.
But if he had merely stated that Fireclean sucks and he believes it's nothing more than Crisco, that's an opinion, and certainly defensible.
Don't know if it was or is "knowingly". Looking at the IR alone is not definitive. Neither is looking at the NMR spectra alone (the "gold standard"; I've heard it as well and we use it exactly for this reason). That said, comparing BOTH of them and arriving at nearly identical results kind of narrows down the possibilities*. The thing that Tuohy and Baker both did wrong with the testing itself is the lack of independent analysis by folks who would be willing to come forward publicly to support the findings.
Given that FireClean and the lab they hired to run tests did NOT (to my knowledge) publish full spectra or, better yet, the RAW data files, I'm still more inclined to believe Baker and Tuohy.
Yes, I looked at the iodine, flash point, pour point, and specific gravity (density) results that FireClean introduced in the case.
The problem FireClean is going to have is proving that their product really isn't canola oil. Which means they are going to have to reveal what is different about it, if anything.
The maliciously going after FireClean only applies if what was said ISN'T the truth. If it is true, then FireClean has no case, and will lose.
I think it does boil down to what you posted.
*Think of it this way: you have a duck and some unknown, proprietary bird:
You look at physical characteristics (let's call this shared "oil characteristics"), which puts them both in the "duck-like" category.
You hear two "quack-like" calls (let's call this "smoke point testing"), and they both still fit in the "duck-like" category.
Next, you look at bone structure (let's call this "NMR analysis"), and
again they both fit in the "duck-like" category.
While not definitive, you've pretty much narrowed down the possibilities. The likelihood of you having a duck and a chicken is pretty much
nil. Maybe you have a Campbell Duck and a Blue Swedish duck. Maybe it's a Campbell duck and a half-breed Campbell (canola oil and another oil, for instance).
The only way to narrow it down further is to run further tests such as genetics (for instance "tandem mass spectroscopy"). But unless somebody is willing to run mass spectrometry ("MS") or some form of tandem MS (MS following chromatography, for instance), then TECHNICALLY we can not say "Yes, FireClean is nothing more than canola oil." All we CAN say definitively is "FireClean sure looks a HECK of a lot like canola oil, doesn't it? I wonder if it is nothing more than canola oil?"
Topic: The FIREClean circus heats up, takes a serious turn (Read 8342 times)
Your Privacy Choices