Stephen Barrett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen J. Barrett, MD

Born 1933
New York City
Occupation Psychiatrist, Author, Consumer Advocate, Webmaster

Stephen J. Barrett, (born 1933), is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He runs a number of websites dealing with quackery and health fraud. He focuses on consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism. Barrett's critics say he lacks objectivity. He has brought several defamation lawsuits against a number of them with mixed results. Numerous sources have cited Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for online consumer information.

Contents

[edit] Biography

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. In 1967 and 1968 he followed part of a correspondence course in American Law and Procedure at La Salle Extension University (Chicago).[1] He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993, and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing.[2] Longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[3]

In addition to webmastering his websites, Barrett is a co-founder, vice-president and a board member of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). He is an advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI). From 1987 through 1989, he taught health education at Pennsylvania State University.

Barrett is the consulting editor for the Consumer Health Library at Prometheus Books,[4] has been a peer-review panelist for at least[5] two[6][7] medical journals. He has also served on the editorial board of Medscape[8] and The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine.[9] According to his website, he "has written more than 2,000 articles and delivered more than 300 talks at colleges, universities, medical schools, and professional meetings. His media appearances include Dateline, the Today Show, Good Morning America, Primetime, Donahue, CNN, National Public Radio, and more than 200 other radio and television talk show interviews."[5]

Barrett has received a number of awards and recognition for his consumer protection work against quackery.[10] Quackwatch received the award of Best Physician- Authored Site by MD NetGuide, May 2003.[10] In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery.[11] He received multiple votes or at least one first-place vote in "10 outstanding skeptics of the 20th century by Skeptical Inquirer magazine.[12] In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association.[11] Barrett has been profiled in Biography Magazine (1998)[13] and in Time Magazine (2001).[14]

The magazine Spiked-online included Barrett in a survey of 134 persons[15] they termed "key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."[16][17] When he was asked: "What inspired you to take up science?" he replied that his appreciation of medical science:

"probably began when I took a college course in medical statistics, and learned what makes the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning. Medical school brought me in touch with the rapid and amazing strides being made in the understanding and treatment of disease. My anti-quackery activities have intensified my interest and concern in distinguishing science from pseudoscience, quackery and fraud."[17]

[edit] Activism

Main article: Quackwatch

The Quackwatch website is Barrett's main platform for describing and exposing what he and other contributors consider to be quackery and health fraud.[18] The website is part of Quackwatch, Inc., a nonprofit corporation that aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct."[19] Barrett's writing is supplemented with contributions from 150+ scientific, technical, and lay volunteers and includes numerous references to published research articles.[20] Barrett defines quackery as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health,"[21] and reserves the word fraud "only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved."[22]

Barrett has become a "lightning rod" for controversy as a result of his criticisms of alternative medicine theories and practitioners. Barrett says he does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be "way outside [his] scope."[14][23] He states he does not give equal time to some subjects, and has written on his web site that "Quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish 'balanced' articles about unbalanced subjects."[24]

A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Barrett and Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.[23][25] Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture, among a myriad of other things.[23]

Barrett's involvement in the legal system has also spawned controversy about his objectivity to pass judgment on those he deems "quacks." He or NCAHF has initiated a number of lawsuits against those engaged in what he considers unscientific medical practices. He has also offered testimony on psychiatry, FDA regulatory issues, homeopathy, and other areas of alternative medicine. This has led to him being criticized for his online activities and consumer activism.

Sources that mention Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a credible or reliable source for consumer information include website reviews,[26][27][28][29][30] government agencies,[31][32] various journals[33][34][35][36][37] including The Lancet peer-reviewed medical journal[38] and some libraries.[39][40][41][42][43][44]

Some alternative medicine practitioners and nutritionists have responded to Stephen Barrett's criticisms. For example, nutritionist Dr. Colgan claims that one of Dr. Barrett's books, The Vitamin Pushers, hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately.[45]

[edit] Defamation lawsuits

Several libel suits have been filed by Barrett after he was criticized in a long series of email newsletters by Hulda Clark's employee, Patrick "Tim" Bolen, over his criticisms of Clark. Bolen claimed that Barrett had been "de-licensed," among other things. Barrett sued for libel[46] and Hulda Clark's publishing company New Century Press responded with a countersuit[47] against Barrett (as well as numerous members of a mailing list at Yahoo! Groups, and even a strong supporter of Clark) for at least 12 types of crimes and about 20 other civil wrongs, with the most serious being racketeering. After Barrett filed a complaint for damages[48] the countersuit was eventually withdrawn,[49] but was heavily reported by Bolen and others of Barrett's detractors long afterwards without mentioning the withdrawal.[50][51]

Barrett has filed libel suits against several website operators and USENET posters who reposted Bolen's letters online. Barrett explained his lawsuits this way:

"None of us are thin-skinned or care when people attack our ideas. But unjustified attacks on our character or professional competence are another matter. As Bolen's campaign unfolded, my colleagues and I have notified him and many of the people spreading his messages that libel is a serious matter and that they had better stop. Some did, but it soon became clear that others would not. To defend ourselves, several of us have filed suit for libel."[50]

Barrett filed lawsuits in several jurisdictions, including Illinois,[52][53] California,[54] and Pennsylvania.[55] Many of these were dismissed on summary judgment under anti-SLAPP statutes,[56] for failing to establish the evidentiary burden for libel,[57] or because of an interpretation of Communications Decency Act ("CDA") that gives users immunity from lawsuits when reposting material online, such that courts need not determine whether Bolen's remarks constituted libel.[58] However, Barrett won a preliminary victory in one suit and the parties ultimately settled in April 2003[52][59] after the osteopath made restitution, including a retraction of the offensive material and a payment to Barrett.[50][60]

Barrett v. Rosenthal, a lawsuit that Barrett initiated with another doctor in California, was appealed to that state's supreme court.[61] Though the California Supreme Court did not rule on whether or not the material in question was indeed libelous, they did adopt the predominant interpretation of Section 230 of the CDA, which grants immunity to defendants for reposting libelous material online.[62] At least one of Barrett's lawsuits is still pending in federal court.[63]

[edit] Selected publications

A partial list of articles Barrett was one of the authors or his authored work was cited include:

  • In 1985, Barrett was the author of the Commercial hair analysis. Science or scam? article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that exposed commercial laboratories performing multimineral hair analysis. He concluded that "commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal."[64] His report has been cited in later articles, including one which concluded that such testing was "unreliable."[65]

A partial list of his (co)authored and (co)edited books include:[66]

  • Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions - Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT, Kroger M, London WM (2006). (textbook, 8th ed.) McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-248521-3
  • Dubious Cancer Treatment - Barrett SJ & Cassileth BR, editors (2001). Florida Division of the American Cancer Society
  • The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America - Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT, eds. (1993). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-855-4
  • Health Schemes, Scams, and Frauds - Barrett SJ (1991). Consumer Reports Books, ISBN 0-89043-330-5
  • The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry Is Selling America a Bill of Goods - Barrett SJ, Herbert V (1991). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-909-7

Collections of articles:

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Barrett, Stephen. "Curriculum Vitae", Quackwatch, June 24, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-07-18. 
  2. ^ Barrett, Stephen. "License Verification", Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. Retrieved on 2007-07-18. 
  3. ^ Wlazelek, Ann. "Allentown critic of quacks moves to 'milder winters'", The Morning Call, June 13, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-07-21. 
  4. ^ Prometheus Books Spring-Summer 2007 Trade Catalog (PDF) p. 63. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
  5. ^ a b Barrett, Stephen. "Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch", Quackwatch, June 4, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-08-12. 
  6. ^ Williams, Elaine S. "The JAMA 1998 Editorial Peer Review Audit", Journal of the American Medical Association, April 21, 1999. Retrieved on 2007-08-12. 
  7. ^ "Thanks to Reviewers-2001", Annals of Internal Medicine, December 18, 2001. Retrieved on 2007-08-12. 
  8. ^ "Introducing the Editorial Board of Medscape", Medscape. Retrieved on 2007-09-03. 
  9. ^ "The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine", The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
  10. ^ a b Pass the Envelope, Please...: Best Physician- Authored Site MDNetGuide, May/June 2003.
  11. ^ a b Joel R. Cooper. Consumer Health Fraud...don't be a victim! Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D., The Medical Reporter
  12. ^ "Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century", Scientifically Investigating Paranormal and Fringe Science Claims, Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved on 2007-08-12. 
  13. ^ Rosen, Marjorie. "Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D", Biography Magazine, October 1998. Retrieved on 2007-08-16. 
  14. ^ a b Jaroff, Leon. "The Man Who Loves To Bust Quacks", Time Magazine, April 30, 2001. Retrieved on 2007-08-16. 
  15. ^ "What Inspired You? — Index of Survey responses", Spiked-Online. Retrieved on 2007-07-23. 
  16. ^ "What Inspired You? — Introduction", Spiked-Online. Retrieved on 2007-07-23. 
  17. ^ a b Barrett, Stephen. "What Inspired You? — Survey responses — Dr Stephen Barrett", Spiked-Online. Retrieved on 2007-07-23. 
  18. ^ Baldwin, Fred D. "If It Quacks Like a Duck ...", MedHunters. Retrieved on 2007-09-16. 
  19. ^ Barrett, Stephen, MD. "Quackwatch mission statement", Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-08-16. 
  20. ^ Barrett, Stephen, MD. "150+ Scientific and Technical Advisors", Quackwatch, January 28, 2003. Retrieved on 2007-08-16. 
  21. ^ Barrett, Stephen, MD. "Quackery: How Should It Be Defined?", Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-08-16. 
  22. ^ Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT. "Quackery, Fraud and "Alternative" Methods: Important Definitions", Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-08-16. 
  23. ^ a b c Dr. Who? Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion. by Donna Ladd, The Village Voice, June 23 - 29, 1999. Retrieved September 2, 2006
  24. ^ Barrett SJ. "How do you respond to accusations that your writing is unbalanced?", Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-08-16. 
  25. ^ Hufford DJ. David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198.
  26. ^ "Quackwatch", The Good Web Guide. Retrieved on 2007-10-13. "Quackwatch is without doubt an important and useful information resource and injects a healthy dose of scepticism into reviewing popular health information. Its aim is to investigate questionable claims made in some sectors of what is now a multi-million pound healthcare industry." 
  27. ^ Forbes.com, Best of the Web website reviews: Quackwatch.
  28. ^ "Diet Channel Award Review Of Quackwatch". Retrieved on 2007-09-18. "Quackwatch is a very informative site which informs you about health fraud and gives you advice on many decisions." 
  29. ^ Han LF. Selected Web Site Reviews, Quackwatch.com
  30. ^ U.S. News & World Report: The Best of The Web Gets Better
  31. ^ "Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health", U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), July 11, 2002. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
  32. ^ "U.S. Department of Health & Human Services", healthfinder.gov, National Health Information Center. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. Quackwatch is available from their database.
  33. ^ W Steven Pray. Ethical, Scientific, and Educational Concerns With Unproven Medications. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. Alexandria: 2006. Vol. 70, Iss. 6; pg. O1, 14 pgs. Quackwatch is named as a reliable source together with Skeptical Enquirer, specifically for Pharmacy Course on Unproven Medications and Therapies.
  34. ^ Lawrence B Chonko. If It Walks like a Duck . . . : Concerns about Quackery in Marketing Education. Journal of Marketing Education. Boulder: Apr 2004. Vol. 26, Iss. 1; pg. 4, 13 pgs. Chonko states “Many of the thoughts on which this article is based are adapted from materials found on this site.” (referring to Quackwatch)
  35. ^ Wallace Sampson, Kimball Atwood IV. Propagation of the Absurd: demarcation of the Absurd revisited. Medical Journal of Australia. Pyrmont: Dec 5-Dec 19, 2005. Vol. 183, Iss. 11/12; pg. 580 - 1. Sampson states that “CAM source information tends to exclude well known critical and objective web pages such as those found on Quackwatch (www.quackwatch.org).”
  36. ^ Eleese Cunningham, Wendy Marcason. Internet hoaxes: How to spot them and how to debunk them. American Dietetic Association. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Chicago: Apr 2001. Vol. 101, Iss. 4; pg. 460 - 1. Cunningham and Marcason state that “Two Web sites that can be useful in determining hoaxes are www.quackwatch.com and www.urbanlegends.com.”
  37. ^ JAMA Patient Page - Click here: How to find reliable online health information and resources, Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1380, 1998.
  38. ^ Marilynn Larkin. Medical quackery squashers on the web. The Lancet. London: May 16, 1998. Vol. 351, Iss. 9114; pg. 1520 - 2. Names Quackwatch as the premier site for exposing purveyors of health frauds, myths, and fads.
  39. ^ "Southwest Public Libraries". Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
  40. ^ "National Network of Libraries of Medicine", Evaluating Health Web Sites, Consumer Health Manual, National Library of Medicine. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
  41. ^ "VCU Libraries", Complementary and Alternative Medicine Resource Guide — Fraud and Quackery Resources, Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
  42. ^ "Rutgers University Libraries", Finding What You Want on the Web: A Guide, Rutgers University Libraries. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
  43. ^ "USC Libraries — Electronic Resources — Quackwatch", University of Southern California. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
  44. ^ "Medical Center Library", University of Kentucky Libraries. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
  45. ^ Colgan, M. Review of The Vitamin Pushers, October 1992, p. 126
  46. ^ Barrett et al vs Clark et al. Verified complaint for damages for libel, libel per se, and conspiracy to commit libel. Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. Filed Nov 3, 2000.
  47. ^ Crosscomplaint: New Century Press v. Barrett, et al Case no. 833 021-5, Nov. 3, 2000
  48. ^ Complaint for damages (Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process) Barrett v. Carlos F. Negrete, Hulda Clark, New Century Press
  49. ^ Memorandum. Stephen J. Barrett, M.D. v. Carlos F. Negrete et al. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No 04-55193, Filed March 14, 2005. "As to point number one, the district court correctly concluded that Negrete's voluntary dismissal of the underlying action constituted a termination favorable to Barrett."
  50. ^ a b c Barrett SJ. A Response to Tim Bolen. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  51. ^ Barrett, S. "Bogus "Anti-Quackbuster" Suit Withdrawn: Why I am Suing the Lawyer Who Filed It"
  52. ^ a b Barrett v. Mercola, against Joseph Mercola, case refiled on July 30, 2001 at Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 01 L 009026.
  53. ^ See Barrett v. Fonorow, filed July 2001 against Owen R. Fonorow, and Intelisoft Multimedia, Inc, 18th Cir., DuPage County, Illinois, No. 01 L 820. Barrett alleged that Fonorow reposted ten articles by Tim Bolen mischaracterizing him with several disparaging claims. Ted Gregory. "Suits may redefine Internet libel law", Chicago Tribune, 2001-09-18, p. L1. 
  54. ^ Barrett v. Clark, filed November 2000. Barrett and Polevoy sued Hulda Regehr Clark, Tim Bolen, Jan Bolen, David P. Amrein, Ilena Rosenthal, and unknown defendants for libel, libel per se, and conspiracy. Barrett's case filing. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  55. ^ Barrett v. Koren, filed against Tedd Koren, D.C. alleging that Koren made libelous remarks about him in his newsletter. Stephen Barrett, "My Libel Suit against Tedd Koren, D.C.," last revised on October 13, 2005.
  56. ^ E.g. the trial court rulings in Barrett v. Clark, where on July 25, 2001 the court granted Rosenthal's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP provision, and ruled that the statements made by Rosenthal were opinion, and not statements of fact. Monica Dias, "Court ruling gives free-speech protections to reposting messages on Internet boards", The News Media & The Law, Fall 2001 (Vol. 25, No. 4), Page 21. Plaintiffs additionally failed to provide any evidence of damage, as required in a defamation lawsuit. "Order Granting Defendant's Special Motion to Strike, (Barrett v Clark)," California Anti-SLAPP Project. Perkins Coie, "Barrett v. Clark," Internet Case Digest, July 25, 2001.
  57. ^ See Barrett v. Koren, dismissed by a Pennsylvania judge who found that Barrett had provided insufficient evidence to prove his claim. Civil Action 2002-c-1837, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. The dismissal was affirmed June 2007, SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, June 11, 2007. See also the trial court in Barrett v. Clark, supra. The Illinois court in Barrett v. Mercola reached the opposite conclusion, and the parties settled. Case dismissed by mutual agreement on April 17, 2003. Judge: Casciato, Joseph N..
  58. ^ Barrett v. Fonorow, dismissed in 2003. Barrett v. Fonorow, No. 2--02--0886. Ted Gregory. "Internet libel suit is tossed out; Decency Act protection cited by DuPage judge", Chicago Tribune, 2002-03-09, p. D13.  Dismissal affirmed in Barrett v. Fonorow, 799 N.E.2d 916, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1184 (Ill. App. 2003). This was the predominant—though criticized—interpretation of the CDA; the 2004 appellate decision in Barrett v. Rosenthal was one of the few authorities suggesting that the CDA did not extend immunity to individuals reposting material online. Peter M. Katsaros; Fredrick S. Rhine. "Court gives go-ahead to defamation on the Web", Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, 2004-01-27.  See also the California Supreme Court's eventual ruling in Barrett v. Rosenthal.
  59. ^ "Dismiss by Stipulation or Agreement", Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, April 17, 2003. Retrieved on 2007-09-06. 
  60. ^ "A Response to Tim Bolen", Quackwatch, Internet Archive, August 9, 2003. Retrieved on 2007-09-07. Barrett states that a "suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000."
  61. ^ On January 21, 2004, a California court of appeals vacated the trial court's order in Barrett v. Clark as it applied to Dr. Polevoy. Barrett v. Rosenthal, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 (Cal. App. 2004). The court found that Rosenthal's claims of Dr. Polevoy stalking a talk show host constituted libel per se, so did not require proof of damages and was not covered by California's anti-SLAPP statute, and refused to extend Rosenthal immunity from Section 230 of the CDA. See Michael L. Rustad, Thomas H. Koenig Rebooting Cybertort Law, 80 Wash. L. Rev. 335 (2005).
  62. ^ Howard Mintz, Justices hand victory to free speech online, San Jose Mercury News, November 21, 2006. The issue of defamation against Barrett was not before the court, as lower courts had ruled that Rosenthal had not defamed Barrett. Eric J. Sinrod, Perspective: How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet, CNET News.com, December 20, 2006.
  63. ^ Barrett v. Negrete, a suit against Negrete and Clark which the Ninth Circuit remanded, reversing the district court's dismissal. Barrett SJ. Appeals Court Upholds Malicious Prosecution Suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete, (Mem,. No. 04-55193 D.C. No. CV -02-0221 O-JML; No. 03-56663 D.C. No. CY -02-0221 O-JML March 14, 2005. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.. Barret v. Negrete, 126 Fed.Appx. 816 (9th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).
  64. ^ Barrett SJ (August 23, 1985). Commercial hair analysis. Science or scam? JAMA Vol. 254 No. 8.
  65. ^ Assessment of Commercial Laboratories Performing Hair Mineral Analysis, Seidel S, et al. , JAMA. 2001;285:67-72.
  66. ^ Barrett SJ. Books and book chapters. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.

[edit] External links

Languages