Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Contents 1 Defamation suits 2 Barrett's license to practice 2.1 Two different matters 3 On Sources 4 "critical is positive" 5 Axes to grind 6 What Barrett is trying to do 7 Definition of quackery 8 Rapists and murderers 9 Barretts' views, plus the history of the term "Quackbusters" 10 Focus 11 Bolen's website 12 Rosa reference 13 Dr. Barrett's medical opinions (a straw man accusation] 14 SLAPPsuits 15 User 216.193.137.208 16 External links section 17 FALSE CLAIMS ? 18 Court cases and criticism 19 Orignial Research 20 OKO and Sarner banned from editing this article 21 A huge difference 22 Barrett did sue Carter

Defamation suits

A claim was made that Barret has filed 40 defamation suits & lost every time. Two things make this an invalid criticism:

• The suits ostensibly meant here were filed by the National Council Against Health Fraud, which Barrett is a member of. They were not filed by Stephen Barret himself. Mention of these suits belongs on the page for the NAHCF, if there is one.
• The insinuation is plain hyperbole: 40 frivolous lawsuits that were all denied for lack of merit. From quackwatch.org: 'Overall, at least ten have been settled with agreements under which the defendants promised to stop making the false claims to which we objected. A few cases were dropped for technical reasons, such as our discovery that the defendant was not doing enough business in California to justify continuing the suit. In two other cases, involving about ten defendants, NCAHF received adverse rulings in which the courts rejected our legal theory that sellers should carry the burden of proving that what they claim is true. (The courts ruled that the state attorney general can enforce the law in this manner, but private citizens and public-interest group cannot.) These rulings don't prevent similar cases from being brought in the future, but they make them more complicated than they are worth.' At least ten settled pre-trial under conditions favorable to the plaintiffs; several dropped for reasons having nothing to do with merit; two failed on grounds of legal merit.

If the statement must be made in any form on Wikipedia, it should be made on the NAHCF page & recognize the full truth of the matter.

(By the way, I'm getting a Wikipedia account now so as not to seem so anonymous--I'll be RubyQ is it's not already taken.)

Okay, I'm RubyQ now.01:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information from? I am gettign mine from a sources article. It seems like you have intimate knowledge. You say above: "our discovery that the defendant...". "Our" discovery? Are you part of NAHCF? Or part of their legal team? If you can cite your information from a notable source, I'd be more than happy for you to refute what I have put there. It sounds like you can. But right now, what I have put there is the only information that is sourced. Levine2112 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you failed to note 'From quackwatch.org:' prefaced to the material within quotation marks in the quotation I used. The source of my information, then, is the person alleged to have filed defamation suits. Your source, from which you plagiarized at least two quotes word-for-word (actually the bulk of the paragraph in question here), makes a number of claims about the proceedings of a lawsuit. The fact that Barrett's text is better put together & argued as against the website you mention (or its copies), (& lacks both marquee & blink tags plastered all over it) is, I think, a good sign. But leave that to one side: the statement you wish to insert in the text of this Wikipedia article imputes a set of actions to an individual, something he casts in an entirely different light himself (not by him individually, not 40 consecutive losses, as it were), on the basis of a second-hand source that itself lacks citations. In the absence of better evidence, evidence that would pass muster in any printed reference source, the statement has no place here.02:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If the statement is intended to be a criticism of Barrett, it needs to be substantiated. If it's not a criticism, it isn't germane to the section devoted to criticism of the man.02:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, the entire acusation that Barrett has filed 40 defamation suits rests solely on that extensively parroted claim found in your source. No enumeration of these supposed cases is given. However, on the page I mentioned before on quackwatch.org, Barrett does enumerate the libel suits to which he has been a party. They number significantly fewer than 40, five or so, & they have not all issued in losses. On the other hand, as I quote in the addition to the article I have just made, the NCAHF has been invloved in false advertising suits involving about 40 defendents. There seems to be some confusion between libel suits & false advertising suits.03:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's license to practice

Is there a source for the claim that Barrett isn't currently licensed to practice medicine? --Icarus 03:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously we need a source. This is not the first time Ive heard this, so there may be somthing to it more than POV by the anon user, but without a source, it needs a source. Stbalbach 04:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I say we leave it for a week or so to allow someone to add a source, and then remove it if it does not have a source at that point. If it's true, it can always be added back whenever someone does present a source. --Icarus 07:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I may remember wrong, but I think Barrett had said that he didn't renew his membership in his psychiatric council-ma-bob thing... I need to figure out what I'm thinking of Tyciol 08:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the article I posted, under oath Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. If this is verified, I think it should be part of this article. Levine2112 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The article you posted takes the text verbatim from www.healthfreedomlaw.com, the author of which doesn't provide a transcript of the trial. --CDN99 18:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a transcipt available? I can't find the article on healthfreedomlaw.com. It's kind of a sloppy site. Can you point me to the page where you saw this article verbatim? Levine2112 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just found this from another article:

'At trial, while on the stand, Barrett had to admit that he not only gave up his license in 1994, but that he was, in fact, not a board-certified psychiatrist, because he had flunked the examination that was required to receive certification. More significantly, under intense cross-examination, Barrett admitted that he did not pass the neurological portion of the exam.'

Levine2112 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Scroll down the main page at www.healthfreedomlaw.com to "breaking news!!!". Chiroweb also quotes from www.healthfreedomlaw.com in that article. --CDN99 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So what is the truth here? Did Barrett indeed fail his psychiatric board examinations as those articles claim he admitted on the stand? I don't want to post a lie to the article. But with several references now, does this become verifiable? Do courts often publish trial transcipts? Has Barrrett ever responded to these allegations about what he said on the stand? Levine2112 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Two different matters

Gentlemen, you're all mixing two very different matters together. This is confusing, so here they are:

1. Letting his license lapse when he retired.

This is standard practice for MDs. It's expensive to keep one's license to practice active. One has to pay very expensive malpractice insurance, dues, continuing education, etc. He will always be an MD. That's his education.

• Early history:

During the mid-1970s, I began writing about what I found and gradually evolved into a medical writer and editor. As I did so, I gradually reduced my psychiatric work until 1993, when I retired so I could spend more time writing about my findings. The original committee, renamed Quackwatch in 1997, has evolved into an informal network of individuals who provide help when asked. FAQ

• What is the status of your medical license?

In 1993, I decided to devote my full energy to investigating and writing about quackery and inactivated my Pennsylvania license. Since 1999, there has been an organized attempt to destroy my reputation by falsely describing my status as "de-licensed"-a derogatory term that means having one's licensed revoked for misconduct. I have committed no misconduct. I retired in good standing and can reactivate my license by paying the renewal fee. But since I no longer see patients, there is no reason to do so. I have filed libel suits against several of the people who orchestrated the campaign

Tim Bolen's most blatant lie is the "de-licensed" claim. He has been confronted with it and yet continues to do it.

Yes, he filed one against many people, me included. All Judges found against him. He has lost many such suits designed to waste the resources of his critics and those criticized by him. He concurrently wages vicsious defamation campaigns while claiming to be libeled. See: http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm

-- 196.40.12.109 (Ilena Rosenthal, still writing from San Jose, Costa Rica) 19:37, 10 March 2006

2. Never being Board Certified.

He has never claimed to be Board Certified. He was and is still an MD and a psychiatrist. Being "Board Certified" is nice, but far from all MDs, including psychiatrists, are Board Certified.

3. Frequently Asked Questions about My Activities -- Stephen Barrett, M.D.

• What got you interested in fighting quackery?
• What promoted you to start the Quackwatch Web site?
• What qualifies you to write on so many topics?
• Do you yourself follow a healthy lifestyle?
• What are your goals?
• What is the status of your medical license?
• What would you do if you were told you were terminally ill?
• Additional information about me
• Additional information about Quackwatch

Just ask

If you have any other matters that need answering, just ask. The answers usually exist, and I know the people who can provide them. Keep in mind that Barrett, the NCAHF, etc. are open about their activities. They have nothing to hide. The information is there if you know where to look. Even participation on the Healthfraud Discussion List requires using ones real name.

Regards, Fyslee 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Barrett may claim it is "nice" to be board certified, but it is far more than 'nice.' It is a protection for patients and the public. By letting his state license lapse while still broadly being advertised as medical doctor also provides NO protection to the public. With Barrett actively going af..ter the licenses of those he disagrees with (such as medical doctors researching Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which Barrett claims doesn't exist) ... as well as his "credentialwatch.com" website ... his failure to protect the public is pure hypocrisy.

Barrett also claims that Quackwatch.com is as nonprofit, but the IRS has no record of this and no way to look at his non profit tax records. Where is the legal non profit, Quackwatch?

He still advertises NCAHF as a nonprofit, yet it is now defunct, suspended by the State of California after Barrett and NCAHF lost a high profile lawsuit, where Barrett was declared "biased, and unworthy of credibility." He now claims that NCAHF is based in Massachusetts, but there is no Corporate information on them. There appears to be no validity to his claim so what legal entity are they operating from?

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm

Why does Barrett use shills like "Will Ketcher" "Nanaweedkiller" and a disbarred attorney from NY, Mark Probert to harass those he has lost to in court?

-- 196.40.14.198 (Ilena Rosenthal, still writing from San Jose, Costa Rica) 15:55, 10 March 2006

Two different matters, below, makes an important point about what is being claimed here. But the question of appropriate & intellectually honest sourcing of material is vitally important. The statement, which has been in dispute here for quite a while it appears, concerning Stephen Barrett's admission under cross-examination of having failed the test required for Medical Board certification, appears to be based solely on one statement parroted on various websites, which themselves contain no reference to substntiating documentation. This amounts to hearsay, & doesn't meet any legitimate standard of citation. This would not pass muster in any reputable reference work, & unless those who contiunue to reinsert the statement think Wikipedia shouldn't strive to meet those standards, the stetment should be dropped of substantiated with a real citation.

On Sources

There is no factual reson to doubt the documents authenticity. Court records are not always made available online by the court, and any transcript made available from a third party could just as easily be discounted for the same reasons, its a burdon of proof that is extreme, Wikipedia is not original research, it reports on what others are saying and lets the reader decide. Stbalbach 20:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

A trial transcript is not "original research." In fact, the guideline on reliable sources specifically mentions trial transcripts as credible primary sources. By contrast, a press release issued by one side in a contentious court dispute is far from a reliable source. If a transcript is not available, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't be in this case, a neutral and uninvolved news article about the proceedings should be cited at the very least.

It's hardly extreme to ask for a citation from a work that doesn't happen to be online; people cite printed material all the time here. Don't be lazy! The clerk of courts of the civil division of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas can be reached at (610) 782-3148. Ask for a transcript from case number 2002-C-1837 and I'm sure she'll be happy to help you out. --PHenry 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Getting a transcript costs money and time. I am curious, but not that much -- but perhaps the person who added the link would like to follow up with it. I've added a note to their talk page. Stbalbach 22:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"critical is positive"

"critical is positive" is your POV, please don't impose it on the article - I dont know about "imposing", your the one who is creating sections based on value judgement terms. Most articles dont do that. In any case, youve changed the word "positive" to the more neutral "Advocacy" which I can live with. --Stbalbach 13:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Many other articles dealing with controversial subjects have separate sections for external links. The descriptions vary, but they do exist as a common practice. You are using the word "positive" in a different sense than was intended, which is an unfair trick. I used it in the sense normally used in such cases - links positively oriented towards the subject of the article. The other links - labeled critical - are obviously critical of the subject. I changed the word (to a more awkward one) to hopefully avoid an editing war. -- Fyslee 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "positive" can imply a value judgement (opposite = "negative"). There's no "trick", seems positivly obvious to me, unless your casting negative light on the matter for other reasons. --Stbalbach 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can mean the opposite of negative, but I wrote "critical." They are simply descriptive words to identify the type of content. Some links are "positively" for Barrett, while the others are "critical" and against Barrett. My headings described quite accurately the two types of POV links. Accurate documentation is considered allowable.

Bolen's libelous publications (for which he is soon to appear in court) are not considered to even be close to an attempt at accuracy. They are clearly prejudiced and inflammatory paid spin doctoring. He is running interference for his employers - Hulda Clark, among others. He doesn't hesitate to deceive by repeating claims and accusations he knows to be falsehood. He has been confronted with them, but refuses to change. He knows they are lies, but continues to repeat them. So far he hasn't presented any evidence for his false claims. If you know of any evidence (he isn't producing it), I'd like to see it.

Here are some informative links about the libel situation:

• A Response to Tim Bolen - Stephen Barrett, MD
• Careless reporting by Tim Bolen - Stephen Barrett, MD
• Full Canvas Jacket Award - Peter Bowditch
• Tim Bolen the Defamer - Terry Polevoy, MD

Here's a picture of Bolen.

-- Fyslee 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Axes to grind

You seem to have an ax to grind with Bolen. --Stbalbach 04:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha! you can say that again. He has consistently libeled and attacked many of us, and without any proof at that. Here's just one of the most prominent of examples (I am named):

• The Clark v. Barrett countersuit: Racketeering suit - a Cross Complaint to the Libel suit

The accusations against Barrett and some 30 others, myself included, is very long. Quackbusters consider the accusations to be fitting for a Mafia godfather:

Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Cross-Defendants have engaged in, but not limited to, the following illegal conduct and acts prior to the time of the filing of this Cross-Complaint:

Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; Perjury; Subornation of Perjury; Extortion; Stalking; Terrorist threats; Assault; Filing false police reports; Illegal lobbying; Illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies; Trespass; Invasion of Privacy; Web site tampering; Internet Spam; Investigation without license; Violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech; Interference with Right of Free Speech and Association.

That countersuit was conveniently withdrawn without ever coming to trial (but the accusations are still on the internet): Bogus "Anti-Quackbuster" Suit Withdrawn

Obviously having been accused of such crimes without a shred of evidence, and having the accusations published all over the internet, isn't a very pleasant experience, but then Bolen isn't interested in playing fair and has never claimed to be.

• A follow-up "Malicious Prosecution" suit against Carlos Negrete, Hulda Clark's attorney, is pending: [1]

How would *you* feel if I accused *you* of committing Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; Perjury; Subornation of Perjury; Extortion; Stalking; Terrorist threats; Assault; Filing false police reports; Illegal lobbying; Illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies; Trespass; Invasion of Privacy; Web site tampering; Internet Spam; Investigation without license; Violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech; Interference with Right of Free Speech and Association, and many more crimes?

That kind of lawsuit is a first class example of a SLAPP suit. Even on the face of it it's obvious they are trumped up charges, intended to provoke and intimidate, but not anywhere near the truth.

Can you now understand why I "have an ax to grind" with him? Before he personally threatened me for the first time back in 1999 (or 2000), I had only criticized Hulda Clark for her dubious methods. She employed him to defend her, and since his favorite mode is the attack mode (by his own admission), he promptly emailed me with personal threats. Nice guy! (not).

I'm just an ordinary PT in practice with my wife, also a PT. We're ordinary people with average incomes, two children, two dogs and three cats. I don't lie about people, threaten them, sue them, or otherwise engage in any devious activities. I do criticize quackery and fraud when I see it, and I can easily document it. Whatever I write can stand up in court. Bolen doesn't like that, and he knows I have enough stuff on him to win.

I'd really like to hear you tell me how *you* would feel if accused of such a long list of crimes. -- Fyslee 16:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess my concern is that your edits about Bolen are being made in Good Faith, a central foundation of Wikipedia. You obviously have an ax to grind with him and since you wrote almost the entire article on Tim Bolen (deleting almost everything that was there previously), it does raise the question that your edits were made in Good Faith to be neutral and fair. I found most of your edits of that article to emphasis negative stuff and not mention the positive (a "blackwash"). --Stbalbach 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if you'll go back to the time I made my edits and additions, I reformatted it, but without eliminating anything essential. There wasn't much there at the time.

When you objected I wrote the following, but never got any reply:

Okay, what do you propose? I'm not sure what you're thinking about when you write "representative." Since I know Bolen's tactics and opinions quite well, and have been on the receiving end of his attacks, I've learned quite a bit about him, his websites, and his newsletters, which I receive. Maybe I'm too close to be able to do this properly, but my knowledge should be useful in some way.

In what way are the quotes "negative?" They are his true opinions. I feared that if I were to write about his motives and opinions myself, I'd be accused of painting a negative picture, so I chose to give him the word.

This article should describe the website and its purpose. Since it consists entirely of his newsletters, it's his opinions that become the subject matter for the article.

Please come with some suggestions. I'm open to dialogue.-- Fyslee 16:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I seriously would like to know what you mean. -- Fyslee 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well back then I worked on it for over 45 mins and then pressed the wrong button and lost it all and havent had the heart to go back since. --Stbalbach 00:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! What a bummer. I feel with you. -- Fyslee 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ack! I concur on the horribility of it all, that's happened to me many times on forums. A couple times on here but not so much. Generally with faulty things like that it's good to fall back on notepad, but when nothing happens for a while we fall back on the more conveniant way until something jarring occurs. Generally it's good for the larger changes, which is why modifying things with smaller changes is good, among other reasons Tyciol 08:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What Barrett is trying to do

Barrett is a controversial character, and we have to make sure the article does not read like a promotional piece for him. (Nor, obviously, should it read like an indictment of his qualifications and motivations.) There are several ways we can do this, but I think we need to state the controversy up front, list his credentials and awards, etc., in a neutral way, and then have a candid and neutral discussion of the controversy. --Leifern 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a criticism section where such matters are already stated, with reference and links to very critical (and libelous) sites. What are you thinking of? --Fyslee 20:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Barrett thinks that his opponents' credit history is useful information to disclose, I have yet to see an article he's written that starts with an open mind to "alternative" therapies, and he's prone to suggest that osteopaths are probably lesser counterparts to medical doctors. Let's be clear here - what he practices is advocacy, and he's being disingenious by claiming it's all about exposing fraud and quackery. --Leifern 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you are in your full right to have it. Naturally there are more sides to the question. Barrett does have strong viewpoints. Fortunately he's quite open about them, their background, their documentation, his sources, expenses, and funding (mostly his own pocket).

To avoid an unpleasant editing war here (I'm sure we both have better ways to use our time....;-), let's discuss important (which can be single words at times....) edits. We both have our POV, we (myself included!) just need to make sure that edits don't degenerate into editorializing. That article certainly should include discussion of criticisms, but they should be documented. Conspiracy theories and libel can't be allowed (IOW, Tim Bolen is a lousy source). --Fyslee 21:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the 'who watches the watchdogs' thing linked to? If not I'll locate a link to it, it was a good criticism of a couple articles. Even so, it doesn't really discount all of them. Any critiques Barret makes need to be confronted one by one. He does have a lot (time-consuming writing process eh...) so perhaps we can make a new page called 'barrett articles vs responses' or something along those lines? I actually mailed Barrett to invite him to come edit his wiki and stuff to be more accurate but he said he would prefer not to, which is okay I guess, since he's busy and he thinks it will just feed controversy and bring attention to guys like Bolen. Tyciol 06:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to here - "Is the 'who watches the watchdogs' thing linked to?" Do you have a link to that? -- Fyslee 12:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I downloaded it once to read, I must have deleted it though. Trying to locate a link to it now. It might also be 'Who watches the watchmen'. I'll keep googling. By the way, did you know about this guy? http://www.stephenbarrett.com/ Apparently there's also a wine critic by the name :) Should we make a disambig link? Tyciol 20:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be appropriate if there was an article on him here at Wikipedia, otherwise unnecessary. -- Fyslee 22:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of quackery

Barrett broadly defines "quackery" as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health"

Regarding the above statement, is that what he says? Health-care is the most over-promoted industry there is. If over-promotion is his criteria, it's all quackery. -- Stbalbach 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the whole statement from the article:

Barrett broadly defines "quackery" as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health," and he believes the word "fraud" should be "reserved only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved." [2][3]

Try this: (1) Read the pages at those links, (2) understand them, (3) then discuss them. -- Fyslee 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, Barrett is being a little gentle in saying it has to be DELIBERATE deception. I honestly think that a lot of people out there in AltMed do believe in their pseudosciences and faith healing, and people should still be protected from them. In a lot of cases it's due to a fallicious ringmaster who knows, but in other times it can just be spontaneous misleading. It's pretty hard to find evidence that people know something is fake and they're marketing it, as they're usually very careful about it. Tyciol 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if he's being "gentle." He's basically saying that someone can be guilty of quackery even if they have the best of intentions, whereas they are guilty of fraud if they know that they're doing something wrong. You're right that it's impossible to know what motivations and knowledge people have when they make various claims, and that standard cuts all ways. I don't think this is the place to get into who should be protected against whom, except to note what Barrett thinks. --Leifern 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why the distinction between "quackery" and "fraud" is so important. One can more safely and accurately accuse someone of practicing quackery, than of practicing fraud (unless one has proof of evil intent). Quackery is practiced every day by well-meaning people,and they should not be treated as common criminals with evil intent. Misguided, but not evil.

That doesn't make the consequences of their actions any less dangerous, because they may still be the same deadly consequences for the victim. When Hulda Clark tells a real AIDS victim that she has healed their AIDS, they can then go home and infect others. It makes no difference to the victims if it's Hulda or someone who really believes her that makes that false claim, death can still be the result. Sticking to the charge of quackery is often the safest and most accurate course of action. -- Fyslee 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of a digression from the article, but fine with me. As someone pointed out, if overpromotion in the field of health is the criterion, then one could certainly include a lot of conventional medicine. But I think we should make a distinction between people who promote "alternative" medicine as a complement to conventional medicine, and those who promote it as an alternative. What it all comes down to as far as I'm concerned is depriving patients of their right to informed consent. --Leifern 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a digression, but it's good to learn and understand by discussing things. Understanding Barrett's motivating beliefs helps to put things in perspective.

For Barrett, quackery is not limited to alternative medicine, as his articles and Quackwatch clearly reveal. Many MDs are listed as being guilty of advocating and practicing quackery. One could say that "quackery" is an equal opportunity definition - it applies just as well to laymen as to professionals, to educated as to uneducated, to true believers as to evil deceivers.

Of course "overpromotion" is not the only criteria, but an important one. He also includes this aspect on the "definitions" page:

Quackery entails the use of methods that are not scientifically accepted......"anything involving overpromotion in the field of health." This definition would include questionable ideas as well as questionable products and services, ......

Unproven methods are not necessarily quackery. Those consistent with established scientific concepts may be considered experimental. Legitimate researchers and practitioners do not promote unproven procedures in the marketplace but engage in responsible, properly-designed studies. Methods not compatible with established scientific concepts should be classified as nonsensical or disproven rather than experimental.[4] -- Fyslee 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Rapists and murderers

"comparing alternative medicine practitioners to rapists and murderers" is false. He does not compare both groups in that link. He uses said criminals as an analogous case. That's clumsy arguing, but it's not a comparison. --Hob Gadling 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. He makes the analagous case as you say. i.e. He compares one to the other. Analogy 1b: A comparison based on such similarity.[5] If you'd like to change the wording to:

• "Barrett makes an analagous case between Quakery/Fraud and Rape/Murder"

that would work also. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He also doesn't say "uncontroversial". He says the controversy is not legitimate. And words like "compare" have multiple connotations. "Barrett compared alternative medicine practitioners to rapists and murderers" makes readers think of Barrett saying "alternative medicine practitioners are like rapists and murderers". Your newer version, including the quote, was much better. I made a small change though. --Hob Gadling 13:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. He is drawing a comparison between rapists/murderers and quacks. It seems to be an attempt at guilt by association in the lowest form. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it's not such an attempt. You are desperately trying to stick accusations of misbehaviour on Barrett by misinterpreting his words. Fraud is a crime, and murder is a crime. Barrett is only trying to put the discussion in perspective. He says that people (maybe you? BTW, changing other people's contributions to a discussion is an absolute no-no) are trying to paint a picture of legitimate scientific controversy when the case is actually clear. --Hob Gadling 10:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from speculating on editor's motives. It clearly breaks WP:AGF. Also read WP:RPA for guidelines on refactoring. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

He says nothing of the sort. He clearly mentions rape/murder in the same breath as medical fraud, drawing some kind of connection between the two. It's an emotionally potent absurd analogy with no other possible purpose than to draw on the heart-strings of the people it fools. Your interpretation of his words is whatever you choose to invent. But I'm going by what he actually says. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. "No other possible purpose" is your personal interpretation. Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't use the analogy. Barrett's analogy is clumsy and can be interpreted in a malignant way, as your example shows. But your narrow interpretation is not the only one. Is "assuming good faith" only appropriate when you are the target, and when it's Barrett, you can assume any evil intention you choose? --Hob Gadling 15:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since we agree that the analogy is clumsy and possibly malignant, that might be something we can use. Peace to you. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant that you interpreted it malignantly, not that it is "possibly malignant". --Hob Gadling 10:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that this might be a linguistic problem. If (and I don't know) Metta Bubble isn't a native speaker of English, then it could explain the slavish sticking to an overly literal interpretation that also happens to backup this editor's POV (an anti-Barrett agenda). Words, sentences, and analogies, can be interpreted and misinterpreted. Analogies are used to illustrate a point, not about the specific examples (words) used, but the principles involved. Focusing on the words themselves is like focusing on the legs of a table, and ignoring what's on the table itself.

Barrett could have chosen any number of other examples of detrimental or worthless human behavior, and maybe I should have a talk with him to get this changed, since persons with tendencies to interpret him "malignantly" (see above) are abundant beyond the realms of Wikipedia, and this will only serve as another opportunity to use ad hominem attacks against him, in an effort to detract from and avoid dealing with his messages.

The criticism section here is being used in just that way, which is intellectually dishonest. Why not apply the "assume good faith" rule here? In light of Metta Bubble's admittedly POV edits [6] it would serve Metta well to assume good faith regarding Barrett. Otherwise it's hard for the rest of us to show Metta good faith. That would be detrimental to the editing process and our congenial relationship here. (I for one have found Metta to be one I could at the very least agree on a compromise....;-) I would hate to have to revise my viewpoint. -- Fyslee 21:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Fyslee, you've got ASSUME GOOD FAITH backwards. It's me you're meant to be assuming good faith towards, not the person in the article. I strongly urge you to retract your slur that I am anti-Barrett. There is no evidence for this at all. I am editing the article in a neutral manner, and refraining entirely from the kind of language most critics of Barrett opt for. There is no excuse for attacking me in this regard. That you are self-admitted close enough to Barrett to be able to request changes to his site in order to alter what we put here is completely outside of the bounds of having a neutral interest. Whether or not Barrett changes the site now I shall still link to the quote of the original site which is indexed fully by various internet sites. You are clearly in a position where you should recuse yourself from editing this article, it seems awfully close to a WP:BIO violation. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I consider my ability to reflect upon a POV edit I made in my past actually strengthens my ability to be neutral, and I know many editors who admire the ability to reflect constructively on ones work like this. But for you to cross post my comment into a completely unrelated talk page and then try to use it as an ad hominem attack on me is not within the bounds of good faith or civility. See my post on your talk page for more on why I consider your post above steps right over the line of civility and neutrality policies on wikipedia. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to makes sure this goes on the record..... The original debate here focused on this very POV edit:

"Barrett is often accused of biasing his information against all forms of "alternative medicine." He responds to these accusations on his website by comparing alternative medicine practitioners to rapists and murderers [7],..."[8]

Not only was this a POV edit, it was grossly so because it misquoted him. His actual example (for the sake of illustrating problems related to "balance"..) used other terms:

"How do you respond to accusations that your writing is unbalanced?"

"Balance is important when legitimate controversy exists. But 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. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services? The information Quackwatch provides is not filtered by editors who are too timid or believe it is politically incorrect to provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless. When discussing conflicting viewpoints, we indicate which ones are the most sensible."[9]

So if anyone still wants to make an unvalid case that the words used as illustrations (quackery and fraud] were the issue, and not the subject (balance), then they should at least use the right words, and not read into it what they wish (which revealed the POV angle of the edit). He did not write "alternative medicine practitioners" but wrote "quackery and fraud."

Such an objection to opposition to quackery and fraud amounts to defending it. -- Fyslee 16:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Barretts' views, plus the history of the term "Quackbusters"

I have made a few changes to more accurately represent Barrett's views. Accusations should at the very least be accurate, and not based on editor's POV misunderstandings of his views. They are straw man arguments. His viewpoint on the term "quackbuster" is also now accurately presented, being his own words. He has never been comfortable with the NCAHF adoption of the term Quackbuster. Since he is not identical with the NCAHF, and the term was not originated by himself, he has never been comfortable with its use, and has never used it about himself. He is not much into militancy, but more into providing information.

Here is some information on the historical origins if the term:

The idea behind "quackbusters" originated in 1984, in connection with the creation of an eye-catching logo for the NCAHF.

It was a joint venture, the ideas and pencil sketches coming from William T. Jarvis, PhD (its President). Graphic artist Ellis Jones then transformed them into logos, badges, and T-shirts, featuring the duck "Quacky" in various situations and poses, the best known being Quacky wearing a snake oil salesman's hat and holding up a bottle of quack medicine. An example is shown here.

Two other versions of the "duck" theme can be found at

• Quackwatch and
• The Quack-Files.

The NCAHF Board Chairman at the time, Wayne Bidlack, immediately exclaimed "quackbusters!" when he saw it. (He was inspired by the then popular movie Ghost Busters.)

Since its birth, the term has played a significant role in the controversies surrounding anti-quackery efforts.

Not everyone allied with the NCAHF has been enthusiastic about this development, because quackery can be deadly, and is therefore serious business, thus the using of comic characters to portray the problem could be viewed as tending to trivialize it. However, since the serious approach has never been as successful in catching the public's eye, it has been judged by the originators as a worthwhile endeavor. The logo and term quackbusters were very successful and eventually became synonymous with the NCAHF.

The term "quackbuster" - as used above - has no direct relation to the Warner Bros. film, Daffy Duck's Quackbusters, from 1988 (and actually predates the film), yet, in an ironic twist of fate, Daffy actually does start a "ghostbusting agency" in the film! Thus the history of the term comes full circle, ending up back at the original source of its inspiration.

When used positively (a minority of occurrences), "quackbusters" is a term adopted as a fitting self-description by some anti-quackery activists. They bear the title proudly, since it clearly identifies their relationship to quackery - they are against it.

Ironically, considering that he is accused of being the most prominent quackbuster, Stephen Barrett, MD, does not like the term because it can suggest militancy, and he never refers to himself as a quackbuster. He concentrates most of his efforts on providing consumer protection information. -- Fyslee 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the run down. That was an interesting read. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Focus

Some editors here seem to have lost sight that the section being edited is the criticisms section of the article, not the defense against criticisms section. I have removed the coutercriticism information. Please place it somewhere else if it's necessary. Which it probably isn't. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bolen's website

Does not have the appearance of anything encyclopaedic, nor of being reliable as a source. SHould it be in here? Midgley 11:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bolen's site is pure ad hominem attack and conspiracy theory. He provides no evidence to back his charges, therefore the addition of his remarks is an undocumented POV attack, added by an anti-Barrett editor. Such editorializing is not allowed in articles. The Bolen remarks should be removed. His site is definitely not a reliable source, and only qualifies to be used on the Quackpotwatch article, or on an article about himself. It should also be removed from the external links. -- Fyslee 19:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Rosa reference

I also found that obscure. SO I looked. http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/tt2.htm is about number 3 in Google, there is a PBS one that may be better for reference from WP above it. I'd say the experiment was an elegant piece of real science, with a simple and falsifiable hypothesis, good reproducibility, and by report a clear outcome. Very publishable. Midgley 11:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Barrett's medical opinions (a straw man accusation]

As a medical physician, I find many of Dr. Barrett’s arguments valid, to a point. Unlike Dr. Barrett I have been a family physician for 30 years. As a Naval Reservist, I have also served in Afghanistan and Iraq and spent four years with Doctors Without Borders. Having treated thousands of patients, I find Dr. Barrett’s objection to almost anything that is considered non-standard just plain foolhardy. I have researched Dr. Barrett’s extensively and know that the extent of his medical practice experience was in the field of psychiatry, and he has not practiced for many years.

I hardly believe he has the experience to be so critical of fields such as Osteopathy. When I was in medical school I was told Osteopathy was quackery, but have lost that prejudice many years ago. I find it humorous on his site how he reports that an Osteopath lost his license for a quackery-type reason, while hundreds of medical doctors lose licenses every year for many reasons.

I do somewhat believe that his ideas about Chiropractors is correct. However, I believe that most Muscular-Skeletal problems are caused by bad body alignment (posture). I think that proper psychical therapy would eliminate the need for Chiropractors and most Orthopedic Surgeons, limiting the latter’s role to trauma cases.

I have found giving somebody a pharmaceutical just to get them out of my office is wrong. If a patient has a condition that needs an antibiotic I will also tell them to take a probiotic. I will then try to find out why their immune system could not wipe out the infection in the first place. Usually it is stress, diet, and lack of exercise that cause most of these problems. When these are improved or corrected the infection will usually not occur in the first place or will have a shorter duration.

Bottom line, Dr. Barrett IMO is not qualified to condemn so many aspects of ‘alternative’ medicine. Even the so-called experts on his website are not qualified in many instances. I have seen many people helped by the ‘placebo effect’. I have seen many people helped by supplements. I have seen people helped by pharmaceuticals. As long as the patient is not harmed but helped, that is all that matters. -- 67.142.130.17 12:27, 20 April 2006

Naval officers and doctors who I have known commonly write differently, and this is an anonymous attack. Midgley 23:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

edit: It is unverifiable, yes, but I wouldn't assume it's necessarily fake or that it's simply an attack. The views expressed in that comment are reasonable ones to consider. Solaris68 02:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Midgley, what does a Naval Officer and doctor sound like? Being a Naval Officer and physician I sound exactly like that! Unless you are one, the couple that you meet is no comparison. I still find it ridiculous that people think just because you are in the military or a physician you are suppose to ‘sound’ or ‘talk’ a certain way. How about this- Golf Echo Tango - Alpha - Lima India Foxtrot Echo

Well, it may be purely coincidence that some of the phrases used are those repeated on usenet lists and crank websites to the point I regard them as pathognomic. I've met a lot more than a couple of naval officers, although only one USNVR physician. One of the arguments that doesn't go down very well in WP is the argument from authority, references and citations, and occasionally logical argument are more in tune with the zeitgeist. Midgley 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll instance one: given that Barrett describes himself as a retired Psychiatrist, on Quackwatch, how extensively does one have to research (a phrase commonly used in certain circles) to find out that his practice was psychiatry and he ahs not practiced recently? That bit of extensive research involves reading a page he presents, and perhaps looking up the California equivalent of the General Medical Council register. Edzard Ernst of course is highly qualified to give opinions on many CAM techniques... Midgley 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this criticism of Barrett seems to be a type of (no doubt unintentional) straw man argument. It is simply missing the point. Even the heading is a strawman argument, since Barrett doesn't usually deal with "medical opinions" in the ordinary sense. Barrett's criticisms are rarely in regard to the actual profession, but as to whether the practice engaged in by any type of profession (very often MDs) was a type of quackery, scam, illegal, whatever. It is in those areas that he is considered to be an expert. He of course is not - and does not claim to be - an expert in chiropractic, osteopathy, naturopathy, etc., but an expert in quackery, and from that POV he judges cases brought to his attention. From that POV he can also judge professions as to whether they often use unscientific claims, advocate quackery, protect and educate quacks, etc. Thus his evaluations of some professions are written from that POV.

A quote from the criticism above can illustrate the point:

"I find it humorous on his site how he reports that an Osteopath lost his license for a quackery-type reason, while hundreds of medical doctors lose licenses every year for many reasons."

There are several misunderstandings and assumptions here:

1. Why else would Barrett deal with the Osteopath's loss of license, than "for a quackery-type reason"? That is precisely what he specializes in. That's the POV he is coming from.

2. He doesn't usually deal with "many reasons," but specializes in "quackery-type" reasons.

3. He also deals with MDs when their loss of license is for "quackery-type" reasons.

Thus we see that Barrett is being quite consistent as an equal opportunity skeptic.

He is also very concerned about unethical conduct, malpractice, insurance fraud, etc., when practiced by MDs. But that's not on his "on-topic" radar. For him, quackery is "on-topic," and those other matters aren't directly "quackery," (but if they are a part of the quackery being practiced, they'll get mentioned by him). It happens to be nearly impossible to deal with all matters, so he specializes in quackery. Other people specialize in malpractice, others are watchdogs for abuses by the pharmaceutical industry, others specialize in philately. Specialization is perfectly legitimate, and it is unfair to demand that someone deal with everything, when they have not claimed to do so.

Again, his focus is on quackery, and his statements should be judged from that POV, not from an ordinary "medical opinion" POV. To do otherwise would be quite unfair. Of course to those who actually promote the methods he criticizes, fairness is irrelevant, as long as they can somehow smear him. (I am definitely not implying that 67.142.130.17 is of that type. I am assuming good faith)

It is crucial to understand his concept of "quackery" (discussed above) in order to accurately judge his work. It is a dream for an equal opportunity skeptic! It hits equally hard, no matter who it involves, and in fact he holds tradititional medical personnel to a higher standard of conduct than others, since they should know better. Therefore you will find many MDs on his list of criticized individuals. One could say that his understanding of "quackery" is an equal opportunity concept - it applies just as well to laymen as to professionals, to educated as to uneducated, to true believers as to evil deceivers.

For Barrett, quackery is not limited to alternative medicine, as his articles and Quackwatch clearly reveal. Many MDs are listed as being guilty of advocating and practicing quackery.

Many in the scientific community define alternative medicine as any treatment, the efficacy and safety of which has not been verified through peer-reviewed, controlled studies. This form of definition is not based on political views or protection of turf, but hinges exclusively on questions of effectiveness and safety. It is thus possible for a method to change categories in either direction, based on increased knowledge of its effectiveness or lack thereof.

The boundaries of alternative medicine have changed over time as some techniques and therapies once considered to be "alternative" have been accepted by mainstream medicine.

The opposite is equally true, with methods once thought to be effective being dropped when it is discovered that their only effect was because of the placebo effect, or when their side effects were found to result in an unfavorable safety-to-benefit ratio.

(Unfortunately this "opposite" tendency is lacking in alternative medicine. Disproven methods are not dropped, but only change their name and URL, with increased marketing. The words may change, but the scam is basically the same.)

This tendency for constant change in scientic medicine is considered by some advocates of alternative medicine as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, consider this ability to change opinions based on increasing knowledge, as one of modern medicine's greatest strengths. They consider a perseverance in using old methods as a warning sign of a possible unwillingness to learn or change in tact with increased knowledge:

"In the pseudosciences, a challenge to accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act if not heresy, and leads to bitter disputes or even schisms."

"Sciences advance by accommodating themselves to change as new information is obtained. In science, the person who shows that a generally accepted belief is wrong or incomplete is more likely to be considered a hero than a heretic." [10]

-- Fyslee 18:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Midgley, I think the term you are looking for is USNR. Physicians have access to information through sources such as the AMA and many non-physicians can look up information on state licensure websites.

Also I am sure there is more information about Dr. Barrett than what he presents on his websites. There are many court records that show he states himself an ‘health expert’.

The only problem I have with this is that he is not board certified.

Here is a previous posting on this forum about the subject about board certification for Dr. Barrett,

“He has never claimed to be Board Certified. He was and is still an MD and a psychiatrist. Being "Board Certified" is nice, but far from all MDs, including psychiatrists, are Board Certified.”

Well, the obviously was not written by a doctor. There are four kinds of doctors that are not board certified. Doctors who have died or left medicine before they could become board certified, doctors who do not have the experience yet to become board certified, doctors who could care less, or doctors that are not good enough to make the cut.

89% of licensed physicians are board certified by at least 1 board. That number is even higher for doctors with specialties (like psychiatrists). I would not recommend a doctor who was not board certified. How can you call yourself an ‘expert’ in any area of medicine when you cannot pass your own boards exams! For god sakes, Barrett was in practice for almost 40 years! Most doctors become certified in less than a quarter of that time.

I am against the use of many non-scientific approaches to medical treatment. But lets be honest, the American health system for the most part looks mostly at pharmaceuticals for treatment. Give the patient a pill. That’s what most of us physicians are taught. Quick, easy, time for the next patient, bill HMO, made my dollar for the day. Do you want to know how many drug reps a doctor sees in a week? When your in your doctors office next time look at how many people are wearing suits with these big briefcases filled with pens, notepads etc etc etc.

Also many doctors do not let thier licenses lapse when they retire. As a matter of fact, I don't know many doctors who retire for good. Many do volunteer work. Also doctors have worked hard for that license and do not want to let it go easily. Letting it lapse for reasons of insurance is just an excuse , please!

Ok, that my 2 cents.

-- 216.52.73.254/Panzertank1 12:21, 27 April 2006

I would like to see examples of Dr. Barrett giving "medical opinions" in the sense this expression is normally used. Now of course any MD can legitimately give "medical opinions," but this thread seems to imply that he has not only done it, but done it improperly.

Let's see evidence that he....

1. has done it, AND that he

2. has done it improperly.

I still suspect that this thread is a straw man argument, and haven't seen any evidence that refutes or rebutts my earlier comments. -- Fyslee 18:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, Dr. Barrett should not be giving medical opinions. He is not even a board certified doctor! Most doctors are board certified within seven years of leaving medical school, many after only a few years. He gets paid as an expert witness in court cases. Look it up. Why the hell should I cite all the examples of his court cases? His website even says he has giving opinions. While Tim Bolen is not the best source of info, he has info on court transcripts. When you look these up you can find the court records yourself, independent of Bolen. But Bolen is like Stephen Barrett in some ways. He also is not qualified to talk about many of these issues.

I find it hard to believe that not one experienced physician can be the ‘quackbuster’ or ‘quackwatcher’. Dr. Barrett has not practiced for many years. While I admire those that work full time helping the mentally ill in the public sector, I do not believe that type of work gives you the experience to judge medical therapies. I would rather see some physicians with 30+ of medical experience. Those that have experience dealing with patients from all backgrounds, such as GPs, Cardiologists, Neurologists etc etc. These kinds of doctors would have many different perspectives. I am sure they have tried every different approach, form allopathic to natural therapies.

Almost half the country is doing some form of ‘alternative therapy’ to deal with their medical problems, whether it be vitamins, acupuncture, yoga & or a million other things. It is a crime that physicians are not trained in more of these therapies. There are scientific studies from all over the world on these types of therapies, but the AMA and AOA ignore many of them. Look at the German studies on milk thistle and 5-HTP. Why can’t more research be done on that in the U.S? Can you imagine a pharmaceutical brand of 5-HTP that could help people without the side effects of Xanax or Zoloft? Or better yet, sending patients to a psychologist instead of giving them ‘happy pills’. Considering that 80%+ of physician visits are stress related, you would think more would be done than drugging the patient. Drugs have their place. They save so many lives that would be lost. But they also have their bad side. When they are used as a treatment that could be handled in other ways, like anxiety. How many people need Ativan or Xanax forever. Those drugs are to be used only in the short term according to the PDR. But many physicians write those prescriptions forever for patients. A few weeks ago I talked to some cardios and they recommended that their patients not take Viatmin E. When I asked why they said a study had just came out saying Vitamin E could be bad for your heart. I asked them if they recommended Vitamin E before when all the studies showed how good it was for your heart. They said no, they never heard of such studies. Its funny how they heard of the ONE study saying saying Vitamin E is bad when 100's said it was good. The critical report was all over the news, in JAMA and everywhere else. But where were all the others studies. Oh, by the way, the study that was critical had several major flaws. Those Cardios did not actually read the way the study was conducted, just the outcome.

Alternative medicine needs to be watched. The frauds need to be exposed. I think we need someone credible to do it. And Dr. Barrett is not that person. He throws out the baby with the bathwater. We need someone a little more open minded, qualified and less questionable.

Remember that George Washington died because his doctor bled him. Back then all the doctors thought that was the best course of action. I am sure that 200 years from now the doctors will look back and will be astonished & shocked at some of the things doctors do today. That’s the thing about medicine, it is always evolving. It’s called the practice of medicine. Today’s treatment of cancer could be yesteryear’s bleeding in the eyes of future physicians. Today’s quackery can be tomorrow’s cure. As long as people are not hurt, we should try everything to help people. In the end the job should be to cure diseases, not just treat it. That is why most people became physicians in the first place. -- 216.52.73.254/Panzertank1 17:02, 28 April 2006

I'm tempted to give up on you. I find it hard to believe that you are a medical physician, and yet fail to understand the basic rules of logical discussion:

You made (repeated) the following claim, so you have obligated yourself to prove it:

"Fyslee, Dr. Barrett should not be giving medical opinions."

Instead of you providing us with evidence that your accusation is even in the ballpark, and not a straw man attack, you have the audacity to repeat your accusation without even blinking!

I would still like to see examples of Dr. Barrett giving "medical opinions" in the sense this expression is normally used. Now of course any MD can legitimately give "medical opinions," but this thread seems to imply that he has not only done it, but done it improperly.

Let's see evidence that he....

1. has done it, AND that he

2. has done it improperly.

I still suspect that this thread is a straw man attack, and haven't seen any evidence from you that refutes or rebutts my earlier comments.

He provides opinions from an anti-quackery viewpoint, not from an ordinary medical viewpoint, IOW for quackery related reasons. His earlier professional history or certifications are irrelevant to that viewpoint, since he acts as a witness on other subjects (quackery-related subjects).

You talk more like a lawyer than a doctor.

A mere repetition of your accusations would be vacuous at this point. Your evasiveness is making it harder for me to assume good faith. Right now I'm generously offering you a chance to redeem your reputation here. Please stick to the topic and respond to my request. -- Fyslee 19:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Flyess, somehow you are under the assumption that I have some sort of reputation to protect on this website. You are also under the assumption that I somehow have to redeem my reputation, as if it was tarnished in some way.

The only repetition I see in this whole forum is you blindly defending everything Dr. Barrett says. Being an eepistemologist, I look for truth and reasoning to why people act the way they do. I do not like resort to personal attacks, I am not a lawyer. I think using personal attacks is demeaning to an argument. I also think using them is a sign of not being able to rationally discuss an issue. Examples in this forum have been my accusation that I am using a straw man argument and somehow have belittled my reputation. I have not asked if you have knowledge or training in any medical fields. I can be fairly sure you are not a medical physician, nurse, dentist, podiatrist or PA from these discussions. However many people have laymen’s knowledge about medicine and can have well formulated opinions on the subject. I would not want them diagnosing anyone, as a little knowledge can be harmful.

I am not a mechanic. I can change my oil but cannot replace my transmission.

In reference to Dr. Barrett’s medical opinions in court, obviously, you have never been a physician under oath in a court of law. Dr. Barrett is does not testify in court as Mr. Stephen Barrett, private citizen. He testifies as Dr. Stephen Barrett, Medical Doctor. When you do that in a court giving your thoughts about some form of perceived quackery, you are giving a medical opinion. When it is shown that you are not an expert knowledge in a field you are testifying against or for, than your evidence is not creditable.

For example is your a Dentist, you can not give testimony in the cause of death in a murder case. There are criteria in a court of law to define what quackery is. Those giving testimony against quackery need to have knowledge in that field. Just being a medical doctor does not mean you can give opinions about everything medical in a court of law. Also if you are not a licensed physician, you cannot give testimony as one in a court of law.

Here is an example of court records in which Dr. Barrett gave improper testimony. I have highlight parts pertaining to Dr. Barrett:

NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

KING BIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; FRANK J. KING, JR.; and DOES 1-50,

Defendants ________________________________

CASE NO. BC 245271

Assigned for all purposes to Judge Haley J. Fromholz, Dept. 20

REVISED STATEMENT OF DECISION

Pursuant to the Court’s order dated December 3, 2001 Defendants King Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Dr. Frank J. King, Jr. hereby submit the following proposed revised statement of decision which incorporates the Court’s revisions to that document.

I. Overview of Proceedings The trial in this action was held commencing on October 22, 2001 in Dept. 20 of the above-entitled court, Hon. Haley J. Fromholz, Judge, presiding. Plaintiff National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "NCAHF") was represented by Morse Mehrban, Esq. Defendants King Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Dr. Frank J. King, Jr. ("Defendants") were represented by Scott D. Pinsky, Esq.

Following opening statements by the parties, Defendants moved for a non-suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 631.8 on the grounds that the Plaintiff had not identified in its opening statement evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case. The Court heard argument by counsel for the parties on Defendants’ motion and denied the motion without prejudice. Thereafter, NCAHF presented its case, which began with the testimony of two proffered experts, Wallace I. Sampson, M.D. and Stephen Barrett, M.D. Plaintiff also offered brief testimony by its counsel, Mr. Mehrban, and called Defendant Frank J. King as a witness. By stipulation of the parties, the expert witness designated by Defendants, Jacquelyn J. Wilson, M.D., was called by Defendants to testify out of order and during the presentation of the Plaintiff’s case due to scheduling reasons. Cross-examination was permitted as to all of the above witnesses. In addition to the foregoing evidence, both sides filed extensive trial briefs and supplemental trial briefs both prior to and during the course of the trial, and also submitted further authorities during the course of the proceedings for the Court’s consideration.

Following the close of Plaintiff’s presentation of evidence, Defendants renewed their motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 631.8. The Court again heard argument by counsel for the parties on Defendants’ motion. The Court also considered and weighed the evidence presented by the above-stated witnesses for the parties. Moreover, the Court considered the various trial briefs and supplemental trial briefs and supporting authorities submitted and argued by the parties on the issues before the Court. Having reviewed and considered all these matters, and having considered and weighed the evidence presented by the Plaintiff in its case in-chief, as well as the evidence adduced through cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s witnesses, the Court hereby grants Defendants motion and directs that judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendant, and against Plaintiff, as set forth below. The reasons for the Court’s ruling are as follows.

II. Plaintiff’s claims and elements thereof

Plaintiffs’ claims are brought principally under certain provisions of the Cal. Business and Professions ("B & P") Code, specifically B & P Code §§ 17200, 17500 and 17508. Sections 17500 and 17508 of the Code prohibit false or misleading advertising. A violation of these false advertising prohibitions may also constitute a separate, parallel violation of the unfair business practices bar under B & P Code § 17200. Section 17200 also permits an action based on any business practice that is unlawful, fraudulent or unfair. The principal allegations in the Complaint and the focus of the Plaintiff’s evidence at trial indicate that the primary violation of law alleged by NCAHF against the Defendants is false advertising, i.e. some form of false, deceptive or misleading statements or representations in the labeling or advertising used by Defendants in marketing their products. The plaintiff did not strongly assert that the Defendants have violated the other prongs of B & P Code § 17200, which prohibit business practices that are unlawful, fraudulent or unfair. Plaintiff did make an attempt to argue that the evidence adduced at trial could be viewed as supporting a finding that Defendants’ actions were unlawful, fraudulent or unfair within the meaning of § 17200. But the only evidence offered by Plaintiff concerned the alleged falsity of Defendant’s advertising.

Although Plaintiff did not present evidence specifically pertaining to the labeling of Defendants’ products, there was no dispute between the parties that the labels affixed to Defendants’ products contained substantively the same information as was contained in the advertising which formed the basis for the Plaintiff’s claims. The parties further agreed that the products in question are homeopathic drugs regulated under numerous provisions of federal and state law. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 321 et seq.; B & P Code §§ 13 and 4025; Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 11014, 109985, 111225 and 111235. Plaintiff also admitted that there is no evidence of a violation of such state or federal drug laws by Defendants; Plaintiff offered no evidence or legal authority respecting any such possible violation. Plaintiff further did not dispute that Defendants’ products fall squarely within the definition of legal, non-prescription homeopathic "drugs" under both federal and state laws. Id.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff argued and attempted to offer testimony to the effect that the claims stated in Defendants’ advertising are scientifically unsupportable and is therefore allegedly false.

III. Burden of proof

The Plaintiff’s initial trial brief argued that the burden of proof in this action should be shifted to the Defendants, citing several California and federal administrative cases. The Plaintiff’s trial brief seemed implicitly to concede that the Plaintiff could not meet its burden of proof--i.e. The establishment of Defendants’ liability by a preponderance of the evidence-if the burden were not so shifted to Defendants. The Defendants filed a supplemental brief responding to the Plaintiff’s arguments and asserted that the burden lies with NCAHF and that the cases it cited to the contrary are inapposite or do not govern in California. The Court finds that the authorities cited by the Plaintiff do not support Plaintiff’s position on this issue. There appears to be no case in California to support the shifting of the burden of proof to the Defendant in a case of this type. The burden of establishing each element of its claims therefore lies with Plaintiff NCAHF. Cal. Evid. Code § 500.

Continue…

In a subsequent, supplemental brief, the Plaintiff next argued that even if the burden lies initially with the plaintiff in a false advertising case, only slight evidence is required to then shift the burden to the defendant. This argument was based on several federal appellate opinions from appeals of administrative hearings before the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. No authority was presented to suggest that these decisions are applicable to the issues at bar, namely who has the burden of proof and to what degree in a civil action brought in state Court. Since Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate through appropriate authorities that the burden of proof is in any way transferred or modified by any of the authorities it cited, the Court finds that the burden is on the Plaintiff NCAHF to prove its case by establishing each element of its various causes of action by a preponderance of the evidence.

IV. Analysis and evaluation of evidence

The Court now reviews the evidence presented by the parties.

A. Wallace I. Sampson, M.D.

Dr. Sampson was offered apparently to testify concerning the scientific method generally; standards of clinical medical research the nature of homeopathic medical science, and the nature of the information upon which much of homeopathic science may be said to rest. The thrust of his testimony appeared directed to the conclusion that the evidence supporting claims of efficacy for homeopathic drugs does not meet the standard that he believes applies to valid clinical studies. In this regard, his testimony was largely an attempt to discredit the group of reference sources known as "Materia Medica," which resources the U.S. FDA recognizes as a significant source of information concerning homeopathic drugs.

All of Dr. Sampson’s testimony was quite general in nature and he did not provide any specific facts that would tend to support any particular finding as to Defendants’ products. Dr. Sampson, a retired medical doctor with an oncology specialty, has had only limited involvement in clinical research studies. He has little expertise in research methodology and does not instruct in that area. He is not an expert in pharmacology. He admitted to having had no experience with or training in homeopathic medicine or drugs. He was unfamiliar with any professional organizations related to homeopathy, including the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention of the United States, which group is responsible for designation and de-designation of such drugs as "official" drugs recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. He thus does not have expertise as to the drug products that are the sole products at issue in this case. While he stated that he teaches a university course on "alternative medicine," Dr. Sampson admitted that the course does not instruct on how such methods may be practiced, but rather is a course designed to highlight the criticisms of such alternative practices. Therefore, the Court finds that Dr. Sampson has relatively thin credentials to opine on the general questions of the proper standards for clinical or scientific research or other methods of obtaining valid evidence about the efficacy of drugs. The Court further finds that Dr. Sampson lacks experience in the field of homeopathic drugs, which renders his testimony of little or no weight in this case.

In addition, Dr. Sampson admitted to having done absolutely no investigation concerning Defendants’ specific products. He admitted to no real knowledge as to their ingredients and acknowledged that he had not seen any of the products prior to the trial. He admitted that he was aware of no tests ever performed on Defendants’ products by anyone. In view of the foregoing, Dr. Sampson did not show that the evidence in the Materia Medica as it relates to the ingredients in Defendants’ products is invalid. Accordingly, the Court finds that the testimony of Dr. Sampson did not show that there is no valid scientific or medical evidence to support the claims associated with Defendants’ products, even according to his own standards.

B. Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Dr. Barrett was offered on several issues by the Plaintiff, but the Court found that there was substantial overlap on the issues that he and Dr. Sampson were asked to address. Thus, in order to avoid duplicative or cumulative evidence (see Cal. Evidence Code §§ 352, 411, 723), Dr. Barrett’s testimony was limited by the Court to the sole issue of FDA treatment of homeopathic drugs. The relevancy of this issue was questionable at best, since the Plaintiff had previously asserted that its case did not depend on or seek to establish any violation of federal food and drug laws or regulations. Nevertheless, Plaintiff elicited testimony from Dr. Barrett on his experience with the FDA as it relates to regulation of homeopathic drugs.

Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although he claims to have read and written extensively on homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett’s claim to expertise on FDA issues arises from his conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on the subject and certain continuing education activities.

As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency enforces federal statutes and the agency’s own regulations. Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his various articles and Internet web sites. He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case associated with Defendants’ products.

C. Credibility of Plaintiff’s experts

Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson’s university course presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett’s heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses’ fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff’s position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well.

D. Dr. Frank J. King, Jr.

Plaintiff called Defendant King, who is also president of Defendant King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., pursuant to Evidence Code § 776. Dr. King testified to the actions he took to assure his and his company’s compliance with all applicable laws, state and federal. These actions included the retention of and consultation with experienced regulatory counsel practicing in the area of FDA compliance. He also testified that he and his company hired a medical doctor to consult on FDA compliance issues. These and others steps were taken by the Defendants to be sure that their products and their labeling complied with federal and other laws and regulations. Dr. King’s testimony, therefore, did nothing to support Plaintiff’s case against him and his company.

E. Jacquelyn J. Wilson, M.D.

Dr. Wilson testified for the Defendants. She is a board certified medical practitioner with particular experience in homeopathic medicine and serves on the faculty of the U.C. San Diego medical school. Dr. Wilson testified that she has trained in homeopathic medicine and received certification to practice in the field from at least one state agency. She lectures and consults on the subject of homeopathy and is a member of the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention of the United States, in which capacity she helps designate official homeopathic drugs recognized by the U.S. FDA. She has treated many patients using homeopathic drugs. Based on this background, Dr. Wilson is, unlike Drs. Barrett and Sampson, qualified as an expert on issues relating to homeopathy generally. On these issues, she testified that the Materia Medica contain several types of valid scientific evidence respecting the effectiveness of homeopathic drugs, even when this evidence is evaluated under the methodological standards testified to by Dr. Sampson. She also testified about the general manner in which homeopathic drugs are recognized and regulated by the FDA. Dr. Wilson further explained through her testimony that, according to FDA guidance in this area, the "indications" (i.e., drug effects) that must be placed on the label or package of any homeopathic drug may be taken from the Materia Medica.

With respect to the products at issue in this case, Dr. Wilson is the only expert who investigated and evaluated any of the Defendants’ products and their ingredients. Based on her review and general knowledge of the field, she offered her opinion that all of the ingredients in Defendants’ products are listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, which is the federally approved reference guide for all officially recognized homeopathic drugs. She also testified that all of Defendants’ labeling was consistent with the information respecting drug indications found in the Materia Medica. Based thereon, Dr. Wilson concluded, the Defendants’ products complied with all applicable FDA laws and regulations.

F. Documentary and physical evidence

Apart from testimonial evidence, Plaintiff offered no documentary or other evidence to support its claims. The principal exhibit offered by NCAHF was a collection of Internet web page downloads from the Defendants’ web site, admitted in evidence without objection. These documents established only what Defendants’ claims were, not the alleged falsity of those claims. Plaintiff offered no evidence pertaining to the specific products in question.

V. Findings of fact/Conclusions of law

A. False advertising

With respect to the false advertising claims brought under B & P Code

§§ 17200 and 17508, a finding for Plaintiff under these sections requires that the Plaintiff show by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the Defendants made false or misleading statements in advertising or labeling as to one or more of their products. Moreover, it must be shown that the defendants knew, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that the statements were false. With respect to these claims, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that Defendants made any false or misleading statements or representations in connection with any advertising or labeling of its products. Furthermore, the Plaintiff failed to show that either of the Defendants knew or should have known that any of their statements were untrue, false or misleading.

Because the Court has found that there was no false statement or representation shown, it follows that Plaintiff has also failed to establish a claim under

B & P Code § 17200. The necessity of a false or misleading statement is no different under these two provisions. The Plaintiff argues that a different scienter standard applies under § 17200, and that strict liability applies. This argument does not aid the Plaintiff, since the Court finds that there is no showing of a false or misleading statement in the first place, thus the Court need not reach the issue of knowledge or intent.

B. "Unlawful" business practice

The Court finds that under the evidence adduced at trial there is no basis for a finding that Defendants violated the unlawful activity prong of B & P Code § 17200.

C. "Unfair" business practice

The parties disputed the appropriate standard for determining whether Defendants’ activities were "unfair" within the statute’s meaning. It has been interpreted in a number of cases. The case offered by Defendants, Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 187, appears to apply more to actions involving alleged competitive injury, rather than harm to consumers. Plaintiff asserts that the correct standard should be taken from People v. Casa Blanca Convalescent Homes, Inc. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 509, 530. Under Casablanca, unfairness may exist if it is shown that a practice offends public policy established by statute, common law or otherwise, or is shown to be immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or causes substantial injury to consumers.

There is uncertainty as to the continued validity of the opinion in Casa Blanca in light of the Cell-Tech decision. Cel-Tech was the Supreme Court’s first case directly addressing the definition of "unfair" in the context of B & P Code § 17200, (20 Cal.4th at 184), and it analyzed and apparently rejected the definitions arrived at in prior decisions by several intermediate appellate rulings, including Casa Blanca. 20 Cal.4th at 184-85. As to these earlier decisions, the Cel-Tech court wrote: "We believe these definitions are too amorphous and provide too little guidance to courts and businesses." Id. at 185. In light of this decision, this Court may be unable to rely on the test advanced by Plaintiff from Casa Blanca. But even under the standard articulated in that case-which Plaintiff advances-none of the above offenses were proved by Plaintiff’s evidence.

D. "Fraudulent" business practice

The Court also finds that there is no basis for a finding that Defendants violated the fraudulent activity prong of B & P Code § 17200. The Plaintiff failed to show that any of the Defendants’ labeling or advertising was likely to mislead a reasonable person. Committee On Children’s Television v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal. 3d 197.

VI. Remaining issues raised by party requesting statement of decision

the foregoing resolves the majority of issues raised in the Defendants’ Request for Statement of Decision, filed October 22, 2001. With respect to the remaining issues, the Court holds:

A. Federal preemption/state court jurisdiction

Defendants asserted in their trial brief and argument that the fact of U.S. FDA regulation requires dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims insofar as federal law preempts an action under state law, particularly where the result of the state court action could impose requirements on Defendants’ labeling practices that might vary from federal requirements. Defendants also argue that their compliance with federal drug laws and regulations constitutes a complete defense to Plaintiff’s state law claims. Also, Defendants assert the doctrine of state court abstention. Federal preemption is asserted as Defendants’ Tenth Affirmative Defense; presumably the other jurisdictional arguments are subcategories of this defense. In view of the findings above on the issues of liability, the Court finds that it need not reach these jurisdictional questions, and therefore it makes no ruling on those matters.

The Court notes, however, that the Plaintiff argued on the question of burden that it is placed in an unreasonable position by being forced to assemble proof of the alleged falsity of a drug manufacturer’s advertisements, since (as Plaintiff argues) the creation of that evidence is costly and difficult. As noted above, Plaintiff has failed to support its argument on the burden of proof. In any event, however, its argument more logically leads to the conclusion of state court abstention. The complexity necessarily involved in the development and interpretation of clinical tests and trials of drug products suggest strongly that questions of enforcement and regulation of drug advertising and labeling requirements should be brought before the agency possessing the expertise and experience most needed to resolve medical and scientific issues involved in drug regulation. That agency, obviously, is the U.S. FDA.

Furthermore, the Court notes that the logical end-point of Plaintiff’s burden-shifting argument would be to permit anyone with the requisite filing fee to walk into any court in any state in the Union and file a lawsuit against any business, casting the burden on that defendant to prove that it was not violating the law. Such an approach, this Court finds, would itself be unfair.

B. Is Plaintiff is a proper party to assert these claims?

Defendants sought a determination as to whether Plaintiff adequately represented the interests of the People of California. As no liability was found and therefore no relief is to be awarded, the Court need not reach this issue.

C. Is equitable relief is warranted where there is a remedy at law?

Defendants sought a determination as to whether Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief where there is an adequate remedy at law. For reason previously noted, the Court does not reach this issue.

Dated: December 17, 2001 /s/ Judge Haley J. Fromholz Judge of the Superior Court

I am sure Dr. Barrett is a nice and well meaning person. I have no ill will toward him. I also agree with him that there are many quacks out there. However Dr. Barrett is not in the position to be the one trying to hunt out the quacks. I am not saying he was trying to deceive anyone.

If you still think I am using a straw man argument than short of Dr. Barrett telling you he gave improper medical opinions, I don’t know what else to tell you. I am leaving for vacation today and will not be able to respond for so time. -- Four accounts (67.142.130.17 - 67.142.130.20 - 216.52.73.254 - Panzertank1) 16:38, 30 April 2006

I must assume that somewhere in all that old case is the evidence that you were asked to provide. You wrote that you would highlight the parts pertaining to Dr. Barrett, but you apparently forgot to do so. He gave opinions about homeopathy, a pseudoscience that is protected by special provisions in the FDA, so it doesn't have to comply to the normally required rules for efficacy. If you consider that a "medical" opinion.....! I'd call it an opinion on pseudoscientific quackery. He didn't testify on someone's medical condition, which would be a medical opinion.

The case was lost because it was poorly planned and executed, not because homeopathy is legitimate, or that the advertising isn't false by the normal meaning of the word. Because of the special provisions, it is allowed for homeopaths to claim literally anything can be treated using homeopathic preparations. This is still nonsense, but until those rules are changed, filing cases like the one above is pointless. Homeopathy gets a free ride, and a chiropractor like Frank King can scam the public by selling products that cannot do what they are claimed to do. I call that false advertising, that, strangely enough, is legally allowed for homeopathic preparations sold in the USA. Weird! Barrett is still correct in his analysis of homeopathy: Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake -- Fyslee 21:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Flysee, Dr. Barrett was giving his medical opinions, end of story. The case mentioned above was lost because the witnesses were not credible!

Flysee I thought you did not have a conflict of interest in talking about Dr. Barrett, but it appears you do. I see you were named in a defamation lawsuit with Dr. Barrett and many other people. I know that lawyers like to pump up lawsuits and I know you did not do anything personally wrong, and I would be pissed at Bolen for it if it were I.

However in light of this I find it hard to find any of your postings in defense of Dr. Barrett credible. Not just because of the lawsuit. Look at your posts on this forum, it appears like Dr. Barrett is almost a god. I no longer find it fun to debate you on here.

Since I deal with death everyday, I come on a place like this to relax. And it is fun debating. With you though it’s not debating. When you cannot win an argument you just resort to personal attacks, like mentioning me forgetting to highlight certain passages. And then how dare you add 'strawman argument' to the tilte of this post.

Since I cannot take you seriously and you have zero creditability in my eyes, I will not respond to anymore of your replies. I am sure you are a nice guy. But I want a fun, fair, debate, not talking to a wall. Panzertank1 19:50, 1 May 2006

You're the one who made the accusations, and now won't provide the evidence. Your reply is a cop-out. A request for evidence is not a personal attack. (Calling me a wall is!) A real medical physician should know better than to make claims without understanding that such claims involve an obligation to provide the proof.

BTW, on April 12, 2006, the deposition of Tim Bolen was taken. The trial for malicious prosecution is coming up, and he doesn't have a leg to stand on. His repeated lies will be exposed for what he admits they are -- "exxxxxxxxs." (You'll have to wait for the trial to find out what word he used, unless you can count the "x's"!) Only those who wish to believe his lies do so now, or will continue to do so after the trial, in which case they reveal their own malicious motives. For more about Bolen's deceptions:

• A Response to Tim Bolen
• Appeals court upholds malicious prosecution suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete
• Bogus "anti-quackbuster suit withdrawn: Why I am suing the attorney who filed it

I don't really see much point in continuing this "conversation," since neither one of us is getting anywhere. That's life. Have fun in Aruba. (BTW, it's Fyslee, not "Flysee." -- Fyslee 20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

SLAPPsuits

I restored mention of the SLAPPs to the lead section and trimmed it a bit. See WP:LEAD. I don't want the lead section to be too slanted toward any POV, but I do think that a "consumer advocate" getting sanctioned for a SLAPP is a bit unusual and exemplifies the criticisms voiced by advocates of alternative medicine. Solaris68 02:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking for V RS to justify the words "sanctioned" and "frivolous" in the Criticism section please. Can't see any evidence of court-imposed sanctions, nor have found the word frivolous used in judgements. Gleng 10:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point; I removed "frivolous". "Sanctioned" is used in this sense. Solaris68 05:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so he wasn't sanctioned - no fines or penalties. Awarding costs is not a sanction.Gleng 09:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous IP address editor has as their only edit this:-

"The judge ruled that Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocate and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witness or expert."

I've taken it out because the reference is to 28 separate documents, and I think it unreasonable to expect anyone to read all of them to determine whether that rathr unjudge-like remark is exactly what was said. If it can be pointed to one of them ... it'll go back if it is encyclopaedic. I'd rather see a pointer to the text on a court website though, not on the one it is on... Midgley 00:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Doing a quick Google search, I was readily able to find the text from the Superior Court ruling here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here to just list a few. I think this ruling is well-documented thoughout the web for us to include it on this page. Please choose a source most to your liking and please reinstate the deletion. Levine2112 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Three sources don't present it, being 404 or advertising. THe first one that does has a verson which is not that given above. THe text removed appears to be editorial comment supported by what looks like or would easily be taken as an assertion it is a quote. The best reference would be the court website - isn't that available? Midgley 01:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I found in all of these links except the one 404 page which I removed from the list now. I think the last two references {1 and 2) are the best since they show the entire ruling. Neither one of them are advertsing sites or at least there is no advetsing on the page with the ruling. They both just present the court's opinion. I'll look for the ruling on an official courts page, but either one of these should certainly suffice for the time being. I just found this one which even states: This is an html COPY of the original Court document signed by Judge Fromholz... None of the Judge's words have been changed. I think that one would do the trick to.Levine2112 01:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That one is on a site called bolenreport.net If it falls within the WP:EL policy then it cold be linked to, but it continues to mystify me why such secondary soruces are preferred to a primary source such as the court archives, or a secondary source such as a law report which is not a protagonist. It is clear above that there is dispute over the correctness of material from that source, so it would be better not to use it. A recurring theme in WP is that if it is important, then someone who is not directly involved will refer to it and can be cited. Midgley 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

BolenReport... He is a spammer, one of the sort who say that it is their right and anyone cooperating to stop him is infringing his rights. http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article027.htm Is it seriously proposed that that site etehr satisifies WP:EL or is the best reference to that 5 year old case? Midgley 11:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of who Bolen is, the reference is to the official ruling of Judge Fromholz. Unles you are accusing someone of doctoring the ruling, I think the statement has to stand. The page we are linking does no sell anything, it doesn't even link out to Bolen's site. It's a freestanding page, that aside from the bit of opinion at the top, does nothing more than present the judges ruling. If you don't like that this is pointing to Bolen's site, then please replace the link with either 1 or2. They are duplicate pages. Levine2112 23:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something about the court concerned or American courts in general, but the document pointed to starts:- "Pursuant to the Court’s order dated December 3, 2001 Defendants King Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Dr. Frank J. King, Jr. hereby submit the following proposed revised statement of decision " - IE it is written by the interested party, not by the judge. It is also a _proposed_ statement - is there any reason we should not be shown the final statement? THe date of it might be made more clear in the article as well, indeed a more comprehensive description of wins and losses should perhaps be added. Awarding costs by the way is not, in English courts at least, a sanction. Midgley 00:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The judge writes it. The parties sign-off or revise it. And then if all is agreed upon, the judge signs off on it. This is the final which the judge signed (as stated at the top). Further the part of this document that is being quoted is the judge's direct opinion that he signed off on. I am looking to find the court's copy of this online. Ihave been unable to do so at this point. Levine2112 00:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User 216.193.137.208

User 216.193.137.208 is Stephen Barrett. Everyone of his edits have been to delete information about his detractors and links to critical sites, or to add links to one of his various sites. Please refrain from self-promotion. If you don't like the criticism then get out of the public eye, Mr. Barrett. Levine2112 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's "Dr" Barrett.... Show a little respect. -- Fyslee 20:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad. With apologies "Dr" Barrett. Now please show some respect and edit responsibly, rather than just whitewashing articles about yourself and adding links to your ring of sites. Levine2112 21:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

External links section

I have cleaned up the external links, limiting it to two on each "side" so as not to overwhelm a Wiki reader looking for resources to follow up on. Also, it is not Wiki-like to "pile on" with lots of sites with similar things to say. I recommend that if someone prefers an (unlisted) site to one of the others on their side, replace the one of the two links with the preferred one, and not add to the list. 206.81.65.124 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The link provided by Ilena is a self-published website not suitable as a reliable source about the topic of this article (RS section 6.5). Including a link that contains a personal attack is the same as including the personal attack (see last example of NPA section 4.1). In addition, there is evidence that Ilena's link is advertising or promotion, and as mentioned before is redundant of the other links (and actually points to them.) Please identify yourself, 72.129.6.122, to gain full advantage of assumptions of good faith. Larry Sarner 17:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to get too involved here, but Larry, the NPA personal attacks section is meant to squash attacks on editors, not attacks on article subjects. However, if the site is not notable and really only presents opinions rather than documentable facts and information, I would say that it doesn't deserve an external link. However, if it is notable and does present relavent information about Stephen Barrett, then it should be allowed. That being said, notability is a hard claim to support. Levine2112 18:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

FALSE CLAIMS ?

• To Geni: Quick conclusion... Can I detect a " hint " of bias ? OKO

Court cases and criticism

I have just added a paragraph concerning one of the most recent Barrett libel lawsuits. I have added citations. I have detected an abundance of so-called "whitewashing" on this article - by Barrett himself and other editors. Please don't forget that as Wikipedia editors, it is our responsibility to present all documentable and notable information germane to the article. This is not a fluff piece - nor is it an attack. It should just be a well-written collection of citable and relevant information. Levine2112 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I fully agree. It is obvious from recent changes to the article that any information that is not favorable to Stephen Barrett is being deleted or removed and the article is becoming " promotional ". Even the section on criticism is being re-written to undermine it's purpose. The article must reflect what is actually happening and be neutral point of view. OKO

• I also agree with your comments and changes. The article is improved as a result. DPeterson 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Your edits do not cite a reliable source for the information you include. In fact, the citations are actually considered personal attacks, just one removed from making them yourself. Granted that you can't have a criticism section without some nasty stuff, but how much does there have to be? Anyway, what could get nastier, in a single paragraph, than Hartal's?

That Barrett did or did not even take any Boards, much less pass them, is irrelevant both to the final court decision and, more importantly, to this article. He didn't take or pass the Professional Engineer exams, but his opinions on medical "devices" are still justifiably heeded :by the general public.

Moreover, all of the affiliations are already mentioned in the article itself. Mentioning them in this context is just another personal attack), and certainly not relevant to the court decisions, even the one(s) where the "concessions" were made.

Larry Sarner 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is in no way a personal attack in the sense of the ones that Wikipedia prohibits. Those refer to personal attacks against editors, not subjects of an article. We have a criticisms section and we are able to put documentable information from reliable and relevant sources. Chiro.org is the source that I am using and it is completely germane to this article and has been a reliable source of information on a variety of articles on Wikipedia.

This isn't about getting nasty. This is about presenting information. Here is the information that my additions present. You say that they are elsewhere in the article. Where?

1. Barrett has claimed to be a medical expert, yet failed his medical board certification.
2. Barrett has claimed to be a legal expert, yet has not studied law.
3. Barrett has claimed to have no ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA), yet under oath he had conceded these ties.
4. Barrett has recently sued many times for libel and yet has never won a single case.

Please stop whitewashing this article. Whitewashing is prohibited.

Levine2112 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

These are excellent points, Levine2112. DPeterson 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it applies to subjects of an article, because to do so violates NPOV. You can talk about facts about the subject of an article, but not other people's opinions about the subject.

It would be surprising that Chiro.org is judged a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia (other than the subject of chiro.org itself), but even if, arguendo, it was reliable for one subject, it isn't necessarily reliable on another.

Of course the inclusion of unsubstantiated information is about "getting nasty" and not about presenting information. Since you claim your additions about "present" the above information, let's look at this "information":

1. Your claim that Barrett failed his "medical certification" is flat out untrue. He was a licensed physician for several decades.
2. Where has Barrett claimed to be an "expert on the law"? Law courts do not even consider anyone's claim to be such; the courts themselves are presumptively experts on the law and they yield that role to no one. Besides, how do you (or anyone) know Barrett has "never studied" law (whatever that means).
3. This very article mentions Barrett's "ties" to at least the FDA and AMA. Not only is this "information" redundant, it is a clear attempt at guilt by association. It is as impermissible than if User:Fyslee attempted to say all of Barrett's critics have unadmitted associations with quacks running Mexican cancer clinics.
4. Since you brought it up, the burden of proof as on you to show (1) that Barrett has recently sued many times for libel, (2) has always lost (including nothing has ever been settled out of court, which is not necessarily a "loss"), and (3) that this information is somehow different than what was already said in the article about the subject. Be careful, some of the above requires you to prove a negative, something that is devilishly difficult to do.

So, the rationalizations for inclusion of your additions fall to the ground. Those additions are without basis and were reasonably excludable.

Larry Sarner 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Larry, our job here is to present information, whether they be facts or opinions. NPOV does not mean NO point of view. It means NEUTRAL point of view. This means that provided that an article allows for all notable opinions then it is indeed NPOV. The information that I have provided here is germane to the article and is from a relevant and notable source.

To answer your four points above:

1. I did not claim that Barrett failed his "medical certification". The notable article that I am citing says that he failed his "board certification". As a side note to you: A doctor can be licensed and practice without being board certified in a particular specialty. Board certification carries with it a certain level of prestige.
2. Barrett's claim to be an "expert on the law" is found in the notbale and relevant article that I have cited. So is the information about Barrent having never studied law. This isn't my claim. This is what it says in the article. I am only presenting information from a notable and relevant source.
3. Barrett's ties to at least the FDA and AMA is also mentioned in the notable and relevant article which I am citing. He had previously denied any ties to these organizations. Bringing up that he had to go back on this denial is an important critique from a relevant and notable source. There is no attempt at guilt by association. I am merely presenting information from a relevant and notable source.
4. This article tells us that Barrett (1) has recently sued many times for libel, (2) has not won at trial. There is no burden of proof for me since the article I am source is relevant and notable. If you wish, you can find a relevant and notable source that refutes this information to present a counterpoint to the information that I am presenting. But know that even, Barrett has not commented on this in his analyis of this article found on his website.

I hope you are staarting to understand what it is we do here as Wiki editors. We do not soapbox and we do not tell our opinions and we do not libel. We merely present information about topics from relevant and notable sources, whether they be facts or opinions. That is all. Please understand and abide by this standard and I think all of your frustrations will clear up. Thank you. Levine2112 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article is for information purposes NOT as a promotion for the web sites or activities of the subject of the article. It is well documented that groups linked with Stephen Barrett have a litigious history and critical of numerous alternative and or complementary health modalities. In one California court case the judge clearly found Dr. Barrett unqualified to testify in the matter at hand and not credible in such matters. This information needs to be part of the article. Of course it is obvious that Stephen Barrett will disagree but this is not an article that is part of one of his web sites, where, as stated by himself, he DOES NOTpresent a balanced and fair view. If this article is edited as a promotional instrument then the neutrality of the article should be in question. OKO

Actually, Levine2112, what a good Wiki editor is follow the Wiki style guidelines (not "standards") and especially those about reliable sources (not "relevant and notable"). But this is not the place to talk about editing in general. (Maybe we can meet on your user talk page and hash that out.) This is a place for improving the Barrett article to serve Wiki readers as well as possible. To that end, we seek the truth, but settle for reliability.

You have cited a source for your information, chiro.org, which is not, according to Wiki guidelines, reliable on the subject of Stephen Barrett. Find another which meets the Wiki guidelines (good luck on finding one that can prove a negative).

Next, NPOV requires that each discussion in an article not betray a POV, not the article in toto. So, in discussion of a controversy you can give each side of the controversy, which obviously has a POV, but the discussion itself must not have a POV. Your inclusion of material, even if factual, was to assert another charge in the guise of "providing information". This is betrayed by the lack of balancing information. Either that, or you were trying to expand the arguments for one side of the controversy, which is not acceptable either. A Wiki article is not the place to argue the merits of the sides of a controversy, but merely to journalistically report the existence of the controversy. The original statement(s) did that, your additions did not.

1. You did contend that Barrett failed a "Medical Board certification" arguing that he was not a "medical expert" thereby. Being "board certified in medicine" is a certification of a specialty (i.e., internal medicine). [11] You were taking it out of context, and it became a slur thereby.

• I did not contend this. I merely cited this contention from an article. You are confusing my contentions with those fromt he sources from which I am citing. The fact that he failed his board certification is certainly part of an honest critique and thus deserves to be mentioned here. Levine2112 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeating the contention is the same as making it. One cannot hide from responsibility that way. Larry Sarner 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Repeating "information" from an unreliable source is rumor-mongering not encyclopedia-writing.

• How are the sources unreliable? Levine2112 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the Wiki Guideline. Its applicability is very clear. Larry Sarner 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

3.Again, the mention of Barrett's ties to AMA, FDA, FTC is redundant, since that came out in the biographical part of the article. Mentioning them again, in the context where you did, is to cast aspersions. Some others might disagree, but I think you could mention it journalistically (and even cite chiro.org as the source if you want!) with something like: "Some, if not most, critics say that Barrett's close work with the AMA, FDA, and FTC makes him part of an establishmentarian conspiracy to suppress innovative forms of treatment." In fact, I'd love it if you made your point this straightforwardly.

• Feel free to edit it into something you think is better. Don't delete it. Work with it. Levine2112 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's worthy of deletion, then it should be deleted. It's not my point to make or document. I noted that you incorporated my suggestion as an addition, not a substitution -- and without an attribution of your source.

1. RubyQ has taken your arguments apart regarding the court cases, so I don't need to repeat that here. I would only add that you need to cite a reliable source for your information, and chiro.org is not one. Go to original sources if need be.

• RubyQ provides one-side of the issue - Barrett's side of the court cases. Certainly, for NPOV, there should be a presentation from the other side of the court cases.Levine2112 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not in the article. As Wiki points out, over and over, encyclopedia articles are not essays. Details are discussed on the talk pages, not in the article itself. You've made your point, repeatedly, on this talk page. RubyQ has answered you. You may counter at some time. Fine. Just leave it here, not in the article. Larry Sarner 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Larry Sarner 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Chiro.org is reliable and relevant to this article. The same goes for HealthFreedomLaw.com. Please tell me why they aren't. Otherwise, information (arguments as you say) from these sources that is relevant to this article stands. Levine2112 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you were reporting their opinions (arguments) journalistically, balanced and with NPOV, then it might be cited (even quoted). But as you wrote it, it does not do that. Chiro.org is a reliable source for their opinions, but the opinions themselves are not reliable. Larry Sarner 18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We can post opinions from reliable sources. Chiro.org is a reliable source. However, if you feel that what I am posting are untrue opinions or need to be clarified as opinions, then please make appropriate edits. Do not delete this information though.Levine2112 18:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you really say that? "Untrue opinions"? Opinions are not facts! Maybe that's the source of the misunderstandings, if that's what they are. This "information" is not relevant to the point being made, which is to state what the criticism of Barrett is or was. Larry Sarner 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking your advice, Sarner, I added a sentence to the FTC/AMA/FDA portion of the critiques section. Please work with this rather than blanketly deleting it. Levine2112 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You should have noted that I didn't "blanketly" delete it before. I worked with it. I did note that you blanketly deleted my efforts. Again, these are not my points to make. Whoever makes the point has the responsibility to make it in a verifiable and NPOV way. Larry Sarner 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Actually you have repeatedly deleted the same paragraph that I keep inserting. If you replace it at all, it have been just to whitewash the article. Please keep this balanced by allowing all verifiable opinions to be presented here. Levine2112 21:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• The editor Larry Sarner, contrary to his point of view is clearly intent on presenting his point of view in this article instead of fairly representing the existing situation. Many of the references used in the article refer to web sites under the control of the subject of the article. Having many web sites to promote your point of view does not make the point of view TRUE. There is clearly another side to the story has presented by Stephen Barrett and this other side must be included in the article. When references from other websites are proposed, they are critizised as being unacceptable.... An interesting double standard.OKO

Orignial Research

Sarner, how is listing out Barrett's court cases and their results considered original research, as you put it? Levine2112 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OKO and Sarner banned from editing this article

I have "soft-banned" editors OKO (talk · contribs) and Sarner (talk · contribs) from editing this article, as they appear to be engaging in inappropriate POV warring relating to the content of the article. I suspect they are likely reincarnations of blocked users, and appear not to be making positive contributions to the article or this talk page. Should either of them edit, please revert any edits they make. Users have been informed on their talk pages. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like your actions are working quite effectively - not a single edit since this administrative action. I've never seen such an abrupt and severe action from an administrator before. It has chilled the atmosphere. Who would dare to edit here under these conditions? -- Fyslee 22:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did, phear. What'd I miss in my absense? Owch, this page is too big, can someone archive it who knows which discussions are or aren't active?Tyciol 23:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A huge difference

My edits beginning here deserve some explanation.

There is a huge difference between Barrett's "criticizing" of false claims and quackery, and his opponents' "ad hominem" personal attacks against him. Barrett goes after the actions of those he believes to be promoting quackery. It's the actions that are the primary target, and those who promote them are only attacked in this connection. Even then, they are not the subjects of ad hominem attacks from Barrett's side. Since these people are often crooks or unscrupulous characters, their other crimes or improprieties may be brought up, but only because it shows that their promotion of quackery is a part of their consistent pattern of unethical behavior. (BTW, most of those he attacks are MDs, not unauthorized persons.)

It is quite striking that his opponents rarely (the 1% exception that proves the 99% rule...) even attempt to prove him wrong. He carefully documents his criticisms by pointing out the lack of scientific evidence for their false claims, while his opponents fail to provide the scientific proof that would debunk his charges. He plays on the "scientific and ethical" playing field, and uses those rules of debate, while his opponents, especially Bolen, use the rules of the "street" and go after the man, not after the ball. Since they can't prove he's wrong, they seek to distract attention from their unlawful and unethical actions by attacking him as a person. It's a pretty dirty game they play, and those who quote those attackers and repeat their false charges, are participating in the same dirty ad hominem game themselves. An honest examination of his charges, and attempt to discuss them with him, should be attempted before attacking him or repeating accusations.

It is also worth noting that nearly all of the court cases Barrett has been involved in have been his attempts to defend himself against libelous ad hominem and directly false attacks. If he himself were guilty of doing the same, then he would not have a morally strong case. But that is not the case. Unfortunately courts care little about truth or morals. He is defending himself against the "street" tactics used as improper responses to his "scientific and ethical" criticisms. His lack of success in court has not been related to the despicable fact that his opposers have been attempting to damage his reputation. It has been on other more technical grounds: wrong jurisdiction, poor preparation (good evidence of lack of AMA funding....!!), public person (nearly no protection against libel), etc. Now if he only did get such funding, things would look a lot different! -- Fyslee 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Barrett has not won a libel suit in a court of law. Therefore you cannot say that people have libelled him. However, you can say that people criticize him. Just like Barrett criticizes individuals. Here for instance, Barrett lays into his arch-nemesis Tim Bolen. If you want to call his oppponents criticisms "attacks", that's fine. But it is a two-way street as evidence from the link I have provided where he calls Bolen and his tactics "juvenile", "prone to exaggeration", accusing him of tax evasion, as well as calling him a liar and accusing of libel, which has never held up in court. I think it would be most apropos to say: Barrett can dish it out but he sure can't take it.

Please also note that in one particular lawsuit, Barrett admitted under oath that he pays himself to be a expert witness from the funds that he collects from his supposedly nonprofit organization NCAHF. I think that is highly unethical. So did the judge, who feared that a victory for Barrett would lead to him suing more companies where Barrett could pay himself (and other "experts" that NCAHF pays to testify). Essentially, Barrett "launders" the money through NCAHF so it appears that his supporters aren't paying him directly.

So before you deify Barrett, make sure you know what kind of person you're placing up on that pedestal. This article has suffered from a great deal of whitewashing in the past. I think now it is finally presenting a fair and factual depiction of Barrett. The man has a lot of accomplishments and awards, but - make no mistake about it - he is also a paid attack-dog. Levine2112 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Paid? By whom? Certainly not the AMA, as falsely charged. How much? Peanuts! The man isn't getting rich. He can't even pay an expensive lawyer! On the other hand Bolen gets to travel all over the place, with backing from the quacks he defends. And is he paid to provide the scientific evidence to refute Barrett's charges? No. He's paid to intimidate, threaten, and raise havoc. He's a paid promoter of quackery and defender of some of the worst quacks and degenerates around. Just take a look at the Suster case http://quackwatch.org/11Ind/suster.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050221084815/http://www.fox6milwaukee.com/dynamic/story.asp?category=126

Barrett is doing society a service by helping to get some of these quack MDs put out of work. -- Fyslee 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Deify? Paid attack dog? Your methods of establishing these swipes in this article in past, including plagiarism & otherwise extremely poor use of source material, severely undercut your validity. But that's all too typical. 209.181.4.169

This isn't about Bolen. This is about Barrett paying himself from his own non-profit. That is a fact. He testified to this in court. "Peanuts" is what you say he gets paid, but you have no proof of this. Whatever the ammount is, it is enough to have put the judge on alert. I hardly think "peanuts" would have put the judge on such alert to insinuate that what Barrett was doing is highly unethical. The man is taking money that his supporters (you tell me who his supporters are...it's obvious). Anyways, these supporters "donate" their money to a nonprofit organization which in turns Barrett uses to paying himself and other NCAHF officers to act as supposed "expert" witness. Talk about a scam. Come on, you're a skeptic. What more evidence do you need? Levine2112 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Response from Dr. Barrett: The above description of my being paid in the manner described is 100% false. It is based on a wild distortion of my involvement and testimony in a single case in which Attorney Morse Mehrban sued KingBio Pharmaceuticals for false advertising of homeopathic products and used NCAHF as the plaintiff. The suit was one of many that Mehrban brought against false advertisers. After the first case was settled for a considerable sum, part of the settlement was supposed to be allocated to pay expert witnesses in the other suits. I agreed to testify in the KingBio suit for a very low fee and had no interest in tstifying in the non-homeopathic cases. Nobody asked how much I was being paid, which was unfortunate, because expert witnesses ordinarily charge much more, and if the judge knew the facts, I doubt that he would have thought the payment could influence me. KingBio's lawyer persuaded the judge that somehow my testimony would be tained because I had an indirect interest in being paid. This was preposterous, but he said it during his closing argument and there was no opportunity opportunity to rebut it. The statement that donations have been used to pay me in legal matters is 100% false. Donations to Quackwatch are used to defray the cost of running my sites, which is about $7000 per year. If they don't cover the cost, I pay out of my own pocket. Sbinfo

Oh, and what did Barrett have to do with the Suster case? Was he even involved? Levine2112 03:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Baratz - NCAHF president - who was involved as an expert witness. I just mentioned Suster as an example of a degenerate who sexually abused his patients and cheated insurance companies, and whom the NCAHF was (in a small way) influential in putting out of business. -- Fyslee 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Barrett did sue Carter

Bolen mentions it here. -- Fyslee 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But he lost... once again. Levine2112 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he did. Once again an example of lack of good financial backing to make a more solid case. A high powered lawyer could easily do that. Bolen's, Carter's, Primatera's, et al's charges are simply false. They have never yet proven their accusations, and the fact that Barrett fights on alone, without AMA help, is good proof of it. -- Fyslee 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of good financial backing or lack of supportive evidence to make a good case? All we know is what the court said. And the court said that Barrett didn't have the grounds to prove libel. And the AMA (or its members) do donate to the NCAHF fund, from which Barrett pays himself and his lawyers. Barrett admitted to this in court. The fact is that Carter and Primatera made the charge. How can you show us that your claim - that these charges are "undocumented" - is true? Levine2112 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As the facts are (below), how else could it end up? (rhetorical....):

Judges have noted that his position as a public figure has weakened his ability to defend himself, since the plaintiff in such libel cases is required to show "actual malice," per the precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan, which states, "Because of the extremely high burden on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases rarely, if ever prevail against public figures."

You see, public figures can be libelled quite a bit without being able to sucessfully defend themselves.

Do you have evidence that "the AMA (or its members) do donate to the NCAHF fund"? The NCAHF isn't that big, and member's dues are a pittance. I doubt there is much money in their fund. Barrett works for the NCAHF to accomplished its stated mission, to fight quackery, and the NCAHF pays for that work. Perfectly above board. Barrett probably foots alot of the bill himself out of his own pocket. He practiced in the days when doctors made a lot of money.

As to Carter and Privitera, they made the charges in a book, and those who quoted that part of the book were sued for it. He didn't win because he couldn't prove "actual malice." Statements that could be libelous if they were true must not be allowed to stand without absolutely good verification. (Jimbo Wales). They made the charges, and you can't just repeat them here. You need to provide the (theirs?) documentation here. If its good, then the charges can stay. -- Fyslee 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)