Talk:Stephen Barrett: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:15, 22 July 2006 editRandom user 39849958 (talk \| contribs)19,517 edits →Information on Barrett's web sites is not up to date ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:29, 22 July 2006 edit undoRandom user 39849958 (talk \| contribs)19,517 edits →Information on Barrett's web sites is not up to date Next edit →
Line 315:		Line 315:

	:NATTO, this is a valid point and a honest critique. Do you think you could expand upon it within the article to make the point clear to the reader? If you could cite examples, that would be a nice bonus. ] 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)		:NATTO, this is a valid point and a honest critique. Do you think you could expand upon it within the article to make the point clear to the reader? If you could cite examples, that would be a nice bonus. ] 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

			== FDA and PAC: The Answer to Quackwatch's Funding? ==
			Here's more from Paul Hartal:
			''Dated December 22, 1999, the Harvard affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital's Neurology Web Forum published on the Internet an article under the title :"PAC" Money for "quackwatch". It reveals that "the FDA and the Pharmaceutical Advertising Counsel ("PAC"), which represents some 35 major drug companies, have formed and co-founded a corporation under a joint letterhead, calling itself the National Council Against Health Fraud ("NCAHF")." Stephen Barrett, MD, who publishes "Quackwatch" on line, William Jarvis, MD, and others, are paid by PAC " to publicly discredit as unscientific or unknown any of all viable herbs, vitamins, homeopathic remedies or non-allopathic therapies, particularly those that are proven to have the most promise and present the greatest threat to the PAC members".''
			Very interesting. The more you dig, the dirtier Barrett gets. ] 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:29, 22 July 2006

Archives
October 2005 – July 15 2006

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)

No scam at all. Nothing secret or unintended action is being performed. The members of the NCAHF (I'm not a member) pay their dues to help forward the NCAHF's goals, and that is to fight quackery, which is what Barrett does. He is using the organization's money as intended. -- Fyslee 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Criticism section

Hi all. I have been trying to condense and streamline this article, and I saved the "criticism" section for last. As it stands, it is out of proportion in this article. Much of the information could be explained much more succinctly. Further, many sources are of questionable reliability. We need to get published sources as references, which can include court papers, etc. However, blogs and websites will likely not pass muster per WP:RS. I will be bold and make some changes I feel will improve this article, but if anyone has objections, I am happy to discuss them here. My goal is to get the NPOV warning off the top of the page. Thanks! Jokestress 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My fear was that this article was getting whitewashed. For a while there, the criticism section was a joke compared to the litany of accolades and awards and links to Barrett operated websites. A major point that I would like to keep is in the 2001 trial where Barrett admitted to paying himself with NCAHF funds to act as an expert witness. The judge's own words seem to suspect Barrett as doing something highly dubious; whereas Barrett could keep suing and keep paying himself and his cronies from funds indirectly donated by like-minded individuals who interests Barrett protects. Can I say it's the AMA and big pharma? No. But think about it. Who else would donate money to NCAHF? That Barrett is accepting and essentially laundering money from powerful lobbyist speaks tremendously to Barrett's character and is an insightful and common critique of him. Further, I think an emphasis should continue to be placed on Barrett's failed libel suits. Here you have a man that criticizes large groups of people for a living, but when someone criticizes him, he goes running to his lawyers. Again, I think this is a valuable and common criticism worthy of being noted in this article. Levine2112 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the edit still made it clear that paying oneself to be an expert witness was inappropriate according to the judge (whose comments I expanded), but I don't mind the additional info. Jokestress 01:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Well, I appreciate your work thus far. Thanks. Levine2112 03:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that this so-called "article" is really being used to promote Mr. Barrett's numerous websites. There are approximately 20 links to his sites, that he owns and asks for donations. This, IMO, becomes a vanity page and link repository, even if these links were put there, not by him, but by his disciples. Mr. Barrett's wisdom shouldn't be quoted as the gospel by his disciples with a link to his 'websites' to prove he said it. Further tidying is necessary. Steth 03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Steth, I welcome your edits here. I too have noted an excessive use of links to Barrett's sites all around Misplaced Pages. I would like to see this minimized too. Levine2112 04:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's sites are linked to from all over the Internet, because they are generally considered accurate, credible, & useful. They have received numerous honors, awards, & recommendations. They are among the rare breed of trustwothy websites, making them convenient as a reference source in an encyclopedia article.

I just added back context for the Privitera and CPU comments. I'd also like to have each critic/case have just one bullet point, so I suggest we combine the Negrete comment with the other bullet. I'm fine with Bolen having a bullet, but that claim about Jarvis needs a citation in a reliable source, preferably the case itself. Jokestress 04:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the credibility is an issue, I don't see how stating that CPU was closed speaks to Paul Hartal's credibility. I agree that the Jarvis comment needs a citation. But note that this is a critque given by Bolen and that the crituqe has a citation. But again, I would like to see a citation about Jarvis comment. That we are adding credibility attacks against those with an adverse opinion of Barrett (or Barrett's own whitewashed responses) is very telling of Barrett's own unscrupulous tactics. He attacks others and then is surprised when others attack back. So he attacks them again and acts even more baffled when they respond. Then Barrett goes running for his lawyers. Levine2112 04:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

CPU closed because it was a diploma mill. The degree it granted him therefore lacks credibility.

(outdenting) Regarding credibility, it's very common on controversial articles to present both sides when POV criticisms are presented. The Bolen comment about Jarvis needs to have a link to the original document where Jarvis makes the alleged statements "under oath." Bolen's site is not enough--we need the original, not second-hand information. We need to specify which California case, etc, or it's going to need to come out per WP:BLP. Jokestress 05:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a critique given by Bolen. Thus it is first-hand (from the man's own website). Bolen is a noted critic of Barrett. His comments here a highly appropriate. Levine2112 05:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's unsourced hearsay until we have a citation. It should technically be removed immediately per WP:BLP, but I'm hoping someone can find the case to which he is referring so we can cite that. Readers here should not have to take Bolen's word for this, per WP:V. Jokestress 05:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The point here isn't what Bolen has said but that he has said it. This is a critique section and Bolen has made a critique. This section is even called "Accussations". Well, this is an accusation. There is no reason why it should be deleted or any more sourrced than it already is. I will change "states" to "alleges" to make it even more evident to the reader that this is just an accusation. Levine2112 05:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see you moved the accusations to the litigation section. I still think there needs to be some critiques from Bolen and Negrete in the "Accusations" section. They are notable critics and should be heard from here. Levine2112 05:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it is a violation of WP:BLP. We need a copy of the Jarvis testimony itself to cite it. Once we have the case number, we can put it back. Jokestress 06:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe you have WP:BLP wrong. What exactly did you feel the sourced accusation violated? Please note that the accusation itself was stated to be an accusation and was cited from a source where the accusation was made. Levine2112 06:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't take Bolen's word. It's not clear that is a reliable source. We need to see the original document to which that refers. Jokestress 08:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is one of the relevant passages on WP:BLP: "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)." Be sure to read the comment by Jimbo Wales on that same page for further guidance. This has become a serious issue sitewide, so all editors are working to carefully source all statements on controversial people. Jokestress 09:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More info from Jimbo Wales himself:

"If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as , please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page." - Jimmy Wales

-- Fyslee 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

What are the POV issues at this time? I'd like to get those addressed so we can remove the tag at the top of the article. This article is very close to being carefully sourced per WP:BLP. A list of any other issues that should be address would be appreciated. Thanks! Jokestress 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has made a great deal of progress over the last couple of weeks. Good to see. 209.181.4.169

Self-serving links

I beleive the list of "External links" serves only to increase traffic to Mr. Barrett's 'websites', sell his 'textbook', and increase donations to himself. Given that there are already several links to his privately-owned and operated 'websites' in the body of the homage, and they are completely unecessary, I think the whole list should be removed.

This will also remove any spectre of suggestion that WP is being used as a free infomercial for private enterprise and personal gain. Steth 12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The links to Barrett's sites in an article about Barrett are entirely appropriate. See WP:EL. Jokestress 16:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Why should the promotion of every site an individual owns and solicits donations and sells his books on, be appropriate in an encyclopedia? Especially since he pays himself from the donations. When did this become a link repository/spam farm? Is this article really being used as a front to promote Barrett Enterprises? If so, then it should be proposed for a speedy deletion. Besides, why would you want this to take place here at WP? Steth 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the relevant parts of WP:EL for your justification for removing external links to a subject's official page in the article on that subject. If you wish to nominate this for deletion, by all means go ahead, but I very much doubt it will be deleted. His notability is well established. Jokestress 18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate which is his official page. Thanks Steth 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe they all are official sites of Barrett's. Jokestress 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned "official page". There can only be one official page. Which one is it? Thanks Steth 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I also said "Barrett's sites" prior to that. The issue at hand has nothing to do with my use of plurals. The issue is that multiple external links are acceptable as described here . All of those sites meet the criteria. If you believe there is policy in place regarding removal of relevant sites authored by this article's subject, please provide them. Jokestress 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the latest list of official Barrett sites:

http://www.quackwatch.org (health fraud and quackery)
http://www.acuwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.autism-watch.org (guide to autism)
http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.casewatch.org (legal archive)
http://www.chelationwatch.org (chelation therapy)
http://www.chirobase.org (guide to chiropractic)
http://www.credentialwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.dentalwatch.org (guide to dental care)
http://www.devicewatch.org (under construction)
http://www.dietscam.org (under construction)
http://www.homeowatch.org (guide to homeopathy)
http://www.ihealthpilot.org (guide to reliable information))
http://www.infomercialwatch.org (guide to infomercials)
http://www.mentalhealthwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.mlmwatch.org (multi-level marketing)
http://www.naturowatch.org (naturopathy)
http://www.nccamwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.nutriwatch.org (nutrition facts and fallacies)
http://www.pharmwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.ncahf.org (National Council Against Health Fraud)
http://www.chsourcebook.com (consumer health sourcebook)

Editor, Consumer Health Digest

http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/chd.html

Without any documentation for this, I suspect he is reducing the several thousand page content of Quackwatch, by dividing the subjects out to their respective topical sites. This is a gradual process that can take a long time. Just a hunch. That will make it much easier to find and search for information by topic. Right now Quackwatch (the original "flagship") is an enormous resource, with court cases, research documents, whole books, magazine articles, investigative reports, etc., written by many different experts in their respective fields, laypersons, journalists, etc.. -- Fyslee 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just list Quackwatch, since all the other sites' content is found there or can be linked to from there? Steth brings up a valid point about using Misplaced Pages to list URLs. Misplaced Pages is not a link farm. Let's stick to the one main link (Quackwatch), but let's mention (but not link to) the other "sub" sites within the Quackwatch family. Sound fair? Levine2112 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't include the "under construction" sites listed above. I count about 6 or 7 above that seem notable and frequently-cited in their own right. Jokestress 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion Levine, although the 'article' already has over 20 links to the hate-site Quackwarts and another dozen or so peddling his books. Doesn't that already enrich Barrett Enterprises?

It seems that Fsylee is an intimate of Stephen Barrett, knowledgable of his personal life and finances, judging by his various comments on several Talk pages to you and to me. So it is no wonder that he (Fyslee)would never miss an opportunity to post links to Mr. Barrett's numerous 'viewpoints of an ex-psychiatrist' websites in WP articles and talk pages (see above) driving traffic and fueling the donation machine. I find this to be very disingenuous and disconcerting, not only because of the intimacy thing, but also because he (Fsylee) helps out his pal (Mr. Barrett) with internet administration. Self-serving agenda? Hmmm. Incestuous?

Constant recourse to ad hominem attacks & insinuations of illicit behind -the-scenes influence is a vry strong sign of weakness in your critique. 209.181.4.169

I am not sure why Jokestress is insistent on supporting the use of WP as a free commercial/infomercial for Barrett Enterprises. Perhaps there is also an intimate connection. Any clue? Steth 01:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't venture to guess Jokestress' connection to Barrett; however reading her user page may provide you with the elucidation you are looking for. I, however, do take issue with Fyslee's reasoning for changing the link to Quackpotwatch's website to its Wiki article. His exact reasoning is: URL can be used on its own article. So by that logic, Steth, you are free to find all of the external links to Quackwatch.com and change them to internal links to this article. Have fun! Levine2112 05:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You conveniently forget a fundamental difference between Bolen's sites and Barrett's sites: Bolen's sites fail Misplaced Pages's reliability and notability requirements miserably, even bordering to being considered spam sites. They should therefore only be used on articles about themselves or Bolen. Even the article about Quackpotwatch is up for deletion, it's so non-notable! Barrett's sites are both reliable and notable by Misplaced Pages standards, and therefore allowed, both as references and external links. They do not make unsupported claims, but provide documentation. There may be some cases where using them as internal references might be questionable, and those situations will certainly get pointed out. That principle applies to all reliable websites. The use of unreliable websites like Bolen's is always questionable, but is expressly allowed in articles about him. -- Fyslee 05:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I find Bolen's site much more reliable than anything a crook such as Barrett has ever put out there. Levine2112 06:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem again. Your shaky understanding of reliability (& proper use of source material) has been on diplay here for some time. (That's not ad hominem, by the way: it references specific documentable editorial actions you have taken, including plagiarism.) 209.181.4.169

I have shown that Barrett is indeed crooked... calling him a crook is QED. As for a reliability, I suppose Barrett's is reliable... reliably blemished with wild accusations and one-sided mis-information to further his notability. As for your ad hominem plagiarism charge, I was citing from another source, which I in turn cited. How is that plagiarism? Was I trying to deceive anyone into believign the words were my own. I'm sorry, but if you have a problem with copy-and-pasting, perhaps you should stick to paper encyclopedias. One more thing, 209.181.4.169, what have you added here other than critques of people's editing practices? Levine2112 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

While I could remove your libel from this page, as per "remove," I'll let the evidence stand here for all to see. It says more about you than about Barrett. Not even Hulda Clark or Bolen, under oath, have been able to point to any crime he has committed, so your statement that Barrett is a "crook" is clearly libelous.

How about proving that he's not reliable, without resorting to ad hominem attacks against the man? I doubt you have the courage to even try. I've asked for this from you many times here at Misplaced Pages, but only gotten more ad hom attacks. Take one of his significant charges and prove it's wrong. If he's so unreliable, that should be easy to do. If your correct, then I'll try to convince him of the error of his ways. I happen to know where to find his email address (the same place you can easily find it....on his website!).

Your statement also says alot about your understanding of "reliable." Barrett provides documentation for his charges. That shows his willingness to be held accountable for what he says. Bolen, on the other hand, simply writes his conspiracy theories as if they were fact. He provides no documentation of any kind, and when pressed on the matter under deposition, he has to admit that the vicious lies he's been telling are just a "euphemism." How's that for your hero's "reliablity?" He makes it up as he goes along, can't and won't attempt to provide evidence for his wild claims, and thinks he can get away with it by simply prefacing each statement with "I think," or "I believe." The problem is that he writes it as if it were fact, with the intention of getting people to believe it is fact, and to win people's confidence, while begging for their money for his nefarious purposes (not to fight quackery, but to support it). Even one of Hulda Clark's closest allies (who sat with her in court), doesn't trust Bolen or like his dishonest tactics. He's not even considered "reliable" by those on his own side. -- Fyslee 11:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I would agree the Bolen's web site is not a paradigm of accuracy and fairness, far from it. In the same breath I can say the same for Barrett's web sites where only facts suited to the objectives of the sites ( and it's authors ) are listed, conveniently omitting other " inconvenient " facts. Barrett himself says he does not seek to be fair and balanced in his web sites. This should be enough to question his web sites as a reliable source of information. For example in the lawsuit between Cavitat Medical Technologies and Aetna, the countersuit by Aetna was thrown out of court by the judge but Barrett's web site made a huge fuss about the unproved allegations for many months as if they were factual. Later Aetna settled out of court... Still Barrett made a point of being critical of the ruling conveniently omitting the possibility that Aetna might have settled because they could not prove their allegations and knew that they could loose in court against Cavitat Med Tech, as the judge upheld Cavitat's lawsuit and it was schedule to go to court. NATTO 07:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Under oath, Barrett admits to paying himself to be a witness using funds from his own NCAHF, a supposedly nonprofit organization. In other words, instead of having NCAHF donors (those with sympathy to AMA and big Pharma) pay him directly - which would make him obviously disingenuous - Barrett is sneaky and launders it through his own NCAHF organization. In my definition, that makes him a crook. A big one! Judge Fromholz basically calls him this in his ruling.

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. - Judge Haley J. Fromholz

Fyslee, are you going to accuse Judge Fromholz of libel now, too? Your hero is a crook. Get over it.

Levine2112 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Misinterpretation. He didn't call them crooks. He said they weren't disinterested parties in the case. The point has to do with the usefulness of their testimony, not the criminality of their actions. Money laundering is not mentioned anywhere. Breach of law regarding compensation in the context of a non-profit organization is nowhere raised. You don't display any great understanding of non-profit law, so 'your definition' is hardly good grounds for your making accusations. You expend great pains elsewhere in making it known that nobody can acuse Barrett's juvenile irrational taunters of libel, because he's been unable to persuade courts of the crime, but you make no similar efforts in reining in your own scurrilous proclivities. Perhaps you should do so in future. 209.181.4.169

You're building an excellent strawman argument, 209.181.4.169. This is fun. Keep creating this person you think I am. Keep building and you might just divert us all from the obvious; that Barrett was paying himself and his buddies from his non-profit's slush fund to act as expert witnesses in matters which they are not experts in at all... even though they present themselves everyday as experts. Fraud, fraud and more fraud.Levine2112 00:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's litigiousness

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."

If that is so, the question is why does Barrett keep suing.... ? NATTO 00:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe because he does succeed in some small way at times. He has gotten people to retract their statements and by court order forbidden from doing whatever they were doing wrong again. He is at least sending a signal that lying about people isn't a good thing. Unfortunately his message falls on deaf ears in some cases. Some of his opponents operate in a moral vacuum. They really couldn't care less about truth or fairness, only about hurting their opponent. Tim Bolen is such a person. Such people have no conscience in these matters, and play by street rules like the thugs they are. There is a huge difference between the tactics and motives of Barrett and people like Bolen. Bolen is provably paid by quacks to defend them and their profitable practices. He doesn't do it by providing the needed proof to vindicate their practices. No, he simply uses ad hominem attacks, including outright lies and deception which he later calls "euphemisms." He often makes the mistake of defending quacks who are into serious legal and ethical garbage, and his presence near anyone in trouble only acts like a homing beacon to authorities - "if Bolen is defending them, then their must be something seriously illegal going on - and it's usually the case. Anyone who wants to continue practicing in peace would be better off not calling on him and attracting unwanted attention. -- Fyslee 14:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee: Yes, I had a look at the Bolen page. Interesting that Bolen is listed as " a self-proclaimed health care consumer advocate " when Barrett is " best known for his consumer advocacy ". Was Barrett hired by someone to do his job or did he appoint himself ? If he did not appoint himself then who is he working for ? NATTO 07:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here. One could say that they are both self-appointed. It's been Barrett's hobby for many years, during which time he gradually made it his full time project. He's built up a very long and honorable track record of accomplishments, with books, writings, awards, and being cited favorably all the time on notable sites and in notable writings. He is simply considered one of the top experts on quackery and healthfraud. Jarvis is also such an expert. The financial aspects of driving Quackwatch, etc. are public record. Just look on the site. It's all there. Fortunately it's rather inexpensive, especially for a retired MD who made his fortune during the days when MDs really did make a lot of money:

Quackwatch is a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies. Its primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. It was founded in 1969 as the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud and was incorporated in 1970. In 1997, it assumed its current name and began developing a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors.

Quackwatch, Inc., has no salaried employees. It operates with minimal expense, funded mainly by small individual donations, commissons from sales on other sites to which we refer, sponsored links, and profits from the sale of publications. If its income falls below what is needed for the research, the rest comes out of my pocket.

Many people wonder whether Quackwatch is a "front" for the American Medical Association, the pharmaceutical industry, the "medical establishment," or whomever else they might not like. Nearly every week I get e-mails accusing me of this—and worse. Quite frankly, the idea is preposterous.

Neither Quackwatch nor I have any financial ties to any commercial or industrial organization.
My viewpoints are not for hire. Even if they were, none of my imaginary funders would actually have a reason to hire me.
Standard medicine and "alternative medicine" do not actually compete for patient dollars. Well-designed studies have shown that most "alternative" methods are used in addition to—rather than instead of—standard methods.
The total cost of operating Quackwatch's many Web sites is approximately $7,000 per year.

From Who funds Quackwatch?

-- Fyslee 14:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Barrett made his fortune during his MD days, are you jokiing:

Here is his work experience from his own website:

Chief, Psychiatric Service, Scott Air Force Base Hospital, Illinois, 8/61-7/63 Psychiatrist, San Francisco Juvenile Court (half-time), 7/63-8/67 Psychiatrist, San Francisco Child Psychiatry Clinic (half-time), 7/63-1/66 Private practice of psychiatry, 8/63-12/93 Consultant, San Francisco Department of Welfare, 8/64-7/65 Consultant, school nurses, San Francisco Public Health Department, 8/65-12/65 Consultant, Parks Job Corps Camp, 12/65-1/66 Psychiatrist, Center For Special Problems (half-time), 2/66-8/67 Consultant, San Francisco Adult Probation Department, 8/66-8/67 Staff Psychiatrist, Allentown State Hospital (part-time), 9/67-7/77 Consultant, Pa. Board of Probation and Parole (research project), 11/67-2/69 Consultant, Lehigh Valley Mental Health Association, 12/67-2/69 Consultant, Lutheran Children's Home, 2/68-6/72 Psychiatrist, Allentown Hospital Psychiatric Clinic (part-time), 4/68-6/90 Consultant, Pastoral Institute of the Lehigh Valley, 11/68-1/71 Consultant, Allentown Counseling Center for Alcoholism, 6/69-6/72 Consultant, Lehigh University Centennial School, 1/70-3/77 Psychiatrist, Muhlenberg Medical Center Psychiatric Clinic (part-time), 6/71-6/86 Medical Director, Haven House (partial hospitalization program), 8/76-6/87 Consultant, Allentown Police Department (evaluation of police candidates), 8/80-3/85 Medical Director, NewVitae Partial Hospitalization Program, 8/90-3/91

Lets see, Air Force Service in the early '60s, that was about $300/month. Private practice, maybe made some money in that. However he had so many part-time public service positions (pay is horrible), full-time service positions (pay not that great)and consultant(pays sqaut for the most part, work infrequent)how did he do private practice? Maybe he had a shingle out but I doubt he had a lot of patients with so many part-time jobs and full-time jobs crossing over each other.

As far as consultanting goes, that can mean anywhere from 0-100 hours, from working pro-bono to making a few bucks, or a ton if you are great in your field (which would be hard not being board-certified). This doesn't look like the CV of someone who made a fortune. Trust me, public medical positions and working in clinics does not pay much. It is either the sign of a physican dedicated to helping the public or one that could not make it in private practice. However it is not the sign of someone making a fortune. Thats just the way it is. I wish physicans who worked in the public sector get paid more but that is not usually the case.--MD1954 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Board Certification

The page should note that Dr. Barrett in not board certified. Dr. Barrett is suppose to be a consumer advocate and is doing this under the guise of a physician (Doctor). He does not say he is Mr. Stephen Barrett, but Dr. Stephen Barrett, MD.

89% of all MDs & DOs are board-certified by at least one board by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). The other 11% are newly graduated physicians; ones that could not pass the boards, or ones who just don’t care.

For whatever reason Dr. Barrett is not board-certified. Several sources quote him as saying that he did could not pass his board exams. Whatever the reason, it is hard to be a ‘health expert, advocate’ without at least being able to pass the board exams of your own specialty.

The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (the one Dr. Barrett would be certified by) exams are not that difficult. I have four board certifications. There is no reason Dr. Barrett should not have his if he wants to be considered a health expert. Being a Doctor is not enough. As the old joke in medical school goes, “What does the person who graduated at the top of the class and the bottom of the class have in common? They are both called ‘Doctor’.”

Of course, one needn't be a doctor at all to be a health expert. RubyQ

As far as alertanvitve medicine goes, I find it humrous that some people are so critical of it when they have never seen a patient as a Medical Physican. Granted there is a TON of crap out there that is a waste of time or harmful. 85-90% of patients seen by General, Family, Emergency pyhscians are condtions that are stress-related. So when I hear somebody knock ‘mind-body connection’, I really feel bad for them as they keep taking all kinds of meds when simply relaxing will do.

The biggest problem with Dr. Barrett is that he throws out the baby with the bathwater. I remember learning about Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. He had the novel idea about washing your hands and surgical instuments before you dealt with patients. He was rejected by the medical community because there was no scienctific proof, as the germ theory had not been discovered. Over time his claims were proven.

Looking up this doctor on wikepdia, I found a term that falls under what Dr. Barrett practices.

Semmelweis Reflex

The Semmelweis Reflex is the dismissing or rejecting out of hand any information, automatically, without thought, inspection, or experiment. The phrase stems from a number of people's personal experiences with the phenomena, and denotes the reactions of anyone who engages in such behaviour.

The problem with much of alertnative medicine is that sceinctific reasearch is not done. How is a pharamchetical going to make money on something like Vitaimin C? We were told to worry about the Military-Insturial Complex. We should also worry about the Pharmatiucal/Medical Establishment Complex. This is nothing knew, its been around for a long time.

To sum up, I think it should be noted that Dr. Barrett is not board-certified. It is true that not all Doctors are board-certified, you can still practice medicine. 11% of Doctors are not, of course MOST of them have just recieved their sheepskin. Since Dr. Barrett has been a physcian before most of the people reading this were born, what is his excuse? Would you go to a physican that cannot pass his own board? Can you trust what they have to say?

Some people say he is a hack for the Pharmas, but I find that hard to believe. With all their resources they could find someone alot more credible.--MD1954 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In regard to the "Semmelweis reflex," you're thinking of Pathological skepticism. In this connection (applying it to Barrett) you're using the logical fallacy known as the straw man argument, since you have no evidence that he is "dismissing or rejecting out of hand any information, automatically, without thought, inspection, or experiment."

Skepticism of absurd claims, especially after they have been found wanting, is proper. A skeptic adopts the agnostic position and is guided by these adages:

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"
"The burden of proof is on the claimant"

Richard Dawkins states that "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work." A skeptic will believe the claim when convinced with good evidence. Until then it would be foolhardy to believe anything just because it sounds nice, especially when it is nicely packaged in a sales pitch. Barrett exposes those sales pitches for what they are - sCAM. -- Fyslee 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee,

Since Richard Dawkins said it then it must be true!

Unless you have some sort of mystical powers, you don’t know what I am thinking. And stop throwing up the straw man argument. You are using that with your own rebuttal. Instead of worrying about semantics, why don’t you address the subject brought in my posting, Dr. Barrett’s lack of professional credentials? He is lacking board certification from the American Board of Medical Specialties. That is not just a nice thing to have. Almost every competent doctor in this country is board certified.

As witnessed in his case against Dr. Koren, not having the proper credentials can backfire in places like a court room. I don’t know one lawyer that would use a non-board certified physician on the stand as an expert medical witness.

So let’s get to my point. He is not board certified, he has not practiced in many years, and his work history is not impressive. Most of his work experience includes vague descriptions like ‘consultant’. While I have also done work outside my primary practice (member of hospital boards, taught as an assistant professor), my CV and most doctor’s CVs would not be such a mish mash and crossover of positions.

Don’t you think this should be mentioned? I know you admire Dr. Barrett; you two have even been through a lawsuit together.

Fyslee, if I recall correctly you are a physical therapist, are you Board Certified by the ATPA?--MD1954 22:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Under oath, Barrett admitted that he failed his board certification exams. Yet he calls himself an expert? An expert of what? Healthcare fraud? I think it is pretty fraudulant to present yourself as a "medical expert" when you can't pass an exam that 89% of your colleagues can. That puts him at the bottom of his class. He has also called himself a "legal expert" yet under oath admitted no formal legal training. Very disingenuous indeed.

Talk page being edited

Note: RubyQ added this comment and a lot of archived material:

Is it appropriate to delete huge swathes of the conversation from the talk page? Some time ago I added to the conversation here with some information that one of the main editors here, Levine2112, was engaging in some unscrupulous, or at least exceedingly sloppy, editorial practices, including plagiarism. Isn't it important to maintain a visible record of that? Part of what has been deleted was this:

Please see the archive at the top for old conversations. This page was getting too long, and it is common to archive old discussions. All the old information is there. Jokestress 23:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving, Jokestress. It was getting long. As for the plagiarism charge, you can go back and see that I was quoting from sources which I referenced via external linking. RubyQ, however, kept deleting these references. The sentence or two in question have long since been rewritten and worked into the article (by myself and others) and appear in an even more original manner than my mere quoting of it. Often times, we just need a starting point, and a quote from a reliable source is a great beginning. RubyQ's point in declaring "plagiarism" was merely diversionary - similar to the tactics of Barrett himself. See, I had inserted a valid point about Barrett into this article which RubyQ didn't want to appear here but had no justifiable reason for deleting. So RubyQ resorted to attacking me, the editor. This is ironically similar to how Barrett attacks then sues for libel when there is rebuttal. And when he can't justify his libel claim in court, he returns to his computer and attacks some more... all the while diverting form the issues at hand... That he failed his board certification. That he pays himself and his cronies from the non-profit NCAHF fund to act as a expert witnesses. That he claims to be a medical expert and has failed his board certification. That he claims to be a legal expert, but has only attended a couple of semester of legal correspondence school. Et cetera. Et cetera. Levine2112 01:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Information on Barrett's web sites is not up to date

A cursory look at Quackwatch and related web sites shows that the information is not kept up to date. An exemple is the page where he reports the accusations made by Aetna in their countersuit against Cavitat Medical Technologies. Not only is there no information about the fact that the Aetna countersuit was thrown out by the judge since Aetna was unable to prove their allegations, but Barrett did not remove any of the unproven allegations. Innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent ? In this particular case Barrett seems to favor guilty even if the charges are thrown out of court...

For a web site that claim to inform the public, the practice of posting and leaving unproven allegations as if they were valid, is questionable and more in line with a blog or a web forum... Another example why Quackwatch can not be considered a reliable source of information. NATTO 06:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

NATTO, this is a valid point and a honest critique. Do you think you could expand upon it within the article to make the point clear to the reader? If you could cite examples, that would be a nice bonus. Levine2112 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

FDA and PAC: The Answer to Quackwatch's Funding?

Here's more from Paul Hartal: Dated December 22, 1999, the Harvard affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital's Neurology Web Forum published on the Internet an article under the title :"PAC" Money for "quackwatch". It reveals that "the FDA and the Pharmaceutical Advertising Counsel ("PAC"), which represents some 35 major drug companies, have formed and co-founded a corporation under a joint letterhead, calling itself the National Council Against Health Fraud ("NCAHF")." Stephen Barrett, MD, who publishes "Quackwatch" on line, William Jarvis, MD, and others, are paid by PAC " to publicly discredit as unscientific or unknown any of all viable herbs, vitamins, homeopathic remedies or non-allopathic therapies, particularly those that are proven to have the most promise and present the greatest threat to the PAC members". Very interesting. The more you dig, the dirtier Barrett gets. Levine2112 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)