The "HealthFrauds" Spin Barrett / NCAHF's Stunning Defeat …
Question:
> It is different that an advocate such as myself, spending my own money and > time and energy for over 6 years solely because no one else was publicly > telling the women’s experiences …
Yet you fail to realize that you label most critics of alternative medicine as "shills" or "healthfrauds"… yet they are doing the exact same thing as you: spending their own time, money, and energy to combat quackery in some way… > The point being … I have no financial incentive for my viewpoint … in > fact, au contraire, it costs me everyday to do this work and I have gone > from abundance to near bankruptcy …
Fair enough… if only you would acknowledge that many of your "opponents" are in the exact same position… they advocate a position without the benefit of financial incentives, etc… — Kirk Kolas Ontario Veterinary College Class of 2002
Response:
>Now, Davey, do you understand why I, and many other of his critics, find >his lapsed license noteworthy?
You find his "lapsed license noteworthy" because you know that there are people who, unlike you who knows the truth, might believe that there is something suspect about a retired doctor not having a licence. Put another way – you just keep on lying about it because it suits you to do so. You know the truth – he has no licence because he is retired. The person who invented the term "propaganda" that you so much dislike called what you are doing "the big lie" and said that it was a useful propaganda tactic. You have learned well. Mad – Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon Bad – The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Sad – Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
Response:
If Dr. Barrett **let his license lapse, he would probably have to apply for it again from **scratch. The application process can be fairly onerous in some states. how convenient. playing doctor with no one to watch over him … and those who do .. he sues.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >**Ilena has every right to attack Barrett for his opinions if she >**disagrees with them and for his tactics if she thinks they’re shady. I >**may not agree with most of her attacks, but it’s her First Amendment >**right to launch them, as long as she doesn’t libel Barrett. However, >**it’s incredibly lame of her to attack Barrett simply because he let his >**medical license lapse after he retired and to imply that it lessens his >**credibility. To me, it signals that she either (1) has some sort of >**vendetta against him or (2) can’t think of something more substantive to >**attack him on. >** >Then read his hypocritcal work … he has set it up that he had NO >Professional (Psychiatric) board to look over his shoulder … and >now he has no license … thus no one to look over his shoulder. >AND YET … he and his Publicists here are always crowing about his "medical" >expertise … it stinks.
Ilena, are you under the impression that if a doctor lets his license lapse, he immediately forgets everything he knew about medicine? And even if Barrett still had his license, state medical boards have diddly to say about what he does in his spare time, like Quackwatch. I cannot fathom why you have this lunatic idea that medical boards have anything to do with Quackwatch. You’ve expressed the idea many times. It was crazy before and it still is. Maybe you’re just nuts. — David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders."
Response:
** **Ilena has every right to attack Barrett for his opinions if she **disagrees with them and for his tactics if she thinks they’re shady. I **may not agree with most of her attacks, but it’s her First Amendment **right to launch them, as long as she doesn’t libel Barrett. However, **it’s incredibly lame of her to attack Barrett simply because he let his **medical license lapse after he retired and to imply that it lessens his **credibility. To me, it signals that she either (1) has some sort of **vendetta against him or (2) can’t think of something more substantive to **attack him on. ** Then read his hypocritcal work … he has set it up that he had NO Professional (Psychiatric) board to look over his shoulder … and now he has no license … thus no one to look over his shoulder. AND YET … he and his Publicists here are always crowing about his "medical" expertise … it stinks. He has been in the business of selling Quackery courses, Quackery books, Quackery PR and been funded thru the ACSH for years … paid to write anti-alt stuff for the AMA … paid to write this garbage on MCS: http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quack-suppdeclaration.html (go to end) Barrett, editor, "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" (ACSH) (opens large PDF file) Barrett brutally goes after those who publish on the other side of MCS … he has sued Dr. Mercola & now is crowing about a suit against another MD in Atlanta … he goes after the licenses of clinical ecologists who disagree with the humble "The Media" … http://www.drkoop.com/news/focus/december/mcs_2.html Determining to push his paid for viewpoint at any cost, hatchet waving, he declares: To protect the public, state licensing boards should scrutinize the practices of clinical ecologists and decide whether the overall quality of their patient care warrants permitting them to practice medicine. I believe most of them should have their licenses revoked Now, Davey, do you understand why I, and many other of his critics, find his lapsed license noteworthy?
Response:
**Oh, Ilena is definitely a propagandist for her cause. There’s nothing **inherently bad in being a "propagandist." It’s what you’re a **propagandist for that determines whether it’s inherently good or bad to **be one. However, Ilena hurls the term at her enemies as an epithet, **while refusing to acknowledge that she is one as well; she’s just a **propagandist on the other side. I understand what you are saying, Dave … when Milloy or Langer or Fumento or Barrett get major paid $ilicone bucks "funded" by The Dows and other $ilicone Manufacturers ~ thru how ever many hands the moolah goes thru before it reaches their personal coffers ~ for the stated purpose to change public perception of their product … (in my case, a defective, never proven, medical device which fails in the vast majority of cases) … including deliberate spreading of Disinformation and Smear Campaigns against their doctors, lawyers, and advocates … It is different that an advocate such as myself, spending my own money and time and energy for over 6 years solely because no one else was publicly telling the women’s experiences … this is after creating what is now the largest Support Group in the World for women having problems with their implants … Hundreds of other women and dozens of support leaders came to the board for a while … but because of the history described on our website … http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.Org decided to leave instead of endure the harassment of these people ~ I wasn’t their only target, just the only one still willing to speak out in spite of their Campaigns against me. http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.htm http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/ss.html So … while basically you are correct … the motivations are very different. One last thing … when I began my research … I had no bias … and even today, there is nothing for me to gain if one or 1,000 women choose not to implant based on my work. Or if 5,000 women have chosen to explant because of the same. It’s different that the PS I was recently on a TV show with … he is a teacher of Plastics at a LA University, teaches that silicone in inert … it isn’t … and other myths spread by the PS’s and manufacturers etc. He claims to do around 8 a week … which comes to about $2MILLION a year revenue … just in putting in, implants … ($5K x 8 + 50 weeks = $2M) And he didn’t know the # of explants … at around $12K per … that he did per month … The point being … I have no financial incentive for my viewpoint … in fact, au contraire, it costs me everyday to do this work and I have gone from abundance to near bankruptcy … When Barrett is paid to write garbage like this … basically being an apologist for the Chemical & Silicone Industries … that is Propaganda with a capital PROPAGANDA. http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quack-suppdeclaration.html (go to bottom, opens PDF file of Barrett’s MCS which includes breast implants BS) For your information, also, Dave … as much garbage as I get here … I get 5 times the amount of appreciation thru my group …
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->There is no reason to disbelieve Dr. Barrett’s perfectly reasonable >statement that he allowed his state medical license to lapse once he >decided to go into fighting healthfraud full time where, by the way, >he is providing an invaluable public service. I doubt many MDs >continue to maintain their licences once they know they have retired >for good. What would be the point? > I retired from surgery last year and did not keep up my medical registration > for cost reasons. If I were a public figure and anyone referred to me > publicly as being "delicensed", with all the connotations that anyone > would attach to that, I would also sue them. Lying back and taking it > implies that it is was true, and it is absurd to apply SLAPP considerations > to something published with such obviously spiteful and destructive intent. > And I would expect to win in any sensible legal system. Libel laws vary > extraordinarily between countries.
In the states, it’s even worse. Libel laws are different in each of the 50 states. > I have decided to reregister myself as it’s a nuisance not being able to > write simple prescription repeats and referrals for family members. I > assume Barrett could also "relicense" himself by paying the usual fee, as > his qualifications to practice would not have changed. Perhaps he should.
I don’t know what it’s like in Australia, but medical licensing is a little different here in the States. First, it’s the states, not the federal government, that handle medical licensing. Although the basic requirements (graduation from an accredited medical school and internship, passing certain exams) are similar in each states, the mechanisms, documentation requirements, and fees vary greatly between states. In the most recent state in which I’ve obtained a license, I had to document my college, medical school, residency, Board certifications, and get letters from each and every hospital I’ve ever practiced in, as well as going through an interview with a representative of the State Medical Board to go through my qualifications. In the states in which I’ve had licenses, if you let your license lapse you have to go through the entire application process again from scratch. Some states have a mechanism whereby you can let your license go into an "inactive" status, rather than lapsing, either for free (usually with a time limit) or for a nominal fee each year. If your license is inactive, it’s much easier to reactivate it than it is to apply for a new license. If Dr. Barrett let his license lapse, he would probably have to apply for it again from scratch. The application process can be fairly onerous in some states. This is fine as a means of checking out physicians who want practice in your state prior to licensing them. However, it makes little sense to go through this process if you’re not planning on ever practicing medicine again. — Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?"
Response:
>now, some do this with a huge sense of humor and a total lack of ego (like >peterb.) so there’s no mistaking a lack of objectivity for any ‘noble’ >purpose.
Stop it, or people will start to talk about us behind our screens. Mad – Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon Bad – The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Sad – Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
Response:
**>I noticed your reply with all the "HA HA"s Ilena. Interesting response, but **>it **>doesn’t really answer the question I posed to you (see above). You criticize **>Barrett in various ways…..but what are your qualifications on health **>matters? **>–Bill Ross **> ** **This question has been asked many times here. I guess you have seen Aloha **Rich’s reluctance to answer. With his constant analyzing, he has been asked **this over and over. Of course when he doesn’t answer all other debunkers join **in a chorus of *What dfference does it make? ** **This is a discussion group. One doesn’t need any credentials to participate. ** **I believe you will find many doctors in conventional medicine who disagree with **Barrett. His denial of REAL diseases is way outdated. IMHO his arrogance and **ego is so strong, he wouldn’t back down even if he was proved wrong. ** **Jan The comment today that he doesn’t have "publicists" was one of the classics … I don’t read Bill Ross’s stuff which I see you quoted … nasty one. Here is the story of who I am and why I do what I do: http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.Org
Response:
> In nursing, in order to maintain one’s license one has to actively practice > nursing. Ditto for massage therapy. Probably other licensed occupations > too. > If I retired from nursing & massage therapy tomorrow, why in heaven’s name > would I maintain my licenses? Especially in light of the fact that *at the > time of the next license renewal I’d have to give it up anyway because I > retired & wasn’t actively practicing anymore*. > Attacking Barrett for his opinions is to be expected. Trying to attach some > sinister meaning to a retired person not renewing their professional license > is lame. Has every retired person here maintained their pre-retirement > professional existence? If so, why bother retiring in the first place?
Not to mention that, depending upon which state you’re in, it can be quite expensive to maintain one’s medical license. First off, the fee is usually several hundred dollars every two or three years, depending upon the state. Next, you have to obtain a certain amount of continuing medical education (CME) credits every year to keep your license. It costs money to go to conferences and continuing education courses to get these CME credits. When you’re working, the cost of going to the necessary conferences to do this is just part of the cost of being a doctor and can also be tax-deductible. If, like me, you happen to be on the faculty at an academic medical center, one of the benefits is that you can attend various lectures and conferences offered by your medical school and get the CME credits for free. The cost is subsidized by the University. For instance, I go to Surgical Grand Rounds every week and get credit for that. In any case, it’s a fair amount of money and effort to keep one’s license current. How much depends upon which state you’re in. I’ve had licenses in three states now. Originally, I had planned to keep all of them active. However, it just got to be too much trouble and, more importantly, expense to maintain licenses to practice in states that I may never live in again. I’ve since let one of them lapse, and I’m debating about whether I should let all of them lapse except for license in the state in which I currently practice. I can always get another license if I ever go back to live in any of the states in which I previously practiced. Ilena has every right to attack Barrett for his opinions if she disagrees with them and for his tactics if she thinks they’re shady. I may not agree with most of her attacks, but it’s her First Amendment right to launch them, as long as she doesn’t libel Barrett. However, it’s incredibly lame of her to attack Barrett simply because he let his medical license lapse after he retired and to imply that it lessens his credibility. To me, it signals that she either (1) has some sort of vendetta against him or (2) can’t think of something more substantive to attack him on. — Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?"
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Must admit … I really did laugh out loud when I got sent how > Barrett handles the Homeopath Defeat to the other HealthFrauds … > How is what you post below, Ilena, an example of "how Barrett handles > the Homeopath Defeat to the other HealthFrauds…"? As I read it, it > appears to be an opinion by a man named "Paul Hilling," commenting on > the case. I have to chuckle at how you are trying to turn this into > some sort of manipulation by Barrett. > I think what Tim Bolen (who is "The Cure For All Diseases" author’s > PR person, who is mentioned below) has to say about the whole > situation is what really gets quite funny…..until one realizes some > actually believe what Bolen says. To Barrett’s credit, Barrett > forges ahead without some PR person trying to soften the public up. > I don’t know all the details about Barrett’s true motives or > financing, but based on what I see of his actions, I think he follows > his passion for what he believes in……sort of like you, Ilena. In > fact you and Barrett seem to share a lot of similarities. But > Barrett is trained and experienced in medicine…..what are you > trained and experienced in, Ilena?
Oh, Ilena is definitely a propagandist for her cause. There’s nothing inherently bad in being a "propagandist." It’s what you’re a propagandist for that determines whether it’s inherently good or bad to be one. However, Ilena hurls the term at her enemies as an epithet, while refusing to acknowledge that she is one as well; she’s just a propagandist on the other side. — Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?"
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I don’t know all the details about Barrett’s true motives or > financing, but based on what I see of his actions, I think he follows his > passion for what he believes in……sort of like you, Ilena. In fact you >and > Barrett seem to share a lot of similarities. But Barrett is trained and > experienced in medicine…..what are you trained and experienced in, Ilena? > -Bill Ross >I noticed your reply with all the "HA HA"s Ilena. Interesting response, but >it >doesn’t really answer the question I posed to you (see above). You criticize >Barrett in various ways…..but what are your qualifications on health >matters? >–Bill Ross
This question has been asked many times here. I guess you have seen Aloha Rich’s reluctance to answer. With his constant analyzing, he has been asked this over and over. Of course when he doesn’t answer all other debunkers join in a chorus of *What dfference does it make? This is a discussion group. One doesn’t need any credentials to participate. I believe you will find many doctors in conventional medicine who disagree with Barrett. His denial of REAL diseases is way outdated. IMHO his arrogance and ego is so strong, he wouldn’t back down even if he was proved wrong. Jan
Response:
> I don’t know all the details about Barrett’s true motives or > financing, but based on what I see of his actions, I think he follows his > passion for what he believes in……sort of like you, Ilena. In fact you and > Barrett seem to share a lot of similarities. But Barrett is trained and > experienced in medicine…..what are you trained and experienced in, Ilena? > -Bill Ross
I noticed your reply with all the "HA HA"s Ilena. Interesting response, but it doesn’t really answer the question I posed to you (see above). You criticize Barrett in various ways…..but what are your qualifications on health matters? –Bill Ross
Response:
>There is no reason to disbelieve Dr. Barrett’s perfectly reasonable >statement that he allowed his state medical license to lapse once he decided >to go into fighting healthfraud full time where, by the way, he is providing >an invaluable public service. I doubt many MDs continue to maintain their >licences once they know they have retired for good. What would be the >point?
I retired from surgery last year and did not keep up my medical registration for cost reasons. If I were a public figure and anyone referred to me publicly as being "delicensed", with all the connotations that anyone would attach to that, I would also sue them. Lying back and taking it implies that it is was true, and it is absurd to apply SLAPP considerations to something published with such obviously spiteful and destructive intent. And I would expect to win in any sensible legal system. Libel laws vary extraordinarily between countries. I have decided to reregister myself as it’s a nuisance not being able to write simple prescription repeats and referrals for family members. I assume Barrett could also "relicense" himself by paying the usual fee, as his qualifications to practice would not have changed. Perhaps he should. Peter Moran MB BS BSc(Med) FRCS FRACS
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->There is no reason to disbelieve Dr. Barrett’s perfectly reasonable >statement that he allowed his state medical license to lapse once he >decided >to go into fighting healthfraud full time where, by the way, he is >providing >an invaluable public service. I doubt many MDs continue to maintain their >licences once they know they have retired for good. What would be the >point? >I retired from surgery last year and did not keep up my medical registration >for cost reasons. If I were a public figure and anyone referred to me >publicly as being "delicensed", with all the connotations that anyone >would attach to that, I would also sue them. Lying back and taking it >implies that it is was true, and it is absurd to apply SLAPP considerations >to something published with such obviously spiteful and destructive intent. >And I would expect to win in any sensible legal system. Libel laws vary >extraordinarily between countries.
They vary even more among states. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I have decided to reregister myself as it’s a nuisance not being able to >write simple prescription repeats and referrals for family members. I >assume Barrett could also "relicense" himself by paying the usual fee, as >his qualifications to practice would not have changed. Perhaps he should. >Peter Moran MB BS BSc(Med) FRCS FRACS
Response:
Perhaps Barrett should be viewed like Ralph Nader — he definitely has many sources of reliable info, he legitimately believes in his cause, & he often alienates people with his "bedside manner". I don’t think he claims to be a "people person" though. Michele
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> << To > Barrett’s credit, Barrett forges ahead without some PR person trying to > soften > the public up. I don’t know all the details about Barrett’s true motives > or > financing, but based on what I see of his actions, I think he follows his > passion for what he believes in… >> > I guess what isn’t clear to me, and others is where Dr. Barrett has gotten > all > of his information for his website. > I’d like to know where Dr. Barrett has personally studied to come up with > the > information on his website. All of the "quack" or "health frauds" that > are > listed on his site, would seem it would take years to personally study, > and I > for one, would like to see times, places, and personal studies, for which > Dr. > Barrett has personally participated in, rather than the manner in which > the > information is now presented. While in the fact, one can be skeptical of > practices (I am skeptical of some alternative practices myself), but if > one > does not have the medical background in each of these therapies to go > along > with the criticisms, or skeptical viewpoints, for me, all of the data on > the > website, for me, holds very little water, which makes me very skeptical of > any > of the information presented there. > myself, i have no doubt that barrett has alot of credible sources of > information and has a ‘case’ against many of the modalities that he attacks. > what makes me ’skeptical’ of the information he presents is the very obvious > "passion for what he believes in" part that the initial quote talks about. > (sorry, don’t know who that paragraph came from) > it would seem obvious that remaining somewhat objective is tantamount to > winning over the audience in a situation like shedding light on unproven > health modalities. > when the passion overtakes any semblance of objectivity, there goes a whole > lot of credibililty. > barrett is no different, in this way, than ilena. > projecting a ridiculing / condescending outlook is going to offend/alienate > many of the very people whom he should be trying hardest to reach. he is, in > effect, insulting his intended audience. > it has always seemed to me that many ’skeptics’ who profess to be wanting to > make some sort of change in the big bad world of quackery here on the > internet are really only talking to each other—-they generally appear to > be attempting to impress their own peers with how dedicated / ferocious / > witty they are when it comes to offing the opposition. > in effect, they express disdain and contempt for their supposed actual > audience (people considering unproven modalities or who have used them in > the past) > now, some do this with a huge sense of humor and a total lack of ego (like > peterb.) so there’s no mistaking a lack of objectivity for any ‘noble’ > purpose. > then there are apparently some ’skeptics’ who are well-versed in formal > debate tactics and genuinely seem interested in finding a ‘worthy opponent’ > amongst the pro-alt sorts. they aren’t trolling or baiting or being too > personal, they REALLY want to have a go with someone whom they see as being > on their level. > and since they seem to find few if any of these ‘worthy opponents’ at mha, > i’m surprised more of them don’t reincarnate themselves as a pro alt poster > to play devils’ advocate and get a "worthy" debate under their belt. > now THAT would be funny to read. > doing it on sci.skeptic would be even funnier. ((but i hazard a guess that > many of the skeptics there are actually ’scared’ of each others’ ferocious > wit.)) > not that i condone the dishonesty/trollishness of presenting yourself as > someone else on the NG, but i feel so sorry for the ’skeptics’ who can’t > find anyone to debate with on their level—-way up there. <G> > anyway, back to barrett’s communication style….. > imho, it could use some work. > IF he is sincerely trying to help people. > if *not*–if it’s just some sort of outlet and/or back-patting forum, then > he obviously has accumulated loads of respect and admiration from his peers > so i suppose he’s done just fine. > — > Willow: "I bet you’ll think coding is pretty cool. I mean, if you find > two-digit > multi-stacked conversions and primary number clusters a big hoot." > Buffy: "He should be doing sixty years in prison, breaking rocks and making > special friends with Rosco the weight lifter." > Xander: "Yikes. The quality of mercy is not Buffy."
Response:
. To **Barrett’s credit, Barrett forges ahead without some PR person trying to soften **the public up. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> << To > Barrett’s credit, Barrett forges ahead without some PR person trying to soften > the public up. I don’t know all the details about Barrett’s true motives or > financing, but based on what I see of his actions, I think he follows his > passion for what he believes in… >> > I guess what isn’t clear to me, and others is where Dr. Barrett has gotten all > of his information for his website. > I’d like to know where Dr. Barrett has personally studied to come up with the > information on his website. All of the "quack" or "health frauds" that are > listed on his site, would seem it would take years to personally study, and I > for one, would like to see times, places, and personal studies, for which Dr. > Barrett has personally participated in, rather than the manner in which the > information is now presented. While in the fact, one can be skeptical of > practices (I am skeptical of some alternative practices myself), but if one > does not have the medical background in each of these therapies to go along > with the criticisms, or skeptical viewpoints, for me, all of the data on the > website, for me, holds very little water, which makes me very skeptical of any > of the information presented there.
myself, i have no doubt that barrett has alot of credible sources of information and has a ‘case’ against many of the modalities that he attacks. what makes me ’skeptical’ of the information he presents is the very obvious "passion for what he believes in" part that the initial quote talks about. (sorry, don’t know who that paragraph came from) it would seem obvious that remaining somewhat objective is tantamount to winning over the audience in a situation like shedding light on unproven health modalities. when the passion overtakes any semblance of objectivity, there goes a whole lot of credibililty. barrett is no different, in this way, than ilena. projecting a ridiculing / condescending outlook is going to offend/alienate many of the very people whom he should be trying hardest to reach. he is, in effect, insulting his intended audience. it has always seemed to me that many ’skeptics’ who profess to be wanting to make some sort of change in the big bad world of quackery here on the internet are really only talking to each other—-they generally appear to be attempting to impress their own peers with how dedicated / ferocious / witty they are when it comes to offing the opposition. in effect, they express disdain and contempt for their supposed actual audience (people considering unproven modalities or who have used them in the past) now, some do this with a huge sense of humor and a total lack of ego (like peterb.) so there’s no mistaking a lack of objectivity for any ‘noble’ purpose. then there are apparently some ’skeptics’ who are well-versed in formal debate tactics and genuinely seem interested in finding a ‘worthy opponent’ amongst the pro-alt sorts. they aren’t trolling or baiting or being too personal, they REALLY want to have a go with someone whom they see as being on their level. and since they seem to find few if any of these ‘worthy opponents’ at mha, i’m surprised more of them don’t reincarnate themselves as a pro alt poster to play devils’ advocate and get a "worthy" debate under their belt. now THAT would be funny to read. doing it on sci.skeptic would be even funnier. ((but i hazard a guess that many of the skeptics there are actually ’scared’ of each others’ ferocious wit.)) not that i condone the dishonesty/trollishness of presenting yourself as someone else on the NG, but i feel so sorry for the ’skeptics’ who can’t find anyone to debate with on their level—-way up there. <G> anyway, back to barrett’s communication style….. imho, it could use some work. IF he is sincerely trying to help people. if *not*–if it’s just some sort of outlet and/or back-patting forum, then he obviously has accumulated loads of respect and admiration from his peers so i suppose he’s done just fine. — Willow: "I bet you’ll think coding is pretty cool. I mean, if you find two-digit multi-stacked conversions and primary number clusters a big hoot." Buffy: "He should be doing sixty years in prison, breaking rocks and making special friends with Rosco the weight lifter." Xander: "Yikes. The quality of mercy is not Buffy."
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -><< To >Barrett’s credit, Barrett forges ahead without some PR person trying to >soften >the public up. I don’t know all the details about Barrett’s true motives or >financing, but based on what I see of his actions, I think he follows his >passion for what he believes in… >> >I guess what isn’t clear to me, and others is where Dr. Barrett has gotten >all >of his information for his website. >I’d like to know where Dr. Barrett has personally studied to come up with >the >information on his website. All of the "quack" or "health frauds" that are >listed on his site, would seem it would take years to personally study, and >I >for one, would like to see times, places, and personal studies, for which >Dr. >Barrett has personally participated in, rather than the manner in which the >information is now presented. While in the fact, one can be skeptical of >practices (I am skeptical of some alternative practices myself), but if one >does not have the medical background in each of these therapies to go along >with the criticisms, or skeptical viewpoints, for me, all of the data on the >website, for me, holds very little water, which makes me very skeptical of >any >of the information presented there. >Did you read his CV which is available on his site? >Perhaps you might get your answers there.
Also note that Dr Barrett usually provides good bibliographies. In addition to mainstream, scientific evidence, he also gives readers links to the website of the opposing viewpoint. How many pro-alts give links to the opposing viewpoint?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -><< To >Barrett’s credit, Barrett forges ahead without some PR person trying to soften >the public up. I don’t know all the details about Barrett’s true motives or >financing, but based on what I see of his actions, I think he follows his >passion for what he believes in… >> >I guess what isn’t clear to me, and others is where Dr. Barrett has gotten all >of his information for his website. >I’d like to know where Dr. Barrett has personally studied to come up with the >information on his website. All of the "quack" or "health frauds" that are >listed on his site, would seem it would take years to personally study, and I >for one, would like to see times, places, and personal studies, for which Dr. >Barrett has personally participated in, rather than the manner in which the >information is now presented. While in the fact, one can be skeptical of >practices (I am skeptical of some alternative practices myself), but if one >does not have the medical background in each of these therapies to go along >with the criticisms, or skeptical viewpoints, for me, all of the data on the >website, for me, holds very little water, which makes me very skeptical of any >of the information presented there.
Did you read his CV which is available on his site? Perhaps you might get your answers there.
Response:
In nursing, in order to maintain one’s license one has to actively practice nursing. Ditto for massage therapy. Probably other licensed occupations too. If I retired from nursing & massage therapy tomorrow, why in heaven’s name would I maintain my licenses? Especially in light of the fact that *at the time of the next license renewal I’d have to give it up anyway because I retired & wasn’t actively practicing anymore*. Attacking Barrett for his opinions is to be expected. Trying to attach some sinister meaning to a retired person not renewing their professional license is lame. Has every retired person here maintained their pre-retirement professional existence? If so, why bother retiring in the first place? Michele
Response:
<< To Barrett’s credit, Barrett forges ahead without some PR person trying to soften the public up. I don’t know all the details about Barrett’s true motives or financing, but based on what I see of his actions, I think he follows his passion for what he believes in… >> I guess what isn’t clear to me, and others is where Dr. Barrett has gotten all of his information for his website. I’d like to know where Dr. Barrett has personally studied to come up with the information on his website. All of the "quack" or "health frauds" that are listed on his site, would seem it would take years to personally study, and I for one, would like to see times, places, and personal studies, for which Dr. Barrett has personally participated in, rather than the manner in which the information is now presented. While in the fact, one can be skeptical of practices (I am skeptical of some alternative practices myself), but if one does not have the medical background in each of these therapies to go along with the criticisms, or skeptical viewpoints, for me, all of the data on the website, for me, holds very little water, which makes me very skeptical of any of the information presented there. Debbee "The world is sad enough without your woe." — Orison Swett Marden —
Response:
> Must admit … I really did laugh out loud when I got sent > how Barrett handles the Homeopath Defeat to the other HealthFrauds …
How is what you post below, Ilena, an example of "how Barrett handles the Homeopath Defeat to the other HealthFrauds…"? As I read it, it appears to be an opinion by a man named "Paul Hilling," commenting on the case. I have to chuckle at how you are trying to turn this into some sort of manipulation by Barrett. I think what Tim Bolen (who is "The Cure For All Diseases" author’s PR person, who is mentioned below) has to say about the whole situation is what really gets quite funny…..until one realizes some actually believe what Bolen says. To Barrett’s credit, Barrett forges ahead without some PR person trying to soften the public up. I don’t know all the details about Barrett’s true motives or financing, but based on what I see of his actions, I think he follows his passion for what he believes in……sort of like you, Ilena. In fact you and Barrett seem to share a lot of similarities. But Barrett is trained and experienced in medicine…..what are you trained and experienced in, Ilena? -Bill Ross – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > From Hulda’s minions’ latest diatribe: >>On December 17th, 2001 Judge Fromholz delivered his > signed decision in the case. And, he didn’t say > ANYTHING good about the quackbusters. You can read > his decision, word for word, by going to the front > page of http://www.savedrclark.org, and clicking on "A > Judge’s View of the Quackbusters." I’ve taken the > liberty of highlighting important parts of the > Judges’s decision in blue. > From the decision: >>Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which > point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. > My Comment: > People reading this should know that the court’s decision was probably > written mostly or completely by the defendants in this case. The negative > connotations of phrases such as "he contends he allowed his medical license > to lapse" probably are not stricken by the judge because they are not false > (although the word "contends" would tend to imply some disagreement in the > matter). But, Bolen would have us to believe that the judge had contempt > for the plaintiffs and their position. > There is no reason to disbelieve Dr. Barrett’s perfectly reasonable > statement that he allowed his state medical license to lapse once he decided > to go into fighting healthfraud full time where, by the way, he is providing > an invaluable public service. I doubt many MDs continue to maintain their > licences once they know they have retired for good. What would be the > point? > It seems that the NCAHF’s strategy was to shift the burden of proof to the > defendants requiring them to show that their products had efficacy, and that > they therefore were not perpetrating a fraud upon the citizens of > California. Unfortunately, the judge did not allow this effort and > essentially placed the burden upon the plaintiffs to prove a negative. > As little as I know about law, it doesn’t seem that the court was > unreasonable in its decision. I suspect the NCAHF knew it was not a sure > thing, especially considering the legality of homeopathic remedies due to an > unfortunate grandfathering as legal drugs. > "Homeopathic ‘remedies’ enjoy a unique status in the health marketplace: > They are the only category of quack products legally marketable as drugs. > This situation is the result of two circumstances. First, the 1938 Federal > Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was shepherded through Congress by a > homeopathic physician who was a senator, recognizes as drugs all substances > included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States. Second, the > FDA has not held homeopathic products to the same standards as other > drugs…" http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html > My sense of the lawsuit is that it was a noble effort on the part of the > NCAHF and that many valuable lessons were learned for future battles. Now, > if we could just get those paymasters to put up more millions <G>. > Paul Hilling > Anchorage Alaska
Response:
What the Judge really said: EXCERPTS: "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." "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." 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…. …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. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC., Plaintiff v. KING BIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; FRANK J. KING, JR.; and DOES 1-50, 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
Related Posts