Quackbuster Stephen Barrett: **Not an Expert,** Declares Judge!
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:31 am
Quackbuster Stephen Barrett:
**Not an Expert,** Declares Judge!
_http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/editorial/quack.htm_
(http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/editorial/quack.htm)
Stephen Barrett, the Wizard of Odds, played his odds and lost. He just
hasn't had a very good year.
Stephen Barrett has attacked some of the most successful alternative
therapies in the world. He has issued threats and initiated lawsuits, and until
last year, got away with all of it. Then, his world began to crumble.
Barrett filed a lawsuit against King Bio Pharmaceuticals, makers of
homeopathics. Now, science has already established the value of homeopathy, but
Barrett, ignoring science while pandering to the pharmaceutical industry,
just had to do something. The result?
Here is an excerpt from the judge's decision:
As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs,
the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this
area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency
enforces federal statutes and the agency's own regulations. Dr. Barrett's
purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer,
although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law
school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with
FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own
instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his
various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified before any
governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of
drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated
given that he has not had a current medical licence [sic] in over seven
years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr.
Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address.
Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the
issues in this case associated with Defendants' products.
C. Credibility of Plaintiff's experts
Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are
biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded
their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of
the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in
an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict
the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson's university course
presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine.
Dr. Barrett's heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative
medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which
he opines. Both witnesses' fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a
fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as
the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr.
Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of
NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and
thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It
is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial
interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors,
Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the
Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or
experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly
be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and
therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that
basis as well.
This was just one loss in court. The story gets better.
Some of you know how we here at the International Wellness Directory have
taken an stance against fluoridation. The stuff is just not what the
American Dental Association has been preaching. I do not drink the stuff and I
have just three fluoride treatments a year…and then detox the heck out of
myself.
Well, Darlene Sherrell had a web site dedicated to fighting Fluoride
Poisoning. She had been under attack by Stephen Barrett and his ilk for some
time. She fought back and attacked Barrette. Barrett filed a libel lawsuit
against her. He's threatened many people with defamation of character lawsuits
(including yours truly) but this was the first time it has gotten to court.
Here is the background, from the Health Freedom Law web site
(_www.healthfreedomlaw.com_ (http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/) ):
In the summer of 1998, Darlene Sherrell, challenged Barrett to come
forward to name a study demonstrating the safety of current fluoride levels in
drinking water and the effect excessive daily intake of fluoride as a
possible cause to chronic fluoride poisoning. At the time, in response to
Sherrell's challenge Barrett was **careful to state that he is and was aware of
hundreds of studies pertaining to the safety of fluoridation of drinking
water...** However, **...He did not testify that any study demonstrates the
safety of current fluoridation levels...** Barrett had rebuked Sherrell's
continuous challenges and sent a message to her stating that she (Sherrell) was
**delusional.**
Long story short, the case was dismissed. Barrett who claims to be backed
by the FDA, FTC, DHHS, NCI, HIH, AMA, and ADA showed up with one witness
and his own lame testimony. Barrett claimed to have hundreds of studies, but
couldn't produce one.
Next, Barrett attacked that famous quack, Dr Hulda Clark who says she can
cure all diseases. Now, personally, I don't believe anyone can cure all
diseases. There is something very mystical about healing. And Dr Hulda is
probably a bit whacko. But, I still love her. She has some darn good ideas and
science is beginning to prove her out, though again, no one can cure all
diseases. Well, Barrett lost his case against her too.
Now, this isn't over yet, because there are laws against filing frivolous
lawsuits and Barrett is just beginning to feel the backlash of his
programmed stupidity. He's been slapped left and right with lawsuits for filing
frivolous lawsuits, and it is estimated that he now owes somewhere close to
half a million dollars.
After years of threatening everyone and everything with lawsuits, Barrett
is on the losing end of every single one of them. This being the case, he
dropped his lawsuit against Dr Joseph Mercola, who runs one of the best
alternative medicine web sites in the world (and much of what we find and pass
on to you comes from the good doctor).
So, to all those wonderful organizations who give credence to the garbage
published at Quackwatch (and their ilk) and to the URAC (_www.urac.org_
(http://www.urac.org/) ) that certifies Medically Sound Web Sites (Barrett's
web site is certified by URAC), we say, your time is running out. Barrett is
no expert, he has no science to back up his claims, and his web site has
enough BS to fertilize all the farms in the Great MidWest.
Medicine as we know it, is on the brink of destruction. Healing is where
the heart is. The future of Medicine is going to be based upon what Edison
and Socrates tried to tell us long ago: **We are what we eat** along with
what ancient texts, including the Bible, have told us for centuries: Our
Creator (Nature) has supplied us with all the medicines we will ever need. Now,
if we can stop the corruption of our environment by monied interests,
heck, Paradise isn't too far off.
See Also:
_The History of Quackery_
(http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/quackery.htm)
_The Six Components of the 2008 Quackbuster Operation_
(http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/Newslette ... uackbuster_)
_Health Care for Dummies_
(http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/health_care.htm)
_Quacks on Quacks (ABC's Prime Time Expose)_
(http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/editorial/prime_time.htm)
_Quackpot Watch ― The Last Days of QuackBusters_
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/)
**Not an Expert,** Declares Judge!
_http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/editorial/quack.htm_
(http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/editorial/quack.htm)
Stephen Barrett, the Wizard of Odds, played his odds and lost. He just
hasn't had a very good year.
Stephen Barrett has attacked some of the most successful alternative
therapies in the world. He has issued threats and initiated lawsuits, and until
last year, got away with all of it. Then, his world began to crumble.
Barrett filed a lawsuit against King Bio Pharmaceuticals, makers of
homeopathics. Now, science has already established the value of homeopathy, but
Barrett, ignoring science while pandering to the pharmaceutical industry,
just had to do something. The result?
Here is an excerpt from the judge's decision:
As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs,
the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this
area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency
enforces federal statutes and the agency's own regulations. Dr. Barrett's
purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer,
although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law
school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with
FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own
instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his
various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified before any
governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of
drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated
given that he has not had a current medical licence [sic] in over seven
years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr.
Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address.
Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the
issues in this case associated with Defendants' products.
C. Credibility of Plaintiff's experts
Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are
biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded
their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of
the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in
an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict
the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson's university course
presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine.
Dr. Barrett's heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative
medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which
he opines. Both witnesses' fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a
fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as
the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr.
Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of
NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and
thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It
is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial
interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors,
Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the
Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or
experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly
be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and
therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that
basis as well.
This was just one loss in court. The story gets better.
Some of you know how we here at the International Wellness Directory have
taken an stance against fluoridation. The stuff is just not what the
American Dental Association has been preaching. I do not drink the stuff and I
have just three fluoride treatments a year…and then detox the heck out of
myself.
Well, Darlene Sherrell had a web site dedicated to fighting Fluoride
Poisoning. She had been under attack by Stephen Barrett and his ilk for some
time. She fought back and attacked Barrette. Barrett filed a libel lawsuit
against her. He's threatened many people with defamation of character lawsuits
(including yours truly) but this was the first time it has gotten to court.
Here is the background, from the Health Freedom Law web site
(_www.healthfreedomlaw.com_ (http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/) ):
In the summer of 1998, Darlene Sherrell, challenged Barrett to come
forward to name a study demonstrating the safety of current fluoride levels in
drinking water and the effect excessive daily intake of fluoride as a
possible cause to chronic fluoride poisoning. At the time, in response to
Sherrell's challenge Barrett was **careful to state that he is and was aware of
hundreds of studies pertaining to the safety of fluoridation of drinking
water...** However, **...He did not testify that any study demonstrates the
safety of current fluoridation levels...** Barrett had rebuked Sherrell's
continuous challenges and sent a message to her stating that she (Sherrell) was
**delusional.**
Long story short, the case was dismissed. Barrett who claims to be backed
by the FDA, FTC, DHHS, NCI, HIH, AMA, and ADA showed up with one witness
and his own lame testimony. Barrett claimed to have hundreds of studies, but
couldn't produce one.
Next, Barrett attacked that famous quack, Dr Hulda Clark who says she can
cure all diseases. Now, personally, I don't believe anyone can cure all
diseases. There is something very mystical about healing. And Dr Hulda is
probably a bit whacko. But, I still love her. She has some darn good ideas and
science is beginning to prove her out, though again, no one can cure all
diseases. Well, Barrett lost his case against her too.
Now, this isn't over yet, because there are laws against filing frivolous
lawsuits and Barrett is just beginning to feel the backlash of his
programmed stupidity. He's been slapped left and right with lawsuits for filing
frivolous lawsuits, and it is estimated that he now owes somewhere close to
half a million dollars.
After years of threatening everyone and everything with lawsuits, Barrett
is on the losing end of every single one of them. This being the case, he
dropped his lawsuit against Dr Joseph Mercola, who runs one of the best
alternative medicine web sites in the world (and much of what we find and pass
on to you comes from the good doctor).
So, to all those wonderful organizations who give credence to the garbage
published at Quackwatch (and their ilk) and to the URAC (_www.urac.org_
(http://www.urac.org/) ) that certifies Medically Sound Web Sites (Barrett's
web site is certified by URAC), we say, your time is running out. Barrett is
no expert, he has no science to back up his claims, and his web site has
enough BS to fertilize all the farms in the Great MidWest.
Medicine as we know it, is on the brink of destruction. Healing is where
the heart is. The future of Medicine is going to be based upon what Edison
and Socrates tried to tell us long ago: **We are what we eat** along with
what ancient texts, including the Bible, have told us for centuries: Our
Creator (Nature) has supplied us with all the medicines we will ever need. Now,
if we can stop the corruption of our environment by monied interests,
heck, Paradise isn't too far off.
See Also:
_The History of Quackery_
(http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/quackery.htm)
_The Six Components of the 2008 Quackbuster Operation_
(http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/Newslette ... uackbuster_)
_Health Care for Dummies_
(http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/health_care.htm)
_Quacks on Quacks (ABC's Prime Time Expose)_
(http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/editorial/prime_time.htm)
_Quackpot Watch ― The Last Days of QuackBusters_
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/)