Grin and Barrett

[HysteryDiagnosis]

http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html

Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases
At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam.

This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training.

The most damning testimony before the jury, under the intense cross-examination by Negrete, was that Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single one at trial.

During the course of his examination, Barrett also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

[KT2000]

thank you for posting this n/t

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. It's what I do, but thanks for appreciating the material... thanks for not

unreccing.... thanks for being you. I found so much stuff wrong with Barrett's articles 12 years ago or so... found him to be somewhat of a joke.

[KT2000]

3. I wish he was funny

but as a person who has been injured by over-exposure to certain chemicals, I have found him to be a nuisance, and worse. He co-authored a paper with Ronald Gots that characterized chemically injured people as nuts, malingerers, attention seekers and lawsuit seekers. Spouses of such people would do well to divorce the sick spouse before a lot of money is spent trying to find a cure. - pretty sick stuff.
He is suspected of being behind the efforts in California to have doctors who diagnose people injured by chemicals as anything other than psychiatric cases, lose their license. Even the CA Medical Assoc. fought that.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Wow.... pretty irresponsible dude for being such an "authority" on things

he knows little about.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

9. Those are quite some claims.

Prove them, and don't pull the "suspected" BS. That is how the alt-med industry lies about those who expose their lies.

[KT2000]

24. Do your own research

Once I suggested you research Sinaiko vs State of CA. Read the Amicus Brief from the CA Medical Assoc.

[HuckleB]

27. In other words, as usual, you can't support any of your claims.

:boring:

[trotsky]

1. Thanks for the six year old story!

I suppose you aren't interested in posting the actual court summary instead of this horribly biased opinion piece, right?

[uppityperson]

5. Aw, you're no fun. eom

[HuckleB]

16. It looks like you've been given the answer to that question.

:(

[Celebration]

6. His tactics were a

Precursor to Righthaven! He counted on people settling their cases rather than go to the cost of fighting it in court. I know that there were results of some cases that pretty much shut him up, but I too, would like a source that had the actual testimony rather than slanted reporting.

He purports to be an expert on everything Quack, but he is not a skeptic, he is a professional debunker, and his reporting is biased, selectively reporting studies for instance--cherry picking the studies he reports, etc. I would love to know his funding sources.

[trotsky]

7. He has worked very hard exposing the frauds in the alt-med industry.

And the alt-med industry has responded as they always do, with character assassination. You are doing it too - throwing all sorts of accusations with no evidence, along with the classic, "hmm, I wonder where he gets his funding" indirect attack that pro-science posters receive routinely in this very forum.

[HuckleB]

8. +1

[Celebration]

11. oh come on

I have plenty of evidence. He sued any and everyone he could, just like Righthaven. He wouldn't settle for people taking down so called offending things from their websites. It was more blackmail than anything. Finally someone stopped it thankfully by challenging him.

He cherry picks studies. I know because I have compared the PubMed database against what he puts on his website in certain areas. I'm not here to prove anything to you or anyone else, he just isn't worth the effort.

As I said, he is a dubunker, not a skeptic. He may or may not work hard at that. I have no idea and don't care.

[trotsky]

12. "plenty of evidence"

Then provide it. From neutral sources, of course.

Oh sorry, you also said you aren't here to back up anything you say. Never mind then.

[Celebration]

13. you can read this, if you want

http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html

[HuckleB]

14. So you don't trust Barrett, but you trust a guy who sells supplements?

http://www.raysahelian.com/books.html

Now why would Ray be unhappy with Barrett?

:rofl:

[Celebration]

17. correct

you need to read it

[HuckleB]

19. So you presume I haven't read the rantings of a supplement seller?

Got it.

How do you rant about Quackwatch while pushing a quack in the attack?

It's bizarre.

[trotsky]

15. I asked for a neutral source.

That is CLEARLY not. Mr. Sahelian has a financial stake in the matter. And from the looks of his website, a significant one.

[Celebration]

18. his perspective is correct

yes he has a financial stake in selling supplements.

But exactly how is Barrett an expert in nutritional supplementation? Does he have any particular training in that area? The fact that he represents that he has some sort of expertise in this (when he doesn't) makes him somewhat of a quack himself.

[HuckleB]

20. Since the guy bashing him clearly doesn't understand how science works...

... how is he an expert in any of these matters?

[trotsky]

21. You admit he is not a neutral source.

That's all I needed to hear, and all I needed to know about your evidence. Thanks.

Side question - Sahelian's site simply says he "completed his doctoral training at Thomas Jefferson Medical School" - do you have any information about what his specialty/focus was, and if that automatically qualifies him to be an unquestioned expert on nutrition and supplements, compared to Barrett? Thanks very much for any information you can provide!

[Celebration]

22. fine

I didn't expect this to satisfy you.

I put it up for the benefit of neutral parties here, because a careful reading of it will give a clear indication of the motives of Quackwatch.

[trotsky]

23. All I asked for was a neutral source.

Since the claims you make should be readily documented, I did not realize it was going to be such an unreasonable request.

I think that neutral parties here will indeed benefit from seeing you attempt to back up your claims by appealing to an authority who has no more documented background than the person you are attacking.

[Celebration]

25. try this

http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-06-22/news/doctor-who/



Barrett, a former psychiatrist in Allentown, Pennsylvania, doesn't sugarcoat his bitter pills. His site is a virtual hit list of therapies he finds too illogical to be tested for their validity. Chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy, vitamins and herbs, relaxation techniques, and preventive nutrition plans, as well as specific practitioners like Dr. Bernie Siegel, M.D. (author of Love, Medicine & Miracles and Peace, Love & Healing), Deepak Chopra (ayurvedic guru), and myriad others, are included in the quackery roundup.

Barrett, now a full-time journalist and book author and never a medical researcher, says he exposes underresearched, illogical therapies with little written about them. Yet he also says he examines reams of material to reach the conclusions published on his site, which are then often quoted as undisputed fact in the mainstream media.

Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. "It's easy to look at something like chiropractic, see what they're doing, and describe what they're doing wrong," Barrett says. He adds that he does not criticize conventional medicine because "that's way outside my scope."

Barrett believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing specifically to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture. He believes that consumers should rely solely on established medical groups and studies, and that anyone who wants to consider info on both sides is "waiting to be quacked in a major way."

[trotsky]

26. While that is a much better source,

it is also 12 years old and does not back up the specific claims you made.

[HuckleB]

28. This article supports Barrett's concerns about plausibility.

As well as the reality that alt-med has been studied to no end with bad results. Putting money down a black hole makes no sense.

Thanks for showing us all that again!

[Celebration]

29. shows him to be close minded

and biased, and selecting sources in a way that slants the information to his world view.

[HuckleB]

30. No, it doesn't.

It shows that he understands the concept of plausibility, and that science should not waste resources continuing to "study" things have failed to show benefit, repeatedly, via research.

How do you miss that reality?

This is not about a world view. This is about basic plausibility and evidence. If you don't care about those things, great. But then why would you ever care about research of any kind?

PS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

[Celebration]

31. "plausibility"

Gauging so called plausibility is not scientific, and is informed by prejudice and mindset.

But, in any case, peoplc can read the Village Voice piece and see exactly where Barrett is coming from. Since you like it too, then it must be ideal.

[HuckleB]

32. It's very scientific.

It's based on evidence.

Try again.

[Celebration]

33. whatever

He admits that he uses a different proof standard for the alternative modalities that he bashes, as compared to pharmaceuticals.

If people think that this is completely scientific and appropriate, they are quite welcome to use Quackwatch as their bible.

[HuckleB]

34. "Whatever."

In other words, evidence does not really matter to you.

You've repeatedly ignored the reality of the science and the big picture in order to change the goalposts with little nothings that do not justify ignoring the science. This ever changing red herring about Barrett is just another in a long line of pointless distractions meant to keep everyone from focusing on the actual science.