Amazing Meeting II

Quoted message said:

http://www.randi.org/jref/tamii.html

Amongst the featured speakers....

We'll have two important speakers informing us on the present state of
quackery. Dr. Steve Barrett, of www.Quackwatch.com fame will describe the
situation in the USA, and *Peter Bowditch*, from Australia, will bring Down
Under Quackery, way Up Top for us.

-----------------------------

This looks like a great meeting.

Perhaps the MHA Faithful should organize a roadtrip to Vegas!

Shame Bolen isn't there to stir up a hornets nest.
In fact I doubt that anyone who is critical of Dr Barret and Bowditch will
be there so it will be plain sailing for both of them.
Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.randi.org/jref/tamii.html

Amongst the featured speakers....

We'll have two important speakers informing us on the present state of
quackery. Dr. Steve Barrett, of www.Quackwatch.com fame will describe the
situation in the USA, and *Peter Bowditch*, from Australia, will bring

Down

Quoted message said:

Under Quackery, way Up Top for us.

-----------------------------

This looks like a great meeting.

Quoted message said:

Shame Bolen isn't there to stir up a hornets nest.
In fact I doubt that anyone who is critical of Dr Barret and Bowditch will
be there so it will be plain sailing for both of them.
Anth

Unlike top-posting [censored] like yourself, they welcome comment from
dissenters. As Jan Drew says, they are always in need of small-minded victims
to belittle.

Quoted message said:

"Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.randi.org/jref/tamii.html

Amongst the featured speakers....

We'll have two important speakers informing us on the present state of
quackery. Dr. Steve Barrett, of www.Quackwatch.com fame will describe the
situation in the USA, and *Peter Bowditch*, from Australia, will bring

Down

Quoted message said:

Under Quackery, way Up Top for us.

-----------------------------

This looks like a great meeting.

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shame Bolen isn't there to stir up a hornets nest.
In fact I doubt that anyone who is critical of Dr Barret and Bowditch will
be there so it will be plain sailing for both of them.

Do you think that there wil be anyone down the road at the conference with
mercola who is critical of him? Hm...perhaps Peter....

If there are any wannabe critics, they can pay the airfare and attend.

Quoted message said:

Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote

in

Quoted message said:

message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.randi.org/jref/tamii.html

Amongst the featured speakers....

We'll have two important speakers informing us on the present state of
quackery. Dr. Steve Barrett, of www.Quackwatch.com fame will describe

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

situation in the USA, and *Peter Bowditch*, from Australia, will bring

Down

Quoted message said:

Under Quackery, way Up Top for us.

-----------------------------

This looks like a great meeting.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Amazing Meeting II
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 1/9/2004 11:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Shame Bolen isn't there to stir up a hornets nest.
In fact I doubt that anyone who is critical of Dr Barret and Bowditch will
be there so it will be plain sailing for both of them.
Anth

Facts are, Barrett is not qualifed to judge and Peter Bowditch has no medical
training.

It's an atta boy back slapping meeting filled with lies, lies and more lies.

Satan will be present and very pleased.

Jan

(Diversion) Mercola - If there are any wannabe critics, they can pay the
airfare and attend.
Dr Barret claims to espouse the scientific method and his site is a myriad
of information based on his own opinion - that is not 'science.' Of course
that will be overlooked by the wannabes like Bowditch.
(Fair enough Dr Barret does supply references for some of his information -
the rest is 'Pick n Mix'😉
Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 9, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shame Bolen isn't there to stir up a hornets nest.
In fact I doubt that anyone who is critical of Dr Barret and Bowditch

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be there so it will be plain sailing for both of them.

Do you think that there wil be anyone down the road at the conference with
mercola who is critical of him? Hm...perhaps Peter....

If there are any wannabe critics, they can pay the airfare and attend.

Quoted message said:

Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote

in

Quoted message said:

message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.randi.org/jref/tamii.html

Amongst the featured speakers....

We'll have two important speakers informing us on the present state of
quackery. Dr. Steve Barrett, of www.Quackwatch.com fame will describe

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

situation in the USA, and *Peter Bowditch*, from Australia, will bring

Down

Quoted message said:

Under Quackery, way Up Top for us.

-----------------------------

This looks like a great meeting.

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Amazing Meeting II
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 1/9/2004 11:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Shame Bolen isn't there to stir up a hornets nest.
In fact I doubt that anyone who is critical of Dr Barret and Bowditch

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be there so it will be plain sailing for both of them.
Anth

Facts are, Barrett is not qualifed to judge

Barrett has studied quackery for thrity years. What are YOUR credentials?

and Peter Bowditch has no medical

Quoted message said:

training.

However, he has an education and an inquiring mind. When you get either, let
us know.

Quoted message said:

It's an atta boy back slapping meeting filled with lies, lies and more

lies.

Did you read the website about it? Peter get 30 minutes in 4 days.

Quoted message said:

Satan will be present and very pleased.

I checked the guest roster and he is not listed.

There are many people writing for his site. When he does not have citations,
he points out the impossibility of the item under discussion.

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Diversion) Mercola - If there are any wannabe critics, they can pay the
airfare and attend.
Dr Barret claims to espouse the scientific method and his site is a myriad
of information based on his own opinion - that is not 'science.' Of course
that will be overlooked by the wannabes like Bowditch.
(Fair enough Dr Barret does supply references for some of his

information -

Quoted message said:

the rest is 'Pick n Mix'😉
Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 9, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote

in

Quoted message said:

message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shame Bolen isn't there to stir up a hornets nest.
In fact I doubt that anyone who is critical of Dr Barret and Bowditch

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be there so it will be plain sailing for both of them.

Do you think that there wil be anyone down the road at the conference

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mercola who is critical of him? Hm...perhaps Peter....

If there are any wannabe critics, they can pay the airfare and attend.

Quoted message said:

Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" <[email hidden]>

wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in

Quoted message said:

message news:[email hidden]...
> http://www.randi.org/jref/tamii.html
>
> Amongst the featured speakers....
>
> We'll have two important speakers informing us on the present state

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> quackery. Dr. Steve Barrett, of www.Quackwatch.com fame will

describe

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

> situation in the USA, and *Peter Bowditch*, from Australia, will

bring

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Down
> Under Quackery, way Up Top for us.
>
> -----------------------------
>
> This looks like a great meeting.
>
>
>

Dr Barret might have studied quackery, be the self proclaimed 'Guide to
Health Fraud.'
I have studied computers for 20 years (have the equivalent skills) that
doesn't quite cut it with respect to me being the self proclaimed computer
genius.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html
Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
Should Be Defunded.

How can we know if an alternative shows effect or doesn't when there's no
chance of it getting funding because there's no money in it or no
organisation that will test it?
Seems to me that Quackwatch would have the NCCAM defunded and slow the
progress of testing of alternative therapies.

As for unproven :-
While investigating Coley's toxins, I got an email from the ACS saying that
there was no scientific evidence that Coley's toxins alone were effective
for treating cancer.
In other words there is evidence that they are effective when used in
conjunction with proven therapies.
So go figure - unproven alternative therapy when used in conjunction with
mainstream methods _is_ effective.

Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 9, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Barrett has studied quackery for thrity years. What are YOUR credentials?

and Peter Bowditch has no medical

Quoted message said:

training.

However, he has an education and an inquiring mind. When you get either,

let

Quoted message said:

us know.

Quoted message said:

It's an atta boy back slapping meeting filled with lies, lies and more

lies.

Did you read the website about it? Peter get 30 minutes in 4 days.

Quoted message said:

Satan will be present and very pleased.

I checked the guest roster and he is not listed.

(opinion isn't science man)
Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 9, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There are many people writing for his site. When he does not have

citations,

Quoted message said:

he points out the impossibility of the item under discussion.

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Diversion) Mercola - If there are any wannabe critics, they can pay the
airfare and attend.
Dr Barret claims to espouse the scientific method and his site is a

myriad

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of information based on his own opinion - that is not 'science.' Of

course

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that will be overlooked by the wannabes like Bowditch.
(Fair enough Dr Barret does supply references for some of his

information -

Quoted message said:

the rest is 'Pick n Mix'😉
Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 9, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote

in

Quoted message said:

message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Shame Bolen isn't there to stir up a hornets nest.
> In fact I doubt that anyone who is critical of Dr Barret and

Bowditch

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

will

Quoted message said:

> be there so it will be plain sailing for both of them.

Do you think that there wil be anyone down the road at the conference

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mercola who is critical of him? Hm...perhaps Peter....

If there are any wannabe critics, they can pay the airfare and attend.

> Anth
>
> "Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" <[email hidden]>

wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in
> message news:[email hidden]...
> > http://www.randi.org/jref/tamii.html
> >
> > Amongst the featured speakers....
> >
> > We'll have two important speakers informing us on the present

state

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > quackery. Dr. Steve Barrett, of www.Quackwatch.com fame will

describe

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the
> > situation in the USA, and *Peter Bowditch*, from Australia, will

bring

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Down
> > Under Quackery, way Up Top for us.
> >
> > -----------------------------
> >
> > This looks like a great meeting.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Amazing Meeting II
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 1/9/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(opinion isn't science man)
Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 9, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There are many people writing for his site. When he does not have

citations,

Quoted message said:

he points out the impossibility of the item under discussion.

Tell me it is not so, Mark is top posting.

Where are all those who call names??

Ah?

Jan

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Diversion) Mercola - If there are any wannabe critics, they can pay the
airfare and attend.
Dr Barret claims to espouse the scientific method and his site is a

myriad

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of information based on his own opinion - that is not 'science.' Of

course

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that will be overlooked by the wannabes like Bowditch.
(Fair enough Dr Barret does supply references for some of his

information -

Quoted message said:

the rest is 'Pick n Mix'😉
Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 9, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote

in

Quoted message said:

message news:[email hidden]...
>
> "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > Shame Bolen isn't there to stir up a hornets nest.
> > In fact I doubt that anyone who is critical of Dr Barret and

Bowditch

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

will
> > be there so it will be plain sailing for both of them.
>
> Do you think that there wil be anyone down the road at the conference

with

Quoted message said:

> mercola who is critical of him? Hm...perhaps Peter....
>
> If there are any wannabe critics, they can pay the airfare and attend.
>
> > Anth
> >
> > "Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" <[email hidden]>

wrote

Quoted message said:

> in
> > message news:[email hidden]...
> > > http://www.randi.org/jref/tamii.html
> > >
> > > Amongst the featured speakers....
> > >
> > > We'll have two important speakers informing us on the present

state

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

> > > quackery. Dr. Steve Barrett, of www.Quackwatch.com fame will

describe

Quoted message said:

> the
> > > situation in the USA, and *Peter Bowditch*, from Australia, will

bring

Quoted message said:

> > Down
> > > Under Quackery, way Up Top for us.
> > >
> > > -----------------------------
> > >
> > > This looks like a great meeting.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Amazing Meeting II
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 1/9/2004 3:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Dr Barret might have studied quackery, be the self proclaimed 'Guide to
Health Fraud.'

Neither Barrett or Sampson are qualified, and bias, having little if any
credibility.

http://www.talkinternational.com/legal_barrett_baratz_king_bio_pharma.htm

B. Stephen Barrett, M.D.

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

Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he
contends he allowed his medical license to lapse.

**Like Dr. Sampson, he has no
formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although he claims to have
read and written extensively on homeopathy and other forms of alternative
medicine. Dr. Barrett’s **claim** to expertise on FDA issues arises from his
conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on the
subject and certain continuing education activities.

As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the
Court finds that

***Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area.***

Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency enforces
federal statutes and the agency’s own regulations.

*** Dr. Barrett’s purported
legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent.**

IOW's He LIED!!

He is not a lawyer, although he
claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr.
Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA
representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own
instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his
various articles and Internet web-sites.

***He has never testified before any
governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs.***

Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given
that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these
reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as
an expert on the issues he was offered to address. Moreover, there was no real
focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case
associated with Defendants’ products.

C. Credibility of Plaintiff’s experts

Furthermore, the Court finds that both

***Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased ***heavily*** in favor of the
Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their
testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of the
Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an
application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the
sale of most homeopathic drugs.

**Dr. Sampson’s university course presents what is effectively a
**one-sided,**

critical view of alternative medicine. Dr.
Barrett’s heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative
medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which
he opines. Both witnesses’ fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a
fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case
at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and
Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in
future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins
funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett.

***It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial
interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr.
Sampson and Dr.
Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff’s position,
and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of
these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs.
Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony
should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well***

==========

Quoted message said:

I have studied computers for 20 years (have the equivalent skills) that
doesn't quite cut it with respect to me being the self proclaimed computer
genius.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html
Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
Should Be Defunded.

How can we know if an alternative shows effect or doesn't when there's no
chance of it getting funding because there's no money in it or no
organisation that will test it?
Seems to me that Quackwatch would have the NCCAM defunded and slow the
progress of testing of alternative therapies.

As for unproven :-
While investigating Coley's toxins, I got an email from the ACS saying that
there was no scientific evidence that Coley's toxins alone were effective
for treating cancer.
In other words there is evidence that they are effective when used in
conjunction with proven therapies.
So go figure - unproven alternative therapy when used in conjunction with
mainstream methods _is_ effective.

Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 9, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Barrett has studied quackery for thrity years. What are YOUR credentials?

I am not faking any.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and Peter Bowditch has no medical

Quoted message said:

training.

However, he has an education and an inquiring mind.

Which is bias and no substitute for medical training.

When you get either,

Quoted message said:

let

Quoted message said:

us know.

Typical from Mmark, when he can't stand the truth.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's an atta boy back slapping meeting filled with lies, lies and more

lies.

Did you read the website about it? Peter get 30 minutes in 4 days.

I repeat, It's an atta boy bck slapping meeting filled with lies, lies and more
lies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Satan will be present and very pleased.

I checked the guest roster and he is not listed.

He is showing his influence in Mark's posts.

Jan

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IOW's He LIED!!

Jan

$ KaChing $15

Law is basically a game of 'my argument is better thatn yours' for the time
being imo.
Anth

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Amazing Meeting II
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 1/9/2004 3:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Dr Barret might have studied quackery, be the self proclaimed 'Guide to
Health Fraud.'

Neither Barrett or Sampson are qualified, and bias, having little if any
credibility.

http://www.talkinternational.com/legal_barrett_baratz_king_bio_pharma.htm

B. Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Dr. Barrett was offered on several issues by the Plaintiff, but the Court

found

Quoted message said:

that there was substantial overlap on the issues that he and Dr. Sampson

were

Quoted message said:

asked to address. Thus, in order to avoid duplicative or cumulative

evidence

Quoted message said:

(see Cal. Evidence Code §§ 352, 411, 723), Dr. Barrett's testimony was
limited by the Court to the sole issue of FDA treatment of homeopathic

drugs.

Quoted message said:

The relevancy of this issue was questionable at best, since the Plaintiff

had

Quoted message said:

previously asserted that its case did not depend on or seek to establish

any

Quoted message said:

violation of federal food and drug laws or regulations. Nevertheless,

Plaintiff

Quoted message said:

elicited testimony from Dr. Barrett on his experience with the FDA as it
relates to regulation of homeopathic drugs.

Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which

point he

Quoted message said:

contends he allowed his medical license to lapse.

**Like Dr. Sampson, he has no
formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although he claims to

have

Quoted message said:

read and written extensively on homeopathy and other forms of alternative
medicine. Dr. Barrett's **claim** to expertise on FDA issues arises from

his

Quoted message said:

conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on

the

Quoted message said:

subject and certain continuing education activities.

As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs,

the

Quoted message said:

Court finds that

***Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area.***

Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency

enforces

Quoted message said:

federal statutes and the agency's own regulations.

*** Dr. Barrett's purported
legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent.**

IOW's He LIED!!

He is not a lawyer, although he
claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While

Dr.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

various articles and Internet web-sites.

***He has never testified before any
governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of

drugs.***

Quoted message said:

Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated

given

Quoted message said:

that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For

these

Quoted message said:

reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett

qualified as

Quoted message said:

an expert on the issues he was offered to address. Moreover, there was no

real

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby

wins

Quoted message said:

funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett.

***It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal

financial

Quoted message said:

interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors,

Dr.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs.
Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their

testimony

Quoted message said:

should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well***

==========

Quoted message said:

I have studied computers for 20 years (have the equivalent skills) that
doesn't quite cut it with respect to me being the self proclaimed

computer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

genius.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html
Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

(NCCAM)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should Be Defunded.

How can we know if an alternative shows effect or doesn't when there's no
chance of it getting funding because there's no money in it or no
organisation that will test it?
Seems to me that Quackwatch would have the NCCAM defunded and slow the
progress of testing of alternative therapies.

As for unproven :-
While investigating Coley's toxins, I got an email from the ACS saying

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there was no scientific evidence that Coley's toxins alone were effective
for treating cancer.
In other words there is evidence that they are effective when used in
conjunction with proven therapies.
So go figure - unproven alternative therapy when used in conjunction with
mainstream methods _is_ effective.

Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 9, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Barrett has studied quackery for thrity years. What are YOUR

credentials?

Quoted message said:

I am not faking any.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and Peter Bowditch has no medical
> training.

However, he has an education and an inquiring mind.

Which is bias and no substitute for medical training.

When you get either,

Quoted message said:

let

Quoted message said:

us know.

Typical from Mmark, when he can't stand the truth.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It's an atta boy back slapping meeting filled with lies, lies and

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lies.

Did you read the website about it? Peter get 30 minutes in 4 days.

I repeat, It's an atta boy bck slapping meeting filled with lies, lies and

more

Quoted message said:

lies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Satan will be present and very pleased.

I checked the guest roster and he is not listed.

He is showing his influence in Mark's posts.

Jan

I mean Dr Barret can test a theory for himself and find the truth out. It's
win win for him.
As memory serves he's had heart surgery - all he has to do is start Dr
Rath's nutrition/vitamin programme (which I am sure many would club together
to pay for him for free)
Have a few distinguished and trustable (non biased) MD's monitor his
progress and body works and post the information in public.
If it doesn't work - he has not only got some ammunition to say so, he gains
because he's looked for the truth. If it does work then he gains with his
health.
Simple, of course this won't happen.

http://www.ncahf.org/about/herbert.html
This guy did pioneering work on folate, a true champion, he proved that a
folate deficientcy caused macrocytic anemia.
Anth

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Amazing Meeting II
From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 1/9/2004 3:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Dr Barret might have studied quackery, be the self proclaimed 'Guide to
Health Fraud.'

Neither Barrett or Sampson are qualified, and bias, having little if any
credibility.

http://www.talkinternational.com/legal_barrett_baratz_king_bio_pharma.htm

B. Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Dr. Barrett was offered on several issues by the Plaintiff, but the Court

found

Quoted message said:

that there was substantial overlap on the issues that he and Dr. Sampson

were

Quoted message said:

asked to address. Thus, in order to avoid duplicative or cumulative

evidence

Quoted message said:

(see Cal. Evidence Code §§ 352, 411, 723), Dr. Barrett's testimony was
limited by the Court to the sole issue of FDA treatment of homeopathic

drugs.

Quoted message said:

The relevancy of this issue was questionable at best, since the Plaintiff

had

Quoted message said:

previously asserted that its case did not depend on or seek to establish

any

Quoted message said:

violation of federal food and drug laws or regulations. Nevertheless,

Plaintiff

Quoted message said:

elicited testimony from Dr. Barrett on his experience with the FDA as it
relates to regulation of homeopathic drugs.

Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which

point he

Quoted message said:

contends he allowed his medical license to lapse.

**Like Dr. Sampson, he has no
formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although he claims to

have

Quoted message said:

read and written extensively on homeopathy and other forms of alternative
medicine. Dr. Barrett's **claim** to expertise on FDA issues arises from

his

Quoted message said:

conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on

the

Quoted message said:

subject and certain continuing education activities.

As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs,

the

Quoted message said:

Court finds that

***Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area.***

Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency

enforces

Quoted message said:

federal statutes and the agency's own regulations.

*** Dr. Barrett's purported
legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent.**

IOW's He LIED!!

He is not a lawyer, although he
claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While

Dr.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

various articles and Internet web-sites.

***He has never testified before any
governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of

drugs.***

Quoted message said:

Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated

given

Quoted message said:

that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For

these

Quoted message said:

reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett

qualified as

Quoted message said:

an expert on the issues he was offered to address. Moreover, there was no

real

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby

wins

Quoted message said:

funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett.

***It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal

financial

Quoted message said:

interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors,

Dr.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs.
Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their

testimony

Quoted message said:

should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well***

==========

Quoted message said:

I have studied computers for 20 years (have the equivalent skills) that
doesn't quite cut it with respect to me being the self proclaimed

computer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

genius.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html
Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

(NCCAM)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should Be Defunded.

How can we know if an alternative shows effect or doesn't when there's no
chance of it getting funding because there's no money in it or no
organisation that will test it?
Seems to me that Quackwatch would have the NCCAM defunded and slow the
progress of testing of alternative therapies.

As for unproven :-
While investigating Coley's toxins, I got an email from the ACS saying

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there was no scientific evidence that Coley's toxins alone were effective
for treating cancer.
In other words there is evidence that they are effective when used in
conjunction with proven therapies.
So go figure - unproven alternative therapy when used in conjunction with
mainstream methods _is_ effective.

Anth

"Mark ProbertJanuary 9, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Barrett has studied quackery for thrity years. What are YOUR

credentials?

Quoted message said:

I am not faking any.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and Peter Bowditch has no medical
> training.

However, he has an education and an inquiring mind.

Which is bias and no substitute for medical training.

When you get either,

Quoted message said:

let

Quoted message said:

us know.

Typical from Mmark, when he can't stand the truth.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It's an atta boy back slapping meeting filled with lies, lies and

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lies.

Did you read the website about it? Peter get 30 minutes in 4 days.

I repeat, It's an atta boy bck slapping meeting filled with lies, lies and

more

Quoted message said:

lies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Satan will be present and very pleased.

I checked the guest roster and he is not listed.

He is showing his influence in Mark's posts.

Jan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Shame Bolen isn't there to stir up a hornets nest.

Bolen would just embarrass himself and any reasonable alt-med
advocates--as usual. He just can't help himself.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Shame Bolen isn't there to stir up a hornets nest.
In fact I doubt that anyone who is critical of Dr Barret and Bowditch will
be there so it will be plain sailing for both of them.
Anth

<snip>

Maybe not at that time, but Peter will be visiting Bolen's, err, "office".
That should stir up the hornets well enough.

And then there is the meeting down the road. I heard that PB was going to
crash it, maybe Barret will as well. That should be fun. Perhapse they
should set up a web cam first for the enjoyment of those stuck in other
parts of the world.

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(opinion isn't science man)
Anth

You are correct.
However, you can use science to evaluate opinions and to form opinions.
Have you scientifically evaluated these opinions?
Or, esier to determine, to their opinions reflect the current understanding
of science?
I think they do.

If you wish to provide an example of one of their opinions that goes
contrary to science,then please do.

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dr Barret might have studied quackery, be the self proclaimed 'Guide to
Health Fraud.'
I have studied computers for 20 years (have the equivalent skills) that
doesn't quite cut it with respect to me being the self proclaimed computer
genius.

The word expert and genius have quite different meanings.
You may not be a genius, but could you call yourself a computer expert?

Barret is an expert on quackery, but I wouldn't call him a genius.

Quoted message said:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html
Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
Should Be Defunded.

How can we know if an alternative shows effect or doesn't when there's no
chance of it getting funding because there's no money in it or no
organisation that will test it?
Seems to me that Quackwatch would have the NCCAM defunded and slow the
progress of testing of alternative therapies.

The other problem is that even though money is available, there dosn't seem
to be too many studies being done.
In addition, quite a few of the alternative treatments violate some well
established scientific laws. The probability of these treatments actually
working approaches zero. From Barret's point of view, NCCAM would be
wasting money in an area for which is is impossible to get a pay back. This
money could be better spent else where.

Quoted message said:

As for unproven :-
While investigating Coley's toxins, I got an email from the ACS saying

that

Quoted message said:

there was no scientific evidence that Coley's toxins alone were effective
for treating cancer.
In other words there is evidence that they are effective when used in
conjunction with proven therapies.
So go figure - unproven alternative therapy when used in conjunction with
mainstream methods _is_ effective.

<snip>

No, it means that the main stream treatments are effective and the toxins
are not.
You are trying to twist their words to get some sort of positive answer.
There comes a time when you have to say, "This sounded good, but it is
leading us no-where. Time to stop wasting time and resources on it and look
for something more promising." In business, they say "don't throw good
money after bad".

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug