Barrett & NCAHF

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

Quoted message said:

Points of Interest in this lawsuit filed by quack quack and his ilk. (My
asterisks and comments added)

Again look at the real facts. King was making quite extravagant even
potentially dangerous claims about his products in serious medical
conditions (as shown here previously), but was never required to show any
backing for such claims. A mountain of evidence that homeopathic products
have no biomedical activity unless adulterated went unheeded e.g. do you
make your coffee go further by diluting and shaking it, Jan? If not, why
not? Exactly the same processes are involved.

The complaint was rejected because the complainants (which included consumer
groups, not just the above) produced no evidence directly relating to King's
specific products. There was a fear that if complainants are not required
to produce such evidence it would encourage frivolous or malicious actions.

That may be a fair outcome, but it allows at least one serious scammer to
get away with it, just as another set of laws allows some to to be
mercilessly libelled without redress.

Peter Moran

Peter Moran said:

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

Quoted message said:

Points of Interest in this lawsuit filed by quack quack and his ilk. (My
asterisks and comments added)

Again look at the real facts. King was making quite extravagant even
potentially dangerous claims about his products in serious medical
conditions (as shown here previously), but was never required to show any
backing for such claims. A mountain of evidence that homeopathic products
have no biomedical activity unless adulterated went unheeded e.g. do you
make your coffee go further by diluting and shaking it, Jan? If not, why
not? Exactly the same processes are involved.

The complaint was rejected because the complainants (which included consumer
groups, not just the above) produced no evidence directly relating to King's
specific products. There was a fear that if complainants are not required
to produce such evidence it would encourage frivolous or malicious actions.

That may be a fair outcome, but it allows at least one serious scammer to
get away with it, just as another set of laws allows some to to be
mercilessly libelled without redress.

Peter Moran

On King Bio's web site they actually admit that the preparations that
they sell have nothing in them and that it is impossible to
distinguish any one of their products from any other by any means
other than the label and the price. All bottles contain exactly the
same thing.

Jan must like the idea that people can sell useless bottles of water
and pretend that they cure things.

Hasn't she read Exodus 20:15?

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Barrett & NCAHF
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 7/1/2003 2:39 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

Points of Interest in this lawsuit filed by quack quack and his ilk. (My
asterisks and comments added)

Again look at the real facts.

Which are:

(UNBELIEVABLE!)

http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/

Barrett and NCAHF are outspoken critics of homeopathic medicine calling it
"worthless" and unproven.

Barrett has recently launched a web site to publicly discredit homeopathy.

See www.homeowatch.org .

Despite Barrett’s dubious claims against homeopathy,*** he has no formal
training or scientific expertise in the science of homeopathy.*****

Under cross-examination of NCAHF’s witnesses at the trial, it was revealed
that NCAHF had never tested any of the Dr. King products or even conducted any
sort of scientific study.

***Something which Barrett and NCAHF have steadfastly argued should be
performed by all supplement manufacturers and alternative therapists if they
are to be recognized by the likes of NCAHF and Barrett.***

Despite the overwhelming defeat at trial, NCAHF decided to challenge the
judge’s decision and filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal in California

In its Opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed with King and Negrete.
Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that NCAHF "presented no evidence that
King Bio’s products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general
attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience
with, King Bio’s products,

****and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility"****

NCAHF and CJC argued that the trial court was wrong and that

****existing law should be changed to allow plaintiffs, such as NCAHF, to bring
lawsuits****

( laws should be changed to help Barrett wipe out any alternative medicine)

***with little or no evidence***

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?!?!?!)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

against a targeted company***

*** and, thereafter, force the targeted company to defend itself on the basis
of an accusation alone. ***

(ANYONE SEE A CONTROL PROBLEM?!?!?!)

The Court of appeal was not persuaded that such a change in law was appropriate
or logical.

THANK GOD!

Anyone who can not see this laws suits for EXCATLY what they
are,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Is Blinded!!!!

Jan

Quoted message said:

King was making quite extravagant even
potentially dangerous claims

NOT what the court said!

Quoted message said:

about his products in serious medical
conditions (as shown here previously), but was never required to show any
backing for such claims

**Under cross-examination of NCAHF’s witnesses at the trial, it was revealed
that NCAHF had never tested any of the Dr. King products or even conducted any
sort of scientific study.***

***Something which Barrett and NCAHF have steadfastly argued should be
performed by all supplement manufacturers and alternative therapists if they
are to be recognized by the likes of NCAHF and Barrett.***

Quoted message said:

A mountain of evidence that homeopathic products
have no biomedical activity unless adulterated went unheeded e.g.

Not so.

Quoted message said:

do you
make your coffee go further by diluting and shaking it, Jan?

I don't drink coffee.

Quoted message said:

The complaint was rejected because the complainants (which included consumer
groups, not just the above) produced no evidence directly relating to King's
specific products.

The courts gives all the reasons why it was rejected.

Quoted message said:

There was a fear that if complainants are not required
to produce such evidence it would encourage frivolous or malicious actions.

LOL, the entire lawsuit was just that.

Quoted message said:

That may be a fair outcome, but it allows at least one serious scammer to
get away with it, just as another set of laws allows some to to be
mercilessly libelled without redress.

Peter Moran

What did Dr Wilson get by with, Peter.

Tell us what you think of lawsuits being decided on accusations ONLY, with
little or no evidence???

Jan

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Barrett & NCAHF
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/1/2003 6:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Peter Moran said:

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

Quoted message said:

Points of Interest in this lawsuit filed by quack quack and his ilk. (My
asterisks and comments added)

Again look at the real facts. King was making quite extravagant even
potentially dangerous claims about his products in serious medical
conditions (as shown here previously), but was never required to show any
backing for such claims. A mountain of evidence that homeopathic products
have no biomedical activity unless adulterated went unheeded e.g. do you
make your coffee go further by diluting and shaking it, Jan? If not, why
not? Exactly the same processes are involved.

The complaint was rejected because the complainants (which included consumer
groups, not just the above) produced no evidence directly relating to King's
specific products. There was a fear that if complainants are not required
to produce such evidence it would encourage frivolous or malicious actions.

That may be a fair outcome, but it allows at least one serious scammer to
get away with it, just as another set of laws allows some to to be
mercilessly libelled without redress.

Peter Moran

On King Bio's web site they actually admit that the preparations that
they sell have nothing in them and that it is impossible to
distinguish any one of their products from any other by any means
other than the label and the price. All bottles contain exactly the
same thing.

Quoted message said:

Jan must like the idea that people can sell useless bottles of water
and pretend that they cure things.

Hasn't she read Exodus 20:15?

Tell us Peter, what do you think of lawsuits being judged with little or no
evidence???

Just accusations???

BTW, still waiting for confirmation of your information of WHY Baratz is going
to court.

Jan

In said:

Despite Barrett?s dubious claims against homeopathy,*** he has no formal
training or scientific expertise in the science of homeopathy.*****

Next we'll have Jan telling us that you can't form
an opinion on homosexuality unless you have
ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with it.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

In said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Barrett & NCAHF
From: "D. C. Sessions" [email hidden]
Date: 7/1/2003 11:13 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In said:

Despite Barrett?s dubious claims against homeopathy,*** he has no formal
training or scientific expertise in the science of homeopathy.*****

Next we'll have Jan telling us that you can't form
an opinion on homosexuality unless you have
ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with it.

Diversion.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you.

Oops --wrong tense.

Quoted message said:

This isn't what *Jan* is telling us.

Of course not. You wouldn't understand.

Quoted message said:

It is what the court said.

Excellent example, Jan. Please cite where the Court
wrote what you "quoted."

Quoted message said:

So you just lied.

About what, Jan? Did I write anything one way or another
about what the Court wrote?

On the other hand, you did. Please act in accordance
with "I always prove my claims."

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/

--

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.healthfreedom*law.com/

Posting a link to a Barrett-bash website counts as a Barrett bash, Jan.

K-ching! That five bucks to Barrett.

;o) Rich

(Ilena) said:

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

Quoted message said:

You people all share a common braincell? You all change you Id's at the same
time!

Why honey, did you lose yours?

In your QuackLogic now ... what other email name are you claiming I post un

Kookfight!

Ilena accuses Gym [censored] of Quacklogic!

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight