Re: Dying Patients Overcharged

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Dying Patients Overcharged
From: "rb" [email hidden]
Date: 6/29/2003 4:39 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Ilsa Nein" <[email hidden]>

Well, well, well.

666.

Sounds right to me.

The devil sure has a hold on Andrew Kingoff and he is proud of it.

Quoted message said:

wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dying patients overcharged, medical discipline panel told
Toronto homeopath

Joseph Brean
National Post

Friday, June 27, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT

TORONTO - A doctor who overcharged three dying cancer patients by

thousands

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of dollars for his controversial homeopathic treatment should be punished

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

severely as if he had sexually assaulted them, a discipline tribunal

heard

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

yesterday.

Quite agree!

Quoted message said:

Prosecutor Lisa Brownstone argued that Dr. Ravi Devgan's breach of his
patients' trust was so deplorable that it rivals that of doctors who

abuse

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their patients with sex or drugs. She urged the College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Ontario to revoke his medical licence because he has not

learned

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from a previous reprimand and has repeatedly used patients' money to deal
with his own financial problems.

The tribunal reserved its judgment, but is expected to either revoke his
licence or impose a lengthy suspension.

This is what happens when the sodomization of logic (and greed) is allowed

to

Quoted message said:

interfere with the practice of medicine.

Homeopathy is not harmless, even if the entire dispensary is just water.

You ever notice that you do talk a lot of [censored]!? You're always
referencing it! Do you think that's a bit unhealthy?--rb

http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/

Last Update: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:04 PM (Eastern Standard Time)

BREAKING NEWS!!!

FEDERAL JUDGE THROWS

OUT BARRETT LAWSUIT

DR. CLARK & CARLOS NEGRETE

READ FULL TEXT OF RULING

ADOBE PDF FORMAT THUMBNAIL

In yet another stunning victory for Health Freedom and against Stephen
Barrett, a Federal Judge in San Diego, California, hands down a ruling on June
20, 2003 dismissing the libel lawsuit filed by self-described "medical expert &
journalist" Stephen Barrett of the National Council Against Health Fraud.

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL HANDS DOWN

LANDMARK RULING

IN FAVOR OF HOMEOPATHY -

BARRETT DEFEATED ONCE AGAIN!

READ FULL TEXT COURT OF APPEALS RULINGS

WORD FORMAT ADOBE PDF FORMAT

On April 22, 2003, the California Court of Appeals handed down a far
reaching landmark decision in favor of homeopathy and against the National
Council Against Health Fraud (Stephen Barrett, M.D.1 was one of the two main
self-described "expert" witnesses on the side of NCAHF).

NCAHF [which professes itself to be a "consumer watchdog" against what
it calls as health "quackery"] filed a lawsuit on February 16, 2001, as a
representative of California Consumers, against King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and its president Dr. Frank J. King, Jr., N.D., D.C., a leading manufacturer
and distributor of homeopathic products.

The lawsuit accused Dr. King and King Bio of false and misleading
advertisement and unfair competition under the California Business &
Professions Code. It was the first case of this type to go all the way to trial
with respect to homeopathy. In the lawsuit, Barrett and NCAHF challenged
homeopathy by proceeding on the theory that there is no scientific basis for
the advertised efficacy of King Bio’s products and the King Bio’s products
were "drugs."

Dr. King has been an active contributor to the national chiropractic
community since 1979. He is the Founder and President of King Bio
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a registered homeopathic manufacturing company dedicated
to the research, development, promotion and education of the many benefits of
homeopathy. Dr. King is also a member of the prestigious Homeopathic
Pharmacopoeia Convention of the United States (HPCUS). The HPCUS works directly
with the FDA as a governing authority of homeopathy in the United States.

For more information on King Bio and Dr. Frank King, you can refer to
www.kingbio.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.

King Bio, like many other homeopathic and supplement companies targeted
by NCAHF in similar lawsuits, refused to capitulate to any sort of settlement
with Barrett and NCAHF. Instead, Dr. King decided to take the lead and defend
his own integrity and that of his company by deciding to "have his day in
court" and taking the case to trail.

The trial took place on October, 2001 in Los Angeles, California. The
Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete and Carlos F. Negrete provided support and
assistance for the trial.

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.

After NCAHF presented its case with little or no real evidence, Dr.
King’s attorneys requested that the court end the case and rule in its favor.
The trial court sided with Dr. King and awarded a judgment in favor of King Bio
and Dr. King. NCAHF’s case was so weak and lacking of evidence that Dr. King
and King Bio did not even have to present it full case in defense before the
judge ruled.

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.

During the appeal process, NCAHF’s attorney, Morse Mehrban, was
joined by another purported "consumer watchdog" attorney who fights against
alternative therapies and supplements, Mark Boling, on behalf of a little known
organization called Consumer Justice Center ("CJC"😉. CJC filed a "friend of the
court brief" in support of NCAHF’s appeal.

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
with little or no evidence against a targeted company and, thereafter, force
the targeted company to defend itself on the basis of an accusation alone. The
Court of appeal was not persuaded that such a change in law was appropriate or
logical.

The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete represented Dr. King and King Bio
in the appeal and argued that the trial court correctly found in favor of Dr.
King and King Bio and that it was not proper under California law or the United
States Constitution that a plaintiff, such as NCAHF, could irresponsibly file a
lawsuit without any evidence against a product and its manufacturer. Negrete
argued that it would be irresponsible and against free enterprise to allow an
individual to file a lawsuit without any evidence of wrongdoing with just a
couple of hundred dollars in a filing fee, thereby subjecting a victim
defendant to spend as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense
costs. All because someone could point their finger at what they did not
understand or believe in.

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"

And, in an more remarkable validation, the Court of Appeals ordered
that their Opinion be "published" as a precedent setting case in the official
reports of the State of California. This is the first opinion of its kind as to
homeopathy and the issues raised during the appeal. It will undoubtedly be
discussed by many legal scholars and cited in cases to follow in the future.

The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete congratulates Dr. Frank King, Jr.
for his efforts, dedication and perseverance in defending the advancement
homeopathy and alternative therapies and it is proud to have participated in
yet another case defending health freedom.

______________________

1. Stephen Barrett, even though he still uses the professional title
"Dr.," surrendered his medical license in the early 1990s. He has not practiced
medicine since that time. Barrett operates the web site known as
www.quackwatch.com , www.homeowatch.org and www.ncahf.com .

Jan