http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/editorial/quack.htm
Quackbuster Stephen Barrett:
"Not an Expert," Declares Judge!
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Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given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 Wellness Directory of Minnesota 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 ( http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride ) has a web site
dedicated to fighting Fluoride Poisoning. She has 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):
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, 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. 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.
And now that he's been losing in court, people are starting to sue him. Century
Press just filed a $10 Million lawsuit against him (Hulda Clark's publishing
company).
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) 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 Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska.
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.
Articles TOC
Wellness Directory of Minnesota Home Page
Copyright © 2003
Wellness Directory of Minnesota
Contact us
For non commercial use: You may copy, print, reprint, and/or transfer this
entire article, if and only if it is unmodified and in its complete state with
this copyright notice attached and all the links work properly. All other's
must contact us in writing: Contact Us