Who is Baratz anyways?

Quoted message said:

Who is this Baratz character anyways? I've been reading some web

sites, and

Quoted message said:

I
cannot for the life of me figure out what he is an expert in?
What is his platform?

He's an MD and a DDS. He is an expert in dental and medical healthcare. He'll
be testifying as an expert witness, invited by the state of Wisconsin, at the
trial of a quack chelationist whose name escapes me at the moment.

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Who is this Baratz character anyways? I've been reading some web

sites, and

Quoted message said:

I
cannot for the life of me figure out what he is an expert in?
What is his platform?

He's an MD and a DDS. He is an expert in dental and medical healthcare.

He'll

Quoted message said:

be testifying as an expert witness, invited by the state of Wisconsin, at

the

Quoted message said:

trial of a quack chelationist whose name escapes me at the moment.

I just bet you think that the guy spoken of in 9th daniel is a quack too.
Which just leads me to wonder how you can claim to be saved!--rb

"rb" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Who is this Baratz character anyways? I've been reading some web

sites, and

Quoted message said:

I
cannot for the life of me figure out what he is an expert in?
What is his platform?

He's an MD and a DDS. He is an expert in dental and medical
healthcare.

He'll

Quoted message said:

be testifying as an expert witness, invited by the state of Wisconsin,
at

the

Quoted message said:

trial of a quack chelationist whose name escapes me at the moment.

I just bet you think that the guy spoken of in 9th daniel is a quack
too.
Which just leads me to wonder how you can claim to be saved!--rb

Attempt to divert topic noted.
Ad hominim attack noted.

r

--
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered...My life is my own."

"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6

Quoted message said:

What makes him an "expert" witness? What is his background that would
constitute him as an "expert". I cannot seem to find anything, that

he is an

Quoted message said:

expert in.
Please clarify what you mean by "expert" witness.

In any trial, all one needs to be declared an expert witness for medical
reasons is an LVN, or 2-year nursing, degree, at least here in
California the last time I checked. If this guy is an MD and a DDS,
that's more than enough.

Kimmer

<<
In any trial, all one needs to be declared an expert witness for medical
reasons is an LVN, or 2-year nursing, degree, at least here in
California the last time I checked. If this guy is an MD and a DDS,
that's more than enough. >>
I cannot find what he is an "expert" in. He may be an MD, and he may be a
DDS, but what has he done that makes him an "expert" on chelation for example??

"If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What makes him an "expert" witness? What is his background that would
constitute him as an "expert". I cannot seem to find anything, that

he is an

Quoted message said:

expert in.
Please clarify what you mean by "expert" witness.

In any trial, all one needs to be declared an expert witness for medical
reasons is an LVN, or 2-year nursing, degree, at least here in
California the last time I checked. If this guy is an MD and a DDS,
that's more than enough.

Kimmer

Expert witnesses are usually chosen based on more than general knowledge &
experience in health care. It would hardly serve any purpose to have an LVN
serve as an expert witness in a case involving malpractice WRT brain
surgery, for example -- the expert witness would no doubt be a brain
surgeon. Ditto for choosing a DDS for cases involving dentistry, an OB/GYN
for a case involving that specialty, etc.

Expert witnesses are usually considered "experts" based on years of
experience in the particular field being discussed, often with published
work WRT same.

Michele
I ENJOY being a cranky [censored].

[email hidden] (Ilsa9) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Who is this Baratz character anyways? I've been reading some web

sites, and

Quoted message said:

I
cannot for the life of me figure out what he is an expert in?
What is his platform?

He's an MD and a DDS. He is an expert in dental and medical healthcare. He'll
be testifying as an expert witness, invited by the state of Wisconsin, at the
trial of a quack chelationist whose name escapes me at the moment.

King Quack Barrett also hired himself and attempted to fool the Judge
in a recent trumped up, losing lawsuit the HeathFraudds waged against
Homeopathy.

Quack Baratz is now President of the HealthFrauds and when the former
President died ... he was the successor. Renner had sold himself as an
"expert" ... just like Barrett & Sampson below.

Here is what the Judge said about Quacks Barrett & Sampson being
experts:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ilena-0101021046220001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com

EXCERPTS:

"Having reviewed and considered all these matters, and
having considered and weighed the evidence presented by the Plaintiff
in its
case in-chief, as well as the evidence adduced through
cross-examination of
the Plaintiff's witnesses, the Court hereby grants Defendants motion
and
directs that judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendant, and
against Plaintiff, as set forth below."

"In addition, Dr. Sampson admitted to having done absolutely no
investigation
concerning Defendants' specific products. He admitted to no real
knowledge
as to their ingredients and acknowledged that he had not seen any of
the
products prior to the trial."

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....

....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.

~~~~~~~~~~~

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

KING BIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; FRANK J. KING, JR.; and DOES 1-50,

In said:

I have asked, where are they?

In <[email hidden]>, Jan wrote:

# Look in the archives.

--
| 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

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Who is Baratz anyways?
From: [email hidden] (DEBBEE1023)
Date: 7/5/2003 2:23 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Who is this Baratz character anyways? I've been reading some web

sites, and

Quoted message said:

I
cannot for the life of me figure out what he is an expert in?
What is his platform?

Baratz is a part of the Quack Team.

Since Jan is on an obsession about Dr. Baratz, I thought it might
be appropriate to post a part of his speech to a Senate
Hearing on Swindlers, Hucksters and Snake Oil Salesmen.

Talking about "Health Freedom" promoters, he said:
"These advocates want a system where "anything goes" without any safeguards
for either safety or effectiveness, let alone the truth. To make things a
bit worse, this movement has been joined by pseudoscientific zealots, and
has been embraced by a growing number of profiteers."

Remember folks, Jan has already said her business is promoting alt med.

"Nana Weedkiller" <[email hidden]>

The Nidiffer Nutcase's PR for Baratz eliminated ...

Like Barrett and Sampson, President of the HealthFrauds, Baratz may
believe he's an expert since that's a way the Quacks profiteer ...
they sell themselves as "experts." It's one of their gigs.

Hopefully the Judge in this upcoming case will see thru them as did
this one:

Quack Baratz is now President of the HealthFrauds and when the former
President died ... he was the successor. Renner had sold himself as an
"expert" ... just like Barrett & Sampson below.

Here is what the Judge said about Quacks Barrett & Sampson being
experts:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ilena-0101021046220001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com

EXCERPTS:

"Having reviewed and considered all these matters, and
having considered and weighed the evidence presented by the Plaintiff
in its
case in-chief, as well as the evidence adduced through
cross-examination of
the Plaintiff's witnesses, the Court hereby grants Defendants motion
and
directs that judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendant, and
against Plaintiff, as set forth below."

"In addition, Dr. Sampson admitted to having done absolutely no
investigation
concerning Defendants' specific products. He admitted to no real
knowledge
as to their ingredients and acknowledged that he had not seen any of
the
products prior to the trial."

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....

....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.

~~~~~~~~~~~

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

KING BIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; FRANK J. KING, JR.; and DOES 1-50,

--

"DEBBEE1023" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<<
In any trial, all one needs to be declared an expert witness for medical
reasons is an LVN, or 2-year nursing, degree, at least here in
California the last time I checked. If this guy is an MD and a DDS,
that's more than enough. >>
I cannot find what he is an "expert" in. He may be an MD, and he may be a
DDS, but what has he done that makes him an "expert" on chelation for

example??

Quoted message said:

He doesn't need to be an expert on chelation for his testimony to be expert
and relevant in this case. He is expert in what constitutes proper
documentation of medical practice. It wouldn't matter if the defendant were
treating patients with bile from Laotian garter snakes, the standards for
recording the doses, routes, and times of the administration of that bile,
and the diagnosis and indications for the treatment, and the patient's
response to the treatment are the same. And Baratz is accepted by the court
as an expert in those standards.

--Rich