If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Thoroughly Unqualified Stephen Barrett -Salem Witch Hunter's Clone
Thank you Edward for posting the piece below.
I am going to read it more clearly and make some comments on it and some updates. Here's a start. http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com/...losses-on.html There are links here to the King Bio case mentioned below ... which NCAHF lost. http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...WatchWatch.htm www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/KingBio.htm What I recently learned, is that the mail-order law school Barrett mailed to for about a year and a half ... is the one advertised on matchbooks. I'll also provide the quote he made calling himself a "legal expert" when I catch a minute ... whewwwwwww. ~~~~ Edward posted: The Thoroughly Unqualified Stephen Barrett, M.D. THE INSULT TO AMERICA'S INTELLIGENCE UNMASKED The Unmasking of a Salem Witch Hunter's Clone In the Year 2001, a retired psychiatrist who was never board certified in anything stated: "Today, I am the media." He repeatedly presented himself as an expert in medicine, nutrition, and law, while having zero experience as a practicing physician, zero training in nutrition, and zero bar association membership. At the principle website that he operates, he is described as a "medical communications expert" of national renown. Representations of Stephen Barrett insinuate that he alone can suffice as the voice of medicine. In fact, representations of him make it sound as if, during any given election, he should run for God. However, the factual scorecard on Barrett differs drastically from the representations made of him. Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification [1] Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board-certified in anything, at anytime in his life. He has never been able to speak with the authority of a board-certified medical expert. [2] Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point of a practioner in any type of internal or dermatological medicine. In fact, Stephen Barrett has not served in the capacity of a physician since the end of his rotating internship days. Those days ended over 48 years ago, in 1958. The "MD" affixed to his name simply means that he graduated from a medical school. He did do that. But, he did it over forty-nine years ago, in 1957. [3]Moreover, Stephen Barrett has never been a researcher in any capacity; neither at the clinical level nor at the murine test level. He has been neither a toxicologist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a neurologist, nor a biochemist, nor an immunologist, nor any type of medical technologist, nor a pharmacologist. This means that he has never been able to speak from the vantage point of a research colleague. That is to say, if Stephen Barrett had been seen in a lab coat after 1958, it was during Halloween. [4] And Stephen Barrett has zero inventions and patents to his name. Therefore, he has never been able to speak from the vantage point of a medical innovator, either. [5]Furthermore, there is no evidence that Stephen Barrett is a firsthand witness to illness on either side of the coin; neither as a practicing physician nor as a patient. That is to say, he has no known history of severe medical impairment. By all appearances, he is not able to offer any insight on what it is to intimately know intense physical suffering in the first person singular. And his callousness indicates this. [6]And as far as concerns Stephen Barrett being advertised as a "medical communications expert," his curriculum vitae indicates that he: - never managed disaster relief efforts - never developed medical softwear programs - never oversaw ambulance dispatch operations - never managed the allocation of medical supplies - never networked hospital communication systems - never transmitted emergency medical instructions to sea - never networked pharmaceutical communication systems - never translated medical literature into foreign languages So where is the medical communicating that Stephen Barrett is supposed to do so expertly? Stephen Barrett's Allegation of Being a Legal Expert It was in a 21st Century California court where Barrett presented himself as an expert in FDA regulatory law. It concerned a case that he himself instigated, under the name of a 501c non-profit organization of which he was/is a member and even an officer. Barrett saw to the filing of the lawsuit (under the corporate name), and then he hired himself as an expert witness, despite the blatant conflict of interest. He then expected money to be transferred from the 501c non-profit group's bank account to his own personal account, in the form of a fee payment. Needless to say, Stephen Barrett never worked for, with, over, under, or besides the FDA. And the presiding judge stated: "the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area." "He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs." "Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues associated with Defendant's products." Furthermore, the judge stated that Stephen Barrett's testimony should be "accorded little, if any, credibility." In the end, the 501c private corporation of which Barrett is a member lost the case. It was ordered to pay the defendant's attorney fees. And as an added note, he claimed himself to be a 21st Century legal expert in FDA regulatory matters, because he completed one and a half years of correspondence law school in 1963; and because he had several conversations with FDA personnel, as well as some sort of continuing education classes that he had not attended in eight years prior to the judgment. Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits. Each one is an article of its own. He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or conspiracy. One report attached Barrett to a multiplicity of lawsuits filed against forty defendants. And his most recent courtroom loss is dated October 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of Pennsylvania. In that court case, Barrett once again claimed that he was a legal expert. Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own name. And he also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as well as in Pennsylvania -- also filed under his own name. In summary, Stephen Barrett was never the member of any bar association. He never represented himself as his own attorney in any of his many lawsuits. He was never a district magistrate, and he was not a clerk of court. Yet, he has formally claimed that he is a legal expert. Barrett did have court appearances as an expert witness in criminal and parole cases, but only in the capacity of a psychiatrist who was never board certified. One such venue was the juvenile court system in San Francisco during the 1960s. Barrett's Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert As far as concerns his allegations of being a nutritional expert, it was during the 1990s when he once testified against a nutritionist who carried a number of credentials, including that of a certification. This was at a hearing of the American Dietetic Association. Barrett was only a non-trained and honorary member of that association, yet he was presented as one of its two expert witnesses. As a result of that hearing, the lady against whom Barrett testified lost her registered dietician credentials. Her reputation suffered harm, and her future earnings potential was compromised. The woman then sued the association who presented Barrett as a nutritional expert. And it was during a cross-examination when Barrett finally conceded that he was not a nutritional expert, being that had no training in the subject. He said that he was an expert in "consumer strategy," instead. As a result, the woman against whom Barrett testified had her credentials restored in full. Notification of this was published in the courier & journal of the American Dietetic Association. The woman also received an undisclosed settlement. A Sample of Stephen Barrett's Mode of Communication Stephen Barrett co-authored a book with a publicly known defrauder whose now-defunct "paper review company," in providing health reports to State Farm Insurance adjustors, was declared "a completely bogus operation" by an Oregon judge. Concerning Barrett's fraudulent co-author, it was the NBC television network who reported him as the ratifier of fraudulent health reports. He is a Dr. Ronald Gots, founder of a company named Medical Claims Review Services. That company went out of business in 1995. The NBC television network obtained 79 of the reports that Gots' paper review company provided for State Farm's adjustors. And ever-so- coincidentally, 100% of those 79 reports favored State Farm over every auto accident claimant profiled in those reports. The irony to this is that Stephen Barrett heralds himself as an exposer of health fraud, as well as a defender of mankind from persons committing health fraud. Yet, he elected to have his name placed in print next to a notorious defrauder. For further information on this matter, see: http://disabilitylaw.ca/Dateline%20State%20Farm.pdf 6sJ:disabilitylaw.ca/Dateline%2520State%2520Farm.pdf or http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:194z3Y5ko If you elect to download the NBC report, go first to page 14. You can read about the Oregon judge's opinion of Gots' company there. Then go to Page 10 and read onward. The second posted web address (the longer one) does not require the Adobe Reader program to be installed on your computer, as it is the HTML version of the NBC report. The Barrett/Gots Book, itself The Barrett/Gots book is titled, "Chemical Sensitivity: The Truth About Environmental Illness." Needless to say, the book is a vehement denial of the valid existence of Chemical Sensitivity. However, Chemical Sensitivity comes in many case-specific and medically acknowledged forms; in forms such as: [1] Red Cedar Asthma (Plicatic Acid Sensitivity) [2] IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity [3] Pine Allergy (Abietic Acid Sensitivity) [4] Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis [5] Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity [6]Ammonium Persulfate Sensitivity [7] Glutaraldehyde-induced Asthma [8] Phenyl Isocyanate Sensitivity [9] Halothane-induced Hepatitis [10] Sulfite-induced Anaphylaxis [11] Chemical Worker's Lung [12]TDI-induced Asthma [13]NSAID Intolerance, and numerous other forms. Similarly, the Barrett/Gots book is a denial of the existence of the Environmental Illness which also comes in a number of medically acknowledged case-specific forms; in forms such as: [1]Vasomotor Rhinitis [2] Occupational Urticaria [3] Irritant-induced Asthma [4] Occupational Rhinosinusitis [5] Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis [6] Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis [7] Airborne-irritant Contact Dermatitis [8] Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, [9] Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction [10] Sick Building Syndrome (Building-related Illness) and a few other forms. In fact, the Barrett/Gots book calls Sick Building Syndrome "a fad diagnosis." However, Sick Building Syndrome is listed as one of the "Most Common Diagnoses" at the Occupational & Environmental Health centers of: [1] Iowa University [2] Johns Hopkins University [3] The University of Pittsburgh [4] The University of Stony Brook [5] Detroit's Wayne State University [6] The University of Illinois-Chicago [7] The University of California-Davis [8] Boston Medical Center, as Building-related Illness [9] Washington University's Harborview Medical Center [10] The University of Maryland, as Building Related Disease [11] Nat. Jewish Med. Research Ctr, as Building Related Illness. Needless to say, the Barrett/Gots book also denies the physiological existence of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which is listed as one of the "Most Common Diagnoses" at the Occupational & Environmental Health centers of: [1] the world renowned Yale University [2] the world renowned Mount Sinai Hospital [3] the world renowned Johns Hopkins University [4] two hospitals affilated with Harvard University [5] four other American medical institutions which are licensed and certified centers of practice. The listing thereof is done by the Association of Occupational & Environmental Clinics. For more information, see: http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MA.htm http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MD.htm http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_NY.htm http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_CT.htm The Objective Medical Findings of Chemically Sensitive Patients which Stephen Barrett Ever-so-coincidentally Neglected to Disclose For the record, there do exist objective medical findings in the world of Chemical Sensitivity. The following findings have been documented in the records of chemically sensitive patients: [1] dermatitis [2] anaphylaxis [3] angioedema [4] turbinate swelling [5] glandular hyperplasia [6]edema of the true vocal cords [7]nasal and/or laryngeal erythema [8] protuberant/distended abdomen [9] permeability of epithelial cell junctions [10] paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords [11] hepatotoxicity in the absense of viral hepatitis [12]inflammation of the alveoli (air sacs of the lungs) [13] bronchial hyperresponsiveness in challenge testing and a few other things, such as visible and measurable wheals produced during placebo-controlled skin testing. Barrett's Contradiction Barrett also wrote a 64 page booklet on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Furthermore, Barrett wrote a text of much shorter length, titled: "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis." In that article, Barrett states: "Legitimate cases exist where exposure to large or cumulative amounts of toxic chemicals has injured people." Well, such exposure scenarios are the causes of Chemical Sensitivity. That is why lay persons regard it as "Chemical Injury." In as much, Barrett first denies the existence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in name. Yet, he describes Chemical Sensitivity in function. But, he does so in such a way that he leaves the reader uncertain as to what his statement is intended to mean. After all, a novice might assume that Barrett is referring to resovable acute toxicity cases, instead of long-term chemical sensitization illnesses. A Duly Noted Hypocrisy Stephen Barrett markets fear. For example, he has marketed fear of the formerly overrated echinacea flower which is only harmful to persons severely allergic to the inulin that it contains; to the insulin which is also present in Jerusalem artichokes, leeks, bananas, garlic, and onions. Yet, has Stephen Barrett ever warned people about bananas, onions, and Jerusalem artichokes, as he did echinacea? Has he ever warned people about VIOXX, BEXTRA, ZYPREXA and the other pharmaceuticals that caused harm to mankind? All in all, when you attack as many persons and entities as does Stephen Barrett, the statistical probability is that you are going to be correct some of the time. However, the same statistical probability is that you are going to be wrong some of the time, especially when you are unqualified to comment. Being that Stephen Barrett neither scored a 100% nor a passing grade on his board exams, he cannot be reasonably expected to be 100% correct in his volumes of writings. Moreover, people have brain cells. They can recognize "quackery" by ill effect or lack of effect. They don't have need of a "Stephen Barrett" to tell them. And not only can reasonable people detect a "quack" when they see one, they can just as easily detect a disingenuous political operative when they read one. Stephen Barrett's Cookie Cutter Techniques It is not an incident of unheard proportions for Stephen Barrett to have cited an obselete reference, as well as an outdated and isolated instance, in order to have mankind adhere to an assertion of his. For example, in order to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is nothing more than a mental illness, Barrett cited an incident which was put into writing 120 years ago, in 1886, concerning one woman and one woman only. And that incident was not about chemicals. It was about roses. Now, concerning the medical practices and medical doctrines that Stephen Barrett opposes, he is repeatedly found stating, "inconclusive and not yet proven." And if he cannot discredit something on technical merits, he cites an isolated case here and an isolated case there, concerning an unauthorized billing or a marketing violation committed by a person engaged in something that Barrett wants deleted from the face of the Earth. Yet, Barrett never mentions the dozens of frauds that were committed under the supervision of his co-author, Dr. Ronald Gots. And Barrett never mentions the vast number of lawsuits filed against pharmaceutical companies. Barrett often mentions what treatments and tests the Aetna Insurance Company will not cover, as if Aetna is a charity organization founded by Mother Theresa; as if Aetna is not a profit minded corporation which benefits from the denial of claims. In as much, an insurance company will not pay for redundant treatment or redundant testing, and therefore a similar test or treatment will not be covered. Furthermore, an insurance company will not pay for anything that is regarded as being in the experimental investigational stage. And as a side note, everything in established medicine today was at the experimental & investigational stage yesterday. The Ironies about Dr. Stephen Barrett, in Light of the Fact that He is a Retired Psychiatrist The great irony about Barrett is that a psychiatrist is expected to be a master at procuring peace in the minds and hearts of men. A tree is known by its fruits. Stephen Barrett's fruits have been made known. Another great irony is that a psychiatrist is expected by the reasonably minded person to be a master in neurology. Barrett failed the Neurology section of his board exams. And yet another irony is that a psychiatrist is expected to have a reflex action for keeping confidentiality, being that patients confide intimate details to a psychiatrist. However, Barrett has placed person after person in an unfavorable spotlight. He is even known to have revealed the tax problems of one of his opponents; not to make notice that the man can use someone's help, but rather, to provoke ill regards for the man. Yet, when has Stephen Barrett ever placed the spotlight on the exorbitant price mark-ups of pharmaceuticals in America? After all, Barrett claims that he is a consumer advocate. So, where is the consumer advocating in one of the most taxing impositions on the American economy and consumer? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Thoroughly Unqualified Stephen Barrett -Salem Witch Hunter's Clone | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 12 | August 27th 07 04:59 PM |
Stephen Barrett Blogged | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 3 | January 25th 07 07:30 AM |
Stephen Barrett Blogged . . . | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 1 | January 25th 07 02:29 AM |
Stephen Barrett Blogged | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | January 18th 07 04:44 PM |
What's Eating Stephen Barrett? | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | December 26th 06 08:06 PM |