Talk:National Council Against Health Fraud/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

First comments

group has been criticized by many advocates of natural remedies. should include more information on criticism. --204.78.10.224 17:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

-I removed the last paragraph since it was nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on the group. It added nothing to the article other than the possibility of discrediting it.

QuackPotWatch link

Re-instituted an external link that cites a court case in which NCAHF lost and provides criticism of the organization. Unsure why it was deleted in the first place. Please explain. Wwindsor 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal For Article Balance

Thanks for the invitation to discuss this matter here. You have reinstated the Quackpotwatch link, which apparently has been removed several times by various editors.

Your edit summary:

The opinion piece link has relevant factual information about court case quotes that are a direct source for the article. Please leave it as is or discuss if you think the quotes are inaccurate) [1]

Okay, if that is the case the information - not the opinions in the "opinion piece" (Bolen's appropriate description) - should be in the article itself, as per your suggestion here. I don't see what it is documenting. The only thing I can see in the article that it might remotely relate to is this critical paragraph:

The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

That paragraph needs documentation, preferably using original documents, rather than an opinion piece from Tim Bolen. He only includes two paragraphs from one court case. Knowing him very well, I wouldn't be surprised if they were taken out of context, but even if they weren't, his site and opinion pieces are hardly good sources of documentation, when original sources would be much better.

The paragraph contains a number of charges, and each one needs to be documented from both the critics and the NCAHF. Listing accusations without documentation is equivalent to including editor's POV.

1. "The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions...."

• Which professions? We need links and quotes from the NCAHF site.

2. "... and of using the guise of consumer advocacy...."

• Examples of this from their site.
• Evidence that it is a "guise."

3. "...to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines."

• Examples of the indictments from their site.
• Evidence that they are "false."

4. "Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

• Which critics? Names, quotes, and links please.
• What evidence do they present for each charge?

Do you believe this to be a fair approach? -- Fyslee 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Metta Bubble

Hi Fyslee. First of all, thanks for discussing it here. That link has also be instated by various editors. I'm not married to the phrasing of the criticisms and I believe improvement can be made. However, the criticism section is actually a little slim if anything, so I'm fairly comfortable with the current state of the article. The article doesn't even mention the somewhat dubious affiliations between Quackwatch, Chiroweb, and NCAHF.

The fact that the NCAHF has offered a public statement rebutting criticisms is more than enough proof of both the existence of criticisms and their notability.

The criticism by Tim Bolen is notable in comparison to the overall notability of NCAHF. The court case against NCAHF is also notable. So, the assumption you made about my position being that only the court case is notable is mistaken.

There is more information that Tim Bolen provides other than the link in this article, which is adequately sourced (by comparison to the notability of this article). I am not open to removing the criticism section of the article or removing a link to relevant critical information. In regards to referencing each an every criticism, I believe I have summarised criticisms that are easily accessible. And I believe I have summarised them fairly (but I don't claim infallibility on summarising criticisms).

In direct response to your final question. No, I don't believe your suggested approach is even close to fair. The criticisms can only be as well sourced as the promotions are. If we are going to put a microscope up to the article we should approach every assertion the article makes, not merely the criticisms. So, if you want to source the following statements adequately I might consider rising to the challenge you posed, but I have a far better proposal at the bottom of this post.

1. is a US-based voluntary private nonprofit health agency

• Are these traits proven or asserted? There are accusations of double dealing that this phrase doesn't adequately take into account.

1. NCAHF unites consumers with health professionals, educators, researchers, attorneys, and others who believe that everyone has a stake in the quality of the health marketplace.

• POV? Who says NCAHF unites these groups? Chiropractic groups claim NCAHF create problems for their practices! So do many other groups who consider themselves health professionals. And who says all these people mentioned in the article have a stake in quality? There are many sources for stating some of these groups prioritise quality far below profits, brand-recognitioin and share price. This statement doesn't reflect these sources adequately.

1. Membership is open to everyone

• Who says this is true? There are accusations out there of the opposite. Who are the members historically? What does membership guarantee?

My proposal

Overall, I suggest we leave the article much the same as it currently stands. It states the NCAHF position and it states the critical position and then states the counter to the critical position. This is a wonderful situation and is entirely encyclopedic. Some tidying might be in order but not whitewashing criticisms.

I hope that works for you. And again, I thank you for discussing it here. I hope I haven't said anything that offends you. I appreciate you being open about how close you are to this article and Tim Bolen. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee's reply

Dear Metta Bubble, I fear that you have misunderstood my intentions. That's probably my own fault, since I'm rather long-winded.....;-) I am not at all interested in any removal of criticisms or whitewashing. Criticisms certainly do exist, but there are also false accusations in circulation. My concern is that the criticisms be verifiable, as per Wiki verifiability policy. If they aren't documented (it doesn't have to be as extensively as I suggested above), then they are editorial POV statements, a practice which isn't allowed here. Using that method, any editor can insert their own criticisms, praise, or accusations, all under the guise of someone else saying it. Without documentation, the words just stand there as POV statements provided by an editor. It's easy to imagine how this could lead to absurd situations, for example: "George Bush has been accused of torturing and eating babies." Without documentation that would stand as a very POV accusation, being included in an article by an editor, and thus the editor would be poisoning the well, which is probably the worst form of POV editing.

I'm just interested in:

• 1. Verifiable documentation for criticisms.

They must be verifiable or be removed from the article. I believe they can easily be documented by the editors who have included them. If they are unwilling to provide the documentation, then the undocumented criticisms shouldn't be taken seriously, and are thus unworthy of inclusion. If they are documented, then it's another matter entirely. The editors who made the edits need to make up their minds. To protect their edits, they must verify them.

• 2. Real criticisms, not undocumented ad hominem hate statements, libel, lies, spin doctoring, or conspiracy theories.

That's the kind of stuff that Tim Bolen includes in practically all his newsletters. That's why his newsletters (the main content on the Quackpotwatch site) aren't reliable as documentation. He rarely, if ever, deals with the real issues raised by the NCAHF, such as the false claims made for products, false advertising, illegal practices, etc. He only seeks to undermine the NCAHF, for the purpose of defending those accused of making those false claims. He is paid to defend them, and he does it by attacking, rather than defending. That's called "poisoning the well", which is a particularly vicious tactic used to unwarrantedly and improperly divert attention (an ad hominem trick) and to detract from the reputation or authority of a person or source.

• 3. Original documents do exist for documentation purposes.

Since they are available, they should be used. The NCAHF makes charges, and they can be documented. The accusers make countercharges, and they can be documented. I could easily present both sides of this matter, but it's the editors of the "criticisms" section who need to start doing this work.

Your proposal

I basically agree with your proposal, but just need to have the above matters tended to. There should be no whitewashing. You have definitely not offended me, and I appreciate your candor. I am always open for constructive suggestions and criticism, and seek to play with open cards. You are always welcome to ask me questions about both sides of these matters, since I'm in a position to either answer you myself, or get the information from the involved parties. You can do so on my Talk page. -- Fyslee 12:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Statements

Hi Fyslee. I liked your reply. You are completely free to edit anything you like. That's what a wiki is.

Your comments on Tim Bolen and his motives are not indepedently verifiable. The only factor here is notability and verifiability. Bolen is a known critic of NCAHF and his opinion is verifiable no matter what you claim his motives are. I don't consider it hate speech any more than the NCAHF attacks on chiro and other professions can be considered hate speech.

This is a mute point of course because all this talk is simply over a small section of the article that both of us feel can be bettered:

* The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

Although I feel it can be bettered, I think this wording is real and adequately sourced. Could you please put your suggested wording below and any references you'd like to add. How would you like it to read? Please let's just workshop this here and then we're done. Simple. If you don't want to suggest anything I'm fine with that too. I'm content with the article as is.

Peace. Metta Bubble 03:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Wording of Criticisms

Dear Metta (may I call you that? It's very similar to a common Danish girl's name - Mette - which happens to be a cute name.)

I appreciate very much your professional and cooperative spirit in this matter. I'm not used to that here at Wikipedia. This is the way I envision that the editing of controversial subjects should be done. Even though editors have different viewpoints, it should still be possible to cooperate in the production of a good article that covers the various aspects of a subject.

Here is the current wording:

• The NCAHF has been accused of attacking many professions and of using the guise of consumer advocacy to present false indictments of complementary and alternative medicines. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests.

There are basically four charges:

1. "attacking many professions": This should be easy to document, and I'll provide the proof myself in the revised version below.

2. "the guise of consumer advocacy": This is an ad hominem attack, without any proof, since such a charge cannot be proven. It's just a negative opinion. Interestingly I have never heard this charge before, so I would like to know the source. Since it can't be verified, it should be deleted. Otherwise it must be considred to be the contributing editor's POV, which can't allowed. If allowed to stand at all, it should at the very least have a linked source.

3. "present[ing] false indictments": This is also an ad hominem attack, without any proof or even examples. I have never heard this one either, so I would like to know the source. If it can't be verified with concrete examples, it should also be deleted.

4. "a front for......": This is an old conspiracy theory charge that has been rebutted many times, and no evidence has ever been presented for the charge. I'll accept it for now, since a good rebuttal is in place.

I guess the part I object to the most is the two words "guise" and "false." They are very POV statements, which stand there as accusations without any verification. The sources need to to be verified. All parts of a Wikipedia article are subject to the verifiability rule. If they can't be verified, they can summarily be deleted by any editor, and the deletes will be backed up by Wikipedia policies and administrators.

You write above:

• "Although I feel it can be bettered, I think this wording is real and adequately sourced."

I haven't seen the sources you refer to. Which ones are they? Please provide the links here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real." As the statement stands, there is really only one serious ("real"?) charge (the first one), the rest are ad hominem attacks, so they hardly deserve to be in a criticism section. They are beneath that level. I guess we need to decide just how low we will go. They are predicated on the conspiracy theory ("front for.....") being true. Since it has been rebutted, they fall to the ground like a house of cards.

If there were really "serious" charges of inaccuracy, wrongdoing, or other matters that could be verified and rebutted (even if unsuccessfully), then such charges and rebuttals would deserve to be part of the article. Ad hominem attacks are unworthy of being taken seriously, and only make critics look frivolous and unserious, since they appear to not be able to deal with the issues, and thus revert to desperate attacks on the person.

Here is a proposed revision:

• The NCAHF has been accused of unfairly attacking some professions, among them acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal remedies, homeopathy, and naturopathy. Some critics have also accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests. A natural consequence of belief in this conspiracy theory, is that some critics do not believe the NCAHF's "consumer protection" claims, and feel that it is only interested in attacking all forms of complementary and alternative medicine as a form of turf protection.

I believe the first charge is partially legitimate, and the others are worded so as to represent real charges, regardless of their legitimacy or illegitimacy. If there are any other "serious" charges, I'm sure someone will add them later......;-)

I deal with these charges and the people who make them all the time, so I have some understanding of this matter "from both sides of the fence." (I am myself a former user of alternative therapies, including having my own patients die.)

What do you think of the revision?

I also need some links to those sources you mention. -- Fyslee 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Wording (round 2)

Please don't make demands of users. I find it uncivil. Add more sources yourself if you want them. You mentioned you had enough materials above already to argue both sides of the article.

Also note, from the WP:V policy:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth

Nobody here is asserting the NCAHF uses a guise, we are saying the NCAHF is accused of using a guise. Which is a verifiably true as a summary of criticial opposition. The simple fact is that the criticisms verifiably exist. A link has been provided that founds the views presented.

Regarding your suggested wording: Inline external links to rebuttals are unhelpful to a criticism section of any article, as are terms like "conspiracy theory". I've re-edited below what I find more reasonable:

• The NCAHF has been accused of using the guise of consumer advocacy to unfairly attack complementary and alternative medicine professions; among them acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal remedies, homeopathy, and naturopathy. Some critics have accused the NCAHF of being a front for pharmaceutical companies and corporate medical interests, dismissing the NCAHF's mission statement on consumer protection and claiming the NCAHF's real interest is in criticising alternative medicines as a form of turf protection.

Let's stay focused on the article and the wording. I think we're making progress. I note another editor has already added more information to the article. So you're getting your demands in a roundabout way. Metta Bubble 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

skepticism and pseudoskepticism

In light of the recent discussions on the all inclusiveness of categories, should we be discussing skepticism and pseudoskepticism on this page? --Dematt 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny Dematt, I was just thinking the same thing! If a notable source has raised the issue, sure. I was just reading the article that redirects from pseudoskepticism and was somewhat amazed by how well Truzzi's criteria fit some would-be skeptics. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I just ran across this article and am stunned by the POV. Perhaps it should be moved to "Criticism Against The National Council Against Health Fraud"? If not, no discussion of litigiousness belongs in the introduction. Certainly, claims of the amount of litigiousness should be cited. Why is there no summary of what information the group provides, and who uses that information? Why is there no cross linking to the medical standards and consumer protection laws they claim to uphold? Why is the bulk of the article criticisms against the organization? --Ronz 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The litigation is neutral. Both sides are sueing each other. You're misinterpreting and assuming. Read the articles and you'll see it is balanced. 58.178.100.66 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please assume I've directed your "argument" back at you, accusing you of each exact point you accuse me of, that you're irate for such a personal attack, and that we've worked out that each of us has different perspectives on this... Meanwhile, if no one has better arguments that don't involve personal attacks at me, I'm proposing that all discussion of litigiousness be removed from the intro, and all discussion of criticism and litigiousness be reduced (or more on the topics I mentioned be introduced) so they take no more than half the article. Alternatively, move the article to "Criticism Against The National Council Against Health Fraud" --Ronz 14:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read through some of the POV and NPOV articles further, and marked the article with POV. The move is out of the question. Moving the discussion of litigiousness out of the intro shouldnt be contentious I hope. The rest of the article will be more difficult to deal with... Ideas? --Ronz 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Litigation is a primary tactic of the NCAHF. Why shouldn't it be mentioned in the intro? Jim Butler^(talk) 23:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable secondary source stating as much? Still seems a POV issue. Do other organizations that use litigation as a primary tactic have similar introductions on their pages? --Ronz 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a primary source? "NCAHF's activities and purposes include: Encouraging and aiding legal actions against those who violate consumer protection laws." A court's finding of a SLAPP-suit is notable for any group, let alone a consumer advocacy group, isn't it? cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I specifically asked for secondary sources, sources that could help us not make POV decisions when working solely from primary sources. Do other organizations have such info in their intro? Is it really a primary tactic? --Ronz 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't NCAHF's own site sufficient for this, Ronz? It passes WP:RS, self-published sources in articles about themselves. That site says:

Activities and Purposes

NCAHF's activities and purposes include:

• Investigating and evaluating claims made for health products and services.
• Educating consumers, professionals, business people, legislators, law enforcement personnel, organizations and agencies about health fraud, misinformation, and quackery.
• Providing a center for communication between individuals and organizations concerned about health misinformation, fraud, and quackery.
• Supporting sound consumer health laws
• Opposing legislation that undermines consumer rights.
• Encouraging and aiding legal actions against those who violate consumer protection laws.

• Sponsoring a free weekly e-mail newsletter.

That's as clear as it gets. Restoring to lead, and removing the "frequently" pending verification. Also added clarifying sentence re their mission statement. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't clarity, it POV. That's why secondary sources are preferrable over primary. I guess we should add each and every activity and purpose into the intro then so as not to be biased, correct? And what does a libel suit have to do with this mission statement? Is the second SLAPP suit related to the mission statement or not? Is this a summary of each and every legal activity NCAHF has partipated in that is related to this important part of their mission statment? Why is all this information so important that it precedes the Introduction section? Are any other articles in Wikipedia similar to this? --Ronz 01:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ronz, I understand your concern as a sort of POV meets WP:OR issue. OTOH, I think as editors we have some latitude in deciding whether something is notable enough to be in the lead. Answering your questions in turn:

I guess we should add each and every activity and purpose into the intro then so as not to be biased, correct?

Depending on notability, sure. From Stephen Barrett, did you notice this, regarding his litigiousness?

And what does a libel suit have to do with this mission statement?

That one has to do with Barrett.

Is the second SLAPP suit related to the mission statement or not?

Sure. NCAHF litigates, per their mission statement, to protect the public; they were found to have violated an anti-SLAPP statute, which is meant to protect the public. I didn't have to put my thinking cap on for too long to perceive the irony there. That logic doesn't strike me as so advanced as to be OR, and the SLAPP does cross my notability threshold for lead inclusion .... but of course, that's just me. TBD what other editors think...

Is this a summary of each and every legal activity NCAHF has partipated in that is related to this important part of their mission statment?

No. The SLAPP is more notable. SLAPPsuits are inherently notable, because they're something analogous to malpractice.

Why is all this information so important that it precedes the Introduction section?

See WP:LEAD. To a significant degree, notability remains an editorial judgement call. Obviously reasonable editors can disagree, eh? So I guess we should POV tag (oops, I see it already is) and seek input from others if we continue to disagree.

Are any other articles in Wikipedia similar to this?

Similar in what way? Including notable non-flattering stuff in the lead? I could name a few.  :-)

best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"I could name a few." Yet you don't. These are the problems with not working from secondary sources: we have to dermine what's notable. I disagree with your perspective and logic - we're are at an impasse. I'll update as others contribute or when I find new information. --Ronz 15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ronz, I do understand your concern about having a secondary source commenting on the SLAPP issue, and I just dug one up from an earlier version of the article: the Business Law Section Newsletter of the Beverly Hills Bar Association. I'll put it back in; let me know what you think.

Re "I could name a few": As I said, I was referring to articles about people or organizations with non-flattering material in the lead. Obvious enough e.g.'s include Scientology, O.J. Simpson, etc. etc. Please see WP:LIVING#Public_figures for principles that we can apply here as well, including use of primary sources. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"judge feared that an NCAHF victory"

I can't find the source for that. "Zealot" is inaccurate as well. Am I missing a source besides #16? --Ronz 19:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is there. (I don't know why the opinion isn't on a government web site, but only on QuackPotWatch, but that's the way it is. CA may not publish minor court rulings.) Try section IV.C., which includes:

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.

"infer" → "feared", and "zealous advocates" → "zealot" may not be quite correct, but it's understandable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That also counters my assertion that the judge should not have said "feared"; he didn't. It doesn't support the SLAPP allegation, but that is supported by a few secondary sources, even if not by the primary source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. However, it's either correct or not. In this case it's not, nor is it understandable except in the context that there are many people attacking NCAHF and Barrett because they don't like being held to standards of medical ethics and evidence-based medicine. --Ronz 20:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've cleaned it up. Any comments? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Great job! --Ronz 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism - See Also, Cat

See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, Wikipedia:Categorization#When_to_use_categories. There is no need to make it explicit in the article, in fact See Also is specifically for related topics that are not already mentioned in the article. As for CSICOP, I wasn't clear: [2]. Again, the citation is not necessary. --Ronz 04:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The CSICOP lists it as a skeptical organization, but the organization does not itself claim to be one. In fact, the CSICOP lists about anything as a skeptical organization that would only remotely fit into this category: for example talk.origins (and not in the category here, either), although it is merely a usenet newsgroup. This classification is not appropriate. Let's stick to the organizations own profile. I propose different, better criteria: List in the category only those organizations listed as members of the International Network of Skeptical Organizations. This one also does not contain The National Council Against Health Fraud. What do you think? --Rtc 05:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories are used for articles that are related to the subject, not just for organizations. That's why you'll find Stephen Barrett and NCAHF also categorized under Quackery, since they deal with that subject. Categories are useful as a service to readers and the concept of "service" should be uppermost in our minds when categorizing. Just use common sense about what is actually happening, rather than some precise wording. If you want to make a category for official members of the International Network of Skeptical Organizations, be my guest. In that case, NCAHF could easily become a member organization. It would just be a formality. All the board members are active skeptics, and Barrett, the VP, has been listed by Skeptical Inquirer as one of the outstanding skeptics of the 20th century, and is a Fellow of CSICOP. The activities of NCAHF, Barrett, the other board members, and the other contributors to the website, can be fairly considered as skeptical activities. They use critical thinking when evaluating extraordinary claims, and seek to expose the claims for what they are. This is a common activity of scientific skeptics. -- Fyslee 11:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

TAG

If Barrett has edited this article in the name of the NCAHF then it should be noted.NATTO 04:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. The tag has been moved to the talk page where it belongs. -- Fyslee 06:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section & nPOV

Can we edit this to something that has at least a vaguely nPOV? Unless there's a good secondary source for the generalizations, I think they should be removed. Specific claims from primary sources can be kept, but Wikipedia is not the place to accumulate information from primary sources and synthesize statements on what those sources are saying overall. Also, I'm not able to find the actual statement used from the article cited "These critics dismiss the NCAHF's mission statement on consumer protection by claiming the NCAHF's real interest is in criticising alternative medicines as a form of turf protection." Can someone find it? --Ronz 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation for NHC discuss the "turf war" and cites Coulter's book as an example. Ronz, please point to specific generalizations or synthesized statements which you would like to see addressed. We'll make it through this. I promise. Levine2112 20:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read through that source and can't find anything that resembles the quote. As for the generalizations, I mean the entire section, now that the Bolen quote is gone. It's either relatively direct from a source or it's not suitable for Wikipedia. Also, I noticed ref #6, the untitled one, is a bad link now - the site is still up so it probably just was moved. --Ronz 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a direct quote from the article but rather an attempt to capture the gist of it with regards to NCAHF. Perhaps you would like to provide a better summary and capture the essence of what this article is saying about NCAHF specifically. I'm sure you could improve on what's there now. Levine2112 01:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed. --Ronz 15:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been searching for other controversial topics that deal with criticism in this way and can find none, but lots of discussions that this one violates WP:NOR. Again, the problem is that we're not relying on secondary sources, but instead editors are choosing primary ones without researching them well and without seeking balance for a NPOV. I suggest removing the entire Criticism section as is, as well as the Lawsuits section which now contains just one lawsuit. --Ronz 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I don't even understand why you removed the criticism you mentioned above. I asked if you wanted to rephrase it. Bottomline, NCAHF is a contraversial "organization" which stirs up its own trouble. The backlash is part of what makes NCAHF notable enough to warrant its own article. As for the lawsuits section, it is an example of what NCAHF has tried to do in the real world (and not just on their website's mission statement). I'd love to have some more actual examples of their work added here as well. The King Bio suit info is all cited from the presiding judge's summary judgement. Is a judge's written opinion not a reliable source? Levine2112 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly brought up, I think we have WP:NOR violations here. I removed the quote after our discussion for the very reasons I mentioned: editors are synthesizing summaries from primary sources, and creating NPOV problems in doing so. There are reliable source issues that we're repeatedly having problems with as well, but just because a source is agreed reliable doesnt mean we can ignore NOR and NPOV. Find a reliable, secondary (or a tertiary source) that supports your viewpoint, and we won't have these problems. --Ronz 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that we would have to find reliable secondary and tertiary sources to cover NCAHF's history and mission statement, or are we to rely on what they have written first-hand on their site? Levine2112 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No one has mentioned that they may violate NOR or NPOV. I can't imagine how anyone who has read WP:NOR would think so. --Ronz 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject of an article is allowable as a source in its own article. This even applies to self-published sources in articles about themselves. So it certainly applies to corporate websites with multiple authors and fact checking. -- Fyslee 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. NCAHF is a primary source on itself. And the judge's opinion is a secondary source for describing the nature of NCAHF... just like anyone who provides a critique of NCAHF. Levine2112 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think court transcripts are considered primary sources, but WP:RS allows them: "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims." Also useful is WP:LIVING, which says "Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable ... where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source." Here, it appears that the court transcripts are primary sources that augment the Beverly Hills Bar Association secondary source[3]. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuit Section - NOR & nPOV

I'm trying to keep the discussions of the different sections separate when appropriate, but to summarize, I think this section also violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for the same reasons mentioned above: the editors are using only primary sources and are synthesizing statements from the perspectives of those primary sources. Why is there mention of SLAPP without the ruling on the issue? Why are no other lawsuits mentioned? --Ronz 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ronz, maybe the wording is unclear: my understanding is that King Bio moved to dismiss NCAHF's suit under the anti-SLAPP statute and the courts agreed. I changed it to be clearer. Here is the secondary source I am following. If there are good V RS's for other suits, by all means let's put them in, but I urge against deletionism. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jim. Levine2112 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts listing

Thanks for the search link, Levine2112. Of course, this is still dubious information to present. I was researching through Massachusetts law, trying to figure out how NCAHF might be licensed, and gave up pretty quickly after finding numerous ways they may or may not have to be incorporated, certified, filed, etc. Additionally, I found that depending on what they've done to legally work from Massachussetts, they are different deadlines for doing so, some that only apply after multiple years of doing business. After all my research I think it's important to ask, how do we know that this search is relevant? --Ronz 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If no one can actually provide sources demonstrating that the search is relevant, I see no option to remove it per WP:RS. Since we have no reliable source concerning the current legal status of NCAHF as a corporation, I'm removing the "suspended in California" info too. If we could come up with the date they moved to Massachusetts, that would be something at least. --Ronz 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So let's find the date and let's find a third-party source which states their reasons for moving. Let's also find a source about their status as a non-profit in Massachusetts. Until then, why delete information that we factually know to be true and are entirely relavent to this article? Levine2112 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. Until we find proper, reliable sources, it's out per WP:RS. It's shoddy research, promoting a biased point of view. --Ronz 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How are the official state websites[4][5] shoddy and/or unreliable? I mean, I don't intend to have an edit war over this, but I'd like to hear your rationale for calling the official government business licencing sites unreliable? Levine2112 23:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to be more to the point: Why is it notable how NCAHF exists as a business entity? It's not. The fact that NCAHF is suspended in California is not notable - it happens when a business moves. The fact that a business moved is not notable either. The fact that NCAHF is not listed with the cited Massachussetts search is not notable - as far as I can tell, there are many, many ways that NCAHF could exist as a legal nonprofit within Mass. How the company is operating is not notable. Placing the two statements together, about the CA license and the MA search, gives the impression that the company is unlicensed or otherwise operating illegally. --Ronz 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You make a very good point and I now agree that the statements should not be in the article at this point. I think it would be relevant to know whether or not NCAHF is operating legally as a non-profit or not. Considering that they are an organization which jumps on others for fraud, it would nice to know that NCAHF isn't guilty of the same. Levine2112 01:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that their status as a nonprofit does have a certain bearing on their notability and credibility. As Fyslee noted on another page, an entity can be notable in part by virtue of what it claims to be but isn't. Particularly given NCAHF's stated mission of exposing misrepresentation in the public interest, anyone interested in NCAHF has reason to expect a certain degree of transparency, which is no more than that expected of any nonprofit org. Jim Butler^(talk) 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why any insinuation that the company is conducting business unlawfully is a blatant NPOV violation. We don't know how the company is conducting business as a nonprofit, which is a non-notable fact. --Ronz 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with your first sentence, Ronz, but I'm not at all sure that the information in question necessarily insinuates unlawfulness. Maybe it just means the NCAHF is at the moment in a transitional or inactive phase. Or not... -Jim Butler^(talk) 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This may mean nothing, but I just used that Massachusetts business licence portal to do a search for another organization calling itself a "private nonprofit" - New England Center for Children - and it was listed. Levine2112 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for "NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES". Levine2112 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And "BOSTON GREENSPACE ALLIANCE, INC." Levine2112 01:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And "ADVOGUARD, INC.".

And "COLLEGES OF WORCESTER CONSORTIUM, INC."

Note that I found these by doing a Google search for Massachusetts private nonprofit. It is interesting that they all show up in the state registry for registered nonprofits, while NCAHF does not. I would very much like to get to the bottom of this. Levine2112 01:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but do you think NCAHF would last a minute operating illegally when so many individuals and companies want NCAHF to disappear, and when it is involved in so many legal disputes? For the record, I tracked down the introduction of the material: [6] [7] [8] --Ronz 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Then let me ask you this: Don't you think that NCAHF would want to register with the state as a nonprofit so that the are exempt from paying state business taxes? Levine2112 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See my comment at the start of this section - MA law is complicated. --Ronz 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed NATTO's slight changes to statements. The fact that it is no longer a California company is not notable. Businesses move. The information was originally added as part of a theory of certain editors that the company was avoiding paying taxes, or otherwise conducting business illegally. A NPOV statement would be that the company moved it's operations out of the state of California, which is not notable. --Ronz 14:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have re-introduced the notable and verifiable information about the status of NCAHF in California following the KIng Bio lawsuit and the move to MA. Looking at the discussion here it is clear that most editors agree this item belongs in the article. The timing of the departure of NCAHF from California is relevant as well. The facts are as they stand. Readers should have them available so they can make up their own mind on the issue.NATTO 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The arguments above still stand. Businesses move. So what? Your attempt to connect it with the King Bio suit (which wasn't totally finished yet) is your OR, so I suggest you refrain from this line of inquiry unless you can find reliable, non partisan, sources (and conspiracy theorists are not reliable sources). Your admitted attempt to introduce negative POV is also a violation of NPOV policy. That it is also OR makes it even worse. -- Fyslee 20:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

NATTO, why is the timing of the move relevant? If there is notable relevance then might I suggest creating a history section of this article and including it there.

Ronz, no matter how complicated MA law is, in order for organization to rightly call themselves a non-profit and accept donations, their filings have to be made apparent both federally and in the state from which they do business. There is no getting around this that I know of. If there is a loophole which NCAHF is employing, I'd love to know about it. Levine2112 21:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just checked with the IRS and saw that NCAHF is listed federally as a non-profit. Still can't find them in the state system though. It's odd. Levine2112 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Using the Mass. state system I was able to look up organizations and corporations by officer names and could still not find NCAHF using Barrett or Baratz. However, I did find Baratz's "for profit" business, hawking skin rejuvenation products... [9] (for those that are interested)... some of which use certain ingredients and promise miraculous results which are labeled "quackery" on Barrett's Quackwatch site. Very interesting.Levine2112 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

From my research into MA law, NCAHF could very well have a five year period after moving to MA before they are required to formally file in the state. This is why WP:OR exists, to keep speculation and shoddy research out of the articles, not to mention NPOV violations. --Ronz 00:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Skin Systems also share their mailing address with the NCAHF [10]: 119 Foster Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 and they also share the same fax number.... NATTO 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The move from one state to another would be relevant for any organisation. The fact that they moved is a NPOV fact and is relevant in their history. THe NCAHF presently list their address in MA [11]but, for time being, the legal status in MA cannot be verified ( so I left that part out ). There are secondary source that say the NCAHF was evicted from Loma Linda and the results of the King Bio suit is known. Since the NCAHF does not explain what happened to them after 2000 [12] we do not have their version, which, if available, should be included in the article. Since their move is a known fact and their legal status in California is verifiable with a good source, why would the fact that they moved from CA to MA be excluded from the article ?? There is certainly at least one reason why they moved. I agree with Levine that the issue of why they moved requires further clarification. If it is forthcoming from the NCAHF then great. NATTO 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not relevant. It was introduced in blatant violation of NPOV. It's OR. This is an encyclopedia. If it's not forthcoming from NCAHF, nor available from a reliable source, then it's not appropriate for the article. --Ronz 00:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Blatant violation of NPOV ?? What is not NPOV in stating that the NCHAF moved from CA to MA ? That is not a POV, that is a fact. And it is not OR at all no more than quoting the NCAHF website for other purposes in this article. The NCHAF has itself stated they were in California and the CA governement website list them as " suspended " so they were clearly there ( both primary and secondary sourced ). It is also a fact that the NCAHF now list their address in MA. All factual and NPOV. Yes this is an encyclopedia that provides factual information to readers and the information above is factual and verifiable. The following is simply stating the verifiable facts from either the NCHAF website or reliable sites, as they stand:

" The NCAHF is presently located in Peabody, Massachusetts [13]. It had been previously located in California [14],but since 2003 the corporate status in California has been listed as "suspended" California Business Portal" NATTO 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It's introduction was part of a blatant NPOV violation. See the links above. The editor who introduced it did so as an attempt to show that NCAHF was not paying taxes among other things. There's nothing notable in it, unless someone wants to continue to promote that POV. --Ronz 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. What is am suggesting is to simply state the facts as per above. As for the status of the NCAHF in MA, when it is known it can be added. NATTO 03:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get more information on the current status, and when I get it, I'll place the information here. Then we can determine if it's relevant or not for inclusion. -- Fyslee 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is questioning that the move is factual. (As far as "eviction" from LLU, that is not factual. It's a false accusation from an unreliable and antagonistic source without foundation.) It's more a question of whether it is relevant to start including all kinds of factual information in the article. Other information is more important and we don't include it. Shall we begin to list the names and addresses of all the officers and consultants? How about all the phone numbers? All that information is on the website. People can look it up if they feel it is relevant. Let the readers do it. To illustrate, if we get around to writing an article (and well we might) about Dr. Imbeau, anti-amalgam dentist from NZ who holds several unscientific beliefs (as evidenced by your edit history here at Wikipedia), should we also list every previous mailing address, including Toronto, just because the post office lists the addresses as "mail undeliverable, person has moved"? What relevance would such information have in an article here? It's just not encyclopedic. -- Fyslee 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, we can certainly see how objective you are in your edits by the way you deem necessary to make it personal as evidenced by your reply here to a simple suggestion that was being discussed on this talk page. Your have strong views about issues yourself. Your beliefs are known but you are not the arbitrator of what is scientific or not. We can also appreciate the tone of your reply especially for someone who constantly makes complaints about straw man attacks.... As far as adding information about the location of an organisation there is nothing unusual there and no suggestion has been made to add phone numbers and lists of members. NATTO 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. (I wrote "to illustrate....") The fact is, neither you nor I are notable enough to qualify for articles here. My illustration was done in that way to get your attention and to drive the point home, and since you noticed it, it looks like I succeeded in getting your attention, but I fear you may not have understood the point....

The information you are attempting to include, unless notable, is not worthy of inclusion, just as your previous Canadian addresses would be non-notable if an article was written about you, or the inclusion of telephone numbers would also be non-notable. Such types of non-notable facts just clutter up the article. They can be found on the website. -- Fyslee 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

NATTO, perhaps things would clear up if you let us know why you feel their present location and old location is relevant. You also mentioned the timing of the move having relevance. Can you elaborate? Levine2112 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. -- Fyslee 20:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict - Fyslee , it is not the first time you have done this so it certainly shows how you address point of views that are not in agreement with yours.... And Levine, in answer to your question, there are other article about organisations in WP and it is not unusual for these articles to contain information about the history and location of such organisation. For example the article about the ADA [15] i.e Based in Chicago, Illinois....The Association has more than 400 employees at its headquarters in Chicago and its office in Washington, D.C. . So my suggestion is not a unique situation in WP. I must admit that the signficant reaction elicited by this suggestion is puzzling.... NATTO 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is likely the reasons you have previously provided (which had OR written all over them) that have caused this matter to get more attention. -- Fyslee 20:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you refer to discussion on another talk page which was not for the purpose of an edit in the article then the assumption is erroneous. I also take note of the discussion on the talk page and take the comments into account in order to arrive at an agreeable edit for the article, as per WP policy. NATTO 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you NATTO that including the base of operation and the history of the organization is relevant. I am not questioning your intention for adding this, but you mentioned above that the timing of their move was relevant. Seriously, I'm just curious. What's the deal with the timing of their move? I just want to know. But I agree that it isn't outlandish or even OR to say that NCAHF was orignially based out of Loma Linda where Baratz taught but then moved to Massachusetts. This obvious could be worded a hell of a lot better with more and better VRS details. Levine2112 21:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Baratz never taught at Loma Linda. The former president, William Jarvis, taught there and therefore it was registered in California. Around the time he retired, he also retired from the presidency of the NCAHF. Bill London also served as president somewhere around then. Baratz was later elected as president, and since he lives in Massachusetts, it is now headquartered there. This is a paper thing, not a building thing. They are a non-profit that just needs an address. We're not talking about the AMA, ADA, or GM. -- Fyslee 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. So far, I agree that none of this seems all that notable. Pretty mundane. Any idea when the operation moved to Massachusetts? The year? Levine2112 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many things that are unclear including in what circumstances William Jarvis retired from Loma Linda University and the departure of the NCAHF from California ( various reasons have been put forward by critics ). Solely for the purpose of discussion on the talk page : Dr. Day in a letter to Dr. Ray Cress [16] suggested that he may have sent and signed a defamatory letter [17] about her that may have been written by Jarvis so that it could be sent on the letterhead of the University....[18].

"Then suddenly it dawned on me! You signed the letter, so therefore you are legally and morally responsible for its content, but I propose that the actual author of the letter was Dr. William Jarvis. Since he is no longer on the faculty of Loma Linda University, he cannot legally use the University's stationery to write his letters of character assassination against those who believe in natural methods of healing. Is it true that Dr. Jarvis wrote the letter and gave it to you for your signature? " ( excerpt from her letter )

Dr. Ray Cress is apparently a member of the NCAHF and he wrote a letter of apology to Dr. Day and retracted his false statements [19]. Again I am not suggesting putting things that are not clarified in the article. The facts are that the NCAHF moved from California to MA. It seems that 2003 is the time ( to confirm ). This is part of their history and, as mentioned above, I think it is relevant and NPOV in an article about the organisation, or any organisation for that matter. The context is not clear so it can be left out of the article until it is. NATTO 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Any suggested wording? Levine2112 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested wording for what? There is no reliable source. Lorraine Day's word isn't worth much, and what does this have to do with the NCAHF? BTW, NATTO has used one link twice. The first link is wrong, and we need it for context. The Day matter is described other places as well. It's quite complicated. Check Quackwatch. -- Fyslee 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

NATTO, thanks for providing the correct URL. I'm not sure, but I think the two URLs need to be traded. Take a look and correct them, or correct me....;-) Quackwatch has coverage of the Day situation. She is pretty slippery and takes quotes out of context when it suits her purpose. This link [20] provides one example, where she takes a quote and implies that the writer actually believed it, when in fact he was just stating what she believed, and in the next breath he questioned it. For more coverage: [21] [22][23][24]

On April 22, 2005, Barrett published this:

• "The Bottom Line: I do not know Day personally, and I have made no formal evaluation of her mental state. But based on what she has published and her refusal to make crucial medical records public, I do not believe she cured her cancer with diet and I strongly advise against following her advice." [25]

It's an interesting case, but not really relevant here.

The speculations regarding Jarvis' retirement are just that, as well as Day's gross speculation that he authored the letter, for which she offers no proof. As for Julian Whitaker, he is not a respected MD in the medical community, but is known as a rogue alternative medicine doctor. His behavior at the meeting she mentions was against an agreement he had made with Jarvis, and his behavior was such that the physical intervention of the campus police was required. The meeting was held on April 7, 1997, Whitaker wrote a letter to the university president on July 1997, and Jarvis retired (as one does when one reaches that age) in the end of Sept. 2000, more than three years after the incident. I simply don't trust her, and neither do the authorities. -- Fyslee 16:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As suggested previously: " The NCAHF is presently located in Peabody, Massachusetts [26]. It had been previously located in California [27],but since 2003 the corporate status in California has been listed as "suspended" California Business Portal" - The date 0f 2003 is taken from the CA website so it is verifiable. NATTO 23:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That their status is "suspended" in CA is interesting. (Notable? I don't know.) By definition, having a status of "suspened" means: The California corporation has lost all rights and powers for failure to meet statutory filing requirements of either the Secretary of State's office or the Franchise Tax Board. This is very much different from being "dissolved": The California corporation has voluntarily elected to wind up its operations, has completely dissolved its business as a corporation, and has received a tax clearance from the Franchise Tax Board. Suspended suggest some negligence or wrong-doing in terms of statutory filings.[28] Levine2112 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know for sure why it is "suspended" but it is factual and verifiable as per WP policy. It seems relevant in the context of the move because it gives us a verifiable date as to when the NCAHF legally stopped doing business in CA. Maybe the people at NCAHF can explain why the legal status of the CA corporation is "suspended" instead of dissolved ?NATTO 23:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the suspension is clearly stated there: The "Agent for Service of Process," (probably the president or secretary of the NCAHF), "** RESIGNED ON 03/22/2003." -- Fyslee 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not a reason to explain NCAHF suspension. Also, Paul Lee works directly with Stephen Barrett on the Healthfraud list and the quackery webring. Both are members of the "rag-tag posse of snake-oil vigilantes." Why is Lee able to moderate others postings when he is a teammate of Barrett's and far from unbiased. Why this operation was suspended and no paperwork can be found in Massachusetts after 3 years is entirely relevant for this operation soliciting public funds.

Several of Barrett's other Rag-Tag Posse members have spent years attempting to destroy our small non profit foundation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilena (talk • contribs).

Today is 12/6/2006

Today is 12/6/2006. Barrett's teammates have invaded every aspect of my life and people close to Barrett have attempted to shut down my non profit corporation since SLAPP suing me in 2001. Since Polevoy lost to me November 20, 2006, Barrett's publicist Willa Nidiffer has been advertising a website that I was arrested in San Diego and that I had filed for bankruptcy. These are false statements. Nidiffer uses the name "Nanaweedkiller" and proudly calls herself "Barrett's Parrot." After Barrett lost the Appeals to me, Nidiffer widely circulated a piece claiming I was arrested for selling crack cocaine to children in San Jose, Costa Rica. A review of her postings will show she is definitely a publicist for Barrett and his various campaign. A previous pseudoname of Nanaweedkiller was "The Reverend Cathy Credulous" and the accurate, "Disinfoagent@disinfo. I tell you this here to put into perspective what has happened in the years of Barrett suing and losing to me.

He is "credential watch" but refuses to answer basic questions about the operations of NCAHF. HE challenges and attacks the licenses of others, but refuses to respond to questions about his own operation.

This is the link to the Massachusetts Corporate Search Webpage ...[29]

With Barrett putting himself as THE AUTHORITY on "CredentialWatch" and all of his other WATCHes ... it is entirely relevant WHO is behind his campaigns and how squeeky clean are his own credentials.

He has publicists such as "Nanaweedkiller" and a disbarred attorney, joined with him to attack those he is suing. If you doubt this one moment, please read: [30]

and see Barrett, Grell and Polevoy and team mates proudly calling themselves "The Rag-tag Posse of Snake Oil Vigilantes" (their name for themselves, not mine.)

Where is and when was NCAHF incorporated as they claim on the websites is a more than relevant question? Please unbiased moderators, help find out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilena (talk • contribs). 12/6/2006.

Ilena, if you read the section just above entitled "Massachusetts lising" you will see our attempts to find out the non-profit status of NCAHF. We really didn't come to an agreement or answer. It has been suggested that they are not listed in Massachusetts because they are entitled wait up to 5 years without filing there. I don't know if this is true. If you have comments to add to the above investigation of their corporate status please do so! Much appreciated and congratulations on your victory. If it is true, I am sorry that Barrett is resorting to such base and unfair "sore loser" tactics. Some people just have to be right no matter what the cost. Levine2112 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Where is and when was NCAHF incorporated as they claim on the websites is a more than relevant question? Please unbiased moderators, help find out." Until we find a particular source, then prehaps it should just be reported as such. It should be noted that other non-profit (or even profit) organisations haven't had such detailed examination as this one :-) Shot info 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. But if an organization is acting unlawfully (and that can be confirmed by a reliable source) then that information should be brought to light on that organization's Wiki article. No? Levine2112 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember, people, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT. --Ronz 01:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

From the NCAHF website: "NCAHF is a private nonprofit, voluntary health agency that focuses upon health misinformation, fraud, and quackery as public health problems."

If this is factual, it should be provable in 5 minutes. It's been over 3 years and still no evidence that they are incorporated or nonprofit. Why can this not be proven if true?

I do not believe that a non profit corporation can solicit funds for over 3 years with no corporate standing. If this is true, the person should be able to document it.

Further, I would like to reiterate that Paul Lee works directly with Barrett and is a member of the Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes with Barrett. How can this be considered "neutral" to have him as any kind of moderator with censoring privileges? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)

You do realize that "Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes" is part of a satire site, dont you? --Ronz 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people obviously think Little Britain is a documentary on the UK :-) Shot info 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to allow Ilena to turn Wikipedia into Usenet? This is a nightmare scenario. She is possibly the most prolific writer of hate mail on Usenet, and can keep us endlessly occupied with a combination of attacks, libels, conspiracy theories, etc.. If she can't learn to keep her personal hate campaign out of Wikipedia, then she may be up for another (much longer) block. We're trying to produce an encyclopedia here, not engage in a war. -- Fyslee 05:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"If this is factual, it should be provable in 5 minutes" and largely irrelevant to wikipedia. "Factual" (for a given level of factual) is not really the aim WP:V. If an organisations makes a claim of "non-profit" status and they are still up and running (particularly a vocal consumer group like NCAHF) one can expect that they are a non-profit group, or the litigious nature of the US probably will have seen them forced to remove the title. I strongly suspect there is a nature of a conspiracy theory in pointing out the status/non-status of this organisation. And one largely irrelevant to wikipedia.

And to answer Fyslees comment, I would assume that the normal wiki due process would be followed. I note that Ilena has yet to open a user account. Shot info 07:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to correct one comment from Shot info, which also may be a valid account. User:Ilena is a valid account. She just hasn't created a user page. If she had, I would expect it to be speedily deleted under {{db-attack}}, if it's anything like her Usenet posts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's publicst has had since October to find out the legal status of NCAHF in Massachusetts. To date, no evidence of a legal corporation has been found. The FACT that Barrett harasses other entities with vigor makes this an extremely relevant issue. It is not rocket science to prove the existence of a corporation in Massachusetts. I have searched several times and NOTHING has come up, although they continue soliciting funds from the public. Ilena 23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Find some verifiable information to back your claims. We've had a detailed discussion this already. Your personal disagreements with Barrett are irrelevant. --Ronz 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

None so blind as he who refuses to see. I posted inrefutable evidence of the suspension in 2003 by the State of California ... you censor it.

I posted that even though Paul Lee several months ago was going to provide evidence of the NCAHF's legal status in Massachusetts, he has not done so. Further no listings are available in the State records as are every other corporation legal to solicit funds in that state. You censor it.

Who is biased with presenting evidence??? 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)

I dont appreciate the insults, Ilena. I suggest reviewing WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Ronz 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This now seems to be a notable criticism from a notable source. If someone has evidence to refute it, please present it. Levine2112 00:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena is not a notable source in the Wikipedia sense. This idea is her invention (the edit history shows she introduced it originally), so it's blatant OR, and no source has ever been produced to slant it this way by placing it in the criticisms section. It's just a fact of no significance, much less an OR POV one. Jarvis retired. The presidency went to London, then to Baratz. Baratz lives in Massachusetts, so registration in California is pointless. Period. -- Fyslee 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF states that they are a registered nonprofit in Mass. but are not listed in the state's corporate database. Seems notable and not trivial. Levine2112 00:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you regard "notable" in a non-wikipedian sense. A person's stated opinion is "notable"??? All the more reason to declare it POV and strike it from the article. Ilena has been on the receiving end of SLAPP happy Americans yet doesn't find it odd that other litigious Americans (ie/ Hulda Clark et.al) don't jump all over NCAHF's "notable" lack of inclusion in a publicly accessible database. One would think that government incompetence is responsible, but hey, when does that ever stop a conspiracy theory??????? Shot info 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We have a criticism section so that notable critics can provide their opinion of the subject. Levine2112 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Methinks somebody needs to have a re-read (or perhaps a read) of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. Shot info 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And whom might that be praytell? Levine2112 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The most one could state from that is an unencyclopedic comment (not a criticism) that "the editors of Wikipedia could not find any registration in Massachusetts." They could not state that "it is not registered," just that they "could not find the registration." Such a statement is not allowed, since editors are "invisible" in articles. So far this is a matter of OR designed by Ilena as a criticism. I have asked her on her talk page just what she means by it. -- Fyslee 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Is not Ilena a notable critic of NCAHF? So as long as her statements are presented in the form of a POV criticism, what's the problem? Levine2112 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability is not the only requirement for inclusion here. That opinion needs to be published in WP:V and WP:RS, and for it to be notable, preferably several, although that's not always necessary. She is the first to question it, which she did when she introduced it as an edit right here at Wikipedia. That's blatant POV WP:OR. That section should be removed entirely, and if it is replaced (but not in the criticisms section), some neutral form of wording used which doesn't mention the fact that this is just because some editors here can't find the registration. -- Fyslee 00:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Suggestions? Levine2112 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The lack of evidence against something is not evidence for it. --Ronz 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. If there is a legal entity in Massachusetts under the name of NCAHF it can be easily proven. Paul Lee has had months to provide the evidence, if any, of their legal status and has failed to provide any. Ilena 03:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone here can write an email to Barrett and to Baratz to clarify the situation. I have done so several times but haven't gotten any response. So for those who claim I have some kind of close relationship, well, it's not very close at all. I'm not even a member of the NCAHF! -- Fyslee 09:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Can someone from Wikipedia be so kind as to explain how posting a link to show the suspension of a supposive non profit "watch dog" corporate listing is considered a POV?

This article is about the NCAHF ... if they are fraudulently advertising and have no corporate status, that does not appear to me to be 'attacking' ... only 'revealing.' Ilena 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A corporation which winds up business in California, but fails to file dissolution papers, is listed as "suspended". (Source, Spidell's California Taxletter, October 2006 and December 2006, among others; the context is that the suspended corporation still owns the annual $800 franchise fee.) Recent changes in California law may allow a suspended corporation to retroactively dissolve. That, together with User:Ronz's assertion that corporations may have 5 years to register as a non-profit in Massachusetts suggest the only relevant information is that NCAHF moved from California to Massachusetts. That doesn't strike me as notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Massachusetts allows a non profit to operate for 5 years without a corporate listing?

Where is the evidence for the reasons that NCAHF was suspended in California?

Why are these considered POV? Ilena 16:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason given on the California Secretary of State's web site for the suspension is that the California process agent resigned. Given that the group has moved to MA, it's plausible that the agent in question also moved to MA, making him ineligible to continue as agent. As for 5 years, you'd have to ask User:Ronz. All I can find is that registration as a nonprofit is not required unless the corporation takes in more than $5,000 in contributions, or solicits contributions from 10 or more people in MA. Why it is notable that an organization that moves from CA to MA fails to maintain its CA corporate registration? It's not exactly a POV violation; more of "undue weight" for non-notable information which would tend to indicate that the organization is not operating properly. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not one shred of evidence of anything Arthur Rubin and the anonymous "ronz" has written. The note about the secretary resigning is NOT the "reason" given for the suspension of this license.

This is pure and utter censorhship. NCAHF calls itself a "watchdog" solitics non profit donations and has no corporate entity in evidence and you continue to censor these facts. "Plausible" is not a fact. "Suspended" is. Ilena 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, please stop with the personal attacks. --Ronz 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ronz, please note that Ilena did not make a personal attack. She is commenting on the edits and not the editors. Levine2112 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. --Ronz 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I concur that Ilena did not make a personal attack this time. However, the reason given for suspension is exactly that the agent of service of process resigned, which would automatically cause a (temporary) suspension. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what is written regarding the suspension from the State of California in 2003.

Corporation THE NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC. Number: C0834009 Date Filed: 12/8/1977 Status: suspended Jurisdiction: California Address POST B 1276 LOMA LINDA, CA 92354 Agent for Service of Process

• • RESIGNED ON 03/22/2003

It is not, as alluded here, the "reason" for the suspension, but the "reason" there is no "agent for service of process" should anyone want to sue them. Further, discussions with the Secretary of State in Massachusetts reveals that NCAHF is NOT a legal entity and has no corporate status there. Further, the anonymous Ronz suggestion that they may operate for 5 years or 5 months with no legal status is totally false.

There are facts, not my point of view. Ilena 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(Would you please use standard Wikipedia conventions on indents, and note WP:SPAM on adding links to your web site whenever you talk....)

The reason for suspension should be available if someone is willing to pay the corporate records fee. I don't know the exact amount, but it should be under $45. If you insist that the reason the corporation was suspended is not that everyone moved out of the state, which would cause a suspension if they failed to formally disolve the corporation, the burden of proof is on you. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You will be reported for the 3 reversion rule. You are attempting to censor FACTS regarding this very possible illegal operation who calls itself a "watchdog" and has been accepting donations with no apparent legal status for 3.5 years. Ilena 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena

I don't see a statement that they moved from CA to MA as notable, and the corporate status adds little to that. And you've already violated 3RR, if I counted correctly, while I only have 2 reverts in the last 24 hours. I'm not going to report you at WP:3RR, but I might endorse the statement if someone else does. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF was SUSPENDED ... not dissolved. Their attorney for the disaster lawsuit failure against King Bio was the 'secretary' and he resigned (Morse Mehrban)... one way to stop from being sued. This was shortly after NCAHF lost all appeals to King Bio. All the denials and smokescreens around their questionable legal status are not facts, but playing Johnnie Cochrane. Because of Paul Lee and you attempting to censor my valid criticism, I contacted the Secretary of State and Attorney General of Massachusetts. They have assured me there is no legal status for NCAHF to be collecting donations ... despite their research showing MANY websites and blogs pointing to and advertising that they are "a private nonprofit" in the State of Massachusetts and NCAHF being a part of a large webring. I do not appreciate your blatant attempts of censorship. Ilena 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena

Thanks Ilena, for contacting the Secretary of State and Attorney General of Massachusetts and getting them to confirm your concerns. Now you only have to share the actual communications from them with us and we can continue. --Ronz 00:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(reported from User talk:Ilena) sa [31][32]

I apologize for not explaining myself better. I would like to add that truth is irrelevant to Wikipedia; verifiability is the primary requirement. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that NCAHF not being registered in MA is verifiable; all we can be sure is that they're not registered as a MA corporation; that database doesn't seem to have foreign corporations registered to do business in MA. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I'clast. It is definitely verifiable that NCAHF is NOT registered in Massachusetts. The Secretary of State's office has reiterated that all legal corporate entities are listed in their database. Any legal corporation in any state can prove their legality in a heartbeat. Ilena 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Can someone explain to me why this organization is notable? Is there any coverage of it other than by itself or its direct opponents? JoshuaZ 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of it's association with Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett. --Ronz 02:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)