Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Delicensed vs. unlicensed

NATTO, please tell me what you feel is the difference between these terms? -- Fyslee 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fyslee. It is not for me , as an editor, to decide what the use of the word means so I will not get drawn into your line of questioning. The point of view of Barrett is included as well as the wording used by Bolen. It is not the job of an editor to draw conclusions or decide his definition of a word that would support one POV over the other. You have clearly tried to present a supportive view of the definition that Barrett has posted on his website by choosing selectively the words you wanted from references posted, conveniently ignoring, the rest of the argument. NATTO 22:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Sahelian and FDA warning letter

• The FDA warning letter was sent with regards to three products formulated by Dr. Sahelian and sold on a web site called www.physicianformulas.com.

Upon further research by looking at the website in question we can find that:

1- Physician Formulas is a nutraceutical company with headquarters in Irvine, California, and customer care centers in several locations including Nebraska, Iowa, and California. 2- they carry high quality products from several respected supplement manufacturers and by world renowned and respected doctors and herbalists including medical doctor and best selling author Ray Sahelian, M.D., who formulated several products listed below for the Physician Formulas label. These products are available on our website, other websites including amazon.com, and in select health food stores.

Thus the website www.physicianformulas.com does not appear to be owned by Dr. Sahelian but is a distributor selling numerous products including some formulated by Dr. Sahelian.

When asked Dr. Sahelian had this to say: " I like Wikipedia but it bothers me that everytime I read information on this site I start thinking in the back of my mind whether all the info is accurate. In this case, it is not. The FDA should have addressed the letter to the CEO of Physician Formulas, not to me. The products I formulate are sold on several web sites. Therefore, the whole sentence should be removed regarding the FDA part, and we would appreciate it if you could do so. "

I have edited this section of the article to try to keep it NPOV as those who posted the item originally did so in a way to attack Dr. Sahelian because of his polite response to Dr. Barrett's e-mail, the tone of which can be seen from the reference.

I thus raise the above issue to be addressed by editors. NATTO 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• For reference this is the text as it was reverted by Teadrinker on september 9 at 22:50:

Dr Sahelian operates a website marketing drug products to the public, and has been warned by the FDA about making misleading claims on his website.FDA warning letter

NATTO 23:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the statement is factual, he was warned by the FDA about making misleading claims on his website. I am not opposed to alerting the wording to include "dietary supplements" rather than "drugs," however that he was warned is amply documented. I see no reason to allow people to whitewash well documented material which may cast them in a negative light. --TeaDrinker 23:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the version removed here is fairly neutral. I have not reverted the change until we can get consensus on the talk page, however. --TeaDrinker 23:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The following version: He recently received a warning letter from the FDA regarding three products sold on one of his website that did not comply with existing FDA regulation. He was also warned about the improper use of disease claims in the form of personal testimonials."FDA warning letter is the one I edited for NPOV but that was before I checked the website www.physicianformulas.com and realized that it was not in fact Dr. Sahelian website.NATTO 00:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's neutrality is not being called into question. It's the truth of the statement which is questionable, if we are to take Dr. Sahelian on his word. Also, as NATTO has pointed out, the statement at least had one verifiable error. Dr. Sahelian didn't sell his products on his website, but through a third party's site. Again, this is if we are taking Dr. Sahelian's word on this. Levine2112 00:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia's general method for dealing with such material should work here: report the verifiable information. He did recieve such a letter, with the contents as described. I don't think it would be wise to try ourselves to determine if the letter was appropriate and/or correct in its factual statements. That would stike me as original research. We can, however, indicate that he does not agree with the facts of the letter, however saying he recieved such a letter is verifiable. Perhaps we could add cf. in the ref and link to Sahelian's statement as well. --TeaDrinker 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right. We report what is verifiable. What is verifiable here is that Sahelian has been criticised by the FDA for aspects of his marketing. The truth of precisely how this was marketed, or what he did to provoke this, is a matter for an article on Sahelian. The criticism is relevant in the context of his relationship to Barrett. Guy 21:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. Teadrinker is missing the point. While it is not up to us to analyse the document one should at least look at what is written in the letter and check the website mentionned in the letter instead of blindly posting references.

If he goes and look at the website mentioned in the FDA letter , he will see that it is not operated by Dr. Sahelian, thus Dr. Sahelian does not control what is written on it. The FDA, although addressed to Dr. Sahelian ( and to PhysicianFormulas ) is about the content of the website www.physicianformulas.com and not about the content of Dr. Sahelian website which is http://www.raysahelian.com/index.html. Although the website www.physicianformulas.com does mention that the products are formulated by Dr. Sahelian, he does not operate that website so cannot be blamed for it's content. What Dr. Sahelian says it thus corroborated by the evidence. NATTO 00:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The letter was adressed to Sahelian. Inferences as to precisely who is responsible for the misrepresentation is original research unless you can source it from an independent reliable secondary source. Verifiability, not truth, is the thing here. Guy 21:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow... I was under the impression that when living persons are concerned that extra care was needed to be taken so that not only the information was verifiable but actually factually correct. So if I understand correctly it is OK to place information that we know is untrue simply because we can find a document that says it.... Finally I have not place anything on the article that was based on OR and did not suggest we did but simply removed a phrase that was factually incorrect because based on a document that contained an error, i.e it was addressed to the wrong person,according to Dr. Sahelian. This was supported by the evidence but, again, I did not say we should placed that in the article. Please let me know if factual truth is not relevant in WP. I would like that clearly confirmed.

Also I have also looked at the FDA website and could not find the letter from the main page. NATTO 00:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, understanding more fully now.... I must say I half agree with JzG/Guy-- it is original research of a sort to check up on the claims independently. However I can also see his disputing the factual accuarcy of the letter as relevant, and while perhaps not a strictly reliable source, a mention of his disputting the claim perhaps could be included (a footnote perhaps). I do think the criticism is sufficiently well sourced to meet bio of living peoplem, so I don't see it as a major impediment. --TeaDrinker 06:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If we state the facts and avoid drawing inferences, then we are in the clear. The fact does appear to be significant in context. Guy 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Since it has been established that the FDA letter was sent in error to Dr. Sahelian, I am puzzled by this insistence to write this item in the article. Is it to attack Dr. Sahelian ? If you read his reply to the e-mail of Dr. Barrett, he was very polite and measured in his response. What is the point of writing such an item followed by a disclaimer stating the the letter should have been addressed to the CEO of the website www.physicianformulas.com, which is not the web site of Dr. Sahelian. It should be noted also that this letter does not appear to be accessible from the FDA page listing such letters. I looked at the letters sent during that month and it is nowhere to be seen. NATTO 12:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a source of reference ?

• In biographies of living persons where reliable, independant, references are the recommended standard, what is the situation with regards to the use of Wikipedia article as such a reference ? Editors will have noted that many Wikipedia articles are not properly referenced or not referenced at all, while some others are. What do you think ?

Assistant Listmaster

The text below was moved from Levine talk page as it is relevant to this article:

On my talk page and elsewhere, he calls himself Barrett's "Assistant Listmaster".--Hughgr 03:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One questions: 1- What is an "Assistant Listmaster" ?NATTO 04:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) OK I saw the short explanation on your talk page : "Assistant Listmaster consists of checking the list for excess traffic caused by off-topic discussions or trolls". It looks like Fyslee is working part-time for Barrett in that capacity. NATTO 04:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to explain my "relationship" with Barrett. I have never met him or spoken to him. I have no access to, or control of, any of Barrett's websites. He and his son, and possibly other assistants, take care of that stuff.

There is a discussion list that has existed for a number of years, the Healthfraud Discussion List. I have been a participant there since 1999. There are several hundred list members, most of whom only lurk. Some of the lurkers are people like Bolen. The list was not started by Barrett, but by Rebecca Long. It was a list sponsored by a local chapter (Georgia) of the NCAHF. (There is an interesting collection of information about her here. She couldn't continue running the list, so she turned it over to him, and he is now its Moderator (Listmaster). For the last few years I have been Assistant Listmaster, which is only relevant on rare occasions. If Barrett is out of town and can't monitor the list (he rarely participates in discussions), he let's me know and I try to keep an eye on it. There can be from 30-50 posts per day on many topics. A moderator's job is simply to make sure that no one disrupts the list, or gets too far off-topic. If that isn't done, the volume of posts can suddenly explode and people get irritated. This is naturally a voluntary effort, and it's been over a year since I last had to take any action. I can ban trolls when necessary, but I usually contact Barrett and let him do it. I am not a member of the NCAHF, although there are others here in Europe who are members.

As far as the current discussion about the confusion about URLs, it's just that. The information above is incorrect. I'll try to explain it on the other page if I don't get dragged away from the PC before then. -- Fyslee 07:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, thank you for the above explanation confirming that your are doing voluntary work for Stephen Barrett as a part-time Assistant Listmaster on the Healthfraud Discussion list of his website Quackwatch. He contacts you when he needs your services and you contact him to keep him informed of what is going on on the list. NATTO 23:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Not that it really makes any difference, but just to make sure you understand this. The discussion list is only mentioned at Quackwatch. It is on an independent server that has nothing to do with Quackwatch. It simply continues as it was before Barrett was asked to take over as listmaster: "Scottsoft Research, which donates the computers and technical support. Headed by Scott Ballantyne, its staff does unix and networking consulting." -- Fyslee 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, thanks for the added information. I clearly understood your relationship with Dr. Barrett after your initial explanation.NATTO 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Levine2112"

Confessions of a Quackbuster

Fyslee, it this your blog Confessions of a Quackbuster ? NATTO 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Just like many other people I am active on the internet and have websites, including blogs. You're welcome to ask specific questions about any of the topics you find there. -- Fyslee 20:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section devotes separate bullet points to several separate criticisms by Bolen and by Negrete. This gives the unwarranted impression of multiple indpendent criticisms. The criticisms by these two individuals should in my view be merged into sections on "disputes with Negrente" and "disputes with Bolen", in each case including any conflicts of interest which underly those disputes (especially in the case of Bolen). YThe POV tag should also be moved to this section since the biographical data section is clearly unproblematic. Guy 11:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Negrete is Bolen's lawyer, and some of Negrete's press releases read as if they were written by Bolen, so they can be considered more or less the same source of criticism. All of Negrete's writings are characterised by extreme spin, and he doesn't tell the rest of a story if it's negative to himself. Bolen outright lies and manufactures conspiracy theories, which he was forced to call "euphemisms" under deposition. He has claimed that Barrett has committed criminal acts, but could not produce a single shred of evidence to support the charge. They are both unreliable and antagonistic sources of information.

I have moved the tag and used the NPOV section tag. -- Fyslee 20:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee. It is not for you to decide to move the NPOV tag as you have not placed it ( I did ) and there has been no consensus reached about it on this talk page. Secondly the section on criticism is just that and clearly labelled so and it is all properly referenced. The lawsuit results are factual. it is too bad they are not usually in favor of Dr. Barrett but that is the reality and correctly reflects what has happened. You are far from being neutral - you have a anti-quackery blog and you call yourself a quackbuster and work part-time for Dr. Barrett as an assistant listmaster, so you should be cautious about your own analysis. NATTO 21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand: it is up to you to justify the tag. I have reviewed the upper sections of the article and see no evident bias. Fyslee has no evident connection to the subject, and your accusations of bias says as much about your bias as it does about Fyslee's. Do not mistake your own bias for neutrality. Guy 21:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Guy. I am not sure I understand your comment: " Fyslee has no evident connection to the subject ". He said himself that he is the assistant listmaster of Dr. Barrett and he has a blog called " Confessions of a quackbuster ". Of course this does not mean that he does not try to be NPOV and follow WP rules however he has clearly chosen a side in his real life and is very close to this issue. He certainly is editing to present a positive side to the topic. Someone needs to present the other side of the story. Dr. Barrett takes very definitive views on numerous modalities as well as individuals involved in them and he is not shy in promoting those views on the Internet. NATTO 00:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Guy. Also if the POV tag belong in the Controversy and litigation section, can you then please explain why as it is the most referenced section with many of the references from court documents and legal rulings ? I thus use your own phrase "it is up to you to justify the tag ". NATTO 03:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

NATTO, I have done my own addition of an NPOV section tag, as suggested by the admin, since I think it applies. You dispute the whole article, and I dispute the section. Neither of us is neutral or unbiased, and who we are and what we do outside of Wikipedia is immaterial. What we do in our editing is what is relevant. As long as we can follow the rules, our personal POV, which we naturally have, is irrelevant. -- Fyslee 21:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

NATTO, why do you still wish to have an NPOV tag at the top of the article? Are there some unresolved issues there? -- Fyslee 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ther way the editors have chosen to structure the article is to have a separate section for critics and for the various lawsuits. That was not my decision as I would prefer to have the both mixed together in a more flowing style. As it stand the top portion is basically taken from the website of Dr. Barrett and represents mainly what he says about himself or was is written on his website. For example the section on online activism. The is definitely room to put in it information that does not support Barrett's classification of some of these items as quackery. Dental amalgam removal is one especially since recently an independant panel of scientists appointed by the FDA have rejected the FDA's conclusions on amalgam safety. On this issue, like many others, Barrett has taken a partial and one sided view that is not in keeping with the latest scientific evidence.

But because the article is structured the way it is ( a section for critics and one for lawsuits ) the article is broken in two. One that offers a positive view of Barrett and one that shows the negative side.

As far as the results of the lawsuits that is the way they turned out, too bad for Dr. Barrett. Editors have agreed to use a high standard of reference when legal issue are involved, that was agreed . If it is to be changed then we should discuss it again.

The article should reflect what is actually happening. Writing things NPOV is fine but events or activities that are not favorable to Dr. Barrett are also part of the facts and should not be considered POV simply because they are not favorable. If a legal decision is quoted than it is fact and not the POV of the editor.

So to place the POV tag only above the critics section is implying that this is the only part of the article that is POV when in fact the apparently NPOV top part is in fact written to present the views promoted by Barrett. To say that Barrett describe all the listed modalities as quackery is correct but the section does not give the other side of the story at all. NATTO 22:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To roll in the (very large) criticism section, which appears to be largely based on attempts by one or two individuals to discredit Barrett, would give undue weight to these views. It is scarcely a problem to state that he is a retired doctor who runs a website. The controversy that website stirs up mainly belongs in Quackwatch anyway, but that which belongs here should be boiled down to individuals and specifics. A criticism of Barrett from an authority who has widespread respect from the medical community would be important, a series of criticisms from people who have themselves been criticised by, for example, the FDA, carries much less weight, since a lot of it is likely to be special pleading. That is why I think we should group the criticisms and disputes by individual, so they can be viewed in the context of the individual and the nature of their dispute with Barett. Guy 11:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Guy, as written earlier I am not sure how things work in England but the section Accusations of bias and conspiracy contains only one item from Bolen and one from Negrete , all the others are about other critics such as Dr. Sahelian, Deepak Chopra, Donna Ladd, Peter Barry Chowka, Paul Hartal. As far as the section on Licensure and credentials the critics include Bolen and Negrete as well as a California Superior Court judge. Barrett's own response is also included. Finally the section on Litigation is not about critics ( either Bolen or Negrete ) but about the various court cases initiated by Dr. Barrett as well as the court decisions in such cases. I think you are drawing premature conclusions regarding criticism by the FDA. In the above list the only person who you may refer to is Dr. Sahelian, however he correctly stated that the letter was sent to him in error and should have been sent to the CEO of the web site, www.physicianformulas.com, which is not his. Furthermore regarding such letters from the FDA, if you look at their website, these are routinely sent for a numerous reasons. They are sent to very mainstream groups, including large pharmaceutical companies. Interestingly Dr. Barrett does not put those on his website. NATTO 12:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia works the same way in England as it does in the US: policy must be followed, single purpose accounts may be banned from articles where they cause disruption, verifiability matters, The Truth^TM does not. Thje litigation section is not the problem, the Criticism section is. We can include cites to the FDA letters to major pharmaceutical firmns alongside thier published criticisms of Barrett, if such exist, because they too would inform the nature of their dispute with Barrett. Guy 12:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I was referring to the fact that only two items in the criticism section are from Bolen & Negrete.You are an admin and your like the rules. If you wish to ban me than please do so, after all you are an admin yielding the RULE book. NATTO 12:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Happy to do that if you want, but I thjought it might be more productive to discus ways of improving the article. Guy 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I think it is time to sit back and have ourselves a cup of tea and chill out. Take a step back and breath, before we say or do something which we might regret. While we do that, please ponder this...

As of now, the article is split into two major sections... Praise and Criticism. You can call the top portion "Biography" and "Accolades", but being completely filled with highlights of only the positive aspects in Barrett's bio and CV, it must be labelled (in our minds) as "Praise" (unless this were an article about an actual saint who has done nothing notable other than earn accolades and write completely respectful, universally accepted works... Barrett is not such a person).

As for the second section, it is a bit weird calling is "Criticism" when nearly half of it provides a review of Barrett's various court cases. I'm not sure why this is under the criticism section anymore. Perhaps it is because that the vast majority of these cases resulted in a loss for Barrett? Or maybe because the majority are libel cases which Barrett initiated after he felt he had been unfairly criticized? Help me out here and explain it to me why this subsection is in the criticisms section.

Now then, if Barrett's litigious activities were moved into the top "Biography" section or was made part of its own major section, that which would be left in the "criticisms" section would be entirely criticisms and Barrett's often lengthy statements in his own defense (as well as character attacks of the person/organization making the criticism). In your minds, please do this exercise... Extract Barrett's repsonses to the criticisms as well as the character impugment of the critics, and what is left is certainly a great deal less than the "praise" section above. So I don't think to "unfair weight" given to the critics argument is neccessarily valid here.

Remember, what makes Barrett prominent enough to even warrent a Wikipedia article is that he isn't afraid to make controversial proclamations about fields, professions, treatments, and people; and accordingly, these statements (as well as the person making them) are met with criticisms. Barrett would be a "nobody" if it weren't for the controversy which stems from himself and thus the criticisms of Barrett are at least half of what makes him so notable.

With this in mind, I am confused why the NPOV tag went up on the "criticism" section. Certainly this section is wrought with references and counter-arguments made in defense of Barrett. If anything this section, on its own, is balancing out rather nicely. However, the problem is that this section doesn't exist on its own. It is part of a largere article, which in itself is not fair-and-balanced. Given that the top section - the supposed "Biography and Accolades" sections are devoid of the controversy which Barrett himself incites (as well as any arguments against him meriting the accolades and praise), the article as a whole could warrant an NPOV tag. I would prefer to ditch the tag all together. Right now, being placed solely on the criticism section, it seems to serve as a warning made by Pro-Barrett editors to the readers of this article that they should not to accept anything negative that people have written or said about Barrett. Thus, the tag itself is has become a tool of POV pushing. Surely, this is not Wikipedia's accepted and intended purpose of using such a tag.

So what do we do now? Do we keep this article split into a sort of yin-yang with praise on top and criticism on the bottom? Do we attempt the very messy prospect of intertwining the good with the bad? If we go this latter route, we must all agree to work more cooperatively than ever before. Suggestions? Levine2112 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what I have been trying to explain repeatedly, to little effect, including the fact that there is only two items from Bolen/Negrete in the criticism section. NATTO 23:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There might be a good reason for that (although their names are liberally sprinkled throughout the whole "Controversy and litigation" section). In fact, many of the criticisms and libel suits can be traced back to one source - Bolen's "opinion pieces," as he correctly labels them. Bolen writes the pieces describing his conspiracy theories, posts them on his websites, sends them out in his newsletter, and they get reposted all over the internet. Since Bolen's criticisms aren't legitimate responses to Barrett's specific criticisms of purported quackery, but are ad hominem and straw man attacks, often of a very libelous nature, Barrett has sued for libel in certain very aggravated cases. Thus we have both criticisms and libel cases all caused by Bolen's spin doctor tactics, which he started when Hulda Clark's son hired him to run defense for her.

Since all these matters from that one source are lacking in documentation (how does one document a conspiracy theory, especially when one is forced under deposition to admit it was a "euphemism," with no evidence of criminal activity?), the only information available, and from easily verifiable sources, is libelous information, which violates WP:BLP.

If your heroes' criticisms were legitimate responses, then the criticisms would be referenced with peer reviewed sources and from respected medical authorities, and not from quacks and their spin doctors and lawyers. The only reason Barrett hasn't won is not because actual lies and libel haven't occurred. They certainly have. No, he's a public person, and his critics can lie all they want and get away with it. Is that the kind of ethics you're supporting and attempting to place in the article? I hope not.

The criticisms still name the libelous accusations, and also the ad hominem attacks, but legitimate criticisms are lacking for a very good reason - they just don't exist, with few exceptions. I've only seen about two serious attempts in the last seven years, where the criticisms were to the point, using scientific sources and argumentation, without ad hominem attacks of a personal nature. That's what's lacking. When you find it, please add it.

Right now, WP:BLP helps to keep the worst stuff out of this article. -- Fyslee 22:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please point us to or add these critiques of Barrett to the article. If you feel that they represent the best of the criticisms of Barrett, then in the interest of making this the best article possible, we should include them here. Thanks in advance. Levine2112 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is well known on this talk page that Fyslee does not like Tim Bolen at all. However the individuals listed in the criticism section such as Dr. Chopra, Dr. Sahelian, Donna Ladd and Peter Barry Chowka are expressing their opinion and not simply repeating what Bolen says. If there are similarities it is because lack of balance in how Dr. Barrett present the information on his website is seen as a real issue by many. Dr. Sahelian and Chopra are both qualified medical professionals as well so they have as much credibility as Dr. Barrett. The above comments by Fyslee that they are just a mouthpiece for Tim Bolen are not factual. NATTO 23:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• One more point about Barrett being a public figure: This is well discussed in the article. It is a legal standard in the USA and it is not just for Dr. Barrett. As the judges have correctly pointed out, Dr. Barrett has assiduously worked at becoming a public figure so he is not in this situation by accident or as the result of circumstances. After the first libel suit he must have been aware of the legal requirements, however has since lodge many other libel suits. Blaming the legal system is not going to solve his problem. NATTO 23:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

POV tag - the situation

Fyslee in conjunction with Guy have previously unilaterally relocated the POV tag. Guy has not been involved in editing this article before and has just appeared in the discussion while Fyslee, Levine and myself have been involved for a long time. Levine and I do not agree that the POV tag should only be in one part of the article. Fyslee and Guy say that the Accusations of bias and conspiracy section of the article is POV while Levine and myself say that the top part is biased toward showing only the positive aspect of the subject of the article, reflecting essentially what he writes about himself on his websites. We both have suggested re-working the article to improve flow and avoid polarity in the article.

It appears that the reason Guy came in, was to check the situation regarding the information about the Barrett v Mercola lawsuit. Fyslee insisted in putting information that was referenced with one-sided documents. As editors in this article we had agreed previously that in legal matters only independant and preferably legal documents was the standard or verifiability. Based on that agreed standard of verifiability, references based only on what Dr. Barrett said are clearly not acceptable. So I reminded repeatedly of such. He had earlier agreed and removed the item but re-inserted unilaterally.

After a quick look a the situation, Guy seemed to have misunderstood the issue, assuming that there was a problem between verifiability and what he call The TruthTM, whatever that means and which seems to be an issue with him. NATTO 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

NATTO, I read the article; there is no neutrality issue with the main body, only with the criticisms section. As usual with criticisms sections it is bloated and repetitive, and gives as much (more) weight to apparent charlatans and shills as it does to genuine criticism from authoritative sources. You may not like the fact that the scientific consensus broadly supports conventional medicine and opposes alternative therapies, but that is how it is.

So: the upper part of the article is a biography. It seems to be pretty neutral, I don't see any compelling evidence of bias. Your proposal that by representing his history in neutral terms we are biased towards him, I find unpersuasive. It is usually considered a good thing for editors to come in from outside. If you want to try a more formal way of resolving your disputes there are plenty of dispute resolution mechanisms open to you and I encourage you to try these. Guy 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• The issue raised is that the article is split into two polar poles and should be better integrated. The reality is that Dr. Barrett is a controversial figure and criticism is relevant in the article. As far as your layman opinion on what the scientific consensus is regarding alternative medicine is irrelevant to the point at hand. Your world view is not the issue here. I also remind you that Fyslee and I had agreed to the standard of verifiability in legal matters in this article and had actually come to an undertstanding on the Barrett v Mercola issue before you " barged in ". NATTO 01:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Below is the relevant part of our discussion where we had agreed on the issue:NATTO 01:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The properly referenced information is fine and can remain in the article. However the statement by Barrett that the lawsuit was 1) settled 2) he was paid an amount of $50,000 is A) not a point of view but an affirmation B) involves another living person thus as to meet the standard established for legal cases i.e independant, reliable, verifiable and preferably legal documentation. As stated earlier there is a reason why Barrett has omitted the name of Mercola in his current version of events. While it is not up to us to analyse the reason, we have to take it into account. Efforts to piece different pieces of information from Barrett out of date or up to date web pages does not amount to a proper reference in such cases. His POV could be given if Mercola was making his own claims about the results of the lawsuit but he does not. If there is a valid, independant,reference to support that the case was settled then it can be included, the same goes for the result(s) of the settlement.NATTO 01:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Okay, let's settle for that for now. If you are interested in seeking truth in this matter, then you will be just as eager to find good references as I am. The nature of out of court settlements being what they are (usually with confidentiality agreements), I'm not sure we'll find anything better than Barrett's account, which I agree can't be on Mercola's article. It should be allowable on this one, since the subjects of articles are allowed to quote themselves as sources of their own POV. -- Fyslee 01:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Fyslee. Good. As long as we adhere to a high standard, as previously agreed between editors, what is written in the article will be factual and reflect what has happened in NPOV as much as is possible. This principle, in fact, should apply to all living persons that are mentioned in Wiki articles whether it is an article about them or they are mentioned in another article. As you are well aware this is not always the case. This is even more important if these individuals are not public figures discussing public issues. Regarding out of court settlement , they generally happen by mutual consent. If there is anything in an out of court settlement that prohibit naming a person involved, it is certainly not the job of wiki editors to try to circumvent the purpose of the settlement agreement. I, for one, do not know why Barrett has removed his name from his up dated web page but he did. Even if it was still there, his comments would still require independant confirmation from a reliable source. Finally there is not even an independant reference supporting that there even has been a settlement in this case. We only have a valid reference for a mutually agreed dismissal of the suit.NATTO 03:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC) And yes, I did look for a valid reference but have not found any. If such a document could be posted on a public website, don't you think that Dr. Barrett would have posted it on his web site ? As I said there is a reason why he did not.NATTO 03:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Rearrangement?

I just reread Levine2112's comments here, and wonder if he might have a point (if we ignore that there are no headings labeled "Praise" and "Criticism", which were his sarcastic(?) paraphrases). The current section title "Controversy and litigation" is a correct description of the contents, but it could be replaced with "Controversy and criticisms," and then move the "Litigation" section to right below the "Online activism" section.

To make a logical progression, it should start with the KingBio suit, since participation in it was a natural part of the stated mission of NCAHF (although it wasn't initiated by Barrett or the NCAHF, but the attorney, who then called them in as expert witnesses), which is a part of his activism. Then the other lawsuits could follow, since they are more personal matters related to reactions to his activism, and the libel cases are not part of his activism at all. (He has only sued for serious and deliberately deceptive personal libel which would not be retracted or corrected after warnings that it was deceptive, not because "he felt he had been unfairly criticized," as charged by Levine2112. He generally ignores that type of criticism, or writes about it in articles, where he debunks it.)

What do you all think about a rearrangement? -- Fyslee 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the proposed rearrangement. However, with regards to the King Bio suit, you are making a claim that Barrett's attorney initiated the case and called Barrett in as an expert witness, however, the judge's opinion states otherwise... Barrett essentially paid himself as an expert witness and thus the judge feared that a NCAHF victory would lead to more cases where Barrett could pay himself from NCAHF funds to act as an expert witness.

Your statement above is troubling and I don't like what you are accusing me of... You state: He has only sued for serious and deliberately deceptive personal libel which would not be retracted or corrected after warnings that it was deceptive, not because "he felt he had been unfairly criticized," as charged by Levine2112. Would you not say that when someone feels that that have been personally libelled seriously and deliberately deceptively is equivilently stated that the person felt unfairly criticized? I wonder if you are trying to accuse me of something to show other editors some form of impropriety on my part.

Above you mentioned that you have seen two criticisms of Barrett in recent years which you consider to be fair and of high quality. I've only seen about two serious attempts in the last seven years, where the criticisms were to the point, using scientific sources and argumentation, without ad hominem attacks of a personal nature. That's what's lacking. You may have overlooked my reply to this statement, but I would love if you introduced those criticisms here in the interest of making this the best article possible. Thanks in advance. Levine2112 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between being "unfairly criticized" and being libeled. There is no comparison. Libel is miles beyond unfair criticism. That's what I wanted to emphasize, lest someone misunderstand the seriousness of what has happened and continues to happen. You need to be careful with your choice of words, lest one get the impression that you believe Bolen. Even the most staunch and closest friend of his employer, Hulda Clark, has denounced his methods. Even she doesh't believe him! (Yet she continues to believe Clark. Go figure....)

Barrett is very used to unfair criticism. Bolen's defamation campaign is quite different than most other forms of criticism, since it is based in his own perverted conspiracy theories and wild rhetoric, with no facts to back up the serious charges. You should see (I've seen the whole thing) his deposition. He's shifty in a primitive way. The deposition is still interesting reading, even without the eye movements and body language. Both Bolen and Negrete squirm all they can to avoid admitting anything. It was a circus, with Negrete doing his obstructionist best. I wouldn't trust either one of them to babysit one of my cats for 10 minutes.

I have answered your concerns about the cases of more serious responses to Barrett:

"I've only seen about two serious attempts in the last seven years, where the criticisms were to the point, using scientific sources and argumentation, without ad hominem attacks of a personal nature. That's what's lacking."

If I could remember who it was, or where I read it, I'd certainly bring them to this article. They didn't succeed in debunking him, but they made a serious try, and I can respect that. As soon as critics dodge the issues and go directly after him personally, they lose all credibility. Personal attacks show the quacks are desperate, and since they usually have no scientifically legitimate arguments, they often start their criticisms with personal attacks. Bolen doesn't just call Barrett names or make careless and petty accusations. He has made serious charges of criminal activity and has lied about Barrett's professional status. That's bad enough, yet - in spite of being notified of his errors - he persists. That makes it deliberate and malicious behavior. -- Fyslee 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But you can't call it "libel" or "serious libel" if the court didn't find it to be so. The best you can say is that it was criticism. Barrett can claim the criticism is unfair or even libelous. But his claim does not make it so.

With regards to Bolen, I don't think the criticim section should rest on his criticisms. Nor does it. You can personally attack Bolen all you want and then in the next breath say that "personal attacks" are a sign of desperation. That's fine by me. That's why I try to avoid personal attacks. However, there is a diference between an ad hominem and an attack of credibility. This article has many different people critiquing Barrett's credibility (or lack thereof) and in most cases, these critiques are followed by an attack on the critics' credibility.

Barrett publicly condemns entire fields as well as picking out and picking on particular people. Are these personal attacks or attacks on credibility?

Please think hard and try to remember where you read those critiques on Barrett. I think they will be of paramount importance. Levine2112 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very good suggestion. Let's stop the repeated accusation of libel regarding Bolen. When and if the court do make a decision then it can be properly included in the article.NATTO 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a bold move to make this look like what I think readers expect for an encyclopedia article. Rearrangements for sections and references. I am dubious about listing the individual subjects that an author has opinions on, but just reduced the listing to paragraph form. Hope you agree and find merit.--I'clast 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me, although it was hard to figure out precisely what was going on. Try doing it in smaller bites next time. Otherwise it seems to be an improvement. -- Fyslee 05:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's comments about the KingBio suit

Levine2112 has written above:

I like the proposed rearrangement. However, with regards to the King Bio suit, you are making a claim that Barrett's attorney initiated the case and called Barrett in as an expert witness, however, the judge's opinion states otherwise... Barrett essentially paid himself as an expert witness and thus the judge feared that a NCAHF victory would lead to more cases where Barrett could pay himself from NCAHF funds to act as an expert witness. Levine2112 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not made any claim about "Barrett's attorney." Grell is normally Barrett's attorney. That doesn't prevent Barrett from cooperating with other attorneys who need help dealing with anti-quackery issues.

If Barrett were to ever use any funds from the NCAHF, that would be perfectly proper, since that's what the members expect. They pay their dues to support anti-quackery efforts, and that can include lawsuits. Whether that has ever happened is unknown to me. I do know that Barrett often pays many expenses out of his own pocket. Fortunately most of his efforts are relatively inexpensive, since there are many volunteers who help him with their time, server space, legal skills, and other forms of expert help.

Here at Wikipedia Barrett has personally taken the time to address a few issues. Here are Barrett's descriptions (from this talk page) of what actually happened:

• "Response from Dr. Barrett: The above description of my being paid in the manner described is 100% false. It is based on a wild distortion of my involvement and testimony in a single case in which Attorney Morse Mehrban sued KingBio Pharmaceuticals for false advertising of homeopathic products and used NCAHF as the plaintiff. The suit was one of many that Mehrban brought against false advertisers. After the first case was settled for a considerable sum, part of the settlement was supposed to be allocated to pay expert witnesses in the other suits. I agreed to testify in the KingBio suit for a very low fee and had no interest in tstifying in the non-homeopathic cases. Nobody asked how much I was being paid, which was unfortunate, because expert witnesses ordinarily charge much more, and if the judge knew the facts, I doubt that he would have thought the payment could influence me. KingBio's lawyer persuaded the judge that somehow my testimony would be tained because I had an indirect interest in being paid. This was preposterous, but he said it during his closing argument and there was no opportunity opportunity to rebut it. The statement that donations have been used to pay me in legal matters is 100% false. Donations to Quackwatch are used to defray the cost of running my sites, which is about $7000 per year. If they don't cover the cost, I pay out of my own pocket." [2]

• "Response from Dr. Barrett: I never paid myself to be an expert witness. The lawyer who brought the suits paid for expert witnesses out of his own pocket. As noted above, after he won a large settlement in a false advertising case, I suggested that part of the winnings could be used to retain experts in other cases. I testified that money was put into a fund for this purpose, but I later found out that no fund was actually established. Even though NCAHF agreed to serve as the plaintiff, it never received a penny from the settlements." [3]

• "Comment from Dr. Barrett: Trial testimony is conducted under rules that sometimes makes it difficult to provide a coherent picture of the facts. In this case, the judge heard that I was being paid and that there was a fund. Prodded by the opposing attorney, he jumped to the conclusion that there were many caes involved, that a lot of money would be involved, and that the situation was one he didn't trust. The judge was completely wrong. I had minimal interest in testifying, my fee was very low, and--it turned out--I was mistaken about the fund. In fact, no such fund ever existed." [4]

-- Fyslee 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet this is what the Judge in the case wrote in his opinion: 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.

Who's word are we to take? The client who lost this trial or the judge. Barrett under oath or Barrett (or someone claiming to be Barrett) on Wikipedia. I think WP is clear on this. The judge's opinion trumps.

Again, Fyslee, as you mentioned above, you want to make this article more NPOV. You mentioned two critiques of Barrett which you described as being fair. In the interest of improving this article, please include those critiques here. This is a topic we should address now. Thanks in advance. Levine2112 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Levine has a very good point. There is no benefit in Fyslee repeating over and over again the same information. There is no doubt that Barrett is critical of many people and that many people are critical of him. So there is a placed for that in the article. So I ask Fyslee to provide any relevant information that he has instead of just repeating what is written on Dr. Barrett website. NATTO 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How many times am I going to have to repeat this? I don't know when or where I read it, and if I could I'd be very interested in bringing it here. I'm not hiding anything, so please stop asking. BTW, I never said it was "fair." I said it was "serious," in contrast to the usual frivolous personal attacks designed to thwart attention from the real issue at stake, that the one being criticized for using or promoting unproven, disproven, unscientific or illegal methods should stop doing so.

As for NATTO's repeated statement (here's an example):

"There is no doubt that Barrett is critical of many people and that many people are critical of him. So there is a placed for that in the article."

I have never objected to or questioned the legitimacy of a place for criticisms in the article. NATTO has repeatedly written such things in a straw man fashion, leaving the clear impression that I am against such a thing. Definitely not. I am against repeating libelous info here, in keeping with policy (WP:BLP). -- Fyslee 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• While the above statement was not directed specifically at you, I accept what you say so we can move on to another issue. And if yes can you please stop raising the ad hominen and straw man issue ?

However I do agree with Levine that we should not say something is libellous when the courts have not found them to be so. As far as criticism of Barrett for how he deals with issues, I think it is relevant in the article. In the QW article there is criticism of the website and some of it's content but this is the SB article. Also Barrett does not practice medicine anymore, so he cannot be criticized for his therapeutic choices but only for the way he deals with the modalities he is critical of or the qualifications he has to do so.NATTO 08:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Guy's talk page as it regards this article

All of which would be so much more credible if it wasn't for the self-evident fact that some of these critics are charlatans. Whihc is why I want to collect the criticisms by person. Guy 10:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the Mercola article, this 1998 editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine references an ongoing general bias in medicine against nutrition[15], dif. I don't think Mercola's WP:BLP should depend on the QW/SB/Bolen is-too, is-not byplay. However, with respect to QW, SB et al as polemics questioned for reliability on alt med/nutrition subjects pertaining to Mercola, this article[16], dif seems more independent and relevant than the current critics cited at SB. I would especially take time to read this latter, it's an eye opener.--I'clast 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Negrete is a lawyer, fully licensed in the state of California, Dr. Chopra and Dr. Sahelian are M.D. the same medical qualification that as Barrett has, Peter Barry Chowka is a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine and Haley J. Fromholz is a judge of the California Superior Court... What is the problem with them... They do not share your POV, is that the problem ? It leaves Bolen which Fyslee does not like at all and constantly rails about. Like it or not Bolen is openly critical of Barrett and Barrett is openly critical of Bolen. This is factual and well known so it is relevant. By the way Guy calling others charlatans and quack does not help progress the discussion.NATTO 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What a lwayer says tends to be dependent on, and should be viewed in the context of, who is paying him to say it. That is a large part of the problem. And there is little doubt that there are many charlatans in the alternative health market, and all of them would be a great deal happier if consumer advocacy groups like Quackwatch went away. Which is why it is vital for any criticism to fully establish the bona fides and conflicting interests of the critic. This is a general principle and is not so very controversial, I think. Guy 13:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very general statement that is not helpful in progressing the discussion. Please be specific. If you think that Negrete, Chopra, Sahelian , Chowka , Fromholz fit your above description, then please provide factual information instead of ranting based on your view of the situation. NATTO 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Guy 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Barratt is a controversial figure, and it is right that opinions of him should be clearly and accurately reported, both favourable and unfavourable. It is also the case that the opinions reported should be selected as notable, and selected to display different ngles or views rather than reiterations. Opinion is inseparable from the issue of who exactly is the source of the opinion, and exactly why they are a noteworthy or authoritative source. I think it is therefore essential to characterise briefly but accurately and with V RS the identify of every cited source of opinion, explaining their status and authority. I do not think that references to unnamed critics are useful, where the names are clearly accessible. I think that supporters of Barratt should also be similarly identified where notable, if they have identified themselves publicly.Gleng 09:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Gleng, I think that the article as is does name the critics and give background information either directly or by allowing reader to check the related references. It also differentiate between opinions or claims by critics and proven facts. Whether it is criticism or laurels,I agree it should be clearly identified and referenced.

I posted the above to indicate that it is not enough to make general claims based on one's prefered worldview without providing specific information since it cannot progress the work on the article. Comments such as "Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle " in reply to a reasonable question is not constructive in any way. NATTO 09:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You appear to perceive your own bias as neutrality, and make accusations on that basis. This is a common human failing. Guy 10:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Which, of course, you are devoid of... By the way I do not claim to be neutral and never said so, that is your own conclusion. However It is well known that Dr. Barrett is a controversial figure and that there are two sides to the issue. Some editors are hard at work at presenting one side so there is a need for counter-balance, based on verifiable, factual information, both ways NATTO 11:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Libellers getting away with it because of technicalities

Levine2112 writes:

"But you can't call it "libel" or "serious libel" if the court didn't find it to be so. The best you can say is that it was criticism. Barrett can claim the criticism is unfair or even libelous. But his claim does not make it so." -- Levine2112 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get too far from reality here. We all know that court decisions are not always accurate or just. Just how many murderers and other crooks, where there is no doubt about their guilt, get acquitted because of technicalities? That's a fact of life. They are still murderers, but one cannot state that they have been convicted of murder.

It's the same type of situation here. Barrett has not succeeded in proving actual malice. It's still libel, both in a definitional sense and a legal sence, but we can't say they have been convicted of libeling Barrett, even though they have done so. They have gotten off the hook on technicalities.

The other technicalities that have been used are his status as a public person, and definitions of "actual injury":

• "But assuming arguendo Barrett and Polevoy could point to a statement that would support a libel claim, their claims would fail because they are public figures." They also added that when public figures are concerned, "'actual malice' may not be presumed. To the contrary, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving actual malice, and it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. This means that Plaintiffs must show not only that the statements they attribute to Defendants were false and defamatory, but also that they were published with actual knowledge of their falsity or otherwise circulated with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not." Finally the judges indicated that a public figure plaintiff "must produce 'competent evidence of actual injury' in order to state a constitutional claim for defamation arising from matters of public concern." "In this instance, however, Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence that they suffered any actual monetary damage as a result of Defendants' publications. Having failed to establish that they suffered any monetary damage of any kind, Plaintiffs' claims are properly stricken for failure to show that they have prima facie merit."

Barrett has been libeled repeatedly, and that fact is undeniable. Bolen's lies have been very bold and have no basis in reality. Barrett has, because of technicalities, not been able to get a favorable judgment. The closest (of the cases named here - there are others) he came was when Mercola read the writing on the wall and settled out of court.

Barrett can call it lies and libel, and we can call it lies and libel. But we can't write that they have been convicted of libel until it happens. Hopefully justice will be done in Bolen's and Negrete's upcoming case. I was one of those falsely charged, and it's not a pleasant experience to be accused of such serious crimes.

References

-- Fyslee 09:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not our job as editor of this article to " judge " the legal system and assess if a court decision is just or not. Society accept the validity of court decisions. They are thus valid, verifiable, independant sources for WP. As Levine says Barrett can claim whatever he wants ( and he does ). He is entitled to his opinion. But if the court do not agree with his opinion then it can only be his opinion and not a legal fact that is quotable in the article. The fact is that Barrett has lost many libel suits, so the odds are not in his favor. If and when he win one in court then it can be included in the article. NATTO 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page, not the article. What is discussed here doesn't always qualify for inclusion in the article. -- Fyslee 10:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And Fyslee, I understand that "it's not a pleasant experience to be accused of such serious crimes" and I do not comment about the specifics of your own situation since I do not know them and it is not my business, As a general comment: if someone is openly and publicly critical of others and give only a one side view of the issues, he should expect a response in kind. Reciprocity of effects or action/reaction, whatever you wish to call it. NATTO 09:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You write: "... a response in kind." I understand your point, but that isn't the case here.

Let me illustrate: If you were to criticize me for having the wrong opinion or color of hair, and I responded by saying you were a whore and illegitimate, would you consider that to be "a response in kind"? (Notice that my response doesn't address your criticism either by subject matter or by degree. It avoids the subject matter, and is a very viscious and personal attack, way out of proportion to the original criticism.) That type of "response" is Bolen's specialty. (He doesn't believe in defense, but chooses offense: "You don't win a war on defense..." - Tim Bolen). That's what straw man and ad hominem attacks are all about. They are not "response(es) in kind." They avoid dealing with the real issue and point of the original criticism, since they are usually guilty as charged. -- Fyslee 11:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fyslee. I also wrote that my general comment was not addressed at you since I do not know your situation. It was a general comment that I feel apply to situation when people make one sided attacks against others. I am not defending Tim Bolen and I am not defending Stephen Barrett. They will both have to deal with the consequences of their actions. NATTO 11:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaufman

This para:

Dr. Joel M. Kauffman, B.S., Ph.D. of the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at University of the Sciences in Philadelphia did an independant review of the Quackwatch website and wrote " The use of this website is not recommended. It could be deleterious to your health." <ref>[http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/bookreviews/pdf/v16n2_websitereview.pdf, Website Review - Alternative Medicine -Watching the watchdogs at Quackwatch ]</ref>

1. Since he is not a medic, what credentials fit him to judge the quality of a site pertaining to medical issues?
2. It's not obvious what his motivation was for investigating the site
3. This belongs if anywhere at [{Quackwatch]] since it primarily addresses the site not the person.

Guy 10:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please read the review. Since there is section on Quackwatch in the SB article. The conclusion of the review on the website is a valid item. It is verifiable and the reviewer and those involved in the review are well identified, He is a qualified scientist and the way he did the review is well explained. If Barrett can make public comments about modalities he has no training in at all ( M.D. are not trained in all health modalities ) then Kauffman can make a review on the QW site on issues he is qualified to, this is well explained in the review. NATTO 11:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What I mean

Some people seem determined to misunderstand my motives here; perhaps that is my fault for not being clear enough.

This is a biography, specifically of a living individual. Criticisms of his website or organisation, are not necessarily criticisms of him personally and can be addressed at Quackwatch to reduce duplication and to avoid the appearance of guilt by association.

Personal criticisms like those of Sahelian have more weight, and Sahelian makes a fair point which Barrett acknowledges re the focus of Barrett's work. That does belong in a biography. And maybe not even in a criticism section, since it goes to the heart of Barrett's comsumer advocacy work, which is a good chunk of his career. The Sahelian para is still not great, it could do with a little more flesh and a bit less he-said-she-said, but it's clearly got a place.

Spats with lawyers acting for varius aggrievced parties shold be viewed with much more caution. Lawyers are hired mouthpieces. Sometimes they are acting out of a genuine commitment to the public good (arguably Nader's work on automobile safety was of this kind) but much more often they are just saying what they are paid to say. Note the difference in character between Sahelian's comments and Negrete's - Negrete is a lwayer dealing in black and white, Sahelian is looking atshades fo grey. So: disputes with lawyers should be de-emphasised.

Finally, presenting criticisms as a laudry list is rarely conducive to a good article. I made it prose instead.

Perhaps now you can see what I am getting at. Guy 10:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits and postings designed to improve the article are always welcomed. I agree that Dr. Sahelian is a more balanced critics, that is why I raised the issue with previous attempts at posting erroneous information simply to " get back at him " because he dared to be critical of Dr. Barrett. To have him on top of the section is fine by me. I also think that the comments from Donna Ladd are equally valid. This said the previous format of the section was easier to read and better presented.

Finally the reply by Paul Hartal was named a response to Stephen Barrett, not to QW, so I am unsure why you removed it, expecially since you left the part about unidentified critics from Columbia followed by the comments on Columbia as a diploma mill. Have we said that the names of critics should be identified ? NATTO 11:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Guy, but Hartal's criticism was originally removed as a clear violation of WP:BLP. It was a libelous attack without any basis. -- Fyslee 14:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes his comments were removed by you but you left his name and a link to his comments for the reader to make their own mind. Guy removed everything about Paul Hartal and left only one side of the issue. NATTO 21:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. Your comment about lawyers is valid as a general comment. However in this case Dr. Sahelian was not attacked directly by Dr. Barrett as he was simply relying to a "rude" e-mail that he received from Barrett. ( please check the reference ). Negrete and Barrett have a different history of antagonism, however as a lawyer it is highly unlikely that Negrete would post something on his website that he cannot defend or support. If it is OK to post information " as is " from QW than his critics should also be able to give their view, as long as it is verifiable with a good source and is not simply an attack without any basis. NATTO 11:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's letter should be seen as a part of his investigative process. Sahelian was being investigated, apparently for good reason. FDA warning letters are often a good place to start. -- Fyslee 14:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• The point here is not the fact that Barrett sent the letter, it is the tone of his letter. As far as the item about Dr. Sahelian and the FDA letter, it has already been discussed extensively on this talk page.NATTO 21:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, the point here is that the article, or large parts of it, is a rehash of the arguments, rather than relating the analysis of it in reliable secondary sources. We are not here to promote or debunk anyone, we are here to reflect what reliable secondary sources say about the subject. Almost all of this is primary sources, and skating on the edge of original research.

• Guy, just to clarify, I was only replying to Fyslee's posting about the letter from Barrett to Sahelian, not your posting about what you meant. NATTO 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the ludicrous "de-licensed" comment. It's an absurdly inflated semantic argument of no obvious significance. Guy 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the "de-licensed" removal. The whole thing was so trivial and blown out of proportions by both parties. The only thing that it demonstrated was that for someone who has dedicated his life to bashing others, Barrett is remarkably thin-skinned. Levine2112 22:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I really liked the way in which NATTO worked in the Kauffman critique into the main portion of the article. Nice work. I would like to see all of the critiques worked in in such a fashion, instead of having a separate section for them. Levine2112 22:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Leaving the sarcastic and judgmental comments aside, I agree that the " de-licensed" thing is exagerated. However this is so because of Barrett's own interpretation of the meaning of the word and his response to it, fuelling his legal efforts. NATTO 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• And the reliable secondary sources say?... Guy 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse " [5].There are other from the legal deposition if Tim Bolen but I have not taken the time to source it again. However I agree that item is of limited relevance apart from the importance accorded to it by the subject of this article. Whether that makes it an item to be left, in some form or another, in the article, is an issue for editors to decide. Levine and you say remove it and I tend towards that view myself. What does Fyslee think ? NATTO 00:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I lean toward removal too. it just seems petty and detract from what could otherwise be a good article. Criticism is fair, but it can go too far. David D. (Talk) 00:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK. So unless Fyslee or JokeStress or anyone else with an interest in this article has a different opinion we agree that it should not be included in the article. NATTO 01:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoever keeps italicizing quotations

Please stop and refer to WP:MOS. Jokestress 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? If you use the <cite> cite option </cite> is looks like this: cite option So it would appear that italicised quotes is standard for some people. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Quotations. Jokestress 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that, but i don't think this is a black and white thing. David D. (Talk) 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm comfortable either way. I just saw the trend going toward italicizing on this article, so I wanted to normalize it for the entire page. I believe that is what NATTO was trying to do as well. Just trying to keep it consistent on the page. Levine2112 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

NATTO's idiosyncratic formatting (like the insistence on bulleting talk page replies) should not be setting any stylistic precedent. Jokestress 00:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I probably italicised quotes too, I do it quite often. I don't think this has anything to do with one individual. Look at other articles. Italicising quotes is quite common despite the MOS. Actually, bulleting talk pages is not unheard of either. Lets not argue about this and just agree on a standard for this page. i have no strong opinon and can go either way. David D. (Talk) 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't think this is worth condemning anyone over. Nor should we drag this out. I don't care either way, so Jokestress please do whatever you want. Levine2112 01:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that to italicise quotes makes them more readable as they more clearly stand out form the rest of the text so reader know immediately that it is a quote and not text from a WP editor. Before some quotes were in italics and others not. Simply trying to make the article more readable but I will not start a debate on it. NATTO 01:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Holding Barrett up to his own standards

I moved the Salhelian quote where he holds Barrett up to his own definition of quackery to the portion of our article which deals with questioning Barrett's qualifications within the alternative medicine fields. Levine2112 17:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kauffman's Quackwatch review

Do we know if Kauffman wrote this review specifically for the Journal in which it is published or if he wrote the review indepentdently (or for some other reason) and the Journal merely decided to publish it? Right now, the text seems to insinuate that Kauffman wrote it for the Journal and that the Journal is characterized as "a fringe science publication". That may be so. I just want to make sure that we get this right. Levine2112 18:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what the concern is. Kauffman wrote it after seeing Barrett speak about several topics Kauffman has written about (low-carb diets, chelation, etc.). Barrett holds differing views than Kauffman on these matters, and Kauffman has written on the dangers of "mainstream medicine." He has published other articles in JSE, which is considered "fringe science" by CSICOP and other skeptic groups. Typically, articles are submitted, not solicited, but I'm not sure why it's relevant. Jokestress 20:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't solicited for the Journal, then I will leave the mention of the journal out (except of course in the reference). Basically, if the journal had nothing to do with it other than publishing it, then why is it worth mentioning in any other place besides the reference note? Levine2112 20:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Because as with most criticism of Barrett, it appeared in a source where reliability/credibility has been questioned. We're trying to contextualize these criticisms so readers can gauge the credibility of the statements. Jokestress 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't find Kauffman on the board of editors, but he's a frequent contributor. I wasn't familiar with that journal before now, and after looking through the subject matter, I feel like I should take a bath in strong soap. It's filled with pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. -- Fyslee 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the reader check the context themselves. By calling the journal a "fringe science publication", you are showing your POV. It is atypical to criticizse a publication in which an article is published as if that is to reflect poorly on the research itself. Research can be published in multiple publications and journals. Contextualizing it is unfair and repetitive here. It the reader wanted to, they can check the reference and see where it was published. That it the point of references. If anything find critiques of the research (or if you must the researcher himself) and cite that here. Don't insert your own POV, please.Levine2112 21:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV to note that JSE is the house organ for one of the main fringe science groups in the US. See Time Magazine. [6] See also this article in Qualitative Sociology [7]. Jokestress 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thet's fine. Just work the reference in there. I understand what you are doing now. You are trying to cast some honest research against Quackwatch in a negative light. That's been standard fare in this article. Anytime there is criticism against Barrett, the critic is then criticized. Real nice. Levine2112 22:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kauffman's research is POV rhetoric in service of his beliefs about mainstream medicine, Atkins-type diets, etc. We need to point out that the context of such criticism needs to be considered. Jokestress 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an unfair characterization. I could easily say that Barrett's research is POV rhetoric in service of his beliefs about alternative medicine. But that's my POV. Same standards apply with your POV. It goes both ways. I know you know this.

For what it is worth, I think that Atkin's diet is very dangerous, causing the body to self-cannibalize. The weight-loss is not only fat but muscle and other vital tissue as well. The Zone is much better, though far from perfect. Levine2112 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling it a "fringe science journal" as it turns out is not how the journal officially characterizes itself. Therefore, the label "fringe science" is a POV. The Time magazine article actually never uses the term "fringe science" to charactarize the journal. We can't see the complete Qualitive Sociology study to see if it characterizes the journal as such. Regardless, this would just be an opinion, and the way it was worded didn't make "fringe science" seem like a POV but rather a statement of fact. You are clearly trying to keep "fringe science" in there to belittle the journal and thus belittle the criticism of Barrett. Instead, why don't you address the actual criticisms? Levine2112 01:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cross states in Qualitative Psychology: "The International Journal for Scientific Exploration, which publishes articles on UFO phenomena and other fringe science topics." Jokestress 01:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of my solution? It still lets the reader know that the review was published in a journal which is focused on areas outside of the mainstream, yet uses the objective language of the journal's mission statement rather than someone else's POV. Basically, I want to make sure that it is clear that JSE doens't blindly support all Fringe Science, but rather scrutinizes its study. It looks for the charatans and listens to the skeptics, and tries to present things in scientific, rational terms. The Time magazine article does a good job of characterizing it as such. Levine2112 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Article from Donna Ladd in the Village voice

• Guy removed the comments from the article written by Donna Ladd because of sensationalism. The Village Voice is a credible internet publication anc the comments were not sensational at all. Barrett was quoted and what was commented on is factual. The item should be re-inserted in the article. NATTO 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The section it is under is: Accusations of bias and lack of objectivity. Seems to me that the article and the chosen passages from said article suit the section perfectly. Levine2112 04:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Silent Clots

The quote about Silent Clots and the linked court case findings are not a violation of WP:BLP - indeed a US court found it not to be libel which clearly free's it up to be posted on Wikipedia. The purpose of WP:BLP is to protect Wikipedia from libel law suits, and since the source has already been determined by a court not to be libel, it's fine for Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach is right. Silent Clots is a published source and should be included, as should information about author Privitera's run-ins with the law. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Jokestress 21:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I will assume good faith that the purpose of adding these "run ins with the law" will have something to do with the article (Stephen Barrett specifically) rather than be just an attempt to defame another critic. Levine2112 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Barrett goes after people he considers quacks. Barrett went after Privitera. Privitera went after Barrett. Privitera had a patient die under circumstances involving the issue about which Barrett went after him. Goes to credibility of Privitera. Jokestress 21:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Absoultely relevant. Go for it. Levine2112 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait. Did Barrett "go after" Privatera for the reason that the patient died before the patient died? Or did he "go after" him for this afterwards? If it was before, then it is relevant. Afterwards, not nearly as relevant. Also, does Barrett's defense have anything to do with the charge Privatera is making... "Barrett got his start in the bogus consumer protection game by attacking the chiropractic profession on behalf of the American Medical Association." It would be better if it had something to do with that, rather than a blind attack on credibility which isn't really relevant to the criticism. Don't you think? Levine2112 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Levine. The issue of credibility is open to subjectiveness. Numerous physicians have patients who die during the course of treatment. In this instance Dr. Privatera was found NOT GUILTY. The fact that he was charged may simply be the fact that he had enemies who were waiting for an opportunity to attack him. Unless we have the details of the case and can show that he was most likely guilt and got away on a technicality it should not be in the article, especially since he is a living person. In our system of justive NOT GUILTY means you did not do it.The issue a Laetrile is another issue. Was there any problem in his use of laetrile or was it simply a regulatory issue. He was pardoned so it looks more like a regulatory issue. It should be put in context. If WP is to have any credibility it should not simply repeat anything that is written simply because it is verifiable.NATTO 00:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Privitera believes that many health problems are caused by "silent clots." He administered huge doses of anticoagulant to the woman, for a headache, but she started hemorrhaging to death in his office. The source, as noted in the article, is the State of California. Jokestress 00:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet he was found not guilty so there si certainly more to it than what you are describing. It is well established that clots are involved in the death of a very large number of people so there is nothing unusual in stating that clots are are involved in many health problems. As far as being "silent" that is simply a figure of speech to mean either "undiagnosed" or "ignored" or something to that effect. I do not doubt that he has been charge but my point is : Is it really relevant since he was found not guilty or is the point simply trying to cast Dr. Privitera in a bad light ? NATTO 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Privitera was officially reprimanded, fined, and forced to take courses on proper medical procedures, as noted in the State's dossier. Convicted in the 1970s on another charge. Goes to his reliability and credibility in his attacks on Barrett. Jokestress 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence and proper references of such. The only reference in the article is from QW and is very incomplete indeed ( confirming again what Dr. Kauffmann has found in his review ). The document he posted is far from telling the whole story. Laying charges do not mean they are proven. If it is not better referenced then that it should be removed.NATTO 01:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

PRIVITERA, James R., Jr., M.D. Covina, CA License number: C-30445 Stipulated decision effective: 11/8/2004 Public Reprimand issued: 11/17/2004 Jokestress 02:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

See also this order against Privitera in Colorado after he did prison time in California and the full text of the California reprimand above. Jokestress 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Is that all you have ? Nothing you have provided comes close to the serious charge of having killed a patient. As I mentioned if the only verifiable evidence you have is that he has been reprimanded by the Medical Board, and then, as a result being monitored by another state Medical Board ( they do talk to each other ), then allegations of having murdered a patient should not be in the article. Numerous health professionals receive reprimands by various licensing Board, that does not mean they have committed crimes. He was found NOT guilty. NATTO 04:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read page six of Appendix 1 of the reprimand where he admits to being subject to disciplinary action for various failures. It doesn't appear you have. You might want to read the other one, too, which shows that the Colorado order took effect after he was released from prison following his criminal conviction and has nothing to do with the dead patient. Note also who Privitera's lawyer was in the second case. Jokestress 04:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think you are missing my point. None of the above amounts to evidence in relationship to the allegation of killing a patient. The patient involved was an elderly lady suffering from numerous severe diseases. Assuming that the Medical Board did everything it could to prove the charges ( a logical assumption ), they were unable to do so and the final action was only a reprimand. That is the result. Anything else is speculation unless you have evidenciary documentation to the contrary. Whether he has been subject to disciplinary action in itself is not evidence of guilt, nor should it be under the rules of due process. This then should not be included in a quality article. Regarding the Colorado Board, apart from probation, what other action have they taken ? If he has been imprisoned as the results of the criminal charges for which he was found not guilty then even that period of imprisonment is not evidence of any wrondoing in relationship with the death of his patient. As for his lawyer, you do not assess someone's guilt because of who his lawyer is, that is purely speculation. Based on the evidence that you have we can only say that he received a reprimand in relationship to the death of a seriously sick elderly lady under his care, and that in itself has nothing to do with the criticism he made of Barrett and would, rightly be seen as an attempt to undermine him because he has dared to be critical of Barrett. NATTO 05:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Jokestress, I can also see that you are the sole editor of the Privitera article, conveniently linking to the item on the SB article.... NATTO 06:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And?... Jokestress 06:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

NATTO, you write:

1. that he was found "not guilty." Where did you read that?

2. about "killed a patient" and "murdered a patient." Who has said that?

He was judged responsible for unprofessional conduct which resulted in the death of a patient and he was reprimanded for it. That's not the same as "killing" or "murdering," which would involve that he somehow did it deliberately. I don't think anyone even dreams that such was his intention. Shit happens, and if one violates the rules and practices unprofessionally, it is going to happen more often. -- Fyslee 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, your imagination is running ahead of the facts. He was reprimanded "for failing to perform an adequate history and physical of a patient before commencing treatment and failing to maintain adequate and accurate records of the care and treatment provided to a patient. " The professional misconduct charge was dropped if you can remember... Sorry to rain on your parade. Nothing in the final decision is stating that he was responsible for her death. You should know that a charge is just that, a charge, until proven and it was never proven. NATTO 05:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

NATTO, you wrote that he was found "not guilty." Where did you read that? I'd like to read that source. Please provide it here. -- Fyslee 06:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee I wrote he was not guilty in the context of the death of the patient as it was written in the article. He was found guilty of " failing to perform an adequate history and physical of a patient before commencing treatment and failing to maintain adequate and accurate records of the care and treatment provided to a patient." and reprimanded for THAT. He was not found guilty of the death of the patient. Is that CLEAR enough or do you need more explanations....NATTO 08:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting to the point of my question, and you have now used new wording which makes it clear. You have written above that he was "found NOT GUILTY" four times, three times in capitals, and once more in capitals, without the "found" before it. You wrote it as if it was an actual decision made by the powers that be.

Now you write something with a very different meaning: "He was not found guilty of the death of the patient." Maybe where you come from that difference in wording is too subtle to be understood, but it is quite a big difference. Now it's your opinion, not some kind of judicial decision or legal opinion. Okay, that's your opinion.

I think we understand that it's your opinion, BUT the facts say otherwise, because the reprimand would never have occurred if she hadn't died, and it was determined that she died because of his negligence and substandard treatment. IOW, no death, no need to place responsibility for the death. She died, and her death resulted in him getting punished. "Is that CLEAR enough or do you need more explanations...." -- Fyslee 05:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of the libel word

This has already been discussed by other editors, including Levine. If judges have found that what Barrett call libel is NOT then it should not be supported in the article. The FACT is that in all court cases in the article, except one, which is still pending, the judges have all ruled against the claims of libel made by Barrett and associates. This is all very well referenced by court documents. As far as the "devious" comment, the mirror effect is hard at work. I am not the oe fixated on libel and personally involved in litigation in this matter... The editor in question should take that into account NATTO 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not getting a favorable ruling because of technicalities does not mean it wasn't libel. Even if he could prove libel, because he's a public figure it would be hard to get such a decision. -- Fyslee 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The litigation is factual. The judicial decisions are factual. The litigation is notable enough to have been taken up by the California Supreme Court in one case and by appeals courts in several others. They belong in the article. Simple as that. Jokestress 22:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested they shouldn't be in the article? I'm actually working on adding to it, since one of the most important ones is missing. -- Fyslee 22:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

NATTO is suggesting we not describe the charges in the complaints. Barrett sued most of the defendants for libel. That should be reflected in the article. Jokestress 22:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am just questioning NATTO's interpretation for the losses. There were at least three other reasons for the losses. They are described in the cases. Technicalities of various kinds cause many lawsuits to be lost. Just because a murderer gets off on a technicality doesn't necessarily mean they didn't commit murder. It just means they weren't convicted of murder. There is a difference. -- Fyslee 23:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You know how the U.S. system works... Innocent until proven guilty. Thus we can say that Barrett claims libel, but we (as of yet) can't say that anyone committed libel against Barrett. Despite your gut feelings, you can't legally call the King of Pop a child molestor. It belittles our court system to claim this to be a fact. Levine2112 02:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This point has been clearly made before and is, not only eminently logical, but fair. For some reason Fyslee keep raising this point again and again.... and again. Based on what he wrote previously he seem to have a personal, vested, interest in having this issue of libel against Barret inserted in the article. Other editors have removed it and he keeps trying to get it back in. What part of NO doesn't he understand ? Editors of WP should not second guess the legal system , this would not only be OR but POV. When there is a court ruling that Barrett has been the object of libel, then it should be included but that has not yet happened ( if it does ). Repeating that Barrett is seriously disadvantaged as a public figure does not change the reality. He sought actively to become a public figure, even claiming that " I am the media ", He got what he wished for so he has to live with the other side of the coin - stricter legal standards that apply not only to him but to all public figures. NATTO 04:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112, that's exactly the case in the article. The language there is very NPOV. There we write that Barrett considers the charges to be libelous and that's why he has filed libel suits. It's only on this talk page that I "tell it like it is." That doesn't belong in the article.

Fact: Privitera has never provided any proof that his AMA charge is true, and thus the statement is libelous. The same goes for Bolen's lies. Publically stating one's own private conspiracy theories about a person as if they were actual facts can be insulting, and can also be defamatory or libelous, depending on what is said or written. The latest ruling (about Negrete and Clark) is worded rather strongly:

The scurrilous nature of the defendants' allegations of wrongdoing and their efforts to publicize them widely on the Internet, when coupled with their utter failure to offer any proof of their charges, gives rise to a compelling inference of malice.

The district court's judgment is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings. [8]

There are over 30 individuals and entities who have been falsely charged of very serious crimes, and we're very interested in the outcome of this case. Here's the "laundry list of crimes" and civil wrongs:

"mail fraud; wire fraud; perjury; subordination of perjury; extortion; stalking; terrorist threats; assault; filing false police reports; illegal lobbying; illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies, trespass; invasion of privacy; web site tampering; Internet Spam; investigation without license; violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech; and interference with right of free speech and association." [9]

Needless to say none of us have done a single one of those things. We're ordinary people who simply criticize unscientific, unethical, and often dangerous practices. -- Fyslee 06:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's last more-righteous-than-tho part is laughable. Please. I mean, come on! Seriously. ;-) Fact: Barrett is using donations made to a nonprofit (based in a state that has no record of said nonprofit's legal existence) to pay himself to act as expert witness on matters which he is neither qualified to repesent nor able to discuss objectively. What does Stephen Barrett call someone who puffs themselves up with a false knowledge of healthcare? If it looks like a duck... If it sounds like a duck... Now I know why he doesn't like to call himself a "quackbuster"; one would find it difficult to bust oneself. Levine2112 08:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is easy to dish dirt on others but it is not so fun when that same dirt comes back at you....Well if you dish it you must expect to have to taste it. NATTO 08:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this article a Link Repository for Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!)

Has anyone noticed that this article seems to be a link farm for the benefit of SB Enterprises? (Donations Gladly Accepted! Isn't there some concern that there are approximately 50(!) links to SB owned and operated franchises? Not to mention links to his books.

It seems that he has re-invented himself from an ex-psychiatrist who failed his boards and took a correspondence course into a mini-industry and now we are letting Wikipedia be used as a sort of franchise to expand his reach, not to mention fill his donation box and boost his Google rating.

Is anyone else concerned about this? Should we just recommend this article for deletion and Wikipedia will once again be a safer, cleaner place for us to play? Steth 11:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Have to disagree with you Steth; Barrett by any criteria is notable, noting that that implies neither endorsement nor repudiation. He is clearly a very public figure, and this is a biography of a living person, so it deserves care and due sensitivity. His business is controversy, so my guess (Idon't know him) is that he would expect that the controversy about him is reported here, including both attacks on him and declarations of support; my guess is that these would be balanced in some way so that the article reports both criticisms and praise without appearing to endorse them.

However all opinions of Barrett are opinions, not facts, and as with any opinion, the issue of whose opinion it is is absolutely critical. Again I suspect that Barrett himself would consider it fair reporting if both criticisms and praise were clearly and verifiably identified with named individuals, whose status, notability and authority is clearly specified. I see no virtue in quoting anonymous attacks or declarations of support, or in identifying people by name with no objective information given to justify why their opinion should be credited as noteworthy. Is this a recipe that all can agree on?Gleng 19:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the point Steph is trying to make is that there are so many links to his websites ( they are all listed ) when in fact all his web sites can be reached via QW, the main website. I am not sure what the policy is about listing website but it may be allowed to list all his websites. Personally I do not have an issue with it. If readers are provided factual and balanced information they will be able to make up their own mind about what is presented on Barrett's website. By the way Gleng, opinions can also be facts. If an opinion is proven to be correct, then it is a fact. I agree however that sources should be identified with releavnt information about them but not as a way to try to discredit them because they have dared to criticise Barrett.... Regarding Barrett, the credibility he is given varies widely depending on how he is viewed. To some what he writes is dogma and to other is it eminently biased and one-sided. I have noted that his writings are widely used to write some articles in wikipedia with the infromation almost reported verbatim, making for a one sided view of issues that is not in the best interest of WP or it's readers.

Finally I think this article is probably better referenced than many other WP article, including BLP, especially some about alternative health practitioners NATTO 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, get the point. Yes there afe facts citable as facts as well as opinions citable as opinions. Agree best to cite sources directly where possible (and strongly agree that some biographies of alt health practitioners are very poorly sourced)Gleng 10:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes NATTO, you are correct. I was referring to the quantity of links. While they may be allowed, I believe it degrades the article to list all of the privately owned and operated sites of Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!) when they are available through his homebase. These sites are represented as "guides" which is a euphamism for professional bigotry. These so-called 'consumer guides' of course represent the opinions of one ex-psychiatrist who failed his boards.

I am not questioning whether his opinions are good or bad, but I do find it alarming that while 'non-profit' is claimed, there are no officers who determine where the donations go. It is all decided by one person, the subject of the article who has testified that he pays himself with the 'donations'. BTW, these so-called 'consumer websites' are all run from his basement in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

I feel they should be removed as non-encyclopedic since, at best, they do nothing except to exploit WP for donations channeled directly to the pockets of dubious private enterprises. The article still elevates the self-invented notoriety of ex-psychiatrist Barrett, so his disciples will still be happy. Steth 04:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Steth you have a very valid point. I am not aware of any financial statements posted on the website(s) to justify how the donated funds are used. This is a worry as you correctly pointed out. If anyone has verifiable information on how the funds are handled and used then it should be included in the article. As Levine pointed out the state where the non-profit is supposed to be located do not appear to have any records on it. Again if any information is available it should probably be included in the article. NATTO 05:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sahelian and the FDA letter

• It has already been discussed that the FDA letter concerning the website www.physicianformulas.com was sent in error to Dr. Sahelian. IT IS NOT HIS WEBSITE. The website does sell supplements from numerous sources including some formulated by Dr. Sahelian but , again, it is NOT his website. NATTO 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

?? at the bottom it states © COPYRIGHT 2004 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED RAYSAHELIAN.COM In what sense is this not his website?Gleng 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Gleng. In the FDA letter that was posted as a reference, the name of the website that is cited is www.physicianFormulas.com. If you check that page you will see :" Copyright ©2005 PhysicianFormulas.com. All rights reserved". You will also read: "About Physician Formulas: Physician Formulas is a nutraceutical company with headquarters in Irvine, California, and customer care centers in several locations including Nebraska, Iowa, and California. Our aim is to provide formulas of the highest quality and effectiveness. Our scientific research team is highly specialized to review the latest research on various supplements and herbs. We are proud to carry high quality products from several respected supplement manufacturers and by world renowned and respected doctors and herbalists including medical doctor and best selling author Ray Sahelian, M.D., who formulated several products listed below for the Physician Formulas label. These products are available on our website, other websites including amazon.com, and in select health food stores. "

The information you mentioned is from a different website www.raysahelian.com which is the website of Dr. Sahelian, wehere it it written, as you pointed out : © COPYRIGHT 2005 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED RAYSAHELIAN.COM. The website www.sahelian.com IS NOT the website mentioned in the FDA letter. Dr. Sahelian comments , posted earlier on this talk page, are that the FDA letter should not have been sent to him but to the CEO of www.physicianformulas.com NATTO 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to have been some confusion about the copyright info on which website. NATTO is correct about that point. We still don't know Sahelian's relationship to physiciansformulas, as requested by Barrett, since Sahelian wouldn't answer him. He may well be the owner or major shareholder, since it is his products that are sold by them. I doubt that Sahelian does it for free.....

It's interesting that the http://www.physicianFormulas.com website has this information at the bottom, and the only link that works is Sahelian's.....:

Website Design Company and Maintained by eDesignerz.com

For more information on medical topics, you can visit these websites: , The Food and Nutrition Informaiton Center, nutrition.gov, nutri-facts.com, csfan.fda.gov, www.raysahelian.com, webmd.com, nutrition.gov, berkeleywellness.com, consumerlab.com, worldhealthnews.harvard.edu and others.

Barrett needs to continue his investigation. Something's wrong with this picture.

As for the information about the FDA letter, the current version I have placed on the page, and which NATTO deleted, is not the original version, which was properly criticized. This version is revised and factual, and is important to mention, because it is the reason for the whole discussion about Sahelian. -- Fyslee 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• We can speculate,as is being presently done, however editors cannot edit articles based on speculation. Dr. Sahelian clearly said that the letter should not have been sent to him. He also said that he would have replied to Barrett if he has shown any manners in his e-mails ( he is quoted in the article) What Fyslee wrote is pure speculation. Maybe Fyslee should concentrate on providing information about how the money donated to QW and related websites is spent since no information appears to be provided on this issue on QW. NATTO 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why I feel the list of websites owned and operated by Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!) should be removed from an encyclopedic article. It's overkill. Free enterprise is fine, but why should WP be used as the marketing arm of SB Enterprises (Donations, etc.)

Since I haven't heard any objections, let's go ahead and do it. QW seems to be the gateway to the inside of an ex-psychiatrist's mind, I think that is more than generous. Steth 02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Steth. No objection from me. I would leave only the main website - QW - only since it does link with all the others anyway so the readers that are interested can alway look them up. WP does not need to advertize them. NATTO 05:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And I think that it should be shown how the donations are spent, otherwise these sites should be viewed as dubious shills, fake non-profits. Steth 12:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• WP:EP WP:EL says:

"Links normally to be avoided Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.

Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. "

Since there is valid evidence to conclude that QW and related sites fit the above description, these additional links should be removed. The link to the main site QW can remain as the official site of Barrett , even if technically it is about QW and not Barrett directly. NATTO 20:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Precedents? WP rules

OK I can see two sides to the issue of websites. I can certainly see the case that a biographical article about SB should in an encyclopedic way document fully and accurately the actity which he is most notable for. On the other hand this need not necessarily involve listing everything, just as you wouldn't list all publications, but only select those most notable. I also see the fair case that this article should not set a precedent for articles being gateways to multiple commercial (or non-commercial) websites; it's a precedent that I wouldn't like to see argued for other cases. So what are the precedents here exactly? Are there other comparable articles either with multiple websites included or excluding them where they might have been expected to be included? Lets see this settled on precedent if possible. Can we try to decide on this basis? I am inclined to think that as SB is notable in large part for the websites, then not to detail them would seem perverse, but maybe there might be another way - like discussing the main ones in the text more fully, and without a separate section like this. Gleng 16:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. I can see the point made by Gleng. If the current rules need to be changed, then it needs to be done in a proper manner. Right now, and in a large number of Steth's comments here at Wikipedia, the logic is perverse, hateful, POV suppression, and definitely not motivated by any concern for "donations," but is obviously motivated by attempts to suppress the information found on those websites. They are obviously not commercial sites by any stretch of the imagination, and any income from donations is likely miniscule. All non-profits do this and it is perfectly proper. Even private sites do it, and it is still perfectly proper.

By contrast, some of the chiropractic websites that Steth never objected to are extremely commercial, with multiple advertisements for seminars, practice builders (scammers), quack products, etc.. Funny thing he never objected to them, but only objected to Barrett's information sites. The double-standard is glaring. If any change of rules is made, then his twisted logic certainly shouldn't be part of the process. I can go along with limitations made on reasonable grounds, but Steth's are just hatemongering. He misuses Wikipedia and the edit summaries to preach his unique form of hatred. It's rather tiring and one-sided. You'd think he had other interests than to nearly exclusively oppose Barrett and attempt to delete his sites from Wikipedia.

I have added very few of them here at Wikipedia (and they have been specifically on-topic), contrary to what Steth has often insinuated, and the current list is placed on Barrett's article itself, where such lists are allowed, so his objections are doubly suspect here. It would be another matter if selling products was the main purpose of the sites, which it obviously isn't.

If such lists are to be questioned or forbidden, it would seem more appropriate for websites that are obviously commercial sites used to sell products or advertise a private practice. In such cases one link on the person's own article would be appropriate. As an example, Mercola has one link, and that's how it should be, even though his is a very commercial enterprise earning him millions of dollars. I have nothing against him earning money, if it weren't for the questionable products and anti-medical and anti-vax propaganda used to sell it. -- Fyslee 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• As written above WP:EP WP:EL says:

"Links normally to be avoided: Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.

Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. "

Since there is valid evidence to conclude that QW and related sites fit the above description, these additional links should be removed. The link to the main site QW can remain as the official site of Barrett even if it contains inacuracies and even if technically it is about QW and not Barrett directly, it is Barrett's official site, or as close to it as avaialble. This is WP policy which is the bottom line.

I do not think that comments about Steth are relevant in this discussion so please let's stick to the issue at hand. NATTO 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• WP:EP WP:EL excluded list also mentions "Links that are added to promote a site". Since all QW related sites can be accessed via the main website, it does look like adding them all in the SB article appears to be promotion rather then information, especially since there is already an extensive list of modalities that Barrett is critical of that is included in the body of the article. NATTO 21:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be the right thing to do then. Let's remove all of the links to external sites except the most official Stephen Barrett representative site.. i.e. Quackwatch. The others are just templates of the same QW idea but scoped down to a more specific subject. Levine2112 22:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What policy is being cited here? I can't find any of this at WP:EP. -- Fyslee 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Apologies everyone. I made a mistake when typing the page name, it is WP:EL and not WP:EP. NATTO 07:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. So, according to that policy, the links are expressly allowed. -- Fyslee 13:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No. I would say that NATTO assessment was correct, even if the WP link he provided was in error. WP:EL states which kind of external links are to be avoided. The complete list violates: Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. and individually, each site violates: Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Now since QW could be considered Barrett's official site (and his biography information which is posted there is arguably accurate), a link to that site should remain. The others are overkill and certainly there to serve as link spamming, over-promotion, and they all contain facutally inaccurate material with unverified original research... though I would hesitate to call what Barrett does "research". Levine2112 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, I don’t see why you need to be uncivil and venomous in your post above.

Aren’t you overplaying the hate thing just a little bit? I have stated in the past that I am in favor of removing commercial sites from the chiropractic page or any other page. I am OK with that. My motivation is to remove sites that are not what they appear to be and are using WP for personal gain. What is your motivation for keeping these sites here? It has been established that you have a personal relationship with SB. Have you considered that you are a little too close to the subject to be objective?

I originally went ahead and deleted the links since there seemed to be no objections here at Talk. I still feel that it serves more to serve Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations, etc.) with free advertising rather than improve the article. Fyslee, don't you feel that around 50 links to SB Enterprises constitutes a link farm? Deleting the list still leaves plenty of opportunities in the article to visit the sites and donate money, if so desired.

You have stated that you have added very few of SB links at WP. Can you be a little more exact? I would agree with NATTO that a link to SB Enterprises is found on many articles about topics that are on his ‘enemies’ list. How did they get there? I have stated several times that you have added links to SB Enterprises in a number of locations around WP. I wonder just how many. And, If as you say, donations are “likely miniscule”, then you probably are referencing something. Can you point us to where this information is available that says how the donations are spent? Non-profits usually make this information available.

I agree with NATTO and Levine regarding OR. I feel another, greater issue here is that the word ‘skeptic’, which all of us are about many different things, has been hijacked by you, SB and others, and has become a euphemism for a self-issued license to act out in bigoted, anti-social, marginalizing and dehumanizing behaviours. Being skeptical about something is fine but we don’t spend our time and earn cash by setting up 20 anti-whatever websites proclaiming very subjective opinions like “quack, charlatan, fraud, pseudoscience, etc., etc.” the sole purpose of which is to damage and impugn people and reputations, and than ask for donations to pay for our bigoted, bias, unprofessional conduct. That, to me, says personal grudge, which IMO are not Wikipedian and certainly not encyclopedic and should not be encouraged. Steth 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with the above. There is a difference between healthy skepticism and spite. The titles of many of QW articles, written by Barrett or other contributors ( which are usually NCAHF board members... ) are frequently designed to attack a topic, a group of persons or an individual, and that it just the titles. It is about time that QW and the rest of the group be recognised for what it really is - A blog under the disguise of a non-profit consumer information site. NATTO 23:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of reference names

I'm wondering why the reference names have been removed here: [10] [11] [12]

Such removal is rather risky, since it can (1) destroy other links in the same article. It also (2) makes the reference list longer than necessary, and one (3) cannot see how many times a single reference is used. Please restore them. -- Fyslee 20:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually these references were not functional at all and some had blanks beside the reference number, so needed repair. Now they work.NATTO 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

They were functional, and now they are either gone or duplicated unnecessarily. -- Fyslee 05:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Links to Barrett's critic

• I think we should also look at the critics websites to make sure they meet [WP:EP]]. It might also be a good idea to seprate them in two groups : the critics involved in litigation and the others. Any comments ? NATTO 21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that they should be grouped according to the topic of criticism. It keeps it on point. Levine2112 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fun

This doesn't neccessarily apply to this article, but I just read this response which is Barrett's response to an advisory for nutrition given by the ACA. In his petulant gripes, Barrett states: Chiropractors have very little training in clinical nutrition, and their textbooks and journals say very little about science-based nutrition. Most chiropractors who give nutrition advice make inappropriate recommendations for supplements. I guess I find this funny because every chiropractor that I know has attained at least a B.S. in nutrition. For many (if not all) chiropractic colleges this is a requirement for graduation. Barrett of course has no degree in nutrition. What a hypocrite!

For the first statement, of course he gets his information from a Chiro-hate-mongering book published by Barrett's Prometheus Press (who prints all of Barrett's books). The second statement...? I don't know where he pulled this out of. It's unqualified and to use Barrett's words... This statement is untrue.

Salhelian's statement about Barrett really rings true here: Stephen Barrett, M.D. does not have a degree in nutrition science. He has been trained in Psychiatry but has not practiced psychiatry for many, many years and has, to the best of my understanding, never practiced nutritional medicine. In my opinion, Stephen Barrett, M.D., when it comes to the field of nutritional supplements, can be easily defined as a Quack since he pretends to 'have skills or knowledge in supplements and talks pretentiously' without actually having clinical expertise or sound knowledge of herbal and nutritional medicine."

LMAO. Levine2112 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Another proof that the conclusions of Dr. Kauffmann's review on QW are correct. It is interesting to know that both a skeptic ( Kauffmann ) and other Barrett's critics agree that the information he gives is not accurate, biased and subjective. When people from different spectrum of life all agree on the same thing, it is usually true. The fact that Kauffmann is a credible, qualified noted skeptic ( a group Barrett belongs to ) is even more telling. Sadly many articles on WP and on the internet quote QW almost as as if the information there was peer-reviewed and vetted for accuracy when, in fact, it is not. I have noticed that there are WP article that are almost taken verbatim from his website, especially about alternative modalities. Lack of formal qualification and relevant real experience does not stop Barrett from being critical of anything he does not like. One of his favorite technique is to use FDA letters ( he does not publish those sent to pharmaceutical companies...) and accusations from lawyers as if the charges were true. When the court results are not in his favor or support his POV , he conveniently omits to post them on his website. Yep Dr. Kauffmann called it like it is - QW is dangerous for the health of it's readers. NATTO 07:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Kauffman a skeptic? Surely you jest! Skeptical of science, yes. A frequent contributor to the fringe science Journal of Scientific Exploration. Skeptics wouldn't consider him an ally. As for the other stuff you write, well, Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle. It's so easy to create a straw man argument and then attack it. Have fun tilting at windmills, because you're missing the real points. -- Fyslee 15:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to point out with that Google link, Fyslee. Actually, I do know what you were trying to do, however the Google results demonstrate the exact opposite. It shows several articles which Kauffman has written that skeptically explore certain urban myths about health. And, unlike Barrett, Kauffman performs actual research to form his conclusion. The only research that Barrett does, as we all know, is to first form his conclusion and then search for research which supports his opinion. (Oh, and then apparently runs it by his wife, according to Barrett... nice peer review system there, Steve.) Levine2112 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fyslee, Dr. Kauffmann is a skeptic. Skepticism is not limited to the issue of alternative medicine... Maybe he is not your kind of skeptic. As for the rest of your phrase, whatever that means, please drink your own tea. NATTO 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of Barrett and Kauffmann's respective biases, none of the 4 chiropractor's my wife and I have gotten to know have degrees in nutrition. Some of them have taken courses in nutrition, some in "alternative" nutrition, but no degee in nutrition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

? Arthur_Rubin ?? What does that have to do with Kauffman being a skeptic ? As far as the degree in nutrition for chiropractor ,there is no mention of this in the article so I am not sure what you know about "4" chiropractors has to do with the topic. What is mentioned, and relevant, it that Dr. Sahelian has a B.Sc. in nutrition as well as an M.D.,an active licence and he his Board certified. All things that Barrett is NOT. So Sahelhian is better qualified to talk about nutrition than Barrett is... simple as that. Did you just dropped in to vote on the merger proposal Arthur ?. NATTO 10:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This section started with Barrett's statement: Chiropractors have very little training in clinical nutrition, and their textbooks and journals say very little about science-based nutrition. Most chiropractors who give nutrition advice make inappropriate recommendations for supplements. I (and probably Barrett) am not qualified to judge whether the recommendations are inappropriate, but Barrett (and probably any scientist) is qualified to recognize the accuracy of the first sentence. My personal experience is probably irrelevant to the article, as truth is not our mission.

And I did come my to "vote" on the merger proposal, but there are also clear errors in the lawsuit sections of this article and some of the related ones. I'll edit them as I find the relevant primary and secondary sources.) For instance, there was a Barrett v. Rosenthal in which the judge ruled that republishing a published statement cannot constitute "libel" in itself, even if the new medium is more read than the old one, and therefore the judge refused to consider whether Rosenthal's statements were actually libelous. Whether or not that is a valid legal position, (IMHO, it isn't), it deserves mention in the case summary. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthur_Rubin. Since you are new to this talk page, you should be know that editors on this talk page have agreed that only legals documents are to be cited in legal issues as to insure a high level verifiability. This has worked well to insure that individual POV is not an issue. So I recommend that before editing you discuss your opinion on the talk page. If you have legal documents to support an edit I am sure the consensus will be to include it in the article. It is not, of course, up to WP editors to second guess judges and court rulings. As for the chiropractor issues, I am not sure if you have an issue with chiropractors but as I said they are not mentioned in the article and even if your own experience of "4" chiropractor was relevant, it would not make it "truth" as you write. It would still be your own experience with "4" chiropractors. NATTO 16:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Arthur Rubin is responding to the statement above about the number of chiropractors who have a B.S. degree in nutrition. It is found in the first entry in this section. It is of course false. A few chiros might happen to have a degree in nutrition, but not very many. In fact most currently practicing chiros (IOW not just the youngest ones) probably don't even have a college degree at all, yet they call themselves "Doctor".

FYI, Barrett happens to be an honorary member of the American Dietetic Association and uses degreed dietitians and other experts in the field to help him in his writings on those subjects, not that that is necessary to recognize nonsensical dietary advice commonly found on chiropractors' websites. The real fringe stuff is recognizable to anyone who has read a Cornflakes box. Real expertise would be required to dissect more serious sounding advice that is either borderline stuff or an outright scam, and he's got plenty of help in that area:

• He has 16 nutrition and food science advisors.

-- Fyslee 19:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of what I learned in chiropractic college is summarized in the Nutrition article. That, of course, does not include that learned in biochemistry with the role of the B vitamins in generation of ATP in the Citric acid cycle, Krebs cycle, etc., as well as the consequences and alternative cycles that result from deficiencies at each of the levels. Nutrition is a complicated and interesting science and art in itself that should be practiced with care. A complete education would be remiss if it did not include the controversial concepts that are floating out there. But, if we really look at the evidence, their is little to support any of the stances that any particular party suggests, including Barrett's group. I think the controversy remains that claims made without evidence is just opinion. That includes all POVs. At this point, no-one should feel particularly stable in their POV. We just all need to do the best we can and recognize when we can't. --Dematt 02:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Barrett advocates but there are plenty of cases where there is very much support stances in nutition science. i got lost with the alternative cycles? Which ones are these? Is that what barrett advocates because that does sound a little strange. David D. (Talk) 04:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternative cycles has nothing to do with alternative medicine, etc. These are thoroughly studied chemical cycles that occur everyday within our mitochondria (the part of the cell responsible for producing energy via the Citric acid cycle). During the production of ATP from ADP, several steps must occur with the help of enzymes. If the enzyme for one particular step is depleted or missing, there is a "build up" of the chemical that the enzyme was supposed to metabolize. This causes the process to take "alternative" routes (like if you were to dam a creek with a large boulder the water would have to go elsewhere). Some of these enzymes are made from the B vitamins (i.e. NAD is made from niacin). If a persons diet is deficient in niacin, he/she will have to use alternative cycles to produce energy. These cycles are not as efficient and usually will result in less than optimal health in most cases, but in some cases severe enough to cause death.

• For example, this from the Mayo clinic is more thorough. "Thiamine is essential for normal glucose metabolism. After absorption, thiamine is phosphorylated in the small bowel to thiamine pyrophosphate. Thiamine pyrophosphate is the cofactor for three important enzymes: pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH), α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase, and transketolase. PDH is a multienzyme complex in the inner mitochondrial membrane that, under aerobic conditions, catalyzes the oxidative decarboxylation of pyruvate to acetyl coenzyme A (CoA). Acetyl CoA can then enter the citric acid cycle. In thiamine deficiency, pyruvate cannot undergo this conversion, and its concentration increases. This excess pyruvate is then converted to lactate by the action of lactate dehydrogenase. This conversion also results in the release of protons in equal number to the molecules of lactate produced through hydrolysis of adenosine triphosphate during anaerobic glycolysis. This production of hydrogen ions leads to the acidosis associated with thiamine deficiency. α-Ketoglutarate dehydrogenase is an enzyme complex that is structurally homologous to PDH. It catalyzes the oxidative decarboxylation of α-ketoglutarate to succinyl CoA. In the thiamine-deficient state, this reaction does not occur efficiently, and a metabolic block in the citric acid cycle develops. Transketolase catalyzes the reactions of the pentose phosphate pathway (this would be the alternate pathway). These cytoplasmic reactions produce pentoses for nucleic acid synthesis and the reduced form of nicotinamide-adenine dinucleotide phosphate for other synthetic reactions, including fatty acid synthesis." Emphasis mine.

And, yes, Barrett and his people are very much aware of this process as are chiropractors and naturopaths and medical doctors and chemists. These concepts are not the problem. The problem is in deciding just how much of these "vitamins" and supplements are necessary to sustain and or improve health. I.e. While some would suggest that the Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) is all that is necessary to sustain life, others suggest more may be required to maximize potential. Barrett's contention appears that RDA is sufficient, while others suggest that more can be better. IMO, the current state of research suggests that most positions are only educated opinion. As long as all are keeping up with the current research and watching for contraindications and using or not using these products safely, who are we to say what is right or wrong? Though it is obvious that it would be wrong to sell worthless supplements solely for the sake of making house payments, it is just as wrong to criticise legitamate use just for the sake of making a house payment. --Dematt 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify you mean alternative pathways not alternative cycles. You seem to use them interchangably. i think it is quite clear what levels of B vitamins are required for all the enzymatic and electron carrying functions in a cell. If you eat B vits and then excrete them immediately the body does not need more. This is not really an educated opinion it is an observation. Sure the body cannot make these molecules but that does not need mean it needs excessive amounts. If that is Barretts point it seems quite valid. Moderation is the key to maintaining any biochemical network of pathways. Even too much water is bad for the body and can lead to coma. David D. (Talk) 16:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you got it. BTW, how much is too much? I think that is where the educated opinion comes in to play. --Dematt 16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When you turn yellow, it's too much ;) But seriously, if you are peeing the stuff out of your system it is probably too much. I have not seen how the nutritionists calibrate an organism, i am a biochemist not a nutritionist. Clearly every person is different. My quess is that the RDA values are based on the generous side, i.e. most people would be excreting the stuff if they took more. An exception is probably highly active individuals (athletes) or people with a unique metabolism (not everyone has enzymes with the same functionality). David D. (Talk) 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I personally suggest RDA and especially watch the fat solubles on anyone that asks about nutrition. The tricky part comes with a diseased body. That's where there is lots of gray area that needs to be studied further. Of course we're talking about other things besides B vitamins; there's glucosamine for arthritis - some studies suggest it might help, others don't. As a physician, what do you suggest? This could have long term implications. What if it did prevent cartilage breakdown and allow a person to lead a much better life 20 years from now? Would you suggest it to them, knowing that they were supposed to take it for years? Personally, I tell what I know and I suggest they can find it at GNC or Walgreens if they choose to use it. That way my decision is not a financial one. I'm sure Walgreens loves me:) --Dematt 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Absorbtion rate also plays a factor in this. Some supplements and vitamins can virtually just pass through your body without any of the "nutrition" getting absorbed into your bloodstream. I have found that fresh juices tend to have a higher rate of absorbtion that most supplement and vitamin products out there. Of course, not all juices are the same. For the most part pasteurized juices are worthless - vitamin and mineral wise. A glass of Tropicana might have 200% of the RDA vitamin C allowance, but most of that will zip right through your intestines and never get absorbed. However, the vitamins and minerals in living unpasteurized juices stand much better of absorbtion. Unfortunately, there a very few place where you can by unpasteurized juices in the U.S. other than orange juice. I personally don't juice oranges. I stick mainly with vegetables (and a little apple for sweetening). And know that when it comes to juicing, not all juicers are the same. Most... like 99%... use metal parts or spin to fast and end up heating the juice up to a point of death. You may as well drink pasteurized at that point. There are, however, a few products out there that use plastic parts or have motors that are torqued down specifically to juice without killing the fruit or vegetable. In my own tests, using a biophotonic scanner, fresh juices from such a juicer have a higher absorbtion rate than pasteurized juices and even some of the leading supplements and vitamins out there. Of course, this is only relevant for attaining vitamins and minerals which occur in fruits and vegetables. For other vitamins and minerals, I would make the assumption that getting it from a raw, whole food source is preferable over a dead food or pill... however, I would certainly be open to changing this assumption if presented with good research. Then again, all of this talk about Omega 3 brings up an interesting point. Fresh salmon is certainly a great source of Omega 3, but with all of that mercury out there, who wants to eat it. In this instance, perhaps a pharmaceutical grade supplement might serve as a good substitute. Of course, I recognize that Stephen Barrett disagree completely with what I am saying here. Read his discussion of juicing but note that he cites no studies and no research. This is his opinion, I suppose. I think it is funny that Barrett says that claims that fresh juices can boost energy are farfetched. I would think that Barrett would know that any juice - unpasteurized or raw - contains plently of carbohydrates to boost energy. I do however, agree with him, that juicing can remove some of the valuable fiber which fruits and veggies provide. I save some of my pulp and use it for making a nice fresh salad. Bottomline, drinking juice without the pulp allows you to take in much more vitamins and minerals and increases the absorbtion rate. In one glass, you can take the equivalent of a half dozen salads and with the FDA recommending 6-8 servings of fruits and vegetables every day, is there an easier way to do it that juicing? Oh, and for the record, my juicer, the Omega Juicer (I highly recommend it), is a snap to clean up, despite what Barrett says. Honestly, it never takes me more than two-minutes to have the thing completely rinsed and on the drying rack. I juice for three days at a time, sealing the juice in air-tight mason jars and refrigerating to prevent spoilage. At the end of the day, you have to do what feels right to you. If supplements work for you, then go for it. If you have the desire to juice, great! If you can eat 6-8 servings of fruits and veggies at day, fantastic. There is no one answer for everyone. We are all different. I like fresh juicing and I can measure it's beneficial effects on me. So I ignore what Barrett says here, knowing that for me, his opinion is completely wrong. Levine2112 18:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting and i certainly agree with the absorbtion. I had always assummed that the RDA values would be for absorbed quantities rather than ingested. You've peeked my interest now to see how they actually calculate these figures. David D. (Talk) 21:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in learning more, check out www.mercola.com/nutritionplan/juicing.htm Dr. Mercola's discussion of juicing]. I just read it and he actually recommends the same juicer as I mentioned for the very same reasons. Levine2112 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Levine, how do you feel about the burpless Omega3s to keep down the fishy taste. Have you looked into whether the process they use to make them creates less value? --Dematt 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never even heard of this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will look into it. I like the Garden of Life product. They are pharmaceutical grade, but rather expensive. Levine2112 01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Check these out. I can tell you that there is no aftertaste, but I'm not sure if quality would be reduced as a result. I've been keeping my eyes open, but no information out there yet. I was hoping you had some experience with it. --Dematt 02:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any research but my gut tells me that the quality would be compromised in the de-fish-ifying process. Sears Labs makes a high quality fish oil you may want to look into. Levine2112 04:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Do these pass the smell test for articles? Looking for feedback

• Quackwatch

• Homeowatch

• Credential_Watch

• Chirobase

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steth (talk • contribs)

Quackwatch definitely passes the smell test. Isn't that the original organisation pre web site era? The others are presumabably spinoff web sites, or are they independent entities? David D. (Talk) 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

They are all owned and operated by Stephen Barrett. I guess that makes them spin-offs. Steth 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC) (Remembered to sign)

• It looks like three of the above are only a title with a very short description and not real articles. Since they are all spinoffs of QW, there is really no purpose for these to be in WP, in my opinion. They should be removed. As far as the QW article, it is a proper article. However much of the information in it is already in the SB article. In fact it could be argued the QW is almost an alter ego for SB. As written earlier it is more like a blog than a true consumer information website. Should the QW article be also deleted ? NATTO 23:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe QW and the Barrett article should be merged? The others are not notable and should be deleted. Levine2112 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merging the QW article with the SB article sounds like a reasonable solution since the SB article contains information on QW as well as the NCAHF. NATTO 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just to be clear. I suggest that the QW article be merged into the SB article since most if not all the information on the QW article is already in the SB article and that QW is basically the toll SB uses to express himself on the web. This said some editors may say that QW is better known and more notable so that merging the SB article into QW would be better. The fact is that people who read QW know that it is the workj of SB since his name is prominently displayed at the top. NATTO 00:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A note to all who edit here, I have begun merger proposals for Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett and the NCAHF articles. The discussions for these proposals can be found on the Quackwatch talk page. Please chime in. Thanks! Levine2112 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I guess it is agreed that the other three above (Homeo, Credential, Chirobase) should be deleted. What is the best way to go about it, and who is going to be the one to break the news to Fyslee when he wakes up so he doesn't gag on his coffee and Danish? Steth 03:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The process is already under way. And I assume good faith in that I suspect that Fyslee, like me, eats a much healthier breakfast than coffee and Danish. Coffee being a stimulant and a Danish being empty, high glycemic carbohydrates. Together, without any protein, you are sure to send your body into insulin shock. Me, personally, I go for freshly juiced organic vegetables and some raw (unpasteurized) cheese. It ain't Coco-Puffs, but I'm cuckoo for it anyhow. Levine2112 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit clash with levine) Just put them up for AfD. That way they will get an objective hearing. David D. (Talk) 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Homeowatch, Credential_Watch, Chirobase in Wikipedia: just QW spamlinks--I'clast 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Put them up for AfD if you like, but I've removed the {{prod}}s as not giving a "reason" to delete the articles; at most, it could justify a merge. (There may be something else here that doesn't pass the smell test.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, will you handle the merge? Or at least try to add to those paltry articles. They either need to be helped, merged or deleted. YOu clearly don't want them deleted, so please take the next steps. Thanks. Levine2112 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know why i didn't think of it before. They can be merged into quackwatch and instead of deleting each of them let them exist as redirects to Quackwatch. David D. (Talk) 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article mentioned above are not real article, just a name with a very brief description. That is clear to anyone. NATTO 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused? I agree and that's why i think a redirect would be appropriate. Do you think the redirects should be avoided? David D. (Talk) 20:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to QW or Barrett ? QW website already offers access to all the secondary sites. Reader have access to the website through a link in the QW article. Is it one of WP purpose to help promote QW secondary sites ? Especially when the "article" you wish to redirect are not even real articles... NATTO 21:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest they are all redirected to the QW article. I had not considered it as a way to promote the QW article. Its pretty standard stuff to redirect articles. It is even done for common typos on a subject. For example all these pages: QuackWatch , Quackbusters , Quackpot watch , Quackpot Watch , Quackpotwatch.org , Tim Bolen , Patrick Timothy Bolen, and Quackpotwatch all currently redirect to QW. i don't see why Homeowatch, Credential_Watch and Chirobase would not redirect to the page since they are mentioned there. David D. (Talk) 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a bold move and just redirected all three to Quackwatch. Hope this is appropriate, it seems much better than the acrimony that may occur going through AfD. David D. (Talk) 21:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• David , I see your point. It is logical so I can go along with that.NATTO 22:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Kauffman paper at SB

That was QW, I am not aware any agreement was made pertaining to SB's article. The overlapping SB & QW articles were also under consideration for merger Friday. Exclusion of the Kauffman reference here will be moving toward a Steve B hagiography. Here, in this Wiki article, the Kauffman's analysis was being used as source of corroboration with respect to comments by a targetted MD of SB's. To avoid reader fatigue, the Kauffman presentation is, & should be, different. The Kauffman paper is highly relevant to SB because 5/8 of the articles analyzed *are authored* by SB.--I'clast 05:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

An angle where specific comments from Kaufmann on the Barrett authored articles might be the best route here. However, it is not unprecedented to have repeat information in two related articles. David D. (Talk) 06:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to see Kauffman's review here. After all, he is reviewing SB's work and SB's site. Kauffman's analysis is extremely relevant to both the SB and the QW articles. Levine2112 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

An pointer to the minimalist version on QW would be appropriate. After all, it is a review of QW; personalities are supposed to be left out. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

While i agree the review is about QW, and so the summary at the end of the review is not appropriate for the SB page, throughout the review he makes specific comments about each of the eight articles. It is clear that such comments pertaining to Barretts own writing are appropriate as a criticism with respect to the quality of the his articles for QW. David D. (Talk) 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Reading through Kauffman's review, it seems that his main criticism about Barrett is his objectivity. Kauffman points out numerous instances where Barrett only cites the side of the research which supports his conclusions and seemingly ignores any evidence to the contrary. I think that this is a valid criticism of Barrett's work and should be included in the SB article. I think it would be perfect in the section where Barrett's objectivity is questions and Confirmation bias is discussed. It seems very applicable. Agreed? Levine2112 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that info about the review belongs also to the SB article for the reasons given above. Also Barrett claims to be an expert in medical communications. Kauffman shows that in the 5 articles he wrote, that the medical information is not up to par. I have re-introduced in the article. If it is to be removed again it should be because a majority of editors have agreed to remove it. NATTO 07:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It still seems only weakly connected to the article, but it seems enough for now. I won't remove it unless it becomes unencyclopedic for other reasons, or with consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag above the critic section

The tag was placed by Fyslee a while ago. Any comments about it at this stage. Should it be left in and if so why ? NATTO 08:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Time for that tage to go. Of course this section isn't neutral; it contains criticisms. However, it does so in a model WP way, by citing and referencing reliable sources without adding further commentary about the subject other than what those sources say. Levine2112 16:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Any other comments ? NATTO 19:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this pass the smell test?

I am concerned that of the 60 or so references cited as verifiable sources about Stephen Barrett, 20 (a third) are to websites owned, operated and written by Stephen Barrett.

IMO, it is not reliable to verify something about a subject by going to a website that was written by the subject. Would these references be considered to be objective? There are certainly too many of these instances in this article.

This is not about reducing the numerous free advertisements for Stephen Barrett Enterprises. (Donations gladly accepted!) although there seem to be far to many on WP. But rather, I question the reliability of such sources because of my concern for maintaining truth and accuracy in this encyclopedic endeavor.

That is why I am seeking feedback. Thanks, Steth 23:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem excessive, considering the number of comments taken from websites created to be critical of QW and SB. Of course, primary sources should be included where QW and affiliate sites, and anti-SB sites are the secondary source. We also must remember WP:LIVING, so the secondary sources are also required. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to a point with Steth that it is an issue. We need more independent quality references in the article, in fact in many WP articles. Quoting Barrett ad nauseanum is far from that level of reference. Another point omitted by Arthur is that the references to web sites critical of Barrett are in the Critics section and not everywhere in the article.NATTO 00:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Litigation section and non legal references

It has been very clearly agreed that any item that has to do with litigation in this article is to be referenced to a high standard, most preferably by legal documents. Of course the ways things are it seems that anything goes. Certainly not boding well for editing at WP.NATTO 00:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall the agreement, but I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't think I've violated it. Under WP:BLP, it seems that we need both primary and secondary sources for anything we say about the litigation, and I'm not sure the secondary sources can be from a party. (This would eliminate a number of the QW litigation notes, as the source quoted is often the website of an opposing party.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur you cannot recall it because you have been editing this article for a short time only ( if I am correct only since the merger issue arose but I may be wrong ). It was agreed a long time ago. You have not violated it but Fyslee who was privy to the agreement has. Every quote in the litigation is from a legal document and usually from judges ( please have a look at the document if you wish ). The document can be posted on QW or another website. It does not matter as long as the document is real and from a relevant court case. It is not always possible to access court archives on the net and QW does post many such legal documents. NATTO 01:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In your large delete you removed material that had been there for a long time. What I added was a from a biographical article that is a verifiable source, and it is relevant to the subject of litigation and libel suits. It was not a legal case, and therefore court documents were not relevant. It mentions a legal matter, and the court document is referenced. Very interesting reading. As far as the "agreement," while I agree that we should use court documents in the relevant circumstances whenever possible, no agreement between editors that is not backed up by Wikipedia policy or that violates those policies is valid. Policies also change, and their interpretation changes. The groupings of editors changes as well, so any binding nature of such agreements is only temporary in nature, and is open to revision at any time. I still support using the best sources available, but an agreement that is used to exclude valuable information, when its inclusion does not violate policy, is a questionable agreement, or at least a questionable use of the agreement. -- Fyslee 04:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly follow the agreement when it is suits the editors and ignore it when it does not, claiming that, anyway, it is OK with one's interpretation of WP policy. Then you will not mind if I start adding information in the litigation section that is referenced by other documents than court documents. After all I can use the same excuse as you do. Hey what is the point of making agreements between editors if they can be "dumped" at will. Lets just follow WP policy, or probably lets just follow our own interpretation of WP policy. I have now seen two such agreements that have been "dishonoured". And by the way we all know what Barrett says on his website, everybody can read it, it is on 22 different websites, why not while you are at it, recopy everything in WP so that could be a mirror site to QW and co. WHy bother about giving another point of view... WP policy ? Bah you can choose to interpret it your way after all. NATTO 07:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle." Be careful with your pointing fingers, because none of us is innocent, and certainly not yourself. You do (or choose to) not "understand correctly," and (considering the mocking tone of your comment) I doubt that any explanation that doesn't end up giving you control of the direction of all editing here will do much good. There are several POV to be presented here, and they should be accomodated. -- Fyslee 19:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Continue to enjoy yourself :-) NATTO 19:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The same to you..;-) -- Fyslee 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not even get a smile :-) in return.... :-( NATTO 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

JAMA , honours and review of QW

It turns out that the JAMA item is simply an information flyer for physicians to dispense to their patients. There is no explanation or evidence given to support the listing so it is merely a POV expressed by someone at JAMA - no even a real article in the Journal so not peer-reviewed. As for the Forbes listing, after checking the reference, it is clear that they never gave QW their " Best of the Web" rating, as was stated in the article previously. They did list QW on the Web Site Review list but it was listed second to last at the bottom, way below the Favourite and Best of the Web sites. ( They did give the web site of Dr. Weil their Best of the Web rating... Interesting since QW is critical of Weil ). If that is the best that can be provided to support the reliability, accuracy and overall quality of the information and advice given on QW, then it is not convincing at all, especially compared to the extensive and well referenced review done by Joel Kauffman. Any skeptic worth his salt can see that. NATTO 08:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The information presented here (if you are correct about JAMA and Forbes) reflects that statement, given only those statements which are considered WP:RS, supports your view. However, there are accurate statements which a skeptic should be able to rely on which cannot be included here. FWIW, those QW articles which I have independently investigated seem better supported than Kaufmann's article — which I have read — and any person or group which calls Chopra New Age censored is fine with me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks For signing your post this time. Of course you are allowed your POV and it is loud and clear. Anyone can look at the JAMA flyer and will see that it is not a peer-reviewed article of the type published in JAMA or any other reputable Journal. It is more an aside , the sort of thing that you see in many professional journals. like a list of interesting websites or tidbits of news. As for Forbes they never picked QW for either their Forbes Favorite or Forbes Best of the Web, the website that have been so selected are clearly identified. As far as the QW articles that you have investigated: what were the topics of the article ? Finally your opinion of Chopra is noted and not really relevant in this context. NATTO 21:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NATTO seems to be a practitioner of one of the fields which SB considers misguided, which may explain his/her point of view. And the JAMA piece appears to be an editorial position rather than a peer-reviewed paper. Perhaps not as good, but still worthy of note. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin seems quick to drawn premature conclusions, not a good sign. Glad to see that you at least recognise that the JAMA item is not a peer-reviewed scientific article ( althought that is quite obvious to anyone anyway ). I agree it is worthy of note as long as the nature of the item is properly described. Finally you have not answered my question about the QW articles that you have reviewed.NATTO 07:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

NATTO continues to use straw man attacks to squeeze negativity out of a positive situation. Answered here. How about just keeping it simple and letting the facts speak for themselves, without adding editorial OR? -- Fyslee 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Weil

As per WP:NPOV : all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing significant views fairly and without bias. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

QW is putting forward one POV about Weil, that is he is not recommmendable. The other POV from Forbes is that he is quite respectable. That is totally in line with WP policy so giving the both POV about Weil is relevant and acceptable in this article because is name is mentioned in the article.NATTO 07:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about Well. If there were a secondary source specifically about SB's attitude toward Weil, that might be relevent balance. 14:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC) This unsigned post was written by Arthur Rubin

Fair enough. Instead of getting into a debate on Weil in this article. I have removed the phrase. Readers can look at article on Weil where I have placed the information. NATTO 15:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Quackbuster

A quick google/yahoo/msn search finds no reference to Barrett not wanting to be called a "quackbuster". His bio in Quackwatch reads "Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who resides in Allentown, Pennsylvania, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate.... An expert in medical communications,...".

And the "present" article has duplications of his not wanting to be called a "quackbuster". In #Online Activism, we have

Although he is frequently called a "quackbuster," he does not like the term because it can suggest militancy, and he never refers to himself as a quackbuster.

and in #Accusations of bias and lack of objectivity, we have

Goldberg refers to Barrett as a "self-proclaimed 'quackbuster'," but Barrett does not like the term "quackbuster" because it can suggest militancy, so he never refers to himself as a quackbuster, describing himself instead as an author, editor, consumer advocate and expert in medical communications.

We must have copied it from somewhere.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was I that introduced the quote (very direct paraphrase) here at Wikipedia, so it must be here somewhere. I'll have to check it out, because, being a direct quote, it should also be referenced correctly. I'll work on finding it when I have the time later today.

Duplications are of course unintended. They have probably occurred because of the repeated back-and-forth moves of items between articles. -- Fyslee 06:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mystery solved..... My recollection was partially correct. It was I who introduced the quote here at Wikipedia, but it wasn't a quote that Barrett (User:Sbinfo) made here, but from an email I received from him on Jan. 2, 2006, in response to a query of mine about an article I was writing, partially reproduced here:

• Barretts' views, plus the history of the term "Quackbusters"

I received his permision to quote him, and the quote was used in the article, and later ended up in this article. Since a private email is good enough for an ordinary article, but not for an article here, I suggest that the quote, even though it is true and factual, be partially removed, and I will do it myself. The part that can remain is the simple fact that he never refers to himself as a "quackbuster," which makes Burton's statement a falsehood. If anyone can find an instance where Barrett "self-proclaim(s)" himself to be a quackbuster, then that item can be removed, and I will certainly confront him with it, but there is no reason to doubt him. He didn't originate the expression, and he has never been comfortable with it. -- Fyslee 19:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether he is comfortable with the term quackbuster or not is beside the point. Whats he does is the same as those who call themselves quackbuster.NATTO 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To some degree that is true, but he is not responsible for what any of them do, and he is not a militant or an activist, as some other quackbusters. He concentrates on providing information and writing. Lawsuits, for example, are rather rare, and have mostly been the libel suits. He himself has never been sued for libel. He should be judged by what he actually does and all of what he actually writes, not by what his detractors claim, with their tainted motives and agendas. -- Fyslee 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

King Bio suit

I've been looking at the lawsuits section and I have a suggestion. The libel suits are strictly Barrett's business and still belong here, but the detailed description of the King Bio suit needs to be moved.

I would like to suggest that the accounts of the King Bio suit be consolidated on the NCAHF article. Right now we have duplication. The suit was brought by the NCAHF and thus belongs there, but there should still be mention of Barrett's involvement as a representative of the NCAHF.

In this article we can refer readers to it with a short mention and a "See the NCAHF article" link. Here's my suggestion:

• Barrett has also been involved in another type of suit. In 2001 and 2003, Barrett, acting as an expert witness on behalf of the National Council Against Health Fraud, was involved in an unsuccessful lawsuit against King Bio, a manufacturer of homeopathic remedies. (See the NCAHF article)

Any objections? -- Fyslee 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it should remain. The King Bio case can serve both articles in their own way. Here, the King Bio case is used to characterize Barrett through the opinion of the judge. Specifically that he paid himself to appear as an expert witness and may have has direct financial interest in the outcome of the case. Though this is just the presiding judge's opinion (and one which Barrett argues), I think it is very telling. On the other hand, in the NCAHF article, the King Bio case is used to characterize the organization and provide an example of what NCAHF does in terms of legal suits (which part of their mission/scope). Here it is also documented that NCAHF was paying Barrett to appear as an expert witness. Thus this point is also relevant to NCAHF. Essentially, the King Bio case is about Stephen Barrett and NCAHF. It involves them both and gives insight into both the man and his organization. Therefore mentioning in it both articles in wholly relevant. Levine2112 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your viewpoint, but since (1) he only charges a minimal amount, (2) no fund was ever established, and (3) he didn't get paid, the point is actually false, IIRC. He has explained this here, but I think it either got deleted from the article, or it needs to be added. The judge had heard something and made his judgement, but the facts were otherwise. Happens all the time.

The Merge proposals (above) resulted in a consensus that duplications should be avoided when possible. This makes for cleaner articles, and avoids conflicting versions of the same events. Referencing the relevant article (See...), as I have proposed, takes care of the problem. This allows for a consolidation (not minimalization) of information in one place. -- Fyslee 10:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Much as I'd like to agree with Fyslee, I think the lawsuit is separately relevant to the two articles, as Levine2112. I, too believe the judge was wrong, but his ruling is clearly a WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming the judge isn't a WP:RS, and I'm not saying it doesn't have relevance to both articles. It does have some relevance here, since Barrett was involved, but its primary relevance is because it was an NCAHF lawsuit. What I'd like to see is consolidation of all material so we can do it justice, without having two minimalistic and conflicting versions that will constantly get edited separately by differenct editors who don't realize that everytime they edit the one, they also will need to edit the other, with the risk of battles on each article. It seems like a waste of time and energy. My proposal clearly recognizes the relevance and includes the only part that is of relevance here, yet it ensures that readers can read the whole account, which is doing more than is necessary. This is also in harmony with the consensus agreement above to avoid duplication. I guess that in this case I believe that more is better than less.... -- Fyslee 15:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think having information about something being presented in multiple articles is just part of the fun of having an electronic encyclopedia. Plus, in this case, different parts of the King Bio case are relevant to each article. By the way, Barrett was paid as a witness. He claims it was just a minimal amount, but how much is that? Let's assume that Barrett's account was true... that he was unable to get the truth across... that he misspoke and said that there was a NCAHF fund he was getting paid from... that he still argues the court ruling even after losing the appeal... It is all very telling of Barrett. I mean, he is a founder and head of NCAHF and serves regularly as an "expert" witness. How could he not know whether or not there was a fund? How did that idea even enter his mind? Did someone say something to him and he got all confused? Was there a fund at one point but not at the time he was on the stand? Levine2112 16:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just read what is written very, very carefully. It was a lawyer, not the NCAHF, that started the case. They only agreed to serve as the plaintiffs. If Barrett ever was paid, there is nothing odious about that since expert witnesses are entitled to fees and usually charge quite a bit, in contrast to Barrett, who rarely serves in this role and only charges a small fee. He never "misspoke and said that there was a NCAHF fund he was getting paid from," but that a fund was to be established, from which expert witnesses could get paid. The fund was never established by the lawyer. Remember to exercise good faith. Barrett is a fellow editor here. -- Fyslee 19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so where did he get the idea that the fund was going to be established from which to pay expert witnesses (such as himself)? That's a bad idea. Even the judge said so. The fact that he had this idea speaks to Barrett. I'm not requesting that you change anything you put into the article regarding Barrett's remarks. No bad faith exercized here. Levine2112 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My "exercise good faith" remark was, as stated, regarding Barrett, not about me. You are attacking Barrett's motives without anything better than OR reasoning, which amounts to exercising bad faith. You are doing something very natural, and I'm certainly not immune....;-) We look at things through our own filters, which is a form of OR. We need to keep them out of the article, hard as it may be. That's why it's good that we are so different and have different POV. We can help each other to see our own myopias:

O would some Power the gift to give us

To see ourselves as others see us! (Robert Burns)

So welcome to the club! I often need help too. That NPOV policy isn't such a bad idea after all! I pity the world if I were to edit Wikipedia alone.... :-o( -- Fyslee 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not immune. However, my assessment was not based on OR but rather the judge's reliable opinion. Levine2112 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As is often the case, the full truth of a matter is only seen after both sides of the coin have been examined. Sometimes the truth is somewhere in between, and sometimes one side is just wrong. The judge didn't have all the facts, but ruled on what he (and others no doubt) assumed would be the case. It ended up not being true. So the truth of the matter lies somewhere between "in between" and "the judge was wrong." Happens all the time. Life isn't always fair, and judgements aren't always fair either. The judge may have had legitimate concerns, but he acted too quickly based on incomplete testimony. -- Fyslee 23:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I have fully read your latest version, I think the content is fine, but it is a little redundant. Probably could be tightened. Barrettt saying the same point over and over makes he seem a little desperate to convince of something. Levine2112 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I saw the problem, but we have all the time in the world to remedy it. If we can delete duplication and preserve the flow, while keeping the links in the right places, it's fine by me to shorten it. They were comments written in reply to other comments, so adaptation would be proper. Let's work on it below in a subsection. -- Fyslee 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's comments need tightening

Original version

Barrett disputes the judge's decision and has provided supplemental information about what happened behind the scenes:

"The above description of my being paid in the manner described is 100% false. It is based on a wild distortion of my involvement and testimony in a single case in which Attorney Morse Mehrban sued KingBio Pharmaceuticals for false advertising of homeopathic products and used NCAHF as the plaintiff. The suit was one of many that Mehrban brought against false advertisers. After the first case was settled for a considerable sum, part of the settlement was supposed to be allocated to pay expert witnesses in the other suits. I agreed to testify in the KingBio suit for a very low fee and had no interest in testifying in the non-homeopathic cases. Nobody asked how much I was being paid, which was unfortunate, because expert witnesses ordinarily charge much more, and if the judge knew the facts, I doubt that he would have thought the payment could influence me. KingBio's lawyer persuaded the judge that somehow my testimony would be tainted because I had an indirect interest in being paid. This was preposterous, but he said it during his closing argument and there was no opportunity to rebut it. The statement that donations have been used to pay me in legal matters is 100% false. Donations to Quackwatch are used to defray the cost of running my sites, which is about $7000 per year. If they don't cover the cost, I pay out of my own pocket."

He continues:

"I never paid myself to be an expert witness. The lawyer who brought the suits paid for expert witnesses out of his own pocket. As noted above, after he won a large settlement in a false advertising case, I suggested that part of the winnings could be used to retain experts in other cases. I testified that money was put into a fund for this purpose, but I later found out that no fund was actually established. Even though NCAHF agreed to serve as the plaintiff, it never received a penny from the settlements."

He further explains:

"Trial testimony is conducted under rules that sometimes makes it difficult to provide a coherent picture of the facts. In this case, the judge heard that I was being paid and that there was a fund. Prodded by the opposing attorney, he jumped to the conclusion that there were many cases involved, that a lot of money would be involved, and that the situation was one he didn't trust. The judge was completely wrong. I had minimal interest in testifying, my fee was very low, and--it turned out--I was mistaken about the fund. In fact, no such fund ever existed."

---

Revised: version 1

Barrett disputes the judge's decision and has provided supplemental information about what happened behind the scenes:

"The...description of my being paid in the manner described is 100% false. It is based on a wild distortion of my involvement and testimony in a single case in which Attorney Morse Mehrban sued KingBio Pharmaceuticals for false advertising of homeopathic products and used NCAHF as the plaintiff. The suit was one of many that Mehrban brought against false advertisers. After the first case was settled for a considerable sum, part of the settlement was supposed to be allocated to pay expert witnesses in the other suits. I agreed to testify in the KingBio suit for a very low fee and had no interest in testifying in the non-homeopathic cases. Nobody asked how much I was being paid, which was unfortunate, because expert witnesses ordinarily charge much more, and if the judge knew the facts, I doubt that he would have thought the payment could influence me. KingBio's lawyer persuaded the judge that somehow my testimony would be tainted because I had an indirect interest in being paid. This was preposterous, but he said it during his closing argument and there was no opportunity to rebut it." "I testified that money was put into a fund for this purpose, but I later found out that no fund was actually established. Even though NCAHF agreed to serve as the plaintiff, it never received a penny from the settlements." "Trial testimony is conducted under rules that sometimes makes it difficult to provide a coherent picture of the facts. In this case, the judge heard that I was being paid and that there was a fund. Prodded by the opposing attorney, he jumped to the conclusion that there were many cases involved, that a lot of money would be involved, and that the situation was one he didn't trust. The judge was completely wrong. I had minimal interest in testifying, my fee was very low, and--it turned out--I was mistaken about the fund. In fact, no such fund ever existed."

-- Fyslee 22:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Revised: version 2

Barrett disputes the judge's decision and has provided supplemental information about what happened behind the scenes:

"The...description of my being paid in the manner described is 100% false. It is based on a wild distortion of my involvement and testimony in a single case in which Attorney Morse Mehrban sued KingBio Pharmaceuticals for false advertising of homeopathic products and used NCAHF as the plaintiff. The suit was one of many that Mehrban brought against false advertisers. After the first case was settled for a considerable sum, part of the settlement was supposed to be allocated to pay expert witnesses in the other suits. I agreed to testify in the KingBio suit for a very low fee and had no interest in testifying in the non-homeopathic cases. Nobody asked how much I was being paid, which was unfortunate, because expert witnesses ordinarily charge much more, and if the judge knew the facts, I doubt that he would have thought the payment could influence me. KingBio's lawyer persuaded the judge that somehow my testimony would be tainted because I had an indirect interest in being paid. This was preposterous, but he said it during his closing argument and there was no opportunity to rebut it." "I never paid myself to be an expert witness. The lawyer who brought the suits paid for expert witnesses out of his own pocket. As noted above, after he won a large settlement in a false advertising case, I suggested that part of the winnings could be used to retain experts in other cases. I testified that money was put into a fund for this purpose, but I later found out that no fund was actually established. Even though NCAHF agreed to serve as the plaintiff, it never received a penny from the settlements." "Trial testimony is conducted under rules that sometimes makes it difficult to provide a coherent picture of the facts. In this case, the judge heard that I was being paid and that there was a fund. Prodded by the opposing attorney, he jumped to the conclusion that there were many cases involved, that a lot of money would be involved, and that the situation was one he didn't trust. The judge was completely wrong. I had minimal interest in testifying, my fee was very low, and--it turned out--I was mistaken about the fund. In fact, no such fund ever existed."

-- Fyslee 07:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two problems with the versions above:

1. The introductory sentence is too broad and thus can be misleading.
2. The body of the statement still needs tightening.

Point 1: "Barrett disputes the account regarding payment and has provided supplemental information about what happened behind the scenes"

This is more correct. While he of course didn't like losing, his dispute here is with the payment issue. -- Fyslee 07:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

---

So was the "very low" witness fee paid to Barrett from the settlement of Mehrban's first case against KingBio? If not, how was Barrrett paid? By whom? And from what fund? (How much is "very low"?) His explanation, even spelled out in full detail, is very confusing. He seems to loop around on what he is saying, much like a crafty politician. I wish I knew what he was trying to say here so it could be stated plainly. Perhaps you can do so, just for our benefit on the Talk page. Levine2112 22:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated the portion I had deleted. It contains the answer to part of your question. It looks like Barrett was likely paid by the lawyer. There was no fund. How much is "low" is anyone's guess. I have no problem believing him, since he doesn't usually take as much as he could. The guy is an idealist. That's why he pays many expenses out of his own pocket. In one case he won he only took $5.000, when anyone else would have taken a lot more. I was surprised, but he apparently had gotten what he went after, and that was to get libelous statements removed. In the Mercola case where Mercola paid him $50.000, and removed the libelous statements by Tim Bolen from his website, Barrett voluntarily removed Mercola's name from the description on his website. A very gentlemanly deed. Mercola was concerned that Googling his name would forever bring up mention of the suit. Barrett could have gone to court and won even more, but he got what he wanted - a removal of the libelous statements and legal expenses, as well as avoiding wasting a lot of time in court. -- Fyslee 00:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Relevancy of Barrett's opinion on court decision

More and more opinions of Barrett on legal decisions are added to the article. I wonder if that is really relevant. The courts have ruled and whatever Barrett or anyone else thinks of the decisions will not change them unless it is reversed by a higher court. The article is not a platform for Barrett to display his numerous opinions, He already has 22 websites to do so. NATTO 22:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP When using the subject as a source: Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies. It is relevant to the person's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject. A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source.

Now regarding what Barrett says in the article. Can we verify what is said ? Is it relevant to his notability ? Is it unduly self-serving ( making insinuation about the judge's impartiality purely based on his opinion... the judge is also a living person ) ? I have removed the text for now as it plainly attacks the judge ( without any reliable sources ) who is also a living person NATTO 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict.... The judge is not the subject of the article. Barrett is allowed to defend himself here. There is a difference of opinion, and Barrett must be allowed to have his opinion represented in his own article.

You're up against these Wikipedia policies:

• WP:BLP
• Using the subject as a source

I know this makes it more difficult for you to smear him, but that's the way it is. Anything negative must be extremely well sourced, while the opinions of the subject of the article may be used as first person sources. -- Fyslee 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is that Barrett's own opinions about the judge and the trial could be considered unduly self-serving. He is smearing the judge and belittling the trial in order to make up for his loss in court. If my job here was to smear Barrett, I'd say to leave his opinion. It reads like double-talk, wrought with circular-logic and generally makes Barrett seem petty. Criticizing judges doesn't generally win people over. However, I am not here to smear Barrett. I am here to make this the very best article possible. Thus, I would recommend either having Fyslee summon Barrett back to Wikipedia to clarify and condense this statement or carefully edit Barrett's responses to make them easier to understand, but also stay true to his point. As I don't have any contact with Barrett nor do I understand exactly his defense to the KingBio trial, I am not in a position to rectify this as I am suggesting. Fyslee? Anyone else? Levine2112 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

After reading the brief, it appears to me that the plaintiffs lost because they were unable to show that the defendant was advertising falsely. There was apparently little or no proof presented to support the plaintiffs case. That's why they lost. Even if Barrett and Sampson were not related to NCAHF, it seems their testimony had nothing to do with that point of law. IOW, they didn't testify to the advertising, they testified (and apparently poorly) to their opinion about the unscientificness of homeopathy in general, which had nothing to do with King Bio specifically. King Bio was following FDA guidelines and that was all they are required to do. From that description, the judge did make the right decision. The case was doomed from the beginning. Apparently, the plaintiffs were hoping the judge would not force them to carry the burden of proof for their claim and would make King Bio justify their advertising claims. That would have been unrealistic considering the plaintiffs were the ones making the claim. You can't blame a judge for an ill prepared case. If that were to come out in this article, the money issue might become mute and there would be no need for Barret's rebuttal comments. Just a thought, but you guys are way ahead of me on this. --Dematt 03:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dematt understands the situation perfectly. They were ill-prepared and naive idealists. Courts do not rule on "truth," but only on evidence. If a lie provides dubious evidence, that will trump "truth" in a court of law, if that truth isn't adequately defended with good evidence. Morse Mehrban should never have filed that suit, and the NCAHF should never have allowed themselves to be suckered into supporting it as the plaintiffs. Idealists aren't always the best ones to make such cases. The defective FDA laws regarding homeopathic products (no testing or evidence of effect is required, unlike other pharmaceuticals) need to first be eliminated before such cases can succeed. Right now many scammers deliberately evade the spirit of consumer protection laws by labeling their products "homeopathic," even when they contain measurable amounts of active substances (IOW aren't homeopathic at all). By so doing they can fly under the radar and sell their worthless products to hapless victims.

The current discussion concerns the factual accuracy of the specific aspect of payments. The judge inferred (very understandably, based on what he had heard), that a personal financial motive might be involved. That was not the case, and the fund was never even established by the lawyer, so no substantial amount ever changed hands, or could be used to finance future cases. (So much for conspiracy theories about deep pockets being filled with funds from the FDA, etc...Where is my check?!....;-) -- Fyslee 08:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is certainly a little over the top on my interpretation:), though I understand your enthusiasm. I do think the judge made the correct decision based on the facts presented. As to idealism, etc., well I can give them that, but am disheartened when I think that he doesn't give the same benefit of the doubt to the idealistic doctors that he writes about. But really my point was that the actual case was about false advertising and the burden of proof was not met. The money thing is interesting, but doesn't need to take up so much of the discussion. --Dematt 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And what a display of knowledge about homeopathy.... It is well known that low dilutions homeopathic remedies do have measurable amounts of the substance diluted....NATTO 08:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if Fyslee allowed good faith and stop reading everything that does not go along with his POV as attempts to smear Barrett. And WP:BLP does limit what can be sourced from the subject of an article as I explained in my post above. Editors are not here to judge the merit or lack of merit of court decisions. The decision stood the test of the US legal system and it is not the place of WP to be a mouthpiece for those who lost their court cases, especially when they say the judge is wrong and that they imply that he was partial in his decision. NATTO 03:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, I like your edit here concerning this issue. I think it is a very fair compromise. Thank you. Levine2112 23:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

me, too. --Dematt 03:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, da nada! Pleased to be of service. -- Fyslee 09:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF "listing" relevance?

"the State of Massachusetts has no listing for NCAHF." Why is this point relevant for an article about the subject? Shot info 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It has no relevance in this article. It is just one more of those kinds of unencyclopedic details added by detractors to ensure that a negative POV is obvious. It's use here is thus a violation of NPOV. -- Fyslee 07:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe the relevance is that Barrett is a founder of the NCAHF and that the legal status of the NCAHF is unknown since it cannot be found in the registry of the state in question. Of course the NCAHF was originally legally registered in California but following the courts decisions in the King Bio case ( the NCAHF lost ), it closed shop ( one can wonder why? ) and moved in Massachusetts, where it does not appear to be registered.... NATTO 07:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So, because something is unknown, it's relevant? Who's your source for it being unknown? Who's your source for it being notable? --Ronz 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that questioning the mythical existence of this "non-profit" is better off on the NCAHF. While Barrett is the founder and VP and board member, the questionable nature of this organization may only be tangetially relevant to this article. Providing the wikilink to NCAHF (as is done) where the information about the lack of recognition by the state of Massachusettes exists is certainly okay by me. Levine2112 23:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is relevant, but not here. (I'm in the process of contacting some people to find out what's the score and will provide the information when I get it.) -- Fyslee 09:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am finding this very troubling. NCAHF was founded by Stephen Barrett and suspended by the State of California in 2003. To date, all searches for the state of Massachusetts corporations shows nothing in this name or similar names. As they are soliciting donations and claiming to be a 'non profit' ... while subjecting me and other targets of theirs to intense scrutiny of our non profit organizations, this is a totally relevant concern. Barrett's publicist here, User:Fyslee, claimed he would clear this up over 2 months ago but has failed to report on this. This is not a complicated piece of evidence to produce if one exists.

Barrett has had posted enormous amounts of disinformation regarding his case against me and I am believing that until evidence to the contrary is shown, NCAHF does not have the legal status Barret/Lee claim here.

Ilena Rosenthal www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/

User:Ilena 19:06, 8 December 2006 [13] (sig and time stamp added by Fyslee 19:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC), and comment moved to proper location)

Stephen Barrett: bias and lack of objectivity

Dear Fyslee and Arthur Rubin,

With all respect the two comments I made about Stephen Barrett cannot be dismissed as merely "interesting". And they cannot be dismissed because you think they are in some way minor. They are germaine to the question of "bias and lack of objectivity" and belong under that heading. I have at least one more in the pipeline. (I have emailed Dr. Barrett about all these points). You are not justified in removing my comments, particularly the one about Folic Acid - you should see what the NORVIT study made of this. (I have been taking folic acid because of what Dr. Barrett said on his website). My comments are relevant and correct and they should stay in the Stephen Barrett article until he edits his website appropriately. I further observe that I have no time at all for most of the people Dr. Barrett criticises. Would you please agree not to interfere with any future reinstatement of my comments unless you can show them to be invalid ? Yours sincerely, Robert2957

Robert you seem to be making edits based on a personal agenda as well as based on original research. The latter, especially, is not appropriate for a wikipedia article. In general you are critiquing a very specific statement that barrett has made. I'm not sure that such detailed criticism is warranted for this type of overview article. Why is the folic acid debate more notable than any other specific criticism brought up by people like Kaufmann? David D. (Talk) 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear David D, What do you mean by "personal agenda" ? I do not see that consulting the results of the NORVIT trial consist of "original research". And what is wrong with including the results of "original research" in my edits on Wikipedia? Do you contend that this runs counter to the Wikipedia policy ? The edit concerning the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine was made after I receieved an email from Dr. Barrett confirming what I say. Does writing to Dr. Barrett to confirm a point constitute an unacceptable type of "original research" which cannot be used on the Wikipedia website ? May I respectfully ask you not to interfere with my edits unless you can show then to invalid ? I strongly feel that my edits should be included on the Wikipedia site until Dr. Barrett appropriately edits his website. He has not so far replied to an email I sent him about folic acid. I must ask you once again not to interfere with any edits I make unless you can fault them on a factual basis. Yours sincerly, Robert2957.

Robert, look at the article critical of quackwatch and Barrett by Kauffman. He makes many specific criticisms of Barrett's articles, and others, but they are not discussed in detail. That is the level of critque that is expected for these articles.

With respect to your persoanl agenda, you seem agrieved by the fact you were misled by Barrett's web site and now you wish to bring this example to light. Wikipedia is not the forum for such criticism. It would be much better if you started a blog or a myspace type web page. David D. (Talk) 18:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: writing to Barrett, yes that does count as original research. Also I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with respect to the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine. Surely Barrett's point is something along the lines of 'EVEN this journal that i believe is biased agrees that the cancer is not cured in the long term'. I do not see this as inconsistent. David D. (Talk) 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear David D,

So what is wrong with "original research" ?

Yours sincerely,

Robert2957

Dear David D,

You have not said what is wrong with "original research". You have not tied in your criticisms of my edits with the general Wikipedia editing policy. I do not think my edits fall foul of that policy and I would like you to point out how they do. I can see no validity in your approach and I have a gut feeling that this matter will go to arbitration. I do not feel aggrieved at Dr. Barrett in the way you suggest and I always consult his website QUACKWATCH when considering whether or not to take any form of complementary medicine. Even if I were following a "personal agenda" that could not militate against the factual accuracy of my edits which so far you have not questioned. Yours sincerely,

Robert2957

Robert, please read up on Wikipedia's policy concerning original research referred to here as WP:OR. (Click on that link to read the policy. Specifically, look at this section] of the policy.) Basically, as editors of Wikipedia, we are limited to the constraints of posting relevant information from notable sources. We cannot synthesize multiple sources to create an original unsourced statement of fact or opinion. I appreciate your efforts contributing here and I encourage you stay. But please, first read up on the Wikipedia "no origninal research" policy. There are a multitude of editing policies here and we all fumble up on them. The main thing is to learn to contribute in a manner which is most in accordance with policy and you will then find that less of your edits will be reverted with just cause. (Also, here is a tip. When posting a comment on this or any other Talk page, be sure to sign off with four tildes (~~~~ This will automatically sign and date your comment.) Levine2112 19:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Levine

I have read up on wikipedia's "original research" policy and I in no way fall foul of it. My point about the Journal of Naturopathic medicine is taken from Quackwatch. The fact that I verified it with Dr Barrett does not invalidate it. I did not say "A and B therefore C" I simply pointed out that Dr Barret included this journal in his list of nonrecommended publications and then quotes it elsewhere. Similarly, I merely pointed out that he advocates the use of folic acid which the NORVIT study advises against. I did not say anything like: "Therefore C" I drew no conclusion. So how do I fall foul of the policy which you directed me to read ? Yours sincerely, User:Robert2957

I have already made specific comments on the use of the Journal of Naturopathic medicine by Barrett. I do not understand why you view his citation of this journal as a major criticism?

With respect to WP:OR, i think Levine2112 makes good points that i could not word better myself. From my perspective, you are pushing the envelope of the OR policy and might want to read it mnore closely or listen to people on this talk page to see how in practice the policy is used in the articles.

I am not arguing against the validity of your comments on folic acid. So you may well ask; why are my edits being reverted? There are two points to consider.

First, I am saying that that this article has not discussed the specific details of each criticism. As an example, I cited you the case of the comments in this article (and Quackwatch) with respect to Kauffman's critical review.

Secondly, note there is a specific document that is cited (Kauffman's review) criticizing Barrett's articles. That gets around the original research problem. In your own case, the article you cite does not comment on Quackwatch or Barrett. It is also quite recent (2005) so it appears that Barrett's original comments were in good faith. Your main citation appears to be your own observations of Quackwatch and discussions with Barrett. This is exactly the type of unverified information that is not allowed into a wikipedia article. Especially one so volatile as this one.

Before you seek arbitration, I suggest you work closely with editors on this talk page. You will find it much more productive. If you hang around you will find it is not that hostile. There is a policy of be bold in wikipedia. Do not misinterpret such edits as personal attacks as they are not intended to be that. David D. (Talk) 20:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is getting late here in the UK so I will say only that I do not question Dr.

Barrett's good faith. I still see no merit in your argument. I drew no

conclusions and have threrfore not been guilty of "original research" any more

that I am guilty of having a personal agenda.Robert2957 20:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You make a very valid and logical point here, Robert, and I don't intend to write it off without due discussion. Let me spell this out and see if I can provide my analysis (not necessarily the correct analysis) of your two additions:

• He advocates the use of folic acid to lower homocysteine levels to protect against heart disease. [14] The recent NORVIT trial [15], however, suggests that this may not be a good idea.

My feeling here is that although you are not expressing the idea outright, point A and point B seem to be implying a point C (that Barrett's opinion is contested by NORVIT. Right?). I think in order to arrive at "C" and still be outside the bounds of OR, NORVIT would have to expressly say that they are refuting Barrett's opinion. Or a notable third-party would have to make this connection outside of Wikipedia from a reliable source. For instance, if a critique of Barrett's writings were made by a researcher and could be found in a notable publication and this critic arrived at the same point - that Barrett's advice on folic acids are directly refuted by NORVIT - then you could certainly cite that. Make sense?

• He includes the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine on his list of nonrecommended periodicals [16] but quotes a study in that journal in a jointly authored piece [17] about the so-called Gerson therapy which he (quite rightly) criticises.

First off, the terms "so-called" and "quite rightly" is your POV editorializing and would have to go. Our job on this article is not to judge the Gerson Therapy, good or bad. I trust you can see that. Apart from that, this is a powerful point you are making. You are showing that on one hand Barrett dismisses JNM as a reliable source. Then in another article, Barrett in fact uses JNM as a source of information. The hypocrisy! Right? However once again, point C - that Barrett is being hypocritical - seems to be an implied point which you are making by grouping point A and B in this manner. At least that is the implication which I was able to read into it, and I imagine others would do the same. Again, if you found a third-party reliable source that drew this same conclusion, you could include it outright in this article with a citation to that source; otherwise it does seem to be original research. I am sorry because I really like the point you are making here.

Levine2112 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

An important point with respect to the NORVIT article is that it is quite recent (2005). It appears that Barrett was citing current practices that are now challenged. I would only fault Barrett here with respect to not updating his web site. Possibly it could be worked into that section of criticism? Just out of interest, how well accepted is the NORVIT work? David D. (Talk) 21:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The research is well over a year old, and I would hope that Barrett would try to keep his website as up-to-date as possible (being such a widely used source people, such as Robert2957, use to make decisions about their personal health). He's had over a year since this was published and has not updated his site. At this point it is possible that Barrett is dismissing the NORVIT research. Don't forget that a common criticim of Barrett and of Quackwatch is that they tend to ignore research which refutes their opinions... See confirmation bias. I am not sure how widespread and accepted is the NORVIT research, however a Google Scholar search does show that its finding are published in many journals and websites. Levine2112 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is juxtaposition of A and B equivalent to OR?

Robert, my deletion of your original edit was accompanied with this edit summary, which you have mentioned above:

"interesting comments, but this article isn't the place to debunk everything. Major critics are listed here."

We are attempting to write an encyclopedia here. This isn't a private website or blog. I have a number of them, and at such places all kinds of writings, musings, comments, speculations, etc. etc. are perfectly allowable, but not here. The article needs to tell about Barrett, his work, viewpoints, his criticisms, his critics criticsms of him, resources, etc..

BUT.... if the article gets used to start debunking every single controversial item in the over 3000 pages at Quackwatch, and many thousands more on his other websites, not only will this cease to be encyclopedic, it will never be finished, and will consist of enormous amounts of Original Research on topics that should be dealt with (without using OR) in the articles devoted to each subject.

IOW, no matter how right you are (which is why I wrote "interesting," and didn't take any position as regards the possible correctness of those comments, because that matter is irrelevant in this discussion), this type of stuff is not suitable here. Start a blog and start debunking every single thing you find that you don't agree with. It's actually rather fun!

Here we don't even begin to start analysing and criticising every single thing he says. That's not what the article is about. It should just give an overview about Barrett, not every single detail. -- Fyslee 21:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

One further point: it is not possible to implement a NOR policy unless it bans explicit inference. The reason for this is that readers will always make inferences from juxtaposed facts. On the folic acid point, a reader may think that Dr Barret is out of date or that he is an independent thinker outside the mainstream who may nevertheless be right. Or he might think something else. So it is possible to ban saying "A and B therefore C" without recognised authority for C but not "A and B" just because of inferences that readers might or might not make. ROBERT2957

I know it sounds pretty grey. I think it will have to be one of those things that is a judgement call made by the editors of the article. It sounds like you are understanding this, Robert. One more thing, be sure to sign your posts with the four tildes... ~~~~ .... doing so will sign and date your post. Just like this... Levine2112 16:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

From a style perspective, I would add that line breaks are not required either. David D. (Talk) 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Levine, If I understand you correctly, you think that I fall foul of the NOR policy because I juxtapose two facts from which a particular conclusion will be drawn. Therefore, I am guilty of stating a conclusion without appropriate authority. I do not agree, and I think that you may be beginning to understand why. I say that if juxtaposing facts from which readers may make particular inferences is caught by the NOR policy then much of Wikipedia's content will have to be removed. To take an example, let us look at a section of the article on TV psychic Sylvia Browne. The present Wikipedia article states in part:

"Browne retorts that the JREF refuses to put the money into escrow with the implication that this is because it doesn't exist. Randi originally defended the decision, highlighting the fact that the challenge rules clearly state the money will not be placed in escrow. However, as of November 2003, Randi decided to make an exception for Browne, and declared that the money will be placed in escrow, proposing either Larry King or Montel Williams, both supporters of Browne, as suitable escrow agents. Though formal letters were mailed to both King and Williams notifying them of their nomination as possible escrow agents, neither person ever answered. And Browne never accepted nor acknowledged Randi's exception concerning the escrow matter."

Now, almost everyone who reads that passage will draw a particular inference from it although no conclusion is stated. I therefore suggest that you either edit it yourself so as to conform with the NOR policy as you have used it against me, or drop your NOR objection to my edits.

There is no grey area here which can be a matter of judgement. The "A and B therefore C" version of the policy is enforceable. Your "A and B" version is not. Once I have removed this objection, I will be able to deal with others based on the character of my edits. I'm sorry about the line breaks, David D bit I have a hard job getting these contributions to look right. It may be my computer. It is too small to worry about anyway. Let us stick to issues of substance and disputable fact. Robert2957 20:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert, please don't demand things here, it really comes across badly. Reread what your wrote above, how would you interpret such a response to yourself? With respect to your lack of tildes, line breaks and double spacing, these are just friendly suggestions intended to help you learn the style of editing people expect on talk pages throughout wikipedia. We were all new editors at one time, so we know that the formatting can be a challenge.

With regard to your example in Sylvia Browne, yes it is OR, no it is not acceptable. Most articles in wikipedia are half finished works in progress. For this reasonh it is not advisable to cite other articles for precedent. Much better to discuss points on the appropriate talk page.

With respect to adding the folic acid content, the OR is not even the biggest problem. As has been mentioned above, wrt the Kauffman review, it is much too minor to incorporate into the article as a discussion point. Also mentioned above, it might be used as an example of Quackwatch not updating their web site to account for new research. But again, this article is about Barrett and that angle would be better suited on the quackwatch page. David D. (Talk) 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear David D, I have now used the word "suggest". When people use patronising language such as :"It sounds like you are understanding this, Robert." it does tend to raise one's blood pressure. Robert2957 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit i had not noticed that. I guess one grows a thick skin after a while. My experince of editing wikipedia is that unless it is an outright insult I usually ignore it. This is a difficult forum to stay cool, especially on these more volatile pages where differences of opinion can be quite polar. For me this page has been one of the better ones with respect to editor civility and collaboration, despite our different perspectives. David D. (Talk) 20:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I guess this is apropos tot eh topic at hand... reading meanings into things not explicitly stated. Robert, please don't misunderstand what I was saying when I said, "It sounds like you are understanding this, Robert." Honestly, truly, and whole-heartedly, I was not being condescending or patronizing... but rather just the opposite. I was merely trying to encourage you to keep on editing here and not feel frustrated and keep on discussing this issues at hand and to praise you for the clarity you demonstrating in summing up my rather obtuse description of the whole A, B, and C issue. I do want you to feel entirely welcome here and please - in the future - assume good faith with me and your other fellow editors. Assuming good faith, you will learn, is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. So for the record, let me assure you that I recognized that you are a newer editor at Wikipedia and I was only trying to support you and help you cultivate your Wiki skills. Levine2112 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this article -- just happened to hit random and see the discussion here -- but many of Wikipedia's articles need improvement, and there is no way to templatize articles across the entire encyclopedia. If the Sylvia Browne article falls afoul of no original research (and I don't know whether it does or not, I haven't looked at it), then it too should be fixed. In fact you may feel free to do so yourself, that's the beauty of Wikipedia. But that a typo is mistakenly left intact in one article doesn't mean a typo should be left in a separate article, if that makes sense -- we're all volunteers here, and can't individually police each article in existence.

Also, Robert, please try not to doublespace your responses. Look at the formatting of others' responses when you enter them. I had to remove many line breaks from your last entry, which was in essence doublespaced. It's challenging to get the formatting down when you're new, but it may be useful to remember that this means of communication is very different from email-style correspondence. For the sake of space, many portions of conversation on Wikipedia talk pages that probably could use a line break or paragraph don't get one, because it simply takes up too much room and makes the page scroll too quickly. You may also be typing your response in another program, a word processor perhaps, and copy and pasting it here, which could be adding extra characters without your realizing it. — ripley\^talk 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear David D, Do you agree with my comment that a No Original Research policy which forbids contributions of the form: "A and B therefore C" without an authoritative source for the inference of C from "A and B" is enforceable, but a NOR policy which forbids the juxtaposition of facts from which readers will draw inferences (whether they be the same inferences in the case of all readers or not) is not enforceable ? Robert2957 21:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I do feel that you are making a very reasonable and logical point about WP:OR and reading between the lines. My opinion on this is that when an unsupported opinion can easily be implied from an intentional (or unintentional) pairing of facts, that an article does start to skirt the line of violating WP:OR. Now what is "intentional" and what is "unintentional" and what is "unsupported" and what is "skirting"? This is that nebulous grey area I mentioned and I feel it best to rely on our fellow editors here to better hash out and discuss if a certain contested pairing or phrasing is all right or not. As far as enforce-ability goes with this, I don't know. It doesn't seem to exist in Wikipedia policy where point "C" is merely implied. Again, I think it is a judgement call issue for the editors of the article to discuss. Levine2112 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely a grey area and one we have visited before. See the two archived here, Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_3#Different_tack_re:Board_certification and here, Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_3#OR_and_other_erroneous_interpretations. I argued that A and B paint a picture that is in my view equivalent to OR. NATTO argued the opposite. David D. (Talk) 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice that most of my discussion partners on this page have taken to addressing me in terms that would be suitable if I were a child of school age and they were teachers in authority over me. Examples include: please read up on Wikipedia's policy concerning original research / I appreciate your efforts contributing here and I encourage you stay/ Do not misinterpret such edits as personal attacks as they are not intended to be that/ Make sense? / Robert, please don't demand things here/Reread what your wrote above/Also, Robert, please try not to doublespace your responses.{totally inappropriate because I have pointed out that I seem to have trouble with this computer on this website} The verb is always in the simple imperative mood. One never gets anything like : "I would like you to reconsider what you wrote..." or: " I hope you will not misinterpret..." Do you all have some special authority ? When the present discussion is over, will I have to stay behind afterwards ? Or would you all like to contribute to a report for my mother to read ? Robert2957 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that being condescending to you is not my intention. I cannot speak for the others here, but I believe you are misinterpreting my politeness for condescension. As I stated above, I am only trying to encourage you to stay here and help you develop your knowledge of Wikipedia policy and common practices. The only special authority that I can claim here is a tad bit more experience at this than you. Thus, I am merely trying to impart some of what I learned about Wikipedia on to you. Levine2112 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Levine,

Thank you for your courteous response. If "It doesn't seem to exist in Wikipedia policy where point "C" is merely implied." may I invite you now to drop your NOR based objection to my edits of the Barrett article so that we can then get down to the issue of whether they should be allowed to be included? Robert2957 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My objection - if you wish to call it that - does stand. I do think this is a grey area and in this case, I feel that the pair of the facts does imply an OR conclusion. Regardless, David D. seems to have another objection to the insertion... one of relevance and notability. Correct me if I am wrong, but he seems to think that these points which you are making would be better suited for the Quackwatch article and even still, they may be too minute to merit encyclopedic inclusion. But you may - if you haven't already - try to include the statements on that article and see what develops. Levine2112 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert2957, if your purpose is to get Barrett to change his web page, have you tried emailing him? Maybe he is not aware of the new trial, or he has another good reason for keeping the folic acid recommendation. If, however, it is your purpose to show the reader of WP that he is not staying current with his web pages, that would certainly be important on the Quackwatch page. That said, however, just one or two pages out of hundreds or thousands of pages would not be adequate, in my opinion, to be considered enough of a problem to include in any article. --Dematt 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the OR policy on the discussion page about Original Research. [18]I think it should be pursued there. I do not want DavidD and others to think that I have intended to ignore their points about what they say is the minor nature of my juxtaposed facts about Dr. Barrett and Quackwatch. Quantitatively, you might say, they are minor. Qualitatively they are not. They, and one or two others I could make, would be of HUGE interest to most people looking up Quackwatch and/or Dr.Barrett on Wikipedia. Most people doing so will be wanting to decide whether they should accept Quackwatch as being as authoritative as Medline or the Mayo Clinic. The facts I have attempted to state are relevant to this issue. Not everyone would draw the same inference from them. I myself am not sure exactly what inference follows from my point about NORVIT and folic acid. Perhaps Dr Barrett is a folic acid "true believer". Perhaps he knows of other research which he relies on (This is unlikely. NORVIT is impressive.) Also, I don't think we can go straight from Barrett's incionsistent appeal to the authority of the Journal Of Naturopathic Medicine to the concept of hypocrisy as Levine suggests. "Hypocrite" is a nasty word with a moral connotation that doesn't belong here. Condemning a journal and then quoting from it is quite ridiculous, but my own reaction to this was to think that he had just got a bit carried away and crashed his fences. So it isn't quite so easy using two facts to put a partucular conclusion into readers' minds. But readers will inevitably make inferences from juxtaposed facts. And legislation against this is impossible. ABC is justiciable. AB is not.

In response to Dematt, I have emailed Dr. Barrett about the points I wish to raise, not all of which have I attempted to put up on Wikipedia. I would never publish anything like this without first approaching the person concerned privately to find out his side of the story. But Dr. Barrett has so far not replied.

In response to DavidD, I did not intend to cite the Sylvia Browne [19] article as a precedent. This would have been idiotic for the reason you rightly give, which is that Wikipedia is work in progress. I was simply trying to get a particular response from Levine.

In response to Fyslee, it isn't a question of debunking everything on a 3,000 page website. Most of the people Dr Barrett crticises would not be able to refute him by using verifiable sourced facts, so their contributions would not survive on Wikipedia. Nor need comments about Dr. Barrett involve Original Research. Mine don't. I commend to Fyslee's attention my quantitative/qualitative distinction.

I am sorry if I got a bit hot under the collar sometimes, but I think I've explained myself to some extent on that score. {When I first found my contributions had been axed, I jumped to the conclusion that some friend or ally of Dr. Barrett's had done it. I reaslised very quickly that this idea was as far from the truth as Sylvia Browne is from becoming a nun}. I am sure my discussion partners are people of good faith whose opinions I cannot share. Robert2957 08:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that last sentence sums up the contributors to this talk page very well. Agreeing to disagree happens quite often here ;) But couldn't Browne have been a nun in one of her former lives? But more seriously, I'll be interested to see what the community makes of your question on OR. David D. (Talk) 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Nice work, Robert. I am as curious about this as your are. On a side note, I'd love to see the other points you've found about Barrett/Quackwatch which may make him/the website seem (forgive the word) hypocritical. Levine2112 16:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Levine, I would wish to begin by making it clear once again that "hypocritical" is your word in this context and not mine.It is not long since I emailed Dr. Barrett about this point, and I would like him to have had more time to respond, but * His website contains an article dated 1999 by Varro E Tyler "False Tenets Of Paraherbalism" [20] in which is stated: " However, no substantial evidence that ginseng enhances sexual experience or potency has been published in the scientific literature. " However, Hong and others published:" A double-blind crossover study evaluating the efficacy of korean red ginseng in patients with erectile dysfunction: a preliminary report." J Urol. 2002 Nov;168(5):2070-3. which concluded that ginseng could help with erectile dysfunction. [21] This could be a case of just being out of date. He seems to have tightened up what he says about another area, so I don't want to comment in public about this Robert2957 20:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert, do you think that it is encyclopedic to begin listing all errors on Quackwatch? There are no doubt plenty of them. Is 'this the place to debunk them? The site has a standard disclaimer, and is not primarily a health site, but an anti-quackery site. You seem to be focusing on a tree and ignoring the forest. You wrote above:

• "Most people doing so will be wanting to decide whether they should accept Quackwatch as being as authoritative as Medline or the Mayo Clinic."

You are holding Quackwatch and Barrett up to a standard which they do not claim. That is unfair. Take the site and its intentions for what they claim, and trust other readers to do the same.

Inaccuracies will always exist on sites, and the webmasters or authors usually appreciate being notified of errors. Some of those "errors" may not be errors at all, but be the subject of ongoing debate and unsettled issues in the scientific community. In such cases an apparent error may remain unchanged until the dust has settled and a consensus has been reached. After that time -- which isn't some absolutely clear "event" -- it would begin to be an obligation to update things. Until then patience is the word. As far as old articles goes, well, they have a date on them, and one does not change them! How about starting a blog and cataloging all the errors you find? -- Fyslee 20:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Quackwatch mission statement:"Its primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere." This is claiming very high authority and status. Robert2957 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but that's on another subject than the one you're dealing with. That's the forest, and you are focusing on a tree that is a secondary object, rather than the main purpose. This just isn't the place to debunk every error you can find. -- Fyslee 21:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

QUACKWATCH offers advice in all the following areas: Antioxidants and other Phytochemicals: Current Scientific Perspective Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors Homocysteine: A Risk Factor Worth Considering Dietary Guidelines for Americans Dietary Guidelines for Infants Dietary Reference Intakes: New Guidelines for Calcium and Related Nutrients Dietary Supplements: Appropriate Use Exercise Choosing and Using Equipment Guidelines (to be posted) Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You! (4 articles) Hormone-Replacement Therapy Immunization: Common Misconceptions Low-Fat Eating: Practical Tips Tobacco-Related News Vegetarianism: Healthful But Not Necessary Weight-Control Guidelines

Factual information which can inform people's judgements about whether or not to rely on this website belongs in the public domain.Robert2957 21:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I really feel you're on to something here, Robert. But I would suggest that as it has more to do with Quackwatch rather than Stephen Barrett, taking the point to the Quackwatch article. Levine2112 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Levine, David D and Fyslee, In the Wikipedia article about Hulda Regehr Clark {whose website, unlike Quackwatch, I NEVER consult when considering issues related to my own health} [22] it says: "In her book The Cure For All Cancers Clark postulates that all cancers are caused by the flatworm Fasciolopsis buski. However, this worm is almost unknown in the USA and Europe." Most readers on reading this would draw a particular inference. We could make two improvements. Supposing a page reference were cited showing where where she says this, and a reference cited proving that this parasite is indeed rare in the USA. Should the amended sentence be rejected as an example of OR ? Or can I invite you all to join me in campaigning for an explicit ABC OR policy which excludes the (unworkable) AB version which is so obviously unenforceable ? The slogan could be : "Go with RJE on ABC" {RJE are my initials} In other words, can't people just see that ABC is right and AB is wrong ? Robert2957 08:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to intentions. And this is about as grey as it gets. If the intent of grouping A and B is to cause the reader to think of C, then technically it's an Original Research violaton. C may be true but if it is not explicitly said in a reliable source, then the editor could be accused of trying get the reader to arrive at conclusion C by grouping A and B together. That being said, I imagine that intention is a hard thing to prove. Regardless, if another editor comes along and reads A and B and thinks there is a C being implied, that editor would certainly have grounds to amend, edit or delete.

I know this is all hypotheticals and we are speaking in gerenralities, so I am quite certain that what I am saying cannot be a hard-and-fast rulein all instances; hence the grey area. In the Hulda Clark article, I would suggest removing the the second sentence on the ground I mentioned above. Unless, the info about the worm being virtaully unknown int he US and Europe is taken from a source which is discussing Clark's theory, then the addition of this point be could be construed as an attempt to get the reader to arrive at some point C. I imagine if point B was from a source which was discussing Clark's theory, then the deduced point C would probably be included in that same source. Levine2112 23:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, if I were to see the second sentence in the Hulda Clark article, I would be looking hard at the reliablity of the source that stated that the flatworm doesn't exist in the US. Then I would double check whether the worm actually did exist. If I could not verify the source or the worm statement, I would be asking questions. Wouldn't you? Of course if I found that it did not exist in the US and the source was reliable, I would leave the combination alone. --Dematt 00:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But if point B (the existence of the worm in the US and Europe) came from a source which was not discussing Clark's theory, then couldn't someone claim that is was added as original research by the editor to refute her theories? Levine2112 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be easy to find reliable sources that both debunk her ridiculous claims, and state why -- that F. buski is a rather large parasite found in a portion of southern Asia, and that it doesn't even cause cancer there (although it can reek havoc on the liver). It can conceivably exist in the bodies of some immigrants, and that's where it would stop. It only lives and thrives in a small area of southern Asia. Her claims go far beyond anything related to reality in many ways.

That article shouldn't be destroyed by deletism. The proper approach is to build it by finding sources. Deletionism is an act of bad faith towards the editors who originally wrote the article, and is very uncollaborative. -- Fyslee 00:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This was a hard one. My first impression was that it would be fine, but then that opens the door for anybody finding sources saying anything about everything. IOW, we could easily find sources to say what we want. So I have to agree with Levine. We have to find a source that is discussing Hulda Clark specifically or we are interjecting our own OR. I also agree that someone out there has probably checked her claim and wrote it down somewhere. It is up to us to find the source and then we can all sleep better at night;) I would also add that if we were writing an investigative piece of jurnalism, that would be perfectly fine, but for an encyclopedia, it is different (though we could quote an investigative piece of journalism). --Dematt 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

One could say that the major difference between simply writing an ordinary article on our own (we attempt to write down the basic facts related to the subject, using OR, and often covering only certain aspects), and doing it here, is that here we write the same facts (but include all facts and allow all POV), but must back up any controversial ones (anything not common knowledge) with good sources.

Since articles are always "in progress," the initial writing of facts, even when as yet unsourced, should not be undone, unnecessarily disturbed, or destroyed. Deletism is at cross-purposes with the purpose here, which is to build an encyclopedia. Disputes on the factuality can be dealt with on the talk page.

What needs to be done to complete the process is to find the sources. (WP:BLP issues directly related to defamation are another matter. Until well-sourced, they should be removed immediately.) Otherwise, we should be patient when dealing with other stuff.

As far as Hulda Clark goes, I know quite a bit about her and her theories, but my main interest is not her article. I already have over 900 pages on my watchlist, not including talk pages. If you are interested in specific information, I could probably help find the sources, so just ask. -- Fyslee 11:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as your statement is verifiable by a reliable source, you should not have too much trouble. You just may have to go back and cite your reference if someone zaps it. Of course, if you want it to stand in the first place, cite it immediately. --Dematt 12:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)