Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Rosenthal lawsuit issues

There seems to be an internal debate here about the Rosenthal lawsuit... about what the courts ruled and why they ruled the way they did. Below, I would like to invite all interested parties to state their issues about what is (and isn't) presented in this article regarding this lawsuit. Please follow my format below to keep it organized and above all, please be civil.

• This is a sample of how we can format an error or omission from this article pertaining to the Rosenthal lawsuit. Please use this format and try to keep all of your points organized. After each point, please cite a reliable source which backs up the statement and then sign your post with the usual ~~~~. [1] Levine2112 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• A few things here. First, are the Rosenthal issues in the "Barrett v. Clark" suits different than the "Barrett v. Rosenthal suit"? Either way, edits need to be made to make it clear. Second, since there is a Barrett v. Rosenthal article, what's listed here regarding it should be minimal - much less than what is here already. Third, it's not clear if all these libel suits relate to individuals reposting Tim Bolen's opinion pieces. Again, this should be clarified. Overall, these sections have become a real mess. --Ronz 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in checking the talk page for Barrett v. Rosenthal. I have set up a similar errors/omissions template there as well. Levine2112 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Though her edits here are "bold", I think Ilena has a point. According to the court documents, the court didn't rule that it is tough to prove libel on a public figure. They ruled that there was no libel. They go on to say that "assuming arguendo" if they deemed it to be libel then it would be hard to determine because Barrett is a public figure... but as they said, this is just a hypothetical point. The ruling is that there was no libel. Levine2112 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I removed the unrelated and distractive quote regarding a "public figure." It appears that Barrett / Lee are attempting to confuse the reader as to why Barrett lost this case. In fact, there were 5 reasons besides them being "public figures":

Here is what the court actually said ... [2]

1. Plaintiffs here cannot meet the evidentiary burdens with which they are faced, for each of several reasons.
2. Rosenthal Has Published Nothing About Plaintiff Grell
3. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish That Most Of The Statements At Issue Are Demonstrably False Statements Of Fact
4. Rosenthal's Statement About Polevoy Is Protected By Federal Law (note: this is the ONLY thing that went to the Supreme Court ... one REPOSTED comment ... what Lee/Barrett wrote was that Barrett's case against was in question. That needs to be corrected also.)
5. Plaintiffs' Claims Also Fail for Lack of Evidence of Actual Monetary Damages

C. Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Good Cause for Discovery

• Plaintiffs Barrett and Polevoy Are Public Figures, Whose Claims Fail Because They Cannot Show Actual Malice

Plaintiffs' request to depose defendant Bolen and Ms. McPhee is fatuous.

In sum and in short, no plaintiff has any claim against Rosenthal: Grell is not even mentioned; Barrett can show no statement of fact, false or otherwise; and the one statement of fact to which Polevoy can point, the reposting of the Bolen piece, will not subject Rosenthal to liability. 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.

Those are direct quotes from the court ... so it is clear that the "public figure" case cited here is not relevant to this case.User:Ilena|Ilena]] 18:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)^{original dif[3]}

It's not clear to me at all. In fact, from what you yourself wrote "besides them being public figures" and of course it states "Plaintiffs Barrett and Polevoy Are Public Figures". --Ronz 20:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just rereading what was written about Barrett vs Koren and I have found no evidence that the courts ruled that Koren won because Koren had not proven malice. Is there a citation for this??? The evidence I found was different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 December 2006

Point of "A different type of suit" section?

I don't understand the point of this section of the article, other than to defame Barrett. --Ronz 21:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a separate section because it is a lawsuit in which Barrett had direct involvement... but was not a libel suit (as are the other lawsuits listed on this article). Therefore it is kept seperate. Now are you saying that have a seperate section is defaming to Barrett or do you have a problem with including what the judge factually stated about Barrett (cited from a reliable source... court documents)? Levine2112 22:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Levine is correct. It took alot of work to get these sections and subsections to work at all, and any small change can start a new edit war. Please leave them alone. The Rosenthal matter should be kept very minimal here and a link provided to the article, where more details can be provided. This article is not primarily about the cases, but about Barrett. The cases should be mentioned, and they are, but the Barrett vs. Rosenthal article should be used for more coverage of that case. -- Fyslee 23:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The information is presented out of context, and has been used elsewhere to attack Barrett. Certainly, no attempt has been made to add each and every legal dispute Barrett has been a part of. It certainly looks like the selection criteria has been those legal disputes that can in some way be used to do the most damage to Barrett. I'd like to know the point, if I'm missing it, so I can take a stab at adding some useful context to balance the POV problems. --Ronz 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh! I misunderstood you and focused on another aspect of the subject. You are quite correct that the section (the whole litigation section, including this part) was started by and has been continually boosted by those interested in defaming Barrett. The current state doesn't relate to the whole subject, but only a compromise version for which some consensus existed, just to keep the peace. For example, an attempt to include the positive (for Barrett) fact that Mercola paid a large settlement, was removed. Other cases that Barrett has won have not even been attempted, since the whole subject is wearisome, but it should be attempted. Go for it! -- Fyslee 10:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Mercola, the Barrett camp was invited/challenged many times to produce positive references that would suit WP:BLP (e.g. documents, checks, WP:RS articles; [4]) after trying an end run rumor-mongering style for a potentially defamatory situation. Still waiting.--I'clast 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall it that way. The evidence just wasn't accepted because it was reported by Barrett, even when it was clearly worded that it was his opinion from his website (which makes it an NPOV manner of presentation and acceptable on the subject's own article here). The demands for other forms of proof were unreasonable because of the nature of the case - settlements out of court are obviously not documentable by producing court records. The statement by Barrett is still there (it was never a "rumor") and has never been challenged by Mercola. Everything was done to sneak around having to include that information because it looked good for Barrett. There was no issue related to BLP, as there wasn't the remotest chance that it had any defamatory potential. (This is a whole different discussion for another thread that people can go back and investigate: here and here) -- Fyslee 08:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

These denials, representations and excuses are what I was talking about, I don't think Wiki is interested in BLP violations originating (including ones own associated blog/site) anywhere at Wiki. We obviously don't see eye-to-eye. I was kind of hoping someone had the gumption (or gall) to legally record (and publish) the actual settlement document(s) or even the scanned check with a deposit receipt.--I'clast 05:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What part of what I wrote above and referenced don't you understand? -- Fyslee 05:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am only talking about your Mercola 50k settlement claims - (1) in comment (edit summary) made above as the example, (2) earlier wiki editions of "Joseph Mercola" and (3) Stephen Barrett articles where your/SB/QW 50k claim wasn't documented well enough for a "negative" BLP reference to Mercola, as we all discussed before (i.e. the opposite "positive" self referential claim for SB on his article wasn't enough since it still was negative on JM). No Mercola reference is in the QW link mainly on Bolen/Clark that you just gave. I am not commenting on the Bolen stuff. Just you were complaining "For example, an attempt to include the positive (for Barrett)... Mercola paid...was removed." Just keeping the story on one part straight.--I'clast 12:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically what I'm seeing is the pro-Barrett side complaining because they have opposition! Oh my goodness, someone has created a criticism section, how unfair and POV. Pretty funny. -- Stbalbach 15:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Nope, it seems that the lawsuits that Barrett won or had a settlement in his favor have been excised from this article; only the ones in which he lost as plaintiff have been included. I'm not weighing in (yet) as to whether this complaint is valid, only that it's not as described by Stbalbach. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely no complaints because of the criticism section. It should be here. -- Fyslee 21:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to add all lawsuits which Barrett has been directly involved in to this section. No one has excised any lawsuit from this article in a long time. If there is one that weighs more favorably for Barrett, please add it. Also, you can try to pull something else pertinent and directly about Barrett from the KingBio suit if you'd like. That the judge's opinion of Barrett is rather harsh and that this opinion is on public record is not the fault of any editor here. Levine2112 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The only one I can find (which has recently been in this article) in which Barrett clearly had a favorable settlement was Mercola. By their nature, the details of settlements are not available from court records, so Barrett's word (from two versions of one of his sites) and the note that the settlement came immediately after a procedural rulling in Barrett's favor seems legitimate indications of success. Exact phrasing would be difficult, but it's clear we could say there was a settlement immediately following a ruling in Barrett's favor. Whether Barrett's statements as to the settlement could be included is unclear. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The rules here are that the websites of the subject of the article can be quoted. It just needs to be made clear that it is a quote, and therefore the opinion of the subject. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, as with the other issues regarding Rosenthal's additions here. This is a concrete number that has been on Barrett's website for years now, and Mercola has never contested it. -- Fyslee 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's word on this case is no more reliable than Rosenthal's on her case. We need court records. So far we know nothing for sure about this case; even whether it was favorable to Barrett or not. Levine2112 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The court record, if any, would show that the case was withdrawn in a settlement. It should be possible to find that record, but it's likely someone would need to go to the clerk of that court in person and request a copy. It's probably not in a published record, but only available on request from the court.

If we agree that Barrett's comment on the settlement would be includable if it could be established by court records that there was a settlement, I'm willing to investigate further. If we don't agree, I'm not willing to pay for a transcript for only my personal edification. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The court record that there was a settlement would be enough to say that there was a case and that there was a settlement, but if we are willing to take Barrett's word on the terms of that settlement then we also must take the word of Rosenthal on the terms of her trial. This is only fair. Otherwise, we should just stick to court records and perhaps reputible publications. Levine2112 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So am I misunderstanding if I say that the answer to my question is that this section is to document a criticism of Barrett? --Ronz 01:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely you are misunderstanding. This bit is included to document a notable case and Barrett's involvement in it. That its outcome reflects poorly on Barrett is just the circulmstance. Its existence in this article is without any POV other than the source's. Levine2112 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So this is to document a notable case and Barrett's involvement only? Thanks for the explanation. --Ronz 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: settlements. If there is a settlement in the court record, by all means, report the actual facts recorded or even the existence of a settlement. Taking Barrett's words at face value as a reliable source is problematic (1) the court cases about expert witness, (2) intrinsic conflict of interest issues, (3) Kaufmann's academic dissections in JSE hit pretty hard (it's mostly Kauffman's not the media's creditials), (4) any review shows QW goes on about Pauling and vitamin C with tests of 0.2-3 grams once per day for colds/flu; Pauling said 1-2grams/hr for a first tickle (ca 20-40 g/d) might help abort it, C advocates (1976) talk about 40-200 grams/day in 1/2, 1, 2 hours - that's intellectually honest reporting??? Why should we trust the guys now? As for Fyslee's suggestion that we do OR on "...and Mercola has never contested it", this seems problematic in many ways. (1) What if Mercola is biding his time? (I actually know such a situation where a problem with a dominant adversary is not yet directly contested/publicized, but there may be a huge IP lawsuit that you'll read in WSJ in two years or so), (2) what if Mercola did settle, say $500/yr for 100 yrs or say 50k lump sum in 25 yrs, is that correctly reported as a current single digit?, (3) what if there also is a stipulation that Barrett will not publish a settlement details, see (1)? Is Wiki the place to experiment with one-sided, unverified material that negatively affects a BLP? I do support the idea that individuals should be able to document these things (e.g. settlement doc or check with deposit slip copies with an affadavit on Wikisource).--I'clast 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated legal case

Regarding this matter of Wiki dispute:

• In an unrelated legal case, it has been written that because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases - when they involve public figures - rarely, if ever prevail. (See: New York Times v. Sullivan)

Please defend why it keep being reinserted in this article. Thanks. Levine2112 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is fascinating. The issue of "public figures" is merely distraction but has been reincluded several times.

The Judges definitely enumerated that Barrett lost for a minimum of 5 reasons (clearly stated in the decision) AND had he not lost for those 5 reasons, THEN, the public figure issue would have made him lose.

This has been reinserted by people close to Barrett who have tried to limit details of Barrett's other losing cases (such as Barrett loses to Dr. Koren) ... yet keep attempting to get this off topic case included.

Wikipedia ... is this not supposed to be an encyclopedia ... not just another Stephen Barrett Front Group??? Ilena 05:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being labeled part of a "Stephen Barrett Front Group". Please avoid insults and personal attacks per WP:CIVIL --Ronz 15:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why besides my already given explanations? --Ronz 16:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please give your explanations here, Ronz. As far as I can tell, the public figure issue was just "for arguments sake"; a hypothetical that had no bearing on the case. Levine2112 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's currently removed. I'm hoping that we can clarify the legal issues more without distracting from the main article topic. Certainly, the Barrett v. Rosenthal article should have some in-depth legal analysis. --Ronz 20:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then please give you explanations over there. Thank you. Levine2112 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to understand this

I just came across this Barrett v. Rosenthal issue in the news so I thought I'd state my impressions after looking at the discussion. From what I can see (but I haven't looked carefully, so the following is just a loose interpretation), the trial court decision basically said

1. It's well-established law that people are entitled to publish their opinions about anything they want, even if those opinions are crazy, as long as they're not stated as defamatory factual allegations.
2. Most of the stuff Rosenthal published was opinion, so was not libellous even if crazy or ill-founded.
3. The exception was the stuff she reposted from another discussion board, written by someone else. That stuff was not opinion and was actually defamatory and Rosenthal is liable since she reposted it.

Rosenthal then appealed the last part, claiming immunity under the CDA since what she had reposted was not her own writing. The appellate court said: right, that stuff may be defamatory, but the technical wording of the CDA means Barrett has to go after the original author and not after Rosenthal. Rosenthal got off on what the court seemed to see as a technicality, that the CDA's wording made it ok for her to publish other people's lies online as long as they were not her own. The court went on to indicate that Congress might want to revise the CDA to close this loophole.

YESQ!! The above comment is an accurate description of the CA Supreme Court deciison. Although the court said any further expansion of immunity (beyond republication) would require Congressional action. (not quite the same thing, but close, as what you wrote). The California supreme court did not even address whether or not Ilena's statement was defamatory, because it did not have to do so. She was a computer user who republished an allegedly defamatory statement. Users who republish 3rd party facts are immune from liability It did point out that Ilena's possible primary publication could be an issue, but that also was not before the court.

Is the above a reasonable summary? If yes, my view is as follows:

1. As a piece of free speech jurisprudence, this legal case is of some notability to those interested in the pure legal angles, but IMO shouldn't receive much space in Barrett's biography, which should be about Barrett and his doings, not about legal analysis. Indeed, it has already been split off to a separate article, which is good.
2. Rosenthal should not be allowed to use this court decision to press her medical or personal opinions into either Barrett's Wikipedia biography or the article about the lawsuit. The court did not say Rosenthal's views had any factual legitimacy at all, but only that they're her opinions and she's entitled to publish them regardless of their merit.
3. The Wikipedia biography should follow the principle of neutral point of view to document all significant sides of the dispute. However, the different viewpoints don't get equal coverage: the article should use reliable sources to document what the mainstream view is and what the minority view is, and it should give less weight to the minority view. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

I think she is entitled to state that the lower courts did not find most of her statements defamatory, and the one statement that might have been defamtory was dismissed because she had immunity under the Act. I do not think this is too much to say. I would minimize the long diatribe and quotes. Suffice to say that Barrett was filing frivolous lawsuits, and may be sanctioned for that. And I bet he yells the loudest about "frivolous lawsuits" so it is interesting that he seems to file many of them. And he can't apparently find a lawyer who will take his case that can comptently define the cause of action.Jance 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My snap impression of how the articles should be written (of course reaching a real consensus would take more careful research) is:

• Rosenthal's medical opinions are somewhat fringe and shouldn't get much weight in the part of Barrett's biographical article concerning medical questions. A lot of the other criticism in the article is also fringe and should be compressed (but not totally eliminated). The Journal of Scientific Exploration article is given way too much weight given the pseudoscience orientation of that journal. The same goes for other fringe medical critics in that section (the ayurvedic guy, and the lengthy section from the nutrition guy sourced from the nutrition guy's personal website). See WP:RS. The article in its present state is somewhat unbalanced (undue weight).
• Rosenthal's legal defense that people can publish whatever opinions they want is legitimate and can be described in the legal case article. That defense is especially decisive for criticism of public figures (NYT v. Sullivan).

That is misleading. Ilena surely can publish her opinions, but if she publishes (originates) defamatory statements then she may be subject to liability. The court only addressed republication.Jance 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The majority view in the legal case article is basically that of the court (supported by the EFF): Rosenthal is entitled to publish her opinions, but from a legal standpoint, the actual content of those opinions is irrelevant to pretty much anything. The article should therefore not give any space to the opinions beyond a short summary.
• Her CDA defense is still somewhat uncomfortable from the court's point of view (they more or less suggested that Congress rewrite the CDA to prevent this from happening again) and the legal article should document that. Some analysis of this decision should also go into Wikipedia's article about the CDA.

Your interpretation is incorrect here. The court was very clear that Ilena had immunity for repulication. The Court did NOT suggest that Congress should rewrite statute to prevent this from happening again. On the contrary, the court wrote that any further expansion of the CDA (EG for originators or primary publishers of defamatory material) would require Congressional action.

• This was a California state court decision and some editor should check whether there might Plaintiff Barrett would have appeals only if the florida supreme court failed to decide the case on independent state grounds, as well as federal grounds. I am not sure this was the case (I Would have to reread it, and I am up at 2 AM with a 8 AM court date tomorrow. I don't want to try to read it again tonight.

Very short somewhat POV summary of the Barrett/EFF side (not saying I actually believe this, it's just an interpretation of the limited stuff I've seen): Barrett is a mainstream medical guy who tries to expose the activities of fringe medical people he calls "quacks", so is constantly getting criticized by those quacks. He is a little too fast on the legal trigger in litigating against people like Rosenthal for publishing criticism, but that doesn't mean the criticism has any validity. So Wikipedia should not treat the criticism as valid unless documented by reliable sources (what is currently there is pretty weak), and generally should not give too much weight to this dispute.

"Too fast on the trigger" is an understatement. He is abusing the court system, and should be sanctioned for it. (Especially since he is so hypocritical in his dislike of our legal system.) If he has such disdain for lawyers and the legal system, he should not file dozens of frivolous complaints.`Jance 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to stick around for this though, I hate edit wars. Sorry about the drive-by post.

your understanding of the FL S Ct case is very perceptive. The article needs a lot of work, but I do find it useful to comment generally on his penchant for filing frivolous defamation claims to silence critics. He is, after all, a public figure. I don't think much of the detail is useful here. As an objective observer, I read it and my eyes glaze over.Jance 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) ^{Jance's dif[5]}

Just passing through,

-- 67.117.130.181 07:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)^{original poster 67.117's dif[6][7]}

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><<>

^{original diff of snipped article[8]}

The supreme court of california did not rule it to be defamatory. Nobody has been established to have lied here, especially not Ms Rosenthal.

That is accuratel The supreme court of CA did not reach the merits of the case, but instead invoked statutory immunitylJance 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

<Excised> I should like to make aware that this fellow here is maligning something as junk science but giving no evidence to back that up other than that you should just trust him and it's just his own opinion...deleted, ^{please read WP:AGF}...in the anti-alternative medicine movement and we should not just take his word on what is or is not real science or so called pseudoscience. No matter if the CDA was already rewritten to Mr Anonymous's satisfaction here, there was nothing in this case that anybody -- either Rosenthal or Bolen -- said about Barrett that could be construed as libelous. As a matter of fact I do not believe that anything anybody has said in this case can be considered libelous as those that made the statements in question believe them to be true and were not a malicious lie that they knew to be false which would need to be the case in order to warrant true libel. As I've said above Barrett has no true scientific medical credentials to my knowledge and what he is actually trying to do is to shut down those people and practices he disagrees with despite there being lots of evidence(and people) that strongly shows these treatments to be very very efficacious. It is very much contended on the internet that he is being funded by the big pharmaceutical corporations as there are no other explanations for his ability to pay these legal fees from his constant litigations over the years. To my knowledge he has lost over 40 such cases over the years! ...Deleted ^{new anon editor's inappropriate challenge to another Wiki editor, please read WP:NPA, WP:AGF}-10:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.40.89 (talk • contribs)

1. As I understand it, the trial court (not the CA Supreme court) ruled that Bolen's statement about Polevoy was defamatory (which means, among other things, that it was false), and that Rosenthal was liable since she reposted it. Rosenthal then appealed, ultimately to the CA Supreme Court. ("Appealing" is something you do after losing in court, not after winning. That Rosenthal appealed means that she initially lost). The CASC didn't care whether the statement itself was defamatory, it just said the statement was written by Bolen and not Rosenthal, so according to the CDA, while Bolen might be liable, Rosenthal was not. (I'm going by summaries I've seen and I haven't read the court docs.)
2. The "evidence" showing those treatments to be "efficacious" is pretty weak if the stuff cited in the article is at all representative. It doesn't come anywhere near reasonable standards of scientific research. There is a huge amount of self-interest and wishful thinking involved in stuff of this type, so you really need carefully controlled experiments and protocols to reach any positive conclusions. Anecdotes are worthless.
3. The notion that pharma companies are funding Barrett is interesting but Wikipedia is not here to publish internet speculation. That would be a reasonable subject for some investigative journalist to look into. If some reliable source subsequently publishes the findings, they can be cited in the article.
4. The other stuff in your rant is just axe-grinding. Wikipedia is not a soapbox--you're better off taking it somewhere else.

67.117.130.181 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's slow down, edit or expurgate 1 line at a time with edit summary/discussion please. "Don't byte the newbie"? The Wiki NPA issue actually concerns Fyslee & 67.117... here, not Sbinfo, which I have edited to explain/point out our rules. Editor 24.66 makes what seems to be an honest but unfavorable discussion of the subject(SB), not the Wiki editor(sbinfo). WP:BLP is for the article, not talk (within some bounds).--I'clast 13:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, editor 24.66 makes a probably libelous comment on the subject, and certainly one that can not remain, even on a talk page, without citations. Furthermore, although Barrett may have lost "40 such cases", the two he has known to have received a favorable settlemeent on have been excised from the article. Furthermore, all 3 courts agreed that a libelous statement (not just potentially libelous) was made against Polevoy, who was not considered a "public figure"; and the statement may have been "libel per se", so the court would only have had to found that the statement was false and that no plausible evidence was known to Bolen suggesting it was true. (Anon has misread the rules for libel as applied to public figures, the standard is that the statement must (1) be made with malice, (2) actually be false, and (3) either believed by the person stating it to be false, or made with "malicious disregard for the truth".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's views here - conflicting as they are. I would like to point out one reason why so much contraversy surrounds Barrett, the subject of this article. The man criticizes other people's jobs and other people for a living. His criticisms can be found all over Wikipedia on various articles. Links to his critical websites can be found all over other Wikipedia articles. Thus, if the article about Stephen Barrett is fill with criticisms, perhaps it is to give not just this article balance, but all of Wikipedia. From my POV, frankly I feel other articles give too much weight to Barrett's opinions. Links to his opinion websites can literally be found on dozens - if not hundreds - Wikipedia articles. All of the opinions given about Stephen Barrett on the Stephen Barrett article are well-sourced and notable. And just because a critic is part of a group which Stephen Barrett has labelled as "fringe", does not make it so. Regardless, a critic's affiliation with "outside the norm" thinkers in the scientific field does not render their personal opinions of Barrett fringe. This is not an article about any science discipline. This is an article about a person... a person with many critics with a wide array of criticisms. Barrett really wouldn't be Barrett without the contraversy he brings on to himself. Thus an article about Barrett wouldn't truly be an article about Barrett without enumerating the contraversy.

Overall, I would say that this article is in really good shape. That being said, I have no problem limiting space about trials and cases which already have their own article, so long as the broadstrokes are covered here honestly and without any opinions other than the verifiable and the documentable. There has been mention above that two cases in which Barrett was successful have been excised from this article. I have been editing here for a long time, and I don't remember that to be the case. Certainly, if those two cases can be introduced here following the rules of WP:RS, WP:V, NPOV, etc., then why not (re)introduce them now?

The bottomline about the Rosenthal case is that the courts ruled that nothing she said or posted can be deemed "libel" with regards to Stephen Barrett - the subject of this article. This is not the article to discuss the other people invloved in this case (Polevoy, etc.). The only mention of the "public figure" exception was made as a hypothetical. In summary, the courts record states that for arguments sake, if something Rosenthal had posted had been determined to be libelous against Barrett (which nothing had been determined to be so) then Barrett would have had to face the extra challenge of being a public figure. This is a minor theoretical point which had no bearing on the outcome of the case and thus shouldn't be given any mention in the Barrett article and perhaps the slightest mention in the article about this case. Levine2112 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett v. Koren

I'm very concerned that a portion of the Barrett v. Koren section was copyvio. When I removed it, a reworded version was reinserted by another editor. I've removed the section until we're certain what sources are actually being used and that those sources are verifiable per WP:V. --Ronz 16:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it to get around the copyvio issue. What's the issue now? Levine2112 20:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V - What sources are being used and are they verifiable? --Ronz 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a court document referenced following the paragraph. What's the issue? I will look for more citations, but the court document is truly enough. Levine2112 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If we keep out the copyvio information in all forms, I think we'll be ok as long as we keep the entry on the court case to a minimum. I'd be much more comfortable with a verifiable source (a online scan of the court document mentioned, for instance). --Ronz 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What part do you think violates copyright? And why? Levine2112 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The part that I removed with the copyvio comment, which you then reworded and reinserted. Is there some doubt about what we're talking about there, since you did the editing in question? --Ronz 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think it is a copy vio? That is my question. Why? There is no plaagiarism now that I have rewritten it. So why do you still consider this to be a copyvio? Levine2112 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have been clearer from the start. There was a copyvio. I removed it. You added it back in a reworded form. While that certainly clears up the copyvio problem it brings up the WP:V concern: what sources are we actually using? The referenced one? The source of the copyrighted text? Both? Are there others also being used but not referenced? Are there other, similar copyvio's? --Ronz 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And after I clear up the WP:V, what will you find wrong with this next? Can you just tell me know so I can save time? If you see any more copyvio's, feel free to add "quotation marks". Levine2112 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize with what I'm interpreting as frustration. If we had verifiable, secondary sources it would all be so much easier, but then I've said this before. Meanwhile we continue with what we have. --Ronz 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But this information passes WP:V with flying colors. It is completely verifiable. WE are dealing with court records and secondary sources. What's the issue? Levine2112 06:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Barrett bias?

It is shocking the blatant and obvious Barrett bias here. Where is the evidence of the Judge claiming what is written here? Why does Wikipedia allow this supposively encyclopedia to be just another Barrett front group for disinformation? There was a directed verdict in this case and to delete this and add something with no evidence to it's accuracy destroys the credibility of Wikipedia. Ilena 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Pro" Barrett, please, anybody reading the article would be shocked to see how much (over 50%) of this "biography" is devoted to criticisms. Shot info 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone reading this article would be appropriately informed with the most notable and verifiable information about the subject. Levine2112 07:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The information is in blatant violation of WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP. --Ronz 17:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The attacks, personal and otherwise, are not appreciated. You may want to read WP:NPA. --Ronz 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

BLP Reminder

From WP:BLP

Biased or malicious content.

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.

If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association. Shot info 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That goes both ways. Positive and negative claims. Levine2112 07:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This strongly suggests that you haven't read WP:BLP if you are making this claim. Shot info 08:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association. Levine2112 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, WP:BLP is assymmetric. Sourcing standards for positive claims in a given BLP article are somewhat up to editorial discretion and consensus, but negative claims must be either rigorously sourced or removed. 67.117.130.181 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

The anonymous "jance" posted false facts. The Supreme Court did INDEED address the FACT that nothing written about Barrett was defamatory.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 December 2006

I am not anonymous - was only reading the case. I don't even like Barrett and think he should be sanctioned for bringing frivolous lawsuits. The FLorida Supreme Court on Rosernthal v,. Barrett addressed only the issue of whether or not an active computer "user" who republished alleged defamation were proivided immunity from liability. It is possible I missed something, but I went through that carefully. THe case looks like a very important first amendment free speech case. The intent of the Act was to not chill free discourse....Jance 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me where in the CA Supreme Court decision this is quoted? I may have missed it, but I couldn't find it. Thanks.Jance 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

From the Supreme Court ruling he is attempting to change: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 December 2006

I'm confused. What precisely were you appealing then? The lower court must have decided something you didn't like, or else you wouldn't have appealed. What was it? Is the lower court decision online? Maybe you could add a link in the lawsuit article. I do see the order granting motion to strike--is that all there is? At minimum, the article needs clarification.

There is a weird contrast between section 230 and the DMCA's takedown provision, as if Congress thinks copyright infringement is a bigger deal than defamation. 67.117.130.181 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

From my reading of these cases, the lower court found that Ilena's statement against (Polevoy?) was actionable, and that the Act did not grant her immunity from liability - there were some pretty nitty arguments by P's lawyer trying to distinguish between "active" computer user who should be held liable and a passive user who shouldn'/t be,. The court said that was nonsense, and a user was a user. And under the Act, a user is provided immunity from liabilility for republication on the internet. The supreme court held that Ilena is immune from liability under the Act, for republication. I don't think the court even addressed whether or not it was defamatory - they didn't have to go thereJance 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Based on all of this, if I were Ilena I would file for the CA equivalent of Rule 11 (sanctioning those who bring frivolous lawsuits), and ask for attorneys fees. Jance 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If I read the cases correctly, the trial court found Ilena's statement against P defamatory, but protected under the CDA. The applealate court agreed it was defamatory, but not protected. The CA Supreme Court ruled it was protected.

That's about it, Arthur. Good (and concise) summary. "Lower court" in this instance could be a bit confusing, since there were 2 'lower court' decisions.Jance

And "rule 11" sanctions are unlikely, although the trial court apparently ordered attorney's fees under the anti-SLAPP provisions. However, the lawsuit would not qualify as "frivolous", as (IMHO) it was plausible, although apparently not "reasonable" to assert that being called a "quack" is actionable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since attorney's fees were granted under the anti-SLAPP provisions. I don't know if a suit like this would not qualify as "frivolous" - calling someone a "quack" is pretty clearly not actionable. However, as I read on (see the article in whole), I would say that the King Bio lawsuit was a much better example of "frivolous". Jance 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Rubin wrote: "the trial court found Ilena's statement against P defamatory, but protected under the CDA."

No, Rubin, you are absolutely and positively NOT reading correctly. YOU, who claim to know more than the seven justices of the Supreme Court of California are misrepresenting the case here. Quote Rubin: "And I may very well know more about section 230 than the California Supreme Court."

The Superior Court found that the ONE comment regarding the stalking of Ms McPhee by Terry Polevoy was "potentially" or "allegedly" defamatory AND protected ...

The Appeals Court ruled that this comment was "potentially" defamatory and NOT protected. (Had we not gone to the Supreme Court, we would have gone back to Superior Court and litigated whether or not the stalking comment was or was not defamatory, Ms McPhee giving testimony on why she felt stalked, why she called police, Polevoy's disguises, etc.)

The Supreme Court ruled that the statement was potentially or allegedly defamatory AND protected.

Also, to Jance: "Can you show me where in the CA Supreme Court decision this is quoted?"

Sure, on page 39 of the ruling, before Judge Moreno's signature: [9]

"As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory. I therefore conclude the majority is correct in reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal. MORENO, J.

Ilena 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, that is not the supreme court's opinion. That is a concurrence, and should not be cited as a statement by the court. In fact, the court's oinion specifically stated in more than one place that it was not deciding the issue of whether or not your statement was defamatory. The court did not need to, because it held that users of "intereactive computer services" are immune from defamation liability under the Act. What you can say is that a concurring opinion stated (the quote you cited). Frankly, I think the lower court opinion is so obvious and clear regarding the actual issue of defamation as against Barrett, that a California Supreme Court ruling on it isn't necessary. And absent a supreme court ruling on the issue of defamation, the appellate court is controlling for its jurisdiction. The appellate court made Barrett's attorneys look utterly ridiculous. The attorneys did not seem to know that the legal term "acting with malice" was not the same as the colloqual meaning (malicious). The court set them straight, and in fact the court pointed out that the "tone" of the alleged defamatory statement was irrelevant to the elements of the cause of action. The court then properly defined malice (the legal term), and pointed out the more hyperbole a defendant used, the less likely it was to be defamation, and in this case, it was clearly not. Jance 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What you have now under Barrett v. Rosenthal does not even address the supreme court's decision. You cited Barrett v. Rosenthal, A096451 (Cal. App. Crt., 1st App. Dist., 2003)(opinion superceded). I do not have a link to that case. Now, you cited a concurring statement in the Supreme Court case, but not the holding of the case (the decision), or what it stands for.

This is confusing, and the statement for which you cited the supreme court case is not even an accurate reflection of the concurrence - one can presume that Judge Moreno meant that the statements were not defamatory because of the absence of malice (sounds like a movie). But all you can accurately state is that the concurrence agreed with the lower court that the statements were not defamatory. No, it is not a huge issue, but one should try to accurately reflect a court holding, and not read into any statement made in the opinion, the concurrence or dissent. Here, one can presume that is what Justice Moreno meant but we are not mind readers. He may have decided that while the lower court was correct in holding you did not defame Barrett, he may be thinking of a different, or additional reason than the lower court stated. Finally, if a statement is made that cites to the case, it should be stated that it is a concurring opinion - and the actual holding of the case stated.

An objective reader would be interested in what the California Supreme Court holding was, especially since it will be undoubtedly be cited by courts all over the country for its interpretation of the Act, as regards to liability of internet users and first amendment speech. It probably is the most legally important holding of any of these cases cited. And it related to Barrett, since Barrett's lawsuits created binding precedent (at least in California) and persuasive case law in federal court, on a constitutional issue . To cite the lower court opinion, and then only a concurring statement in the highest state court makes no sense. Jance 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Jance 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett v. Clark

An editor removed what I wrote, stating it was inaccurate. Please look at this section. The trial court decision on the motion to strike found that "Rosenthal's statements were, 'for the most part' not actionable because they provided no provably false assertions of fact. " (This is a direct quote from the CA Supreme Court decision). I looked also at the trial judge's Ruling on the Motion to Strike, and the state supreme court decision and conclude that what I wrote was not inaccurate, but instead correctly summarized important holdings and statements by the various courts. Still, I deleted "most of" , since the motion to strike was granted. And so this is now completely correct, with the appropriate holdings. The concurring judge's statement about Barrett is nice, but that issue was not challenged, nor was it decided by the supreme court.

This case was originally called "Barrett v. Clark." In July 2001, a Alameda County (California) judge dismissed Barrett's libel suit against defendant Ilena Rosenthal and awarded her attorney's fees against Barrett, Christopher Grell, and Terry Polevoy. The court held that defendant Rosenthal's statements were not actionable, because they were opinion, and not false statements of fact. [41] Moreover, the plaintiffs did not show that the defendants acted with "malice" (knowledge of falsity, or with reckless disregard for the truth.) Id.;See also New York Times v. Sullivan). However, the appeals court ruled that one statement Rosenthal reposted about Terry Polevoy was actionable, and that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act did not grant her immunity from liability for republication of defamatory statements. See Barrett v. Rosenthal, A096451 (Cal. App. Crt., 1st App. Dist., 2003). The California Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether or not any statement Rosenthal made was defamatory. Instead, it addressed only the issue of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Relying on federal court interpretation and legislative history, the court concluded that Rosenthal, and all internet users, are immune from liability for republication of third party content. In its conclusion, the court stated that any expansion of immunity to primary publishers (originators of defamatory content) would require Congressional action.[42]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jance (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I think your summary is accurate. I just think we should limit the summary on this article to only the things that are relevant to Stephen Barrett. If Barrett v. Clark needs its own article to discuss the full parameters of the case, certainly feel free to start that article. But in the interest of keeping the Barrett article concise and on topic, let's keep the summaries here relevant to Barrett. Levine2112 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I think the last part of the summary is inaccurate. Above it is stated:

• "In its conclusion, the court stated that any expansion of immunity to primary publishers (originators of defamatory content) would require Congressional action."

I wonder if this is the correct interpretation? Here's the original conclusion:

D. Conclusion

We share the concerns of those who have expressed reservations about the Zeran court's broad interpretation of section 230 immunity. The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications. Nevertheless, by its terms section 230 exempts Internet intermediaries from defamation liability for republication. The statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended. Section 230 has been interpreted literally. It does not permit Internet service providers or users to be sued as "distributors," nor does it expose "active users" to liability.

Plaintiffs are free under section 230 to pursue the originator of a defamatory Internet publication. Any further expansion of liability must await Congressional action. [10]

Nothing is said about "expansion of immunity to primary publishers (originators of defamatory content)." It is about "expansion of liability" to republishers. Currently "the originator of a defamatory Internet publication" is still potentially liable, and "plaintiffs are free.....to pursue" them. But republishers are not liable, and only Congress can "expan[d] ... liability" to them. The wording of the conclusion sounds like the judges are begging Congress to do so, because of the "disturbing implications" of the current situation. Does that sound like a correct parsing of the conclusion? -- Fyslee 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That does sound more accurate. Which quote makes it sound like the judges are begging Congress to act though? To me, it seems the court was going by the letter of the law which protects Internet user's free speech rights. The term "user" was really at play here and they seemed to decide that a secondary publisher of information is still a user and thus not liable. I agree with Jance that the Supreme Court ruling was not about determining whether or not libel had been committed. in terms of Barrett, the lower courts ruled that libel had not been committed. And that is really all that is pertinent to this article about Barrett. Everything else belongs in the article about the legal case. Levine2112 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The very first part of the conclusion, and the very last sentence:

• "We share the concerns of those who have expressed reservations about the Zeran court's broad interpretation of section 230 immunity. The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications." .... "Any further expansion of liability must await Congressional action."

That's how I understand it. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. As to whether this belongs here, it belongs in the other article and not here. -- Fyslee 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am a lawyer and I was hurrying to get out the door, and rushing through this. You both are correct, and I was mistaken. Good catch.Jance 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No problemo, amigo. I'm sure that when you are preparing for a case you take more time and don't make such mistakes. Rushing things is when I usually goof up. When reading the conclusion one can sense that the judges are uneasy about the implications of their decision. They know that it will encourage a flood of injustice, deception, propaganda, and serious problems for a lot of people, but to make any change stronger, they pass the buck on to Congress to do the job for them. Until that happens, people with no conscience, compassion, or ethics will be allowed to air the worst sides of their characters and publish their fantasies, conspiracy theories, and their "euphemisms" (Bolen's word for his lies) as if they are fact. People now have fewer rights to protect their reputations and good names. I hope that when the verdicts against the actual originators are passed, that the judgments will be very harsh and thus pass on a strong warning message. -- Fyslee 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And I am glad y'all agree that the state supreme court did not address whether or not defamation occurred - the supreme court only addressed the issue of whether or not a "interactive computer service" user (as contrasted with a provider) fit within the definition of "distributer" under the Act, and whether or not a legal distinction exists between "active" and "passive" users (it does not). I do not think this level of detail is needed in the article. However, I do think you need to at least mention the general holding of the supreme court decision even if it did not address Barrett per se, because it was the final litigation in the case that was brought before the trial court. The decision - that Barrett's claim led to - is precedent setting on an important Constitiutional issue. Had it not been for Barrett, would the case have been filed, to lead to this ruling? Don't know. But it is worth mentioning.

I have mixed feelings about any internet user being immune from all defamation liability. I have no problem with total immunity when it comes to public figures and matters of public interest. The principle undergirding the very essence of free speech is the ability to freely debate political issues. Barrett is a perfect example of this. He is far beyond a private individual practicing medicine! His entire career in "exposing" health fraud (whether you agree or disagree with him) is political. There is no way around it. I have read his articles, and agree with him on a number of points. I am very skeptical of drugs/herbs/products that are not regulated in any way- I am not thrilled with the regulatory environment we have, especially now, but it still is better than nothing. I won't even begin to mention the areas of alternative 'healthcare' that make me cringe. But I also disagree vehemently with Barrett on some other points, and find the politics of that group very disturbing. Whew. I do not know how affiliated he is with right wing groups, but he is on the tip of every partisan website's tongue. Were doctors only to police their own as well as they wish to police lawyers, there would be far fewer lawsuits! See what a political issue this all becomes? And for this reason, there should be no restraints on freedom of speech when it comes to matters of public interest discussed by highly public figures. Oh, and I personally believe that public figures who sue for defamation should be required to pay all attorneys fees and costs, and be subject to malicious prosecution charges. It is amazing how those who complain the loudest about the number of lawsuits don't have a problem with litigation when it comes to their own interests. Ditto with those moaning about "frivolous lawsuits". Jance 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What kinds of politics and political issues are you referring to? -- Fyslee 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Lobbies and various groups on "tort reform", for example. And the very issue of healthcare is political - it would be wonderful if it were not, and everyone (even all scientists) agreed on all issues. "Political" is not bad - free and open debate about policy issues is necessary in a democratic society. Jance 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with Barrett. If there's something written between the lines here, I'm too tired to see it right now. Please elaborate. -- Fyslee 16:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the topics discussed by Barrett directly and indirectly relate to political discussion. Therefore, they are of public interest - and indeed, that is Barrett's point. That is all. Jance 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

He is a public figure because he holds himself out very publicly as an expert on these issues. Jance 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

I have a suggestion - perhaps the section entitled "Credentials" would better be described as "Criticism"? Jance 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a subheading in the criticisms section, but that may not be apparent to readers. It sure does concentrate on criticisms. -- Fyslee 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. It appears that some of the criticism is warranted. I read the case re King Bio and was appalled. I can't imagine anyone going into court with such lame arguments, and such a dearth of evidence. It is mind-boggling. I am not talking about sophisticated nuances or obscure points of law, but the very most basic principles of civil (including tort) law. If you sue someone you don't argue that he (the defendant) must prove your case. You do not generally put the Plaintiffs on as expert witnesses. I was simply dumbfounded. Talk about frivolous lawsuits. Jance 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Operations of the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud

Ronz, please stop attempting to change history. You and Barrett do not get to choose which part of his history he wants to admit. The quote you are now attempting to censor is taken directly from the AMA News which he wrote. We know your bias is overwhelming, but this is part of Barrett's history. Stop vandalizing this article with your bias, please.

Ilena 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks.

Ilena, Wikipedia has guidelines and policies concerning content and discussion of content. I'm made my best effort to inform you of them and to conform to them myself. Your edits are in conflict with WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Your comments are often in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and even WP:NPA. To support your edit, I suggest you start with a reference acceptable for Wikipedia. You may want to read WP:RS and WP:OR to better understand what is and is not acceptable. --Ronz 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Given your close association with Barratt I am not sure you should even be editing this article. I suspect three or four editors here, both pro and against, should be recusing themselves from all Barratt related articles. It is true there is no strict rules about editing articles with which you have personal experience. However, the edits should be NPOV and the article and talk pages should not be turned into a battle ground.

The bickering here is clearly from a subjective perspective and wastes huge amounts of time for other editors. I would suggest that editors who are within one/two degrees from Barratt should recuse themselves from this page. This is not unprecedented and some of the worst offenders have even been barred from editing pages due to their close ties to the subject. See the Sarfati talk page. In that example, ArbCom barred three different users from editing the article (but not barred from other articles on wikipedia). David D. (Talk) 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

woah

I do not think Ronz is overwhelmingly biased, from the short contact I have had with him. And I do wonder why Fyslee reverted an edit that included a reference to a Wikipedia talk page. I don't have a problem with providing a reliable resource in Barrett's defense, but to cite to a talk page where Barrett supposedly defended himself is a bit much. In fact, the two court cases are pretty clear as to what happened. Jance 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm interpreting David D's comments to be in response to Ilena's only because David and I responded at almost the exact same time. --Ronz 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the defense, and your interpretation is correct, but Jance is referring to Ilena since she quotes her use of overwhelmingly biased. David D. (Talk) 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You all completely lost me, now. I think David's statement is correct. I figure it's time for me to get back to work, and stop playing on WikipediaJance 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We're not sure who you (Jance) is referring to, David or Ilena. I thought it might be David that you were commenting on, so gave my perspective. As for Ilena's comments, it's just more of her personal attacks against me. --Ronz 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I meant Ilena's comment. I didn't think she was correct in stating that you were 'overwhelimingly biased', based on my short contact with you here.Jance 22:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Barret's comments on talk page

I have looked in both Wikipedia:Reliable Resources and the Bio on Living Persons info. There is nothing I see that would permit the subject of a bio to defend himself in the article from an excerpt from the talk page. This is just bad form. If Fyslee has something that I missed, please provide it. Otherwise, I think this particular source needs to be deleted.Jance 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It definitely fails the spirit of WP:RS. David D. (Talk) 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It was added here [11]. I don't understand the justification either. Also, the section has been substantially rewritten since. --Ronz 22:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of bias ...section

I just wanted to make a comment about this section. I have no real opinion of Barrett, other than I am amazed at the number of lawsuits he has filed, and his inability to prove any of his cases. However, when I started to read this section, my eyes glazed over. It is a long list of quotes that nearly put me to sleep. This section should have at least one paragraph of discussion, and then quotes are fine, as illustration. Why are his disputes of interest to the public? I am not suggesting that they are not, but there needs to be some discussion why they are. In other words, this section needs to be tightened up, imho.Jance 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF v. King Bio should be removed from here and only a reference at the bottom of the page to the NCAHF page. The information is duplicated. I agree that the cases need to be tightened up. Also like most "advocates", his "success" is limited and probably more around obtaining public notice (IHMO) Shot info 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you think should be deleted. The section NCAHF v. King Bio is reasonable, since it specifically relates to his public persona, and is described about as succinctly as possible. Is there another place that this info is included? Is it included in this section? I will look - as I said, my eyes glazed over when readint the long list of quotes...Jance 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This goes back to my introduction of the Point of "A different type of suit" section?[12] above. So what's especially notable WP:N about Barrett's involvement? That should be the reason for having this section. The NCAHF page is where the detailed presention should be. --Ronz 23:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The section NCAHF v. King Bio should be discussed in the article, since it specifically relates to Barrett's public persona, and is described about as succinctly as possible. The first sentence there explains this: One of the stated missions [46] of Quackwatch Inc. is "assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits."

Where it should be included may be another issue. The case is central to Barrett's assumed role in exposing "quacks". It well demonstrates Barret's qualifications as an expert (or lack of them), and Barrett's interest in suing those whom he considers 'quacks'. In fact, it might be of interest to discuss the court's statement about the regulation of medical treatements as not being the realm of individual lawsuits, where the plaintiff offers no evidence to suport his claim, but through the FDA. However, I do see some repetition. There is no need to quote what that court said in three different sections. I am biased since I rewrote the NCAHF v. King Bio section, but I do think it demonstrates the issues well. I'm wondering how we can incorporate that section elsewhere or remove redundancy.Jance 23:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, stand back a minute and remember that this is wikipedia. We try not to have info dublicated across different articles. Hence, I'm suggesting that the case is moved across to NCAHF and expanded there with a link between the two pages. Currently there is two pages for us to update if a change is needed and accussations of forking can occur. Shot info 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember this is wikipedia? Meaning? I understand a desire to not duplicate, but this particular case highlights a major criticism re Barrett. I dont now how merely linbking o NCAHF would preserve the content as it relates to Barrett. Certainly quotes from a court decision should not be duplicated three times in the same article. Jance 23:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I see - I just looked at the other article. The discussion of NCAHF v. King Bio there is again mostly quotes. I would agree, then, with moving the NCAHF v. King Bio section there, but it should still somehow be mentioned here. Any ideas?Jance 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to the topic on the Accusations section itself: I'd like to see it dramatically reduced. It would be another matter if there was even a single unbiased, repectable critic in the lot. However, I don't see how we could make much progress on reducing it. Seems to be an area ripe for edit-warring given that the biggest problems with it are WP:N and WP:NPOV. --Ronz 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Why is this removed, please? Who decides what part of Barrett's printed history is excised and censored?

- In 1975, writing in the AMA News, he described his operation of the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud: "By working "undercover" using assumed names and box numbers, we've gotten all sorts of information and publications other groups, like the medical societies, haven't been able to lay their hands on. ...Really, we're a bunch of guerrillas - we're not a large group, there are about 40 members, but we're the only such group in the country."

This quote well describes his past as well as his other boasts here. This is not my POV ... this is part of Stephen Barrett's history.

Ilena 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop accusing others of censorship. As for the 31-year-old quotes, please provide the reference so it can be verified, if you want to use any of it in the article. Since I don't see the relevancy, you might also want to explain that too. --Ronz 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are Barrett (allegedly) so of course you would say that :-) Shot info 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by the sarcasm. The levity is appreciated. --Ronz 01:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Shot, that was unnecessary sarcasm, imho. And Ilena, woah, girl.... I am just looking at the Barrett v. Rosenthal, and not sure what to do here. Someone just edited it, to shorten it - which I agree with, but I'm in a bit of a quandry . This is what I wrote, instead of leaving it at "upheld the lower courts decisions regarding Barrett's claims." -- "The Court determined that that the defendant Ilena Rosenthal was immune from liability under Section 230 and upheld the lower courts decisions that Barrett's claims of defamation were unfounded."

The problem is, neither statement is true. The CA Supreme Court did not uphold anything regarding Barrett's claims, because that was not before the court. Only the issue of liability re Ilena's alleged defamation of Polevoy was before the court. The court will not generally rule on an issue that is not before it. The closest thing to that is dicta, that the judge who wrote the concurring opinion stated (that the lower courts rightfully decided that Ilena did not defame Barrett).Jance 00:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote, to correct the paragraph, and keep it short:

This case was originally called "Barrett v. Clark." It is a California Supreme Court case concerning Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Court determined that that the defendant Ilena Rosenthal, was immune from liability under Section 230. The issue of "defamation" against Barrett was not before the court, as lower courts had ruled that Rosenthal had not defamed Barrett, and Barrett did not challenge that ruling. However, in a concurring opinion, Justice Moreno approved of the lower court decision that Barrett's claims of defamation were unfounded. Jance 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Barrett's loss to Dr. Koren totally censored here? Ilena 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making accusations of censorship. It is incivil and assumes bad faith. --Ronz 16:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Which or what case /info are you talking about here? Above, I was only talking about the California Supreme Court case...Jance 01:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The case was covered here until yesterday. Barrett lost to Dr. Koren. I don't have time to reinstate it right now. Why was this removed, whoever removed it? Good work Jance on Barrett Vs Rosenthal. Ilena 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

I revised the article on Barrett v. Rosenthal - please take a look, as it also relates here. I can't believe I spent half a day reading these c ases and editing. The Act is interesting though, as is the controversy surrounding it. I have learned a lot... Anyway, I am utterly wiped out. I welcome input.Jance 03:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's detractors

Doesn't it seem inappropriate to anyone else that so many of Barret's so-called critics are merely people who are biased against him because they're exactly the sort of person he's trying to call attention to? Would you ask a rabbit for comments on a wolf's diet? Sahalian is clearly not in a position to comment objectively on Barret since he's hawking exactly the kind of product that Barrett is trying to warn people off of. Lorraine Day is another example. And Tim Bolen is simply a nutcase. Let's restrict commentary on Barrett to people who aren't specifically targets of Barrett's quackbusting. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

--Curtis Bledsoe 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the entire section has severe problems with WP:N and WP:NPOV. WP:OR too at the root of it all. It relies entirely on primary sources to push a point of view. It's a massive edit war in the making until there is more respect for WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP and the related guidelines, policies, and maintenance processes. --Ronz 16:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So what do you think we should do? --Curtis Bledsoe 04:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Curtis, if you read the sections below, I think we all address this.Jance 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rag-tag Posse of Snake-Oil Vigilantes

I have been mocked for mentioning this posse ... seen it called a "satire page" ... when in fact, it is a group, which includes Barrett and Fyslee and several others, who proclaim that they go after "net quacks" and that their official sites are ncahf.org an quackwatch.com. Here is an archived page: [1]. I just checked, and within the last few weeks, they have removed the current site showing the Posse together. Here is an archived listing of their websites: Our web sites: www.quackwatch.com www.healthwatcher.net www.ratbags.com www.ncahf.org [2]. This Posse was formed the same year as Barrett and Team launched several SLAPP suits against critics and those who practiced modalities which they disagreed with. These members are seen on blogs, usenet and various chatgroups in various disguises advertising NCAHF/QW and attacking the same people as the plaintiffs are suing. Anyone, like Barrett, who calls himself "the media" (isn't he humble) will use the various mediums to push their viewpoints and minimize their opposition. Have a lovely day and thank you. Ilena 16:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with the article? I propose this be immediately to the archive as it is a distraction for those who actually want to discuss the article. --Ronz 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. This is one of the many, many medium that Barrett wages his wars from. Do not remove this Ronz. This is about Stephen Barrett, who listed his name on this Posse for 6 years. Barrett (and you in his behalf) do NOT get to pick and choose what he wants the public to know about his operations. Happy holidays. Ilena 16:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett isn't here, unless you still think I'm Barrett (I'm not Barrett, nor do I have any association with him). We have policies and guidelines to keep such "wars" in check. If you think there are POV problems here, then point them out as they come up. The article is already marked indicating it's neutrality is disputed. There is no need for long and repeated comments on why you feel there are problems here. --Ronz 17:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please let me update your information. My edits were removed from the moment I came to Wikipedia exposing NCAHF's questionable corporate status. State records were called POV and removed by you and others. When I first began to read here ... Barrett Vs Rosenthal was unrecognizable to the facts of the case. Jance has done an admirable job of getting the basics of this article correct. I am very familiar with being ganged up by people defending Stephen Barrett and his questionable operations and his "feuds" (SLAPP suits that go for over 6 years and end up in The Supreme Court of California). Thank you and have a lovely holiday. Ilena 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Barratry

What seems inappropriate is attempting to censure a Barrett "detractor". But since you asked, I am not a target of Barrett's. In fact, I tend to be skeptical of most "alternative" medicine/treatments, and have had no particular interest in that or in Barrett. And I personally think homeopathy is nonsense, and have read and agreed with a couple articles I read by Barrett. In short, I have not had any strong opinion on the guy. I did not much care for the "tort reform" groups who quote him but I don't know if he is affiliated with that or not. I am also aware that many MDs and the AMA (a lobbying group for doctors) hate lawyers and lawsuits (especially those against doctors.) That said, it would not be surprising if Barrett is part of that, but I don't know. If he is, it would surely be quite the irony.

That said, I have today read these cases. I find them interesting, primarily because they involve constitutional issues and I am an attorney. What I found, though, is appalling. What I see here is a collossal arrogance, an abuse of process and the epitome of barratry. Even the courts slammed him, for suing a company and then expecting the company to make his case for him. Then he argued that he should be granted the same authority as the government, in investigating "fraud". All of this as he holds himself out as an expert in these areas, and even presenting himself as an expert witness in court. I have never seen anything like it.

This is a man who goes around the country suing those who disagree with him.

The following discussion has been deleted from this article, but I am now thinking it should be added back. It goes to the heart of the problem with his actions :

False Advertising - (and I will add, one of many frivolous lawsuits Barrett has filed)

One of the stated missions [46] of Quackwatch Inc. is "assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits." [47]

NCAHF v. King Bio
In 2001, NCAHF (Plaintiff) sued King Bio Pharmaceuticals (Defendants), a homeopathic pharmaceutical company, for false advertising and unfair business practices. The court granted a directed verdict for Defendants, after Plaintiff presented its case. Plaintiff suggested in its initial trial brief that it could not prove the elements of its claims, and argued that only "slight" evidence should be required to shift the burden of proof to the Defendant.

The court explained the fundamental and elementary principle in civil actions - that one filing a lawsuit has the burden to prove its claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The court then stated that Plaintiffs had no evidence, apart from the testimony of two "expert" witnesses, to prove any of the elements of their claims. The court stated that by law, the testimony of both witnesses (Barrett and another member of the board of NCAHF) should be given little weight, because neither witness was qualified to testify as an expert on the issues raised. The court further stated that both witnesses had a "direct, personal financial interest in the outcome," and were "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts."

The Court concluded with a sharp rebuke:
"The logical end-point of Plaintiff’s burden-shifting argument would be to permit anyone with the requisite filing fee to walk into any court in any state in the Union and file a lawsuit against any business, casting the burden on that defendant to prove that it was not violating the law. Such an approach, this Court finds, would itself be unfair."

CURTIS, do you think the court here, and the appellate court which affirmed these statements (and the decision) are "lunatics" or just bitter detractors and biased? Do you know how rare a directed verdict is?Jance 05:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of Barrett's involvment with King Bio, the case should either appear here, or over at NCAFH not both. I personally think it should be over at NCAFH as it was made by the NCAFH. Also, remember WP:OR it is not wikipedia's place to discuss "it goes to the heart of his actions". Shot info 05:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This guy is notable precisely for his zealous advocacy - his self-appointed role in ferreting out "quack" science... And part of that is indeed what looks like barratry to me - of course, I wuold not suggest stating this in the article, os any WP:OR is just here on the talk page. It is very difficult to read those cases and not arrive at this conclusion! Discussing the cases in the article is surely not WP:OR. I agree that this info should not be duplicated. But I also think that this is an important point in the Barrett bio since he was intimately involved in bringing this case (he was not only the 'expert' witness, but also was on the board of NCAFH. I'm just not sure where or how to say it without duplilcation. Thanks. Jance 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And his advocacy is mentioned in the opening paragraph, coupled with the very, very, very, very, very extension list of "critisms" (of which I would like to prune back to a few paragraphs + a link) should give the reader an idea of what, why, where and how. It isn't really wiki's place to say if his actions are "wrong" or not, hence WP:OR. Shot info 05:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This case should be an example of the zealous 'advocacy'. We don't have to editorialize, since the court's comments speak for themselves. That is not WP:OR. It is part of a bio and part of an example of what he does - when I said "actions" I was not editorializing. This is who he is, and what he does. That is part of a bio, I also agree that the long laundry list of critical quotes should be pruned. However, the discussion on criticism should be there - just tightened up. I still think what I wrote on King Bio is an exmaple of a section that was 'tightened up' without excessive quotes etc. Jance 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Need help

I admit it. I have gotten sucked into this, when I vowed to not waste the day... alas. I have looked at the section on "Accusations" (Which I changed to "Allegations") and I don't even know where to start. This is way too long, and has long quotes back and forth between Barrett and his critics, presumably. This is not encyclopedic. I do think the criticsim of Barrett is a large part of his notability, and maybe notoriety. Courts have blasted him for bringing lawsuits without any evidence to prove their claim (the King Bio is stunning). Since Barrett is the founder of this orgnization and the "expert witness" in it, I feel this is as much related to Barrett as to NCAHF.

Alternative medicine companies also are critics - understandably since they are targets. And maybe there some of these companies should be reigned in. But how? By Barrett filing a plethora of lawsuits, where he has neither the expertise to tesitfy as an expert witness in court, nor the authority to investigate these companies (as the court suggested).

So my question is summarize the issues - who are his critics and why. What the courts have said about his penchant for filing lawsuits against those who disagree with him, and against those whom he has labeled "Quacks". I don't see that a personal spat between some alternative medicine doctor and Barrett is enlightening. What if we start on the section, and try to outline the issues that make him controversial? Jance 06:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material allows for the removal of material without regard to the 3RR rule. Under that, all the material from primary sources not backed by better sources as well can be removed. Following that alone, you could make a good argument that the entire section should be removed because of the source material is so poor. --Ronz 16:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The section should stay, but most of the quotes should go. Barrett is known for controversy and suing people, in addition to his online "consumer" advocacy. A well-known magazine or newspaper and court case (any relevant court case is, by WIki standards, acceptable for use in a bio), could describe these issues. I absolutey agree that each of these web-site spats (in the "Accusation" section are not adequately sourced.

There should be a criticism section, because of the many court cases and public policy issues. Barrett has made a name for going around suing people/companies who disagreed with him or with whom he disagrees. In fact, court cases do lay out three different issues: Barrett's penchant for suing, his bias, and his lack of qualifications for holding himself out as an 'expert'. Jance 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that many, if not all, the controversial cases should stay. The he said, she said, he said, she said style though is a diasaster and completely unencyclopedic. There is just no need for such depth. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on agreement? (I need coffee). Yes, I started reading that section and my eyes glazed over. A laundry list of quotes is bad form, even if properly sourced. That was my original point. The three criticisms should be stated clearly and succincty, with maybe one or two examples, using a court case and any other properly sourced material. Even the Village Voice would be an adequate source; the website of an alternative practitioner would not. Yes, Quackwatch website is a link, but that is because the bio is about Barrett. Quackwatch should not be used in the body of the article as a source. I believe all the cases should stay, since they all reflect these criticisms. Jance 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Village Voice reference is by far the best of the lot, though not good. Start with it alone maybe? --Ronz 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

While the facts are that Barrett draws a great deal of criticism etc, we don't have good sources discussing these facts to draw upon. So, how can we then address them within the article? I'd like to think we could come up with some small summary, but it would take a great deal of cooperation from all involved. I don't see such cooperation here, rather the very opposite. Not that it's not worth trying... --Ronz 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pateince, politness and persistence will prevail and win over everyone. Time is on our side. We just have to find the right text and sources to craft an interesting, fair and readable section. David D. (Talk) 18:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, David. A little bit at a time, maybe? Some sources that should be acceptable include all of the court cases (since the judges in those are very pointed in their criticism of Barrett and his lack of a case); the Village Voice, and The American Chiropractic Association website (that should be a legitimate source). There is ample material even in these three sources to discuss the controversy and criticism. From what I have read, this is the criticism that is supported by documentation and is of public interest: Barrett is taking it upon himself to go after those who criticize him, and anyone connected with alternative medicine, by suing them. And the lawsuits he files are mostly unfounded. That is not a comment on the 'truth' of his criticism of various alternative med companies/treatments. However, it is a comment that he is not going through normal democratic avenues to change regulatory law (which is his ultimate goal, it seems). He is holding himself out as an expert, where he has not met the legal standards to qualify as an expert (per the court case, particularly Bio King trial & appeals court.) The court wrote that not only was he a psychiatrist, and not an epidemiologist, statistician, expert on nutrition etc etc, but he also has not held a medical license since 1993. Why is that important? Well, the court wrote that there is no documentation of continuing education as is required of licensed medical doctors (and other fields as well, I will note) to keep up in the latest research. We have only his word. Barrett also argued that he should be given the same authority to invesitgate fraud as an attorney general, but even an attorney general must prove his case. Barrett argued that he should be able to sue a company and then produce no evidence, but instead the burden of proof should be shifted to the defendant to prove he didn't do what Barrett alleged. I found King Bio opinion astonishing, and it is about as harsh a rebuke as I have seen in a court opinion. (well, with the exception of one US SUpreme Court case where Justice Stevens pointed out to a lower court that only the US Supreme Court can overrule the US SUpreme Court.). Jance 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The ACA ref is just a letter to the editor, or am I missing something else? --Ronz 18:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a letter by the President of the ACA, published by the ACA via their website. That should be considered a RR. Jance 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it will have to do. --Ronz 20:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Joel M. Kauffman's analyis of Barrett's research (or lack thereof) is well-founded and certainly notable. That should certainly remain. Deepak Chopra is about the most notable person we mention in this article (Pauling and Weil are certainly up there too). I understand about losing Bolen's rants here, provided that they stay as part of Quackwatch (per the agreement of when Bolen's article "Quackpotwatch" was deleted from Wikipedia). I don't know if the whole Ray Salhelian debacle should remain, but certainly the part where he holds Barrett up to his own standards. Levine2112 22:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the only issue is whether or not there it is a reliable resource. Is it pubished anywhere other than his own website? Jance 22:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if Chopra is a notable person. What matters are WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. --Ronz 23:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are way too many initials for me. Is there or is there not a reliable resource to cite? Jance 01:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to Levine. I don't see anything else reliable. I'm cringing as is with Village Voice and ACA. --Ronz 01:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand. And my point is that I do not see where there is a reliable resource quoting Chopra or Kauffman. One way to look at this, is to realize that the criticism itself does not have to meet any 'scientific' standard, but merely must be reliable as to whether or not it originated from where it claimed. I think that most would conclude that Village Voice & ACA are reliable sources. Whether you agree with them or not, is not the point. These sources could surely be used as examples of those who disagree with Barrett... and the court cases, of course - those belong under the criticism section. As an 'outside' reader, I would be interested in these points - although personally I would not find particularly credible the ACA or the Village Voice comments... but that is my own bias (admittedly) regarding most alternative remedies, including chiropractic... What I would find credible are the court opinions. Jance 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Chopra was quoted - I believe - in the Time magazine article about Barrett. Why does the ACA and the Village Voice make you cringe, Ronz? I'm sorry but your biases will not dictate this article, nor will your opinions of what is notable and what is not. We have verifiable sources from notable critics... enough said. Levine2112 08:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop making make assusations of bias against me. --Ronz 16:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because we need quality, secondary sources here - sources that another editor won't come along and remove per Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material, along with all the material from those sources. --Ronz 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No accusations. I am merely pointingout a bias which you have made clear here. The ACA and the Village Voice are quality secondary sources on the topic of Stephen Barrett. Oh, and so is Time magazine. Don't forget that. Levine2112 18:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusation. There's nothing clear to me. --Ronz 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Koren case?

I googled and found a reference, with a citation. I can't verify the citation, but it seems to look valid. Inclusion of a sentence on this is probably not bad, and does tend to show a growing list of baseless lawsuits filed by Barrett. And back to Kauffman, I can't find any source that would be considered reliable for inclusion of his analysis. Jance 23:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Section on Accusations re bias

Perhaps we first look at each quote, and determine whether or not there is a reliable source for it. Then we can try to summarize in a paragraph. This is where King Bio case should be included, since the court did find that Barrett was a zealous advocate and non-neutral witness. But the court also discussed Barrett's lack of qualification to be an expert witness. So I am wondering if we should combine this section with one about qualification. I'm just throwing ideas out, so I welcome input. Jance 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose deletion of all quotes in this section up to the Village Voice quote. The sources for Kaufman and Sahelian are not reliable. Then, I would suggest rewriting this section, because there are reliable resources that do criticize Barrett for bias (eg a CA trial and appeals court) as well as the Village Voice article and the ACA. Please understand that inclusion of the latter two do not equate to support. Barrett IS controversial, even if only among those who agree with 'alternative' med. and, of course, the courts who still insist that the plaintiff bear the burden of proving the claims he makes in a lawsuit.  ;-) Jance 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Although the JSE might not be the optimum medium for the broadest credibility of the Kauffman article, it is WP:RS. Kauffman's analysis is a unique resource in relation to Barrett's essays in my decades of experience. The Kauffman article was discussed at length at Talk:SB, User pages, QW, Sept 20~Oct 20 and supported by non-QW centric editors with medical and science b/g. Jance, just as you have experienced it in your field, my reaction to SB's & QW's science treatments on some of his(their) articles, within my science capabilities, parallels your realizations & reactions upon legal review. This was also the reaction of the JSE author, Joel Kauffman, who simply disintermediated the normal process of flagellation from (adversarially) advertising-controlled medical journals after he analyzed 8 other QW articles (5 from Barrett) within his own expertise (PhD MIT, U Sciences Phili. pharmacology faculty) & interest. SSE/JSE has academic members & board members that take SSE/JSE seriously, as did Barrett, until of course, these QW related Wikipedia articles brought the Kauffman article to QW/CSICOP/Barrett's attention 4 yrs later, Barrett's favorite CSICOP site cited JSE favorably (this archived Talk:QW section showed the CSICOP change, caught red handed) right up to the start of discussion here at Wikipedia!

As for Ray Sahelian, he has the view of "an MD crossed over" that might be notable for a more complete view of conventional medicine & clinical/science based altmed. I would definitely ask Levine and NATTO first, with some patience since Xmas-NY is here. They worked hard on this earlier and "double jeopardy" over the holidays is a pain.--I'clast 10:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The problm is that Sahalian is selling exactly the kind of products that Barrett is targetting for his commentary. That calls his objectivity into serious question. --Curtis Bledsoe 15:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, what is the purpose of incuding the JSE article? To show a scientific fact or legal finding, or to show that there is contention between the alternative med proponents and Barrett? If it is the latter, then I am not sure objectivity is at issue here as much as verifiability - did this person actually write this? These clearly are not neutral sources, therefore they should only be included for that purpose, imho.Jance 16:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how JSE can be taken as a serious source for anything other than pointing out what is published as pseudoscience. The journal does include interesting mix of research reviews, defenses of religious views presented as if they are scientific, and complaints on why authors can't get published elsewhere. --Ronz 17:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

JSE provides an alternative look. Kauffman's research (which wasn't written for JSE, but rather merely published there) give an enlightening, non-biased look at Barrett's "research" and opinions. Levine2112 18:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing that most makes Kauffman's research WP:RS, and then only slightly, is that JSE published it. He's certainly biased. Try reading some of his "Malignant Medical Myths". I did. --Ronz 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did. I'm not sure how far to take the bio-/chem- interests, your edits make you look like some kind of designer or MechE. Carbohydrates, anti-oxidants, omega-3s, magnesium and cholesterol make up a large chunk of [http://www.amazon.com/Malignant-Medical-Myths-Treatment-Yourself/dp/0741429098/sr=8-1/qid=1166336212/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4585271-8225410?ie=UTF8&s=books "Malignant Medical Myths"], where Kauffman says plain LDL cholesterol (low LDL is not the same as lower mortlity) is a poor parameterization for cardiovascular disease, prejudicially supported by pharmas and the medical industry, and that statins don't work quite as advertised - for side effects, results and mechanism of benefit. He writes about carbohydrate processing and inflammation as major risk factors, especially for the large population fraction susceptible to "metabolic syndrome" or "syndrome X", severely criticizing the chemistry and politics of medicine and big pharma. ^sar-"Obviously, 'LDL cholesterol skeptics' are kooks."^casm Well, here's a link to Lipids Online, Baylor College of Medicine, a top 10-20 med school, where they show high relative risk parameters of mortality for heart disease, shown crossplotted, insulin (carbohydrate metabolism) and apolipoprotein B where metabolic syndrome is also strongly correlated with excess apoB - a special type of LDL). Ditto C-reactive protein (a biomarker for inflammation) is also featured therebetter than LDL +HDLwomen. Not just generic LDL-C. Guess such craziness is spreading fast.--I'clast 07:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spending the time looking into it. I agree with agree on most of it. What I saw different was the repeated, shameless strawman arguments on what the medical industry's perspective is. Kauffman is a biochemist projecting the standards of biochemistry on all of medicine. But, to put this in perspective, here we are doing OR to try to decide upon the quality a reference because we don't have good secondary sources to draw upon instead. --Ronz 16:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Kauffman is slaughtering sacred cows and turkeys, not strawmen. His is rather a hard core skeptic's challenge to a long festering orthodoxy, extending in specific detail the scientific redress (and rebukes) of Linus Pauling about medicine's almost unchallengeable (until recently) status. Whereas authors Angell[13][14] and Kassirer[http://www.amazon.com/Take-Medicines-Complicity-Business-Endanger/dp/0195176847/ref=cm_cr-mr-title/104-4710871-8056711] dissect the pervasive conflicts of interest among pharmaceuticals, authors, journals, insurance cos, health-care corporations, researchers, and physicians,[15] Kauffman rationally consolidates, analyzes and topically resynthesizes results scientifically after criticizing the blinkered design, data selection, analysis, biased reporting by tackling 11 health & medical areas.[16]--I'clast 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And of course, including Sahalian's opinions for that reasons I'clast and Curtis point out would be inviolation of many wiki policies and guidelines. It's so much easier when we have good secondary sources. Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material is very clear on not only what information is allowed in these cases but also in how such situations should be handled by editors. --Ronz 16:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Interesting. Are there any links by Barrett that reflect negatively on individuals, whose professions have been recognized (rightly or wrongly) as valid by regulatory bodies? This is a tough call. I do suspect that given the nature of Barrett's fame (criticizing these individuals/'professions') , a reference to a verifiable resource (maybe even JSE) would be acceptable, but not an individual's website. However, long quotes would not be appropriate - not good writing, not encyclopedic and tedious. I do know that primary sources are allowed - I've been through that before - but should be used only when they are RR. The classic example, of course, is a court case that is relevant to the person's professional life. :::::: Jance 17:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is riddled with Barrett's negative opinions of people and their disciplines. Given the nature of Barrett's fame, criticism reflected back toward him is highly appropriate and completely warranted. Otherwise, it just shows that Barrett can't stand the taste of his own medicine... not a homeopathic remedy. ;-) Levine2112 18:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

US DOEd recognized, state licensed: chiropractors, TCM (Chinese Medicine) and naturopathic medicine (~14 states). The books of Shaleian[http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/102-9910481-9734554?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=sahelian+ray++&Go.x=10&Go.y=12&Go=Go] look on the nutritional/orthomolecular/biochemical side of naturopathic medicine which partially overlaps conventional medicine, past, present, and increasingly, future, according to some MD researchers at some other articles' Talk.--I'clast 20:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Then are there reliable refernces to reflect their statements? A personal webpage used as the source for a long list of quotes is not a reliable reference, anymore than Barrett's quotes from a talkpage. I agree that the American Chiropractic Association webpage would be a reliable resource; and maybe even that journal; I also agree that since Barrett is notable precisely for his criticism of all alternative medicine, including those that are government-recognized, a verifiable resource used to cite a response to Barrett's accusations should be acceptable. Still, I don't think purely a personal webpage is verifiable - unless the person has achieved the type of fame (or infamy, if you so call it) that Barrett has, who is also the subject of the Wiki article. If there is going to be no attempt at a concensus and instead only edit warring, I will bow out - I have no particular interest in either 'side' on this article.Jance 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly think Sahelian is a figure who has acheived at least the kind of "fame" that Barrett has...though I don't think Barrett should be the bar by which others should measure. Sahelian has sold over a million copies of his books, translated into numerous languages. He has been featured on NBC Today, NBC Nightly News, CBS This Morning, Dateline NBC, and CNN. He has been quoted or cited in Newsweek, Modern Maturity, Health, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Le Monde. And unlike Barrett, Dr. Sahelian has been board certified and has practiced medicine as recently as the past 20 years. All that being said, I do agree that the personal beef Barrett and Sahelian had with each other over who said what in an email and how the other responded is a little mundane for this article. However, Sahelian's professional opinion of Barrett's credentials is certainly notable and verifiable and should remain a part of this article. Levine2112 00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sahelian's personal web page doesnt begin to meet Wp:blp. Any editor could remove it again per BPL and be immune to 3rr in doing so. --Ronz 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with that, Ronz. This is an unusual circumstance because of what makes Barrett notable -- what makes him notable is his very public attack on those he believes are "quacks". I don't know that in this circumstance, a response or example of a response would be considered a 3RR issue.Jance 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then is there a reliable (verifiable) reference for his comments? Something other than a personal webpage? Jance 00:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sahelian's quote does not violate BLP. This is no more a "personal" web page than Barrett's info being posted on Quackwatch.com. Sahelian is notable, his quote is verifiable, and his analysis of Barrett is completely topical. Please refrain from attempting to "white wash" this article; it is a violation WP:NPOV. Levine2112 02:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears we have completely incompatible interpretations of BPL, not to mention N V RS NOT and NPOV. --Ronz 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please enumerate your interpretation here of how the Sahelian quote violates each of the following: BLP, NOT, N, V, RS, and NPOV. Levine2112 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. If if information violates just one of them it probably shouldn't be in the article. I've stated my case again and again and again. Sorry you can't see it. --Ronz 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is trying to whitewash this? Ronz, I would say that Barrett is notable for his attack on "alternative" practitioners. Some of these are evidently sanctioned by state regulatory bodies.. eg chiropractic and homeopathy. It would be reasonable to provide a short example of those who have responded. I do think Village Voice, and the ACA are verifiable sources... Perhaps the journal (whatever that was). I still question whether a personal webiste is verifiable, notwithstanding Barrett's own webiste (which should not be used as a source, unless another website is allowed as well). Wiki rules allow a bio to have a link to the home webpage of the object of the article. I don't know that this includes quotes within the body of the article. So, to some extent, I can see Levine's complaint. If it is allowed for Barrett, a response should be allowed from another "doctors'" website. But Levine, your accusation that I or Ronz or anyone else is whitewashing wont help your argument. True or not true.Jance 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ronz, I am not degreed in WIki-speak, so don't know all the TLAs (three letter acronyms). I have read the reliable resource page, and bio page etc. But I get glassy eyed with a litany of TLAs just as I do with a litany of quotes, without an English (at least on English Wiki) explanation of what is meant by all of that.  ;-) Jance 04:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jance, Iam not accusing you of anything. I think you are off to a tremendous start here at Wikipedia. Ronz on the otherhand has made edits and rattles off a litany of violation codes but is not stating how the violation is made. There is no argument made, so his edits must be reverted. Ronz, please enumerate why Sahelian's quote violates BLP, NOT, N, V, RS, and NPOV as you have stated in numerous edits now. Now is your chance. Explain it here. Levine2112 08:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Levine is trying to be reasonable. Even editors who soon got themselves indef blocked for picking on *admins* or melted & disappeared after too many self-embarrassments did not spray me with near so many "TLA"s when we had far longer, more fundamental edit tensions.--I'clast 13:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I've moved on to what I hope will be more effective ways of settling these disputes. --Ronz 16:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are truly turning over a new leaf, then please provide us with your reasoning why you say the Sahelian quote violates each BLP, NOT, N, V, RS, and NPOV. Otherwise, let's move on. Levine2112 18:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I will return to discussions of BLP, NOT, N, V, RS, and NPOV if and when I see fit. Sorry if you feel I should be compelled to do otherwise. --Ronz 19:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep evading my simple request? If you'd like to admit that you were wrong about your assessment of BLP, NOT, N, V, RS, and NPOV, fine. We can then move on. Otherwise, let's hear your explanation. If you have already provided it - as you claim - then what's so hard about providing me with direct links to your explanations? Please try to be cooperative. Levine2112 03:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you just let it go? --Ronz 05:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can. Let's move on. The Sahelian quote stays until good reason can be brought up to remove it. Next time you cite Wikipedia policy, make sure you can back it up with an explanation. Levine2112 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the quote is Sahelian's opinion, not necessarily his professional opinion. Since he doesn't use the word, it is our speculation that it is "professional". Hence I would suggest that we use it as a opinion piece. I also believe that the quotes should be tidied up however my own professional life keeps getting in the way of wiki :-) Shot info 08:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be shortened, but I do agree that it should be made clear that this is Dr. Sahelian's opinion. When I say "professional" opinion know that I say it because Sahelian isn't describing Barrett in his person but rather in his profession - as a "quackbuster". Anyhow, to note that this is any opinion - that this whole section is opinion -perhaps a qualifier could be added to the "Credentials" heading. Thoughts? Levine2112 08:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking generally as compared to say Deppak Chopra or Mercola or even Pauling, there seems to be a greater emphasis on the negative or critism by people that wiki doesn't find notable. Mercola for example has only about 10% devoted to critism. Hence I feel that there needs to be less emphasis on detailing every single little critism and concentrating on the notable critism per WP:BLP. Shot info 08:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pauling, Mercola, Chopra didn't run around sueing so many, inciting dubious regulatory actions, and initiating questionable or unfair written reviews of other people's work/lives did they? Even if such a critic had a 1000 batting average, critcism and counterclaims would likely be notable & lengthy. What is the legal batting average? On some straight science issues, it looks far less than 1000. The subject here has chosen to take on multiple disciplines, not always fully prepared. Unless one arbitrarily assigns a "chosen" MPOV as "right", these views both provide balance and a better definition of the subject, his handiwork, his relation to other groups, and the *interests* of the general populace, albeit from not so flattering perspectives. As for omniscience, remember two things, despite all the naysaying, a substantial portion of the populace says it gets palpable benefits/relief from these other fields paying their own hard cash, and, the mainstream has had to eat a lot of crow or execute gymnastic flip-flops these past ~20 years. The examples and quotes give voice to very real, if somewhat less pleasingly phrased perspectives, on SB/QW's impact on the population's health choices.--I'clast 10:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, listing it in an easy to find place, I feel the section should be reduced to at most a paragraph or two, as are done and all other bibliography articles in wikipedia that I've found to date. --Ronz 15:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Very controversial figures have lots of controversy. An encyclopedia needs to reflect that controversy accurately. Barrett is very critical of others and has an itchy trigger finger when it comes to filing lawsuits. Wikipedia is littered with his critical analyses of a wide variety of people and disciplines which he outright calls "quacks". That he has a lot of critical backlash is no coincidence and highly notable... especially when they are more of the professional criticism varieties rather than the personal. The criticisms listed thus far in the article go to show others' opinions of Barrett the doctor and quackbuster (his professions) and not Barrett the person. Levine2112 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another approach

I think it might be useful to find other BLP articles on controversial people to help us with this one. The first I found was Amazing_Randi - controversial, heavily criticised, and involved in a number of legal disputes (some of which were very naive on his part). --Ronz 02:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is probably a good idea. I suggest that Levine /or others also look where you did (I don't know where that is) and see if you all can agree on another admin/? who has been involved in a similar issue. Jance 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is for the editors to try to find other articles similar to Barrett's to list here for us all to learn from. Randi's is the only one I've found so far where there is a wiki article and it is indeed similar. --Ronz 04:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I am too tired to look at it tonight, but your suggestion is a good one. Perhaps other editors can try to find similar articles, as well. It sounds like someone else should look at all this.. Jance 04:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would also be helpful to list what makes Barrett's article so contentious. The lack of quality secondary sources is probably our biggest problem. Jance made a very important observation above, "...what makes him notable is his very public attack on those he believes are 'quacks'". --Ronz 04:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, Ronz. But it needs to be taken section by section, paragraph by paragraph. Otherwise, we will continue to see edit warring. I looked at the article on Amazing Randi - it is entertaining (no I had no idea who he was), and readable. There are links to what look like individual websites or articles of somewhat questionalble verifibility. But I did not look at it closely, so I may be wrong. I would welcome whoever helped with that article ... This looks like it could use some more editors who have dealt fairly with very controversial subjects. The Randi article does seem to parallel this, rather closely.Jance 19:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already requested help from Randi editors and WikiProject Biography. As for the continued edit warring, I think you're right. I don't think that it will be helpful listing what makes Barrett's article so contentious. --Ronz 19:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fresh eyes are welcome. I have dealt with plenty of contentious articles in my time at Wikipedia and though it sometimes gets rough, fairness always rises to the top. Especially when editors behave cooperatively, do their best to fullfill simple requests, back up their assertions properly and generally are clear about who they are and where they are coming from. Levine2112 03:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Randi article has about 5% devoted to criticisms. Shot info 06:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Mercola's article is pretty much on par with the amount of criticism with the current Barrett article, the main difference being that the criticism is pervasive through out Mercola's article rather than just contained to the specified sections. Levine2112 07:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I took this into account, problem is this article is over 50% "criticism" (to use a word) and Mercola's around 30%. Please, I am only pointing this out NOT to cover up Barrett's actions but merely as a request to clean up what appears to be overly long and detailed critics when only some key ones (or several) will suffice. This is why I keep (and have kept when I stumbled across this article) pointing out the "rules" for these sorts of articles in WP:BLP. Regardless of how the subject is "notable" (for a given interpretation of WP:N) WP:BLP does not allow us to make a BLP article a sop for criticism. If you feel Mercola's is so, then I suggest it is pruned as well. Shot info 12:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the direct criticism section (Accusations of bias and lack of objectivity) is so overlong, as it is the all the damn litigation that blows the article up, and then expands the Credentials section and its relevance. Face it, someone needs (-ed) to take a diet off the litigation candy, it's messing up our biography ;->--I'clast 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many colons. I agree that the section on litigation is silly. I see no reason to highlight each and every libel case. It would be better, imho, to write an intelligible paragraph about the criticism of Barrett's litigationm, and cite the cases as examples. There is a way to do this, as a legal citation that presents the holding of the case within parentheses.

The main criticism that I see of Barrett is that he has continuously litigated dubious or frivolous claims, against those whom he claims defames him, as well as the "alternative med" practitioners. The one case (King Bio) shocked me, because it drew such a sharp and sarcastic rebuke from the judge (rightfully so). This had nothing to do with the merits of homeopathy, but had everything to do with policy, and how to properly object to controversial medical practices. Barrett attempted to 'subvert' basic rules of evidence (shifting the burden of proof). Moreover, he presented no evidence and held himself out as an expert witness without any credentials to meet admissibility requirements. That would not have passed muster for Frye, let alone Daubert (the standards for admissibiility of expert testimony). I find this far more interesting than arguing the merits of 'alternative' v. traditional medicine. But then I am biased, I suppose. Jance 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the Litigation sections in the estimate of how much of this page is dedicated to criticism. Litigation is not criticism; it is historical information. That for the most part it turns critical for Barrett is just the way it goes. But it shouldn't be counted as part of the criticism section. Therefore, I would say that the criticisms section is on par with other BLP's of similar nature and if it is a bit longer than others, I would suggest that it is deservedly so. Considering how much criticism Barrett puts out there, he is bound to have it come back. You reap what you sow. Levine2112 18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. The problem is that if we use that perspective to justify our edits, then we're all in violation of NPOV. --Ronz 20:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

True enough. Then leave it in its own section. I suspect most people would consider it a criticism - excessive litigation? Come on now, where are all those doctors who complain that there are too many lawsuits?  ;-) Jance 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To find someone who says that Barrett is guilty of excessive litigation would be a criticism. However, merely listing out Barrett's litigation (with a description of the case, the outcome, and notable judge opinions) is not a crtiticism. Levine2112 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Lighten up, Levine. I was trying to be tongue in cheek. Gad, Wikiipedia can be tedious. I don't know why I stick around here; it must be some kind of masochistic addiction.  ;-) Jance 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't being heavy... sorry it came across that way. Tone can be so easily misinterpreted here. (Maybe we should use emoticons :-) ) I just want to make my point that the litigation section isn't criticism and shouldn't be counted as such when calculation percetages (although I don't think this a valid way to edit an article... some people have more criticism than others.). I sincerely appreciate your work here, Jance. And I wouldn't want you to bow out. Certainly, there is a form of mascohism keeping me here too, I think. Levine2112 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, Levine. I didn't mean to jump on you, either. I've had some rather ugly experiences on Wikipedia with those who take themselves far more seriously than anyone in *real* life would. Somehow, I think/agree that the Barrett litigation should stay - however you want to address it. The litigation is a major factor in Barrett's fame/infamy - whether you call it a 'compliment", criticism, or neither. As Stephen Colbert would say, it takes colossal b*** to do the things Barrett has done. Now I better get off this Wiki thing before some cyberthug with no sense of humor attacks me with a WP:TLA. Jance 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good God, someone even has an article on TLA (three letter acronym). My use of it was a joke. Sigh. Oh - and I never much liked emoticons, but I have to admit that I now prefer them over the ubiquitous WP:TLA. <evil grin> Jance 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues#People.2F_public_figures - Pay dirt! --Ronz 00:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. This would be good for guidance - unless the example is one of those articles that is dominated by one or two people. Jance 01:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's expertise (or lack of it) as a homeopath, peddler of "diet supplements", etc.

I don't see how this is relevant to the article. It is a typical strawman argument advanced by those who defend various forms of quackery. They argue that because the scientist debunking their claims isn't an "expert" in the quack's field, he isn't "qualified" to debunk the quackery. Homeopathy has repeatedly been shown by scientific study to be entirely without foundation. Barrett is perfectly qualified as a medical expert to discuss the lack of merit of various pseudo-scientific claims made by the snake-oil merchants he's targetting. What amazes me is that their responses to him are given equal weight. It is like a geologist arguing that he's got evidence that the earth is billions of years old and a young-earth creationist's "rebuttal" to that argument being given equal weight and that because the geologist hasn't got a degree in creationism that he isn't qualified to dispute the claims made by creationists. --Curtis Bledsoe 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely, Curtis. A geologist is specialized and would be qualified to give testimony on a matter of the age of the earth (probably, in court, anyway). A psychiatrist would not necessarily be qualified to give expert testimony on FDA regulation, for example. Or homeopathy - I don't know what the specialty would be that would cover that area, but there probably is one. And, qualification does not always necessitate advanced education. It could mean significant experience in the issue that is before the court. You may find it interesting that a cocaine addict may be qualified as an expert on the issue of whether or not a substance is indeed cocaine. My guess is that Barrett would not be deemed an expert in all of the many areas in which alternative medicine overlaps with traditional medicine. It doesn't mean that his conclusions, or the studies he references on his webpage are not valid . Jance 22:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Curtis, your reasoning and logic are impeccable on those points, but Wikipedia must allow both POV to be aired, without promoting them. Those who understand the issues will see the folly of those straw man arguments, while true believers will continue to believe. -- Fyslee 13:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy on NPOV, an article should "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". The views of people like Sahalian, Bolen, Day, etc. have zero weight. --Curtis Bledsoe 13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Curtis, you can't say all the backlash has zero weight. Whether we agree or not, there has been a predictable backlash to Barrett's pronouncement of all that which is quackery. That is notable, and should be mentioned. It can be mentioned in a paragraph with a couple well-sourced examples. I removed Day, because there was no reliable source. I think we should also remove Bolen.Jance 16:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And there's the whole Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material issue. There's no reason to cite Bolen for anything encyclopedic. --Ronz 15:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited this article quite a bit, removing excessive and redundant quotes. I left Tim Bolen because he is such a focal critic. However, the only source I see is a deposition. A depo is not a good source. Yes, it is under oath. But it is not necessarily admissible in court (may not be deemed reliable). A court opinion is a highly reliable source. A depo is not. I tend to agree about Bolen. I think the paragraphs as I changed them highlight the two main points: (1) There is a predictable outcry from alterntive med practitioners & proponents, and (2) Barrett's MO is to file lawsuits to promote his positions.. These are the salient points, which in my opinion, got lost anyway in a litany of quotes from every alternative med practitioner on the net.Jance 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, excellent work, Jance! I think preserving the most notable criticisms is a good compromise that hopefully should satisfy both sides of this subject. I re-introduced the Peter Barry Chowka quote from the Village Voice article in a similar fashion to how you presented the Deepak Chopra quote. A former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's opinion of Barrett is highly notable, so it should be preserved.

(BTW, I don't like being described as a "true believer" who "doesn't see the folly of strawman arguments" as an editor has done above. But then again, I'm eating a 40:30:30 balanced diet, drinking fresh squeezed organic vegetable juice, taking supplements - probiotics, living multi-vitamins, etc., visiting a chiropractor regularly and I'm feeling extremely healthy and have been for quite some time. I wonder if my critic above can say the same thing about his current state of health today.) Levine2112 18:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Give me Ben and Jerry's. Hah!Jance 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation?

Would someone help me with this? I was trying to summarize what I had read in the article, that I think did have a citation, but I lost the source. Someone added {citation}, rightfully so. This does need a source.

"Barrett admits he is not qualified to analyze studies in the context of "traditional medicine", but he claims to have the expertise to critcize a broad range of alternative health theories and practitioners, using similar medical studies." Jance 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Was this from a previous version of the article? Levine2112 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, it might have been from the time or even village voice article. I paraphrased, where he said it was "over his head". I was trying to summarize to concisely state the point.Jance 15:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Curtis Bledsoe

With no consensus reached, you are making massive reverts. Please refrain and instead discuss. Sahelian, as a board certified MD, is more qualified than Barrett. Bolen, while not very reliable, is very public in his discussion of Barrett and is thus very relevant here. Levine2112 04:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It does need to be noted that wikipedia finds quotes from non-notable people (ie/ they are not in wikipedia) notable. Personally, I have found everything that I can see written by Tim Bolan as just hyperbole and non-encyclopedic. Bias has nothing to with it since outside of Barrett and the various alt-med sectors he represents, Bolan is not very notable. I would also watch out with the use (or over use) of the word "qualified" since he is obviously not qualifed enough to appear in Wiki (at this moment in time) nor receive some of the accolades that Barrett as received (since you are using the comparision). Nontheless, I feel that Bolan should be deleted and Sahelian pruned. Shot info 05:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not have to be reached to revert (WP:CON). Still, it would be best to comment here on the rationale for the revert (or any major edit for that matter).

Perhaps we should tag the article with Template:Controversial and/or this talk page with Template:Controversial3? --Ronz 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please look at my edits, and see what you all think. I condensed two sections on the same thing. I am sure some will want to add back in some of these things. I am open to suggestions.Jance 19:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As Sahalian is engaging in activity that is specifically the target of Barrett's debunking practices, he can hardly be objective. As for Bolen, apart from his own websites and self-appointed advocacy role, he has zero notability. Add to that his questionable conduct and he simply isn't a suitable source for reputable commentary. --Curtis Bledsoe 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the main points of the lawsuit, which directly related to the criticism of Barrett (and NCAHF). To simply say the case was dismissed for failure to prove a "false or misleading statement" is missing the entire point of the case. It also is missing the entire point of the issue. I did add a sentence as to why he did not present evidence, that helps explain the failure to do so. I modified the court finding of bias, to only that which is pertinent to the criticism. I am only speculating, but my guess is that the court was so appalled by Plaintiff's argument that the burden of proof be shifted to the defendant that it didn't want to hear the other points made. I also think we can find a case where Barrett was deemed by the court to be an expert. Or add a statement that an "expert" in this context is a legal defintiion. After 30 years, Barrett might well be an expert in some of these issues, by virtue of his having investigated and read studies etc etc. That would not necessarily make him an expert under the relevant legal standard (not sure what it is in CA). Jance 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

I wrote "His ire has been directed ..." of Barrett. Is it really POV to write this, when Barrett freely discusses his disgust with these "quacks" (esp the Hulda Clark types). Someone wrote "he crtiicized".. I was trying not to be POV, but to be interesting. "Criticize" seems milktoast somehow, and overused. Any thought? This is not a big deal either way, but thought it might be less boring to use different words occasionally.Jance 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Defamation cases

A subsection for each case reads badly. It looks nearly procedural, and odd in the context of this article. I would again recommend a paragraph, with the cases as examples. Jance 15:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Qualifications

There were two sections on qualifications. Please don't shoot the messenger. I am only trying to consolidate. The redundancy of topics was confusing. When it got to "credentials", my eyes glazed over again. Why do we care about whether or not he flunked his boards, only had 1-1/2 years of legal correspondence, or all the specific criticisms of him regarding this from individuals most people have never heard of? The CA court succinctly excoriated Barrett and his "qualification" to provide expert testimony on these issues. Maybe we can add back something about Barrett being a consumer advocate, but not an expert in all these fields. I am surely open to suggestions.

I might add (for Barrett's critics) that I think this paragraph as written summarizes the criticism, and is more powerful than a long drawn out list of quotes and dissection of Barrett's lack of boards etc. Jance 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I also changed the reference for the court case. Findlaw is a more reliable source than "Quackpotwatch". And, cases should be cited by the reporter. Jance 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one of the cases is the trial level (which was affirmed) and it is not in a reporter, but found at the actual court. EG it has to be pulled..Jance 23:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Curtis you have to stop

Curtis, every statement in the paragraph about the case is supported by the case. Do you know what "Id" means? Do you want me to put the reference behind every sentence? This case is relevant to the criticism of a public figure. I actually happen to rather like Barrett, but I think this kind of action is disgraceful. And, of COURSE he vehemently goes after quacks - he makes no apology for it. And the quacks vehemently retaliate. Do you really want to water it down to say everything is "criticism"? There is nothing POV about that sentence, since it accurately portrays the emotion that both sides feel about it. Good grief, this is silly. Jance 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

ALso, I have gone out of my way to remove statements that seem irrelevant, and unreliable sources. To delete an entire paragraph for no reason is vandalism. I even added "(An "expert witness" is a legal definition, and qualification sometimes requires specialized education or experience in the particular matter that is before the court.) This was in an effort to put the paragrah in perspective. If you really have a problem with this, then your interest is having a biased article. The fact is Barrett is controversial - among those he criticizes. Is this suprising? Since the only reason he is famous is because of his going after these practitioners /quacks (whatever name you have for them), you don't think those issues should be in the article? That is ludicrous on its face.Jance 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I searched the entire document you listed as your source for the claim and was unable to find the statements you attributed to the judge. If you're going to quote court statements, please be sure you have support for those quotes. --Curtis Bledsoe 23:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Name one. I described the case exactly. If there is something there not in the case, I will remove it. Jance 00:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph at Issue

These are the facts stated:

1. The lawsuit was dismissed for the reasons stated
2. The judge said the plaintiffs produced no evidence (they went into each type of evidence not presented, such as documentary evidence etc) except the testimony of these experts (both NCAHF board members and one who is Barrett)
3. The judge stated the testimony should be given little weight
4. For the reason that they were not experts in the matters raised (and the judge went into some detail about that)
5. The judge also discussed Plaintiff's argument to shift the burden of proof upon "slight" showing by the plaintiff.
6. The last sentence is a quote, and I removed part of it that was there.

Note: I added the "This is true in medical (regulatory) issues, but is not true in a court of law in a private lawsuit." and that is not in the court case. I added it to explain why NCAHF (Barrett's org) may not have fully understood the argument they were presenting, and why it probably sent the judge off (that is my speculation). The judge was downright sarcastic in the opinion. I have tempered that dramatically. Jance 00:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

HOWEVER, I think I only included the appellate affirmation of the trial court's decision. That might be the confusion. The trial court was the judge that was so sarcastic. The appellate court was not, but affirmed the trial court's opinion, without going into all the detail. HOWEVER, the appellate court decision quotes the lower court in a reference (which is part of the appellate opinion):

NCAHF presented no evidence that King Bio's products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio's products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility.

The trial court defines who those two witnesses were - Barrett and another NCAHF doctor.Jance 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This was only one of a number of reasons the court determined that the witness testimony should be accorded little weight. Curtis, the Superior court case can be found, but one has to go to the court and pull the case from the files. I was reading the case as evidently scanned by one involved in the case - that was in this article originally. However, I have no doubt that this was a scanned version of the Superior Court decision. The appellate court based its opinion on the facts of the lower court case, and affirmed the lower court ruling on the same grounds. There was quite a discussion about the "shifting of burden" in the appellate case, as well as a quote of the trial court. Surely you saw that. The source (the Superior Court) case is a valid source. I will cite it.Jance 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Jance 00:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF / QUACKWATCH OPERATIONS

Happiest of Holidays All.

After coming back to Wikipedia a few weeks ago, I've received a lot of additional information about the joint operation of NCAHF and Quackwatch. I believe there was an appeal earlier to join these two articles, and I fully support it. It is impossible to tell where one operation ends and the other begins. Barrett rules ... as NCAHF head of 'internet operations' as well as Chairman of QW. X runs their Webring Operation of 90 blogs and websites each promoting the other. X appears to be stationed as a professional healthfraud 'editor' here on Wikipedia. I've seen him pounce on and revert valid edits within seconds of their appearance. I see he just quit his longtime job as "Assistant Listmaster" of the Healthfraud List. He has repeatedly claimed that NCAHF was a legal California Corporation and for months removed the links proving this was false. His performance on Wikipedia resembles a Barrett puppet, in my opinion.

QW/NCAHF claims to send over 11,000 subscribers their newsletter ... JOINTLY. Barrett runs the Healthfraud List with an iron hand and promotes both QW/NCAHF and their Webring. Barrett signs with adverts to both QW and NCAHF and in fact, their sites cross promote and reference each other. It is rare that he is not wearing both these hats for his published opinions. For these reasons, I vote that the two articles be combined.

I recently visited several articles on Wikipedia and one would believe that it was QuackWatch / Wikipedia Branch. Single articles are filled with Quackwatch POV ... while others were fought off byX and others.

Regarding the lack of legal corporate status in evidence ... the fact that hours and hours were wasted as people defending Barrett used every distraction and propaganda trick in the books is pure bullying. It is not a game for a non profit to prove their legal status. It could have been done in a heartbeat. The silliest game of all was for them to ask us to prove the negative that they were not incorporated in the other 49 states. I call that Quack Logic.

One of Barrett's own published definitions of what he opines is quackery"... quackery could be broadly defined as anything involving over promotion in the field of health." With 90 blogs and websites and thousands of articles circulated promoting QW/NCAHF, from someone with no current medical license and who has been called, by the Appelate Court of California, biased and unworthy of credibility'; speaks volumes as to his projection. Last count, there were over 417,000 pages promoting Barrett on a google search. Over promotion?

Further, I wish to readdress the fact of his failure to protect his patients by passing the Psychiatric Exams in several decades of "practice." This fact was only brought to light in the deposition of Barrett's losing SLAPP suit to Dr. Koren recently. Up until then, he had proclaimed himself an 'expert' in things by simple wiggling his nose or some other decider. For years, he was asked why he had never been board certified, and refused to admit that he had FAILED his boards in the 60's. This is relevant and a valid criticism of Barrett. He was licensed in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's ... many of them spent questioning and attacking the credentials of others. His are more than questionable. No board certification means LESS patient protection, LESS questions to his license. I believe around 85% of medical licensees protected their patients with board certification by the 90's ... why not Stephen Barrett?

After perusing Wikipedia ... it seems to me that rules are made up by those promoting Barrett about criticsm about him ... but censored regarding him.

Thank you. Ilena 18:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, I was the one that removed the discussion about Barrett's psych boards. When did he first become licensed - in the 50s? I fail to see how the boards are relevant to what he is doing now. How many doctors who started practicing in the 50s later took board exams? Besides, most of what he talks about now has nothing to do with psychiatry. Jance 20:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jance. Anyone who wants to realize the significance needs only to read Dr. Whitaker's account about NCAHF's Quack List. SLAPP suits are only one of their several platforms of destroying others lives. Please read this [17]. Then, I recommend that they read this link about the huge significance of Barrett being forced, under oath, that he had failed. Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases. He had NOT been forthcoming about this, as he waged wars on the licenses of thousands of others. Happy Holidays. Ilena 21:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

One other upgrade in info. Just reread that last link. At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. Wasn't just a deposition but at trial. He had claimed for years expertise he did not have. Check out those 2 links. Ciao. Ilena 22:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Did he ever claim to be board-certified? I don't doubt that Barrett participated in or initiated SLAPP suits. I don't doubt that he feels he can use the legal system to go after the medical practices he thinks are quackery. That is a big public policy issue, imho. In medicine, the one making the product or advocating a treatment has the burden of proof (theoretically) to show it is safe and effective. However, there are reasons why the plaintiff has the burden of proof in the courts. Only in very rare cases is that burden ever shifted. To argue that a private individual should be granted the investigative authority of a district attorney, and more power than a DA in shifting the burden of proof is breathtaking. One US senator pointed this out, although the quote is not tied in very well with the court cases. I think it should be, to not be disjointed. But then that is perhaps my bias. I believe in our justice system and think the (US) bill of rights has served us well. I do not want to see our government or a private individual usurp that.

If you were to focus on this criticism, it would encompass just about every other - except, perhaps the "truth" as to Barrett's claims. And I do not believe that is a question for WIkipedia to answer. I think that calling Barrett "de-licensed" or implying that one should not call him "Doctor" is scummy. An attorney can be inactive, but that makes him/her no less an attorney. Similarly, retirement does not void a person's achievement. It does not void credentials or the experience. Has Doctor Barrett misrepresented his qualifications? If so, where? It sounds like he is a consumer 'advocate' that does a lot of research on his own, and consults with other doctors or scientists to form opinions. In my book, there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with his websites, imho. What greater public interest is there in open discussion about medical practices or treatments? The question that begs discussion is whether or not the use of the legal system is appropriate.

The fact it, Barrett has not gone after medical doctors, probably because he is an MD and is biased. So what? Perhaps a "Quackwatch" is needed to go after dubious traditional medical practices or treatments. God knows there are probably plenty of them, including plastic surgeons that "hit and run" (eg putting in the implants and not following up, or caring what happens later to women). A couple of years ago, there was a huge series of articles in the papers here about plastic surgery, about the lack of regulation of clinics & recklessness that caused deaths and disfigurement. Jance 23:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where the idea that Barrett doesn't go after MDs comes from, because it is not at all true. Most of those he criticizes are MDs and other authorized medical professionals "within the system." Just take a look at this list. He is especially hard on MDs, simply because they should know better. -- Fyslee 00:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I stand corrected. Regardless, this doesn't seem particularly germane. My bias about MDs came into play, a bit here - it's the ol' Harvard quip: You can sure tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much. In fact, that is a snide and possibly unfair criticism, since there are some very down-to-earth Harvard grads. Jance 00:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he goes after those who are guilty of practicing quackery or quackery-related fraud. That's what he claims to do, and he does it. He does it primarily by writing about it and exposing it, and rarely uses the courts, unless called on by the authorities. He specifically clarifies the differences between those matters and other serious matters of medical malpractice, incompetence, pharmaceutical industry abuses, etc., which also concern him. Since the latter matters are covered by existing controls and laws and are usually dealt with by the existing medical system and its rules and regulations, he doesn't specialize in dealing with it. OTOH, MDs who practice quackery usually go unopposed until they commit serious criminal fraud that results in deaths and huge scandals. That's where Barrett and others come into the picture. They operate in the gap where deception has relatively free play and they attempt to expose it before too many lives are lost and too much is stolen from suffering and desperate people. It's simply a gray area that the government doesn't deal with properly. -- Fyslee 01:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Whitaker is one of Barrett's Targets

Dr. Whitaker, one of the thousands of targets of Barrett's "Quack List" clarifies who NCAHF attacks. Yes indeed, there are doctors ar more qualified and educated that Barrett, however they believe in modalities that Barrett, never board certified himself, claims are "quackery." This has gone on too long.

[18] Excerpt: Is Your Doctor on the "Quacklist?"

As bad as it seems, calling the cops to silence contrary opinions is only part of the nefarious actions of certain NCAHF members. John Renner, M.D., from Kansas City, an active board member of the NCAHF, has maintained a list of over 2,500 physicians, Ph.D.s and others he deems to be quacks and frauds. To be on this list you just need to belong to an organization that is studying nutrition or any therapy not yet approved by the FDA.

There's a 1990 copy of the list containing 1,137 M.D.s and 52 people with double doctorates. Although the list does not appear to be in general circulation, it may have been supplied to insurance companies and state medical boards. The result could be that alternative physicians are financially blackballed, or put under additional scrutiny.

John Renner has even put Linus Pauling, Ph.D., on this quacklist. Dr. Pauling has been singled out by two authoritative sources as one of the top 20 scientists of all time, along with Aristotle, Galileo and Newton. The only other scientist selected from the 20th century was Albert Einstein. Imagine, John Renner, a relative "no-weight" compared to Dr. Pauling, labels the only person to be awarded two unshared Nobel prizes as a fraud. Ilena 01:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt as to Pauling's genius in chemistry /physics (quantum). He has been controversial for his politics (peace activism and I think he was caught up in McCarthyism but I am not sure). I don't know if the Vitamin C issue is dead (scientifically). Jance 01:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin C is not a dead issue by a long shot, it is carefully unchallenged and unsupported in conventional medicine. In fact vitamin C is an area where Dr Barrett is very vunerable to being challenged as a pseudoskeptic because the issues, and the evidence, are so misdescribed [19][20] for so long. For example, Barrett et al goes on and on about numerous tests supposedly proving vitamin C doesn't work. Strange how they avoid mentioning the total disconnect on dose, frequency and duration. The mainstream typically tests 0.2 - 4 g / day orally, usually once per day only, and then jiggles the statistics.[21] Pauling said 1-2 grams (orally) per hour when you *first* notice a tickle or suspect it, may abort progression (let's say up to 20-40 grams/day, just warming up) for a cold not yet established. Various vitamin C supporters (MD, ND, PhD, over 3 decades) will tell you 2g, up to 8 grams, even 12 grams per 15-20-30 mins until you reach bowel tolerance (laxative effects) and then slow down to 60-100 grams per day for a severe cold, 150-200 g/d for ordinary flu, and propose even more or IV for more virulent forms (bird flu, SARS) to abort an easy cold, ameliorate it if too late. There is no comparison between these ranges. So it is certainly not a *scientific* "refutation". The vitamin C story is much, much different than the average MD/PhD/JD thinks.^[22][23][24]. Barrett's articles help keep it that way.--I'clast 23:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Barrett's Failing the Psych Boards is Relevant and Verifiable

(moving down to open discussion)Further, I wish to readdress the fact of his failure to protect his patients by passing the Psychiatric Exams in several decades of "practice." This fact was only brought to light in the deposition of Barrett's losing SLAPP suit to Dr. Koren recently. Up until then, he had proclaimed himself an 'expert' in things by simple wiggling his nose or some other decider. For years, he was asked why he had never been board certified, and refused to admit that he had FAILED his boards in the 60's. This is relevant and a valid criticism of Barrett. He was licensed in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's ... many of them spent questioning and attacking the credentials of others. His are more than questionable. No board certification means LESS patient protection, LESS questions to his license. I believe around 85% of medical licensees protected their patients with board certification by the 90's ... why not Stephen Barrett? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs) 01:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, I was the one that removed the discussion about Barrett's psych boards. When did he first become licensed - in the 50s? I fail to see how the boards are relevant to what he is doing now. How many doctors who started practicing in the 50s later took board exams? Besides, most of what he talks about now has nothing to do with psychiatry. Jance 20:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jance. Anyone who wants to realize the significance needs only to read Dr. Whitaker's account about NCAHF's Quack List. SLAPP suits are only one of their several platforms of destroying others lives. Please read this [25]. Then, I recommend that they read this link about the huge significance of Barrett being forced, under oath, that he had failed. Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases. He had NOT been forthcoming about this, as he waged wars on the licenses of thousands of others. Happy Holidays. Ilena 21:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

One other upgrade in info. Just reread that last link. At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. Wasn't just a deposition but at trial. He had claimed for years expertise he did not have. Check out those 2 links. Ciao. Ilena 22:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at Whittaker's page. I just looked up one practitioner Dr. Whitaker claimed was falsely harassed and attacked and is still practicing. That MD left practice in 2003 in one state, at least. The state Dept of Health charged that he operated outside the standard of care, used drugs w/o FDA approval, and that his response was "unacceptable". The MD signed a Consent Order, promising to not use questionable methods without first demonstrating the practices are legal, safe and effective. Seems reasonable to me. It appears that this same MD was held liable in a different state for wrongful death. Dr. Whitaker did not say any of this in his paper. If the charges were bogus, the MD could have responded and shown proof that he met the standard of care. It does not appear he did that. He may well be practicing in another state. I had a doctor years ago who lost his license in one state (for good reason), only to practice in another. But this is not the relevant issue here, on this article.

What qualification has Barrett claimed that he does not have? I know that he claimed to be an expert in areas he felt he had experience (and I think the court ruling was proper), but has he claimed specifically that he was board certified? That he had a degree he does not have? Why is the issue as to whether or not he was board certified relevant as to his 'advocacy' against consumer/health fraud? Honestly, I don't get it. What I do see is what I have said - that Barrett's use of the legal system may be questionable. There may be a question as to whether or not he harms people who are not doing anything wrong. Surely, he is not infallible. In the 50s, McCarthy destroyed good people's careers and lives. Is Barrett doing that? I don't know. I am not sure it is up to us to judge that on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think it important to come to some consensus as to what is relevant to include. Criticism is relevant to incude, since Barrett is such an outspoken public figure. Maybe it is relevant to include something about his background and how he decides (if we know) who is a 'quack'. I don't think it is relevant to focus on boards that he didn't need and that have nothing to do with what he is doing today. That just seems malicious (in the colloquial sense). Jance 02:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As a lawyer, you can understand Barrett's abuse of the legal system very well. However, his assaults against those he disagrees with goes a million miles beyond 'just' suing people. Dr. Whitaker (regardless of what you may believe about him) explained very well how Barrett's team harassed insurers and medical boards and other agencies to attempt to shut down practices that he, not even a board certified anything, deemed wrong. Barrett, although judges have accurately described him as "biased and unworthy of credibility" has used his 'credentials' to attack homeopaths for decades. Here is a direct quote from him from decades ago. Now his team is called instead of 'guerrillas' ... the Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes. Stephen J. Barrett, writing in AMA News on August 25, 1975, describing the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud: "By working "undercover" using assumed names and box numbers, we've gotten all sorts of information and publications other groups, like the medical societies, haven't been able to lay their hands on. ...Really, we're a bunch of guerrillas - we're not a large group, there are about 40 members, but we're the only such group in the country." Ilena 14:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The last is a common methodology in consumer protection groups of all sorts. I don't see how it supports your assertions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Qualifications

Let's discuss the article. What about an intro in this section? I had pared it down, and unfortunately I did not provide any kind of context. For example, this was in the "Village Voice":

Barrett, a former psychiatrist in Allentown, Pennsylvania, doesn't sugarcoat his bitter pills. His site is a virtual hit list of therapies he finds too illogical to be tested for their validity. Chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy, vitamins and herbs, relaxation techniques, and preventive nutrition plans, as well as specific practitioners like Dr. Bernie Siegel, M.D. (author of Love, Medicine & Miracles and Peace, Love & Healing), Deepak Chopra (ayurvedic guru), and myriad others, are included in the quackery roundup.

Barrett, now a full-time journalist and book author and never a medical researcher, says he exposes underresearched, illogical therapies with little written about them. Yet he also says he examines reams of material to reach the conclusions published on his site, which are then often quoted as undisputed fact in the mainstream media.

Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. "It's easy to look at something like chiropractic, see what they're doing, and describe what they're doing wrong," Barrett says. He adds that he does not criticize conventional medicine because "that's way outside my scope."

So, we know that Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, who is now a full-time journalist and book author. The main criticism seems to be that without experience in medical research or any specific medically related area, he criticizes that which he considers "alternative medicine." Is that true? Isn't this the main issue? The court pointed this out, as well. That is not a value judgment. But this does seem to be the criticism, by courts and by those whom he calls quacks. One could also include in this section that he "examines reams of material to reach the conclusions published on his site" - eg he has advisors who are medical researchers (if this is true), etc., and relies on mulitple sources. Any suggestions? I repeat that I think his board exams are not relevant to the article, and a focus on that misses the point. In fact, an objective or unaffiliated reader would wonder 'huh?' as I did. Jance 00:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a Critic of Barrett who has beaten him in litigation

There is no reason to censor my link, other than censorship. Barrett's links are all over people's pages he has sued ... he sued me and lost and I want my link to remain here. It is vandalism and Barrett bias to remove it. Ilena 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is enforcing Wikipedia policy. If you'd stop warring and spouting accusations of vandalism and bias long enough to learn what the rules are and which you are violating, you might become a good contributor. As it is, you are being disruptive, argumentative, hostile, and generally a pain. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Does the link restore NPOV? Geo. 21:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)