| Revision as of 21:46, 12 February 2007 editCrum375 (talk | contribs)Administrators23,956 edits →Sources for contentious claims: yes - thanks← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:07, 12 February 2007 edit undoIlena (talk | contribs)1,128 edits "Barrett is biased and unworthy of credibility" says California CourtsNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| : As noted in my message to you on my talk page, I have improved the references and made the revisions. I hope that improves things. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> (<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b>) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | : As noted in my message to you on my talk page, I have improved the references and made the revisions. I hope that improves things. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> (<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b>) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::As I noted on your Talk page, I think this version is much better. Thanks, ] 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | ::As I noted on your Talk page, I think this version is much better. Thanks, ] 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Stephen Barrett ruled in Appeals Courts in California to be "biased and unworthy of credibility."== | |||
| NCAHF filed this suit and then hired Barrett and Wallace Sampson as "experts." It was a stunning defeat in NCAHF Vs KingBio. NCAHF (Barrett is one of the founders & is VP & Head of Internet Activities) hired Barrett as an "expert." Here is the direct quote: "The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or misleading statement.King Bio’s expert testified the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines.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." After this loss, Barrett and his publicists tried to portray themselves as victims ... claiming it wasn't them but the lawyer's fault for the suit. Very typical of them to blame others for their disasters. They also lost to BOTANICAL LABORATORIES, INC and got a judgement of over $100K against them. That's when they got NCAHF suspended from the State of California, which many feel was a ploy so they couldn't get sued nor have to pay the judgement. Gotta run. Thanks for asking. | |||
| <b><font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif"">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> | |||
Revision as of 22:07, 12 February 2007
Sources for contentious claims
Note that per WP:NOR and WP:V, as well the 'synthesis' restriction, we as WP cannot make any of our own conclusions by the juxtaposition of sourced facts. If we have a reliable and neutral source that says something controverial, we can quote it or summarize it, but we cannot construct a synthesis from generic bits of data and come up with our own conclusion. Crum375 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- As noted in my message to you on my talk page, I have improved the references and made the revisions. I hope that improves things. -- Fyslee's (First law) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I noted on your Talk page, I think this version is much better. Thanks, Crum375 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephen Barrett ruled in Appeals Courts in California to be "biased and unworthy of credibility."
NCAHF filed this suit and then hired Barrett and Wallace Sampson as "experts." It was a stunning defeat in NCAHF Vs KingBio. NCAHF (Barrett is one of the founders & is VP & Head of Internet Activities) hired Barrett as an "expert." Here is the direct quote: "The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or misleading statement.King Bio’s expert testified the products were safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines.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." After this loss, Barrett and his publicists tried to portray themselves as victims ... claiming it wasn't them but the lawyer's fault for the suit. Very typical of them to blame others for their disasters. They also lost to BOTANICAL LABORATORIES, INC and got a judgement of over $100K against them. That's when they got NCAHF suspended from the State of California, which many feel was a ploy so they couldn't get sued nor have to pay the judgement. Gotta run. Thanks for asking. Ilena discuss