Misplaced Pages

Stephen Barrett: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:26, 12 August 2007 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits rewrite + clean up per talk (there is a lot more than just footnotes← Previous edit Revision as of 04:39, 12 August 2007 edit undoCool Hand Luke (talk | contribs)14,522 edits Continuing work on litigation section. Split IL cases into two footnotes. Moved citations for resolutions of these cases to more appropriate notes.Next edit →
Line 12: Line 12:
}} }}


'''Stephen J. Barrett''', M.D. (born ]), is a retired ] ], ], co-founder of the ] (NCAHF), and the webmaster of ]. He runs a number of websites dealing with what he calls ] and health ]. He says that he bases his writings on ], ], and ]. Barrett's critics have accused him of bias, lack of objectivity, and lacking the expert qualifications they say he claims. Barrett has brought several defamation lawsuits against a number of them, with mixed outcomes. '''Stephen J. Barrett''', M.D. (born ]), is a retired ] ], ], co-founder of the ] (NCAHF), and the webmaster of ]. He runs a number of websites dealing with what he calls ] and health ]. He says that he bases his writings on ], ], and ]. Barrett's critics have accused him of bias, lack of objectivity, and lacking the expert qualifications they say he claims. Barrett has brought several defamation lawsuits against a number of them, with mixed outcomes.


== Biography == == Biography ==
Line 47: Line 47:


Barrett has received a number of awards and recognition for his ] work against quackery.<ref name="nettie"/> ] received the award of ''Best Physician- Authored Site'' by MD NetGuide, May ].<ref name="nettie"> ''MDNetGuide'', May/June 2003.</ref> Barrett has received a number of awards and recognition for his ] work against quackery.<ref name="nettie"/> ] received the award of ''Best Physician- Authored Site'' by MD NetGuide, May ].<ref name="nettie"> ''MDNetGuide'', May/June 2003.</ref>
In ], he received an ] Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery.<ref name="Medical_Reporter">Joel R. Cooper. Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D., ''The Medical Reporter''</ref> The magazine '']'' named Barrett in a survey of 134<ref name="Spiked_Interviewees"> In ], he received an ] Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery.<ref name="Medical_Reporter">Joel R. Cooper. Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D., ''The Medical Reporter''</ref> He received multiple votes or at least one first-place vote in "10 outstanding skeptics of the 20th century by '']'' magazine.<ref name="csicop"></ref>
{{cite news
|first=
|last=
|title=What Inspired You? — Index of Survey responses
|url=http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/inspired/atoz/
|publisher=]
|date=
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|quote=}}</ref> "key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."<ref name="Spiked_Introduction">
{{cite news
|first=
|last=
|title=What Inspired You? — Introduction
|url=http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/inspired/
|publisher=]
|date=
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|quote=}}</ref><ref name="Spiked_Online">
{{cite news
|first=Stephen
|last=Barrett
|title=What Inspired You? — Survey responses — Dr Stephen Barrett
|url=http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/inspired/article/1336
|publisher=]
|date=
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|quote=}}</ref> He received multiple votes or at least one first-place vote in "10 outstanding skeptics of the 20th century by '']'' magazine.<ref name="csicop"></ref>
In ], he was awarded honorary membership in the ].<ref name="Medical_Reporter"/> Barrett has been profiled in ''Biography Magazine'' (])<ref name="rosen">{{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/10Bio/biography.html|author=Rosen, Marjorie (October 1998)|title=Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D.|accessdate=2007-02-12|publisher=Biography Magazine}}</ref> and in ''] (])''.<ref name="jaroff">Jaroff, Leon (April 30, 2001). '']'' retrieved Dec. 25, 2006.</ref> In ], he was awarded honorary membership in the ].<ref name="Medical_Reporter"/> Barrett has been profiled in ''Biography Magazine'' (])<ref name="rosen">{{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/10Bio/biography.html|author=Rosen, Marjorie (October 1998)|title=Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D.|accessdate=2007-02-12|publisher=Biography Magazine}}</ref> and in ''] (])''.<ref name="jaroff">Jaroff, Leon (April 30, 2001). '']'' retrieved Dec. 25, 2006.</ref>

In the '']'' survey, Barrett was asked: "What inspired you to take up science?" Barrett replied that his appreciation of medical science:

:"probably began when I took a college course in medical statistics, and learned what makes the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning. Medical school brought me in touch with the rapid and amazing strides being made in the understanding and treatment of disease.<!--- Last two thirds of sentence was bold because that's the way it was in the original. --> My anti-quackery activities have intensified my interest and concern in distinguishing science from pseudoscience, quackery and fraud."<ref name="Spiked_Online"/>


== Online activism == == Online activism ==
Line 101: Line 70:
* ]<ref name="amalgam">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref> within ] * ]<ref name="amalgam">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref> within ]
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="altmed">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref>Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="chiro_subluxation">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="colonic">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
{{ColBreak}} {{ColBreak}}
* ]s<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]s<ref name="supplements">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref>
* ] clinics<ref name="embryonic">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref> and ] banking<ref name="embryonic"/> * ] clinics<ref name="embryonic">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref> and ] banking<ref name="embryonic"/>
* ]s<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]s<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
Line 118: Line 87:
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="herbal">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="homeopathy">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref> * ]<ref name="homeopathy">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
Line 126: Line 95:
* Metabolic therapy<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * Metabolic therapy<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="naturopathy">Barrett, S. "" Retrieved 17 July 2007</ref>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
* ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/> * ]<ref name="qw-homepage"/>
Line 143: Line 112:


* According to '']'' journalist ], Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that although most alternative therapies are under-researched, they should be disregarded because they are illogical. Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, describes this as "putting down trying to be objective."<ref name="Ladd"/> * According to '']'' journalist ], Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that although most alternative therapies are under-researched, they should be disregarded because they are illogical. Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, describes this as "putting down trying to be objective."<ref name="Ladd"/>

* James A. Mertz, then-President of the ], wrote in a letter to Time in 2001: "The American public is being grossly misled by Dr. Stephen Barrett. While he positions himself as a protector of the public, his statements are, in reality, so one-sided that he simply cannot be taken seriously."<ref> </ref>
* Analyzing and reviewing a book, ''Vitamin Pushers'', by Stephen Barrett and Victor Herbert, ] states, ''"Most of their book does not discuss supplements at all. It is filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industries."''<ref name="colgan">Dr. Michael Colgan, ''The Vitamin Pushers,'' Townsend Letter for Doctors, October, 1992, p. 126.</ref>


Barrett's involvement in the legal system has also spawned controversy about his objectivity and qualifications to pass judgment on those he deems "quacks." He or NCAHF has initiated a number of lawsuits against those engaged in what he considers unscientific medical practices. He has also offered testimony on psychiatry, FDA regulatory issues, and homeopathy and other areas of alternative medicine. Barrett's involvement in the legal system has also spawned controversy about his objectivity and qualifications to pass judgment on those he deems "quacks." He or NCAHF has initiated a number of lawsuits against those engaged in what he considers unscientific medical practices. He has also offered testimony on psychiatry, FDA regulatory issues, and homeopathy and other areas of alternative medicine.
Line 148: Line 121:
== Defamation lawsuits == == Defamation lawsuits ==


Stephen Barrett was criticized in a series of newsletters and emails by Patrick "Tim" Bolen. Bolen falsely claimed that Barrett had been "de-licensed," among other things. Barrett has filed ] suits against several website operators and USENET posters who reposted Bolen's letters online. Barrett explained his lawsuits this way: Stephen Barrett was criticized in a series of newsletters and emails by Patrick "Tim" Bolenl. Bolen falsely claimed that Barrett had been "de-licensed," among other things. Barrett has filed ] suits against several website operators and USENET posters who reposted Bolen's letters online. Barrett explained his lawsuits this way:


:"None of us are thin-skinned or care when people attack our ideas. But unjustified attacks on our character or professional competence are another matter. As Bolen's campaign unfolded, my colleagues and I have notified him and many of the people spreading his messages that libel is a serious matter and that they had better stop. Some did, but it soon became clear that others would not. To defend ourselves, several of us have filed suit for libel."<ref name="bolen_response">{{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html|author=Barrett SJ|title=A Response to Tim Bolen|accessdate=2007-02-12|publisher=Quackwatch}}</ref> :"None of us are thin-skinned or care when people attack our ideas. But unjustified attacks on our character or professional competence are another matter. As Bolen's campaign unfolded, my colleagues and I have notified him and many of the people spreading his messages that libel is a serious matter and that they had better stop. Some did, but it soon became clear that others would not. To defend ourselves, several of us have filed suit for libel."<ref name="bolen_response">{{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html|author=Barrett SJ|title=A Response to Tim Bolen|accessdate=2007-02-12|publisher=Quackwatch}}</ref>


Barrett filed lawsuits in several forums, including Illinois,<ref>
Barrett filed lawsuits in several forums, including Illinois, California, and Pennsylvania. Most of these were dismissed under anti-] statutes, or for failing to establish the evidentiary burden for libel, or because of an interpretation of ] ("CDA") that gives users immunity from lawsuits when reposting libelous material online. '']'', a lawsuit that Barrett initiated with another doctor in California, was appealed to that state's supreme court. The California Supreme Court adopted the predominant interpretation of Section 230 of the CDA, which grants immunity to defendants for reposting libelous material online. At least one of Barrett's lawsuits is still pending in federal court.<ref name="barretvbolen">{{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolensuit.html |author=Barrett SJ|title=Stephen J. Barrett, M.D., Terry Polevoy, M.D., Christopher E. Grell, v. Hulda Clark, Tim Bolen, Jan Bolen, JuriMed, Dr. Clark Research Association, David P. Amrein, Ilena Rosenthal, and Does 1 to 100. Case No. SJBMVHC165479.|accessdate=2007-02-12|publisher=Quackwatch}}</ref><ref name="fonorow2">Monica Dias, ''Court ruling gives free-speech protections to reposting messages on Internet boards'', The News Media & The Law, Fall 2001 (Vol. 25, No. 4), Page 21. </ref><!--weak source, but it belongs here more than Fonorow --><ref name="casp>''Order Granting Defendant's Special Motion to Strike, (Barrett v Clark),'' California Anti-SLAPP Project. </ref><ref name="clark1">Perkins Coie, ''Barrett v. Clark'', Internet Case Digest, July 25, 2001. </ref><ref>''Barrett v. Rosenthal'', 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 (Cal. App. 2004)</ref><ref>For commentary and criticism, see Michael L. Rustad, Thomas H. Koenig ''Rebooting Cybertort Law'', 80 Wash. L. Rev. 335 (2005), online on </ref><ref name="rosenthal1">Howard Mintz, ''Justices hand victory to free speech online'', ], November 21, 2006. </ref><ref name="rosenthal2">Eric J. Sinrod, ''Perspective: How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet'', ] News.com, December 20, 2006. </ref><ref name="barrettVnegreteRemand">{{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/negreteappeal.html|author=Barrett SJ|title=''Appeals Court Upholds Malicious Prosecution Suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete'', (Mem,. No. 04-55193 D.C. No. CV -02-0221 O-JML; No. 03-56663 D.C. No. CY -02-0221 O-JML March 14, 2005|accessdate=2007-02-12|publisher=Quackwatch}}. ''Barret v. Negrete'', 126 Fed.Appx. 816 (9th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).</ref><ref></ref><ref name="fonorow2" /><ref name="May redefine libel law">{{cite news| title=Suits may redefine Internet libel law | author=Ted Gregory| publisher=''Chicago Tribune'' | date=]| page=L1}}</ref><ref></ref><ref name="fonorow1">''Barrett v. Fonorow'', 18th Cir., DuPage County, Illinois, No. 01 L 820.</ref><ref name="May redefine libel law"/><ref name="fonorowappeal">See Circuit Court of Du Page County, '''', No. 2--02--0886.</ref><ref>{{cite news| title= Internet libel suit is tossed out; Decency Act protection cited by DuPage judge| author=Ted Gregory| publisher=''Chicago Tribune'' | date=]| page=D13}}</ref><ref name="fonorow3">Gregory C. Mosier and Tara I. Fitzgerald, ''Cyber Torts: Common Law and Statutory Restraints in the United States'', Journal of Internatiional Commercial Law and Technology, Vol.2,Issue 1(2007).
''Barrett v. Mercola'', against ], After Barrett complained about Bolen's articles, Mercola posted a rebuttal by Bolen where Bolen called Barrett an "extortionist." In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts," thus leaving the door open for a continuance of the libel suit. Mercola then retracted the statements and on April 17, 2003 the suit was dismissed by mutual agreement.</ref><ref>''Barrett v. Fonorow'' was filed July 2001 against Owen R. Fonorow, and Intelisoft Multimedia, Inc. See ''Barrett v. Fonorow'', 18th Cir., DuPage County, Illinois, No. 01 L 820. Barrett alleged that Fonorow reposted ten articles by Tim Bolen mischaracterizing him with several disparaging claims. {{cite news| title=Suits may redefine Internet libel law | author=Ted Gregory| publisher=''Chicago Tribune'' | date=]| page=L1}}
</ref><!--source covers the case in passing in two paragraphs --><ref>''See'' ''Barrett v. Fonorow'', 799 N.E.2d 916, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1184 (Ill. App. 2003).</ref><ref>{{cite news| title=Court gives go-ahead to defamation on the Web| author=Peter M. Katsaros; Fredrick S. Rhine | publisher=''Chicago Daily Law Bulletin'' | date=]}}</ref><ref name="koren1">Stephen Barrett, ''My Libel Suit against Tedd Koren, D.C.'', last revised on October 13, 2005. </ref><ref name="koren2">Civil Action 2002-c-1837, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County.</ref><ref name="koren3"> Judgments entered and Opinions filed, SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, </ref><!-- no RS coverage--seems to just be "Chiropractors Claim Court Victory Against Infamous 'Quackbuster'" press release picked up by some publications with little apparent fact-checking. -->
</ref>
California,<ref>
''Barrett v. Clark'' was filed November 2000. Barrett and Polevoy sued ], Tim Bolen, Jan Bolen, David P. Amrein, Ilena Rosenthal, and unknown defendants for libel, libel per se, and conspiracy. {{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolensuit.html |title=Barrett's case filing |accessdate=2007-02-12|publisher=Quackwatch}}
</ref>
and Pennsylvania.<ref>
''Barrett v. Koren'', filed against Tedd Koren, D.C. alleging that Koren made libelous remarks about him in his newsletter. Stephen Barrett, "," last revised on October 13, 2005.
</ref>
Many of these were dismissed under anti-] statutes,<ref>
The trial court rulings in ''Barrett v. Negrete'' and ''Barrett v. Clark'', where on July 25, 2001 the court granted Rosenthal's ] under California's anti-] provision, and ruled that the statements made by Rosenthal were opinion, and not statements of fact. Monica Dias, "", The News Media & The Law, Fall 2001 (Vol. 25, No. 4), Page 21. In addition, plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of damage, as required in a ] lawsuit. "," California Anti-SLAPP Project. Perkins Coie, "," Internet Case Digest, July 25, 2001.
</ref> or for failing to establish the evidentiary burden for libel,<ref>
See ''Barrett v. Koren'', which was dismissed by a Pennsylvania judge who found that Barrett had provided insufficient evidence to prove his claim. Civil Action 2002-c-1837, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. The dismissal was affirmed June 2007 upon appeal. Judgments entered and Opinions filed, SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, . See also the trial court in ''Barrett v. Clark'', ''supra''. But see the Illinois court in ''Barrett v. Mercola'' reached the opposite conclusion, and the parties settled. .
</ref> or because of an interpretation of ] ("CDA") that gives users immunity from lawsuits when reposting libelous material online.<ref>
''Barrett v. Fonorow'', which was dismissed in 2003. , No. 2--02--0886. {{cite news| title= Internet libel suit is tossed out; Decency Act protection cited by DuPage judge| author=Ted Gregory| publisher=''Chicago Tribune'' | date=]| page=D13}} The Illinois 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal in 2003 and ruled that the CDA provides immunity for content posted online. ''See'' ''Barrett v. Fonorow'', 799 N.E.2d 916, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1184 (Ill. App. 2003). This was the predominant&mdash;though criticized&mdash;interpretation of the CDA; the 2004 appellate decision in ''Barrett v. Rosenthal'' was one of the few authorities suggesting that the CDA did ''not'' automatically extend immunity to individuals reposting material online. {{cite news| title=Court gives go-ahead to defamation on the Web| author=Peter M. Katsaros; Fredrick S. Rhine | publisher=''Chicago Daily Law Bulletin'' | date=]}} See also the California Supreme Court's eventual ruling in ''Barrett v. Rosenthal''.
</ref> '']'', a lawsuit that Barrett initiated with another doctor in California, was appealed to that state's supreme court.<ref>
The Supreme Court reviewed an appellate decision appealed from ''Barrett v. Clark'': On January 21, 2004, a California court of appeals vacated the trial court's order in ''Barrett v. Clark''. as it applied to Dr. Polevoy. ''Barrett v. Rosenthal'', 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 (Cal. App. 2004) The court found that Rosenthal's defamatory claims that Dr. Polevoy was a stalker constituted libel per se so did not require findings of damages and was not covered by California's anti-SLAPP statute. The court also refused to extend Rosenthal immunity from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"). The court distinguished Rosenthal from the internet service provider at issue in an influential CDA case, '']'', concluding that Rosenthal lacked immunity. For commentary and criticism, see Michael L. Rustad, Thomas H. Koenig '''', 80 Wash. L. Rev. 335 (2005).
</ref>
The California Supreme Court adopted the predominant interpretation of Section 230 of the CDA, which grants immunity to defendants for reposting libelous material online.<ref>
In 2006, the Court ruled that Rosenthal, as a "user of an interactive communication service" was immune from liability for republication under Section 230. Howard Mintz, '''', ], November 21, 2006. The issue of defamation against Barrett was not before the court, as lower courts had ruled that Rosenthal had not defamed Barrett. Eric J. Sinrod, '''', ] News.com, December 20, 2006.
</ref>
At least one of Barrett's lawsuits is still pending in federal court.<ref name="barrettVnegreteRemand">
'''''Barrett v. Negrete''''', a suit against Negrete and Clark which the Ninth Circuit ]ed, reversing the district court's dismissal. The court ruled that the case should proceed because the defendants attempted to widely publicize "scurrilous" allegations on the Internet, without offering any proof that the allegations were true. {{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/negreteappeal.html|author=Barrett SJ|title=''Appeals Court Upholds Malicious Prosecution Suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete'', (Mem,. No. 04-55193 D.C. No. CV -02-0221 O-JML; No. 03-56663 D.C. No. CY -02-0221 O-JML March 14, 2005|accessdate=2007-02-12|publisher=Quackwatch}}. ''Barret v. Negrete'', 126 Fed.Appx. 816 (9th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). The district court had stayed the case pending ''Barrett v. Rosenthal''.</ref>


== Selected publications == == Selected publications ==
{{Expand-section|date=July 2007}}

* In 1985, Barrett was the author of an article in the ] that exposed commercial laboratories performing multimineral ]. He concluded that ''"commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal."''<ref name="hairanalysis">Barrett SJ (August 23, 1985). '']'' Vol. 254 No. 8.</ref> His report has been cited in later articles, including one which concluded that such testing was "unreliable."<ref>, Seidel S, et al. , '']''. 2001;285:67-72.</ref> * In 1985, Barrett was the author of an article in the ] that exposed commercial laboratories performing multimineral ]. He concluded that ''"commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal."''<ref name="hairanalysis">Barrett SJ (August 23, 1985). '']'' Vol. 254 No. 8.</ref> His report has been cited in later articles, including one which concluded that such testing was "unreliable."<ref>, Seidel S, et al. , '']''. 2001;285:67-72.</ref>


Line 189: Line 183:


== References == == References ==
{{citation style}}
{{reflist|2}} {{reflist|2}}


Revision as of 04:39, 12 August 2007

Stephen J. Barrett, MD
Born1933
New York City
Occupation(s)Psychiatrist, Author, Consumer Advocate, Webmaster

Stephen J. Barrett, M.D. (born 1933), is a retired American psychiatrist, author, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch. He runs a number of websites dealing with what he calls quackery and health fraud. He says that he bases his writings on consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism. Barrett's critics have accused him of bias, lack of objectivity, and lacking the expert qualifications they say he claims. Barrett has brought several defamation lawsuits against a number of them, with mixed outcomes.

Biography

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961. In 1967 and 1968 he followed part of a correspondence course in American Law and Procedure at La Salle Extension University (Chicago). He was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993, and his medical license is currently listed as "Active-Retired" in good standing. Longtime resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Barrett now resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

In addition to webmastering his websites, Barrett is a co-founder, vice-president and a board member of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). He is an advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI). From 1987 through 1989, he taught health education at Pennsylvania State University.

Barrett is the consulting editor for the Consumer Health Library at Prometheus Books and has been a peer-review panelist for at least two medical journals. According to his website, he "has written more than 2,000 articles and delivered more than 300 talks at colleges, universities, medical schools, and professional meetings. His media appearances include Dateline, the Today Show, Good Morning America, Primetime, Donahue, CNN, National Public Radio, and more than 200 other radio and television talk show interviews."

Barrett has received a number of awards and recognition for his consumer protection work against quackery. Quackwatch received the award of Best Physician- Authored Site by MD NetGuide, May 2003. In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery. He received multiple votes or at least one first-place vote in "10 outstanding skeptics of the 20th century by Skeptical Inquirer magazine. In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. Barrett has been profiled in Biography Magazine (1998) and in Time Magazine (2001).

Online activism

The Quackwatch website is Barrett's main platform for describing that which he considers to be quackery and health fraud. The website is part of Quackwatch, Inc., a nonprofit corporation that aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." Barrett's writing is supplemented with contributions from 150+ scientific, technical, and lay volunteers. Barrett defines quackery as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health," and reserves the word fraud "only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved."

Barrett has criticized numerous forms of alternative medicine and other practices he considers questionable, for example: Template:MultiCol

| class="col-break " |

| class="col-break " |

Template:EndMultiCol On his main website he also maintains public lists of sources, individuals, and groups which he considers questionable and non-recommendable. The list includes two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling (for his claims about mega-doses of Vitamin C), the National Institute of Health (NIH) Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, as well as integrative medicine proponent Andrew Weil.

Criticism

Barrett has become a "lightning rod" for controversy as a result of his publicized views on alternative health theories and practitioners. Barrett says he does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be "way outside scope." He states he does not give equal time to some subjects, and has written on his web site, "Quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services?"

Barrett's objectivity and qualifications to critique alternative medicine have been challenged by several different people.

  • According to Village Voice journalist Donna Ladd, Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that although most alternative therapies are under-researched, they should be disregarded because they are illogical. Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, describes this as "putting down trying to be objective."
  • James A. Mertz, then-President of the American Chiropractic Association, wrote in a letter to Time in 2001: "The American public is being grossly misled by Dr. Stephen Barrett. While he positions himself as a protector of the public, his statements are, in reality, so one-sided that he simply cannot be taken seriously."
  • Analyzing and reviewing a book, Vitamin Pushers, by Stephen Barrett and Victor Herbert, Michael Colgan states, "Most of their book does not discuss supplements at all. It is filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industries."

Barrett's involvement in the legal system has also spawned controversy about his objectivity and qualifications to pass judgment on those he deems "quacks." He or NCAHF has initiated a number of lawsuits against those engaged in what he considers unscientific medical practices. He has also offered testimony on psychiatry, FDA regulatory issues, and homeopathy and other areas of alternative medicine.

Defamation lawsuits

Stephen Barrett was criticized in a series of newsletters and emails by Patrick "Tim" Bolenl. Bolen falsely claimed that Barrett had been "de-licensed," among other things. Barrett has filed libel suits against several website operators and USENET posters who reposted Bolen's letters online. Barrett explained his lawsuits this way:

"None of us are thin-skinned or care when people attack our ideas. But unjustified attacks on our character or professional competence are another matter. As Bolen's campaign unfolded, my colleagues and I have notified him and many of the people spreading his messages that libel is a serious matter and that they had better stop. Some did, but it soon became clear that others would not. To defend ourselves, several of us have filed suit for libel."

Barrett filed lawsuits in several forums, including Illinois, California, and Pennsylvania. Many of these were dismissed under anti-SLAPP statutes, or for failing to establish the evidentiary burden for libel, or because of an interpretation of Communications Decency Act ("CDA") that gives users immunity from lawsuits when reposting libelous material online. Barrett v. Rosenthal, a lawsuit that Barrett initiated with another doctor in California, was appealed to that state's supreme court. The California Supreme Court adopted the predominant interpretation of Section 230 of the CDA, which grants immunity to defendants for reposting libelous material online. At least one of Barrett's lawsuits is still pending in federal court.

Selected publications

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (July 2007)
  • In 1985, Barrett was the author of an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that exposed commercial laboratories performing multimineral hair analysis. He concluded that "commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal." His report has been cited in later articles, including one which concluded that such testing was "unreliable."

A partial list of his (co)authored and (co)edited books include:

  • Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions - Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT, Kroger M, London WM (2006). (textbook, 8th ed.) McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-248521-3
  • Dubious Cancer Treatment - Barrett SJ & Cassileth BR, editors (2001). Florida Division of the American Cancer Society
  • The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America - Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT, eds. (1993). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-855-4
  • Health Schemes, Scams, and Frauds - Barrett SJ (1991). Consumer Reports Books, ISBN 0-89043-330-5
  • Reader's Guide to Alternative Health Methods - by Zwicky JF, Hafner AW, Barrett S, Jarvis WT (1993). American Medical Association, ISBN 0-89970-525-1
  • The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry Is Selling America a Bill of Goods - Barrett SJ, Herbert V (1991). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-909-7

See also

References

This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation and footnoting. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
  1. Barrett, Stephen (June 24, 2007). "Curriculum Vitae". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-07-18.
  2. Barrett, Stephen. "License Verification". Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. Retrieved 2007-07-18.
  3. Wlazelek, Ann (June 13, 2007). "Allentown critic of quacks moves to 'milder winters'". The Morning Call. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
  4. "Prometheus Books Spring-Summer 2007 Trade Catalog" (PDF). pp. p. 63. Retrieved 2007-03-29. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  5. ^ Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch
  6. The JAMA 1998 Editorial Peer Review Audit, Elaine S. Williams, JAMA. 1999;281:1443-1456.
  7. Annals of Internal Medicine, Thanks to Reviewers-2001, 18 December 2001 | Volume 135 Issue 12 | Pages 1098-1106
  8. ^ Pass the Envelope, Please...: Best Physician- Authored Site MDNetGuide, May/June 2003.
  9. ^ Joel R. Cooper. Consumer Health Fraud...don't be a victim! Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D., The Medical Reporter
  10. Skeptical Inquirer Magazine Names the Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century.
  11. ^ Rosen, Marjorie (October 1998). "Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D." Biography Magazine. Retrieved 2007-02-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Cite error: The named reference "rosen" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  12. ^ Jaroff, Leon (April 30, 2001). The Man Who Loves To Bust Quacks. Time Magazine retrieved Dec. 25, 2006.
  13. Barrett, Stephen, MD. "150+ Scientific and Technical Advisors". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. Barrett, Stephen, MD. "Quackery: How Should It Be Defined?". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT. "Quackery, Fraud and "Alternative" Methods: Important Definitions". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  16. ^ Barrett, Stephen. "Quackwatch — listing criticisms of several practices". Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions. Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-07-17.
  17. Barrett, S. "Algae: False Claims and Hype" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  18. Barrett, S. "The "Mercury Toxicity" Scam: How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle People" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  19. ^ Barrett, S. "The Shady Side of Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  20. Barrett, S. "Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  21. Barrett SJ. "Nonrecommended Sources of Health Advice". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  22. Barrett SJ. "Questionable Organizations: An Overview". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  23. Barrett SJ. "The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  24. Relamn AS. "A Trip to Stonesville: Some Notes on Andrew Weil". New Republic. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  25. ^ Dr. Who? Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion. by Donna Ladd, Village Voice, June 23 - 29, 1999. Retrieved September 2, 2006
  26. Barrett SJ. "How do you respond to accusations that your writing is unbalanced?". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  27. Setting the Record Straight
  28. Dr. Michael Colgan, The Vitamin Pushers, Townsend Letter for Doctors, October, 1992, p. 126.
  29. Barrett SJ. "A Response to Tim Bolen". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  30. Barrett v. Mercola, against Joseph Mercola, case refiled on July 30, 2001 at Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 01 L 009026. After Barrett complained about Bolen's articles, Mercola posted a rebuttal by Bolen where Bolen called Barrett an "extortionist." In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts," thus leaving the door open for a continuance of the libel suit. Mercola then retracted the statements and on April 17, 2003 the suit was dismissed by mutual agreement.
  31. Barrett v. Fonorow was filed July 2001 against Owen R. Fonorow, and Intelisoft Multimedia, Inc. See Barrett v. Fonorow, 18th Cir., DuPage County, Illinois, No. 01 L 820. Barrett alleged that Fonorow reposted ten articles by Tim Bolen mischaracterizing him with several disparaging claims. Ted Gregory (2001-09-18). "Suits may redefine Internet libel law". Chicago Tribune. p. L1. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  32. Barrett v. Clark was filed November 2000. Barrett and Polevoy sued Hulda Regehr Clark, Tim Bolen, Jan Bolen, David P. Amrein, Ilena Rosenthal, and unknown defendants for libel, libel per se, and conspiracy. "Barrett's case filing". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  33. Barrett v. Koren, filed against Tedd Koren, D.C. alleging that Koren made libelous remarks about him in his newsletter. Stephen Barrett, "My Libel Suit against Tedd Koren, D.C.," last revised on October 13, 2005.
  34. The trial court rulings in Barrett v. Negrete and Barrett v. Clark, where on July 25, 2001 the court granted Rosenthal's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP provision, and ruled that the statements made by Rosenthal were opinion, and not statements of fact. Monica Dias, "Court ruling gives free-speech protections to reposting messages on Internet boards", The News Media & The Law, Fall 2001 (Vol. 25, No. 4), Page 21. In addition, plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of damage, as required in a defamation lawsuit. "Order Granting Defendant's Special Motion to Strike, (Barrett v Clark)," California Anti-SLAPP Project. Perkins Coie, "Barrett v. Clark," Internet Case Digest, July 25, 2001.
  35. See Barrett v. Koren, which was dismissed by a Pennsylvania judge who found that Barrett had provided insufficient evidence to prove his claim. Civil Action 2002-c-1837, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. The dismissal was affirmed June 2007 upon appeal. Judgments entered and Opinions filed, SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, June 11, 2007. See also the trial court in Barrett v. Clark, supra. But see the Illinois court in Barrett v. Mercola reached the opposite conclusion, and the parties settled. Case dismissed by mutual agreement on April 17, 2003. Judge: Casciato, Joseph N..
  36. Barrett v. Fonorow, which was dismissed in 2003. Barrett v. Fonorow, No. 2--02--0886. Ted Gregory (2002-03-09). "Internet libel suit is tossed out; Decency Act protection cited by DuPage judge". Chicago Tribune. p. D13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) The Illinois 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal in 2003 and ruled that the CDA provides immunity for content posted online. See Barrett v. Fonorow, 799 N.E.2d 916, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1184 (Ill. App. 2003). This was the predominant—though criticized—interpretation of the CDA; the 2004 appellate decision in Barrett v. Rosenthal was one of the few authorities suggesting that the CDA did not automatically extend immunity to individuals reposting material online. Peter M. Katsaros; Fredrick S. Rhine (2004-01-27). "Court gives go-ahead to defamation on the Web". Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) See also the California Supreme Court's eventual ruling in Barrett v. Rosenthal.
  37. The Supreme Court reviewed an appellate decision appealed from Barrett v. Clark: On January 21, 2004, a California court of appeals vacated the trial court's order in Barrett v. Clark. as it applied to Dr. Polevoy. Barrett v. Rosenthal, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 (Cal. App. 2004) The court found that Rosenthal's defamatory claims that Dr. Polevoy was a stalker constituted libel per se so did not require findings of damages and was not covered by California's anti-SLAPP statute. The court also refused to extend Rosenthal immunity from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"). The court distinguished Rosenthal from the internet service provider at issue in an influential CDA case, Zeran v. America Online, Inc., concluding that Rosenthal lacked immunity. For commentary and criticism, see Michael L. Rustad, Thomas H. Koenig Rebooting Cybertort Law, 80 Wash. L. Rev. 335 (2005).
  38. In 2006, the Court ruled that Rosenthal, as a "user of an interactive communication service" was immune from liability for republication under Section 230. Howard Mintz, Justices hand victory to free speech online, San Jose Mercury News, November 21, 2006. The issue of defamation against Barrett was not before the court, as lower courts had ruled that Rosenthal had not defamed Barrett. Eric J. Sinrod, Perspective: How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet, CNET News.com, December 20, 2006.
  39. Barrett v. Negrete, a suit against Negrete and Clark which the Ninth Circuit remanded, reversing the district court's dismissal. The court ruled that the case should proceed because the defendants attempted to widely publicize "scurrilous" allegations on the Internet, without offering any proof that the allegations were true. Barrett SJ. "Appeals Court Upholds Malicious Prosecution Suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete, (Mem,. No. 04-55193 D.C. No. CV -02-0221 O-JML; No. 03-56663 D.C. No. CY -02-0221 O-JML March 14, 2005". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.. Barret v. Negrete, 126 Fed.Appx. 816 (9th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). The district court had stayed the case pending Barrett v. Rosenthal.
  40. Barrett SJ (August 23, 1985). Commercial hair analysis. Science or scam? JAMA Vol. 254 No. 8.
  41. Assessment of Commercial Laboratories Performing Hair Mineral Analysis, Seidel S, et al. , JAMA. 2001;285:67-72.
  42. Barrett SJ. "Books and book chapters". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.

External links

Categories: