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 18:00, 30 May 2007 editHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers137,835 edits restored POV tag - current disputes and most past disputes are pov-related← Previous edit Revision as of 18:02, 30 May 2007 edit undoRandom user 39849958 (talk | contribs)19,517 edits →Defamation lawsuits: this is the court ruling on this case... not a minority opinion. Weight isn't a factor.Next edit →
Line 75: Line 75:


* In 2005, an appeals court reversed the district court's decision, and the case against Negrete and Clark was ]ed for further proceedings. 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.<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}}</ref> * In 2005, an appeals court reversed the district court's decision, and the case against Negrete and Clark was ]ed for further proceedings. 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.<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}}</ref>

* In 2007, May 2, the court ordered the Plaintiffs Terry Polevoy MD, and Stephen Barrett MD, to pay $433,715.93 in bonds. <ref></ref><ref></ref>


'''] ''' '''] '''

Revision as of 18:02, 30 May 2007

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Stephen Barrett
Occupation(s)Psychiatrist, Author, Consumer Advocate, Webmaster
Spouse(s)Judith Nevyas Barrett, M.D.
ChildrenDaniel, Deborah, and Benjamin

Stephen J. Barrett, M.D. (born 1933), is a retired American psychiatrist and author best known as the founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) and the webmaster of Quackwatch. Barrett runs 22 websites dealing with what he considers to be "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 he claims. He has brought several lawsuits against his critics, claiming defamation, 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. 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. Barrett resides in Allentown, Pennsylvania. He has said that his appreciation of medical science probably began with a college course in medical statistics, from which he "learned what makes the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning". He went on to say "My anti-quackery activities have intensified my interest and concern in distinguishing science from pseudoscience, quackery and fraud."

In addition to webmastering his websites, Barrett is a 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 The Pennsylvania State University.

Barrett is the consulting editor for the Consumer Health Library at Prometheus Books and has been a peer-review panelist for several 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 work in consumer advocacy. 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 has been named among "Other outstanding skeptics who received multiple votes or at least one first-place vote" beyond the top 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 topics, for example: Acupuncture; Algae-based therapies; Alternative medicine; Amalgam removal within dentistry; Applied kinesiology; Ayurvedic medicine; Candidiasis (yeast allergies); Chinese herbal medicine; Chiropractic; Colloidal silver; Craniosacral therapy; Dietary supplements; Embryonic stem cell clinics and Umbilical cord banking; Ergogenic aids; Faith healing; Genetic diagnoses; Glucosamine; Growth hormones; Hair analysis; Herbal medicine; Homeopathy; Iridology; Juicing; Magnet therapy; Metabolic therapy; Nutritional therapy for emotional problems; Organic food; Osteopathy; Pneumatic trabeculoplasty; Reflexology; and Therapeutic touch.

Barrett, on his main website, 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, MD.

Criticism

Barrett has become a lightning rod for controversy as a result of his widely-publicized views on alternative health theories and practitioners. Barrett does not criticize conventional medicine because, according to himself, that would be "way outside scope". Barrett 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?

Qualifications and objectivity

  • 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." In the original Time article, Deepak Chopra called Barrett a "self-appointed vigilante for the suppression of curiosity".
  • Joel M. Kauffman, professor emeritus at University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, and author of Malignant Medical Myths has "turned his attention to exposing fraud in medicine". In a review published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration,Kauffman analyzed eight Quackwatch articles, including five written by Stephen Barrett, and found them to be "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo." Kauffman wrote in conclusion that it was "very probable that many...visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity."
  • Analyzing and reviewing a book, Vitamin Pushers, by Stephen Barrett and Victor Herbert, Michael Colgan PhD 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."

  • In 2001, Barrett testified before a California court as an expert witness in NCAHF v. King Bio. The court found that "Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications" in the area of "FDA treatment of homeopathic drugs" and indicated that his evidence in this area should be given little weight by law. The court further stated that Barrett and the co-witness, both members of the board of NCAHF, were "zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said" they "are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well."

Litigation controversy

Defamation lawsuits

Barrett's public denouncement of "alternative" health practitioners has resulted in an equally vehement backlash, specifically on the internet.

Barrett has filed libel suits against a few of those who have republished the "opinion pieces" of opponent Tim Bolen. Barrett considers claims made in them to be libelous, and has explained why he has filed the lawsuits:

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.

In one related case, Barrett v. Rosenthal, Carlos R. Moreno, one of the seven Justices of the California Supreme Court, opined in a concurring opinion, "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory" however other cases remain pending adjudication.

Barrett and the NCAHF have had mixed results in their defamation charges:

Barrett v. Clark

  • In November 2000, Barrett, Polevoy and Attorney Grell sued Hulda Regehr Clark, Tim Bolen, Jan Bolen, David P. Amrein, Ilena Rosenthal, and unknown defendants. 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. In addition, plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of damage, as required in a defamation lawsuit.
  • In 2003, the case against Negrete and Clark was dismissed under SLAPP.
  • In 2005, an appeals court reversed the district court's decision, and the case against Negrete and Clark was remanded for further proceedings. 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.
  • In 2007, May 2, the court ordered the Plaintiffs Terry Polevoy MD, and Stephen Barrett MD, to pay $433,715.93 in bonds.

Barrett v. Rosenthal

  • This is an appeal from "Barrett v. Clark." The California Supreme Court case heard Rosenthal's appeal on an interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In 2006, the Court ruled that Rosenthal, as a "user of an interactive communication service" was immune from liability for republication 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. In a concurring opinion, Carlos R. Moreno, one of the seven Justices, approved of the lower court decision that Barrett's claims of defamation were unfounded.

Barrett v. Mercola

  • In July, 2001, Barrett refiled a lawsuit in Illinois against Joseph Mercola. On April 17, 2003 the suit was dismissed by mutual agreement. (settlements are not generally public knowledge.)

Barrett v. Fonorow

  • In July 2001, Barrett filed a libel suit against Owen R. Fonorow, and Intelisoft Multimedia, Inc. That case was dismissed.

Barrett v. Sherrell

  • In November 2002, a federal court judge in Eugene, Oregon ruled that Barrett is a "public figure and the defamatory statements involve a matter of public concern, and that plaintiff has failed to prove actual malice (knowledge that the statement was false, or reckless disregard for the truth), and/or actual injury". The judge dismissed Barrett's $100,000 defamation lawsuit against anti-fluoridation advocate Darlene Sherrell.

Barrett v. Koren

  • Barrett filed a libel suit against Tedd Koren, D.C. alleging that Koren made libelous remarks about him in his newsletter. This case was dismissed by a Pennsylvania judge who found that Barrett had provided insufficient evidence to prove his claim.

Selected publications

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."

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

  1. Biography Magazine (October 1998), names of children
  2. Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs License Verification Page, Stephen Joel Barrett. Accessed 1 March 2007.
  3. Response to a survey by "Spiked-online"
  4. "Prometheus Books Spring-Summer 2007 Trade Catalog" (PDF). pp. p. 63. Retrieved 2007-03-29. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  5. The JAMA 1998 Editorial Peer Review Audit, Elaine S. Williams, JAMA. 1999;281:1443-1456.
  6. Annals of Internal Medicine, Thanks to Reviewers-2001, 18 December 2001 | Volume 135 Issue 12 | Pages 1098-1106
  7. Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch
  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: How Should It Be Defined?". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  16. Quackwatch home page. retrieved 11 April 2007
  17. Barrett SJ. "Nonrecommended Sources of Health Advice". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  18. Barrett SJ. "Questionable Organizations: An Overview". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  19. Barrett SJ. "The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  20. Relamn AS. "A Trip to Stonesville: Some Notes on Andrew Weil". New Republic. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  21. ^ Dr. Who? Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion. by Donna Ladd, Village Voice, June 23 - 29, 1999. Retrieved September 2, 2006
  22. Barrett SJ. "How do you respond to accusations that your writing is unbalanced?". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  23. Setting the Record Straight
  24. USP - Faculty
  25. Joel Kauffman, Malignant Medical Myths: Why Medical Treatment Causes 200,000 Deaths in the USA each Year and How to Protect Yourself. Infinity Publishing (January 30, 2006) ISBN 0-7414-2909-8
  26. Curriculum Vitae, Joel M. Kauffman.avaliable online
  27. "Mission Statement", Journal of Scientific Exploration available online
  28. Kauffman 2001. Joel M. Kauffman, "Alternative Medicine: Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch", Website Review, J. Scientific Exploration 16(2), 312-337 (2002). available online (PDF)
  29. Dr. Michael Colgan, The Vitamin Pushers, Townsend Letter for Doctors, October, 1992, p. 126.
  30. ^ Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. BC245271 (December 3, 2001)
  31. Barrett SJ. "A Response to Tim Bolen". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  32. Supreme Court of the State of California, Alameda County, Barrett v. Rosenthal: CONCURRING OPINION BY MORENO, J., Ct. App. 1/2 A096451. pp. 4-5. 20 Nov 2006. available online, pp. 38-39,
  33. Barrett SJ. "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". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  34. Order Granting Defendant's Special Motion to Strike, (Barrett v Clark), California Anti-SLAPP Project. available online
  35. Stephen J. Barrett v. Negrete et al. (PDF) Civil No 02-CV-2210-L(RBB)
  36. 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.
  37. Court document available online
  38. Court document available online
  39. Case refiled on July 30, 2001 at Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 01 L 009026.
  40. Case dismissed by mutual agreement on April 17, 2003. Judge: Casciato, Joseph N.
  41. Barrett v. Fonorow, 18th Cir., DuPage County, Illinois, No. 01 L 820.
  42. See Circuit Court of Du Page County, Barrett v. Fonorow, No. 2--02--0886.
  43. Barrett v. Sherrell (PDF) 99-813-HO, 2002.
  44. Civil Action 2002-c-1837, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County.
  45. Barrett SJ (August 23, 1985). Commercial hair analysis. Science or scam? JAMA Vol. 254 No. 8.
  46. Assessment of Commercial Laboratories Performing Hair Mineral Analysis, Seidel S, et al. , JAMA. 2001;285:67-72.
  47. Barrett SJ. "Books and book chapters". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.

External links

Categories: