Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:27, 3 January 2007

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is currently undergoing a peer review.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Sbinfo (talk · contribs) / Barrett, Stephen Barrett, Stephen

Archives
October 2005 – July 15, 2006 July 20, 2006 – July 27, 2006 July 27, 2006 – Sept. 18, 2006 Sept. 18, 2006 – Oct. 28, 2006 Nov. – Dec. 2006

Pseudoskepticism

I think Pseudoskepticism is a valid link for several reasons: (1) This is an element of the criticism leveled at QWrs & Barrett by *many* critics including commercially uninvolved, substantial scientists (e.g. Kauffman, Pauling); (2) Barrett is reasonably a subject to be contrasted with the description of pseudoskepticism given the published analyses directly contradicting him (& QW), (3) the subject background may also reflect on QW/his critics.--I'clast 04:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Would be one of the only BLPs to link to it. Shot info 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be the sole BLP linking to it, other than Marcello Truzzi. --Ronz 05:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe it would be good, and not bad, to link to it. I see nothing wrong with it. One can agree or disagree with its premise. It might be of interest to readers, though. Jance 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have a reliable published source that calls Barrett a "pseudoskeptic," we can discuss its inclusion. Otherwise, it's original research. Jokestress 10:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I needs to be sourced well enough to withstand WP:BLP. --Ronz 16:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I will note that he does indeed claim to 'be' a sceptic, or at least base his writings in it: "He says that he bases his writings in consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism. " Also, the article makes it plain that he is an outspoken critic of what he calls "junk science", and those he complains about criticize him. Why this is not enough to use an external link (not text in the article) is mystifying.Jance 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

While any 'comments in the article about pseudoskepticism certainly need sourcing, that source may include descriptions of something or actions rather than just verbatim vocabulary or phrasing, and can pertain to his writings, in degree thereof, rather than just labelling him. "See also" is about relatedness and interest to the average reader, not WP:V in the text. Don't sweat it too much, there are credentialed skeptics that question Barrett's skeptical essays & objectivity, Barrett obviously sponsors/supports openly acknowledged skeptical groups - which may disagree with other skeptics, and some sources clearly speak of pseudoskepticism. I found the Characteristics of Pseudoskeptics section is actually a good quick scorecard for checking any series of skeptical articles/authors (could expand PS article's WP presence), where QW etc are quite notable and controversial. Obviously two confident, conflicting skeptical points of view should want to present their scorecards and analyis for review by all third parties to ensure objectivity if they are to preserve their skeptical message, identity and stature, if not automatically do so even w/o the conflict part. Do you prefer discussion sentences or "see also"?--I'clast 01:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow Jance's comment. We're discussing the inclusion of a very controversial internal link, which is included in no other wiki BLP article (other than that of a single author that popularized the term). Use of the term is defamatory. Ironically, it appears to me that if you apply the term to someone, you are guilty of being a pseudoskeptic yourself. --Ronz 01:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, if I'clast or others have a published reliable source that calls Barrett a "pseudoskeptic," we are good to go. Otherwise, it's original research and POV which should not be included. Jokestress 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Wiki rules well enough, and will defer to Jokestress. However, Rontz, no - the use of the term is not defamatory. It would be considered opinion. And that was my point. Just as an aside...It amazes me that people are so willing to concede the decision-making as to who is and is not a quack to a self-appointed "quackbuster". No doubt many of these people/products are "quackery". On the other hand, where does he draw the line? What if he is wrong? How does he fix his mistake? How does he repair an individual's life or livelihood? I do not question his ability/qualifications to research or to write about his opinions generally. That, I think, is the red herring. The issue that is only implied in this article, is that one private person is attempting to usurp the power of traditional government functions in investigating and prosecuting fraud. In the US, individuals have rights as against governments. That is why we have a Bill of Rights. Dr. Barrett may find this a trivial point, but I do not think it is. Jance 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've had more problems around here (QW/SB/NCAHF) with adverse (mis)quotations, constructions, and interpretations of basic WP policies with several editors than my combined edits elsewhere.

AFAIK, the only "see also" policy is Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout, "...Useful links that are not mentioned in the prose paragraphs can be added to the "see also" section near the end." "See also Put here, in a bulleted list, other articles in the Misplaced Pages that are related to this one ".--I'clast 05:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably, although your contribs to Glyconutrients is up there too (and you can add in Mercola too) :-). BTW, the link you propose is not useful. Several editors have told you so, and reverted it and explained why, yet here you are trying to suggest that it is. In the words of one I'clast "Why can't you let this go?"  ????  ;-) Shot info 06:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are totally ignoring my basic discussion points above (characteristics, writings vs the person, differences of textual policies vs "see also" guidelines) and making unfounded claims. You should recognize I haven't even started, I was pointing out & offering options. Re Glyconutrient & Mercola really had very little truly contested policy interpretation, just content resolution, policy education and in Glyconutrient, a real discussion finally driven by the neurologist (look up the repeated rebukes of the other, "mainstream" editor for serious attitude issues, I was looking for broader science vs just denouncing a dominant vendor).--I'clast

I'clast, I ignore your basic discussion points, because you keep appealing to (your) authority and ignoring others basic discussion point (other than what support your pushpov). Shot info 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a similar controversy about the "See also" section in the Debunker article. I agree with I'clast in this debate. For this very controversial person, 7 out of 10 "See also" links are still "pro-Barrett". MaxPont 12:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked for any other policy guides that specifically referenced the "see also" as I did previously, no one else has provided any here. That's not an appeal to self-authority; scatter shot accusations are not needed. Given the pro-qw reasoning here "pseudoscience" should probably go too, in case someone gets mad, lest the subject be tainted with PS.--I'clast 08:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need some consensus before we add this in. It would be the single BLP entry linking to Pseudoskepticism, it also appears it would be at least fairly unique as a derogatory term in the See Also section of a BLP. Finally, see the final comments on the Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Pathological_skepticism discussion, where the result was to merge with Pseudoskepticism. --Ronz 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Barrett has been named one of the top twenty skeptics of the 20th century, the addition of a See also link to Pseudoskepticism is in the same category as adding the now deleted Quackery category, and the arguments for inclusion or exclusion are basically the same - they are editorial opinions not evident in the article, but added by editors who hold the opinion that the person is a pseudoskeptic. (The parallel isn't perfect, because even in articles where quackery was identified and sourced, the Quackery category was still not allowed by those promoting or protecting the quackery promoted by the article!)

No scientist, state or government anti-fraud organization, Consumer Reports (they all use him and are allied with him), or other person not involved in pseudoscientific endeavors would dream of labelling Barrett a pseudoskeptic, while just about any of his detractors would do so. It's a very POV label. Unsupported by very good sources (if it was it would be included in the article, and not as a See also link) it is a violation of BLP. If it is included in the article using very reliable sources, it could be included in the text, and the leanings (as pseudoscientists, quackboosters, producers of criticized products, whatever) of the source should also be listed to show why they call him such. -- Fyslee 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. I was not aware the criteria for an external link was the same as that in text. Jance 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the criteria are different, but I wasn't talking about External links, only about the See also section. There are various types of links, all with different criteria, and when applied to BLP it gets an added dimension:

• Embedded links (often as references)
• Wikilinks to other articles
• See also links (only links to other articles)
• External links
• Categories

-- Fyslee 23:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Again I do not think that pointing out the topic of "pseudoskepticism" is synonymous with labelling the author as a pseudoskeptic. Rather that some skeptics' (specific) writings may veer to various degrees into it is an occupational & reader hazard. That QW / SB don't have specific writings that exhibit a number of these characteristics is folly. Scientists Pauling (on others), Kauffman on QW/SB emphatically assert these points about conventional medicine itself and specific arguments presented in QW+. LP & KF seriously marshal technical data to support their arguments despite much misrepresentation in other circles. Pauling, dead 12+ yrs is even back at bat on cancer and (IV) vitamin C,

ABOUT: SEE ALSO LINKS: Quoting from the Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout about the See also links:

“The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Misplaced Pages that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.”

“Useful links that are not mentioned in the prose paragraphs can be added to the "see also" section.”

A general comment about links is that they should be included if they provide:

“Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully”

My interpretation is that the See also section should provide CONTEXT for the articles, which by the way is the impression I get from how the See also section is used in most other articles. I view the section as a pointer to related articles for the first time readers. Most editors of QW/Barrett/NCAHF are often visiting the Pseudoskepticism article. (Shouldn’t the first time readers be given that pointer too?) Note that it is OK (not ideal but acceptable) to add links in the See also section even if the link has appeared earlier.

If the restrictions in WP: BLP prevent the disputed link here, it can very well be added to the Quackwatch and Debunker article. MaxPont 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Defamation Lawsuits

Just after it is pointed out that Barrett has never been sued for libel except in one countersuit there appear these words: 'He explains, "I protect myself by not saying anything that isn't true."' This quotation is referenced, but it definitely does not add any fact not contained elsewhere in the article. Its use at this point introduces a pro Barrett bias. I propose that it should be removed. If you don't agree with this, just read and re read the relevant section and I think you'll see what I mean. One final comment. Dr Barrett is often discussed in a febrile atmosphere in which people get labelled 'pro' or 'anti'. Although Misplaced Pages is not a soap box, I do feel constrained to point out that I think that Stephen Barrett deserves more cheers than jeers, although he is clearly not perfect. I do hope he would not be offended by the latter comment. Robert2957 10:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages is not a soap box. Barrett has undoubtedly exposed fraud and phony "treatments". As a lawyer, I am interested in his methods, more than the merits of any particular 'treatment'. That seems to also be the concern of at least one legislator. As to bias - I don't like that 'introductory' statement either. It sets a tone that is inappropriate. Jance 15:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What legislator is that? -- Fyslee 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dan Burton (R-IN), Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, has stated that it is not in the public interest for a health fraud watch group such as NCAHF to operate unrestrained and unendorsed by the government. (It is in the article on NCAHF). And, of course, Quackwatch has criticized him as "quackery's best friend in Congress". Well, maybe or maybe not - I don't know. I do know that he expressed some of the same concerns that the court in King Bio did. Jance 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dan Burton --Ronz 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay and your point would be? Is the King Bio court similarly biased against Barrett, or in favor of questionable remedies/etc? This has nothing to do with this point. Nothing. The "Truth" of the quackery is not at issue. The method of going after it is.Jance 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is just that he has an entry here, he's obviously notable, and we certainly want to link his name. --Ronz 22:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Then wikify it.  ;-) Jance 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Maybe you should check out why he is considered by many (not just Barrett) to be quackery's best friend. I would say he makes Hulda Clark look good, but they are in different ball parks. His huge influence makes him more dangerous. There is practically no form of quackery, including the most dangerous, which he doesn't believe and support.

• Bioterrorism and the NCCAM: The selling of 'Complementary and Alternative Medicine' - Special Reports - National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Skeptical Inquirer, March, 2002 by Dr. Kimball C. IV Atwood

• The Ongoing Problem with the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Skeptical Inquirer, Sept. 2003, Kimball C. Atwood IV, M.D

• United States Senate Special Committee on Aging: Written Submission by Rep. Dan Burton

• Submitted rebuttal by Timothy N. Gorski, M.D., F.A.C.O.G. (plenty of references if you have a few hours - or days - to kill!)

• Swindlers, Hucksters and Snake Oil Salesmen: The Hype and Hope of Marketing Anti-Aging Products to Seniors:United States Senate Special Committee on Aging, September 10, 2001 -- Witnesses

• more

• The Politics of Autism: Lawsuits and emotion vs. science and childhood vaccines. Wall Street Journal

• Probing Edges Of Medicine -- And Reality Homeopathy Against Bioterrorism? For a Local Research Institute, Few Areas of Study Are Too Far Out. By Sandra G. Boodman, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, July 12, 2005; Page HE01

• Senator Burton was just trying to help. Part II

Happy reading! -- Fyslee 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, I think you missed my point. My point is not whether Burton is right or wrong. It is not whether or not he is "quackery's best friend". My point is whether or not a private individual should have governmental powers. And I believe that was the court's point, as well. It appeared to be Burton's point. Whether or not he is biased, I don't know or care. About all I know is that he is R-In. Jance 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My reply was delayed by the time it took to prepare it, and then a couple edit conflicts. I do see your point, and have seen it several times, but haven't addressed it. I understand your consternation over the King Bio thing, which was not Barrett's case, but the lawyer's who got him involved. The lawyer made the mistake, and Barrett probably mistakenly assumed that medical ethics and scientific logic were allowable, when they clearly are not in a court. It's a different situation, and we both agree on that matter. I do fear you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole when you attribute such vast powers to a man and organization when they are just exercising their right to free speech and right to criticize and expose unethical and illegal behavior. Barrett cooperates with Consumer Reports, and follows the same methodology, and criticizes in the same manner. Consumer Reports is a private organization. They even lost a case when the goofed. The same could happen to Barrett if he goofed. If you check out the actual cases, there have been very few court cases. Most of the work is written critiques, which can also be found written by others in newspapers and journals. Are they also guilty of usurping governmental powers? No, free speech is a right we all have. When done honestly, without competitive motives or attempts to hurt innocent people, it is not only proper, it is a part of the duty of medical providers to fulfill their obligations to protect patients. He's a doctor and is still concerned about protecting people from unscrupulous or ignorant snake oil merchants and promoters of pseudoscientific ideas. It comes with the territory and is something governments are very poor at doing. They leave huge cracks where the quacks work unhindered, and Barrett specializes in ferretting them out of those cracks. -- Fyslee 23:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, what you are saying about scientific logic & ethics not being admissible is utter bull. The requirements for expert testimony are requirements for a reason.

I agree that the lawyer did not represent him well. However, it is my understanding that Barrett agrees that the defendant should have to prove he is 'innocent' - eg have to prove in court, after he has been sued, that he has not done what plaintiff has claimed. Please correct me if I iam wrong, but isn't part of the 'role' of NCAHF to sue "quacks" in court over various things....Is that correct? That seems to be more than "free speech" and more than what Consumer Reports does. Also, I don't believe that Consumer Reports attack individuals, do they? I don't know, actually. Of course they are entitled to do so, as long as such speech is not defamatory, but is it wise? That's a different question. What they are not entitled to do is to abuse the legal system and assert prosecutorial powers and shift the burden of proof in a court of law. If Barrett or NCAHF do not do this, then I stand corrected.Jance 23:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for not writing more clearly. In science and skepticism, it is the logical requirement that the one making an unusual claim has the burden of proof. That is not the case in a court of law.

The lawyer (who is not Barrett's or the NCAHF's lawyer) got them in trouble. It was his idea, and they went with it, and that was a mistake. To my knowledge the King Bio case is the only case where this type of blundering strategy has been used. The NCAHF and Barrett don't usually operate that way, which is why I feel you are judging them harshly for one mistake, instigated by a lawyer who got them involved. While there are occasions where Barrett has reported frauds and dangerous quacks to the authorities and has acted as an expert witness, it's not a common occurence for him, and it is the authorities who are doing the prosecuting, not him. All citizens have a duty to report crime. That is not wrong.

His normal mode of action is critical writing, which is an activity he shares with myriad others, including many journalists. Are they all doing wrong? As long as there is no defamation taking place, alls as it should be and the ones criticized have a right to debunk the charges. What is special in these cases is that the quacks (practically) never do so. They are in the wrong ethically, morally, scientifically, and often legally, and thus they lack legitimate responses. So they respond by using straw man diversions and ad hominem attacks. That's why Barrett gets back something entirely different than he gives out. He engages in typical scientific debate, and scientists would respond by producing evidence, but quacks react like street thugs - they libel him and attack him personally. It's very unfair and improper, and should not be defended. They simply to not respond in kind. -- Fyslee 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Fyslee, maybe you are right. I know that this attorney somehow approached NCAHF. And, I suspect that Dr. Barrett was thinking like a medical doctor, and not a lawyer. I do not know how common or rare this is. However, it was astonishing and alarming. But we don't need to belabor this. I don't see the article focusing on this point. Jance 03:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Restatement of my question

I have attempted to start a discussion about removing a sentence from the Barrett article and everone else has gone off at a tangent. So I will restate it: Just after it is pointed out that Barrett has never been sued for libel except in one countersuit there appear these words: 'He explains, "I protect myself by not saying anything that isn't true."' This quotation is referenced, but it definitely does not add any fact not contained elsewhere in the article. Its use at this point introduces a pro Barrett bias. I propose that it should be removed. If you don't agree with this, just read and re read the relevant section and I think you'll see what I mean. One final comment. Dr Barrett is often discussed in a febrile atmosphere in which people get labelled 'pro' or 'anti'. Although Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, I do feel constrained to point out that I think that Stephen Barrett deserves more cheers than jeers, although he is clearly not perfect. I do hope he would not be offended by the latter comment. Robert2957 03:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I fear you misunderstand the nature of biographical articles and NPOV. The subect of the article is allowed to be quoted, including defending themselves, and including with a bias, AS LONG AS it is clear that it is their POV, and not editorializing by editors who introduce their POV. BLP rules favor the subject, and thus tip the balance in favor of the subject of the article. Positive stuff can be sourced as normally required, while negative stuff must be extremely well sourced or it gets deleted. -- Fyslee 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think we have to defend our edits, however, as far as our position. I know I have done this also. I wonder why? Jance 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am tempted, whilst everyone else is chasing Dan Burton in the rugby scrum, to go ahead and remove the offending sentence from the article. But I have learned the importance of proceeding by consensus. Still, I am tempted to be bloody bold and resolute, laugh to scorn the power of other Misplaced Pages editors and say: "Out! damned sentence" Robert2957 09:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That is hysterical. Go for it.Jance 09:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is not "offending" in any sense but to you. According to the principles I mention above, it should stay. -- Fyslee 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To whom? I wonder if the way or place it is presented may be offensive? Is there another way to say this, or maybe a better location?Jance 01:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving on one side the question of bias, what does this sentence : 'He explains, "I protect myself by not saying anything that isn't true."', add to the article? How would the article be worse for its removal? Robert2957 08:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is part of a quote from a biographical article that presents content and context to the way Barrett has avoided getting sued for libel. Avoiding such suits doesn't occur in a vacuum, especially considering the amount of criticism he directs at various practices and practitioners who would love to sue him, but can't. There is a specific reason for that, which is because of Barrett's deliberate strategy in how he words his criticisms (that's why the sentence is important). He words them carefully, specifically, and documents them. The only weapon left for those criticized is the one that fits their often unethical mental status -- the desperate street thug tactics of personal attacks and libel. Their true colors come shining through when they are exposed. IOW, when it is pointed out that "the emperor has no clothes," they retaliate by blinding (lie to their followers) all who look at them and attack those (Barrett) who criticize and expose their nakedness, instead of doing the right thing -- putting on some clothes (ceasing their improper actions). -- Fyslee 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, Fyslee, just a second. Is this like saying "The United States has not been attacked since 9/11 because of the wonderful job George Bush is doing"?? Whether you like Bush or not, this is an absurd statement.Jance 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. -- Fyslee 00:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a speculative, potentially self-serving statement that represents one possiblity from a list of possibilities (he knows all the specific reasons why other people don't sue? most people don't sue). Not encyclopedic.--I'clast 23:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed that sentence, but left the factual statement that Barrett has never been sued except for the one counter-claim. This should satisfy. I hope the quote is a direct quote from the book. Someone should verify that.Jance 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He was just sued in the last couple of weeks. Also, with NCAHF having no apparent legal corporate status for 3 1/2 years, they could (conveniently) not be sued. Ilena 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have halved the quote from the biographical article, and thus removed the basis for the whole reasoning of the introduction to the section. Now the introduction has no teeth or logic. The removal wasn't a consensus either. -- Fyslee 00:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see here, there was 3-1 consensus. If you disagree, then let's discuss it. I do not think the intro with the quote that nobody has sued him is illogical. This is a statement of fact. I was not aware that "having teeth" was what editors should do on Wikiedia. Barrett's statement that he has not been sued because he is truthful is illogical. Barrett may believe that. It may or may not be true. But it doesn't make sense as it is situated here, because it conveys an implication that is not logical. I had not given it much thought until Robert brought it up, but I think he is correct. If you would like me to revert it back, until we have more input, that is fine. (Done).Jance 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph reads better from a content POV with the "offending" sentence removed. I also think that from a formatting view, the entire paragraph could flow better without the bulletting and consolidating the two concepts.

• Barrett's public denouncement of "alternative" health practitioners has resulted in an equally vehement backlash, specifically on the internet. In a biographical article about Barrett, Fred D. Baldwin wrote, "Despite Barrett's pattern of naming names of people as well as products, he has never been sued for libel, except for a counter-suit to a libel suit he once filed (the counter-suit was dismissed).

While the statement about "truth" does add interest, it adds an element of opinion that distracts from the fact that he has never been sued.

--Dematt 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems we do have a consensus now. I will change it.Jance 18:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Using "Quackwatch" as a source is fine for some things. However, I do not think it is appropriate to cite to the subject's own website as a source for the awards he has received. That is bad form. It is also unnecessary, when we have sources for the awards mentioned. In fact, I found two of the sources, rather than deleting the awards. Jance 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfactual information removed

There was a false statement that Barrett had not appealed his loss to Rosenthal in Barrett Vs Rosenthal at the appellate level. In fact, his petition for rehearing was denied. I have fixed this inaccuracy as to the court record Ilena 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes

There are many sources for this, including the webpage I referenced with Stephen Barrett's name on it for 6 years. This is an encyclopedia, but it reads like another advert for Barrett. I reinstated the link that shows Barrett as part of this group. I can provide links from several years. This is as valid a part of his biography ... even if he doesn't want to be associated with it. Please do not remove this again, Arthur. Ilena 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It's humor. Completely and totally inappropriate for the article, unless presented as sarcastic humor, and then I don't see how it would be notable. I'm especially concerned that this could be taken as biased content Wp:blp#Biased_or_malicious_content --Ronz 05:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a list of people who, along with Barrett, SLAPP sued many people as well as waged smear campaigns against who they deemed were "net quacks." It is indeed notable as this was in existence for over 6 years. With all due respect, Ronz does not have the experience with this Posse to know whether or not it is a 'satire.' People on this list attacked and hired private investigators to hunt down the very people Barrett and Polevoy (on list) were suing. Barrett may not want to be associated with this now, but he chose to be for over 6 years. Were the Blacklists of the Macarthy years satirical? Absolutely not, and neither is this. Please do not remove. Thank you. Ilena 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait for other editors to weigh in. --Ronz 05:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

O man, notable anybody, or rather the lack there of. Just because Ilena thinks that Peter Bowditch's site is notable in this regard doesn't make it so. Lets see how many other editors torture WP guildlines into making it so... Shot info 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was a encyclopedic accounting. He voluntarily was a member of this Posse and it is entirely notable to the people whose lives the Posse infiltrated and attempted to destroy. Calling it a 'satire' doesn't make it so. Barrett and the other posse members used both the legal system and their blogs, webpages, usenet and wikipedia to attack a group of people they called "net quacks." They attempted to destroy these people's lives, mine included. People from this posse hired PI's to hunt me down, stalk my friends and go through our garbage. He chose to remain in this group for 6 years, along with the other plaintiffs in his SLAPP suits. It was only taken off the net a couple of weeks ago after the plaintiffs all lost their suits to me. Thank you.Ilena 16:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was Bowditch's spoof to make fun of you and others by appealing to your conspiracy theories. Even YOU are a member of the Posse! Some of us knew he had placed our names there, but I doubt Barrett did, and even if he did, it would have been one of thousands of places his name is used and misused, and he doesn't have the time or interest to do anything about it.

Bowditch even created spoof Yahoo! groups to tease types like yourself. How about the "Quackbusters of the Illuminati"? (oops, now I'll have to kill everyone who reads this.....;-) There is a lot of chain pulling going on, and you fell for it lock stock and barrell! What a joke, and it worked! Now you want to publicize that you were hoodwinked by placing such trivial information on Misplaced Pages? Pleeese, tell me this is a dream come true!! Ilena blew it again.

Your conspiracy mindset makes you stable bricks together into a house of your own creation, which has little relation to reality. You seem to think that what one person does (and that person is on a Posse list, probably unwittingly) makes all the others guilty of their action. That's ridiculous! Your statements above are a weird and basically false construction of various events involving various individuals, most of whom had nothing to do with the actions of the others. That construction of events is a libelous construction, because you are accusing many innocent people for the actions of others, simply because they occasionally had some type of connection with each other in some sort of situation. Just because some of them are on the Healthfraud list, then you seem to think (actually accuse!) that all list members are apparently guilty for the actions of one member. You accuse list members of being Barrett's agents and acting on his behalf. Forget it! That's too far out for Mad magazine! Just because others have their websites in my Anti-Quackery Webring, then all web ring members are apparently guilty of some type of conspiracy. What a mess your conspiracy thinking creates! It took me a long time to even convince Barrett to place a few (far from all) of his sites in the ring. I have no idea who most of the listmaster are. The only thing we have in common is common goals -- exposing dangerous and deceptive forms of quackery. That's a pretty honorable hobby. I do feel sorry for you, -- Fyslee 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Expert witness ?

In the Stephen Barett article we read: He or NCAHF has initiated a number of lawsuits against those engaged in what he considers unscientific medical practices. He has also offered testimony as an expert witness on psychiatry, FDA regulatory issues, and homeopathy and other areas of "alternative medicine." (An "expert witness" is a legal definition, and qualification sometimes requires specialized education or experience in the particular matter that is before the court.)

A California court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Barrett's organization NCAHF that accused a homeopathic pharmaceutical company (defendant) of "false advertising" and "unfair business practices." Plaintiffs presented 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. Plaintiffs mistakenly argued that the burden of proof should be on the defendant to prove that its products were safe. The court further stated that both witnesses were "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts". Id.'''''

I find this confusing. If the debacle mentioned in the second paragraph was the one and only time he had ever offered expert witness testimony on homeopathy, then it is misleading to say in the first paragraph that He has also offered testimony as an expert witness on ... homeopathy .... If it was the only time his evidence as an expert witness in relation to homeopathy had ever been rejected then this should be made clear. In fact, whether he has offered testimony as an expert witness tells us nothing unless it can also be verified that when he did so his status as an expert witness was accepted by the court. I think this section should be pulled until it can be made clear on how many occasions and in relation to what areas his evidence has been so accepted, and by how many courts it has been rejected. robert2957 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Because of the febrile partisan atmosphere of this discussion page, I do feel constrained to point out that I have no involvement in homeopathy either as consumer or practitioner. I work as a mathematics tutor. robert2957 09:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision Of The Lead ?

In the first paragraph of the Stephen Barrett article it says : "He says that he bases his writings in consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism." Should this basic introductory paragraph also contain the fact that he describes himself as an expert in medical communications? This is a very prominent part of the way he presents himself to the public. It appears under the heading Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch to which you are directed on the home page of Quackwatch. robert2957 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Board Certification And Licensing Again

In view of the fact that defamatory information, which is unfair to Dr. Barrett, about the status of his licence to practice medicine is all over the internet should the Misplaced Pages article should state something like this: "Dr. Barrett voluntarily relinquished his licence to practise medicine and retired. This is not the same as being delicensed . He was never board certified as a psychiatrist because he failed an exam . 2/3 of the psychiatrists of his time were not board certified . "

By the way, as an Englishman, I didn't understand what board certification meant. For those who may not know what it means and why it may be important, Dr. Barrett explains this

Dr. Barrett retired. "Voluntary relinquishment" still sounds like a disciplinary action, which to my knowledge did not occur. Doctors retire all the time. He probably let his license lapse, which is often the case.Jance 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jance, It simply did not occur to me that "voluntary relinquishmet" might have any pejorative connotation. I certainly wouldn't have intended any. Thank you for your reply. robert2957 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Robert. Board certification is pretty important today, but it may not have been years ago. I still contend that is irrelevant to this article. Jance 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jance, Thank you for your reply. I feel that the whole question of board certification/delicensing etc should be cleared up in the article. Someone surfing the internet will find some quite disgraceful rubbish about Dr Barrett being delicensed. People will want to know the truth, and the Wilkipedia s the place to which they will go to find the answer. I do not believe board certification to be irrelevant to the article if it is placed in its proper context in the way I suggest, but I do take your point. robert2957 16:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For the thousands of targets of Barrett, many, many far more qualified and degreed and licensed than he, it is extremely notable that he flunked his boards in the 60's and refused to retake them. This is a patient protection. He had the 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's ... 4 different decades to do so. With no board over him, it was less scrutiny to the 'watcher.' He operates CredentialWatch and has spent years investigating and attacking others licenses and credentials. That makes it extremely notable that he never passed any boards. When he gave up his license, although he still pontificates and sues and calls himself an "expert" on things he has no education in, there went any checks and balances over him by State or Med Boards. Thank you. Ilena 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

interesting article on the high percentage of Psychiatrists who can pass the Board and do. Ilena 16:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 17

I am trying to get the title to fotnote 17 to read as it should : 'Doctor Who ?' 'Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion' but I can't. Can anyone help ? Thank you. robert2957 15:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous Disinformation

fyslee claimed: "I understand your consternation over the King Bio thing, which was not Barrett's case, but the lawyer's who got him involved. The lawyer made the mistake, and Barrett probably mistakenly assumed that medical ethics and scientific logic were allowable, when they clearly are not in a court." This is beyond absurd. Barrett/NCAHF hired the lawyers ... not the other way around. Then NCAHF hired themselves. Paid themselves to be 'experts.' They lost in every court. This whole article is whitewashed and unbalanced and a blatant attempt to change history. I also note that here fyslee claims to speak on Barrett's behalf, clear and utter POV. This is extremely analogous to Fyslee repeatedly claiming that Barrett's NCAHF was a legal Calfiornia corporation when all evidence points to that being totally false. You can call it an 'attack' and censure my words again as you usually do, fyslee, but all the above is factual and verifiable. Thank you. Ilena 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrett's POV repeated here

SLAPP suits such as Barrett's against me and many others, are attempts to silence critics (which Barrett admits he wants to do.) The courts frown on this ... that is why he is being forced to pay my attorneys fees and probably others as this case continues. To reiterate his POV that he was "libeled" when the Supreme Court of California says he wasn't, is just more grandstanding here for his losing cases. Please do not remove my quote and leave the quote of Barrett's POV. Mine is not POV. Ilena 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone directly involved with Barrett you certainly do bring POV to this article. You should concentrate on editing articles in wikipedia where you can be more objective. Misplaced Pages articles should not be used to achieve score points. David D. (Talk) 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry David. Please tell me how Barrett should be allowed to restate his case here, even after the Supreme Court of California has ruled on it. I also do not understand how those with one link away from every website of Barrett's empire, can post his links all over Misplaced Pages, but I am not allowed any links to my legal non profit foundation. Thank you.Ilena 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Which links and who are you talking about? And with resepct to your own web site, others may choose to add the site. However, it is inappropriate for you to add the site. David D. (Talk) 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. fyslee is the Ringmaster for all of Barrett / QW / NCAHF sites, as well as Barrett's personal assistant listmaster for the healthfraud list for several years (until about 2 weeks ago). He has put hundreds (may be an underestimate) of Barrett's related links throughout wikipedia ... which all link to his own "quack files." Here is one of his Wiki pages which itemizes this. Thank you. .Ilena 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Zealous Advocates ?

I am puzzled by the account of the King Bio case under the heading Qualifications and Objectivity. It is stated that the court found that Barret and his co plaintiff were : "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts" yet when I clicked on the in the associated footnote I couldn't find either of these two phrases in the court report. What I did find was : 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. So could we have a good source for the quotations "zealous advocates" etc. And if one cannot be found, should not reference to these quotations be excised, perhaps to be replaced by the passage I quote ? robert2957 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It used to be worse, but after a discussion here it was changed to "zealous advocates" which is verifiable. Look back in the archives a bit. Dunno how or why we lost the ref. --Ronz 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, Thank you for your response. I do think that if the quotations "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts" is to be attributed to a court then a footnote which does not fail to source it should be supplied. The present situation does not seem to be satisfactory. robert2957 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Found it in NCAHF talk . It's from the following ref: Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. BC245271. --Ronz 20:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't quote "zealous advocates" if, as I understand, it has legal meaning that most readers wouldn't know. A description might be better then. Jance? --Ronz 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, Thank you for getting back to me on this. It still seems we need a new footnote in the Stephen Barrett article to give a source for the quoted words. And/or perhaps to add in some of the text I quote since the existing footnote has a link which points to a source. The footnote on this in the article entitled does source these words, but it comes from on the quackpotwatch website. It is the source refrerred to in the discussion which you mention. Should we not try to get a direct authority for them from the actual court documents if they are to feature in the Misplaced Pages ? robert2957 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there some agreement recently about trying to reduce or elimate reference to quackpotwatch? Probably why it was removed. I'd like to hear from Jance or someone else with legal expertise concerning the legal meaning. --Ronz 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, Once again I appreciate your assistance. I'm afraid I've been away from SB/Quackwatch editing for a few weeks. At the moment, we have a footnote leading to quackpotwatch which sources the quotations in the NCAHF article, and a footnote in the Stephen Barrett article which fails to back up what the article says. Is this satidfactory ? Perhaps we should add in some of the text I quote since the existing footnote has a link which points to a source. One further observation. I think that where it is said in the Stephen Barrett article that a legal action was dismissed or withdrawn a brief explanation should be give as to why in that article if the information is in the public domain. Without such explanations one is just left wondering why. What do people think ? robert2957 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I am not sure where to start... Here goes.. First, "zealous advocate" has no special legal meaning. However, it was used by the court in context with the need for neutrality of expert witnesses. The source for that is supplied, as a citation of the court opinion. The confusion may be my use of Id. Fyslee helped me with that, because I was unsure how to reference the prior citation in a Wiki article. In a legal brief, Id is used to reference 'the same as the previous citation'. Perhaps I need to change that to the style of reference Wiki uses. To my knowledge, there is not a hotlink, because trial court decisions are not usually pubished in reporters. The use of a citation is a perfectly acceptable Misplaced Pages reference. Quackpotwatch was the original 'source' for that, and that was questionable. While I think perhaps 'Quackpotwatch' may be an external link, given the nature of the article, it is not appropriate as a reference. That was why I removed it, in favor of the citation. Anyone can pull the case by that citation. Finally, the court case (King Bio) was dismissed - a 'directed verdict', or a 'non-suit' after the plaintiff presented his case. This means that the court did not wait for the defense to present his "case-in-chief", because there was not sufficient evidence presented by plaintiffs to continue the case, as a matter of law. The trial court was very critical of the plaintiffs in this case, and their attempt to shift the burden of proof to the defendant (King Bio). This is why it is in the section it is in. The court's opinion is most certainly notable, as it relates to both objectivity and qualification. In that case, the court said that Dr. Barrett was not qualifed to testify on the issues before the court (specifically regarding false advertising & unfair business practices re FDA regulation & homeopathy). This does not mean that Dr. Barrett is not a qualified medical doctor. It does mean the court criticized his role in this case, as an expert in the claim brought. From what I have 'heard' and read, it sounds like the attorney approached the plaintiff, and not the other way around. And, arguably NCAHF's counsel did not provide very good representation. But we have no facts to make these claims. And, of course, the plaintiff did bring the case as it did. For that reason, the case description belongs where it is. (It is notable, and presents a criticism regarding Dr. Barrett or affiliated organizations bringing lawsuits and testifying as experts in these matters. It doesn't mean that they couldn't bring a claim under CA statute, had they presented testimony to prove their case - they cannot, however, shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. Does this help? Jance 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Defamation lawsuits

In response to I'clast's edit summary:

need cite, but it is a balancing counterpoint & quote in paragraph, Barrett's extensive defamation claims v at least one SC rejected

Thanks for at least separating it out from Barrett's own comments. However, I disagree. It's no "balancing counterpoint" and there's no need for a "balancing counterpoint". The appropriate place for it is in the Barrett v. Rosenthal section, but we've already agreed it doesnt belong there. Perhaps it belongs in Barrett v. Rosenthal. --Ronz 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ilena objectivity

There is a lot of precedent that people directly involved with a person should not be editing related articles. I am formerly asking Ilena (talk · contribs) to stop editing Barrett related articles. Your edits are not improving this article but instead being used to forward your OWN agenda. Please do not bring your arguments with Barrett into the wikipedia domain, but please do use your energy to edit other articles in wikipedia where your edits will be less contention and more constructive. I hope you can see this is a sensible step forward. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry David. Please tell me how Barrett should be allowed to restate his case and claim libel, even after the Supreme Court of California has ruled on it against him. I also do not understand how those with one link away from every website of Barrett's empire, can post his links all over Misplaced Pages, but I am not allowed any links to my legal non profit foundation. I disagree that I bring nothing of value to the discussions of Barrett. For example, in June I tried to post that his NCAHF had been suspended for several years, but was blocked and it reverted as it his operation was legal. Now, after much ado, the article is less POV and more balanced. Also, there was a clear error in regards to Barrett Vs Rosenthal regarding Barrett's appeals that I corrected yesterday. No one else would have known this and this unfactual / unverified point would have been left on. I am further confused as to why there are Wiki articles filled with Barrett's viewpoint as a critic, even after courts have ruled him to be "biased and unworthy of credibility." I could name 20 articles that sound more like Quackwatch (which in itself is an attack site against those he deems worthy of defamation) than anything encyclopedic. I am a serious health advocate and activist with a support group of several thousand of women, run a legal non profit foundation, and have been a target of Barrett's for years. I am not the only activist who has been successful in defending myself against his meritless SLAPP suits. However, I am outnumbered here, as those in his operation, seem to have a full time job defending his articles. Thank you. 21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)

There are pleny of editors here who are writing the article from your perspective. In the past there have been good, productive discussions that have involved editors from all perspectives being considered. For this reason I am confident that this article will never become and advert for Barrett or Quackwatch. Let others fight your battles and move onto greener fields. That is how it should be done in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

1. 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).

• Unassessed biography articles
• Requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Articles with connected contributors