[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
jbdd wrote:
You say your friend is a Mortician, hmm you wouldn’t by any chance be an M.D., cause that would explain your friendship…
Interesting that you have 7 physicians in your family yet hold so much contempt for the AMA. I originally wanted to be an M.D. but ended up going to law school instead. I’ve seriously considered serving on Dr. Barrett’s legal advisory board.
He’s really not as anti-chiropractor as he is made out to be. He does believe that chiropractor’s have a role in back pain management. What he opposes is the idea that subluxations are the root of all human medical problems, i.e., the so-called “straight” or subluxation-based chiropractors. It seems that Dr. Ryan shares a similar philosophy.
So what do you do for a living?[/quote]
You’re probably lucky that you aren’t on his legal staff, considering he’s been largely discredited, and his claims are not being taken seriously anymore - not to mention his numerous failures in court. Here is my post from another topic highlighting this.
J.V.
(Warning, long post with many sources)
HOV -
I’m very sorry you had a bad experience with your chiropractor, however like all ‘real’ doctors there are good doctors, bad doctors, or doctors that may not have the training or experience necessary for a particular condition. In your case, you may have gone to a bad one or one that didn’t have the training for your condition. It’s sad that you decided to judge an entire healthcare profession by your singular experience. I know that if I had done that with some of my experiences, I would be holed up in my house and not go to any doctor. I don’t have the energy to point out everything you mentioned, but I will comment on a few things -
Here are two examples in my case.
I had an upper respiratory infection, and in most cases they usually work themselves out. In this case it got worse, so I went to my local doctor (I was away at college) and received a prescription. It did nothing, and I got worse. I went back to the doctor and received the same prescription with the instructions that I may have to take a longer course in order to eliminate the infection. This went on for over a month, and I actually got worse. I drove home during a break in college and went to my doctor for the condition. I showed him the bottle of antibiotics I was taking and he actually laughed and told me those were never intended for the infection I had, and haven’s been prescribed in significant numbers in years. He also commented that the other doctor was a quack for not knowing this, and went on to prescribe me another type of antibiotic. I got better within a week. So is the entire medical community full of quacks? According to my doctor, the other doctor is a quack! Should I judge the medical community because of this experience?
How about when I was playing football, and after being the recipient of a vicious tackle I could not fully feel my hands, and had excruciating pain in the shoulder? I went to an orthopedist and after testing and examinations he mentioned I should get ready for shoulder surgery. Shoulder surgery? I was in line for a football scholarship, and this would have devastated my chances for it. I went for a second opinion, this time to a chiropractic physician who had been recommended to me (my M.D. no less) who dealt with sport injuries. He performed a similar exam, tests, and received the x-rays the orthopedist took. He commented that he found nothing to warrant the surgery the orthopedist suggested, but he would treat me and if there was no improvement within a certain amount of sessions, he would refer me out to another orthopedist for a consultation. The first treatment took care of most of my symptoms! I came to find out from this doctor that I had subluxation of my right first rib (which he showed me on x-ray), and after he treated it, the pain and numbness melted away. It was the strangest feeling I ever felt. I went back for two more treatments and to this day have had no issues with it. Who was the quack here? If I were to judge the medical profession on these two experiences, I bet you could see why I would find medical doctors quacks. However I don?t. There are good doctors and bad doctors, and it’s unfortunate that you have to run into the latter from time to time, but that’s the nature of healthcare in the world. (BTW- the orthopedist I went to had a partner, and that partner was later found guilty of performing unnecessary surgery for financial gain! Makes you wonder huh!)
I won’t even get into my experience with an Osteopathic treatment. LOL.
I’ve had good experiences with both professions, and see them as integral pieces of the healthcare puzzle. As for the whole quack thing with chiropractors - I would be very careful with making false statements like that and would definitely recommend you (and anyone else sharing a similar view) check your facts thoroughly before making such crude, ill-informed assertions. They make you look foolish, and ignorant. Chiropractic physicians, like medical and osteopathic physicians, are primary healthcare providers and are, like the other two, first contact doctors. Several chiropractic institutions have their students do hospital residencies, and many hospitals employ chiropractic physicians as another specialty on their staff, including the US government’s VA administration. Quacks indeed!!
Since you are asking for people to submit other viewpoints besides “chiropractic fanboism” I would ask you to do the same. You should probably do a lot more research to back up your arguments besides relying primarily on one website, particulary one as dubious as Dr. Barretts. Here are some things you may not have known about him. These are available on the public record and in numorous court cases across the country. In fact, most informed people are viewing his information and his various websites, 21 or so in total, as complete rubbish. Here are some things you might want to know about your primary source, like the fact that he is not even certified by the medical board of psychiatry as a psychiatrist because he failed the certification exam! He intentional hid this fact until it came out in a recent court case. (this is just a small bit of what’s out there, and are just a few examples of why he’s been largely discredited.) -
- In a recent court case against Dr. Barrett the presiding judge tossed out the case Barrett was making, and reprimanded him in court due to a variety of factors, one of which was the financial gains he and his firm stood to make, which biased him as an expert witness.
Here is an excerpt - "Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although he claims to have read and written extensively on homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett’s claim to expertise on FDA issues arises from his conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on the subject and certain continuing education activities.
As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency enforces federal statutes and the agency’s own regulations. Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case associated with Defendants’ products.
Credibility of Plaintiff’s experts
Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson’s university course presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett’s heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses’ fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as 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 that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well."
BTW- this was in federal court.
- This was in the Missouri supreme court and it involved Dr. Barrett, his defuct organization the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), where they went after not a chiropractor, but and osteopath (D.O). It involves chelation therapy, which is becoming much more accepted for heart patients. Here is the press release -
"The North American “quackbuster” operation scrambles for survival
The North American “quackbuster” operation is scrambling for survival because, among other things, the American Court System is “horse-whipping” them.
I just received word about a new Supreme Court Case Decision involving an attack on an innovative health practitioner, Edward W. McDonagh, D.O., from Missouri, who had the common sense to use chelation therapy on his heart patients.
Of course his patients got better, and of course the State, blindly following the recommendations, and the nonsensical statements, found on delicensed MD Stephen Barrett’s ludicrous “quackwatch.com” website, tried to take this dedicated healer’s license to practice medicine away from him.
They failed.
Not only did they fail, but the resulting Supreme Court Decision has become a landmark, and will be used across the land, as “case law” whenever any State agency is dumb enough, or sleazy enough, to use the “quackbusters” or “quackbuster” dogma, as a resource. The case decision had a lot to say about a lot of issues.
The final words of the Missouri Supreme Court Decision are: “This case needs to be over. The board should end the case itself rather than suffer the indignity of further adverse commission and judicial rulings, to say nothing of the waste of public resources that such proceedings will entail.”
You can read the whole decision by clicking here. When you go to the page you’ll find the decision in two parts. The first part (in green text) is the decision of the Missouri Appeals Court. The second part (in black text) is the words of the Missouri Supreme Court.
Here’s what one of the Missouri Supreme Court Justices said about the State’s action against Doctor McDonagh, and some of the bigoted assumptions made by the State in the McDonagh case:
Physicians are afforded considerable leeway in the use of professional judgment to decide on appropriate treatments, especially when applying the negligence standard. For instance, Hasse v. Garfinkel, 418 S.W.2d 108, 114 (Mo. 1967), a medical negligence case, holds that “as long as there is room for an honest difference of opinion among competent physicians, a physician who uses his own best judgment cannot be convicted of negligence, even though it may afterward develop that he was mistaken.” “Negligence” does not seem an appropriate concept where the physician has studied the problem and has made a treatment recommendation, even though that is not the prevailing view of the majority of the profession. The lack of general acceptance of a treatment does not necessarily constitute a breach of the standard of care. The use of negligence in licensing situations, in the absence of harm or danger, is particularly inappropriate.
One could argue that because chelation therapy is not accepted by mainstream medicine and is an off-label practice not approved by the FDA, it is therefore harmful and dangerous. If that were the board’s position, the licensing statute would thwart advances in medical science. A dramatic example is the treatment of stomach ulcers, which were long thought to be caused by stress. In 1982, two Australians found the bacterium helicobacter pylori in the stomach linings of ulcer victims. Because helicobacter pylori is a bacterium, some physicians – a minority to be sure – began prescribing antibiotics to treat stomach ulcers as an infectious disease. The National Institutes of Health did not recognize antibiotic therapy until 1994; the FDA approved the first antibiotic for use in treating stomach ulcers in 1996; and the Centers for Disease Control began publicizing the treatment in 1997. Today?s physicians accept as fact that most stomach ulcers are primarily caused by helicobacter pylori bacteria infection and not by stress. (FN6) But, by the chronology of this discovery, if a physician in the late 1980s or early 1990s had treated ulcers with antibiotics, that treatment would have been “negligent” as the board in this case interprets that term because inappropriate use of antibiotics can be dangerous."
Delicensed MD Stephen Barrett, and his nefarious website “quackwatch.com,” the “quackbuster’s” " bible, is being dropped, as a resource, almost EVERYWHERE. It is court Decisions like this that fuel these actions."
- This is a press release from a Canadian publication. The top part gives a nice summary of the full press release.
"Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases
At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam.
This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training.
The most damning testimony before the jury, under the intense cross-examination by Negrete, was that Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single one at trial.
During the course of his examination, Barrett also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
P R E S S R E L E A S E
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: October 13, 2005
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Court Case: Stephen Barrett, M.D. vs. Tedd Koren, D.C. and Koren Publications, Inc.
Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of Pennsylvania
Court Case No.: 2002-C-1837
Contact: Carlos F. Negrete
LAW OFFICES OF CARLOS F. NEGRETE
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Phone: 949.493.8115
Fax: 949.493.8170
email: mediarelations@healthfreedomlaw.com
mediarelations@negretelaw.com
URL: www.healthfreedomlaw.com
www.negretelaw.com
Dr. Tedd Koren, DC.
Phone: 800.537.3001
267.498.0071 Fax: 267.498.0078
URL: www.korenpublications.com
Subject: Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett loses Major Defamation trial in Hometown
In a stunning development, Lehigh Valley Pennsylvania Judge J. Brian Johnson on Thursday, October 13, 2005, tossed out nationally known self - proclaimed ‘consumer medical advocate’ Stephen Barrett?s defamation lawsuit just minutes before it was going to be considered by a local jury.
The lawsuit, filed in August 2002, against also nationally known Pennsylvania chiropractor, lecturer, researcher and publisher, Dr. Tedd Koren sought unspecified damages against Koren and his company, Koren Publications, Inc. for statements that he wrote in his newsletter in 2001 about Barrett.
Barrett, a long-time nemesis of chiropractic, filed the lawsuit because of Koren?s publication that Barrett was ?licensed? and in trouble because of a $10 million lawsuit and because Barrett was called a ‘Quackpot’.
In his defense, Koren contended that the statements were true and not defamatory and that he had a First Amendment right to write them in his newsletter.
Thursday?s ruling by Judge Johnson represented a major reversal of the finding of an arbitration in August 2004 wherein a panel of three local private attorneys reviewing the case had found in favor of Barrett and awarded Barrett $16,500 in damages and that Koren should publish a retraction. That award was appealed by Koren.
Dr. Koren was represented by well-known health freedom San Juan Capistrano, California, attorney Carlos F. Negrete for trial and Washington, D.C. attorney James Turner of Swankin & Turner. Easton, Pennsylvania attorney Christopher Reid of Laub, Seidel, Cohen, Hof & Reid served as local counsel for the team and was co-counsel for the trial along with Negrete.
Turner and Negrete have been well known for their representation of clients in the health food, supplement and vitamin industries as well as representing naturopaths, nurses, dentists, physicians, chiropractors and complimentary therapists across the country.
Turner’s experience dates back the 1960s when he joined consumer advocate Ralph Nader and was one of the groundbreaking Nader’s Raiders that made consumer advocacy popular and brought about significant changes in manufacturing and consumer protection.
In making the ruling to throw out the case, Judge Johnson granted a rare directed verdict to the jury finding there was insufficient evidence to support Barrett’s claims. Judge Johnson indicated that this case was one of those rare times where such a motion was appropriate.
Barrett operates the web site www.quackwatch.org , www.chirobase.org and 20 other web sites and has been a long time critic of chiropractic calling much of it “quackery”.
The victory to chiropractor Koren comes almost 18 years to the date that chiropractors received national attention with their victory against the American Medical Association (AMA) by obtaining an injunction against the AMA from an Illinois federal judge for engaging in illegal boycotting of doctors chiropractic in Wilk et al vs. AMA.
Barrett had been an outspoken supporter of the AMA at the same time that Koren had been a vocal advocate that the AMA has, in recent years, violated the spirit of the federal judge?s order.
After the ruling, Koren proclaimed that: I am overjoyed and enthusiastic that this nightmare is over and that the science, art and philosophy of chiropractic and the work of all of my colleagues have been vindicated.
“This case took a toll on my life and family, but I knew that I was right in publishing the truth.”
Dr. Barrett has no right to misinform the public about chiropractic and other natural healing arts or to try to silence anyone who criticizes him or tell consumers that he is not what he purports to be.
“I believe that it is not right to be silent when there is a duty to inform the public and let the truth be told.”
For years, Barrett has touted himself as a medical expert on ‘quackery’ in healthcare and has assisted in dozens of court cases as an expert. He also was called upon by the FDA, FTC and other governmental agencies for his purported expertise.
He was the subject of many magazine interviews, including Time Magazine and featured on television interviews on ABC?s 20/20, NBC’s Today Show and PBS.
He has gained media fame by his outspoken vocal disgust and impatience over natural or non-medical healthcare, including his criticisms of two time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling.
Dr. Tedd Koren is known for his writings and lectures on chiropractic science, research, philosophy, and chiropractic patient adjusting.
He is known for his Koren Publications chiropractic patient education brochures, posters, booklets, books and other products that are used in chiropractors? offices throughout the United States and around the world.
Dr. Koren also co-founded a chiropractic college, is on the extension faculty of two chiropractic colleges, is published in chiropractic and bio-medical journals and has received numerous awards in his field. His web sites include www.korenpublications.com and www.teddkorenseminars.com
In his 2001 newsletter, Koren published articles that revealed that even though he touted himself as a medical expert, Barrett had not been a licensed physician since the early 1990s.
He also published that Barrett had been the subject of a $10 million racketeering lawsuit [that had been withdrawn] and called him a "quackpot’ for the contradiction of his website and lack of credentials.
Koren?s trial attorney, Carlos F. Negrete of San Juan Capistrano, California, is known for his defense of physicians, chiropractors, dentists, clinics and natural heath providers who practice what is known as complimentary & alternative medicine and holistic healthcare. Negrete has also handled groundbreaking cases against HMOs in California and has represented many celebrities and politicians.
At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam.
This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases.
Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training.
The most damming testimony before the jury, under the intense cross-examination by Negrete, was that Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single one at trial.
During the course of his examination, Barrett also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
This was not the first time that Negrete was a trial attorney in a Barrett case. He also represented anti-fluoridation advocate Darlene Sherrell in a federal lawsuit filed in Eugene, Oregon by Barrett.
Barrett also lost in trial of that case. Negrete also represented Robert King of King Bio Natural Medicine of North Carolina and MediaPower (manufacturers of CalMax and Nu-Zymes) of Maine in cases filed by an organization led by Barrett, which were lost by Barrett’s organization.
Barrett has also filed a lawsuit against Negrete and his client Dr. Hulda Clark (author of The Cure for All Diseases and The Cure for All Cancers) , which is now pending and awaiting trial in San Diego, California federal court.
After the Koren trial, Negrete stated: “The de-bunker has been de-bunked. I am pleased and satisfied with this outcome for Dr. Koren and am proud that Dr. Koren did not succumb to the pressures of the intimidation of Barrett?s legal wrangling. Not everyone can stand up to someone as well known as Barrett.”
Negrete continued, "It is another great day for health freedom and alternative healthcare around the world. I am especially pleased that this most important victory was in Barrett?s own hometown. It just goes to show you that there is justice anywhere, even when you are a visitor challenging the home team.
Barrett is a shill for the medical and pharmaceutical cartels and his bully tactics and unjustified discrediting of leading innovators, scientists and health practitioners should not be tolerated."
Negrete said, ?You can be assured that our legal team will be wherever health freedom advocates and practitioners are being persecuted. The tide is now turning and people are no long accepting that synthetic drugs are the only form of treatment are the only way to address health concerns.
“Every day, consumers are becoming more educated about the benefits of holistic and alternative methods. This is something that the medical establishment obviously fears and wants to crush with false propaganda.”
Koren said that he would now go back to his home in Pennsylvania to spend more time with his family and continue to write, research, and lecture on topics concerning chiropractic and healthcare and the experiences he has gained from this precedent setting legal battle.
He plans to give new lectures to chiropractors across the country who are under attack or have been subjected to governmental actions.
He also announced that he is forming a new organization aimed at informing and assisting chiropractors across the country.
The trial started on Monday, October 10, 2005 and ended on October 13, 2005 Barrett was represented by local Allentown attorney, Richard Orloski."
This is quite a bit of information, and is the tip of the iceburg for Dr. Barrett and his organization. He is now considered a fraud by most in the mainstream. HOV I would be very careful about citing Dr. Barrett as a source considering his dubious reputation. My suggestion would be to ask someone you respect and trust about a referral to a licensed D.C. (or any health care physician). Maybe your experience will be better with that one.
As for why I’m posting all this - there is already so much hate, ignorance, and foolishness out there as it is, and I find some of the remarks made on this and other threads regarding this subject similar to people who think they are informed about fitness proclaiming that weightlifting is a ‘dangerous’ activity that is not good for you.
J.V.
BTW - before anyone asks, I go to a D.C. and an M.D. depending on the situation so I don’t have a bias one way or the other. I guess I’m just ‘fair and balanced’ ;-).