Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Undiscussed removal of NPOV tag

I have reverted the undiscussed removal of the NPOV tag. Such a removal should be done only after discussion and as a consensus decision. Tags of this type are jealously guarded. They aren't just a part of the article, that can be removed by one editor acting alone.

There are still many areas that are not consensus viewpoints.

  1. The article has a disproportionately large amount of critical material, simply by volume, making it apparent to any new reader the POV of many of the editors. Some of that material is editorializing that extrapolates from facts into OR, instead of simply presenting the facts and letting readers go to the references and the links and decide for themselves. Even the references contain large quotes. I'm especially thinking of ref. 26 (King Bio), where the text in the article and the text in the reference duplicate some ideas. The idea should be summarized very briefly in the article, and the reference should show the citation and provide a link.
  2. There is still the issue of the relevance of board certification to his activities as a quackbuster (a term he rejects and dislikes). Its relevance should be seen in the light of the fact that far less than half of MDs were board certified back in 1967, and it never affected his career as a psychiatrist. That matter is still being hotly debated here at this very moment, and thus the removal of the NPOV tag is very inappropriate. The discussion of the relevance of board certification hasn't really even begun to discuss its relevance to his work with Quackwatch and anti-quackery activism, but it has improperly been applied to it. The issue should properly be focused on its relevance to his work as a practicing psychiatrist, which is one matter, which doesn't apply to his anti-quackery activities - another matter entirely. He is being held to a standard for one thing that doesn't apply to the other. Others who aren't even MDs are also experts in healthcare consumer protection and anti-quackery activities. They aren't MDs or board certified. His qualifications for that type of activity wouldn't even be addressed by board certification!
  3. To muddy the waters even more, that he even "uses" his MD credentials is often mentioned, as if that were improper. The guy is an MD, and will always be an MD. It is not improper under any condition for him to use MD after his name. That is not improper. It helps to identify him. It may or may not say something about whether or not he is qualified for any given activity. It all depends on what that activity is. Merely being an MD (even with a board certification) does not qualify one for his activities. While it helps, those qualifications are gained through experience, research, investigation, and plenty of help from other experts in various fields. There is no degree or board certification that covers those qualifications. (Maybe universities should start a degree program leading to the degree of CP.D. (Docter of Consumer Protection....;-) Course work should start with critical thinking, logic, statistics, fundamentals of EBM, ethics, consumer protection law, etc.)

Those are just a few things that come to mind. They are not minor points of contention. Therefore, until they are settled, the NPOV tag should remain. -- Fyslee 20:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag because of this comment above. It didn't look "jealously guarded" and I didn't see any rationale for it. But now you've listed it. As for establishing the credibility (or lack thereof) of someone who makes it their professional business to attack the credibility of others, it is highly relevant and not POV to focus on it. These are not minor or insignificant. Stbalbach 02:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Stbalbach makes a valid point which I have tried to make for a while. " As for establishing the credibility (or lack thereof) of someone who makes it their professional business to attack the credibility of others, it is highly relevant and not POV to focus on it. These are not minor or insignificant. " I fully agree that it is not POV, however each time an item is not favorable to the subject of the article it is critizised by a group of editors as POV. Thanks Stbalbach. NATTO 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Barrett's qualifications in alternative and complementary medicine

The question about his qualifications in alternative and complementary medicine has been asked. From reading his C.V and looking at his web sites, he does have a medical degree ( M.D. ), was qualified and licenced ( until 1993 ) as a psychiatrist. I have not seen any formal training or qualifications in any alternative or complementary modality. He does not appear to have any training in homeopathy, accupuncture, herbal therapy or any other for that matter. He does not appear to have practiced any of the alternative modalities as a stand alone modality or included any of them in his practice as a psychiatrist. It is difficult to claim expertise in a field when you have no formal training in it or any clinical experience. He could claim expertise in psychiatry but even there, he was never Board certified...

Of course I may have missed relevant information, if any is posted on his web sites. If anyone has evidence that he has any formal training in any alternative or complementary medicine, please post it on the talk page. NATTO 02:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Training in a specific medical area is not necessary to read and critique studies and information on the subject. In fact, I doubt that any doctor would go out of her way to spend money and time training in a field she believes is quackery. That does not mean that she/he is not qualified to discuss it.jawesq 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
NATTO, I agree with jawesq. You are implying that one can only be an expert in the area of training. Many scientist switch fields and can be world class in a new field. The point of a science degree is you learn the scitentific method and you learn to think critically. As far as I am concerned any biologist could look at the data available for the effectiveness of alternative medicine and determine if the conclusions are valid. It seems that Barrret's expertise comes from being familiar with the claims of alternative medicine. He is in a position to judge these claims and interpret how they compare with similar therapies in the medical field. David D. (Talk) 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That is not what I implied. I simply meant that to be an expert you need to have expert knowledge in a field, knowledge that is way above the average person. You can get that knowledge through formal training, relevant practical experience either in a clinical or research setting, ect.... Otherwise anyone could claim to be an expert in anything they wish... Dr. Barrett does not have any formal training in alternative medicine nor any practical, clinical experience that I could find. You do not become an expert just by reading " stuff ", relevant real life experience is relevant. As far as science is concerned, science is a tool with it's limitation and is not the ultimate solution to everything. There is more to health than just science. He trained as a psychatrist and could claim expertise in that field, however the vast majority of his peers being Board certified makes it difficult for him today to have high credibility in that field since he failed the Board exam. NATTO 04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what the offered testimony is. jawesq 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Different tack re:Board certification

Here is the current version.

  • Barrett has appeared in court as a medical expert. Barrett failed one part of his medical board certification exams in 1967 and never retook them; thus Barrett was never board certified. [2] According to the ABMS about 81% of physicians were Board certified when Barrett retired in 1993. (pdf).

The version I had suggested above:

  • Critics cite that Barrett failed part of his medical board certification exams in 1967 and never retook them (Barrett et al 2006) as evidence that he cannot claim to be a medical expert. [3]

First, the top version fails POV and WP:OR. You start with a statement and follow with two facts. The fact he failed the board exam is relevent. You have then used research to track down the 81% stat when he retired. You have then placed these two facts together to paint a picture with respect to the first comment.

You seem to be under the impression I am against the inclusion of the 81%. I am not. I am against the current form in which it is written. As written it is clearly the authors opinion. You need to find a quote for this connection to be made without failing POV and WP:OR. The quote must satisfy the criteria laid out in WP:RS.

Personally i don't see how the version i propose waters down this statement at all, despite the fact there is no inclusion of the 81%. Lets use this section to discuss the content. We need to find a compromise that is acceptable to all editors not just now but in the future too. It is the only way to maintain a stable artcile. David D. (Talk) 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a review of expert witness. "An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, profession, publication or experience, is believed to have special knowledge of his subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon his opinion."jawesq 03:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Those links are just for reference now re: the comment below. I'm not sure what you mean by this expert witness comment, could you expand on that thought? David D. (Talk) 03:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Barrett's credibility as an expert witness was only questioned in terms of his expertise in matters of law and in matters of FDA regulation. His testimony was questioned because of his direct interest in the outcome of one case in which he testified. His credibility as a medical expert has not, to my knowledge, been successfully challenged. Jokestress 03:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. So those that want to include this will have to find a better reference otherwise we just cut it out. David D. (Talk) 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how Barrett could possibly hold himself out as a legal expert. I don't know about his expertise in (what context of) FDA regulation. jawesq 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This is getting off topic for this section. i have sectioned off the legal discussion below. Can we focus on how the board certification issue will be written in the main article? At present we need to find a reference where his medical expertise has been questioned. If we want to use the 81% data and his failed board exams we need that reference to use that data as an argument for him not being an expert witness. Is there anything like that available? I see you have offered some text from the http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/ web site but I see no mention of the 81%. Are there other sources that reference it? (David D. (Talk) 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not think this website should be cited as a reference for Barrett's medical expertise, and I did not suggest that it be used. I dont believe his failing psychiatry boards has anything to do with his qualifications as an MD in areas that are unrelated to psychiatry. jawesq 16:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
So what is the sentence above trying to say with respect to his failure of the board exam and his expertise? It would be geat if there is a documented quote from one of his critics to make this point unambiguous. David D. (Talk) 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Another issue is that i am not sure if the healthfreedomlaw web page will be acceptable as a reliable source. You might want to get a second opinion from other wikipedians who are more familiar with where the lines are drawn. Or better yet courst transcripts. (David D. (Talk) 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I already stated that this website is not appropriate (reliable) as a reference here (see above). I added it purely for discussion puposes. Again, I do not think that failing his boards is at all relevant to his medical expertise relating to non-psychiatric testimony.jawesq 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I apologise, i missed that. But aren't his critic citing the boards as a critique. At least that is what is currently in the article. Are they any statements in the court transcripts that can be used? Or should we just remove this point if no appropriate source is available? David D. (Talk) 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are. I don't think it is a valid argument, unless Barrett proposes to testify as an expert on psychiatry, which that lawyer claimed he did. "This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed 'expert testimony' as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases as such." Then it would be relevant. Now there are entirely too many indents, so let's start a new topic.jawesq 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Negrete's site is a verifiable source, which is not necessarily a reliable source. If court documents can only be found on that site, it might be appropriate to use the site as a source, but considering all the spin that Negrete usually puts on the site (making it unreliable as an interpreter of what actually transpired in court), it would always be preferable to cite and link to the original documents on a government or state site. -- Fyslee 14:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Below is a quote from lawyer Carlos Negrete where he is openly critical of Barrett's qualifications as an expert in his field or in the legal field:

" 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. Also, Barrett has testified that 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.... 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 as such. Also, Barrett had said that he was a “legal expert” even though he had no formal legal training.

Linus Pauling? Is Barrett now an expert in chemistry? Barrett should also not hold himself out as a legal expert. Period. This is worth discussing in the article, because holding himself out as a legal expert would be itself quackery (and quickly nixed by any judge).jawesq 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Linus Pauling is a nobel price winner in chemistry. And yes a judge did nix the " legal expert " issue. A California Superior Court judge. NATTO 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am well familiar with who Linus Pauling is. I am shocked that Barrett would attempt to comment on him. That takes gall. That was my point.jawesq 05:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Why in your opinion does it take gall to comment on Linus Pauling? How can you claim that Pauling is an expert on Vit C physiology and heath issues but then claim Barrett cannot have opinion on homeopathic medicine? This seems like an example of double standards? David D. (Talk) 16:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think of Pauling as a chemist. I assumed Barrett was referencing to that. I wasn't even aware of Pauling's promotion of Vit. C. jawesq 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Pauling was interested in many different things. At the end of his career he was a huge proponent for high doses of vit C to cure many aliments, including cancer. i assume that was the body of work that Barrett was reffering to when he was critical of Pauling. David D. (Talk) 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Information on Pauling's unfortunate activities can be found here. -- Fyslee 15:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not informed enough at this point about the positions of Kary Mullis to agree or disagree with his position on HIV however I know enough about Vit-C as a safe and effective anti-oxidant and it's many benefits again oxidative stress and free radical damage to agree with Linus Pauling about the health benefits of Vit-C. NATTO 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • But many don't agree, especially with regard to the huge doses that he specified. Crededitals are great but that is not the whole story. This is why it is wrong to focus on one aspect of someones training. Anyone can get a Ph.D. if they want it (or M.D.). It is definitely a indicator of someone who has the potential to be well informed, and possibly be an expert, but it is not the whole story. The reverse argument can also be made. This is my only reason not to allow the article to get bogged down in critiquing minor details but look at the whole picture.
For your reference, Mullis does not agree that HIV is the cause of AIDS. He along with Peter Duesberg, a Berkeley professor and accomplished scientist, are quite vocal on this subject.
We're getting off topic again. How can we correct the sentence above to something that you are happy with. Do you have a source or quote that will allow the 81% to not be characterised as original reasearch? David D. (Talk) 21:40, 28 July 2006

(UTC)

  • David D. Please see below for a quote from lawyer Carlos Negrete:

"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. Also, Barrett has testified that 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.... 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 as such. Also, Barrett 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)." [4] The issue of Board certification is a key issue of his criticism of Dr. Barrett. The percentage of Board certified M.D. in 1993 is relevant as related information in the same way that other editors have grafted text into paragraphs that were not quoted in the original source. For example the phrase : Judges have noted that his position as a public figure has weakened his ability to defend himself, since the plaintiff in such libel cases is required to show "actual malice," per the precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan, which states, "Because of the extremely high burden on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases rarely, if ever prevail against public figures." It is in a totally unrelated case to Dr. Barrett but I do not havea problem because it offers valid information on the issue. NATTO 00:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Mullis was used as an example. And I would daresay most scientists DO believe that HIV causes AIDS, so it seems an apt example. I won't chime in on David's question, since I am unfamiliar with what you all are talking about.jawesq 00:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I realized it was just an example that is why I said I could not either agree or disagree because I did not have enough information. It is also not directly related to the article. As for Vit-C ,there are also many who agree with Linus Pauling and there is also good research to support his position. I also know numerous qualified M.D. who agrees, including cardiologists and oncologists. Dr. Thomas Levy has written a book with numerous scientific references on the use of high dose IV-C.Certainly to include Linus Pauling on a list of people that are not recommendable because you do not agree with the beneficial effects of IV-C is at the very least a one sided approach. In any case that is not the topic of the article. NATTO 00:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Natto, I'm not quite sure what point you are addressing with that quote. Can you be more explicit?
With regard to Pauling, my point is that just because someone is an accomplished scientist, it does not stop them having ideas that are almost completely unaccepted or at the best on the fringe. I think it is clear that Pauling was on the fringe with his vitamin C ideas and may still be. I have not seen any solid work in the area that would convince me it is true.
Mullis is the same, great thinking to come up with PCR but off the deep end with HIV. Another good example is Fred Hoyle a highly accomplished physicist who then came up with the the argument against evolution that uses the retrospective probability argument, commonly represented by the analogy of how unlikely it is for a tornado to build a jumbo jet from a junk yard. These are all good examples of great scientist who have rather less than great ideas towards the ends of their career.
Given what Pauling was saying about Vit C, it is valid to criticise his work. Paulings ideas should not be protected by his outstanding reputation in the field of structural biology. All ideas should be challenged, that is the whole point of science. The argument from authority should never be held as meaningful from a scientific basis. Likewise the out of the box thinking of non established scientists or enthusiatic amateurs should not be shoved aside (although they are likely to be eld to stronger scrutiny). Ideas live and die through observations that are repeatedly consistent with the model.
In summary, there is nothing strange about Barrett, being critical of Pauling. This does not demonstrate arrogance, but rahter conventional wisdom , given the current data sets available. Certainly it does not prove that Barrett does not know his stuff, which seemed to be the argument that some were trying to make. David D. (Talk) 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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)." [5] NATTO 04:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem with his ties to the AMA, since the AMA is a lobbying group for medical doctors.jawesq 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. NATTO 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

His many lawsuits looks like an abuse of process. jawesq 05:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we still haven't seen a reliable source (only a verifiable one) for the claim of AMA, FTC, and FDA ties. Negrete is a very hostile source. What is the true nature of those ties, if any? He says it in a spin doctored manner, to imply an improper connection. We cannot just take his word for it, without seeing the original testimony.
That the AMA is a "lobbying group" is no secret. In fact it can't be any other way. All professional associations are "lobbying groups," including the ACA, APTA, ADA, AVMA, etc. It's not odious. -- Fyslee 11:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Court case citations

If anyone cites a court case, please take the time to look up how to do it. I have observed many citations in this article are not at all the way court cases should be cited. Here is an example of an improperly cited memorandum:

STEPHEN J. BARRETT, M.D., Plaittiff - Appellant, v. CARLOS F. NEGRETE; et at., Defendants - Appellees.] No. 04-55193 D.C. No. CV -02-0221 O-JML; No. 03-56663 D.C. No. CY -02-0221 O-JML. Filed Memorandum filed March 14, 2005.jawesq 03:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you supply the correct citation for that memorandum here, I'll put it in, or you can correct it yourself if you prefer. Jokestress 03:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This is one example. Here is a reference for citing court cases, or other legal documents:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/

The example above appears to be a memorandum, not a court case. And from the way it is cited above, I would not know how to report it. It would take me some time to sort it out, since I do not have much experience citing to memorandums. However, this is how I would probably do it, without searching for more information:

Barrett v. Negrete, et at (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)

I don't guarantee this is accurate, but I think it was better than before. I may look this up but not tonight!

Court cases are a bit easier...
An example:

Edmond v. Goldsmith, 183 F.3d 659, 660 (7th Cir. 1999), aff'd, 531 U.S. 31 (2000).

First names, titles are not used.
F.3d is the reporter, 183 is the volume, and 659 is the first page the case appears in the reporter, and 660 would be the 'pinpoint' or page the reference is found on.
Then '7th Cir.' is the 7th Circuit (federal) court. and 1999 is, of course the year.
This case ruling was affirmed in a 2000 US Supreme Court case. (2000) indicates US SUpreme Court.jawesq 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I will tackle some of this, but not tonight. I could use some brush-up on legal citations. jawesq 05:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting reading

From Negrete's website (Law offices of Negrete) http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/ King Bio, like many other homeopathic and supplement companies targeted by NCAHF in similar lawsuits, refused to capitulate to any sort of settlement with Barrett and NCAHF. Instead, Dr. King decided to take the lead and defend his own integrity and that of his company by deciding to "have his day in court" and taking the case to trail.

The trial took place on October, 2001 in Los Angeles, California. The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete and Carlos F. Negrete provided support and assistance for the trial.

Under cross-examination of NCAHF’s witnesses at the trial, it was revealed that NCAHF had never tested any of the Dr. King products or even conducted any sort of scientific study. Something which Barrett and NCAHF have steadfastly argued should be performed by all supplement manufacturers and alternative therapists if they are to be recognized by the likes of NCAHF and Barrett.

After NCAHF presented its case with little or no real evidence, Dr. King’s attorneys requested that the court end the case and rule in its favor. The trial court sided with Dr. King and awarded a judgment in favor of King Bio and Dr. King. NCAHF’s case was so weak and lacking of evidence that Dr. King and King Bio did not even have to present it full case in defense before the judge ruled.

Despite the overwhelming defeat at trial, NCAHF decided to challenge the judge’s decision and filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal in California.

During the appeal process, NCAHF’s attorney, Morse Mehrban, was joined by another purported "consumer watchdog" attorney who fights against alternative therapies and supplements, Mark Boling, on behalf of a little known organization called Consumer Justice Center ("CJC"). CJC filed a "friend of the court brief" in support of NCAHF’s appeal.

NCAHF and CJC argued that the trial court was wrong and that existing law should be changed to allow plaintiffs, such as NCAHF, to bring lawsuits with little or no evidence against a targeted company and, thereafter, force the targeted company to defend itself on the basis of an accusation alone. The Court of appeal was not persuaded that such a change in law was appropriate or logical.

The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete represented Dr. King and King Bio in the appeal and argued that the trial court correctly found in favor of Dr. King and King Bio and that it was not proper under California law or the United States Constitution that a plaintiff, such as NCAHF, could irresponsibly file a lawsuit without any evidence against a product and its manufacturer. Negrete argued that it would be irresponsible and against free enterprise to allow an individual to file a lawsuit without any evidence of wrongdoing with just a couple of hundred dollars in a filing fee, thereby subjecting a victim defendant to spend as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense costs. All because someone could point their finger at what they did not understand or believe in.

In its Opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed with King and Negrete. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that 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"

And, in an more remarkable validation, the Court of Appeals ordered that their Opinion be "published" as a precedent setting case in the official reports of the State of California. This is the first opinion of its kind as to homeopathy and the issues raised during the appeal. It will undoubtedly be discussed by many legal scholars and cited in cases to follow in the future.

jawesq 05:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear jawesq. It is definitely interesting and I agree with your other comment about abuse of process. Dr. King did not bow to legal intimidation and the judge, not only found in his favor but was clearly critical of Barrett and co. questioning his credibility and expertise. All the above is well documented and proven with reliable source. I also agree that letting people believe that you have legal expertise when you are not really qualified is highly questionable, especially if you are in the business of judging others and their use of alternative health related modalities. As I mentioned earlier Dr. Barrett has very little training in law and no formal qualifications. He has no formal training and no formal qualification in any of the health modalities he is highly critical of, presenting only one side of the story to his readers, in the guise of providing quality information. He as no relevant practical experience in any of the health modalities he is critical of and while formally trained as a psychiatrist, he failed the Board certification. All the while he appointed himself a medical and legal expert on quackery, testyfing in court on behalf of the NCAHF or providing advice to lawyers taking legal action againsts practitioners and companies the NCAHF considered fraudulent and quacks. The King Bio case is a very good example. NATTO 18:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think his credentials need to be mentioned, since they are the basis of his 'business'. jawesq 19:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. In this case it is more a lack of credentials. If a person choose an activity where he or she is going to be highly critical of numerous health professionals and the modalities they practice, that person should have a very good grasp of these modalities and be highly credible. It is not enough to post negative information supporting a point of view while withholding positive or supportive information, while claiming as your mission to provide accurate and quality information. I do not doubt that there is some cases of fraud in any profession but that is not a reason to as they say, throw the baby with the water.NATTO 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
With so many lawsuits either lost or pending appeal, Dr. Barrett must have a hefty legal bill. I have not seen any information on his web sites regarding the ongoing legal costs involved and how the money is obtained. NATTO 01:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The same Negrete quotation has now been cited four times this week on this talk page. Rather than a fifth rehashing of the same website text, let's figure out what editors think needs to be put in the article that isn't there. No one is disputing that challenges to Barrett's credentials should be included. However, about 90% of the text attacking Barrett's credentials comes from Bolen and Negrete websites, who have both been involved in litigation with Barrett. While Negrete's summation is useful, we need to rely on published court decisions as primary texts, not his analysis/interpretation. It's clear when going back to the original court papers that he has in places embellished or spun the original text to make his point. And yes, I know Barrett does the same thing. Again, that's why these websites are not as reliable or useful as published legal decisions in getting the article to conform to NPOV.

Well, the discussion page is very long, and I have also said repeatedly that this does not meet a reliability standard as a reference (unless it is an opinion only). jawesq 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I am also wondering if the earlier decision to present the litigation chronologically would be better explained to casual readers if each key figure was discussed in a section: Clark, Bolen, Negrete, Koren, Fonorow, etc. Thoughts? Jokestress 01:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how many parties there are. I'd say there are probably too many to do this. However, it is long and rambling as it is, so something should be done.jawesq 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with jawesq about the need for good sources, especially court documents. In the Negrete statement, the court documents available do support the basis for his comments, even if he has put a spin on it. jawesq above commentary on the King Bio case is well structured and to the point.

While Bolen and Negrete are well known to be critical of Dr. Barrett and the NCAHF, there are others as well. Please see this letter to the president of Loma Linda University by Dr. Julian M. Whitaker, MD [6]. Dr. Whitaker is asking Dr. Lyn Behrens: " Does it concern you that the NCAHF is housed on the Loma Linda campus and by implication, this clandestine and highly defamatory practice is condoned by the University? " And this other link showing that the NCAHF's status in California has been suspended. [7] Or this text reproduced from Alternative Medicine Digest: Whats Eating Stephen Barrett? [8] A cursory search shows many web sites with critical comments about the NCAHF and Dr. Barrett. The article on Stephen Barrett, as it stand, is not ideal but does provide verifiable information regarding Dr. Barrett. His achievements, publications and activities are well listed, occupying the top 50% of the article. The section on litigation is long because he or his alter ego, the NCAHF, has initiated so many lawsuits, some still ongoing ( as per the stated mission of Quackwatch ). The reference section is long because of the need to list every reference in details instead of just placing a link in the body of the text. Jokestress explained the need for this previously. Finally a lot of discussion has revolved around the relevance of the percentage of Board certified M.D.s in relationship to Dr. Barrett's failure of the Board exam and failure to re-try to certify between 1967-1993. NATTO 03:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. The Whitaker letter is not a reliable source. If it's been published somewhere besides the site of a Barrett legal opponent (Fonorow), like a newspaper or magazine, we can include it. If that letter led to action by the University that was written about in a newspaper or magazine, we can include that information. Otherwise, this is just part of a long list of Google search results. That's not going to cut it in terms of reliable sources per WP:BLP.
  2. The NCAHF status in California is mentioned in the article on that entity.
  3. Alternative Medicine Digest is barely a reliable source, but that article isn't really much more than an editorial of sorts with very little, if any, new information.
I don't think anyone is disputing that many people have been critical of Barrett. What we're lacking are reliable sources with new information or specific criticisms. Jokestress 04:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to the Freedom of Health Foundation [9] where Dr. Whitaker comments on this very same issue again. That site is to Dr. Whitaker what Quackwatch is to Dr. Barrett. As perWP:RS: " An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion."NATTO 07:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The article on the Freedom of Health Foundation refers at the bottom to Phillips Health, LLC., which has been renamed Healthy Directions, LLC. in 4/4/2005. This is their web site [10]NATTO 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
In order to keep this discussion from diverging into all these ancillary issues, how about if we discuss criticism of NCAHF on Talk:The National Council Against Health Fraud? Let's keep this limited to criticism of Barrett himself. That way editors can follow what's going on here regarding Barrett specifically. Much of the stuff above is either about NCAHF or Jarvis. Jokestress 09:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Barrett's area of expertise is quackery in healthcare.

I'll start with Negrete's quote:

"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. Also, Barrett has testified that 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." -- Carlos Negrete

Now Negrete is definitely a very biased and antagonistic source. For awhile some of us actually wondered if his press releases were actually written by Tim Bolen, they were so filled with hyperbole, exaggeration, spin, and logical fallacies, definitely telling only one side of the story. But Bolen goes further, including direct lies, deceptive and weasel wording, and lots of conspiracy theories. Of course he can't prove it, and had to admit it was just "euphemism" he made up for what he himself believed, yet he couldn't produce one shred of evidence. The fact that they can work together is quite telling about Negrete's (lack of) integrity.

Yet, in spite of his antagonism, Negrete starts out with the important fact, which some here keep trying to ignore or get around, that Barrett's area of expertise is quackery in healthcare. The board certification matter is irrelevant to that point, since there are others who aren't even MDs or board certified who are also eminent experts on quackery, and with whom he is allied.

In fact, when one looks at the matter of expertise from the side of those trained as homeopaths, naturopaths, etc., expertise in the subject of quackery is something which the promoters and believers in those quackeries are thereby disqualified from possessing. Their belief disqualifies them. They wouldn't believe it if they understood science, critical thinking, or the true nature of quackery. Since they don't understand the issues, they aren't qualified to expose quackery. They cannot add balance to the discussion, only their side of the story, which is a sales pitch that deceives.

Nobody else has any problem with his expertise on the subject of quackery, only those who believe in those quackeries and risk losing their ill-gotten gains when he exposes them. His researching of the subjects, his understanding of the scientific literature, his many resources and collaboration with other experts, his information from experts on the fields he criticizes (including practitioners), all together help him produce articles that are not merely his own opinion, but a summary of the information available. The articles (with all their documentation) are information sources that help to provide a little balance to offset the massive one-sided sales talk and deceptions put out there by various true believers, sales persons, practitioners, quacks, conmen, and criminals. He correctly labels it "quackery," reserving the label "fraud" only for clearly illegal situations.

Barrett's area of expertise is quackery in healthcare. If and when he actually has claimed expertise, one could (and we have) discuss to what degree he is or is not an expert in those other areas, like the legal area. He got dissed on that one, and fortunately uses lawyers (but apparently needs better ones). Other areas such as the actual practice of medicine and engaging in psychiatric lawsuits are clearly less poignant now, since he no longer engages himself in those areas. Even those areas were no problem during his entire career, in spite of lacking board certification. So even specifically for the area where board certification is most relevant, it wasn't considered problematic by the courts or the medical community!

Now, much later, some Wikipedia editors are trying to make a mountain out of an unrelated molehill, and they're building the mountain beside the molehill, since they can't really build on top of it, since it is another matter. But they are still trying to build on top of it. If they succeed here, they may think that they will thus be able to hide the fact that the foundation of their argument is fallacious, but the facts will always be there, and their edits won't hold.

That some others may make the same error, and can be cited here, might be possible, but it must be done using verifiable sources. That should be easy enough. But we must also use reliable sources (that eliminates using Bolen), and editors must not take sides with them. Just because an opinion is cited from a verifiable source doesn't make the opinion reliable or true. Spin is not NPOV, especially in a biography about a living person.

The insistence on connecting the board certification matter with his anti-quackery activisim is unwarranted. It is simply taking one (very old) fact and attempting to build a current, irrelevant, and huge straw man argument around it. That's OR and POV pushing. It also happens to be a poorly disguised ad hominem attack, reproduced here and willingly supported by some editors here. -- Fyslee 11:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

First, we need to know about what Barrett testified. Then we can discuss that in the context of his qualifications. Otherwise, we are going in circles. If, as Negrete claimed, he testified about psychiatry, then his lack of passing the psychiatry boards would be relevant. Otherwise, it really isn't. Also, I noted on Tim Bolan's website that Barrett shouldn't even be called "Doctor" because he is no longer licensed. That is absurd. Once he has an M.D. degree he can forever call himself Doctor if he so chooses. The status of his license has nothing to do with it - even if he had had it revoked, which does not appear to be the case.

Second, what might be more interesting is the number of lawsuits filed, and on what grounds. Defamation would not be of as much interest to the public, I wouldn't think, as those related to accusations of 'quackery'. Did the courts find Barrett's arguments convincing? Or not?jawesq 16:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I know for sure in one case (where Barrett and his NCAHF were suing a homeopathic drug company for false advertising) Barrett testified to being an expert in FDA regulations, but the judge found otherwise...
  • As for his credential as an expert on the law and 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.[11]
So who was really the one liable of false advertising here? Who is the conman? And who is the fraud? Clearly, the most relevant criticism about Barrett is his hypocrisy. He attacks those who he believes are making deceitful claims about their abilities, all the while he himself is inordinately guilty of the very crime which he alleges. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
So why shouldn't any and all faults in his credentials be noted? If Barrett is going to criticize and attack without the proper training to do so, then his credibility is rightly scrutinized on this article. His lack of qualifications to make the accusations that he makes is a relevant and accurate criticism about Barrett. Providing that these weaknesses in his credentials can be cited from relevant and notable sources, they should most certainly be noted in our article. Levine2112 18:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks and libelous insinuations. That's your POV, when all he was guilty of is naivity and poor preparation. You may or may not believe in the lie of homeopathy, but he is quite right - it is (in an ethical and real sense, not legal sense) false advertising to sell homeopathic products and claim that they have any significant health effects. That is deception.
He was simply not properly prepared for the far-from-ideal realities of legal decisions, which often fail to convict guilty people because of technicalities, and in this case, an old FDA law that allows homeopathic products to be sold without any testing or proof of efficacy or safety. It is assumed that if they are truly homeopathic, they can't hurt anyone. (Nor can they help anyone!) It truly is The Ultimate Fake:
"Homeopathic "remedies" enjoy a unique status in the health marketplace: They are the only category of quack products legally marketable as drugs. This situation is the result of two circumstances. First, the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was shepherded through Congress by a homeopathic physician who was a senator, recognizes as drugs all substances included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States. Second, the FDA has not held homeopathic products to the same standards as other drugs. Today they are marketed in health-food stores, in pharmacies, in practitioner offices, by multilevel distributors [A], through the mail, and on the Internet."
He should have first sought to get that law rescinded, so homeopathic products would be tested and sold according to the same rules that govern all other medications. Then, and only then, should he have proceeded to go after Frank King, DC, ND, and accuse him (correctly) of false advertising. He's charging a fortune for water! Now that is a criminal act, unless one calls the water "homeopathic." Then suddenly that ridiculous law protects anyone who wants to sell a worthless product. They can just call it "homeopathic," and many do just that. It's the perfect cover, unless they get caught putting any truly "active ingredients" in it! Then it gets judged like any other medication, and has to meet real standards for safety and effectivity.
He simply did things in the wrong order. That's naive. It's not criminal, hypocritical, or fraudulent. He's a well-meaning crusader who was poorly prepared and needs better counsel. Your personal attack on Stephen Barrett is uncalled for, wholly misguided, and at the very least in very poor taste. It says much more about you than it does about him. -- Fyslee 21:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not here to defend homeopathy; nor should you be here to condemn it. This article is about Barrett. Stay on topic.
You're are once again getting away from the point. FACT: Barrett misrepresented himself as an expert in FDA regulations. FACT: Barrett misrepresented himself as an expert in homeopathy. FACT: Barrett misrepresented himself as a legal expert. FACT: Barrett accuses others of "quackery" or "fraud" for misrepresenting themselves (or their products). Thus, Barrett is a hypocrite because he accuses people of being something that a court of law has said he is guilty of.
Now then, you are accusing me of making an attack against Barrett just above. What did I write above that is not citable from a notable source? In fact, most everything that I have cited comes from Judge Fromholz. Your calling Barrett "naive" is more of an ad hominem than anything I have stated above. Wait a minute. You are accusing me of something that you are guilty of... hmmm, what does that make you? Levine2112 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This talk page is full of this kind of stuff. Can we stick to discussing the content of the article. This is not usenet, but it reads like it. David D. (Talk) 06:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a question: where is the actual evidence that "Barrett also had said that he was a "legal expert" even though he had no formal legal training"? All I can find, using the links in the article or using Google, are quack websites and quack-sympathetic websites claiming that he said he was a legal expert. But where is the original quote? If it is missing, it seems to be a rumor!
I can easily imagine him saying half in earnest, "I am sued every few months by quacks who want to silence me, so I am a sort of legal expert". That would hardly be the crime his opponents make of it.
I request that the rumor be either removed or qualified as a rumor. --Hob Gadling 09:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem etc..

Regarding this:

He is frequently the target of criticism and ad hominem attacks by those whose practices he criticizes and attacks.

In short, "he is criticized by those who he criticizes". This is banal and poorly worded and needs to be re-stated. What exactly is trying to be said? I mean, anyone who is critical of others is going to be criticized in return. Can we be more specific? Also "attacks" is really a poor word, it's a loaded term and is aggressive language. As far as I know, no one is being "attacked", and if they are, this term needs to be qualified by what you mean "attacked".

The ad hominem statement is pure POV and OR. ad hominem is a value judgement and not a neutral statement. What is ad hominem to one person is a legitimate POV to another. Basically, when someone says ad hominem, they are expressing disaproval with the position of the person making the statement. It is original research to classify someones statement as ad hominem - if you are going to use that qualifier, than it needs to be said who defined it as such. "ad hominem" is also somewhat pedantic (kinda like "pedantic"). -- Stbalbach 02:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. jawesq 04:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but isn't Barrett critical of their opinions with respect to alternative medicine. Is he not critcising their products and businesses? That would not be an example of ad hominem. Do you have any specific examples of his ad hom arguments? I disagree with this statement from Stbalbach: "Basically, when someone says ad hominem, they are expressing disaproval with the position of the person making the statement." Ad hom is not when you disagree with the position of the person making the statement, it's when you criticise the person rather than their argument. It would seem that many of Barretts critics do excatly that. David D. (Talk) 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Just read this page especially under the section: Bolen's Credibility. Granted Barrett's attacks are a response to Bolen's attacks, but they are still ad hominem. By your definition, Barrett is attacking Bolen's credibility and not neccessarily Bolen's position. Levine2112 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, as I've explained many times attacks before, Dr. Barrett produces articles which criticise ideas and practices which he considers to be unscientific, unethical, and often unlawful, doing so with documentation, and in collaboration with experts on those subjects. The ones who find their practices being criticised do not respond properly. Instead they respond with ad hominem and straw man attacks. The proper response would be to calmly and professionally provide the needed scientific proof to prove him wrong. Since they can't do that, they attack him personally instead, often viciously and falsely. The facts of the matter are that proper responses are very rare. (Please provide examples to prove me wrong.)
During the last seven years since I learned of Barrett's existence, I have only seen about two such responses. They dealt with scientific and medical matters, and were free of lies, insinuations, conspiracy theories, and personal attacks. They really tried to debunk his charges. All other responses have universally been what are properly classified as ad hominem attacks, a classic logical fallacy and dirty trick. Using words such as "attack" and "criticism" can be fine, but in this case the documentation universally supports the precise description of the responses to Barrett's criticisms as "ad hominem attacks." The use of the word "attacks" in this case is because that's the common description of the logical fallacy. They aren't mere "responses" to criticism, but are cowardly and weak attacks from people who have no legitimate defense for their practices.
The description above, claiming that Barrett himself engages in ad hominem attacks, reminds me of the current crisis in the Middle East. Both sides accuse the other of atrocities. Well, two weeks after it started, that's true, but the important thing to discuss is how it started - Hizbollah made an unprovoked attack on Israel. Period. All further discussion only muddies the waters. Back to base one. Hizbollah started it and must stop.
Likewise, Barrett makes well-reasoned and documented criticisms and his opponents reply improperly. They must reply properly. All further discussion of what happens later is of lesser importance, and only functions as a straw man argument, seeking to distract attention from the key point of the matter - they reply improperly. Period. They must start playing fairly and reply properly. Otherwise they should stop their unscientific, unethical, and often illegal practices. That would be the most proper response. -- Fyslee 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think your comparison to the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict is a little weird but apt. The point is not who started it. That is childish. The point is that now they are both attacking (and killing) each other. That is the travesty.
You can't defend Barrett by first saying "He doesn't attack." Then when I point out that, "No, he actually does," your tuned suddenly changes to "Barrett doesn't attack unless he is first attacked." Who started it is arguable and irrelevant of the fact that Barrett does engage in ad hominem attacks against his critics. And that he criticizes his critics for doing exactly what he does is even further evidence of Barrett's hypocrisy. Levine2112 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
My point was not who attacked first, but that the response is improper. He makes legitimate criticisms that can be discussed. Instead of discussing them and possibly debunking them, ad hominem attacks are used. His criticisms stand as is, still effective and unchallenged, and the perpetrators of the criticized improprieties continue to do business, while using ad hominem attacks as a straw man diversionary technique. Their followers then buy into the logical fallacy and join in the attack. They ignore the fact that they have not responded properly and debunked his charges.
This illegitimate method of response is quite consistent across the board, and reveals the insincere intentions of quacks and conmen - they aren't really interested in determining the truth of the matter, only in selling their products and fooling the public. They can only continue to fool the public by diverting their attention from the legitimate criticisms, and they do that by the use of ad hominem attacks. -- Fyslee 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the content regarding this part of the sentence:

"He is frequently the target of criticism and ad hominem attacks"

So given the discussion to date are we agreed this is the case? This appeared to be the main problem brought up by Stbalbach who seems to think that the ad hom is subjective. I don't really understand how it can be subjective, his critics either debate his arguments or they criticise him. With regard to the last part of that sentence above:

"by those whose practices he criticizes and attacks."

Is there a problem with this? it sounds as if he does attack some of the time ad hom against ad hom, if you will. Certainly it seems he criticises too, in the none ad hom sense. Stbalbach, the ball is in your court, what are you suggesting with regard to rewriting this sentence? How about the following to get us started.

Barrett is frequently the target of ad hominem attacks by those whose practices he criticizes, although a few have tried to rebutt his claims (ref here).

I think a link to those people that actually did try to rebutt his claims might be useful. Links to all the ad hom sites don't really add to the intellectual discussion here. David D. (Talk) 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an important point and a matter of NPOV that Barrett too engages in ad hominem. Barrett does more than just criticize entire fields of thought. More often, he targets individuals. If he attacks an individual, the unfortunate law of human nature dictates that he should expect to receive at least an equal and opposite reaction to his fingerpointing. I think including the sentence which David D. is outlining is imperative, but it needs to be worded correctly. There is a point being made that Barrett can be hypocritical. Whether or not this sentence serves that end is besides the point. The evidence that has been cited is that the ad hominem attacks are very much a two-way street. Thus, the sentence should read accordingly.
Barrett has been the target of ad hominem attacks by individuals whom he attacks. These back-and-forth battles have lead to several lawsuits. Barrett is frequently challenged for his lack of experience within those fields he has labelled quackery.TheDoctorIsIn 23:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with TheDoctorIsIn and his proposal, with a small modification. " Barrett has been the target of ad hominem attacks by individuals whom he attacks. These back-and-forth battles have lead to several lawsuits, most of them initiated by Barrett or the NCAHF. Barrett is frequently challenged for his lack of experience within those fields he has labelled quackery." NATTO 07:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Now we are getting somewhere, throughout these conversations we should always be trying to think how our discussion will be reflected in the actual article. Here are further modifications building from NATTO's last version:
" Barrett criticises the practices of those within the fields he has labelled quackery. Some have addressed his claims (ref here), although, he is often the target of ad hominem rebuttals, usually challenging his lack of experience within the given field. This has led to back-and-forth battles including several lawsuits, most of them initiated by Barrett or the NCAHF."
I wonder if the word attacks in the TheDoctorIsIn's first sentence ("by individuals whom he attacks") is a bit POV? I have tried to rearrange the sentences and choose language to set up a less controversial perspective of the interactions. Also shouldn't the legitimate replies to Barrett's original criticism be mentioned as well as the ad hom attacks? Does the phrase "back-and-forth battles" relate that Barrett is also involved in ad hom, or should that be more explicit? David D. (Talk) 16:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, just from what is cited in our article, we have Barrett calling Deepak Chopra a purveyor of "Ayurvedic mumbo jumbo." We also note that Barrett points out that Dr. Privatera was was convicted in 1975 of prescribing laetrile (but later pardoned by then California governor Jerry Brown) and was charged (though not convicted) in the death of a 71 year old patient in 2003. When these sentences were added - without what I put in the parenthesis because I added these qualifiers later - it was said that Barrett made these comments to attack the credibility of a person who was speaking ill of him. (I wonder if Chopra even knows who Barrett is.) Anyhow, judging by what we have in this article alone, Barrett certainly engages in ad hominem attacks, so certainly TheDoctorIsIn's uses of the work attack applied to both Barrett and his detractors isn't overstating the matter. Levine2112 01:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Attack is defined as To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner. This is certainly what Barrett does to both individuals and practices he does not agree with. So attack is not POV in this context but an accurate description of what is happening. NATTO 02:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead comment

Hey ya'll, I know you've been sweating this article a lot and the POVs are pretty intense, but I have been eyeing the second sentence in the lead for awhile.

My concern with the way it is written is that a person cannot "expose" something if it is not "fraud", which for NPOV you have to infer is possible. I would suggest moving the quotes to make it work better:

It still says essentially the same thing, (I think:) --Dematt 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is a big issue, since there already is a qualifier. However, logically, you would be correct. jawesq 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your logic. Levine2112 05:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"describe" works for me. Thanks! --Dematt 13:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Someone claimed that an editor here was making a "libelous insinuation". "Libelous" is not a term to be thrown around loosely. First, I didn't see anything that was factually untrue. That is the first requirement for libel. If something is true, it is not libelous. Second, opinion is never libelous. I just hope that people become more judicious about this...

Oh, and finally, libel against a public figure requires "reckless indifference to the truth" or "knowledge that the statement was false." I don't see anything here that suggests there was any libel.

M.D.

It doesn't matter whether he was "de-licenced" or if he allowed his licence to expire without being renewed. If he doesn't currently have a licence to practice medicine why does "M.D." appear after his name in the intro and next to his picture in the intro? savidan(talk) (e@) 07:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Savidan, he has earned a medical degree and is thus entitled to use the letters M.D. after his name. A license allows you to practice in a given jurisdiction and a pre-requisite is to have formal training i.e a medical degree bestowed by an accredited medical school. He does not lose his M.D because he does not have a current license. However I agree that to use his medical credentials so prominently on his web site is an issue because he is using the credibility that goes with an M.D. degree for his work as a self-proclaimed advocate against what he describes as quackery. Interestingly while he claims expertise in quackery , he does not have any formal training in any alternative or complementary modality and an M.D degree, especially from the 1960's, does no provide him with any practical knowledge or experience in such. NATTO 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Has he won any court cases?

Has he ever won any court cases? You can't tell from this article which seems to just list every case he lost, regardless of importance. It looks like a hatchet job to be honest. Secretlondon 11:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any victories for him; there might be though. The person who added most of the citations - user Jokestress - while extremely fair an unbiased with her edits, could be characterized as a pro-Barrett editor. I don't think her intent was to denigrate Barrett, but rather to just present the facts. The facts seems to be that he lost most, if not all, of his libel cases. The top of the section explains a possible reason why. However, if you find a victorious case for Barrett that is verifiable from a notable source (actual court records are preferred), please feel free to add it to this list. Thank you. Levine2112 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe he has settled a few out of court, so they wouldn't be registered. I think Mercola was one of those cases. See here. -- Fyslee 20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This one is mentioned already on the Barrett article. So I guess not everything listed here are losses. They are all losses or settlements. Levine2112 21:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism and pseudoskepticism

In light of the recent all inclusiveness discussion that the category headings are taking, do you think this article should discuss the concept of skepticism and pseudoskepticism? --Dematt 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How would you defined skepticism and pseudoskepticism ? NATTO 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the heat this article generates would be easier for the reader to understand (which is de rigueur) if there was references made in the text to Pathological skepticism & Abuses of skepticism--Aspro 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mercola

I am very interested in getting to the bottom of what happened with the Mercola case. I just found a source that states:

Stephen Barrett, operator of Quackwatch once attempted a lawsuit for libel against Mercola for his posting of an inflammatory article written by Tim Bolen on his website. Once the article was posted on Dr. Mercola's site, Barrett threatened to sue him unless he gave him $10,000. The case was eventually settled out of court, though how this occurred is unknown. [12]

The other source we have is from Barrett's site in his words:

In October 2000, I filed suit in Pennsylvania against an osteopathic physician in Illinois who had republished one of Bolen's messages and added some thoughts of his own. Bolen's message had falsely claimed that I (a) was "de-licensed," (b) had committed extortion, and (c) had been disqualified as an expert in a malpractice suit. After the doctor contested the suit on jurisdictional grounds, I withdrew it and refiled in Illinois. In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provided grounds for a libel suit. In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000. [13]

Though Mercola isn't mentioned, I think we can assume he is that osteopathic physician. Currently I am looking for more sources. If there was a legal settlement, there should be some documents stipulating the terms. Perhaps, if Barrett is still checking in here, he might be persuaded to post the documents on his site and link us to them? Steve? In the meantime, can anyone find any other sources? Perhaps something more reliable than what we have? Thanks. Levine2112 06:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary:
Litigation - "this isn't established. I have references that says otherwise. There must be a legal record, even though it was settled out of court.)"
It is established in public and Mercola hasn't complained. The $50,000 figure is quoted several places, but of course not from a non-existent court record. The About.com source you quote is from an old copy of the Wikipedia article on Mercola. The Wikipedia article has been brought up to date.
Since you claim to have "references that says otherwise," please supply them here. If they are better than Barrett's account, then we can use them. Until then, his account is the best we've got and should stay.
It is especially important to document this correctly, since even a casual Google search reveals that Barrett's enemies universally cite this incident in a way that makes it look like Barrett withdrew the suit. They do it in such a deceitful way as to imply he didn't have a case, when in fact the judge said he had a case, and that was enough for Mercola to see the writing on the wall. Even though such settlements often include limits on which details can be publicized, the amount apparently wasn't part of that agreement, otherwise Mercola would have sued faster than .....! That he hasn't is telling.
Any failure to include this information, or attempt to suppress it, will only serve to add Wikipedia to the list of enemies who attempt to miscredit Barrett. -- Fyslee 12:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
As it was filed in Illinois - I looked up Illinois to see what 'case activity' there had been. Clerk of the Circuit Court--Aspro 15:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, you are getting a little paranoid about this. Try not to take this personally and accuse editiors of being part of a conspiracy to discredt Barrett. We are only trying to get the facts straight. The Answers.com article which I pointed to had conflicting information with what we had here. I was merely searching for clarity. Thus far, all we know of the settlement details comes from one paragraph on a page not about the case where the name "Mercola" is never mentioned. What user Aspro posted above is helpful in that it shows that the case was certainly settled on an agreement outside of the court. This is new information for us here. I think if we continue to diligently search we can find out the terms of the settlement with greater clarity from a more reliable source than what we have. What Barrett wrote may be true. I'm sure it certainly could be. Let's try to confirm it with a stronger reference (which may even be something where Mercola states the terms of thea agreement and it matches what Barrett has stated). Levine2112 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Aspro, would Lexis list attorney agreements reached outside of the court? Levine2112 19:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The inclusion of non-verified information about any settlement is not up to the standard established in other court cases in the article. The fact that Dr. Mercola did not issue a formal denial is not evidence that the details of the settlement are correct. Independant confirmation from a reliable source, preferably legal, is the standard adopted to edit the article. Thus the details of the settlement should be removed until properly documented otherwise is a case of double standard.NATTO 20:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Most settlements have confidentiality agreements. They are not public record and therefore Lexis would not have such information.jawesq 23:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a deeper problem here? WP:RS #Company and organization websites Are there parallels to the problems WP editors had with people citing to 'Whale to' which kept leading to constant edit wars -slow at first- then the intensity grew 'n grew when it started to spread from article to article? It was brought to a head -I think- by the actions of the aforesaid website owner/WP editor but there does seems to be an underlying and inherent danger in freely linking to such sites.
See: Requests for comment/Whaleto
Anyway: I will leave it to those who care enough to ponder.--Aspro 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

This is the group made for discussion of the neutrality disputed tag on the front of the article. Let us resolve whatever things we are disputing so that it may eventually come down in time. I've cleaned up here a bit. Nevertheless, this page is cluttered. What discussions are no longer active so they can be archived? Someone more familiar with these discussions please take initiative so that new talks can be opened with fresh perspectives. Tyciol 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

ABMS and bulk deletion of posting on talk page based on POV of what libel is...

Fyslee, regarding the ABMS data it was certainly discussed on the talk page and there was no decision to remove it. You were opposed to it all along,, that is clear. Also you have not provided any evidence for your claim that he was in the mnority and further what happened in 1967 does not have to be poured in concrete, He chose not to try to get Board certified even if a majority of his peers became Board certified. Until you can provide factual evidence that from 1967 to 1993 most of his peers were not Board certified and chose. like he did, not to try to get certified. you should stop deleting this item.

I also note that you have deleted numerous posts on the talk page by other editors on your judgement that it was libel. Interestingly you have left the comments of sbinfo quite prominently. This is a clear case of confirmation bias. NATTO 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it was archived not deleted. Subtle difference i know, but relevant. Or was some of it not archived? I admit i have not been keeping track here. David D. (Talk) 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The commentary on the history of the talk page says " removed " not archived. It looks like it was removed. I looked at the archive and cannot find them... NATTO 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
How about here: Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_2? David D. (Talk) 03:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have done the archive properly, we should not maintain fragmented conversations in two places. It will be really confusing when the next archive time comes around. For what its worth i think that with regard to libelous statements WP:BLP is referring to the main article. David D. (Talk) 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
David. Thanks for fixing it and restoring them to the archive, as it should be. It seems that the order has changed somewhat since it seems Fyslee did not deleted eveything but only the posts he deemed libellous in his POV. I fully agree with you that the the libel warning is for the article itself. The talk page is for discussion between editors and should, of course, be civil, in line with Wiki rules.


My deepest apologies for causing so much trouble. I have explained what happened below, and of course I wouldn't delete things in the manner suggested above. I have no motivation to do so, since I believe open discourse is best. -- Fyslee 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Looking around Wikipedia I have found that the standard of editing in the Barrett biography is quite high ( that is a good thing in my opinion ), however the same standard is not necessarily applied to biographies of others, which are considered quacks by some editors, who are involved in editing these articles and the Barrett article. For example the article on Hulda Clark contains very few references, if any. The article on QuackPotWatch has been deleted ( and the decision was certainly far from unanimous ) and a search on Timothy Patrick Bolen is redirected to Quackwatch which contain very little info on him except a link to one of his web sites as a link to the POV of Barrett on Bolen... NATTO 05:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not mass-delete other people's writings. The three paragraphs below were deleted but not archived. I guess it is not the only one. What is the justification for that?

Just a question: where is the actual evidence that "Barrett also had said that he was a "legal expert" even though he had no formal legal training"? All I can find, using the links in the article or using Google, are quack websites and quack-sympathetic websites claiming that he said he was a legal expert. But where is the original quote? If it is missing, it seems to be a rumor!

I can easily imagine him saying half in earnest, "I am sued every few months by quacks who want to silence me, so I am a sort of legal expert". That would hardly be the crime his opponents make of it.

I request that the rumor be either removed or qualified as a rumor. --Hob Gadling 09:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

--Hob Gadling 09:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


My deepest apologies for causing so much trouble. I have explained what happened below, and of course I wouldn't delete things in the manner suggested above. I have no motivation to do so, since I believe open discourse is best. -- Fyslee 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OMG! What have I done? Mea Culpa!

I'm back from work (it's evening here in Denmark) and find that this talk page is really screwed up, and it looks like I must have done it! Many of your later remarks here didn't make sense to me, and so I did the logical thing - looked at the edit history.

I had made a deletion of Paul Hartal's libelous statement using this edit summary:

"Libelous statements removed per WP:BLP"

The deletion worked as intended, and I even checked the page to see if my edit was executed properly. It was. (Unfortunately I didn't check the version shown while looking at the edit history...! If I had, I would have discovered the mistake.) The libel was gone and replaced with my short statement to that effect. The BLP rules demand deletion of libel in articles, talk pages, and even in personal name space like user pages, and that's what I did - I found the libel in Archive 2 and deleted it.

Now here's where something went wrong, and I still don't know how it happened. If you look in the now restored archives, the libel is still there - the italicized paragraph. None of it is true, and seeing who posted it there, I am not surprised....[14]...just as long as it is negative about Barrett, with no regard for it's lack of reliability or truthfulness. That's using Wikipedia to post POV directed malicious libel. Very unwikipedian, and was pointed out by other editors [15] [16], but ignored and excused by the guilty editor.[17]

It wasn't an article as claimed, but a libelous pack of lies posted to a bulletin board, and several editors pointed that out, including Barrett himself. It was suggested that it be deleted according to the WP:BLP rules. [18] It didn't happen at the time.

The whole section tells the story of duplicity and disregard for truth. As long as it can injure Barrett's reputation, anything goes, and that type of editing is still going on here, right now. It needs to stop. Criticism is OK, as long as it is serious, not ad hominem and/or libelous. Just because it is verifiable criticism, doesn't make it allowable. This is a serious encyclopedia effort, not yellow journalism.

I later rediscovered the statement after having checked out the rules and searching for it. Once I found it, I did as had been suggested, and as the rules demand.

I don't know how the error with the archives happened, but it looks like editing the archives transferred the archive contents to this talk page, deleting (or hiding?) the link to the archive in the process. I can see that some small symbols must have automatically beem added by the software in the process, because I didn't do it, since I never use them. I guess to edit archives one needs to get administrative help to avoid this happening.

The whole contents of Archive 2 were moved, including my comment where I deleted the libel - it's there if you look - just search the page for these words:

"(Libelous statements removed per WP:BLP) -- Fyslee 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)"

while looking at this page.

Now I need to restore things to their proper order. This will take me some time.

I am so sorry for all of this. It has apparently created some understandable confusion, and was definitely not done deliberately. -- Fyslee 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold it. Nothing complicated happened. You never edited the archive 2, although you clearly thought you were editing that page. All your edits were on this talk page. Consequently archive 2 represents the unedited version of the talk page. All i did was to remove all the sections on this talk page that were included in the archive 2. Are you sure archives are also held to the same libel rules. it expicitely states articles in the template above. ? David D. (Talk) 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see what you mean. When looking at the edit history for Archive 2, it doesn't show any edit from my side, but it doesn't look like Jokestress left any copy on this talk page either. [19] (So how did it get back, if not when I made my deletion?) She left the last few sections, since they were likely still active. That's standard practice when making archives, which I have done a number of times. From then on the content of this page grew larger and larger. But when I made my deletion of the libel, something happened that was much more than just that deletion. [20]
Well, I need to start working on restoring things. I'll be as careful as possible to restore every single little thing. -- Fyslee 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this talk page is fine as it is. You do not need to restore the discussions. Relevant material rom July can be referred to in the archive if and when it is needed for perspective. David D. (Talk) 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

RESTORED! I believe I got everything. If anyone ever finds anything I left out, please let me know. Now I'll need to go back and explain things in the comments that were made after my goof-up. -- Fyslee 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK now i see the problem, there really was a lot missing. Clearly i did not check the history closely. All's well now at least. David D. (Talk) 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee. Thank you for explaining the reasons for your actions. Your point of view on libel is quite expansive however.
  • It seems that Barrett is allowed his POV at will while POV from other notable critics would have to comply with your interpretation oof what is acceptable .
  • As far as the need for counterbalance in the article ( giving the other side of the story ), it is obvious since there are editors who will only post what Barrett writes himself about others or himself. The article already contain a substantial amount of such information ( it is readily seen by looking at the content of Quackwatch ).
  • It should also be noted that the same editors who require a high burden of proof in the Barrett article, do not seem to have the same requirements when editing other articles of people or subject they consider quackery ( in their own view of course ).
  • Finally you have not restored the talk page as it was before you deleted material.... I note that this is not the first time that you have altered posting by other editors....NATTO 21:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


POV is one thing, deception is quite another. Libel is when one makes damaging statements without proof. The Wikipedia policy on WP:BLP is very strict. Even negative information must be sourced very strictly, even higher than other forms of information. If not it must be removed immediately, and even more so if it is "potentially libelous." That applies to every byte on Wikipedia, including private user pages, talk pages, and archives. This is being discussed right now.
Barrett provides documentation for his POV, and he doesn't make wild charges pulled out of thin air and conspiracy theories. His criticisms are open to discussion and can be debunked if they are wrong. His opponents don't do that. They make ad hominem attacks on his person and vague and large accusations against Quackwatch, but when it comes to the details, they fail to get specific or to engage him in honest scientific debate. IOW they don't deal with the crtiticism, they attack the man, and that is unfair and not serious criticism. That kind of stuff is yellow journalism and is not allowed at Wikipedia, escpecially when discussin living persons, whether or not it is in a biography article. The policy applies to all living persons mentioned at Wikipedia. Go and read Jimbo Wales for yourself.
Another big difference is that he isn't making millions by selling quack products. He is protecting the public from dubious products and warning them, without getting compensation. They, OTOH, are mad at him for exposing their dishonesty or lack of due diligence in their failure to ensure that their products are safe, effective, and approved.
The motivations are vastly different.
Please explain your last points. I have attempted to restore the whole thing. Please provide precise URLS from the edit history that show what I have left out.
Please do the same with your other ominous charge about altering "posting by other editors." You write it as if I did something deceptive.
Whatever the case, there is certainly no intent to deceive. -- Fyslee 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Fyslee. First I agree with David D. ( For what its worth i think that with regard to libelous statements WP:BLP is referring to the main article. David D. (Talk) 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC) ) that the warning applies to the article itself, not the talk page, so that comments, especially critical ones, should be well referenced with a reliable source. The talk page is a place for discussion and stating the various POV and arguments by the editors. Finally my comment about altering posting refers to a previous event where you highlighted postings by sbinfo. I accept that the latest event was a mistake. It shows that even experienced Wikipedian can make them. With some many recent major changes, archiving and de-archiving in the last day it has become difficult to keep tract, so let's move on. NATTO 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you will see that the policy applies to "...any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages,..." -- Fyslee 09:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Fyslee. You also constantly make the charge that " Barrett provides documentation for his POV, and he doesn't make wild charges pulled out of thin air and conspiracy theories. His criticisms are open to discussion and can be debunked if they are wrong. His opponents don't do that." This is not factual. In fact there are many critics who have provided detailed and factual answers to accusations and attacks made on Quackwatch, such as Dr. Cranton, Dr. Schrauser, Dr. Sahelian ect... Others have higlighted the fact that he depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work to criticize alternative medicine. He says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable and he believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. That is the other side of the story. NATTO 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be able to find "exceptions to the rule," but they are few and far between. Most of his critics, including some named in the article (Hartal and Bolen, for example), use direct libel and conspiracy theories. I have nothing against legitimate and serious critism from extremely reliable sources being mentioned, but they must conform to WP:BLP, and not be yellow journalism and ''ad hominem attacks.
They must be specific, and therefore be linked to the precise subject being criticized. So even the criticism of those you name should be chosen with care. Why choose their ad hominem attacks, when you could choose more serious criticisms, assuming they aren't undocumented criticisms. Criticisms alone aren't sufficient for inclusion. They should be well-argued and provide the scientific documentation to show a serious attempt to debunk Barrett, even if the effort fails.
If we keep these aspects in mind, the criticism section will be more reliable, credible, trustworthy, and above all stable. I would think that such would be in the best interests of serious critics. Of course many critics don't care, as long as they can use Wikipedia as one more venue to air their wild charges. Wikipedia mustn't be misused in that way, and editors here shouldn't be helping them.
The charges about him using "negative research and case studies" are just charges which anyone can make. He looks at the whole picture and if there is strong evidence, then he can't ignore it. BTW, that charge works both ways, since purveyors of many forms of alternative medicine depend on case studies, and poor research that is favorable, to sell their products for millions of dollars, and at great risk to their customers. They conveniently ignore or attempt to hide the fact that better quality research shows negative results. It is those research results that Barrett cites in his criticisms. If he is quilty as charged, then those situations should be specifically dealt with on the article pages, and could be mentioned briefly here. He would also like to be made aware of such lapses, done in a serious way, unaccompanied by accusations and attacks. Constructive criticism is always helpful. -- Fyslee 09:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee. This article is not about others and your criticism of them, it is about Barrett and he can certainly read the response made by his critics. I have read his web site and know that he does not try to present issues fairly, just his own POV and he select the evidence supporting it while conveniently ignoring the rest. That is what his critics say as well and they have a valid point. By the way you should read the article on confirmation bias, it it quite interesting. NATTO 11:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Your repetition of the charges does not make them so. Be specific. As far as confirmation bias, I'm certainly familiar with the concept. It cuts both ways. Do you know anyone who is totally free from it? I'd like to meet them! -- Fyslee 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee. Of course. However I am not an anti-quackery advocate, whatever that means. About Barrett, his critics says he is not balanced, fair and objective and Barrett says he does not see the need to be balanced... What else do you need ? As far as confirmation bias is concerned I agree that anyone can display it, however once you know it is possible you make an effort to be balanced and objective and you do not compare people you " judge " to be quacks to rapists and murderers.... While I personnaly agree that there is valid information on Quackwatch, there is also a lot of bias and pre-conceived ideas. That is why information on confirmation bias is relevant when Barrett and Quackwatch is the topic. By the way Barrett uses the principle to prove his POV but he seem to ignore the fact that he also displays it himself....NATTO 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You know we've been over this misuse of the quote about "rapists and murderers" before, and that you continue to misapply it is quite telling. There was no attempt to directly compare quacks to them, but to illustrate how one should properly expose information that is inaccurate or illegal, which is certainly not by giving it equal time. Since we've gone over this before quite extensively here, I see no need to rehash it, but will provide the quote here, so we can see that quacks weren't mentioned, and that the comparison was about "unbalanced subjects" like "quackery and fraud":
"Balance is important when legitimate controversy exists. But 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? The information Quackwatch provides is not filtered by editors who are too timid or believe it is politically incorrect to provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless. When discussing conflicting viewpoints, we indicate which ones are the most sensible." [21]
-- Fyslee 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I did read the entire quote before. It clearly says that Quackwatch purports to present the naked truth.... Of course according to them.... They (he ) also decide what view point is the most sensible. In other words Quackwatch is the arbiter and judge of what is true and what is most sensible. You can spin it the way you wish. He clearly implies that the press ( and himself in extenso ) should not allow those he deems quacks to argue the value of their services no more they the press should allow rapists and murderers to do so. Of course the difference is that in reality to call someone a rapist or murderer, the press has to wait until they have been properly charged and convicted by a court of law. Of course that does not eliminate the possibility of judicial errors but at least there is due process which is at least an attempt to be fair and impartial.

All this shows a certain arrogance. Maybe he should start to look at himself instead of being critical of so many things he clearly only partly understand. There is a lot more to life and health than science. NATTO 05:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OR and other erroneous interpretations

(Moved here from my talk page, since it's relevant here. -- Fyslee)


Definition: Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

The ABMS data in the article is

1- is taken from a reliable source 2- has been previously published 3- is not a theory 4- is not an argument or an analysis

It is simply a fact that is real and referenced from a reliable, reputable site.

So does not fit the definition of OR as per Wikipedia.

It is also highly relevant, it is factual and neutral information directly related to the item at hand. The reader can draw their own conclusions once they are provided with correct, verifiable, relevant information. That is what an encyclopedia does.

Also the deletion of posting on the Barrett talk page is a wrong interpretation of Wiki policy that applies to the article itself. Please refrain from applying your unilateral interpretation of Wiki rules. Finally citing the point of view of notable critics when it is properly referenced is fully acceptable, Whether you do not like the point of view or not. NATTO 13:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fyslee on this point i just can't be bothered to edit war. We need to reach a concensus and i think it would be good to get fresh input. My take from above is that the conjugation of point A (from cite 1) and point B (from cite 2) to imply argument Z fails WP:OR where I have bolded in the quoted material from WP:OR below:
It [orginial research] includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
I would accept the use of the following type of sourced opinion. Point A and B suggest argument Z (from cite 3). David D. (Talk) 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
David, your position on this is already known and we have discussed your argument previously. Other editors have accepted this factual information as relevant, including myself. In fact citing a statistic from a reliable source that has been published is not an argument. There is nothing in the text that says Barrett should have been Board certified or not. The critics make a point which is valid and documented. The reader is provided with factual but neutral evidence. It is up to them to make their own mind. What you are doing is superimposing your own conclusion on the text and then claim it is argumentative. Please note that an encyclopedia is not limited to quoting published comments by other persons. Fact that are true can also be posted as long as the editor does not make an original argument himself from it. No such argument is made in the article itself. NATTO 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that the evidence is not neutral, and the argument does not have to literally be made by an editor to be implied. In my mind the implication that is made by the juxtaposition of the data is not acceptable, but we have been through that before.
For reference in my view:
Point A = he failed his board exam so critics claim he is not a medical expert.
Point B = In 1993 about 81% of physicians were Board certified;
The implied argument Z (new analysis) is that he is not a medical expert since the majority in his profession are board certified. You are saying that i am "superimposing your own conclusion on the text" but what other possible reason could there be for including point B in that context?
The acceptable argument would be to present cite 3 from his critics "We note that Dr. Barratt failed part of his medical board certification exams in 1967 and never retook them. When he retired in 1993, 81% of his peers had passed the board exams suggesting he is in the bottom quarter of his peers and, as such, is not qualified as a medical expert." If you can find something along the lines of cite 3 i will be happy to include the information. While I disagree with the analysis (see archive 2 here and here) at least it would be a documented argument. David D. (Talk) 21:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • David. Yes we have discussed all this before. My point is simple. 1- His critics raised the issue of Board certification which Barrett has admitted in a court of law and confirmed on this talk page that he failed and chose to never tried to take again. This is clearly proven. Barrett knew and admitted that Board certification was increasingly relevant but he chose not to try again and was able to get by as he himself explained 2- The critics say this is relevant to his claim of medical expertise, that is their point of view and it is well documented. 3- The available data is that the vast majority of physicians were Board certified when Barrett was still in practice, in fact the data shows a constant increase in the number of Board certified physicians from 1989 76.1% to 1999 89.2%. That is what is happening and that is all that is implied here. The rest is the result of your own analysis, whether you decide that the data support the views of the critics or not, that is up to you or any reader. I welcome the posting of more factual data. NATTO 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


The deletions were an unfortunate error, and the incident is explained above.

My reference to OR had nothing to do with the points you mention above. You need to keep in mind that I'm an experienced Wikipedia user, so you don't need to quote policy to me. I'm well aware of what it means, and if you will just assume good faith, you will also assume that I must mean something else than what you've been thinking, which is the case. Then you will attempt to try to understand me. It's perfectly legitimate to ask me what I mean. We get much further when assuming good faith.

I know that edit summaries aren't the best way to communicate, but this one should have been clear enough:

"status of ALL MDs in 1991 irrelevant to status of psychiatrists in 1967. Your extrapolation is OR." [22]

That edit summary refers to the points made repeatedly on the talk page regarding the irrelevance of two different sets of statistics. The correct set of statistics is not being used, and that is the problem.

I clearly wrote that it was your "extrapolation" that was OR. Original research happens when editors make connections (extrapolate) between facts, when those connections are not made by third party, reliable sources.

I have never contested these facts or the reliability of these sources you use. I contest the way you (mis)use them, which is to apply the wrong statistics. This makes them irrelevant to the case.

You would have a strong case - which I wouldn't delete - if you

  • 1. found statistics for 1967, and could show that Barrett
  • 2. was among a minority of psychiatrists who didn't get their board certification. In fact he was among the majority who did not get board certified. Only about 1/3 got certified back then.
What has happened later is interesting and shows a good trend, but that does not apply to Barrett and his peers back then, and it was no hindrance to them as the leaders and teachers of those who came later. That's the way it has always been and always will be. The older and more experienced are accepted and respected, even though their education was inferior to that of the young newcomers.

The case would be even stronger if you could prove that it somehow

  • 3. was ever considered relevant to his status as an expert witness in the psychiatry type cases in which he witnessed (it was never a problem), or
  • 4. had relevance to his work as an expert on healthcare quackery. Many others without MD degrees or board certification are also considered experts in that area, and serve as consultants and advisors in these mattters with no problem.

On none of these very relevant points have you provided any evidence of relevance. Your attempts to prove relevance by using the wrong statistics is what constitutes OR.

I'll try once again, using different words. Barrett took and failed one part of the board exam

  • 1. in 1967. (That's the time period for which you need exact statistics to be able to make your case.)
  • 2. He did it as a psychiatrist. (What ALL MDs in 1991 did is not relevant to his case, and the statistics you provide are for ALL MDs, not just psychiatrists in 1967.)
Some other psychiatrists also took the exam at that time. How many who tried and failed are unknown to me, but whatever the case may be, only about 1/3 of psychiatrists were board certified at that time, so he was actually part of the majority of psychiatrists who weren't certified. (Unfortunately two of my edit summaries said "minority," which was incorrect and confusing.) He was among the majority who were not board certified.

You need to provide statistics for psychiatrists in 1967, not ALL MDs in 1991. -- Fyslee 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Fyslee. First it should be noted that you are the one frequently quoting the rules. I simply explained that your interpretation of the rule is not automatically correct. Second I understand your reasoning about the argument however if you read my post above I do explain that in itself the phrase: “ When Barrett retired in 1993 about 81% of physicians were Board certified according to the ABMS “ is not argumentative ( i.e there is no argument made by the editor ). In itself the juxtaposition of what the critics say and the factual data is not an argument. It can become one in the mind of the reader ( one way or the other ) but that is not the same. If more factual data becomes available it should be added, it would be even better if we had the 1967 data as it would more clearly indicate the real trend. I also explained previously that the 1991 data is as relevant as the 1967 data since Barrett was licenced until that date. He himself explained that as early as the 1980’s Board certification became more and more relevant for physicians in the US and that he was able to do without only because he was grandfathered into his job and because he did not deal with HMOs. Finally if you want the 1967 data and specifically on psychiatrists, please provide it. It should also be posted to further inform the reader. Data specific to psychiatrists can also be posted. The more factual data we have the better. However it does not mean that the available data is not relevant and should be removed. If you want to prove that the data in the article is not relevant then provide other data to show that Barrett was part of the majority of his peers, as far as Board certification is concerned, during his entire medical career. NATTO 22:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


External comment (board certification)

As clarification, it seems correct to say that this man was an certified MD, but had failed the subspeciality exam to become a certified psychiatrist.

How about a compromise wording of:

Barrett's critics cite that he failed part of his medical board certification exams in 1967 and never retook them as evidence that he cannot claim to be a medical expert. Although, Barrett did fail this exam to specialise in psychiatry, he was an qualified MD with experience of psychiatry from a 3-year psychiatric residency at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia. Ref

What do people think? TimVickers 17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There are three steps in this process:
1. Basic MD education (completed - therefore an MD).
2. Psychiatric residency (completed - therefore a psychiatrist).
3. Board certification (did not pass the second part, therefore not a "Board Certified" psychiatrist, but still an MD and psychiatrist, with a rather normal career, including expert witness in psychiatry cases).
The above is incontrovertible fact.
The point of contention is in regard to two things:
1. The claim that lack of board certification disqualifies him as an expert witness. In some cases this would now be true. It wasn't a problem during his career. In other cases it is irrelevant, and especially in the area of specialty he pursues now - an expert on the subject of healthcare quackery. Even non-MDs (who obviously aren't board certified) are experts in this area. To determine if the charge is applied correctly, one would need to be specific about the (a) subject matter and (b) what he claims in regard to his personal expertise.
2. The repeated inclusion of accurate statistics for ALL MDs in 1991, which are irrelevant to judging the status of his peer psychiatrists who did or did not try for board certification in 1967. The actual statistics would be very different. Until those numbers are provided, the inclusion of the wrong set of statistics is POV OR, included to make Barrett look bad. This happens, even though no direct claim is being made. The very inclusion is unnecessary, unless its inclusion is meant to imply something. If it isn't put there for that reason, then it doesn't need to be there at all. The repeated inclusions reveal the motivation. Even the inclusion of the correct statistics would reveal the motivation, but Wikipedia rules would allow it. This is discussed in depth above. -- Fyslee 18:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
So what about
"Barrett's critics cite that he failed part of his medical board certification exams in 1967 and never retook them as evidence that he cannot claim to be a medical expert. Although Barrett did fail this exam to specialise in psychiatry, when he retired in 1991 he was a qualified MD with 30 years of professional experience. "
Comments please TimVickers 19:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tim. There is certainly no issue with the fact that Barrett is a qualified MD. It is prominently displayed on his web site. As far as I know nobody has challenged the fact that he earned and M.D and worked as a psychatrist from 1967 to 1993. The issue is one of Board certification with the critics saying Board certification is relevant and some editors saying it is not. Without taking side the actual wording : When Barrett retired in 1993 about 81% of physicians were Board certified according to the ABMS, simply provide factual, referenced and independantly published data on Board certification for specialists M.D.s. A look at the reference will show that the number of Board certified specialists M.D.s has steadily risen during the time Barrett was in practice and after his retirement. That is all. It is up to the reader to make up their own mind on whether the critics have a valid point or not. It is not up to Wiki editors to decide who is correct. NATTO 22:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I only just added the new section, since nobody else had commented when I read the talk page. I'll put this sentence back in since you think it is relevant NATTO. Since I'm not from this country I've never heard of this guy, so I'm trying to fairly reflect the sources I've read this afternoon. TimVickers 22:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim. Welcome to this talk page. Barrett is certainly a polarizing figure. There are those who are critical of alternative medicine who are totally supportive of what he does on Quackwatch and would not allow any information that does shed another light on his activities and there are those who see him as an evil doer. As usual the reality is in between NATTO 22:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim. The issue of Board certification is not simply an issue of popularity. Increasingly it is a requirement of many institutions. Barrett himself admitted that he was only able to get by without it because he was grandfathered into his job and did not deal with HMOs. NATTO 01:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. I have added a better ref for numbers of certified MDs (and will check that Barret quote this afternoon). Tried to deal with Fyslee's point that optional qualifications in psychiatry are not relevant to testimony on alternative medicine and removed "claim" throughout. TimVickers 15:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OR and bias

Using OR as a reason to remove anything that does not suit an editor is questionable, especially when it seems perfectly acceptable when comments are added to negate or explain comments made by critics. It seems that quoting Barrett is all OK when the quote contradicts what is written, however if a quote does support what is written, OR is used as a reason to remove it. The rules on OR are not designed to prevent facts that are true and that have been published and reliable. 58.28.154.106 22:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there an example you have in mind? David D. (Talk) 22:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In the following, for example:
One of the stated missions of Quackwatch Inc. is "assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits". [33] However, the NCAHF and Barrett have been involved in several libel cases, with mixed results. Courts have dismissed two such lawsuits under Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) statutes and have ordered Barrett and the NCAHF to pay attorneys' fees of the parties they have sued. Judges have noted that his position as a public figure has weakened his ability to defend himself, since the plaintiff in such libel cases is required to show "actual malice," per the precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan, which states, "Because of the extremely high burden on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases rarely, if ever prevail against public figures."
The part in italic was added to justify why Barrett did poorly with his lawsuits even if there is no direct connection between the court cases where he was involved and the Sullivan case. There is not a quote and reference from a judge in a court case where Barrett was involved, saying his position as a public figure has weakened his ability to defend himself....
Note that I do not have a problem with it myself since it is information that is valid and of assistance to the reader even if there is no direct connection between the Sullivan case and Barrett's lawsuits. NATTO 22:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

"Many practitioners criticized by Barrett" needs citation (of criticisms) and needs to be specific (which practitioners)Gleng 13:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC) OK, 15 provides it.Gleng 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

NATTO's changes

User:NATTO has made quite a few changes to the article, which I think it would be beneficial to discuss. See diff from edits.

  • I don't think it is necessary to discuss the book sales and donation collection in the opening paragraph. These are clearly minor aspects of Barrett's website.
  • To say "Dr. Barrett calls people he does not agree with 'quacks'" is pov. It leads the reader to think that the criteria Dr. Barrett uses for the determination of quackery is agreement with him. That is one perspective on him, of course, but that is hardly npov.
  • I think the credibility of his prominent detractors is important. Certainly information about their education or potential for conflicts of interest is valuable. I have no trouble saying that Dr. Sahelian markets dietary supplements rather than drugs, however.

I have reverted the edits for further discussion. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 23:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Teadrinker has not limited his reversal to the above points but made a wholesale reversals of other edits which I had provided a reason for.
As far as the point raised above:
  1. The home page of the Quackwatch website contains a section for donation as well as a section on books for sale. The edit I made simply mentioned that the web site is also used for that purpose as well. It is factual and obvious.
  2. While the credibility of detractors is important , it should be handled fairly and not in a biased way as Teadrinker has done. Dr. Sahelian's website sells supplements , not drugs. He also does other things which should also be mentioned. Dr. Sahelian is very polite in his answer to Dr. Barrett. Reading the e-mail sent to him by Barrett we can certainly appreciate his fairness in his reply. He even readily admit the he is not perfectly fair himself... A lesson that Teadrinker should heed before he does wholesale reversals of other editors work. NATTO 23:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with TeaDrinker's assessment of ongoing POV-pushing by NATTO and support TeaDrinker's revisions. Many of the sources in the criticism section do not rise to the level of reliable sources, and it seems very relevant that most of the major Barrett/QuackWatch critics have been involved in litigation with Barrett or had their credentials or business practices challenged by regulators. Jokestress 00:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Jokestress, it is not revision but wholesale reversal. For example some of the edits I made because the same quote was placed twice in the article or because the exact same reference was put twice in the same phrase. That has nothing to do with POV. Another one is about definition of the term " de-licensed". The definition was referenced by a link to an article by Barrett instead of a proper independant reference. One could argue that de-licensed can also mean that a licensed has been cancelled for other reasons such as not paying for it to be maintained... As far as the comments on Dr. Sahelian they were one sided and incorrect. This is not my POV . His websites sells a range of supplements, not drugs. He is a known author of health related books, as Dr. Barrett is, and he is also known for his expertis on supplements. All that is true but was reversed in bulk. NATTO 00:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ex: Barrett has been accused by Tim Bolen (who, in his own words, is "hired by clients to deal with their public relations component of when they may be attacked by medical board or similar entity." [14]) of bias, and being part of a conspiracy to suppress innovative forms of treatment. [15] AND Tim Bolen himself has no educational qualifications beyond High School and, in his words, is "hired by clients to deal with their public relations component of when they may be attacked by medical board or similar entity." NATTO 00:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion. Reverting to an earlier version is fairly common on Wikipedia articles, and I took care to keep parts of your edits I thought were approprate. To address these two points (I think they are good points, but I think we can get an impoved version), Dr. Sahelian may indeed be selling diet supplements primarily, but he was warned about selling drugs. I think the FDA warning is relevant to the credibability of his criticism.
As far as the second point, I agree that the wording should be changed. I am leaning towards combining the criticism into one section. Any thoughts? --TeaDrinker 00:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not because reverting is fairly common that it should be a condoned practice, unless vandalism is involved. And there is a difference between selective reverting and wholesale reverting of multiple different edits, as you have done.

Finally, as you agree that the two above point are valid, it would have been desirable if you had proposed " improved " language instead of the actions you took. Regarding the sale of drugs by Dr. Sahelian, I have read the letter from the FDA and it it a lot more nuanced than your wording. First the letter is about three products specifically when the website offers numerous other products. The letter also states " FDA is aware that Internet distributors may not know that the products they offer are regulated as drugs... and ... many of these products maybe legally marketed as supplements if claims about ... are removed ect... " The FDA is simply making sure that he knows what the regulation is so he can comply, not a legal action. With regards to the three products, the letter is not about misleading statement but rather that with these products any statement must be verified and approved by the FDA. In other words even if what is said is true , it still has to be verified and approved by the FDA before it can be used in the description of the product.

The way you have worded your phrase shows only one side of the issue and is intent on pushing your POV. It is easy to accuse others of POV and a lot more difficult to see it in your own edits... NATTO 01:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is always more difficult to detect pov in your own work; it is good for all of us to bear in mind. I'm always interested in improving things, but such work takes time. Thanks for the further discussion below. --TeaDrinker 19:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Selling books and asking for donations on Quackwatch

  • The home page of the website has a section on publications for sales. It is the third section from the top and has five separate sub-sections each leading to numerous other pages.

Publications for Sale Consumer Protection Books (updated 7/20/06) Magazines, Newsletters, and Journals (updated 6/2/01) Sale: Specials and Clearance Items (updated 9/23/00) Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (updated 8/15/02) Consumer Health Library: Recommended Reference Books (updated 7/20/06)

As far as asking for donation, it is the first box on the right hand side with a link leading to a page with links to how to donate to the website.

This is obvious to anyone who looks at the home page so it should be part of the description of what the website does. NPVO. The information that I added is thus factual, properly referenced and did not present a point of view, just the way things are.NATTO

While I agree that Barrett sells books from his website, and that he asks for donations, this is not the primary purpose of his site. I have chanegd the wording slightly to make it clear that the donations/sales are a funding source for a larger project. --TeaDrinker 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On being called a quackbuster

  • The phrase stating that Barrett is frequently called a quackbuster is factual. It is fair to say that he does not like the term. It is also fait to say that he list many people on Quackwatch as non-recommendable. The implication is clear , he is watching what these people are doing on a site that he calls Quackwatch. The reason for the term quackbuster comes from his activities so it should be included in the article. NATTO 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Quackwatch and NCAHF

Tim. You should be careful not to confuse the NCAHF and the website. I can understand why however since in the end they are various limbs of the same body. The web site is non-profit however in a court case Judge Haley J. Fromholz noted Barrett had used the NCAHF to pay himself fees to appear as an expert witness, giving him a "direct, personal financial interest in the outcome." The judge declared Barrett and another Plaintiff's expert to be "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts." The judge feared that a NCAHF victory would lead to more lawsuits where Barrett can pay himself more witness fees from NCAHF funds. The judge was signficantly concerned about Dr. Barrett receiving payment through NCAHF. Dr. Imbeau 06:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Barrett has supplied information about what actually happened:
  • "Comment from Dr. Barrett: Trial testimony is conducted under rules that sometimes makes it difficult to provide a coherent picture of the facts. In this case, the judge heard that I was being paid and that there was a fund. Prodded by the opposing attorney, he jumped to the conclusion that there were many caes involved, that a lot of money would be involved, and that the situation was one he didn't trust. The judge was completely wrong. I had minimal interest in testifying, my fee was very low, and--it turned out--I was mistaken about the fund. In fact, no such fund ever existed." [23]
  • "Response from Dr. Barrett: The above description of my being paid in the manner described is 100% false. It is based on a wild distortion of my involvement and testimony in a single case in which Attorney Morse Mehrban sued KingBio Pharmaceuticals for false advertising of homeopathic products and used NCAHF as the plaintiff. The suit was one of many that Mehrban brought against false advertisers. After the first case was settled for a considerable sum, part of the settlement was supposed to be allocated to pay expert witnesses in the other suits. I agreed to testify in the KingBio suit for a very low fee and had no interest in tstifying in the non-homeopathic cases. Nobody asked how much I was being paid, which was unfortunate, because expert witnesses ordinarily charge much more, and if the judge knew the facts, I doubt that he would have thought the payment could influence me. KingBio's lawyer persuaded the judge that somehow my testimony would be tained because I had an indirect interest in being paid. This was preposterous, but he said it during his closing argument and there was no opportunity opportunity to rebut it. The statement that donations have been used to pay me in legal matters is 100% false. Donations to Quackwatch are used to defray the cost of running my sites, which is about $7000 per year. If they don't cover the cost, I pay out of my own pocket." [24]
  • "Response from Dr. Barrett: I never paid myself to be an expert witness. The lawyer who brought the suits paid for expert witnesses out of his own pocket. As noted above, after he won a large settlement in a false advertising case, I suggested that part of the winnings could be used to retain experts in other cases. I testified that money was put into a fund for this purpose, but I later found out that no fund was actually established. Even though NCAHF agreed to serve as the plaintiff, it never received a penny from the settlements." [25]
  • "Comment from Dr. Barrett: Trial testimony is conducted under rules that sometimes makes it difficult to provide a coherent picture of the facts. In this case, the judge heard that I was being paid and that there was a fund. Prodded by the opposing attorney, he jumped to the conclusion that there were many caes involved, that a lot of money would be involved, and that the situation was one he didn't trust. The judge was completely wrong. I had minimal interest in testifying, my fee was very low, and--it turned out--I was mistaken about the fund. In fact, no such fund ever existed." [26]
I hope that puts things in perspective. Now it's up to editors here to decide if they want to present accurate information, or if they want to smear Barrett in any way they can. -- Fyslee 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


A bit of information about NCAHF, Quackwatch, etc.. NCAHF originally had their website hosted by the HCRC website, with Rebecca Long as the webmaster, as well as Moderator of the Healthfraud Discussion List (you should join). Later she turned over the website and the list to Dr. Barrett. The HCRC website was discontinued and information transferred to the current NCAHF website, with Barrett as the new webmaster. He continued webmastering his own website Quackwatch, and he and his helpers have continued to develop additional websites on specific subjects. They are his own websites, while he is only the webmaster of the NCAHF website. They naturally have common interests, but Quackwatch is his baby, his personal website. (I hope I've remembered all this correctly.) -- Fyslee 21:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources of opinion

This article properly reports opinion about Barrett. However the source, and notability of the opinion needs to be specified; we all have opinions. It is therefore important, when evaluating opinions, to establish exactly where they come from. Accordingly, if an opinion is expressed by someone paid to express that opinion, this should be reported. If an opinion is from somebody with a dirsect commercial interest, that too should be noted. The reported facts about Tim Bolen are clearly relevant to the notability of his opinion.Gleng 13:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. The information has been restored, but in a way so as not to disturb the flow of the sentence.
Motivation is certainly relevant. Bolen has repeatedly admitted to being a hired gun, and his actions reveal that his high-school education and interest in military history have only prepared him for the lowest forms of response - personal and ad hominem attacks, libel, threats, fraudulent lawsuits, etc.. (I have received email threats from him.) He never deals with Barrett's criticisms of the quackeries performed by his clients (such as Suster and Hulda Clark) by doing the proper thing - debunking the charges by providing scientific evidence that the charges are wrong. He hasn't a clue about medical and scientific matters, but is a primitive specialist in the political aspects of medicine. -- Fyslee 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Fyslee, " Bolen agrees with this understanding... ", How do you know Tim Bolen agrees with ?... It is not the job of an editor to analyse or draw conclusions... You quote the rules all the time so you should know them. This is clearly your interpretation. All we know is what Bolen said and you are quoting him out of context to support your interpretation that he agrees with Barrett's POV. When the text is read in it's entirety, as it should ( I know you like to make sure that Barrett is quoted fully so I have made edits accordingly ), it is clear that Bolen does not mean that his license was removed involuntarily in the sense that he was disciplined or the license was removed by the licensing body. What he writes is clear. He thinks that Barrett gave up his licence because of malpractice insurance costs related issues in maintaining it which, in a sense forced his decision according to Bolen. It is his POV, whether it is true or not remains to be proven and I doubt that Barrett would confirm it. I have no problem leaving the part that says that Barrett could not afford the insurance ( by the way it is possible ) until there is some evidence to prove it independantly, however Bolen point of view is in fact partly supported by what Barrett says whether he really gave up his license simply because he was not seeing patients or because he found it difficult to maintain it, that we may never really be able to prove independantly. If we leave that part we also have to leave the other part as it is a partial quote... That is why I did not put it in at all. However in the other quote Bolen is clear that he thinks Barrett gave up his licence NOT that the license was revoked. When he uses the term de-licence he thus means that his DOES NOT have a license.

So the text has to accurately reflect that Bolen never implied that the reason Barrett was de-licenced because he had to surrender his licence because of misconduct. At the moment you have spinned it to show that Bolen agrees with Barrett, which is not factual. It is in fact biased. Confirmation bias anyone...NATTO 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Regarding Tim Bolen's deposition: Again the quote is taken out of context. In the document on page 216 from line 15. The answer can also means that Bolen agrees that he did write that Barrett was delicensed, not that he agrees with the conclusion that attorner Shelley has tagged to his question. If you read line 15 to 19 attorney Shelley says: " And then you said "" Delicensed M.D. Stephen Barrett "". What is the basis for saying he doesn't have a license ? " The attorney equates delicensed with not having a license.

If we refer to what Bolen has written on his website as per the reference in the article, there is no claim by Bolen that Barrett's license was revoked. NATTO 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference # 45

  • Fyslee. Is that a reference from a court decision or what the attorney have presented to the courts ? I am not a lawyer but the document appears to come from a lawfirm, not a court of law and is not signed by a judge but by an attorney, in this case Barrett's attorney.... Also the position for the reference, in the middle of the sentence, is bizarre. If indeed judges have made such comment specifically about Barrett, did they say only he was a public figure and the rest is added from a different source, or have judges said about Barrett : " Judges noted that his position as a public figure [45] has weakened his ability to defend himself ". Are the comments really made about Barrett or are they collated from other unrelated sources ? I refer you back to OR and bias. NATTO 04:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Fyslee. As mentioned earlier I do not have a problem with the information as it is certainly a valit point, however the present reference does not appear to be support what is written, at least in the way it is. What do you suggest ? NATTO 09:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm too tired of trying to deal with your edits. You're spinning this anyway you want, with no regard for attempting to present a true picture of what's happened. If you want to do something useful, start by repairing the link. It has screwed up alot of references. It happened with this edit of yours. -- Fyslee 20:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Repaired. Levine2112 21:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Good catch. I restored the earlier version which worked at the same time you caught my later error. Now the references work. It was a real mess! -- Fyslee 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, I hope you are better rested now. I apologize if I inadvertently "screwed up alot of references" I thought you would be more undertstanding in light of you own actions earlier.... As far as "spinning any way I want" I simply quoted what the judges said in the reference that you posted in the article. When the reference document is read it is clear that the judges have no sympathy for the fact that Barrett and Polevoy should be held to the standard of public figures as their actions shows clearly that they have sought this status while they want to be treated like private individuals in their libel suit.

Unlike you I abstained from adding a comment about how the legal requirements to public figure so badly affected Barrett's ability to sue others for libel. This interpretation is taken from another Wiki article about another totally different case. In the article in question there are no reference so it it not written to the same requirements as agreed with the Barrett article. However I left the link to the article so that reader can access it. Of course you have reverted everything so it is back to square one. NATTO 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Can you put a descriptive comment for 45 and 46 between the ref marks? I have placed a need comment here holder there for now. i think the porse around them need to be tioghtened up a bit too. is it multiple judges or one jude who has cited him as a public figure. i think its multiple. David D. (Talk) 23:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, It must be my computer then as I tried to access it again and it does work at my end. Sorry for the temporary problem on the talk page. For some reason part of the talk page disappeared when I made a comment on the above item and I had to fix it. NATTO 01:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way the edit I made , before it was reverted, was as follow:

Judges have noted that Barrett‘s numerous websites and publishing and speaking widely about issues of alternative medicine makes him a public figure. When public figures are concerned, “ actual malice may not be presumed. To the contrary, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving actual malice, and it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. This means that Plaintiffs must show not only that the statements they attribute to Defendants were false and defamatory, but also that they were published with actual knowledge of their falsity or otherwise circulated with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.

It clearly reproduced what the judges said in the document. I left the wiki link to the NY-Sullivan article which, although not directly related to Barrett, does provide additional information on the general issue. However since there was a sentence that was a direct copy of a phrase in the NY-Sullivan article ( which is actually not referenced ) , I removed it. That is all. NATTO 01:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I have added additional, factual, comments made by the judges in the court case to more fully reflect the nature of their ruling. The phrase referring to the Sherrel case has been removed 1) because the actual ruling should be read by the reader instead of them being provided with an interpretation from an editor 2) The Sherrel case is already mentioned with proper reference to the legal documents in the same section. NATTO 04:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What critics claim about his medical expert testimony

  • The following is quoted verbatim from the reference used in the article: "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 ".NATTO 09:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Has Stephen Barrett ever testified on a matter of psychology in court? I can only find references to his testimony in cases dealing with alternative medicine. TimVickers 19:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That is what the critics say in the reference provided. Additional references would be good both on the issue of psychiatry and alternative medicine. On alternative medicine, I think the issue raised is that Dr. Barrett has not formal training or practical experience in any of the modalitities he has posted on his web site so he is not an expert in any of them. If I remember correctly, he says that there is no point in training in modalities that are quackery or fraudulent.... a circumferential argument... NATTO 20:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Are any references provided of him testifying as a psychologist on psychology? Otherwise we will need to add a note that no record can be found of any such case. This debate about an optional psychology qualification would otherwise seem completely irrelevant to his activities in the present day. TimVickers 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah-hah! It's in the article referenced, 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. Here the critics are talking about his expertise and testimony on alt. medicine. - not his testimony (if any) on psychology. TimVickers 20:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim. That is good that you found a reference for it. The other reference is still factual as the critics seem to link his lack of Board certification in psychiatry to his lack of qualification as an expert in the field. In his deposition Tim Bolen mentions his testifying as an expert psychiatrist in Washington State but I have not had the time to research it.

As far as activities since 1993, he himself states that the basis for his expertise is his medical education ect... In his C.V, his practice of medicine has centered only in psychiatry and closely related topic. There is nothing in his C.V about any training or experience in any of the modalities posted on his web site. NATTO 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote is from the original reference from chiro.org. I didn't find anything new, I just read what was already there. TimVickers 21:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Then both comments should be included, alternative medicine and psychology, since they are both form the same reference. 219.89.191.230 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mercola-Barrett lawsuit

  • Fyslee. Regarding the settlement. This item was dicussed previously with other editors. The reference is from Barrett. Since this is an issue involving two living individuals, Dr. Barrett and Dr. Mercola, editors have agreed that independant references, preferably from court documents, are required. In this specific situation there is no independant reference and Dr. Mercola has not confirmed that version of Dr. Barrett. Based on the above, this should not be included in the article unless properly referenced or confirmed by both parties. NATTO 09:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The above was discussed in August with other editors, including Fyslee. I wrote then:

The inclusion of non-verified information about any settlement is not up to the standard established in other court cases in the article. The fact that Dr. Mercola did not issue a formal denial is not evidence that the details of the settlement are correct. Independant confirmation from a reliable source, preferably legal, is the standard adopted to edit the article. Thus the details of the settlement should be removed until properly documented otherwise is a case of double standard.NATTO 20:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee then removed the item with the comment: (cur) (last) 20:58, 12 August 2006 Fyslee (Talk | contribs) (→Litigation - Okay, let's wait for clarity).

He as now re-introduced it with the reference from a text written by Barrett on his web site. NATTO 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Re-reading the text in the reference listed in that section, I realized that Barrett does not actually name the physician involved. Below is the full text as written on his website:

In October 2000, I filed suit in Pennsylvania against an osteopathic physician in Illinois who had republished one of Bolen's messages and added some thoughts of his own. Bolen's message had falsely claimed that I (a) was "de-licensed," (b) had committed extortion, and (c) had been disqualified as an expert in a malpractice suit. After the doctor contested the suit on jurisdictional grounds, I withdrew it and refiled in Illinois [10]. In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provided grounds for a libel suit. In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000.

The way the text in the article is written it identifies Dr. Mercola specifically when that is not supported by the reference, that does not give the identity of the physician involved. Thus it is an extrapolation by the editors. Even connecting the comments of Barrett on his webiste with the legal reference available on the dismissal of the lawsuit is and extrapolation. If Barrett does not identify the physician by name, there is a reason and that goes to the core of the statement itself and the validity of posting it in the article. In addition, as mentioned earlier it is clearly a lower standard of proof used for legal issues in this article

Please comment on this issue. If no comments are made, I will remove it from the article. NATTO 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a rock-solid point. I wonder why Mercola's name isn't mentioned there. Hmm. Levine2112 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
We could speculate but whatever the reason(s) it is incorrect to link the statement made by Barrett with the legal document that has Mercola on it. If it is acceptable to cite Barrett's under these circumstances, than it should be acceptable to quote Bolen who wrote that Barrett tried to get money from various people by legal threats. NATTO 00:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting development based on confusion

Interesting development. The text related to the above on Barrett's website has been recently ( within the last 24 hours ) changed. It is now the following:

In October 2000, I filed suit in my local court against Joseph Mercola, D.O., of Schaumberg, Illinois, who had republished one of Bolen's messages and added some thoughts of his own. After Mercola contested the suit on jurisdictional grounds, I withdrew it and refiled in Illinois [7]. In March 2002, the Illinois judge dismissed some of my allegations but ruled that five statements that Mercola posted "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provide grounds for a libel suit. It now appears that to escape liability, Dr. Mercola will have to prove that they are true, which, of course, he cannot do.

Please note that the name of Dr. Mercola is now included, however there is NOW no mention at all of the phrase " In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000. " At the bottom of the page we can read " This article was revised on July 9, 2002 "..... This is most interesting, since the article has been modified recently....

I have thus removed the section on the Mercola lawsuit for all the above reasons. NATTO 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There's something fishy going on there... or then again it may be an innocent mistake. I'm inclined to think the former. Levine2112 16:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed! There is something fishy going on. I suspect that the explanation is in some confusion about the sources (URLs) being used. The current site still contains the same information about the out of court settlement, removal of the libelous material from Mercola's website, and the $50,000 settlement, which was very cheap, considering Barrett had asked for much more (when one includes all the other costs Mercoloa would likely have been forced to pay). Take a look:
The future tense of the quote you cite indicates an old version - before the settlement out of court.
The reason Barrett doesn't directly mention him on the site now is likely to avoid unnecessary friction. They have settled their fight out of court.
NATTO, to get this straightened out, please supply the URL you are referring to.
No original research is necessary, since the Internet Archives URL provides the name of the osteopath, and the demand for $50,000, plus costs and damages. There is no doubt about the identity or case. Barret won, and, interestingly, it is this case that is now deleted from the article! How ironic. Please reinstate it.
Keep in mind the WP:BLP rules. When in doubt, negative material must be removed. Any negative material must be extremely well-sourced, and Bolen, Negrete, Rosenthal, Mercola, etc., are very biased sources and cannot be trusted as RS. Since the article is about Barrett, anything he says or writes is allowable, whereas his critics are held to a very high standard. Libel is not allowed here. The BLP rules definitely favor giving the one being attacked a fair chance.
If you were being attacked unfairly and with obviously deceptive methods, you'd be happy for those rules.
Bolen's day in court is getting closer, and he is probably sitting in his bungalow out in the hills, shaking in his boots, afraid to get his mail for fear of being arrested and dragged into court. His "address" is a mail drop. His lies are catching up with him. Just drop me an email and I'll send you a picture of his residence from the air. I keep an eye on him. -- Fyslee 22:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I still don't get why Mercola's name isn't mentioned on the page. Do we have a verifiable source that tells the outcome of this particular lawsuit? I get that Barrett sued him and demanded 50 large, I just haven't seen any record that clearly states Mercola lost and was ordered to pay up. Levine2112 22:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not that difficult to understand. It's about as simple as claiming that most Norwegians speak Norwegian. Of course they do.
The expression "settled out of court" means that there is no official record of the settlement, and nearly always that there is a private agreement, often involving a "you give me this, and I'll give you that" situation. Mercola isn't stupid and from the evidence presented, and the judges comments about it, he could read the writing on the wall. He settled by removing the libel from his website and paid the 50 grand, which was much less than if the lawsuit had continued. They likely agreed to call it a day and not publish all the details, but obviously Barrett still can publish some details, since he had the upper hand and could dictate the terms of settlement. Mercola got off cheap, but Bolen, whose libel was at issue, won't get off so cheap. Because of the agreement, we will likely never know more than they decide to reveal. Barrett has told us some of the details. -- Fyslee 23:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops! You tried to reach a Quackwatch page that does not exist. Occasionally we reorganize the site to improve it. Or perhaps you mistyped the URL. Please visit our home page or search page where you may find what you are seeking.

I can accept what Fyslee is saying about one of the page being archived, however this does not change the fact that the up to date page is not a valid reference. Fyslee extensively list the reasons why we need to make sure that the information is accurate and independently verifiable. That also applies to other living persons named in the article, by the way.... It is not because Barrett writes something on his website that it should be reproduced in the article as is. There is clearly a reason why in the update version the name of Dr. Mercola is not mentioned and whatever the reason, the name of Dr. Mercola is not mentioned so that is certainly 1) not a valid reference 2) Even if he was named in the text, it still would not meet the standard of reference for living persons. NATTO 23:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't get the error page. Maybe there was a temporary problem which was correted. I agree with NATTO, I don't feel comfortable saying that Mercola paid Barrett his 50 grand, because we don't have a verifiable source that says just that. Fyslee, perhaps you can have Barrett update his site to outright say that Mercola paid him 50 grand. As it is (not mentioning Mercola's name), it's a bit fishy. Levine2112 02:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved here by Fyslee from Levine's page:

"Levine, from his numerous comments on the Barrett talk page, Fyslee seems to have a rather close relationship with the topic of the article. I find it quite intriguing that when I originally looked at the link ( reference ) he had himself placed in the article, I got the "archived" page and now I get this "Oops" page with a redirect. It looks like that either is continually monitoring the talk page so he can make rapid changes to the website or there is another explanation... NATTO 00:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)"

The explanation will follow soon. I'm working on it in my sandbox so that you can make the experiment for yourselves and duplicate the errors that have been made, leading to the false charges and insinuations made above. -- Fyslee 07:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of the cause of the confusion

No changes have been made to Barrett's website in reaction to this discussion. The explanation for the confusion is simple, so conspiratorial insinuations say more about the mind of the editor, than they do about the actual facts. (Assuming good faith would have prevented this situation. It's a good policy and mental attitude. It's better to ask questions from those who understand the issues and people involved, than to assume bad faith and make accusations.)

There are several references with links in the section involved, and NATTO has pushed the wrong link and this has confused the issue. To analyze what happened, anyone can do the same thing, but we'll need to have the now-deleted section here, with the references:

Barrett v. Mercola suit

In June 2001, Barrett withdrew his libel suit against osteopath Joseph Mercola days before the trial date on jurisdictional grounds and refiled it in Illinois, the residence of Mercola. The case was eventually settled out of court. [1] Barrett wrote on his web site, [2] that Mercola had republished one of Tim Bolen's derogatory messages and added some thoughts of his own. In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provided grounds for a libel suit. In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000. [2] Dr. Mercola has neither confirmed nor denied the above and there has been no independant corroboration of Barrett's version.

References:

  1. ^ Bergstein SA (June 20, 2001). Letter requesting discontinuation and motion for dismissal in No. 2000-C-2524,Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. See Mercola suit archive and Bolen suit archive via Quackwatch.
  2. ^ a b Barrett SJ. A Response to Tim Bolen.


I will use direct quotes from the Barrett talk page found here:


NATTO wrote:

Interesting development. The text related to the above on Barrett's website has been recently ( within the last 24 hours ) changed. It is now the following:

In October 2000, I filed suit in my local court against Joseph Mercola, D.O., of Schaumberg, Illinois, who had republished one of Bolen's messages and added some thoughts of his own. After Mercola contested the suit on jurisdictional grounds, I withdrew it and refiled in Illinois [7]. In March 2002, the Illinois judge dismissed some of my allegations but ruled that five statements that Mercola posted "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provide grounds for a libel suit. It now appears that to escape liability, Dr. Mercola will have to prove that they are true, which, of course, he cannot do.

Please note that the name of Dr. Mercola is now included, however there is NOW no mention at all of the phrase " In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000. " At the bottom of the page we can read " This article was revised on July 9, 2002 "..... This is most interesting, since the article has been modified recently....

I have thus removed the section on the Mercola lawsuit for all the above reasons. NATTO 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Explanation:

NATTO has pushed the wrong link. We were discussing this one - Reference 2 - "A Response to Tim Bolen," (from the current website), and NATTO pushed and now cites this one - Reference 1 - "Bolen suit archive" (from the incredible "Internet Archives"), an old copy with Mercola's identity, which thus serves the purpose of the ref in that spot in the sentence. This is not OR, but simple documentation, showing the evolution of that URL as time went by. Barrett (or his helpers) regularly updated the information as the case developed and was later resolved with an out of court settlement. Therefore the URL has several different versions. One can easily verify that after the out of court settlement, Barrett removed Mercola's name from the page. I would guess that (based on what I know about him) to him, the case was settled, and there was no need to cause unnecessary irritation. He got what he wanted - a retraction.

"The Experiment"

Now try both links and you'll see that the current site is unchanged (Mercola is no longer named, although clearly described; it describes a past event; and the date is from May 27, 2006), while the older version of that same page from the Internet Archives shows the information cited by NATTO above, including Mercola's name; it is written in the future tense; and the old date from July 9, 2002.

This simple experiment reveals the source of the confusion, and if NATTO had been more careful, and supplied the correct URL when asked, we could have been saved a lot of time.

The section was originally written in such a way as to lead readers to think that Barrett had filed suit against Mercola, but had simply dropped the suit. Period. It was a very tendentious and antagonistic wording:

Heading was: Cases Barrett has lost or withdrawn from
Original text: In June 2001, Barrett dismissed his libel suit against Dr. Joseph Mercola, DO, just days before the trial date.

As we can see, that was very deceptive wording, since he actually won the battle. Of course he didn't win the case, since it never was finished. Mercola saved a lot of money by quickly settling out of court.

Documentation has since been provided to show the falsity of the original editorial addition. Since that time, more documentation has been added to the original section, and the section has undergone a number of edits. It would therefore be better to simply rewrite it so the original words (leading to the false implication) are left out. They aren't (and never were) necessary anymore.

Here's a possible new version that explains the case more clearly:

Barrett v. Mercola suit

In October 2000, Barrett filed a libel suit in Pennsylvania against Joseph Mercola an osteopathic physician in Illinois. In June 2001, Barrett withdrew the suit on jurisdictional grounds and refiled it in Illinois. [1] In 2003 the suit was settled out of court.

Barrett writes on his web site that Mercola had "republished one of Bolen's messages and added some thoughts of his own. Bolen's message had falsely claimed that I (a) was "de-licensed," (b) had committed extortion, and (c) had been disqualified as an expert in a malpractice suit. After the doctor contested the suit on jurisdictional grounds, I withdrew it and refiled in Illinois. In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provided grounds for a libel suit. In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000." [2]

Dr. Mercola has neither confirmed nor denied the above and there has been no independant corroboration of Barrett's version.

-- Fyslee 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, Thanks for your lenghty reply. I have simply stated the facts as they occurred and wrote clearly that I accepted your initial explanation about the archived page. I also wrote that even in that case, the reference you use from Barrett website is not acceptable because it 1) does not name Dr. Mercola and he still does not 2) it is not independant 3) and certainly not a court document. Levine is also in agreement on the above point so the item will be removed until properly referenced. NATTO 22:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The quotes are clearly labelled as from Barrett's site, and thus are his opinion. His site is allowed as a source when he is the subject, especially in an article about him. Those are the rules here at Wikipedia. There is no question about the identity of Mercola, especially since the sources are V. -- Fyslee 23:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee. This is about a court case. Here it is not simply an opinion as Barrett is stating it as a fact. Thus it has to be properly referenced otherwise it cannot be in the article. There is a reason why he does not name Mercola in the latest version on his web page and it is not for us to second guess what it is. NATTO 23:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee. There are two editors who agree that the item does not meet the standard of reference agreed in this article. Furthermore as written it is incorrect. Barrett does not write that it is Mercola, he writes about an osteopathic physician from Illinois which he does not name in the article. I do not know exactly why he is using such a strategy only that the version of the text has been updated, removing the name of Dr. Mercola and adding results of the settlement. Whatever the reason the reference is not up to the standard editors have agreed on in such cases. If you cannot abide by this standard please stop editing this article. NATTO 23:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The references provided make it clear that Mercola is the mentioned "osteopathic physician in Illinois." Are you in doubt about that? Even Negrete isn't in doubt about it. [27] [28] Of course he doesn't tell the rest of the story, since it isn't favorable to his cause (nor to yours). -- Fyslee 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, What can be deducted by analysis from the pieced together information provided by Barrett does not amount to a valid reference as per agreement. Putting the reference from an archived page with the up to date page is collating fragments to make a point. That is not what Wiki editors do. As for my cause , please do not lecture me on this as you are certainly not in a position to do so. NATTO 00:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have now revised it with the correct dates and references, including the official Cook County record of final dismissal by mutual agreement. The only thing not adequately documented is the final settlement details, which are of course not on record anywhere except Barrett's bank account. Since this is an article about Barrett, his account can be included when clearly labelled as such, and that's the way it reads right now. It is documented POV, which is what Wikipedia is about. -- Fyslee 00:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The properly referenced information is fine and can remain in the article. However the statement by Barrett that the lawsuit was 1) settled 2) he was paid an amount of $50,000 is A) not a point of view but an affirmation B) involves another living person thus as to meet the standard established for legal cases i.e independant, reliable, verifiable and preferably legal documentation. As stated earlier there is a reason why Barrett has omitted the name of Mercola in his current version of events. While it is not up to us to analyse the reason, we have to take it into account. Efforts to piece different pieces of information from Barrett out of date or up to date web pages does not amount to a proper reference in such cases. His POV could be given if Mercola was making his own claims about the results of the lawsuit but he does not. If there is a valid, independant,reference to support that the case was settled then it can be included, the same goes for the result(s) of the settlement.NATTO 01:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's settle for that for now. If you are interested in seeking truth in this matter, then you will be just as eager to find good references as I am. The nature of out of court settlements being what they are (usually with confidentiality agreements), I'm not sure we'll find anything better than Barrett's account, which I agree can't be on Mercola's article. It should be allowable on this one, since the subjects of articles are allowed to quote themselves as sources of their own POV. -- Fyslee 01:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Fyslee. Good. As long as we adhere to a high standard, as previously agreed between editors, what is written in the article will be factual and reflect what has happened in NPOV as much as is possible. This principle, in fact, should apply to all living persons that are mentioned in Wiki articles whether it is an article about them or they are mentioned in another article. As you are well aware this is not always the case. This is even more important if these individuals are not public figures discussing public issues. Regarding out of court settlement , they generally happen by mutual consent. If there is anything in an out of court settlement that prohibit naming a person involved, it is certainly not the job of wiki editors to try to circumvent the purpose of the settlement agreement. I, for one, do not know why Barrett has removed his name from his up dated web page but he did. Even if it was still there, his comments would still require independant confirmation from a reliable source. Finally there is not even an independant reference supporting that there even has been a settlement in this case. We only have a valid reference for a mutually agreed dismissal of the suit.NATTO 03:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And yes, I did look for a valid reference but have not found any. If such a document could be posted on a public website, don't you think that Dr. Barrett would have posted it on his web site ? As I said there is a reason why he did not.NATTO 03:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

An outside view

It looks to me from a first read-through as if we have a classic example here of the confusion between truth and verifiability. We don't have to state the truth, still less The TruthTM, but what is verifiable. What is verifiable here is that there are two conflicting versions of the case, yes? In which case, what is wrong with saying just that? Here we have Barrett as a reliable source for what Barrett says, but not for the objective truth, and Mercola as a reliable source for what mercola says, but not for the objective truth. Having said that, we have apparently said all that is verifiable and can leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Or am I misunderstanding the nature of the disagreement here? Guy 11:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about the policy and sourcing of such information. As an admin you should know. "Verifiability, not truth" is the policy. The disputed portion (only disputed by NATTO and Levine2112) is not a court record, but a private agreement, with the payment being made by Mercola's insurance company. Such records aren't available, so the account of one or both parties must be used.
There is a misunderstanding in that there are not "two conflicting versions." Barrett, since he had the upper hand and won the day, has related his version of the out of court settlement. Mercola would naturally not publicize his loss, so we don't have his version, which would still confirm the truth of Barrett's version. It's on paper, but Barrett isn't releasing it, at least not yet. Mercola has never disputed Barrett's very public account on Quackwatch.
Barrett's version can and should be included as what it is - his version. Whether it is true or not is (as far as the Verifiability policy is concerned) immaterial. It isn't even very negative information, and certainly not even close to being libelous, so the WP:BLP policy isn't being violated. If the information was close to violating that policy, better references would be required. Such is not the case here. Guy, you are most welcome to restore the information. -- Fyslee 20:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You are proabbly in a better position to suggest wording; please suggest a para here. My view right now is that we should say that Barretts's version of the outcome is X, as stated on his site, and note (if we can source it) if it's disputed and by whom. Otherwise, it stands as Barrett's version, which is fair enough as it goes. Could you also please have a go at working all the Negrete/Bolen stuff into a single "dispute with Bolen" section? Thanks, Guy 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Guy, I am not sure how things work in England but the section Accusations of bias and conspiracy contains only one item from Bolen and one from Negrete , all the others are about other critics such as Dr. Sahelian, Deepak Chopra, Donna Ladd, Peter Barry Chowka, Paul Hartal. As far as the section on Licensure and credentials the critics include Bolen and Negrete as well as a California Superior Court judge. Barrett's own response is also included. Finally the section on Litigation is not about critics ( either Bolen or Negrete ) but about the various court cases initiated by Dr. Barrett as well as the court decisions in such cases. Based on the above there is not much to place in a section specifically about Bolen criticism. Maybe the section on Licensure and credentials could specify more clearly when the criticism comes from Bolen or Negrete, although it is already mentioned...NATTO 06:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Here it is:

Barrett v. Mercola suit

  • In October 2000, Barrett filed a libel suit in Pennsylvania against Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician in Illinois. In June 2001, Barrett withdrew the suit on jurisdictional grounds and refiled it in Illinois on July 30, 2001. [3] On April 17, 2003 the suit was dismissed by mutual agreement [4]

Barrett's account from his own website is as follows:

Mercola had "republished one of Bolen's messages and added some thoughts of his own. Bolen's message had falsely claimed that I (a) was "de-licensed," (b) had committed extortion, and (c) had been disqualified as an expert in a malpractice suit. After the doctor contested the suit on jurisdictional grounds, I withdrew it and refiled in Illinois. In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provided grounds for a libel suit. In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000." [5]

Dr. Mercola has neither confirmed nor denied the settlement details mentioned above, and there has been no independant corroboration of Barrett's version.

I hope that meets the rules. -- Fyslee 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

References:

  1. ^ [1] "Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, No. 01 L 009026".
  2. ^ Barrett SJ. A Response to Tim Bolen.
  3. ^ Case refiled on July 30, 2001 at Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 01 L 009026.
  4. ^ Case dismissed by mutual agreement on April 17, 2003. Judge: Casciato, Joseph N. Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois. Accessed Sept. 17, 2006.
  5. ^ Barrett's account of the settlement is mentioned here. From Quackwatch, accessed Sept. 17, 2006.
I would say "osteopath" rather thean "osteopathic physician", and I'd omit the doctoral titles (use only the first time the name is mentioned is standard per WP:MOS as far as I can tell), but there does not seem to be anything significantly wrong with the above, as far as I can see. Guy 22:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Guy. You are probably not aware that editors on this article have agreed in the past that any legal issue needed independant and preferably legal verification, as to avoid any bias or POV. A high standard of verifiability to make sure that the information is factual and correct. This has worked well, The problem with this particular item is that there is no independant document to support what is written. As I pointed out to Fyslee, if there is an out of court setttlement , there is a reason why Dr. Barrett does not mention the name of Dr. Mercola directly on the up to date page on his website. If he has a legal document to support his statement on such a settlement and he could post it on his website, I am sure he would as he is not usually shy in posting legal or official documents to support his POV. There is a reason why he has not. Whatever the reason he does not name Dr. Mercola on the up to date website page. So that reference cannot be used to link to Mercola. NATTO 00:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_3&oldid=112129335"