Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ad hominem attacks

On this issue, I doubt that all the attacks of Barrett's opponents are to be considered ad hominem. At the same time Barrett himself does use ad hominem attacks in certain cases. So this item needs improving since it is not presented in a fair and balanced way at the moment. NATTO 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is presented in an accurate way and explained above (A huge difference):

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

I doubt that anyone is totally free from ever using ad hom attacks at some point in time, and that includes Barrett. He's not perfect. But the difference here is the total pattern. You might be able to find an example or two from him, but you'll also have a hard time finding one or two examples of attacks against him that aren't ad hom attacks, especially from Bolen, who is the most vocal attacker.

I think during the seven years that I've known of Barrett's existence, that I have only once come across a criticism of him that actually responded directly to his criticism. That's rare. Most attacks against him fail to deal with his criticism at all, and go directly "after the man, instead of the ball." It's a dirty way to play, but it leaves his accurate criticisms of quackery and unethical behavior standing unopposed and unchallenged. Interesting and quite telling.

Even here on Wikipedia talk pages, I have repeatedly requested his attackers to cease their ad hom attacks against him, and to instead provide just one example of the inaccuracies they charge him with. No answer yet. I'm still waiting. Their lack of a "to the point" response is quite telling. They can use ad hom attacks against him, but they can't follow through by documenting any significant inaccuracies by him, (and if they did, it would probably be some minor typo......;-)

This is all illustrative of the true purpose of their ad hom attacks - to avoid admitting that they don't have a good response to the situation, and to divert attention from the embarrassingly accurate criticisms their opponent has made against their favorite quackery, which is alternative medicine in general, and the problematic aspects of chiropractic in particular.

The situation is simply a good example of "the exception that proves the rule." The rule is that Barrett rarely uses ad hom attacks, while his opponents rarely do otherwise, therefore the current wording in the article is the most accurate description of the situation. -- Fyslee 06:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee. Humm... If I am not mistaken you also have a web site about quackery. Objectivity is an issue here. That you do not like chiropractors and alternative medicine is obvious. Your point of view comes across loud and clear. NATTO 08:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is an Ad Hom attack Fyslee, but were you not named in a lawsuit with Dr. Barrett? I am just wondering about your objectivity.--MD1954 17:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OR

I just removed the following section titled "Obsolete information" again.

Quackwatch is a web site with a self-proclaimed mission to " improving the quality of health information and attacking misleading advertizing on the Internet " [1], however the information posted on Quackwatch is not always maintained up to date. For example on a page related to the court case between Cavitat Medical Technologies and Aetna [2], there is no mention that the judge in this case has thrown out all the allegations made by Aetna [3]. In this particular case, not only was Aetna countersuit dismissed by the judge as lacking in standing [4] but the original lawsuit by Cavitat was allowed to continue and a court date was set. Aetna finally settled out of court [5] .

This looks like original research. And seems to be invalid criticism since the page is dated, so it does not claim to be up to date. David D. (Talk) 02:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If a journalist or judge published a statement that the site was "obsolete information," we can quote that. Otherwise it's just original research. Jokestress 02:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The point, if that is not clear enough ,is not that the page is dated ( the date is plainly visible ). It is that one of stated mission of the site is to provide quality info and is against misleading info. Leaving a page that is out of date and contain info that can lead readers to believe the information contained is valid and factual is MISLEADING. In this particular case the judge ruled that Aetna's allegations lacked standing and dismissed them. Allegations that are dismissed in a court of law should be retracted as unproven otherwise it is simply spreading rumours. Blogs and forums do that , not a site whose stated mission is quality information. NATTO 03:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Below is a post on this page by Dr. Barrett and my response. Note that the link he provided is not functional :

" Dr. Barrett responds: I have reported that Aetna's counterclaim was dismissed. The report is on https://www.casewatch.net/civil/cavitat/countersuit.shtml It was not dismissed for lack of evidence or inability to prove what it said. Every assertion it said was backed by adequate documentation. Sbinfo 01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC) "

" Yes you have but have not given equal amount of information as you have in presenting the unproven claims by Aetna. There is a name for that. If you read the court transcript that is not what it says at all. In fact the judge dismissed all Aetna's claims as lacking standing and/or lacking in evidence [6].NATTO 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) "

Barrett's site says: "In January 2006, the judge ruled on narrow legal grounds that Aetna did not have standing to file its counterclaim. I believe that this ruling was unfair and that Aetna will take other action to accomplish the same ends." corrected URL -- Barrett's above is wrong. The same company got a Warning letter from FDA, which is never a good sign.

But the main issue here is the claim of being "obsolete," which is clearly not true in the instance you are citing. If you have a judge or journalist saying that, let's use it. Otherwise it's just an opinion and original research. Jokestress 05:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jokestress. Thank you for making my point. Two short phrases in comparison to many pages of information on Aetna's unproven counterclaim... And one of the phrase is to critizise the judge's ruling.... " Narrow legal grounds " is Barrett's POV. Please read the ruling. Please note also that the court ruling is not posted on Quackwatch. And the court ruling is CLEAR. Clearly not balanced information. As far as the warning letter, the FDA must have received a satisfactory reply since no further action appears to have been taken. The FDA sends a lot of warning letters as part of it's regulatory activities. As far as the title of the sub-heading , I did suggest that the posting be improved by other editors. Deleting is not improving.NATTO 05:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your point was about obsolescence, not balance. Can we agree the information includes up-to-date facts? Balance is another matter altogether. Let's get this "obsolete" original research dealt with first. Jokestress 08:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not wed to the obsolete wording. In essence my point is that the web site does not always provide quality information and the information provided can be misleading to the reader. Both issues are at the core of the mission statement of the web site. NATTO 08:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"The web site does not always provide quality information" is your POV. If you have someone saying this in a published source, like a court transcript or a newspaper, we can use it. Otherwise it is original research. Please read WP:NOR if you aren't familiar with the issue of original research. If someone said in print that the site is misleading, then we can use it. Otherwise we can't. Others have pointed this out as well. It seemd from my glancing over the court documents that you can likely find comments you can use from those. That would be your best course of action. Jokestress 09:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link to WP:NOR. I agree with your interpretation. Does not change the facts though but I agree that, as per the rules, an independant and reliable source is needed. The web site of John Bryant has an interesting assay on the subject. NATTO 09:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, after starting this, i have only just seen this discussion. However, it seems NATTO now does understand the nature of the dispute. For me it is not the message that is wrong but the fact the message is original research. If it can be written in a way that not not rely on personal observation then i have no problem with the content. David D. (Talk) 16:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Board certification

The issue of Board certification is now settled: Dr. Barrett has confirmed that he is not and has never been Board certified. The information can then remain in the article. One remaining question that still remain to be answered. Did he fail the Board exam ? NATTO 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The "board certification" issue is an example of the straw man attack:

1. He has never claimed to be board certified, but the fact that he isn't certified is presented in such a way as to give the impression that he has claimed certification, or acted as if he had it. In one way or another, the fact is presented in a manner that is definitely not NPOV, but is presented to damage his reputation, otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned at all. During all these years it has never been an issue or a problem, neither in courts of law, or in his dealings with authorities, or in the ability to do his job as a consumer protection advocate.
2. Board certification is not absolutely necessary to be considered an expert witness. It all depends on the subject. Even lay persons can become so experienced as to be considered expert witnesses on certain medical matters.

These facts should be taken into account, and any mention of the issue in the article must be done in an NPOV way. So far it has been done as a poorly disguised POV slur ("however," "but," etc.). -- Fyslee 06:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee. You really like that " straw man " thing... I agree that the wording needs improvement. How about: Approximately 89% of all practicing physicians are Board certified. Critics contend that to act as an expert physician in court cases related to medical matters a person's qualifications should include Board certification. Dr. Barrett has been involved in numerous court case as a consultant and expert but he has never been Board certified. Many of his critics also claim that - while under oath - he testified to failing his medical board certification exams.NATTO 07:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing or altering the posting of some else on the talk page

I note that Fyslee has altered the postings recently made by Stephen Barrett under the username sbinfo. Hopefully this is not going to become habitual. I can only imagine the results if everyone decided to go an alter or highlight postings of other editors for whatever reason.08:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My minor edits did not change the meaning of anything and were done in all sincerity. Refactoring of talk pages is allowed and can occasionally be in order to make things more clear or easier to read. Barrett is relatively new here and had forgotten to sign many of his entries, so I did it for him. Standard practice. The minor highlighting was done first to make clear who was posting, but then I added the missing sigs. Since the article is about Barrett, his statements here are significant and deserved the minor highlighting, which doesn't change the meaning of anything. No harm, misrepresentation, or deception was involved or intended. -- Fyslee 09:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My god. You defend the guy to the hilt and you correct his entries! What are you, his nursemaid? Tell him and let him correct it himself for godsake! Maybe you could tell him to stop chopping up everyones entries with his rebuttals--MD1954 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Board Certification, again

I don’t know how to say it any simpler. Being board certified (http://www.abms.org/member.asp) is almost necessary to be a physician in this country. If you are to be respected in your field you need it. , even if you are just a regular family doctor.

I don’t know if SBinfo is really Dr. Barrett. Since there is no way to verify that I don’t want to make an assumption that it is Dr. Barrett. So I will speak of what being board certification means in general.

The purpose of being certified is to make sure a physician is providing the best care to their patients. The certification is designed to prove that the physician has the knowledge and skills to give the patient the best care available in their chosen specialty. You have to do this every six-ten years. This is to make sure the physician is still learning new information in their field. Medicine is a living science and art.

There are a lot of bad doctors out there. Certification doesn’t weed out all the bad doctors. Doctors can still be wrong, make mistakes or be jerks. However, these doctors have shown that medical speaking they have met the standards to give the best care to their capabilities. It is so common these days to be board certified that it is usually not even advertised that a doctor is board certified. It is listed in their CVs, but for example it won’t say on their shingle, Dr. John Smith MD-Board Certified.

Many hospitals, practices and clinics will not employee physicians without board certification, especially if they are at the point where they are eligible to take them or they have failed them. The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) have been around since 1934. When Dr. Barrett started his career being board certified was not to the level that is today. By the ‘70’s and ’80 (while Dr. Barrett was still practicing) that changed to the standard of today.

Becoming a physician is very hard. You have to have excellent grades, community service, be a little neurotic at times, and persistent, patient, and dedicated. While most people look at their undergrad years as fun and all they need for their careers, physician look at their undergrad years as their perquisites to get into medical school. When you start applying to medical schools it becomes a nightmare. After having had many interviews, doing the MCATS and spending thousands of dollars on travel to the prospective schools, lodging, suits, and all the extras you then go more nuts. You become to know your mailman very well as you sit staring out the window waiting to see if they have those approval/rejection letters. Then if you get in you have four long years of the toughest school possible that will leave you in heavy debt. Of course with that comes the thousands of hours of rotation and then taking your medical licensing exams. Then comes internship, the residency, and for some fellowship.

So 10-12 years after you started all this you have to find a job while being heavily in debt, but ready to help people.

You learn a lot of stuff in med school, and since medicine is always evolving there is always more to learn. Being board certified means at the time you are up-to-date in your field. But even more important it shows you are willing to learn and grow in your specialty, or that at least you have the capability. Granted some people just do it to get a better position. However to keep it you need to stay educated in the field.

So saying all that I do not understand how a physician would not do all that they could to be at the top of their field. Being a physician is a career. Most people become doctors have the type of personality that drives them to be the best, or they do when they first start out. That is why I don’t respect physicians that are not board certified when they are eligible to become certified. Physicians are dealing with people’s lives. They should be up to speed in their filed. If they can’t even pass their board exams I don’t want them even talking to me, let alone treat me.

Giving speeches, writing books, or appearing in court does not show you have credentials. Many of those people that Dr. Barrett criticizes have also done those things. And from reading quackwatch, he doesn’t call those 'alternative health advocates' experts because of the books they have written or the speeches they gave.--MD1954 16:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Barrett’s CV is not that hard to interpret. It is a mish-mash and crossover of all kinds of position, meaning Dr. Barrett worked more than a hundred hours a week or worked part-time positions. Looking at his CV just now its shows that the page was last updated in June of 2005. Yesterday many of positions were listed as part-time, however today that seems to have been taken out.

This is what it said yesterday:

Chief, Psychiatric Service, Scott Air Force Base Hospital, Illinois, 8/61-7/63 Psychiatrist, San Francisco Juvenile Court (half-time), 7/63-8/67 Psychiatrist, San Francisco Child Psychiatry Clinic (half-time), 7/63-1/66 Private practice of psychiatry, 8/63-12/93 Consultant, San Francisco Department of Welfare, 8/64-7/65 Consultant, school nurses, San Francisco Public Health Department, 8/65-12/65 Consultant, Parks Job Corps Camp, 12/65-1/66 Psychiatrist, Center For Special Problems (half-time), 2/66-8/67 Consultant, San Francisco Adult Probation Department, 8/66-8/67 Staff Psychiatrist, Allentown State Hospital (part-time), 9/67-7/77 Consultant, Pa. Board of Probation and Parole (research project), 11/67-2/69 Consultant, Lehigh Valley Mental Health Association, 12/67-2/69 Consultant, Lutheran Children's Home, 2/68-6/72 Psychiatrist, Allentown Hospital Psychiatric Clinic (part-time), 4/68-6/90 Consultant, Pastoral Institute of the Lehigh Valley, 11/68-1/71 Consultant, Allentown Counseling Center for Alcoholism, 6/69-6/72 Consultant, Lehigh University Centennial School, 1/70-3/77 Psychiatrist, Muhlenberg Medical Center Psychiatric Clinic (part-time), 6/71-6/86 Medical Director, Haven House (partial hospitalization program), 8/76-6/87 Consultant, Allentown Police Department (evaluation of police candidates), 8/80-3/85 Medical Director, NewVitae Partial Hospitalization Program, 8/90-3/91

All those part-times/half-times have been deleted.

Also he lists many memberships (Medical). While they are genuine he lists himself being the chairman, Board of Directors for Quackwatch Inc. He has this listed as a medical membership and appointment. So I would take it he represents quackwatch as a medical person, not a layman. If that is the case than his medical work experience and status are of relevance.--MD1954 16:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your source (URL) for the version with part-times/half-times? Here is the URL for the current version -- Fyslee 12:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fifteen years ago, his board certification status was much more relevant than it is today. He has not practiced medicine since 1993 and has been doing consumer activism for over 35 years. If we want to mention the board certification issue, I suggest we do it under "Licensure" and rename it "Licensure and credentials."

The 89% statistic is irrelevant, but if you can find a reliable source for board membership rates in 1967 and 1993, those would help contextualize the issue. We still don't have the court document, but it appears that Barrett did indeed fail one part of the Board exam when he took it in the late 1960s. If we can get a citation, that can be included as well. Jokestress 18:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

He is a doctor. He testifies as a doctor. He runs quackwatch as a doctor. It is relevant. Certification was as important back in '93 as it is today. During his whole medical career certification was important. It shows his capabilities as a doctor. If you were one you would understand. 89% is relevant. Would you go to a doctor that is not board ceftified? --MD1954 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If I could go to Barrett as my physician, his Board certification would be relevant, but he has not practiced since 1993. If we have the Board rates from 1993, or the rates when he started practice, that would help contextualize the statement. As an example, I could say "MB1954 did not have a computer in 1968. Today, 90% of people have computers, and those who do not have them tend to be poor and uneducated." Do you see the logical fallacy? It suggests that because you didn't have a computer in the past, you are poor and uneducated.

In order to make the statistic relevant, it needs to be explained with context from Board certification statistics at that time Barrett was practicing: 1967 and 1993. Otherwise it is just an irrelevant piece of information. Jokestress 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Two facts have now been established: 1) Dr. Barrett is not and has never been Board certified 2) Dr. Barrett failed the Board certification exams because he failed the neurology exam. The facts thus support the relevant part of the statement in the Carlos Negrete web site. As for the relevance of Board certification: If one person is to testify in medical matters as a physician, even if he is retired from active practice, especially if he advertize himself as an M.D., then that person should, at least, be representative in his or her training, of the majority of his or her peers. That is simple enough. If someone is claiming expertise to allow criticism of a health modality, then that person should be able to demonstrate significant relevant experience en expertise in that modality, above the average practitioner.NATTO 20:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That is correct regarding the two facts. My issue is with sourcing. The citation needs to be from the court documents where this information was discussed. Barrett seems unwilling to send it along to me, so maybe y'all can have better luck with Negrete. As for your "average practitioner" claim, the average practitioner did not have board certification in 1970. American Medicine and the Public Interest by Rosemary Stevens is probably the definitive book on the history of Board certification. His failure in the late 1960s and his decision not to retest at that time or at any time during his career are both relevant. Comparing him to the current state of board certification is not. Jokestress 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Jokestress. Since Barrett himself has confirmed the two facts, there is no need for another source. The fact that Barrett is unwilling to send the court documents is telling. I disagree with you regarding Board certification. It is certainly relevant today and Barrett's excuse does not wash. He could have obtained his Board certification at any time until he choose to retire. He also uses his medical credentials on his web site and ask to be addressed as Dr. Barrett. Thus he is claiming medical expertise in his present work. NATTO 21:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The judge is wrong : Barrett

Reading the numerous posting of Sbinfo ( presumably Dr. Barrett as per Fyslee and Jokestress ) that have been inserted into the talk page in between other postings, it seems that the judges who find against him or the NCAHF are always wrong... However when a judge find against one of his targets he quickly accept the verdict as correct and post as many of the court transcript and documents he can on his web sites for all to see. He even post documents that are offered in evidence by the side he supports, even if the judge rules against them in the end.... Interestingly he does not post any documents when the rulings do not go along with his views.NATTO 21:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be the case. Negrete and Bolen also put the same selective spin on things, which is why we need to rely on court documents and/or published reports form disinterested parties only. Both sides are making arguments for their POV. Our job here is to source everything carefully in order for the article to be neutral. Jokestress 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the article needs to be well referenced and preferably not edited by persons who themselves belong directly or indirectly to Quackwatch to avoid conflict of interest. This article is not about Tim Bolen or Carlos Negrete. When the information provided on their site is corroborated then it is perfectly acceptable.NATTO 21:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If editors with specific POVs (like you) are citing reliable sources for their additions, there's no need for anyone to recuse themselves from editing. I assume good faith towards you and everyone here, and I expect the same from you. Jokestress 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• The issue is not good faith which I do assume, as a matter of course. The issue is potential conflict of interest. We all have a POV. Stephen Barrett has his POV as well. You have just edited the article to de-emphazise the issue of credibility which is , as you require correctly, documented by court documents. Credibility in what Stephen Barrett does is a key issue, thus it must be afforded proper emphasis.NATTO 22:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Credibility

Credibility is a significant issue, especially in a legal context. For a Superior Court judge to openly question the credibility of a witness in such a clear manner is also significant. Thus it must not be relegated to a reference. In fact credibility is also a core issue when someone wishes to be openly critical of so many others. NATTO 21:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the information on the King Bio case should be grouped together. Jokestress 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because you say so ? NATTO 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to forming a consensus, but the judge's statement on the issue of his credibility was limited to that case. He was a Plaintiff's witness paying himself to appear on behalf of a client in which he had an interest. That's a no-no. It's certainly relevant to that case, but I don't think the judge was making any statement about his general credibility beyong labeling him a "zealous" advocate. Jokestress 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK. Although the comments of the judge applied more specifically to the case at hand, it also had much broader implications, especially when you take into account the history and results of litigation, past and future, combined with the stated mission of Quackwatch Inc. which is almost the alter ego of Barrett and co. The judge clearly meant to put a stop to what he could see as a disturbing trend. Finally the fact that Barrett advertize himself as a medical doctor and has testified as a consultant and expert in numerous legal cases where he had a vested interest without disclosing that, as a physician he had failed the Board exam ( he admitted to failing one component but that could also be half the exam itself ) and never attempted to take it again, up to 1990, when a majority of his peers were and are Board certified is also very telling. All the above is confirmed either by court documents or by the subject himself. Thus I cannot agree that the judge ruling on his credibility was purely confined to the case at hand. Judges are well aware of the impact on their ruling on the reputation of a specific person. Many other judges have ruled against Stephen Barrett when he claimed damage to his reputation... that should also be an indication. It is important to present information in NPOV but not at the expense of downplaying relevant and proven information.NATTO 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well stated. This is all about credibility and Judge Fromholz didn't confine his statement about Barrett to just that case. He wanted to put an end to suspcious behavior on the part of Barrett and NCAHF.

Question for Barrett. Do you personally or do any of your organizations (not just Quackwatch but NCAHF and the others as well) accept any donations or payments from the AMA or high ranking members thereof, any pharmaceutical companies or high ranking board members of pharmaceutical companies, or any political lobbyists for the AMA or pharmaceutical companies or parent companies of pharmaceutical or medical supply companies? Levine2112 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer from Dr. Barrett (it's really me): Quackwatch has never received opr been offered a donation from any of the above. I have no awareness of NCAHF ever receiving such funds either. If it did, it would have been at least 20 years ago. Nearly all of NCAHF's money came from membership dues. Quackwatch runs with a cash flow of about $10,000 a year. Most of the money comes from online donations made through third-party sites that process donations. I neither know nor care who contributes most of them. The whole idea that my writing is influenced by money is incorrect. My views are not for sale, and my ability to do it requires very little money. I like the idea that my online expenses are covered by the donations, but I would do just as much whether or not I get them. Keep in mind that it has always been a standard tactic of quacks to charge that anyone wo criticizes them is bought of by vested interests -- and even though my Web site says all of the above very plainly, that doesn't appear to make any difference to the people who are criticizing me on this page or on Web sites hostile to my work. Fryslee has correctly noted that almost nobody even tries to provide alleged facts that challenge the content of what I say.

As far as my calling myself "Dr. Barrett," I am entitled to do that because I have a medical degree. I have never misrepresented my licensing status, board certification status, or degree of expertise.

The hostile discussion of my court appearances is also way off the mark and is based on assumptions that have little relevance to what I actually did. Most cases in which I provided expert assistance during the past 15 years did not involve court appearances. My role was to furnish documents and advice to the attorneys. Offhand, I can only recall about five where I actually testified. During my psychiatric career, I testified in more than 100 hearings. These were local matters most of which involved whether or not people should be committed. A few involved trials where there were insanity pleas. The court and local attorneys (on all sides) respected my work and almost never tried to disqualify me from testifying. In the few cases where they tried, they were not successful. Sbinfo 16:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You dodged my question. I don't care about Quackwathc. What about you personally? What about your other organizations? Levine2112 01:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My critics have also made a lot of false assumptions about how I practiced and the extent to which neurology was relevant. Psychiatrists are expected to be familiar with neurology because there are times when symptoms that appear psychiatric might be caused by a structural problem such as a brain tumor. Psychiatrists need to be alert to this and to be able to tell the difference. I knew all I needed to know about that. But the neurology parts of the board exam included the ability to read specialized types of brain x-rays and other things that never had the slightest relevance to my work or -- for that matter -- to my psychiatric training. Not all training programs are alike. I took the one that was most specialized in psychotherapy. That's what interested me and that's what I did the most.

Those who suggest that I hopped from job to job and had trouble keeping jobs don't have the slightest idea what I did. From 1967 through 1990, I worked nearly full time within the community mental health system. Where, how much I worked, and what I did at the at the various components (each of which was a separate job) depended on how I perceived the community needs. For example, during most of the the ten years I worked at the State Hospital, I ran several wards and helped reduce the hospital population. Because most of the patients needed follow-up care at community clinics, and because several of the wards I ran were closed (because the patients got better and left), I left the hospital and increased my clinic work. Most of the consultant positions I held didn't involve many hours, but I list them because they contributed significantly to my knowledge about people, social institutions, and community agencies. Throughout the entire period of 1967-1990, I also had a private office where I did psychotherapy. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I started out working about 60hours a week (total) and gradually reduced that number as my interest in investigative reporting increased. By 1993, I was (by choice) working only a few hours a week (in my office)and decided -- at age 60 -- to "retire" so I could spend full time writing and doing other things related to consumer protection. At the time I had more than enough money to retire. My wife, who is also a physician, practiced for 35 years, taught for several more, and now works as a volunteer.

My beloved critics charge that my failure to retake the boards represents some flaw in my competence and should decrease my credibility -- presumably for everything that I do. To summarize: (a) I never needed the boards; (b) Psychiatry is a very broad field. I was well trained and competent at what I chose to do; and (c) Because the board exams tested areas of practice that had no relevance to what I did, I would have had to spend a lot of time studying things I would never use. Sbinfo 17:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

89%

Let's work toward NPOV on this.

Approximately 89% of all practicing physicians are Board certified. [7]

I suggest this:

When Barrett took the Board exam in 1967, approximately __% of phyisicians were Board certified. When he retired in 1993, approximately __% of physicians were Board certified. In 2006, approximately 89% of all practicing physicians are Board certified. [8]

Once we get those other stats, it will be relevant. Jokestress 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jokestress, There is not point in streching the issue. Stephen Barrett had numerous opportunities to re-take the Board exam from 1967 until he decided to retire. By his own admission he never did. What is relevant is a) that he never did b) that in the context of his present activities, when he advertize himself as an M.D., it is the standards of today that apply, not that of 1967. Stating that, today, 89% of physicians are Board certified is fact and NPOV. The readers can draw their onw conclusions.NATTO 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You must be new here-- stretching the point IS the point on Wikipedia! ;) Someone who has been retired for 13 years is not held to the same standards as a working physician today. When Barrett failed part of the test and did not retake it, a minority of physicians held board certification. Would you agree that the 1993 statistic would be more relevant, if we must include one? For instance, in 1970, many professors could get tenure track jobs without a Ph.D. The is almost impossible today. Does that make a retired professor less credible than someone working today? No. The standards for the profession have changed. Jokestress 00:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jokestress, I may be new here however I do not have to go along with streching the point because it is , as you claim, what Wikipedia is all about. What is relevant is that Dr. Barrett, although technically retired from medicine, is still very much active on medically related issues, TODAY. He is even earning an income from medically related activities, proferring medical opinions and advice on a wide range of topics as well as actively inviting people to complain to him about medically related issues. If he was truly retired from medicine as many excellent physicians are, then your comments may have relevance.NATTO 00:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Barrett no longer practices medicine. He is retired from practice. That does not mean he suddenly no longer an expert. Jokestress 01:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Jokestress. Did I miss something along the way ? You say he is an expert but try to make the point that not being Board certified is not really relevant ? Maybe we are from different planets ? Who knows...NATTO 01:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is the offical numbers from the American Board of Medical Specialties http://www.abms.org/Downloads/Statistics/Table9_Chart1.pdf

The year Dr. Barrett Retired 80.9% of all doctors were board certified. Is this good enough?--MD1954 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's excellent. Now we just need the numbers for 1967. Until 1970, the was no ABMS, just a federation of individual specialty boards. Jokestress 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you joking?! You have the numbers now for 1989, 1990, 1991,1992,1993;all years Dr. Barrett was practicing. He had an opportunity every one of those years to become board certified. I am sure between 1967 and 1993 he could of learned enough about Neurology like countless doctors did before him.

Let people read the history of the ABMS (http://www.abms.org/history.asp#) to see if the agree with your very LOOSE MIS-interpretation of it. The only thing that happened in 1970 was a name change and a better way to run the organization! According to your logic it would not matter if he took the test in 1967 if the ABMS did not exist!

So there is the source. Dr. Barrett was a practicing physician in the years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 & 1993. He failed to take the exam. So he was a practicing non-board certified physician. He was also running qauckwatch, giving speeches and testifying in court as a non-board certified physician. This was at a time when MOST doctors were board certified. The only doctors not certified were Osteopathic doctors certified by the American Osteopathic Association Specialty Boards, doctors in residency that had not enough experience to take board exams, doctors who flunked the boards, doctors who knew they could not pass them, doctors from overseas who are going back to their countries after residency & internship or doctors who just did not care to take them.

This is getting ridiculous. Pretty soon I am going to want a copy of Dr. Barrett’s diploma to see if he was really a doctor. I am going to ask for transcriptions of the TV shows that appear in his profile to see if he really was a guest. Does he really live in Allentown?

You do not need the number of Board Certified Doctors in 1967. I will concede that it is fine he was not board certified in 1967. But what about 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993? Did you ever even think he might have had to retire since in 1993 when 80.9% of doctors had board certification when he did not? I am not saying that’s why he did retire, but could it not be a possibility? How hard do you think it is to get position when 8 out of 10 doctors are board certified?

By the way- the ABMS is not the one that makes you board certifed, it is the medical board themselves. The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology has been around since 1934 and gave their first exam in 1935.

I think we have enough here.--MD1954 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so this criticism currently reads on the article as:

• 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. [20] According to the ABMS, which was not organized until after Barrett's testing, about 81% of physicians were Board certified when Barrett retired in 1993. [21].

The footnote elaborates: The ABMS website notes that the modern centralized ABMS was created in 1970, several years after Barrett took the exam.

MD1954, emotions aside, how would you prefer to word this? Levine2112 19:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Emotions aside. Please Levine. The first thing they teach you in med school is to forget you have emotions. I don't understand how you took my statements and thought I was angry. I find this fun to a point. Its been along time since I had explain what the ABMS is, and I love this stuff. The thing is people who have never taken a board, gone to medical school, or even took someones pulse think they know more than an organization than you, even having belongeded to it for more than half your life. Its kind of funny. Most docs would not bother trying to explain these things. However I like to inform the uneducated people about these things, Doctor does mean teacher.

You are being inaccurate about the ABMS not existing before 1970. It was under a different name. Also the ABMS is not the one that certifies you. It is the individual boards. The 89% of doctors certified is the total number of doctors certified by all the board combined. Since only 100% can be qualified by one board the averages would then say that 89% would be about the same number for all the boards, with some boards probably closer to 100%. When doctor’s say there are board certified they are saying their individual boards qualify them. The ABMS is organization the coordinates those boards so other doctors and non-physicians know what is happening in the different medical specialities.

By 1970 there were many new fields since 1933. Also many doctors were receiving more than one certification. There was also an explosion in doctors and patients because of the baby boom, so better organization was needed. Even the ABMS will say that they have been around since 1933. This exert is from their website.

Since 1934, official recognition of specialty boards in medicine has been achieved by the collaborative efforts of the Advisory Board for Medical Specialties, its successor, the American Board of Medical Specialties, and the AMA Council on Medical Education. In 1948 these efforts were formalized through the establishment of the Liaison Committee for Specialty Boards (LCSB). A jointly approved publication, Essentials for Approval of Examining Boards in Medicine Specialties, established standards. This document has undergone several revisions through the years and remains the standard for recognition of new specialty boards.

In 1975, the ABMS approved membership for representatives of the public by establishing three voting public members, formerly called members at-large, positions. At its 50th Anniversary in 1983, the composition of its membership was the 20 Primary Boards, two Conjoint Boards, and one Conjoint Board (Modified) comprising the "Regular Members," the five "Associate Member" organizations and three "Public Member" positions. In 1989 the American Medical Association was approved as the sixth Associate Member.

It does not matter when Dr. Barrett took the Boards the first time. If you want to say he took his board in 1967 and it does not matter, fine. You would be wrong, but fine. What about the years 1970-1993? What is the excuse for those 23 years?

Anyway here is what needs to be changed and I will do it. I am taking out the following:

“According to the ABMS, which was not organized until after Barrett's testing, about 81% of physicians were Board certified when Barrett retired in 1993.” And replacing it with: “According to the ABMS about 81% of physicians were Board certified when Barrett retired in 1993.”

I also took this out:

"The ABMS website notes that the modern centralized ABMS was created in 1970, several years after Barrett took the exam.”

That he failed the test in 1967 means nothing. He was only a doctor for a few years when he took the test and one for 26 years after he took it. You can take the Boards as many times as you want. There is usually 8-10x a year you can take it. Lets even lowball it and average it out to 5 times a year. Than means there was 130 chances for him to retake the test and he did not. According the Sbinfo post (if he really is Dr. Barrett) he took the test and failed them. And his attitude was, “Well, I don’t need the boards. I am never going to need to know Neurology. Even though this stuff has been established by my peers to be helpful information to help my patient.” Shortly after that qauckwatch was formed.

I really don’t know how much simpler I can make this. I took off my physician hat as much as I could. I don’t think there is anyone at this point who does not get what I am saying.--MD1954 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If about two in three physicians did not get board certified at the time he failed the test, and he decided not to take it again, continuing his entire career without needing it, it's not fair or accurate to compare statistics today with what was happening 35 years ago. The majority of doctors at the time did not feel a need to hold board certification, the inverse of today. See my earler example about tenured professors without PhDs. Board ceritifcation might be a big deal and a necessity today, but it was not in 1967. I am sure many of his peers from that time never bothered to get board certified because they saw no need. That is of course a dying breed today. However, to make claims suggesting that 89% of doctors are more qualified than Barrett, because that is the current board certification rate, is POV pushing. I understand you are very frustrated about this, and you feel this is an important point, but the other POV is that you are comparing apples and oranges as part of a POV that wants to discredit Barrett. Jokestress 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The real question then is: How did those statistics change from 1 out of 3 were board certified to 9 out of 10 in just 20-30 years? Did those doctors that weren't certified in '67 become certified? Did they all retire? Was there is a huge influx of new doctors that all were board certified? We are talking about a drastic change here. I don't see how Barrett can spend all those years touting himself as an expert all the while not being board certified. Here's another question: In the year Barrett took the exam, what was the pass rate? Anyhow, all of this goes to build a very valid criticism that is hardly an apples-to-oranges comparison. When Barrett was a licensed doctor, a vast majority of his colleagues had passed their board certification exams. Barrett had failed his. Apples-to-apples and an extremely relevant and documentable criticism. Levine2112 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these are entirely relevant:

• How did those statistics change from 1 out of 3 were board certified to 9 out of 10 in just 20-30 years?
• Did those doctors who weren't certified in '67 become certified prior to retiring?
• Was there a huge influx of new doctors who all were board certified?
• In the year Barrett took the exam, what was the pass rate?

If we get a published source, those can go in. Jokestress 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, that Barrett failed where so many have succeed yet still claims to be an expert - is still a valid and documentable criticism. Levine2112 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When Dr. Barrett was practicing in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 & 1993 most doctors were certified. Also do you think most doctors before 1989 were not qualified and that only in the past 17 it has become important.

Here is a good example. My father received his board certification in 1958. At the time about half of all jobs were not open to non-board certified doctors. He got a position once against older; more experienced doctors because they were not certified. My Uncle became a Psychiatrist in 1966. He was not board certified; he did not have the experience. He had a job at a hospital. Three years after he got the job they were going to fire him unless he became board certified. In the ‘70’s that became very common.

Dr. Barrett was a practicing in 1989 when 76% of all doctors.

Dr. Barrett could have taken that test numerous times. He was a physician with almost 30 years of experience in 1989 when 76% of doctors were qualified, so with all the experience & training he should of.--MD1954 22:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You make excellent points, MD1954. That's why I feel that this is a valid criticism of Barrett. Levine2112 00:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that in 1967 only 247 physicians got board certified in Psychiatry and Neurology. This was at a time when somthing like a thousand new psychiatrists began practice annually. Clearly, many physicians who began practicing at that time didn't consider board certification a career requirement, and Barrett obviously did just fine without it his whole career. Jokestress 01:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The main point is that he took the exam and failed. It would have been 248 physicians who got board certified in Psychiatry and Neurology had Barrett passed. But he failed. That certainly discredits him somewhat and thus can be used as a valid criticism. Levine2112 03:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. That is the main point. Once we had a citation, that has never been disputed. What is not valid criticism is comparing the rate of board certification for a 60-year-old guy at the end of his career to the rate for his younger peers. If you have statistics for any of your questions raised earlier, those are valid, too. However, this 89% or 81% thing is being given undue weight and is not an accurate or fair comparison. Jokestress 04:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I disagree because that 89% is not made up entirely of Barrett's younger peers. I'm sure plenty of those 89% were Barrett's contemporaries as well. The statistic didn't say 89% of all new doctors are board certified... it said 89% of ALL doctors. All means all. Young and old. It means that of all of the validly licenced doctors in that year, Barrett was among the 11% that were not board certified. Now some percentage of that 11% never took their board cerifications, while the rest were like Barrett... they took the board certification exam and failed. That's a comparison that is valid, fair and accurate. Levine2112 05:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are good points Levine.

I just got a second confirmation about the number of physicians that were board certified by the Psychiatry and Neurology Board. Just like I posted yesterday and the deleted till I found out for sure. It was 247 as stated by jokestress. That by the way is a high number. Not as many people were graduating from medical school at that time. Don’t forget that most most of the newer doctors taking the exam in 1967 were born in the ‘30s during the hieght of the depression, like Dr. Barrett. That time period has a much lower birthrate. When babyboom doctors started practicing in the ‘70s thats when you saw the number of board certifications pass 1,000 (1976) for this field. After that the average has been about 1,500. Which is needed if you want to hold any position in research, hospital, clinics, legal experts, etc etc.

The 247 also doesn’t include the thousands of doctors who were certified before that. Also the field of Psychiatry was not as popular in the early-mid ‘60s. It really exploded in the ’70 and ’80 with the advent of anti-pyschotic meds and more widespread use of lithium. Before that most people (compared to today) did not go to a Psychiatrist, making it not a popular speciality and mainly one for research or working in a state asylum (not the best work enivorment).

Also Dr. Barrett was hitting his prime in the ‘70s, when was in his ‘40s. Don’t forget that is when a doctor is usually fully trained and starting to really starting to excel. He should have been able to pass those board exams.

And Jokestress, looking at his CV it does not look like he had the best career. Look at his CV before it was changed a few days ago. (somehow the update for the page says June, 2005…)

Chief, Psychiatric Service, Scott Air Force Base Hospital, Illinois, 8/61-7/63 Psychiatrist, San Francisco Juvenile Court (half-time), 7/63-8/67 Psychiatrist, San Francisco Child Psychiatry Clinic (half-time), 7/63-1/66 Private practice of psychiatry, 8/63-12/93 Consultant, San Francisco Department of Welfare, 8/64-7/65 Consultant, school nurses, San Francisco Public Health Department, 8/65-12/65 Consultant, Parks Job Corps Camp, 12/65-1/66 Psychiatrist, Center For Special Problems (half-time), 2/66-8/67 Consultant, San Francisco Adult Probation Department, 8/66-8/67 Staff Psychiatrist, Allentown State Hospital (part-time), 9/67-7/77 Consultant, Pa. Board of Probation and Parole (research project), 11/67-2/69 Consultant, Lehigh Valley Mental Health Association, 12/67-2/69 Consultant, Lutheran Children's Home, 2/68-6/72 Psychiatrist, Allentown Hospital Psychiatric Clinic (part-time), 4/68-6/90 Consultant, Pastoral Institute of the Lehigh Valley, 11/68-1/71 Consultant, Allentown Counseling Center for Alcoholism, 6/69-6/72 Consultant, Lehigh University Centennial School, 1/70-3/77 Psychiatrist, Muhlenberg Medical Center Psychiatric Clinic (part-time), 6/71-6/86 Medical Director, Haven House (partial hospitalization program), 8/76-6/87 Consultant, Allentown Police Department (evaluation of police candidates), 8/80-3/85 Medical Director, NewVitae Partial Hospitalization Program, 8/90-3/91

There was something last week about him teaching a health class in the late ’80 at a Pennsylvania State School but that seems to have disappeared too. Look at all those part time jobs, consultant jobs, and cross over of so many jobs, all while running qauckwatch. This looks like a resume of someone getting paid a few bucks here and not being able to get a steady, well paying respected position.

See what happens when you are not board certified.

Also qauckwatch started a couple of years after he flunked the boards. Most doctors want to be great and well known in their field. Since that didn’t happen, starting qauckwatch could have been the recognition he was looking for. I am not saying it was, just guessing.

Ok, lets finish this. I made the changes already. We have the facts. Lets close this out now and move on to the next thing.--MD1954 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your source (URL) for the version with part-times/half-times? Here is the URL for the current version -- Fyslee 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Above you write that Barrett started Quackwatch "a couple of years after he flunked the boards." Actually he started it 30 years later, in 1997, so that argument doesn't hold water. -- Fyslee 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, Fyslee Fyslee. Poking your head up again. I copied his CV from his website last week. After I put it in and commented on it it was changed on his website. Look at the previous posts for godakes! I even wrote on there how the page was last update was listed as June 2005 when it was changed the day before!!!!!

Also here is where I get my source for quackwatch being founded log ago, right from his own website: Chairman, Board of Directors, Quackwatch, Inc. (originally called Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud, Inc.), 6/70-

It was just renamed. The town I live in was renamed 2 years ago after being that way for 213 years. Does that mean it did not exist before. Just a question for you, are you a PT in the U.S. or overseas?--MD1954 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha! Sorry about that. I thought you really were referring to the website, since the name Quackwatch came much later. Mea culpa!

As for the source, I asked for the URL, not because I hadn't read your messages, but because I wondered if you had another source as well. The archived versions of the page are unchanged. Maybe he was playing with a more precise version that isn't finished yet? (OR violation!) Whatever the case, part time work is perfectly honorable, especially when it allows one to carry on other activities one finds important. Not everyone has to have the same ambitions you may have had. Many other geniuses and influential people have walked to the beat of a different drummer, and taken the path less trodden. That is nothing to be ashamed of, nor to be denigrated. -- Fyslee 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My Friend, I copied it exactly from his page. My URL was to his website till he changed it. I did not add in the words part-time or half time. It did not matter what the archived pages say. That can easily be manipulated. I just tried it with my own website! I changed four pages from 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and the update date hasn’t changed. Pretty easy to do! Nice try!

I have it posted on here exactly as it was on HIS website! I am not the changing records. If he wants to prove otherwise he can come on here and explain it. He can also explain how someone could hold three and four jobs full-time positions at the same time, all while being a consultant, a lecturer, running qauckwatch, testifying in courts, working with multiple organizations, and the million other things he did, while raising a family! Did he sleep or his he really Dr. Who and can travel in Time?!

Also how come as such a medical expert he doesn’t have on his CV that he is a member of the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association!

Please don’t tell me about violations. It was from his website! When I was looking at his website two months ago it said part and half-time. He has been on here since I posted that. Here is one of his responses after I posted on his CV: (if SBinfo really is him)

Dr. Barrett responds: Since my posted curriculum vitae doesn't explain what I did, whoever wrote the above doesn't doesn't have the slightest idea what it involved. In addition, the whole discussion of my psychiatric experience hasn't the slightest relevance to my writing activities. I have functioned as an investigative reporter for more than 30 years and have sufficient knowledge and enough help from other experts to do what I do effectively. Sbinfo 00:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not one comment about his CV saying part-time or half-time in ANY of his further posts.

I love your other comment:

Not everyone has to have the same ambitions you may have had. Many other geniuses and influential people have walked to the beat of a different drummer, and taken the path less trodden. That is nothing to be ashamed of, nor to be denigrated.

My ambitions were to be the best and most helpful in my field. Is that not what Dr. Barrett at one time probably wanted? Would you go to a doctor who thought otherwise? Would you go to a brain surgeon who was not good enough to pass his board. A pyscharist is a brain surgeon who does not operate with a scapel. If you ever havethe misfortune to see one would you not want one that cared enough and was smart enough to pass his own boards? Boards whose purpose is to protect patient and phyiscan.

'''Genius''', you said. Man that is a good one. Dr. Frankstein though he was a genusis. Of course he accomplished something.

Now that I think of it quackwatch is a good name for Dr. Barrett’s website. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…. Anyway, good to hear from you again.--MD1954 15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding a long list of reference

The list of references is getting longer and longer, adding bulk to the article. It seems much more efficient to add the link to the reference in the text. This way readers can access the reference as they read without having to scroll down the bottom each time.NATTO 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes and endnotes are standard practice here. The reason for footnotes is for those who print a copy, etc., where the text itself would be lost if not in note form. The superscripts are also less obtrusive for those who do not want to read the notes. Jokestress 00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jokestress, that may be so but the reference list is now almost as long as the article itself. I have seen other articles on Wikipedia who do not use a reference list and simply, and more efficiently, put the relevant link in the article. Readers who do not want to look at the reference, do not have to. Since you have taken upon yourself to restructure the article, I am pointing this out. NATTO 01:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On controversial biographies of living people, it is essential to source all negative statements per WP:BLP. I have worked on a lot of these kinds of biographies, and it is necessary to avoid WP:OFFICE. Jokestress 01:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• In that context, it does make sense. It should apply also to positive statements, especially when the reference used is source from the subject of the article or from one of his web sites. In that context you just posted a court document, the deposition of Tim Bolen, that you source from Casewatch. Barrett has added a commentary that is not part of the original document that pops up when it is downloaded. This, of course, is spin. If he took the same effort in posting the court documents from cases he has then we could have a better understanding of what the actual situation really is. NATTO 01:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Age-adjusted board certification

This whole discussion about board certification statistics seems to be ignoring a simple fact, best illustrated by the same principle at work in Age-adjusted life expectancy. "Age-adjusted board certification" would reveal a similar pattern - the farther back in time one goes, the lower a percentage of MDs were board certified, in relation to later dates. Each age bracket should be judged according to the norms at the time, and not by an unfair and illegitimate comparison with other age brackets at a much later date. In all professions there exists a certain type of "grandfather clause," which allows previously educated professionals to continue to work using their education, even if it was at a lower standard than the one now required. Experience and continuing education not only help to keep them up to date, but also means that they are often the professors teaching those new young grads.

Now is there anyone here among the Barrett skeptics who has enough conscience and sense of decency to be willing to include this fact in their calculations and editing? Jokestress has been doing what she could to bring up this idea, but no one seems to be willing to allow it to sway their POV, which they are including in the article, against good common sense and fairness. As an obvious POV edit it won't survive. Making it NPOV now will help it to survive. -- Fyslee 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee. The point is simple enough. First: Barrett failed the Board Exam, chose for 26 years not to try to pass it again, well aware that each year a greater number of his peers were Boart certified. How hard is that to understand ? Second, Barrett advertize himself as an M.D on his web sites, thus he is claiming medical expertise in his activities. He also testtifies in court as an M.D. with claimed expertise on the medical issues at hand. He does not disclose that, unlike the majority of his colleague, he is not Board certified. At least one judge find him not qualified in the medical issue on trial and further finds him not credible. Third: Since 1989 and even before most M.D.s have been Board certified, thus one cannot claim to be really an expert in his field if he does not have, at least ( an most reasonably more ) training and credentials then the majority of his peers. That is simply factual. It does look like you are in the role of being subjective and an apologist for the subject of this article. Since you also run a site on quackery you are potentially in conflict of interest in this matter.NATTO 00:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this point can be stated any more clearly than how NATTO has put it. Fyslee, you are trying to limit this to the year when Barrett took the exam, but the bulk of his quack busting experience occurred after that point. Barrett had lots of time and plenty of opportunity to retake the exam but elected not too up unto the point whne he allowed his medical license to expire. Your "age-adjusting" argument is clearly an attempt to whitewash the simple fact that Barrett failed his medical board certification yet claims medical expertise. Personal bias aside, you must admit that this is a legitimate and fair criticism. Barrett has a record of doing this - claiming expertise in an area in which he is not. Judge Fromholz cited this; Barrett claimed to be an expert in the FDA but really couldn't back it up. Levine2112 05:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's not bring up rhetoric about "common sense and decency," or call other editors "apologists," etc. It's fine for editors to have differing points of view, but we all have to work toward consensus on these articles. Our goal is to present an accurate and neutral summary of the controversies at hand. We also need to source everything, especially negative information, from reliable sources. There are still a couple of items in this that I do not believe are reliable sources, but by using court documents and mainstream media, we have improved this article significantly in the last week or so. I believe it outlines the major issues, but I want to focus on getting all the litigation listed, along with outcomes. As it stands, it seems that each side tends to report their victories and downplay or not report their setbacks. As NATTO points out, the Board failure is an important item, as are the interviews, publications, and awards recently added. As we iron out the last few items, let's assume good faith on the part of everyone and continue to source any changes with high-quality sources. Thanks to all who have worked on this-- I have worked on a lot of controversial biographies, and I find that they tend to get improved pretty quickly BECAUSE they are controversial. Both "sides" work hard to make the article reflect their POV, and we end up with something representative of both. Wikipedia at its best. Jokestress 05:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jokestress. It's hard sometimes to put our passionate opinions aside sometimes and just give the verifiable info from reliable sources. I find that you have an excellent ability to remain cool and see things fairly. Levine2112 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As an lurker in this debate i would mention four things.

1. The grandfather clause mentioned by Fyslee is very real.
2. Passing the boards was not a requirement for him to practice medicine, so the urgency to retake was minimal to non existent.
3. A doctors skills are learned on the job, NOT in the examination room. It is just a fallacy to use the failed board exam as evidence for him not being an expert in the field. Much more pertinent would be malpractice suits or similar.
4. The judge, while claiming that Barratt is not an expert witness, appears to be appealing to medical student qualifications rather than his experiences as a doctor. This appeal to the authority of the board exams, while possibly a relevent measure for younger doctors today, does not seem to be a strong argument in this case.

All in all I do think that case being built against his medical knowledge, weighted so heavily on the judge and the fact he failed a board exam, is not really that convincing. David D. (Talk) 05:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

David D. Lurker is a good choice of words. While you are correct in stating that the grandfather clause is very real, this does not change the fact that Board certification is a real test of someone's level of qualifications. Experience is relevant but experience with Board certification is even more relevant. When the vast majority of your peers are Board certified , it becomes quite difficult to have a valid argument about being an expert if your qualifications do not match your peers. Recently Dr. Sanjay Gupta, neurologist and a contributor to Time magazine, wrote an entire article on his process of Board certification and how important it is. Of course he was immensely proud of his accomplishment and so was Time Magazine because it gives him real credibility as medical expert writing for Time Magazine. So it does seem that credible sources agree that Board certification is an important step in medical expertise.

I wholeheartedly agree that the article must be NPOV and verifiable and we are making good progress on this. The facts stand on their own. It is regrettable that Dr. Barrett failed the exam and more regrettable that he chose not to be Board certified at any time during the time he was licensed to practice. It was his decision and now, in hindsight, it is not serving him well in his volition to be seen as a critical expert in so many medically related issues. He is not only giving advice but also asking people to contact him to complain about health and medically related issues.

If he was not using his medical degree ( M.D. )all over his websites, then his credibility could be assessed on his works outside the medical profession, however he does use his M.D. degree prominently, asking to be called Dr. Barrett and issuing opinions and criticism of a wide range of medically related subject, most frequently of a negative nature. It should be noted however that his medical degree aside, his credibility and expertise have been clearly and openly questioned in, at least, one court ruling. Anyone familiar with the legal system will know that this is very significant. For an expert of any kind testifying in court, his credibility with the court, is his most precious asset and he does not have any with at least one California Superior Court judge.

Finally being NPOV does not mean that we have to hide facts that are well proven because they are not favorable to the subject of the article. FACTS are FACTS. As I wrote earlier it is regrettable that the facts in this instance are not in favor of Dr. Barrett but they stand as they are and our job as editor is to make sure that they are not spinned.NATTO 07:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The judge's statements were about the credibility of his testimony in a case where he had a direct interest in the outcome. The other issue was about his expertise on matters regarding FDA. The judge's statements were not comments about his credibility in general, or his credibility outside the matters in that case. Jokestress 08:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that facts are facts, but too much weight on the facts to make an argument can be seen as POV. Is Barrett not an MD? I'm unclear as to whether failing one part of the board means he is not an MD.

With regard to Sanjay Gupta, i would dispute that the boards are so important. No person who is fresh from the boards would be regarded as an expert surgeon. Experience is much more meaningful. In the same way a Ph.D. can be very misleading. What one does with a Ph.D. is much more important with regard to ones expertise. Language such as " he chose not to be Board certified at any time during the time he was licensed to practice" is used to paint a picture that this was the wrong choice. But, if he could practice medicine without this exam it could also be viewed as a sensible choice. His choice appears to be a consequence of the time he was practicing. That this is unusal now does not seem to be a strong argument that he made the wrong choice or is less of an expert.

It would seem to be less POV is to state the facts but not to lead the reader to a conclusion that this somehow makes him less of a doctor. It is the latter interpretation of the facts that seems POV not the facts themselves. David D. (Talk) 08:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Barrett earned the degree of M.D. and is entitled to be called Dr. for his whole life. That doesn't end at retirement. This board certification thing is being used to imply that he was not a doctor or was not qualified, but that's mainly POV pushing. It's certainly significant that he failed the test and did not retake it, but the suggestion that a guy who was at the end of his career should have taken a test for a certification that he hadn't needed at any point previously in his career is being given undue weight, I feel. Jokestress 08:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the undue weight. At present it stands like a mountain rather than a more appropriate mole hill. David D. (Talk) 08:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• What is posted in the article is simply what Dr. Barrett has admitted himself as well as factual data relevant to the issue of Board certification. The discussion about the importance of Board certication on the talk page is occurring because Joketress and Fyslee insist on downplaying the importance of Board certification dor someone claiming medical expertise. I am not aware if they themselves are Board certified or not and what their level of medical training and expertise is, however those who are Board certified seem to think that is it important. Of course Dr. Barrett earned his M.D. and this is not about his right of being called Dr. or using the letters M.D after his name. It is about the implications of doing so in present work. There is after all only a few lines on this topic in the article compared to numerous text about all his awards and writings.

To repeat: all the article says is 1) He failed Board certification, 2) Chose not to try again 3) Has never been Board certified 3) in 1993 when he chose to let his license lapse , 81% of M.D. were Board certified. I fail to see were is the POV in that. The fact that in 2005, 89% are Board certified shows a clear trend also. Simply facts. I fail to see where the undue weight is as per David D. A lot has been written on the talk page and it looks like we are going in circle. If we put in the article that Board certification is not that important for Barrett and his work then that will definitely be POV.NATTO 08:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Age-adjusted board certification, I love this. If only it were true. All those times to take the boards could have been spared for everyone. I showed this to everyone and we love this it!! ROFL! I just love it when non-physician come up with this stuff. Fylsee, maybe we could tell you how to run your career!

There is no grandfather clauses for the boards like you are thinking. The only clauses there were was the amount of time to get the ceritifaction renewed.

The Boards Dr. Barrett took first started in 1935! What the hell kind of grandfather clause should he of gotten? (He was born in 1933!)Many doctors lost there jobs when certification became mandatory for many positions and they did not test or failed.--MD1954 15:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Licensure and credentials section

With regard to the Licensure and credentials section I have copy edited it to a version that i think is less POV and a more representative presentation of the material that is cited. I suggest that the 89% be cut out since it seems to be original research and, in my opinion, not really relevent to the point being made. probably this section should be discussed further on the talk page here before any major edits occur in the main article. David D. (Talk) 09:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Critics frequently claim Barrett is a "de-licensed" physician. [9] Barrett explains that he was not "de-licensed" but allowed it to expire after he retired from the active practice of medicine at the age of 60, in 1993. [10]
• Critics cite that Barrett 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. [11]
• Barrett has claimed to be an expert on FDA regulation [12] based on his interactions with FDA representatives and in part due to his 1½ years of the correspondence course in American Law and Procedure, LaSalle University Extension Division, Chicago, 12/66-12/68 [13] His credentials were disputed and Judge Fromholz said "Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer..." [14]

• David D., if you read the posting by sbinfo ( Barrett ) you will realize that Barrett himself has admitted not being Board certified and failing the neurology part of the Board exams, so it is not the critics that claim anything but Barrett who says so. Critics claim that it is only in court under cross examination that he admitted it and link the issue to Barrett's claim as a medical expert. Of course, Barrett says it is not important to be Board certified, but that is to be expected in the same way he says all judges who ruled against him are wrong or have failed to understand his position. Second it is 81% and it is not OR but directly linked to the Board certification level in 1993, the year Barrett allowed his licence to lapse. A number of other editors including Levine and MD954 have also worked on this. MD1954 seems to habe a good understanding of the Board certification process. NATTO
  • I put it there as starting point, it can be changed. I still disagree with the 81% reference. I don't see the relevance to the argument. There was no requirement for him to take the boards in 1993. You are holding him accountable to entry standards in two different eras ( and even then there are 20% practicing without taking the boards). Why does this make any sense? With regard to the reference to critics. Are they not 'claiming' he is not a medical expert? Don't you agree that it is the critics that are citing his failure to take the board exam as a reason for him not being an expert? How would you word it? David D. (Talk) 12:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The 20% was mostly doctors who would get there certification through Osteopathic Boards, not ABMS Boards, residents who are not eligible to take the boards, doctors who trained here but were leaving for their home countries after all their training, doctors who flunked the test (the biggest reason), doctor’s who knew they would flunk, physicians who had left medicine but were still on the rolls,or those who did not care.--MD1954 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That does not surprise me. This is now, but what about then, 1963, that really is the only relevant comparison. Now, everyone is overqualified and competition for medical school is immense. Students are trained specifically to excel in the SAT, excel in the MCAT and then the boards. This is all well and good but when do they stop to think? Many are so obsessed with success that they do not take the challenging courses at university to ensure high GPA. They take physiology and anatomy to ensure that their first year at med school is easy, rather than taking higher level course that they find interesting. They take the MCAT more than once to gain their highest score possible. It is a different world. As many said before, its apples and oranges. Tests are the be all and end all now. This was not so in the sixties. (an addendum, the med schools are starting to realise that tests are not the be all and end all, thankfully.) My POV is that tests are not a good indicator of excellence. One could argue he did not waste his time preparing information for regurgitation on a test and instead got his hands dirty. This is definitely not OK now but it was then. i feel the test stuff should be mentioned. Clearly it is an important aspect of the critic's argument that he is not a qualified expert. But to discuss the context of boards and the relative importance of tests in different eras is just not relevant to this article. Much more relevant would be information that he was not very good at his job. Was he ever fired, was he ever disciplined for malpractice? Now THAT would be a very valid critique that he is not an expert. David D. (Talk) 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• David D. Editor MD1954 understand this well. I certainly would not consider someone in my field an expert at all, if he was not Board certified. In fact Board certification would be a minimum to which significant relevant work experience would be seen as necessary as well. Admittedly an MD can practice without Board certification however he will not receive much recognition by his peers. The 81% ( over 89% today ) is very relevant because that shows the minimum requirement for any kind of expertise ( and the word here is MINIMUM ). For example you can drive a car if you have a driver's licence but that does not make you an expert driver at all. As far as the medical expertise issue, even, at least one judges has questioned his expertise. Do you want to include the judge as a critic ? As far as two eras are concerned, please note that 1967 is not relevant here as we are talking about the period when he started in his self-appointed role against what he calls quackery. When he still has an active license, he did not really try to pass his Board again. His decision but there are implications. After he gave up his license he continued to use his MD credentials so it is still relevant that he is not Board certified, even more so today because the standards of what an expert is is higher today. He himself offer his services as an expert. He does so through his web sites and other writings so he must be able to keep up with the standards that are relevant NOW.NATTO 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to say that all experts, of his era, HAVE to be board certified. It is clear that the boards are only one aspect of being a medical expert. Personally i believe that MD1954 is putting too much weight on this qualification over other potentially more important experiences that make him an expert. Note I am not saying this should be striken from the article but to put too much weight on this is pushing the POV envelope. Above i suggested the following sentence.

• Critics cite that Barrett 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. [15]

To me, this seems to be balanced, at least i have tried to be objective here. Why would you consider more than this is neccesary?

With regard to the car driving, i think you'd be surprised to know that every kid that drives go-carts and aspires to be racing driver are probably expert drivers. All are too young to have a driver's licence. Of course, much depends on how you define expert, going round a race track at high speed or driving in rush hour traffic are clearly different experiences. Do we really think that failing one board exam, that he decided not to retake, means he cannot be an expert on alternative medicine (or whatever expertise he claims?) This one datum point does not allow one to reach this conclusion with any strength. This is why I believe is it valid to mention but not overdo it. David D. (Talk) 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• David D. I had a look at is web site and he is definitely no expert in alternative and/or complimentary medicine. His understanding of the issues is quite restricted. As fas as being an expert psychiatrist , he could not even pass his Board... NATTO 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats why i asked the question since I am not familiar with all the arguments against or for his expertise. Can you expand the sentence above with more meat? David D. (Talk) 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If SBinfo really is Dr. Bartlett than Bartlett stated that he flunked his boards, not critics. Flunking part of your board exams is like being 'kinda pregnant.' If you have two parts to a board exam and you pass the first and flunked the second, you flunked the exams. Thats because you have to retake the WHOLE exam, parts I & II, to become a member of the board. You could pass part I and have to retake it 20x if you flunk part II every time.--MD1954 17:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the sentence i wrote. The critics cite the fact he flunked his exams. Cite does not mean they say (or claim) he flunked them. Cite is when they use the available information. Maybe this will make it more clear.

• 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. [16]

So they cite Barrett. The critics then use this information to 'claim' he is not an expert (medical or whatever, see the new section below). Their 'claim' is he is not an expert. Not that he failed the boards. See now, maybe it could be more clear? David D. (Talk) 17:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

David, medical students don't take challenging course?! Man you really don’t know anything about getting into medical school! You can’t take basket weaving 101 and similar classes to get a high GPA and have any chance of going to medical school.

First you need to have a good GPA, not the best, in whatever your undergrad degree is in. Each medical school looks at each class. For most schools you need to have taken general chemistry, organic chemistry, biology and physics, just to name a few. Since everyone does that many take advance classes in these subjects. Also you usually need things like community service, show you have leadership skills, usually through sports and similar items. And of course the MCATs are important. If those scores are bad kiss your chances goodbye. The MCATs are not that hard if you have been a good student and have prepared.

Getting into medical school is as hard now as in Dr. Barrett’s day, maybe even harder in Dr. Barrett’s day. In his day there were less spots in schools because there was less people in the country. People did not live as long and there were not as many people in health care programs. Also most non-European countries did not have medical schools and there were not as many offshore schools as today (most were not recognized in the U.S. anyway), so most people around the world came here or went to England.

Also Osteopathic medicine was not as well recognized so many people tried to get into an MD program while today many people compete for both.

Taking the boards is not like taking a pop quiz. The Board exams are things doctors should already know. If Dr. Barrett could not pass the exams because he did not learn enough neurology during his residency, that is his fault. It is not a secret what is on the test. He should have prepared himself better and found the experience somehow. Since 89% of doctors are certified today and 76% were four years before he retired its shows almost every physician can pass them.--MD1954 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what I say. the term challenging course is all relative. I mean they take physiology 333, a route learning and regurgitation type course rather than cell biology 500, or animal behaviour 551. When i say challenging i mean challenging themselves (and risk a B). When i say challenging I mean a graduate level 800 course might be an option. Tell me how many pre-meds opt for those types of course over physiology 333, something they will just repeat in med school anyway? You list, "For most schools you need to have taken general chemistry, organic chemistry, biology and physics, just to name a few. " Right, I know they have to take these and I don't call those challenging. For me challenging course are when they have to engage in critical thinking. My whole point is that getting into medical school is harder now. So we agree. It is harder and involves less critical thinking. It is a different beast. i never said taking the boards was like a pop quiz, what i said is the current students are test oriented. And the board is a test, harder the most, yes, but still a test. You say "He should have prepared himself better". I'm sure this is obvious when people read he failed the boards. The question is, can such an observation be extrapolated to say he is not a valid expert witness. How strong do you think that argument is? David D. (Talk) 18:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The schools look for the harder classes! Its better to have a B in a critical think class than an A+ in regurgitation class. Schools are eaiser to get into in some ways. One there is a lot more schools with more slots. You can go to the West Indies and get a degree now. Also Ostepathic schools are now fully accepted. Also many people choose other careers since money is not as much as a facot anymore. Ever hear this joke? " My plumber gave me a bill. I told him this was more than my doctor charges. He said he knew he use to be a doctor."

Its also harder to get into schoolfor the most part because of the the large amount of people applying. For the most part it use to be mostly white men. Before it was harder for miniorties and women to get in. Now people of every race, religon, and creed are getting in. Which is good because these groups were not repersented. There was a time when there were black only hospitals and the were very underfunded, and blacks suffered for no good reason. I think a good solution is to open more medical schools, that way more qualified people get in. There is plenty of qualifed people who would make great doctors, just not enough slots for them all. We need more doctors anyway.

I agree with you about the testing. I believe the MCAT is highly overrated. While it is a good tool many students do fry their brains trying to get ready for it and then retake it over and over for a better score. Also considering the amount of students that drop out of medical school, I wish there could be a better way to screen poeple. I have met plenty of 'pre-med' people who are doing something else besides medicine.

Most schools make you shadow a doctor. That means you follow a doctor around to see what he does. I think that if people did that for a couple of months, and also shadow at free clinics, ERs, morgue, be with a doc when they tell someone they are dying than that would weed out plenty.

We do need plenty of doctors. But we don't need med students who drop out or get fried and take up a valauble space for more deserving people.--MD1954 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You know David when you really think about school in general rates test too highly. While I believe it is more important in college the way kids are pressured these days in grade school is just wrong. I see kids with bookbags full of homework that wieghs more than them. They don't get out as much and lack a lot of the fun most of us had as kids.--MD1954 19:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you 100%. Good at tests does not mean good at all things. Sometimes people need a breather to have some intellectual fun and just plain fun. This is getting way off topic now, but if i had my way i would get rid of GPA altogether. i would hope this would encourage people to explore their interests without fear of a few low grades. Classes could be more challenging and adventurous with content. GRE's and MCAT's are still availabel for the post grad education wonks that that still believe tests are the only way to assess student attainment. David D. (Talk) 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is Barrett's board certification (or lack thereof) relevant to his ability to read and critique information about a certain medical modality? Especially, since these generally have nothing to do with psychiatry anyway. Heck, you wouldn't even need an MD to read and critique studies, and article etc., although it surely would help to have some scientific background. WIth an MD, and a life's work investigating a certain area, I would daresay he could be called an 'expert' in that area. Certainly, he cannot truthfully say he is a legal expert with a couple years of courses in law related areas. That judge was correct about that. What is more relevant than his lack of board certification is his bias, if any, and reason for bias, etc., and the actual validity of his assertions. jawesq 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Does he need to pass the boards now to know something

I failed to respond to Natto when s/he wrote this point and it may warrant its own section. Natto wrote:

"After he gave up his license he continued to use his MD credentials so it is still relevant that he is not Board certified, even more so today because the standards of what an expert is is higher today. He himself offer his services as an expert. He does so through his web sites and other writings so he must be able to keep up with the standards that are relevant NOW." NATTO

I am unclear about what he needs to know 'now', that would serve him by taking the boards. He has years of medical experience and he retired in 1993. Did he just stop learning in 1993? Or worse forget everything. Maybe he knows more now than he did in 1993; now he has time to do research, read journals etc. Can one only be an expert in a field if they have sat exams in the field? In my experience this is not true. There are many examples of people successfully switching fields in science. None of this criticism is concrete. i would prefer to see evidence that he is incompetent or at least not good at his job. So far we have a valid datum point that he failed the boards. Is there more? David D. (Talk) 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• David D. Again we are going in circles... He not only failed the Board exam but his expertise in one alternative medicine case has been clearly challenged and he was found not credible and not qualified. Stop fixating on taking a test. The test is just a step to show that you know the stuff at least as well as most of your peers. Barrett has not been able to show that. How can you claim to be an expert when you cannot even reach the minimum ? NATTO 19:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Because i don't believe that test represents the minimum. This is the picture you paint despite him haveing had a 30 year career in the medical field. If he ius so bad how did he last so long? Presented on this talk page to date is the test. I'm not fixated on the test. It is the only verifiable information presented here to date that he is not an expert in his field. It is weak evidence given his career from an outside view it appears to be an unwarranted extrapolation. Didn't Einstein fail some exams early in his career too? Or is that urban legend? Certainly Churchill failed a few. Bill Gates dropped out and so on. One datum early on in his career is not really a strong argument, it should be backed up with other verifiable data. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• David D. Well if you cannot pass a Board exam when the majority of your colleagues can, what do you call it ? Also it is not only the lack of Board certification, it is also the fact that in a legal arena , his qualifications for the work he was doing as well as his credibility were clearly put into question by the judge. That is also well documented and proven. There is more however it is not always easy to get the court transcript for everything. Dr. Barrett declined to provide the court trancript for his latest lawsuit against Dr. Koren, for example. NATTO 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the leagl issue. That's why we have the following sentence:

Barrett has claimed to be an expert on FDA regulation [17] based on his interactions with FDA representatives and in part due to his 1½ years of the correspondence course in American Law and Procedure, LaSalle University Extension Division, Chicago, 12/66-12/68 [18] His credentials were disputed and Judge Fromholz said "Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer..." [19]

That is a different issue to the board certification, but should be in the same section.

"Well if you cannot pass a Board exam when the majority of your colleagues can, what do you call it ?" i say here is a person who may not be as bright as his peers. Are there any other incidents that can be added to further that case? Regardless, is there precedent where people that fail the boards and choose not to retake them (they are voluntary, right?) are a failure in their career. This seems to be the reason to bring up the boards in the first place. As yet i have seen no evidence to suppose that this is true. The burdon is on you to show he cannot be considered a medical expert yet to date you have only cited the failed board certification. To over analyse this and ignore the rest of his career seems very POV from my perspective. It IS important to mention he failed the boards. It is not for wikipedia to use this information to paint a picture. David D. (Talk) 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

David D. It is not about burden of proof on my part but rather about what is printed about Barrett that is verifiable. I am not the one making the claim that he is not qualified as an expert because he failed the Board. This claim has been made by numerous critics on the web following a trial lost by Barrett during which he admitted that he was not Board certified. IN addition Judge Fromholz declared, in essence, that Barrett was not a legal expert but, more importantly, he also declared that in the medical matters involved in that trial that Barrett was not a medical expert either. This is not me saying it but judge Fromholz , in an official and binding court ruling. Many of Barrett's critics also say the same in other circumstances. This is not an argument between you and me but rather about facts that are not OR ( i.e printed or in the public domain ) and verifiable with a reputable source. It is not about deciding what we like or not , it is about the facts. If the subject of an article was proved guilty of murder and editors who support him did not want that to be placed in his article, it would still have to be put in the article....NATTO 15:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice that ALL you discussed above is exactly what I had suggested should be in the article? I am not disupting any of this. Can we discuss the content here. I am saying you cannot take that information and then use it to write a character assassination. It needs to be written in a way that the reader can see all the information and come to an opinion based on the information available. We are not writing an op ed here. David D. (Talk) 15:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• David D. One more thing. Failing once is not the real issue, everyone can fail. He decided not to try again. I do not think Einstein is a good example as he made an extremely positive contribution to humanity and did not spend years of his life attacking others and what they were doing.NATTO 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In retrospect the Einstein example is a bad one. i looked at his biography and while he did drop out of school it was becuase he was very bored. That might be true for Gates too. Either way it is precedent that bright people do not always thrive in a test driven culture. You say that Einstein "did not spend years of his life attacking others", this is a good example of a POV that will not be tolerated in wikipedia. It is clear, from doing only a little research, that many people do not view Barrett as attacking others. Quackwatch has 67 other doctors that are associated with it, are they also endoring these attacks? Is it possible that they see quackwatch as informational? David D. (Talk) 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • David D. The talk page is not the article. It is where editors discuss their POV so as to arrive at a suitable format for the article. Anyone who reads Quackwatch can see that it contains a long list of individuals who are blacklisted as well as numerous modalities that are critizised in an "unbalanced" way ( as per Barrett's own admission ). I made no comment about others as this article is about Stephen Barrett. As for the word " attack " it is already in the article ( not my edit ). So please David D. do not play the POV police as you are far from being above having your own POV.NATTO 14:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not playing POV police I am trying to get you to discuss the content. I am, and have, suggested the following:

• Critics frequently claim Barrett is a "de-licensed" physician. [20] Barrett explains that he was not "de-licensed" but allowed it to expire after he retired from the active practice of medicine at the age of 60, in 1993. [21]
• Critics cite that Barrett 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. [22]
• Barrett has claimed to be an expert on FDA regulation [23] based on his interactions with FDA representatives and in part due to his 1½ years of the correspondence course in American Law and Procedure, LaSalle University Extension Division, Chicago, 12/66-12/68 [24] His credentials were disputed and Judge Fromholz said "Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer..." [25]

As yet there has been no contructive input about this content.

Each time i have suggested these changes, editors here have complained that it needs to contain discussion about where he ranks as a doctor, the percentage of doctors that did pass the boards, then and now etc. i say this is painting a picture (its also original research), this is the POV I am talking about. It is not our job as an editor to paint such a picture, especially if it is a controversial matter. David D. (Talk) 15:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• David D. Good, then let's discuss the topic at hand. Point 1 and 3 are OK. As I understand it it is point 2 with regards to the percentage of Board certified M.D.s that is the issue.

Dr. Barrett as sbinfo wrote this earlier: Dr. Barrett responds: It had no effect on my career. "MD1954" is correct that nowadays, lack of certification would make it difficult to repeat what I did. However, when I began practice (early 1960s), nobody cared. Requirements for hospital staff membership and HMO participation began to tighten during the 1980s, but I was grandfathered on the staffs of the hospital clinics where I worked and was not dependent on HMOs for private patients. Sbinfo 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading his comments, it is clear the Board certification was very relevant as far the 1980s. It is also known that his activities related to what he calls quackery began in the 1980s. It is also known that during that time he still had an active licence and that he was and still uses his M.D. credentials in these activities, including testifiying in courts as well as providing advice to lawyers. Thus it is clear that Board certification is relevant. While, according to Dr. Barrett, it was not relevant in the 1960s, it became relevant in the 1980's. He may have been grandfathered into his hospital job but that does not automatically extend to his activities in Quackwatch which , by nature, were designed to seek as much attention as possible. Finally by his own admission, Dr. Barrett knew that Board certification is very relevant. In spite of this he chose not to try again to be Board certified at any time from 1967 to 1993. In light of the fact that he has a self-appointed activity that involves making value judgement about others and their work, it becomes event more important that his credentials, at least. match that of his M.D. colleagues.

Thus Board certification is relevant and the percentage of Board certified M.D.s is relevant because that is the standard of the 1980s up to today, when he is still active in the same activities. The way it is presently written , it simply states a fact and does not appear to be POV. It can become POV in the mind of the reader if they see a relevance between his lack of Board certification and his work as a medical expert today, but Wikipedia , surely, does not want to control what readers can think ? The information should remain in the article. NATTO 16:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• One more thing; The Board data in relationship to Barrett's activities as a medical expert is not OR because it has been published on various web sites already so we are simply reporting the published facts with reliable evidence. NATTO 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not checked that info yet. Do the web sites pass WP:RS criteria? David D. (Talk) 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• One of the web sites is the web site of lawyer Carlos Negrete. This has all been discussed previously with other editors. It is about the results of various court cases involving Dr. Barrett. Other editors, even Fyslee, have acknowledged that Carlos Negrete would not lie on a public web site. He would put a spin on it ( so does Dr. Barrett incidentally ), but the facts are correct and have been cross verified with court documents. Carlos Negrete is a known critic of Dr. Barrett and has won a number of court cases against him. NATTO 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • From your description it sounds like it would be be within the guidelines of the WP:RS criteria.

I have read what you wrote above and i am still struggling to buy your argument that the boards are relevent.

1. The boards seem to be an optional exam to validate your med school knowledge.
2. In the 60's, it really was optional (in the sense that you could be succesful without them) and many chose not to take the exam or not bother retaking them (as is the case with Dr Barrett).
3. Fast forward to the eighties and the boards start to become relevent. However those who have been practicing medicine without the boards are grand fathered in (at this point Barrett has 15 years experience).

I don't see the logic of how 15 years experience out weighs a the lack of the board exam with respect to medical expertise. Certainly the importance of the board exam, or the number of percentage of Doctors that hold such an exam, in 1993 seems even less relevent when compared to Barretts, by then, 26 years of experience. How does one exam outweigh his experience and other accomplishments? This just does not make sense to me. If this is the best his critics can come up with then it is a very weak case for calling into doubt his medical expertise.

So yo get back on topic, what are the quotable comments in the Negrette web site do you think are best to represent the point with regard to the board exams? David D. (Talk) 20:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It mattered to a judge.--MD1954 21:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have to see the context to comment further. Do you have a link? David D. (Talk) 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• David D. Again MD1954 has a good grasp of the issue. David, I feel we are again going around in circle. What is relevant is the criticism about the Board certification and medical expertise has been made and documented from valid sources. Thus is should be included in the article, whether or an editor personally feels it should not. In the end it is a matter of verifiable fact not opinion. It is a valid criticism. It is not favorable to Dr. Barrett but is is a reality nonetheless.NATTO 00:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It does not matter whether "MD1954 has a good grasp of the issue", we cannot use MD1954 as a source. He may well be a reliable source, but not according to WP:RS. I notice that you have only edited this page in wikipedia, so you may not be familiar with some of these concepts in wikipedia. We need quotes from a reliable source to be able to include this information. Not cobbled together from different sources, that fails WP:OR, but from one source. Possiblby a quote from Negrette, preferably from a source that fits the criteria outlined in WP:RS David D. (Talk) 03:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• David D. I think it is relevant to have a good grasp of the issues so I will miss MD1954 contribution to this talk page. 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)." [26]

This is one source. The information herein contained has been confirmed by other sources, including court transcripts and postings made by Sbinfo on this talk page. NATTO 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Defective reference

Reference no. 22 doesn't lead anywhere and needs to be fixed. -- Fyslee 21:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Jokestress for fixing it. -- Fyslee 16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actual claims to expertise made by Barrett

I'd like to see documentation for precisely what claims to expertise have been made by Dr. Barrett. I know he has made some, but this page is assuming alot of things which he hasn't claimed, and we need to get it right.

Let's delimit the claims issue:

1. What do people think he has claimed?
2. What do his attackers accuse him of claiming?
3. What has he actually claimed?
4. What areas can correctly be described as his areas of expertise?

Let's get verifiable documentation to use in the article. Right now a lot of opinions are being discussed, but that's not good enough for the article.

My outline above can form the basis for a section on his expertise, and the viewpoints on it. -- Fyslee 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

When people question Dr. Barrett they are attackers when Dr. Barrett's questions people those people are quacks!--MD1954 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds suspiciously like a personal attack or ridicule. Please assume good faith and stay on topic here. Fyslee 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it does not address the original question. I think that question is a good start to try and get everyone on the same page. there is no way any concesus will be reached if people are not willing to play the game. David D. (Talk) 18:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

MD1954 seems to have some uncertainty about Barrett's identity here.

• Sbinfo is Dr. Barrett.

That fact should alert you to several rules of Wikipedia. You are now dealing with Barrett himself, and personal attacks on him in any capacity are personal attacks on another Wikipedia editor. Disrespect needs to cease. (That applies to all of us.) You must assume good faith and keep in mind that he is a living person, and thus this article about him is protected by certain rules that do not apply to other articles. Criticisms are certainly allowed, but they must be verifiable, and made in a NPOV manner. Treat him as you yourself wish to be treated, with dignity and respect. This is a collaborative effort.

Jimbo Wales has this to say about living persons and articles about them:

About "bad editors" he has this to say:

".....editors who don't stop to think that reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." - Jimmy Wales [27]

Steve Bennett wrote:

> I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the

> impression that as long as we can convey that the information is not

> guaranteed accurate (by the use of cite tags), then "speculative"

> information is better than none.

Absolutely not. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. - Jimmy Wales [28]

-- Fyslee 17:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How do I know if SBinfo is Dr. Barrett, if I just assumed it was that would be wrong of me. That is why I am respectfully saying "if SBinfo is Dr. Barrett". I call him Dr. Barrett out of respect that he was a doctor for over 30 years.

I think a way to prove if SBinfo is Dr. Barrett is if he puts on his website that he his SBinfo, then I would believe it.

Dr. Barrett has seen what we have written. Could he give us the story about the board certifications? It should be on his website.

I could come on here saying I am anybody. To be fair to Dr. Barrett, Fyslee, just because you say it is Dr. Barrett is not enough. I want proof.

No one is making personal attacks. We are saying are opinions. Dr. Barrett has made his career giving his opinions on other people. It does not matter if he is an editior, the article is about him! Do we have to watch what we say because his feelings will be hurt. No one is calling him names, no one is claiming he is a criminal. No one has bashed his family, no one has made threats. Everyone has given fair criticism. This discussion has turned into how important board certifications is with Dr. Barrett being the backdrop.

Would would really help is Dr. Barrett coming on here and telling us what his thoughts are about board certification. I think that would be interesting to all.--MD1954 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. He has been called a crook and attacked constantly here. Not all opinions are accepted here when talking about other editors, which is why it's best to comment on the editing, not on the editors.

As far as Barrett's user identity here, he has given plenty of information to prove it's him, and we must assume good faith until we have evidence to believe otherwise. I personally know it's him, and his email address (which is his user name) is available on his websites, should you wish to discuss his identity with him. He is very open in his dealings, as evidenced by the way he operates his websites, documenting all criticisms and providing background information on the organization, its operation, and funding. I'm pretty certain he'd reply to your inquiry. (Now you, OTOH, are anonymous....;-) The irony of it all. -- Fyslee 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Fyslee, thats not good enough. I don't know who you are. How do I know if you even know Dr. Barrett. Anyone can make that claim. Sbinfo, Fyslee, and me are as anonymous as anyone else.

If Dr. Barrett wants people to know he is on here he should prove it to us. The burden of proof is on him. If he is SBinfo than he could state that on quackwatch. Let eveyone see it. I could read everything about him and claim to be him. It is not fair to DR. Barrett to just assume SBinfo is him because it sounds like him. That is wrong and unfair to Dr. Barrett. --MD1954 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you really know Dr. Barrett could you have him verify this soon. I am in the reserves and am being activated next week.--MD1954 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, assume good faith, assume good faith.....applies to all editors, including yourself, an anonymous one. You must believe him unless you have evidence to the contrary, and he has already provided plenty of information that only he could provide. Are you accusing him of being deceptive when he says that he is who he is? That is grounds for Wiki disciplinary action. As far as my identity, ask any of the old timers here. They know who I am, and the edit history of my user page will tell you. -- Fyslee 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell me were in assume good faith I am suppose to believe somebody is a certain person, maybe I missed it. I love it how some of us are digging sources up to verify our points and I am just to assume that SBinfo is Dr. Barrett. And I am just to assume you know Dr. Barret. I should just 'ask the old timers.' Great sources! Hi old timers. Does Fyslee know Dr. Barrett. Till there is someway that Dr. Barrett will state that he is SBinfo, we can't assume it is.

Under the Verifiability section of wikpedia, we need more than what you are saying.

A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.

Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?''

How can I e-mail him and then tell everyone it was Dr. Barrett? How can I prove that to everyone? We need to see it in writing. Putting it on quackwatch seems the easist, most relable way to me.--MD1954 19:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Barrett responds: My e-mail address is on Quackwatch. Go there, click the link in "Ask a Question" header, send me a message, and I will respond. Sbinfo 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This would only prove it to me your Dr. Barrett. Look at the example from wikipedia's rules on this. How would anybody know if I was telling the truth if you are Dr. Barrett. What if I find out you are Dr. Barrett and I come on here saying "Dr. Barett told me he wasn't Sbinfo." That's why we need a better way to verify if you are really Dr. Barrett.--MD1954 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Those rules apply to the articles, not to other editors. You must assume good faith of other editors, unless you have evidence to the contrary, of which you haven't the slightest smidgin. Just take a look at the tag at the top of this page! This is a collaborative effort, and once we are fellow editors, it behooves us to deal fairly and cooperatively with each other. You may not believe this, but your reputation will not suffer if you treat Sbinfo (Dr. Stephen Barrett) in a courteous manner and assume he is being honest with us. (I can comfort you with the knowledge that you can crucify him later, if it later turns out that he has deceived us. I know you'd just love that!) -- Fyslee 21:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Barretts thoughts on Board Certification

Well, I found something about what he had to say on his website: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/board.html

--MD1954 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What did you think of the information he provided? Was it accurate and helpful? -- Fyslee 20:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He could of stated better the importance of ceritication. He could of also put the % of doctors that were board certified. Also the fact that it hard to advance in a medical career without it.

I would like to hear him state his personal thoughts about certification in relation to his career.--MD1954 20:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Barrett responds: It had no effect on my career. "MD1954" is correct that nowadays, lack of certification would make it difficult to repeat what I did. However, when I began practice (early 1960s), nobody cared. Requirements for hospital staff membership and HMO participation began to tighten during the 1980s, but I was grandfathered on the staffs of the hospital clinics where I worked and was not dependent on HMOs for private patients. Sbinfo 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sbinfo, I will address you as that since I can’t confirm you are Dr. Barrett.

With all due respect Sbinfo, certification has been important for long before the 1980’s. Certification was still important in the 1970’s and 1980’s, I’m also speaking for personal experience.

Looking at Dr. Barrett’s CV, I see many crossover of full-time (?), part-time, consulting jobs (which can mean anything) and positions at public mental clinics/hospital. I would never discredit public mental hospitals, these days it seems we need to bring some of them back. However looking at Dr. Barrett’s CV I see only part-time positions when employed as a psychiatrist in these institutions. I do not understand why no fulltime employment was attained. While I can imagine maybe later in life a psychiatrist working part-time to pursue other goals, I can’t imagine one in the prime of his career. I would assume that the ‘70s and ’80 when Dr. Barrett was raising his children. That would not be the best time to be working part-time positions, financially that is.

While I agree with the grandfathering, it was for part-time positions. And many organizations may not have grand fathered.

I see it say private practice, however this is vague. With so many part-time positions, consultant jobs, and working with different organizations at the same time, it would be kind of hard to have a profitable private practice.

Board certification has been important for a while. While it not mandatory to practice, it is the gold standard of any medical specialty. And since Dr. Barrett is doing his advocating as an MD, and he was not able to attain the standard in his field, I think it should be noted.

Also I see no membership to the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association.

I am not saying that Dr. Barrett had these positions because of not having board certification. But I am trying to explain how important was and still is.

I am not saying he should not be able to do what he is doing. But it should be noted in his profile. (Which it is)--MD1954 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To reinforce what I said, I do believe Dr. Barrett pobably helped many sick people in his career. My only point is that him being not board certifed should be mentioned. Even thought neurology was not relevant to his type of practice, it was relevant enough to be included in the boards as determined by fellow psychiatrists. These skills could always be learned. I don’t know his motivations for him not retaking the boards. But most doctors do like to have the certifications not only for their patients care but also for their own personal satisfaction and standards of excellence.--MD1954 21:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagree's with you that his failure should be mentioned. i think we agree that we can say his critics think that this failure undermines him as an expert. But to extrapolate and analyse this in the wikipedia article undermines the credability of the encyclopedia.

To put all this in perspective. Dr Barrett is in the buisness of 'educating' the public with respect to the medical perspective of the alternative medicine industry. There are at least 67 of there MD's serving as the advisory board of quackwatch and presumably endorse his POV. It seems that many of the people that he is being sued by, or annoying, are active in this industry. Are any of those people as well qualified? Seriously, we are arguing about a board exam and ignoring that he is a graduate from Columbia (I assume it was prestigious in those days too?), who went to medical school and has 26 year of experience practicing medicine. He has a career blotch when he failed his board exam. If we are arguing that he is not a medical expert, can't the same be applied to his critics? Can they be considered as experts in their field without good qualifications. From reading in a few of these wiki articles it seems that several of them have and education from degree mill like instituions? Shouldn't they be held to the same standard that they hold Dr Barrett to? This type of criticism of Barrett looks quite petty when one considers the big picture. David D. (Talk) 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted becuase it was also the standard when Dr. Barrett was still practicing. It also caused problems in a court trail, and will likely be brought up by other critics. I agree that many of his critics are not qualified. One person he does point out as a quack is Dr. Andrew Weil and I find that a little riduclous. Thats when the boards are important to, when one MD bashes another.

To get back on track I do say we should include that he is not board certified and leave it at that. No disclaimers. --MD1954 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be the way to go too. i was not implying that all those in the alternative medicine industry have degree mill qualifications. Certainly the debate is interesting, especially when people like Andrew Weil are involved. David D. (Talk)

We must leave in what critics think of his medical board examination failure and associate this with a lack of purported medical expertise. Whether or not you agree with this criticism is irrelevant. The section is about .common criticisms of Barrett... certainly this is one of the most common. It is verifiable. It is citable. It is notable. Levine2112 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never suggested leaving it out? See the new section below. But it has to be written in without POV, without WP:OR and the source has to satisfy WP:RS. I may sound like a broken record, but I don't think you really understand the point I am trying to make here. This is an encyclopedia, not an OP ED. David D. (Talk) 03:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

LaSalle Extension University

I had not heard of LaSalle, and I went to grad school in Chicago. From a Tucson Weekly article on this institution:

But he may have indeed "earned" a law degree from LaSalle Extension University. You might be familiar with LaSalle, the original diploma mill--they used to advertise their "Correspondence Institution" on matchbooks and the backs of comic books, with a grinning graduate and the headline "Look who's smiling now!"

Those ads included a disclaimer: "No state accepts any law home study course, including LaSalle's, as sufficient education to qualify for admission to practice law."

• Nintzel, Jim (May 1, 1997). Look Who's Smiling Now! Tucson Weekly

It is not clear, but I wonder if this author is conflating LaSalle Extension with the other LaSalle in Louisiana? There is evidence that LaSalle Extension advertised heavily, but it does appear to have been accredited for a while. However we discuss this should probably be in the bullet on legal expertise.

More info:

LaSalle Extension University

TYPE: University / College

COUNTRY: United States

REGION: Illinois

LANGUAGE: English

INSTITUTION ID: 01-50683 (Last edited on 2006/05/16 16:36:25 GMT-6 )

Accredited distance university. Founded 1908, closed 1980. Illinois School Code #6110025. FAFSA ID 00732100. Souce: Illinois State Board of Education Private Business and Vocational Schools 8-31-05 [29]

We should probably include something about this school. Jokestress 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

On further research, there have been three unrelated LaSalle Universities: One in Philadelphia, One formerly in Chicago (that Barrett took courses from), and one formerly in Louisiana. The one Barrett took courses from was closed in 1980 following LaSalle Extension University v. Federal Trade Commission, 627 F.2d 481 (DC Cir. 1980). Jokestress 18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the "Look Who's Smiling Now!" ad. Jokestress 19:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Barrett's CV

I found the CV that list Dr. Barrett's part-time & half-time positions.

http://www.mlmwatch.org/10Bio/biovitae.html

I am only showing this because it was 'implied' that I had lied about it.--MD1954 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote that false charge above, but I didn't reply. I didn't feel it was worth it, and then I forgot. Well, now, since you're repeating it here, I am asking you to document it. Provide the URL for my edit on this talk page where I have in any way implied or charged you with any impropriety. I was just curious and asked a simple question! Sheesh! Now provide that proof. -- Fyslee 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not provide any names. Felling guilty? Anyway I might be off for awhile. Getting ready to go to a far away land with a lot of bad people (again). So maybe I'll stop in here again before I go away next week. Been fun!--MD1954 21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You were discussing it with me and replying directly to me, so what else could I think? -- Fyslee 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• MD1954. Bye. it has been great to have you onboard for discussion on the talk page. I can see that you have a good grasp of the issues discussed and that is refreshing. God bless while you are doing your duty overseas. NATTO 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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. [30] 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. [31]

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)

• David D. If I have to choose between the advice of a top scientist, twice winner of the Nobel price and the advice of a psychiatrist who failed his Board certification... Let me think ?....NATTO 18:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Depends. Kary Mullis won a Nobel prize. Do you agree with his postion on HIV? David D. (Talk) 18:54, 28 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)." [32] 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)

Break off the legal stuff

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)." [33] 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 [34]. 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. [35] Or this text reproduced from Alternative Medicine Digest: Whats Eating Stephen Barrett? [36] 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 [37] 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 [38]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.[39]

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)