|If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
The Thoroughly Unqualified Stephen Barrett -Salem Witch Hunter's Clone
Thank you Edward for posting the piece below.
I am going to read it more clearly and make some comments on it and
some updates. Here's a start.
There are links here to the King Bio case mentioned below ... which
What I recently learned, is that the mail-order law school Barrett
mailed to for about a year and a half ... is the one advertised on
matchbooks. I'll also provide the quote he made calling himself a
"legal expert" when I catch a minute ... whewwwwwww.
The Thoroughly Unqualified Stephen Barrett, M.D.
THE INSULT TO AMERICA'S INTELLIGENCE UNMASKED
The Unmasking of a Salem Witch Hunter's Clone
In the Year 2001, a retired psychiatrist who was never board certified
in anything stated: "Today, I am the media."
He repeatedly presented himself as an expert in medicine, nutrition,
and law, while having zero experience as a practicing physician, zero
training in nutrition, and zero bar association membership. At the
principle website that he operates, he is described as a "medical
communications expert" of national renown.
Representations of Stephen Barrett insinuate that he alone can suffice
as the voice of medicine. In fact, representations of him make it
sound as if, during any given election, he should run for God.
However, the factual scorecard on Barrett differs drastically from the
representations made of him.
Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, Lack of
Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
 Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board-certified in anything, at
anytime in his life. He has never been able to speak with the
authority of a board-certified medical expert.
 Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point of a
practioner in any type of internal or dermatological medicine. In
fact, Stephen Barrett has not served in the capacity of a physician
since the end of his rotating internship days. Those days ended over
48 years ago, in 1958.
The "MD" affixed to his name simply means that he graduated from a
medical school. He did do that. But, he did it over forty-nine years
ago, in 1957.
Moreover, Stephen Barrett has never been a researcher in any
capacity; neither at the clinical level nor at the murine test level.
He has been neither a toxicologist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a
neurologist, nor a biochemist, nor an immunologist, nor any type of
medical technologist, nor a pharmacologist. This means that he has
never been able to speak from the vantage point of a research
colleague. That is to say, if Stephen Barrett had been seen in a lab
coat after 1958, it was during Halloween.
 And Stephen Barrett has zero inventions and patents to his name.
Therefore, he has never been able to speak from the vantage point of a
medical innovator, either.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Stephen Barrett is a
firsthand witness to illness on either side of the coin; neither as a
practicing physician nor as a patient. That is to say, he has no known
history of severe medical impairment. By all appearances, he is not
able to offer any insight on what it is to intimately know intense
physical suffering in the first person singular. And his callousness
And as far as concerns Stephen Barrett being advertised as a
"medical communications expert," his curriculum vitae indicates that
- never managed disaster relief efforts
- never developed medical softwear programs
- never oversaw ambulance dispatch operations
- never managed the allocation of medical supplies
- never networked hospital communication systems
- never transmitted emergency medical instructions to sea
- never networked pharmaceutical communication
- never translated medical literature into foreign languages
So where is the medical communicating that Stephen Barrett is supposed
to do so expertly?
Stephen Barrett's Allegation of Being a Legal Expert
It was in a 21st Century California court where Barrett presented
himself as an expert in FDA regulatory law. It concerned a case that
he himself instigated, under the name of a 501c non-profit
organization of which he was/is a member and even an officer.
Barrett saw to the filing of the lawsuit (under the corporate name),
and then he hired himself as an expert witness, despite the blatant
conflict of interest. He then expected money to be transferred from
the 501c non-profit group's bank account to his own personal account,
in the form of a fee payment.
Needless to say, Stephen Barrett never worked for, with, over, under,
or besides the FDA. And the presiding judge stated:
"the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in
"He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on
issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs."
"Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to
any of the issues associated with Defendant's products."
Furthermore, the judge stated that Stephen Barrett's testimony should
be "accorded little, if any, credibility."
In the end, the 501c private corporation of which Barrett is a member
lost the case. It was ordered to pay the defendant's attorney fees.
And as an added note, he claimed himself to be a 21st Century legal
expert in FDA regulatory matters, because he completed one and a half
years of correspondence law school in 1963; and because he had several
conversations with FDA personnel, as well as some sort of continuing
education classes that he had not attended in eight years prior to the
Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits. Each one is an article of its
own. He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or conspiracy. One report
attached Barrett to a multiplicity of lawsuits filed against forty
defendants. And his most recent courtroom loss is dated October 2005,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of
Pennsylvania. In that court case, Barrett once again claimed that he
was a legal expert.
Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own name. And
he also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as well as in Pennsylvania
-- also filed under his own name.
In summary, Stephen Barrett was never the member of any bar
association. He never represented himself as his own attorney in any
of his many lawsuits. He was never a district magistrate, and he was
not a clerk of court. Yet, he has formally claimed that he is a legal
expert. Barrett did have court appearances as an expert witness in
criminal and parole cases, but only in the capacity of a psychiatrist
who was never board certified. One such venue was the juvenile court
system in San Francisco during the 1960s.
Barrett's Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert
As far as concerns his allegations of being a nutritional expert, it
was during the 1990s when he once testified against a nutritionist who
carried a number of credentials, including that of a certification.
This was at a hearing of the American Dietetic Association. Barrett
was only a non-trained and honorary member of that association, yet he
was presented as one of its two expert witnesses. As a result of that
hearing, the lady against whom Barrett testified lost her registered
dietician credentials. Her reputation suffered harm, and her future
earnings potential was compromised.
The woman then sued the association who presented Barrett as a
nutritional expert. And it was during a cross-examination when Barrett
finally conceded that he was not a nutritional expert, being that had
no training in the subject. He said that he was an expert in "consumer
strategy," instead. As a result, the woman against whom Barrett
testified had her credentials restored in full. Notification of this
was published in the courier & journal of the American Dietetic
Association. The woman also received an undisclosed settlement.
A Sample of Stephen Barrett's Mode of Communication
Stephen Barrett co-authored a book with a publicly known defrauder
whose now-defunct "paper review company," in providing health reports
to State Farm Insurance adjustors, was declared "a completely bogus
operation" by an Oregon judge.
Concerning Barrett's fraudulent co-author, it was the NBC television
network who reported him as the ratifier of fraudulent health reports.
He is a Dr. Ronald Gots, founder of a company named Medical Claims
Review Services. That company went out of business in 1995.
The NBC television network obtained 79 of the reports that Gots' paper
review company provided for State Farm's adjustors. And ever-so-
coincidentally, 100% of those 79 reports favored State Farm over every
auto accident claimant profiled in those reports.
The irony to this is that Stephen Barrett heralds himself as an
exposer of health fraud, as well as a defender of mankind from persons
committing health fraud. Yet, he elected to have his name placed in
print next to a notorious defrauder.
For further information on this matter, see:
If you elect to download the NBC report, go first to page 14. You can
read about the Oregon judge's opinion of Gots' company there. Then go
to Page 10 and read onward. The second posted web address (the longer
one) does not require the Adobe Reader program to be installed on your
computer, as it is the HTML version of the NBC report.
The Barrett/Gots Book, itself
The Barrett/Gots book is titled, "Chemical Sensitivity: The Truth
About Environmental Illness." Needless to say, the book is a vehement
denial of the valid existence of Chemical Sensitivity. However,
Chemical Sensitivity comes in many case-specific and medically
acknowledged forms; in forms such as:
 Red Cedar Asthma (Plicatic Acid Sensitivity)
 IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity
 Pine Allergy (Abietic Acid Sensitivity)
 Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis
 Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity
Ammonium Persulfate Sensitivity
 Glutaraldehyde-induced Asthma
 Phenyl Isocyanate Sensitivity
 Halothane-induced Hepatitis
 Sulfite-induced Anaphylaxis
 Chemical Worker's Lung
NSAID Intolerance, and numerous other forms.
Similarly, the Barrett/Gots book is a denial of the existence of the
Environmental Illness which also comes in a number of medically
acknowledged case-specific forms; in forms such as:
 Occupational Urticaria
 Irritant-induced Asthma
 Occupational Rhinosinusitis
 Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis
 Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis
 Airborne-irritant Contact Dermatitis
 Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome,
 Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction
 Sick Building Syndrome (Building-related Illness) and a few other
In fact, the Barrett/Gots book calls Sick Building Syndrome "a fad
diagnosis." However, Sick Building Syndrome is listed as one of the
"Most Common Diagnoses" at the Occupational & Environmental Health
 Iowa University
 Johns Hopkins University
 The University of Pittsburgh
 The University of Stony Brook
 Detroit's Wayne State University
 The University of Illinois-Chicago
 The University of California-Davis
 Boston Medical Center, as Building-related Illness
 Washington University's Harborview Medical Center
 The University of Maryland, as Building Related Disease
 Nat. Jewish Med. Research Ctr, as Building Related Illness.
Needless to say, the Barrett/Gots book also denies the physiological
existence of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which is listed as one
of the "Most Common Diagnoses" at the Occupational & Environmental
Health centers of:
 the world renowned Yale University
 the world renowned Mount Sinai Hospital
 the world renowned Johns Hopkins University
 two hospitals affilated with Harvard University
 four other American medical institutions which are licensed and
certified centers of practice.
The listing thereof is done by the Association of Occupational &
Environmental Clinics. For more information, see:
The Objective Medical Findings of Chemically Sensitive Patients which
Stephen Barrett Ever-so-coincidentally Neglected to Disclose
For the record, there do exist objective medical findings in the world
of Chemical Sensitivity. The following findings have been documented
in the records of chemically sensitive patients:
 turbinate swelling
 glandular hyperplasia
edema of the true vocal cords
nasal and/or laryngeal erythema
 protuberant/distended abdomen
 permeability of epithelial cell junctions
 paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords
 hepatotoxicity in the absense of viral hepatitis
inflammation of the alveoli (air sacs of the lungs)
 bronchial hyperresponsiveness in challenge testing and a few
other things, such as visible and measurable wheals produced during
placebo-controlled skin testing.
Barrett also wrote a 64 page booklet on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
Furthermore, Barrett wrote a text of much shorter length, titled:
"Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis." In that
article, Barrett states:
"Legitimate cases exist where exposure to large or cumulative amounts
of toxic chemicals has injured people."
Well, such exposure scenarios are the causes of Chemical Sensitivity.
That is why lay persons regard it as "Chemical Injury." In as much,
Barrett first denies the existence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in
name. Yet, he describes Chemical Sensitivity in function. But, he does
so in such a way that he leaves the reader uncertain as to what his
statement is intended to mean. After all, a novice might assume that
Barrett is referring to resovable acute toxicity cases, instead of
long-term chemical sensitization illnesses.
A Duly Noted Hypocrisy
Stephen Barrett markets fear. For example, he has marketed fear of the
formerly overrated echinacea flower which is only harmful to persons
severely allergic to the inulin that it contains; to the insulin which
is also present in Jerusalem artichokes, leeks, bananas, garlic, and
onions. Yet, has Stephen Barrett ever warned people about bananas,
onions, and Jerusalem artichokes, as he did echinacea? Has he ever
warned people about VIOXX, BEXTRA, ZYPREXA and the other
pharmaceuticals that caused harm to mankind?
All in all, when you attack as many persons and entities as does
Stephen Barrett, the statistical probability is that you are going to
be correct some of the time. However, the same statistical probability
is that you are going to be wrong some of the time, especially when
you are unqualified to comment. Being that Stephen Barrett neither
scored a 100% nor a passing grade on his board exams, he cannot be
reasonably expected to be 100% correct in his volumes of writings.
Moreover, people have brain cells. They can recognize "quackery" by
ill effect or lack of effect. They don't have need of a "Stephen
Barrett" to tell them. And not only can reasonable people detect a
"quack" when they see one, they can just as easily detect a
disingenuous political operative when they read one.
Stephen Barrett's Cookie Cutter Techniques
It is not an incident of unheard proportions for Stephen Barrett to
have cited an obselete reference, as well as an outdated and isolated
instance, in order to have mankind adhere to an assertion of his. For
example, in order to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is
nothing more than a mental illness, Barrett cited an incident which
was put into writing 120 years ago, in 1886, concerning one woman and
one woman only. And that incident was not about chemicals. It was
Now, concerning the medical practices and medical doctrines that
Stephen Barrett opposes, he is repeatedly found stating, "inconclusive
and not yet proven." And if he cannot discredit something on technical
merits, he cites an isolated case here and an isolated case there,
concerning an unauthorized billing or a marketing violation committed
by a person engaged in something that Barrett wants deleted from the
face of the Earth. Yet, Barrett never mentions the dozens of frauds
that were committed under the supervision of his co-author, Dr. Ronald
Gots. And Barrett never mentions the vast number of lawsuits filed
against pharmaceutical companies.
Barrett often mentions what treatments and tests the Aetna Insurance
Company will not cover, as if Aetna is a charity organization founded
by Mother Theresa; as if Aetna is not a profit minded corporation
which benefits from the denial of claims. In as much, an insurance
company will not pay for redundant treatment or redundant testing, and
therefore a similar test or treatment will not be covered.
Furthermore, an insurance company will not pay for anything that is
regarded as being in the experimental investigational stage. And as a
side note, everything in established medicine today was at the
experimental & investigational stage yesterday.
The Ironies about Dr. Stephen Barrett, in Light of the Fact that He is
a Retired Psychiatrist
The great irony about Barrett is that a psychiatrist is expected to be
a master at procuring peace in the minds and hearts of men. A tree is
known by its fruits. Stephen Barrett's fruits have been made known.
Another great irony is that a psychiatrist is expected by the
reasonably minded person to be a master in neurology. Barrett failed
the Neurology section of his board exams.
And yet another irony is that a psychiatrist is expected to have a
reflex action for keeping confidentiality, being that patients confide
intimate details to a psychiatrist. However, Barrett has placed person
after person in an unfavorable spotlight. He is even known to have
revealed the tax problems of one of his opponents; not to make notice
that the man can use someone's help, but rather, to provoke ill
regards for the man. Yet, when has Stephen Barrett ever placed the
spotlight on the exorbitant price mark-ups of pharmaceuticals in
America? After all, Barrett claims that he is a consumer advocate. So,
where is the consumer advocating in one of the most taxing impositions
on the American economy and consumer?
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|The Thoroughly Unqualified Stephen Barrett -Salem Witch Hunter's Clone||Ilena Rose||Kids Health||12||August 27th 07 04:59 PM|
|Stephen Barrett Blogged||Ilena Rose||Kids Health||3||January 25th 07 08:30 AM|
|Stephen Barrett Blogged . . .||Ilena Rose||Kids Health||1||January 25th 07 03:29 AM|
|Stephen Barrett Blogged||Ilena Rose||Kids Health||0||January 18th 07 05:44 PM|
|What's Eating Stephen Barrett?||Ilena Rose||Kids Health||0||December 26th 06 09:06 PM|