ORAC SAYS: Please note my disclaimer.

After the events of last week, I’m a bit sensitive when it comes to matters like the one I’m about to discuss. Having the anti-vaccine cranks over at the Age of Autism weblog trying to get me fired over my blogging has a tendency to do that to me. (The details are out there if you haven’t heard of it; I will say nothing more of it here.) In any case, if there’s anything the events of last week drove home to me, it’s that a sina qua non of anti-science cranks like the leaders of the anti-vaccine movement is that, when faced with serious scientific criticism, their preferred reaction is not to respond to that criticism with refutations based on science. They can’t. Instead, their all too frequent response is to try to shut down criticism. We’ve seen it again and again, and I’ve discussed it many times on this blog.

Unfortunately, it’s happening again. The favored laboratory of anti-vaccine practitioners and the “autism biomed” movement, a commercial laboratory known as Doctor’s Data is suing Steve Barrett, the man who maintains the excellent resource Quackwatch, for criticism Dr. Barrett leveled against it, criticism that Doctor’s Data richly deserved (in my opinion, of course). Not just that, it’s suing Dr. Barrett for the ridiculously overblown sum of $10 million. In case you don’t remember Doctor’s Data, I’ll just remind you that it’s a commercial laboratory that describes itself thusly on its website:

Doctor’s Data, Inc. (DDI) a premier clinical laboratory with over 30 years’ experience, provides specialty testing to healthcare practitioners around the world. A specialist and pioneer in essential and toxic elemental testing of multiple human tissues, the laboratory offers a wide array of functional testing. DDI’s tests are utilized in the assessment, detection, prevention, and treatment of heavy metal burden, nutritional deficiencies, gastrointestinal function, hepatic detoxification, metabolic abnormalities, and diseases of environmental origin.


To me, a more accurate description of DDI would be that it has become the favorite go-to laboratory for the autism biomed movement and all manner of autism quacks, particularly the anti-vaccine variety. The reason is DDI’s dubious promotion of “heavy metal” and metabolic testing. I haven’t mentioned it that many times on this blog, but it’s important to know that, for “practitioners” who promote the scientifically discredited idea that mercury in the thimerosal preservative that used to be in vaccines was the cause of the “autism epidemic” that is not, DDI not infrequently is the laboratory that provides the questionable lab data supporting the diagnoses of “mercury toxicity,” “elevated heavy metal levels” (what, do these children listen to too much Metallica or something?), or various other forms of “toxicity” requiring “detoxification.” Mercury and other heavy metals are not the only tests that DDI markets, either. When dubious autism “practitioners” expanded from viewing autism as “mercury toxicity” to a combination of heavy metal toxicity and various other “toxic” insults requiring “detoxification,” DDI was (and, to my knowledge, still is) the favored laboratory that they used to measure levels of heavy metals, mercury, and various endogenous antioxidants, such as glutathione, associated with the mercury detoxification enzyme pathways within cells.

As Dr. Barrett points out, if there’s one single test that DDI is most associated with, it’s a test known as the “provoked urine test” for heavy metals, and it’s a favorite test of the mercury militia looking for elevated mercury levels that they can “treat” with their nostrums. In essence, the test involves giving a child a chelating agent, usually DMPS or DMSA, and then collecting a urine sample. The chelating agent does what it’s designed to do and binds to mercury and various other heavy metals, which are then excreted in the urine. This elevates the levels of these metals in the urine, sometimes far beyond normal. The urine is then collected for several hours after the chelator has been administered. That is the “provoked” nature of the urine test. This method is in contrast to the standard manner of measuring these metals in the urine, which involves collecting a 24 hour urine sample, no provocation. Here’s the problem. A provoked urine test, by its very nature, is designed to increase the secretion of heavy metals and thus increase their concentration in the urine. The problem is that there are no standard values for provoked urine tests, although there are reference values for standard, unprovoked, 24 hour urine specimens. Guess what values practitioners and DDI use? It’s even worse than that, though, as Dr. Barrett describes:

Neither Mayo Clinic, nor any other legitimate national laboratory, has reference ranges for “provoked” specimens. Further, the references ranges for normal urine heavy metal levels used by Mayo Clinic and the largest national reference lab, Quest Diagnostics, are the same.

In contrast, Doctor’s Data uses reference values of less than 3 ug/g for mercury and 5 ug/g for lead. Standard laboratories that process non-provoked samples use much higher reference ranges [3,4], which means that if all other things were equal, Doctor’s Data is far more likely than standard labs to report “elevated” levels. But that’s not all. A disclaimer at the bottom of the above lab report states–in boldfaced type!–that “reference ranges are representative of a healthy population under non-challenge or nonprovoked conditions.” In other words, they should not be applied to specimens that were obtained after provocation. Also note that the specimen was obtained over a 6-hour period, not the standard 24-hour period, which raised the reported level even higher.

The management at Doctor’s Data knows that provoked testing artificially raises the urine levels and that the length of collection time greatly influences the results. In 2002, David W. Quig, Ph.D. and two others presented a study of mercury levels in urine collected two hours after DMPS administration to 259 patients at a Nevada clinic. More than 75% of the patients tested at 21 µg or higher, and most of the rest fell between 3µg and 20 µg [5]. At these levels, nearly everyone’s mercury level would be classified as “elevated” or “very elevated” on the test reports. In a 2006 naturopathic textbook chapter, Quig, who is Doctor’s Data’s vice president for scientific support, acknowledged that mercury levels “are higher in specimens collected from 90 minutes to 2 hours after DMPS infusion than with longer collection times, because the peak rate of mercury excretion occurs about 90 minutes after infusion of DMPS.” [6]

I can’t think of a more appropriate way to put it, given the history of the British Chiropractic Association trying to shut down Simon Singh’s criticism of its promotion of treatments not based in science: I conclude that provoked urine testing is a bogus test. According to Dr. Barrett, only does DDI use reference ranges for unprovoked urine tests, values that are utterly meaningless for provoked urine testing, but it uses reference ranges that are lower than what is commonly accepted by reputable laboratories and academic medical centers. This combination of factors virtually guarantees that it will produce many “positive” results for “elevated” mercury and other heavy metals in the urine, which practitioners can then apply dubious therapies, such as chelation therapy, to treat. Obviously DDI disputes this, but it doesn’t provide any quality scientific data to do so, in my opinion. Consequently, in my view, what DDI does in essence is to do a technically sound measurement of mercury and heavy metals in the urine but on urine specimens collected using a completely inappropriate methodology that is not scientifically or medically valid.

As a result, DDI has had its share of trouble, including investigations by legal authorities and lawsuits by patients whose practitioners used DDI test, and deservedly so. Dr. Barrett has listed a number of these actions. Last year, in Texas, DDI was sued for fraud, along with other dubious labs and a number of physicians. Basically, DDI, Jesus Caquias, M.D., and Jeff Baker (an unlicensed naturopath) stand accused of billing a patient’s insurance company for $180,000 worth of bogus tests like provoked urine testing and dubious treatments.

Now Doctor’s Data is suing Stephen Barrett. This lawsuit started, as such suits often do, with a nastygram from DDI’s lawyer. The first letter to Dr. Barrett from DDI’s lawyer Algis Augustine is a typical letter used for the purpose of silencing criticism. It’s pure intimidation, nothing more:

We demand that you cease and desist any and all comments regarding Doctor’s Data, which have been and are false, fraudulent, defamatory or otherwise not truthful, and make a complete and full retraction of all statements you have made in the past, including those which have led in some instances to litigation. Such comments include, but are not limited to, those made in your article entitled, “How the ‘Urine Toxic Metals’ Test Is Used to Defraud Patients,” which you authored and posted on Quackwatch.com. “The best evidence for reckless disregard,” you have written, “is failure to modify where notified.” Consider this notice to you that if you do not make these full and complete retractions within 10 days of the date of this letter, in each and every place in which you have made false and fraudulent, untruthful or otherwise defamatory statements, Doctor’s Data will proceed with litigation against you and any organizations, entities and individuals acting in common cause or concert with you, to the full extent of the law, and will seek injunctive relief and monetary damages, both compensatory and punitive.

This is typical. Note that Augustine doesn’t actually list which specific parts of Dr. Barrett’s article are incorrect, false, fraudulent or otherwise not truthful in the view of his client. Doctor’s Data doesn’t appear to be interested in accuracy, at least not if the letter from its lawyer is any indication. It appears far more interested in shutting up the opposition, of purging the Internet of material that can be used against it in the lawsuit it is facing in Texas. The rest of the text of the letter comes close to actually admitting this.

I actually receive the occasional cease and desist e-mail myself for my blogging. Of course, I don’t really take e-mails very seriously, and when I do receive such letters, because I’m interested in being factually accurate, my standard response pretty much mirrors Dr. Barrett’s response to Augustine’s demand and threat:

I take great pride in being accurate and carefully consider complaints about what I write. However, your letter does not identify a single statement by me that you believe is inaccurate or “fraudulent.” The only thing you mention is my article about how the urine toxic metals test is used to defraud patients: (http://www.quackwatch.org/t). The article’s title reflects my opinion, the basis of which the article explains in detail.

If you want me to consider modifying the article, please identify every sentence to which you object and explain why you believe it is not correct.

If you want me to consider statements other than those in the article, please send me a complete list of such statements and the people to whom you believe they were made.

This is exactly the right response to demands for retraction. It puts the ball back into the thug’s court (and make no mistake, such threats are nothing more than legal thuggery in my opinion), and it also demonstrates a commitment to correcting errors, which would belie any future claims of demonstrating a reckless disregard for the truth. In Dr. Barrett’s case, I also notice with interest the part about “failure to modify when notified.” Note that Augustine is not trying to get Dr. Barrett to “modify” anything; he’s telling him to remove all the material his client doesn’t like (i.e., the entire article). Of course, the thing to remember if you ever see such a letter is that nothing short of removing all the material that the thug sending the letter finds offensive will satisfy thugs like Doctor’s Data; that is, unless the letter writer is bluffing, which is sometimes the case, but, more importantly, definitely something you want be very careful about gambling with unless you’re fully prepared to go to court. In any case, such letters are virtually always intended not to spur the correction of errors in written articles or blog posts. Rather, they are there to try to frighten the person receiving them to take down the whole article in order to avoid a lawsuit. If Augustine actually identified exactly which parts of Dr. Barrett’s articles are in his client’s opinion false, it would allow Dr. Barrett to leave the article up while only altering some parts of it. This would not do at all, as Augustine’s response clearly reveals:

You have been making false statements about Doctor’s Data and have damaged this company’s business and reputation, and you have done so for personal gain and your own self-interest, disguised as performing a public service. Your writings and conduct are clearly designed to damage Doctor’s Data. If you don’t retract your false claims and issue a public apology, the lawsuit will be filed.

Legal thuggery. Pure legal thuggery. Fortunately, Dr. Barrett refuses to back down:

My letter asked you to identify the claims that you believe are false. You have not identified a single sentence that you believe is inaccurate. Since you have failed to do so, I have no choice but to assume that you cannot. My offer remains open, as it is to anyone who is criticized on any of my sites. If you identify anything that you consider inaccurate, I will seriously consider what you say and act accordingly.

Of course, DDI through its paid mouthpiece Algis Augustine didn’t identify a single sentence that was false. I think that’s because it couldn’t, because Dr. Barrett’s article on provoked urine testing is comprehensive and well-referenced. Those engaging in legal thuggery almost never do, because intimidation to silence is their goal. Shutting down criticism is their goal. It is apparent to me that, as in the Simon Singh case, DDI’s goal is not good science. It’s to silence scientific criticism not through refutation using science, but through the use of the courts. As I’ve said before, when you don’t have the data to support your claims, when science and medicine are not on your side, all that leaves is shutting up the opposition by any means necessary, and these articles on Quackwatch about the bogus test that is provoked urine testing for heavy metals are exactly what DDI can’t refute with science:

While you’re at it, you might want to look at a post I did a while back that explain how Doctor’s Data lab results have been abused by alt-med practitioners to subject a child to repeated testing as part of a comprehensive program of highly dubious therapies, up to and including the injection of stem cells into the cerebrospinal fluid of an autistic girl and remember that DDI is also being sued by the father of a child with autism who was subjected to chelation therapy and whose “autism biomed” practitioners used DDI lab tests in their non-science-based evaluation and treatment of a child. No doubt DDI would say that it is not responsible for the “misuse” of its tests, but I would disagree based on the information in Barrett’s article.

More importantly, Doctor’s Data is suing Dr. Barrett for the ridiculously overblown sum of $10 million, knowing quite well that Dr. Barrett doesn’t have $10 million or anywhere close to it. Its obvious purpose, again, is to shut down criticism of its dubious testing and its marketing itself to dubious practitioners who perform chelation therapy for autism, heart disease, and other conditions for which chelation therapy is not indicated. Because of that, I would argue that skeptics and supporters of science-based medicine should treat this lawsuit as being on the same level of urgency as that of Simon Singh, the British skeptic who was sued by the British Chiropractic Assocation and managed to win against the odds, given how stacked against the defendant British libel law is. The BCA’s lawsuit even backfired spectacularly in that it provoked a campaign to reform British libel laws and turned skeptics loose investigating the pseudoscientific claims of large numbers of British chiropractors. Even so, Singh suffered two years of legal actions and spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to defend himself. He’s unlikely to recover all of his legal costs. He has made a huge difference, however.

It is true that American libel laws are nowhere near as plaintiff-friendly as British libel law. Dr. Barrett isn’t at nearly as big a disadvantage, and the lawsuit against him is not likely to lead to major changes in U.S. (or even Texas) libel law. It’s quite possible that it will be rapidly dismissed, as Barbara Loe Fisher’s lawsuit against Paul Offit was. I certainly hope so. Still, no matter what happens, DDI will cost Dr. Barrett money and time and interfere with his important work on Quackwatch. Besides, it is the principle involved that should spur skeptics to publicize and protest this naked intimidation of a respected skeptic and supporter of science-based medicine, and that principle is that libel laws should be kept out of science. Libel law should have no place in what is a scientific dispute. Worse, if Doctor’s Data is successful, not only would it silence one of the most dedicated and successful supporters of science-based medicine out there, but it could well destroy what is arguably the most comprehensive site for debunking quackery that is currently in existence, Quackwatch and its affiliated sites.

Supporters of medical pseudoscience have a long history of trying to stifle criticism by any means necessary. Sometimes their chosen means are dubious libel suits, as when Barbara Loe Fisher tried to sue Paul Offit for libel and the BCA sued Simon Singh. Indeed, this is arguably the most favored technique to shut up opposition, and I’ve recently learned that “attachment therapist” Dr. Ronald Federici is suing several of his critics, including Jean Mercer, Psychology Today, and Advocates for Children in Therapy. He lost the first round, I’ve recently learned that he is appealing. Sometimes, their chosen technique is to try to harass their enemies at their job, as I have recently experienced. Sometimes their preferred technique is to try to shut down criticism by filing complaints against ISPs, as Joseph Chikelue Obi and the Society of Homeopaths did to Andy Lewis. Sometimes, the more radicalized of them, such as animal rights activists, directly vandalize property or protest at the homes of researchers in order to intimidate them. It’s all the same intent, just using different tactics, and that intent is to silence the opposition. It’s all a continuum, and many are the techniques used by promoters of dubious medicine to react to science-based criticism. What all the techniques and strategies used all share in common is that they are designed not to refute scientific criticism, but to stifle it through intimidation.

If they win, science suffers, and so do patients.

ADDENDUM: You can help Dr. Barrett, too. If you’re a blogger, please write about this. Voice your opinion and help drum up financial support for his legal fund. Everyone can contribute to Dr. Barrett’s legal defense fund by donating to Quackwatch at this page here.

Comments

  1. #1 Peter Bowditch
    July 7, 2010

    It’s Bolen, all right. He has had the message sent from the Skepp Tick email address removed from the Google Groups archive, but I still have a copy with all headers. He was responding to me at the time and must have forgotten which Google account he was signed in as. In the message he had this threat to make to me:

    “I’ll bet you think that Doctor’s Data can’t reach you, eh?”

    You can see Bolen’s original message in the thread at http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/0ba0352c897cd42e?hl=en&dmode=source

    Same IP address and same user agent (computer) as Skepp Tick.

    QED.

  2. #2 David N. Brown
    July 7, 2010

    Forward this to Barrett! He could subpoena Bolen and ask him on the stand if he was paid by DDI to plug their suit… but, this is the person who spent 3 minutes answering “Where do you live?” The judge could die before Bolen got done!

    Really, I doubt whether even chelation bottom feeders would pay Bolen. Not because they would have more “scruples”, but because they would serve their cause better by paying him to keep quiet.

  3. #3 triskelethecat
    July 7, 2010

    @Peter Bowditch: LOL, Peter! Bolen is such an idiot to forget what your work is, and that you can easily trace IP addresses and such(I don’t have the computer savvy to do that, or the desire..)

    Now if only you could prove that Tick/Tim Bolen and Little Augie were the same person, that would be the icing on the cake.

    Oh, and BTW, Tim the Tick….since I don’t think you ARE Italian, I don’t apologize.

  4. #4 Antaeus Feldspar
    July 7, 2010

    Re: Tick @ 147

    So – Doctor’s Data does scientific lab tests right? And those tests are approved by the US government right? That is their business. Their people are actual scientists with degrees in science. So they go in the Science Based Medicine category – right?

    Oh, I know this will have already been replied to (I’m catching up after a few days away) but I can’t resist. What “Tick” is saying here is similar to saying “The mass spectrometer is a precision diagnostic instrument, isn’t it? And the prisoner in the orange jumpsuit and the manacles is a medical diagnostician by profession, isn’t he? Therefore doesn’t that prove that when the prisoner picked up the mass spectrometer and brought it down on the deceased’s skull, he was performing an act of precision diagnostic testing?”

  5. #5 Spepp Tickskehpptick
    July 9, 2010

    Wow!

    Did you see this?

    http://bolenreport.com/feature_articles/feature_article100.htm

    Things are getting desperate for Mr. Barrett.

    Very skehpptical.

  6. #6 FreeSpeaker
    July 9, 2010

    There is no question that Bolen is Tick. He admitted it in the newsgroups.

    BTW, Bolen’s real first name is Patrick, his cousin posted to a newsgroup, and said that Bolen’s father was pharmacist. Bolen is like he is because he hates his father.

  7. #7 David N. Brown
    July 10, 2010

    Bolen has a new “report”, bragging that a deadline to respond is Monday and Barrett hasn’t filed in response, and therefore could have a default judgment against him. I suspect that this is approximately true, except that Barrett has filed a motion to dismiss which will succeed in about as much time as it takes a judge to get to it. It appears conceivable that the suit will be dead within ca. 72 hours. Meanwhile, I will be finishing a piece outlining why none of the laws cited even apply to Barrett, and how DDI and/or their lawyers repeatedly lied and/or undermined their own case in making their “factual allegations”.

    So, the suit is probably DOA at this writing. But I’m thinking, DDI shouldn’t be allowed to get off easy. I propose the following measures:
    1. Report the lawyers to the Illinois bar for misconduct.
    2. Countersue DDI for defamation and wrongful prosecution.
    3. Donate to the plaintiffs in the three cases where DDI is a defendant.
    4. If possible, charge Bolen with some kind of crime for trying to frighten people away from Barrett’s defense, and subpoena his records on the off-chance DDI paid him to do it.

  8. #8 DrHealth
    July 20, 2010

    “science-based medicine”? you’ve got to be fucking kidding…it’s “ego-based medicine” fucking arseholes!
    barrett is a chronic pathological liar….
    he is considered biased and untrustworthy by the courts….

  9. #9 Todd W.
    July 20, 2010

    @DrHealth

    Wow. You’re one classy fellow!

  10. #10 T. Bruce McNeely
    July 20, 2010

    @DrHealth:

    Do you teach your “UBC students” with that mouth?

  11. #11 David N. Brown
    July 20, 2010

    Is there any chance that “Dr. Health” is Tim Bolen?

  12. #12 Spepp Tickskehpptick
    July 26, 2010

    Wow! Did you see this?

    California Supreme Court Bitch-Slaps Stephen Barrett Once Again…

    Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

    Sunday, July 25th, 2010

    I find it surprisingly easy to defeat Barrett and his minions. It’s almost like they lead themselves into the slaughterhouse. And there I stand with an axe…

    On July 14th, 2010, a little over a week ago the California Supreme Court, with virtually no effort on my part, stomped a rancid old fart named Stephen Barrett on my behalf, by the simple act of denying Barrett’s Petition to that Court, practically begging the Supreme Court to overturn the earlier Appeals Court Decision upholding the Alameda Superior Court’s decision to Dismiss Barrett’s case against me.

    The Judge in the Superior Court, once again with no effort on my part, had Dismissed the case since, frankly, Barrett, et al, just couldn’t seem to get it up enough to pursue the original silliness.
    We, on the other hand, spent no effort either.

    It has always been my opinion that Stephen Barrett has always wanted to TELL people he is suing me, but actually facing me in Court, or anywhere else, is a whole another matter. I think it has been a manhood issue with him all along.

    To read the entire article click on http://www.bolenreport.com

  13. #13 Broken Link
    July 26, 2010

    A bunch of misinformation on this subject is here:

    http://gaia-health.com/articles251/000277-quackbusters-are-busted.shtml

    Comments appear to be posting.

  14. #14 i. r. rational
    August 12, 2010

    The most puzzling thing about the Bolen phenomenon is the continued willingness of otherwise rational persons to engage in dialogue with him. As a sociopath, he sees this as validation of his power. In reality, he’s nothing but a wind-up doll, and if everyone would simply ignore him, he would run down and rust away in a corner.

  15. #15 David N. Brown
    August 22, 2010

    @214:
    I disagree. To be sure, it is pointless to engage Bolen himself. But we SHOULD be confronting those who repost his nonsense, who probably have even less excuse. (Bolen, after all, appears to be insane, and so could conceivably believe much of what he writes. I have identified three people as responsible for virtually all current reposting of “Bolen Report”:
    Trueman Tuck, leader/founder of Republican Party of Ontario
    “Dr” David Rowland, another fringe Canadian politician
    Russ Tanner, contributor to Orbis Vitae site.

    It’s pretty clear that even “alties” mostly shun or ignore Bolen. So, systematic elimination of his material from every site but his own is an achievable objective. We just need to keep up pressure on the three people I have named. I propose particularly a drive to place Trueman Tuck and the Republican Party of Ontario under scrutiny by Canadian elections officials, press, business regulators and rival political parties for their willingness to repost “Bolen Report” on “Trueman’s” numerous sites.

  16. #16 icu
    September 9, 2010

    from Court document signed by Judge Fromholz…National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) against a manufacturer of Homeopathic products:

    “Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although he claims to have read and written extensively on homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett’s claim to expertise on FDA issues arises from his conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on the subject and certain continuing education activities.

    As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency enforces federal statutes and the agency’s own regulations. Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case associated with Defendants’ products.”

    so, barrett made false claims exposed in courts, i.e., he is not an expert. this blog is apparently dedicated to exposing false claims made by others. anyone else see the disconnect and contradiction? i’m sure the comments to follow will justify and somehow exonerate him…but as Orac put it, “A STATEMENT OF FACT CANNOT BE INSOLENT.”

  17. #17 Chris
    September 9, 2010

    So, icu, what kind of training in homeopathy is necessary? Something along the line of removing half of your brain so you don’t remember basic high school chemistry.

  18. #18 Scott
    September 9, 2010

    so, barrett made false claims exposed in courts, i.e., he is not an expert.

    I see no “false claims exposed in courts” there. For that matter, I see no comment on his qualifications or expertise to comment on homeopathy – it just talks about knowledge of FDA procedures and regulations.

  19. #19 icu
    September 9, 2010

    chris, would it be possible to stick to the point of my post?

    scott, “As for his credential as an EXPERT on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area…Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent.”

    so, barrett made false claims exposed in courts, i.e., he is not an expert. this blog is apparently dedicated to exposing false claims made by others. anyone else see the disconnect and contradiction?

  20. #20 Scott
    September 9, 2010

    Still waiting to hear what factual claim he made that was “false.” I’m not an expert on FDA regulations either; does that mean I’ve “made false claims exposed in courts?”

  21. #21 Calli Arcale
    September 9, 2010

    I’d love to stick to the point of your post, but I’m not exactly clear on what it is. The evidence you posted doesn’t show that Barrett made false claims which were exposed in court. It says that the court did not consider him able to give expert testimony on the subject. It didn’t refute any of his testimony.

    Regardless, I find it telling not only that Doctor’s Data prefers suing critics over proving their claims, and even more telling that you are unable to back Doctor’s Data either; all you have is some fairly unimpressive efforts to cast doubt on Barrett based on a case completely and totally unrelated to the current situation with Doctor’s Data. That the court doesn’t recognize him as an expert on homeopathy is irrelevant to his exposure of the fraudulent nature of Doctor’s Data, a lab which specializes in tests which are virtually certain to produce abnormal results no matter who is tested.

    Why do you not attempt to defend this? Why is your only counterargument a quibble about an irrelevant topic?

  22. #22 Todd W.
    September 9, 2010

    @icu

    It might help to post a link to the full, complete court transcript so that we can judge what claims Barrett actually made. You know, primary sources and all that.

    Do you have the full title of the court case?

  23. #23 icu
    September 9, 2010

    oh, let the condescension begin…quality blog…

    chris, Doctor’s data? here’s the plot:

    barrett’s false claim are his credentials that he is an expert on said subjects. his credentials (claims of his expertise) were not confirmed in federal court and were found to be to the contrary.

    todd, look it up: NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC.,Plaintiff

    v.

    KING BIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; FRANK J. KING, JR.; and DOES 1-50, Defendants

    CASE NO. BC 245271

    Assigned for all purposes to Judge Haley J. Fromholz, Dept. 20

  24. #24 Chris
    September 9, 2010

    icu:

    would it be possible to stick to the point of my post?

    So you did not quote the following:

    Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although he claims to have read and written extensively on homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine.

    I just thought it was amusing that there was such a thing as formal training in something that is full of nothing. The rest of the rant was just as silly, and as other have noted did not have a point.

    Oh, are you Patrick T. Bolen?

  25. #25 Chris
    September 9, 2010

    And the stupid King Bio stuff has anything to do with Doctor’s Data how?

    Only someone as silly Patrick T. Bolen would make a comparison.

  26. #26 Scott
    September 9, 2010

    barrett’s false claim are his credentials that he is an expert on said subjects.

    That’s not a false claim, it’s a difference of opinion and degree.

  27. #27 icu
    September 9, 2010

    chris, put another way:

    “Barrett’s CLAIM TO EXPERTISE ON FDA ISSUES arises from his conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on the subject and certain continuing education activities…THERE IS NO SOUND BASIS ON WHICH TO CONSIDER DR. BARRETT AS AN EXPERT ON THE ISSUES HE WAS OFFERED TO ADDRESS.” “A STATEMENT OF FACT CANNOT BE INSOLENT.”

    as for being bolen, no. just a curious person who wonders why someone who only claims expertise has so many supporters.

    take care.

  28. #28 Chris
    September 9, 2010

    If you are not Bolen (who posted above as Spepp Tickskehpptick), you certainly act like he does. Perhaps you are trying to disguise the style by ignoring the shift key on your keyboard. You cannot even tell the difference between the two lawsuits.

    By the way, has King Bio come out with that cure for cancer yet? I’d like to see them get that past the FDA.

  29. #29 Calli Arcale
    September 9, 2010

    That still doesn’t support your claim that Barret was found to have made false claims in court. It simply shows that the court disagreed that he qualified as an expert witness in homeopathy. (Note: “expert witness” is a legal term with a very constrained meaning. It is disingenuous to try to extrapolate that outside a court setting, and downright dishonest to suggest that this means Barrett lied about being an expert.)

    And it still has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Doctor’s Data is acting ethically and appropriately by attacking Dr Barrett for simply publishing true but inconvenient information about their tests, which have nothing to do with homeopathy. Does Doctor’s Data, Inc’s efforts to suppress a person’s First Amendment rights not trouble you in the least?

  30. #30 icu
    September 9, 2010

    “the court disagreed that he qualified as an expert witness in homeopathy” precisely calli. what they disagreed with was his claim that he was an expert. simple.

    chris, you still haven’t adressed the point that he was shown to not be an expert in the areas that he claimed. can we agree that this is the truth as is stated in the court docs?

    remember the blog motto: “A STATEMENT OF FACT CANNOT BE INSOLENT.”

  31. #31 Todd W.
    September 9, 2010

    @icu

    Here is the full text on Barrett from that case, gleaned from this site:

    B. Stephen Barrett, M.D.

    Dr. Barrett was offered on several issues by the Plaintiff, but the Court found that there was substantial overlap on the issues that he and Dr. Sampson were asked to address. Thus, in order to avoid duplicative or cumulative evidence (see Cal. Evidence Code �� 352, 411, 723), Dr. Barrett�s testimony was limited by the Court to the sole issue of FDA treatment of homeopathic drugs. The relevancy of this issue was questionable at best, since the Plaintiff had previously asserted that its case did not depend on or seek to establish any violation of federal food and drug laws or regulations. Nevertheless, Plaintiff elicited testimony from Dr. Barrett on his experience with the FDA as it relates to regulation of homeopathic drugs.

    Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although he claims to have read and written extensively on homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett�s claim to expertise on FDA issues arises from his conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on the subject and certain continuing education activities.

    As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency enforces federal statutes and the agency�s own regulations. Dr. Barrett�s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case associated with Defendants� products.

    The question of whether someone meets the legal definition of “expert” or “expert witness” is at the discretion of the presiding judge and may be influenced by cross-examination.

    Here’s a description of the legal definition of the term that I found at definitions (dot) uslegal (dot) com:

    An expert witness is a witness who has knowledge beyond that of the ordinary lay person enabling him/her to give testimony regarding an issue that requires expertise to understand. Experts are allowed to give opinion testimony which a non-expert witness may be prohibited from testifying to. In court, the party offering the expert must lay a foundation for the expert’s testimony. Laying the foundation involves testifying about the expert’s credentials and experience that qualifies him/her as an expert. Sometimes the opposing party will stipulate (agree to) to the expert’s qualifications in the interests of judicial economy.

    Experts are qualified according to a number of factors, including but not limited to, the number of years they have practiced in their respective field, work experience related to the case, published works, certifications, licensing, training, education, awards, and peer recognition. They may be called as upon as consultants to a case and also used to give testimony at trial. Once listed as a witness for trial, the materials they rely upon in forming an opinion in the case is subject to discovery by the opposing parties. Expert testimony is subject to attack on cross-examination in the form of questioning designed to bring out any limitations in the witness’s qualifications and experience, lack of witness’s confidence in his opinions, lack of the preparation done, or unreliability of the expert’s sources, tests, and methods, among other issues.

    Experts in a wide variety of backgrounds may testify, such as construction, forensics, gemstones, and many more areas. They are allowed to be compensated for their time and expenses in preparing for and giving testimony, as long as they are not being paid to perjure themselves.

    For example, doctors often serve as expert witnesses and may provide testimony regarding the following issues, among others:

    * Physician Projected Future Medical Costs Analysis
    * Vocational Assessments
    * Loss of Future
    * Earnings Capacity Analysis
    * Reduction of Work Life Expectancy Analysis
    * Disability Assessments
    * Permanent and Total Disability Determination
    * Independent Medical Evaluations

    Note that the definition is a bit vague and open to interpretation. As such, one may feel that they meet all of the requirements to be an expert witness, but, if the judge finds that they do not meet that qualification, their testimony will be treated as if it were just normal witness testimony (i.e., only the facts observed and not opinions about those facts).

    According to what I could find, then, Barrett did not engage in any misconduct. The plaintiff failed to establish his expertise to the judge’s satisfaction.

  32. #32 icu
    September 9, 2010

    calli, re: “That still doesn’t support your claim that Barret was found to have made false claims in court.”

    “Barrett’s CLAIM TO EXPERTISE ON FDA ISSUES…THERE IS NO SOUND BASIS ON WHICH TO CONSIDER DR. BARRETT AS AN EXPERT ON THE ISSUES HE WAS OFFERED TO ADDRESS.”

    how a simple statement can be so easily confounded is indeed bewildering.

  33. #33 Chris
    September 9, 2010

    icu (Bolen), define the following words:

    1) Plaintiff

    2) Defendant

    3) Expert witness

    Now look at the idiot King Bio suit, and the stupid Doctor’s Data suit and tell us if you can spot the differences.

  34. #34 Gray Falcon
    September 9, 2010

    As far as I can tell, Barrett and the judge had a difference of opinion as to whether he qualified as an expert witness. That doesn’t sound much like “lying to the court.”

  35. #35 icu
    September 9, 2010

    chris, you have a masterful way of avoiding my question, so i’ll ask a final time to see if you have the integrity and fair play to answer a simple question:

    he was shown to not be an expert in the areas that he claimed. can we agree that this is what was stated in the federal court docs?

  36. #36 Chris
    September 9, 2010

    The funny thing about “experts” in homeopathy is that (going on the the thread just after this one with the guy flogging a book by Saine, Not a Doctor) is that they actually need to be very stupid to believe in it.

    So, icu (Bolen), are you a homeopath? Did you have the requisite lobotomy to qualify? Can you count up to 30 succussions?

    Did you even read article above? Did you notice the lawsuits aimed at Doctor’s Data from other people? Because, you stupid contention that what a stupid judge said nine years ago shows that you have not.

  37. #37 Chris
    September 9, 2010

    Oh, to answer your idiotic question: Dr. Barrett is too intelligent to be an expert in homeopathy. He has lost no brain mass, nor his mind. Unlike the judge in that case.

    And you still don’t get that both cases are not related on any way. Barrett wrote several well referenced articles that Doctor’s Data wants removed. It has something to do with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Have you ever heard of that document?

  38. #38 icu
    September 9, 2010

    chris, you’re getting your knickers in a bind.

    re: “what a stupid judge said”

    lol. so much for the blog’s motto.

    still waiting…

  39. #39 Chris
    September 9, 2010

    For what?

  40. #40 Todd W.
    September 9, 2010

    @icu

    You stated that Barrett made a false claim in court. The claim, supposedly, is whether or not he is an expert. Keeping in mind that “expert” has a legal definition when used in the context of court cases, such a claim is not a true-false claim. It is more akin to saying that natto tastes good. It is open to interpretation. There is no definitive “truth” or “falsity” to that statement.

    In that particular case, that particular judge interpreted the evidence submitted to establish Barrett’s expertise by the plaintiff, the evidence from the defendant arguing he was not an expert, and the legal definition of “expert”. He came to the conclusion that Barrett did not meet the legal definition, based on the evidence presented. There was no “false claim”.

  41. #41 icu
    September 9, 2010

    “Dr. Barrett is too intelligent to be an expert in homeopathy.”

    apparently not: “As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area.”

    the point of my post was barrett’s credibility, not the current trial, but your bias seems to be blinding you from the truth and thus your non sequitur replies.

    a statement of fact by a federal judge: barrett is not an expert in the areas he claimed…do you agree or do you disagree with this statement of fact?

  42. #42 icu
    September 9, 2010

    todd

    …and there was no expert (as claimed).

  43. #43 Scott
    September 9, 2010

    It is true that the judge ruled he did not qualify as an expert witness.

    This is a very different statement than “Barrett is not an expert.”

  44. #44 icu
    September 9, 2010

    i agree, scott…structurally the sentences are different.

    and both of those sentences are structurally differnt to:

    “THERE IS NO SOUND BASIS ON WHICH TO CONSIDER DR. BARRETT AS AN EXPERT.”

    “A STATEMENT OF FACT CANNOT BE INSOLENT.”

  45. #45 Todd W.
    September 9, 2010

    @icu

    The plaintiffs in that case offered Dr. Barrett as an expert witness, saying basically, “We believe that Dr. Barrett is an expert on this subject, and here’s why…” They presented their evidence for why Barrett should be considered an expert.

    The defendant then offered evidence as to why they felt Dr. Barrett was not an expert.

    The judge then had to decide, based on the evidence presented, whether he was indeed an expert. The judge decided that the evidence did not meet the standard of establishing Dr. Barrett as an expert.

    Dr. Barrett made no actual claim to the legal definition of expert. Hence, he was not “caught out” making a false claim.

    Again, it is like two people arguing to a third person that natto is a tasty treat. Person A describes all the wonderful qualities that they feel show it is tasty. Person B describes the bad qualities that they feel show it is not tasty. Person C then weighs what A and B said. Person C’s decision says absolutely nothing about whether natto really is or is not tasty.

    Oh, and that judge’s decision only applied to that particular case. It says absolutely nothing about Dr. Barrett’s credibility, no matter how you try to spin it.

  46. #46 Gray Falcon
    September 9, 2010

    I think I was in second grade when I learned the difference between “fact” and “opinion”. What’s your excuse, icu?

  47. #47 Scott
    September 9, 2010

    They are not just structurally different, they are entirely different in meaning, as well. The former refers to the precise legal concept defined as “expert witness”, the latter is the general English meaning of “expert.”

    What you’re doing is akin to arguing that an oak is not a “tree” because it is not a set of linked nodes. Two entirely different meanings of the word “tree”, just like the two entirely different meanings of the word “expert” here.

  48. #48 Chris
    September 9, 2010

    Gray Falcon:

    I think I was in second grade when I learned the difference between “fact” and “opinion”. What’s your excuse, icu?

    I believe has something with his/hers homeopathic level of intelligence.

  49. #49 triskelethecat
    September 9, 2010

    icu is obviously too embarrassed to admit he/she does not know the difference between someone claiming to be an expert in something, and what the courts will accept as an “expert witness”. So, I will try to explain it to him/her.

    icu: I am a nurse. I’ve been a nurse for almost 30 years. I have a lot of nursing experience. I could say I’m an expert in nursing. However, almost all my nursing experience is in maternal-child nursing. But, I have done a lot of reading and studying about cardiac nursing. I consider that I have expert knowledge of that field too. However, if I went to a court as an “expert witness” for cardiac nursing, it would be up to the judge to decide whether HE/SHE feels my knowledge is enough to be considered an expert witness, say, compared to a nurse who has worked in cardiac nursing for 30 years but done very little studying in the field. The judge may decide for or against my being considered an expert witness for that court proceeding but even if the judge rules I am not an expert witness it does not imply that I am lying about being an expert nor does it mean another judge won’t consider me an expert in another instance.

    (I tried to keep the words simple for icu).

    MI Dawn

  50. #50 Calli Arcale
    September 9, 2010

    icu, others have already responded with what I would have said, so I’ll just say this….

    …you still haven’t explained how a court deciding not to accept Barrett as an expert witness has any bearing on Doctor’s Data, Inc’s disgusting attempt to squelch inconvenient criticism. Do I take that to mean you endorse their tactic? How do you feel about their business strategy? How about their famous tests? Are they legitimate? Is Barrett’s criticism of them unwarranted? Why?

  51. #51 icu
    September 9, 2010

    with respect to your replies about the definition and applicability of an “expert witness,”

    first, i’d like to thank todd w. for your reference from “(dot) uslegal (dot) com.”

    and i’d like to thank MI Dawn for her concern that i do “not know the difference between someone claiming to be an expert in something, and what the courts will accept as an “expert witness.””

    i prefer these 2 references:

    – from The American College of Legal Medicine’s (ACLM), GUIDELINES ON THE ETHICAL CONDUCT OF THE EXPERT WITNESS:

    “The expert witness should have recent and substantive experience in the area in which testimony is to be given.” http://www.studiomedicolegalemancini.it/page3/files/linee-guida-expert-witness.pdf

    – from the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics:

    “When physicians choose to provide expert testimony, they should have recent and substantive experience or knowledge in the area in which they testify.”
    http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion907.shtml

    Todd, you also say, “Note that the definition is a bit vague and open to interpretation.” As evidenced by the above definitions, I would tend to agree more with Calli, “Note: “expert witness” is a legal term with a very constrained meaning.”

    Now with the proper definition referenced and clear for all, let’s continue and see if Barrett satisfies these requirements as is quoted in the court docs.

    “Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993…Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years.” Barrett does not have recent experience.

    “…he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs.” …should have recent and substantive experience IN THE AREA in which testimony is to be given.

    It’s true that “Dr. Barrett was offered on several issues by the Plaintiff,” as someone points out, but as knowledgeable a man as Dr. Barrett is, I would’ve thought that he would have exercised better judgment in offering himself with respects to the guidelines of being an expert witness.

    The court documents, however, do not state “The plaintiff’s claim of Dr. Barrett’s expertise,” but rather that “Dr. Barrett’s claim to expertise” is what is being evaluated.

    Continuing on with our consideration of the guideline of approving those with recent and substantive experience and knowledge, “Dr. Barrett’s claim to expertise on FDA issues arises from his conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on the subject and certain continuing education activities…As for his credential as an expert…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.”

    What were Barrett’s claims for “recent and substantive experience and knowledge in the area in which testimony is to be given?”

    “Dr. Barrett’s claim to expertise on FDA issues arises from his conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on the subject and certain continuing education activities…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.”

    As MI Dawn has also stated, “However, if I went to a court as an “expert witness” for cardiac nursing, it would be up to the judge to decide whether HE/SHE feels my knowledge is enough to be considered an expert witness.” This is very true, but of course the distinction that you omitted between yourself and Barrett is that you are still a practicing nurse. Please recall that recent experience and knowledge is requisite for consideration.

    In light of a comparison of Dr. Barrett’s claims for his expertise in the testimony and the guidelines for the approval of an expert witness, I believe the assessment is fair:

    “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.”

    re: Gary Falcon, “I think I was in second grade when I learned the difference between “fact” and “opinion”.”

    You are entitled to your opinion.

  52. #52 Chris
    September 9, 2010

    You really are not as entertaining as Myama. But you have the same level of homeopathic intelligence.

    Why don’t you do what Augustine failed to do, respond this request from Barratt:

    If you want me to consider modifying the article, please identify every sentence to which you object and explain why you believe it is not correct.

    No go! Find every sentence that is false, list it and then explain how it is untrue.

  53. #53 Chris
    September 9, 2010

    Ack, too tired. It should say “Now go!”

    By the way, do you think Kinsbourne is more qualified than Barratt:

    Marcel Kinsbourne is an older gentleman. He seemed to have given up his pediatric practice about 17 years ago, and has been an expert witness for a few years now. Dr. Kinsbourne made quite a killing as an expert witness in the MMR/autism case in the UK.

    Now go! Tell us what Quackwatch sentences on Doctor’s Data are untrue, and why.

  54. #54 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 9, 2010

    Goofus’ foundation argument, the one upon which all his other claims rest, is as follows:

    1) Stephen Barrett was not accepted as an expert witness by Judge Fromholz.
    2) (unstated premise) All people who are experts to any degree will be accepted by all judges in all cases in all courts as expert witnesses.
    3) Therefore, Stephen Barrett is not an expert.

    Is the very strong wording of premise 2) necessary? For Goofus’ syllogism, yes, it is. If we change any appearance of “all” to “some” or even “most” then we acknowledge that a person can indeed be an expert yet not be accepted in a given case as an expert witness.

    Therefore Goofus’ argument falls apart, because the strongly worded version of premise 2 that is necessary for his argument is false. Unless Goofus wishes to argue that every judge in the world, past present and future, always shows perfect judgment, a proposition for which the proceedings of appellate courts provide plenty of counter-examples.

  55. #55 MI Dawn
    September 10, 2010

    @icu: I never said I was still a “practicing” nurse. I said that my major experience was in maternal-child, and that I have done a lot of reading and research into cardiac nursing. The only way I fall under still practicing is that I have a current, active nursing license in the US. However, it’s a LOT cheaper for a nurse to do the required CEUs and renew a license than it is for a doctor,pharmacist, midwife, podiatrist, or other medical professions that I know of.

  56. #56 David N. Brown
    September 11, 2010

    Somebody tell Peter Bowditch about “icu”, he can tell if it’s bolen. Personally, I’d put the odds 60-40 against, since icu seems to be stopping short of threatening us with being added as defendants.

  57. #57 icu
    September 11, 2010

    Feldspar, thank you for your consideration that my argument committed the logical fallacy of a hasty generalization, that is:

    making assumptions about a WHOLE GROUP or RANGE OF CASES based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes about people (“librarians are shy and smart,” “wealthy people are snobs,” etc.) are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization. http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html#5

    I, as the definition states, did not make an assumption about a whole group or range of cases. In lieu of an assumption, I made a comparison, a comparison not of a group or multiple cases but of a specific individual’s qualifications vs. the minimum qualifications necessary as stated by the guidelines set forth by the AMA and ACLM. Thus, I did not make a stereotype and thus…

    “1) Stephen Barrett was not accepted as an expert witness by Judge Fromholz.” He was not accepted based on a assessment of individual qualifications vs. minimum requirements.

    If we compare Dr. Barrett’s claims of expertise on FDA issues with respect to drug regulation, as I did, they are essentially that he’s had “attended several semesters of correspondence law school,” that he’s reviewed “professional literature on the subject and certain continuing education activities [though he is not privy to professional continuing education units either as a lawyer or physician because a) he is not a lawyer, and b) he hadn’t been licensed for 7 years],” and “several past conversations with FDA representatives.”

    My explicit premise was: Do his claims for expertise meet the necessary recent and substantive experience and knowledge in the area of testimony? (And not, “1) Stephen Barrett was not accepted as an expert witness by Judge Fromholz.”)

    “2) (unstated premise)” An unstated premise: Sometimes premises are not explicitly stated but must be assumed for an argument to be either valid or strong. (http://www.unc.edu/~hassoun/phil30/arguments.ppt)

    My explicit premise: “Now with the proper definition referenced and clear for all, let’s continue and see if Barrett satisfies these requirements as is quoted in the court docs.” And again, what is quoted in the documents as his qualifications is not an interpretation of the judge but the credentials that Dr. Barrett offered to the court in support of his claim that he was an expert.

    “3) Therefore, Stephen Barrett is not an expert.” Your assessment of my conclusion should have included what is written in my actual comment and would have been more correct if stated as:

    “3) Therefore, Stephen Barrett is not an expert…” “…in light of a comparison of Dr. Barrett’s claims for his expertise in the testimony and the guidelines for the approval of an expert witness.”

    One logical fallacy that I would like to bring to your attention is the Post hoc (also called false cause, i.e., assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.) fallacy made by Chris that I say there are errors in Dr. Barrett’s assessment of Dr. Barrett’s article on DD. Because it’s shown that Dr. Barrett is not an expert in FDA drug regulation issues (A), Chris infers that I’ve said that Dr. Barrett has not correctly written on the DD matters(B). Me saying A does not mean B, Chris. (Btw, it’s not spelled “Barrat.”) The truth of the matter is that because Dr. Barrett is not an FDA expert does not mean that he might be an expert on the issues concerning DD. Is this reasonable and fair?

    Another fallacy of both Chris’s response is the Red Herring: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

    My original argument: Dr. Barrett is not an expert in FDA drug regulation (again, which is not to say that he isn’t therefore an expert in issues related to DD). Chris’s tangent, rather than discussing the legitimacy of Dr. Barrett’s expertise, is to tell me to look for any inaccuracies in his work and to compare another physician.

    Feldspar, admirably, you enjoy assessing arguments to check for their strengths and weaknesses, so I think you would be able to understand that calling people names only detracts from the strength of your own argument, as we know emotional tone often has a greater impression on an audience than the actual words used.

    Again, my only point here is that Dr. Barrett is not an expert in FDA drug regulation issues. I have not disparaged him in any way and apologize if some of you have taken my comments as being so.

  58. #58 Chris
    September 11, 2010

    Dude, you can’t even figure out who is the defendant in each case. Get over it.

  59. #59 icu
    September 11, 2010

    correction to: The truth of the matter is that because Dr. Barrett is not an FDA expert does not mean that he might be an expert on the issues concerning DD. Is this reasonable and fair?

    should say “does not mean that he might NOT be and expert on the issues concerning DD, [i.e., he could be an expert].” Is this reasonable and fair?

  60. #60 icu
    September 11, 2010

    chris, my figuring out who is and isn’t the defendent is again another red herring.

    the issue is not who is the defendant. the issue being discussed here is…

    is barrett an expert in FDA drug regulation as he claimed?

  61. #61 icu
    September 11, 2010

    correction…ad hominem. another logical fallacy.

  62. #62 Chris
    September 11, 2010

    icu, troll. Time to ignore.

  63. #63 Vicki
    September 11, 2010

    As far as I can tell, the issue is whether Dr. Barrett has made false and/or libelous claims about Doctor’s Data. Whether he is qualified as an expert witness in an unrelated case is also a red herring, as irrelevant as his taste in shirts.

  64. #64 Chris
    September 11, 2010

    The only issue is whether or not what was written on Quackwatch is true or not. And neither the lawyer, Augustine, nor this troll has pointed out which sentences are false.

  65. #65 Bronze Dog
    September 11, 2010

    Icu clearly doesn’t care about what’s true, only about ephemeral legal technicalities (but not the ones he chooses to ignore). Just like your typical litigation crazy censor who abuses unjust plaintiff-friendly libel laws.

    Prove me wrong, Icu: Answer some people’s questions about what, if any, inaccurate statements Dr. Barrett has made about Doctor’s Data. And use scientific data to answer where applicable. Court rulings are not science.

    But you won’t. You’ll just continue on your legalistic whine about how we should treat the government as the sacred Ministry of Truth, and how we should treat that judge as a god-like capital-A Authority. Because government organizations with individual agendas are infinitely more trustworthy than international, interdisciplinary, decentralized scientific consensus.

  66. #66 icu
    September 11, 2010

    The relevancy of my posts is in ascertaining the credibility of Dr. Barrett, esp. as Orac correctly states in this blog that a medicine be able to prove its efficacy when “when faced with serious scientific criticism.”

    If Dr. Barrett claims expertise (a few correspondence courses in law, readings, CEUs (not for licensed laywers or doctors) and conversations with FDA agents)in an area and is then assessed to not have expertise, can we then take his word as “serious scientific criticism?”

    Especially in light of the federal court’s decision on his credibility:

    “C. Credibility of Plaintiff’s experts

    Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are BIASED heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event…”

    Serious scientific criticism aims to remove bias.

    “…Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic drugs…Dr. Barrett’s heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses’ fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have A DIRECT, PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION.”

    Biased…not objective. Where is the integrity of science?

    “…Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff’s position, and therefore NOT NEUTRAL OR DISPASSIONATE WITNESSES OR EXPERTS. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that DRS. BARRETT and Sampson are themselves the client, and THEREFORE THEIR TESTIMONY SHOULD BE ACCORDED LITTLE, IF ANY, CREDIBILITY ON THAT BASIS AS WELL.”

    Not credible.

    So, the relevancy of my post here is that this forum supports Dr. Barret, a man who was found to have no credibility in court due to bias and also of lacking a professed expertise. Fact and objectivity do not seem to be consistent in his behavior as is the science that he so vigorously defends.

    The discussion here with commenters of this post has also, to my disappointment, not been based on fact (as is the credo of the blog), but upon what seems to be the stance of this “science” blog: the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does, i.e., not based on fact.

    If one is willing to criticize another based on certain merits, then one should be open to and subject themselves to the same criticisms in the name of being objective, i.e., in the name of science.

    Remember “A STATEMENT OF FACT CANNOT BE INSOLENT.”

  67. #67 Chris
    September 11, 2010

    What sentences on Quackwatch about Doctor’s Data are in error, and how?

    Answer that question or go away, troll.

  68. #68 icu
    September 11, 2010

    Another fallacy of both Chris’s response is the Red Herring: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

    My original argument: Dr. Barrett is not an expert in FDA drug regulation (again, which is not to say that he isn’t therefore an expert in issues related to DD). Chris’s tangent, rather than discussing the legitimacy of Dr. Barrett’s expertise, is to tell me to look for any inaccuracies in his work and to compare another physician.

  69. #69 icu
    September 11, 2010

    re: bronze dog, “we should treat the government as the sacred Ministry of Truth…’

    and based on Barrett’s credibility and expertise, we should listen to him why?

  70. #70 icu
    September 11, 2010

    in Stephen Barrett’s own words from his website:

    Dictionaries define quack as “one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed.”
    http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html

    “there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address”

  71. #71 icu
    September 11, 2010

    relevancy to this post. the title of it is: More legal thuggery against a defender of science-based medicine.

    how can it be thuggery if the defender is biased, i.e., not of science-based medicine?

  72. #72 Vicki
    September 11, 2010

    Oh for cry aye.

    You cannot defend someone against a charge of gay-bashing by arguing that yes, he beat up a stranger while shouting “Faggot,” but the victim isn’t actually gay.

  73. #73 icu
    September 11, 2010

    just as you cannot defend the reality that Dr. Barrett is not the expert he claims he is and that he’s not biased.

  74. #74 Gray Falcon
    September 11, 2010

    The commenter called icu is a goat. The commenter called icu is a goat. The commenter called icu is a goat. The commenter called icu is a goat. The commenter called icu is a goat. The commenter called icu is a goat. The commenter called icu is a goat. The commenter called icu is a goat.

    The point of this exercise: Repeating a statement is not enough to make a statement true. All you’ve got is a single judges opinion, we have tangible facts.

  75. #75 icu
    September 11, 2010

    please present tangible facts that qualify dr. barrett as an fda drug regulation expert.

    as orac says: “their all too frequent response is to try to shut down criticism.”

    when i see fact, it will lend validity to your premise as is commonly done in argumentation.

  76. #76 icu
    September 11, 2010

    “we have tangible facts”

    the burden of proof is in your court, gray falcon.

  77. #77 David N. Brown
    September 11, 2010

    Let’s compare Barrett with Bolen:
    Barrett appeared to testify as a witness, to be paid out of funds from an organization he was a member of.

    Tim Bolen appeared to testify in a multimillions suit against Aetna, without disclosing that he was PART OWNER of any money collected. A court further judged that he was working with others to collect information on witnesses in unrelated legal proceedings, for the purposes of harassing said witnesses and interfering in those proceedings.

  78. #78 Gray Falcon
    September 11, 2010

    And, once again, we’re back where we started. Where, in the article, were there any false statements. Blanket accusations of bias are nothing more than ad hominem attacks, while attempting to bring up an entirely different ruling unrelated to this case is a red herring. Where are the false statements? Stop waving around your “A judge claimed he wasn’t qualified as an expert witness” talisman around and answer the questions!

  79. #79 icu
    September 11, 2010

    david, please present tangible facts that qualify dr. barrett as an fda drug regulation expert.

    (gray falcon, you’re correct. it is necessary to repeat myself because of the red herrings ad nauseum.)

  80. #80 Gray Falcon
    September 11, 2010

    Also, the tangible evidence is in the article. Read it.

    One other thing about Tim Bolen. He does not simply suspect collusion, or even merely accuse people of it, he assumes it by default. I half suspect that if a light bulb went out in his house, he’d try to link Barrett to it.

  81. #81 icu
    September 11, 2010

    gray falcon, please present tangible facts that qualify dr. barrett as an fda drug regulation expert.

    gray falcon, please present tangible facts that qualify dr. barrett as an fda drug regulation expert.

    gray falcon, please present tangible facts that qualify dr. barrett as an fda drug regulation expert.

    gray falcon, please present tangible facts that qualify dr. barrett as an fda drug regulation expert.

  82. #82 Orac
    September 11, 2010

    You know, I don’t think that icu is Tim Bolen, at least not unless he’s using a proxy server to post. I do, however, begin to wonder if he’s another person who pops up from time to time and who really, really doesn’t like me:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/04/silencing_the_opposition_over_autism_1.php

  83. #83 Gray Falcon
    September 11, 2010

    An “fda drug regulation expert”? That’s utterly irrelevant. What’s important are statements like the following: Doctor’s Data uses, by their own admission, the baselines for unprovoked urine tests on the results for provoked urine tests. Even my cat can see something wrong with that! That’s the tangible fact, and that means far more than a judge’s question on someone’s qualifications!

  84. #84 icu
    September 11, 2010

    premise = barrett’s credibility must be taken into consideration because of his own inability to be unbiased while claiming to work in the name of objective science.

    premise = barrett is not an expert on the fda drug regulation as he claims he was.

    conclusion = in light of barrett’s inability to be unbiased and his refuted assertion that he held expertise according only to his own beliefs but not the AMA’s or ACLM’s criteria, his credibility is dubious.

    gray falcon, please present tangible facts that qualify dr. barrett as an fda drug regulation as you said you possess these “tangible facts.”

    patiently awaiting…

  85. #85 icu
    September 11, 2010

    gray falcon…repetition ad nauseum:

    So, the relevancy of my post here is that this forum supports Dr. Barret, a man who was found to have no credibility in court due to bias and also of lacking a professed expertise. Fact and objectivity do not seem to be consistent in his behavior as is required by the science that he so vigorously defends.

    if you can show me tangible facts that really is an fda expert, i.e., you can provide proof of for dr. barrett’s claim that he is an expert, then it’ll support his claim, which until this point remains unproven and thus only opinion.

    show me the goods, please.

  86. #86 Gray Falcon
    September 11, 2010

    Icu, nothing you say changes the facts: Doctor’s Data uses, by their own admission, the baselines for unprovoked urine tests on the results for provoked urine tests. Trying to call into question Barrett’s bias means nothing because my source is Doctor’s Data itself!

  87. #87 icTHROUGHu
    September 11, 2010

    show me the goods please…

  88. #88 icTHROUGHu
    September 11, 2010

    so…

    you have no tangible facts to back up dr. barrett’s claim that he was/is an fda drug regulation expert.

    funny, nor did he.

  89. #89 icTHROUGHu
    September 11, 2010

    gray falcon, i’m not arguing this: “Doctor’s Data uses, by their own admission, the baselines for unprovoked urine tests on the results for provoked urine tests.”

    another red herring. please, no more logical fallacies in this science blog.

    we prefer facts.

  90. #90 icTHROUGHu
    September 11, 2010

    until you can prove his claim, then you can show he is a credible person.

    until then, in the words of Barrett himself:

    “Dictionaries define quack as “one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed.”
    http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html

    and “there [currently] is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address [unless gray falcon or anyone else can prove otherwise].”

    i don’t want to believe this about dr. barrett, either. i can empathize with you. but i, like you and anyone professing to be a person of science, needs facts to show otherwise. please help me.

  91. #91 Gray Falcon
    September 11, 2010

    i don’t want to believe this about dr. barrett, either. i can empathize with you. but i, like you and anyone professing to be a person of science, needs facts to show otherwise. please help me.

    Liar. If you wanted to believe that, you’d have accepted that a single judge’s statement does not overturn reality. Now that you’ve accepted one premise, let’s move on to another: “By using the data meant for unprovoked tests to examine provoked tests, Doctor’s Data is either acting incompetently or fraudulently.” This is no red herring, this is the core of the argument. If you want to prove that Barrett is a liar, show me that what he says is false.

  92. #92 Calli Arcale
    September 11, 2010

    icu @ 268:

    Another fallacy of both Chris’s response is the Red Herring: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

    That is really precious, icu. The level of irony displayed is truly breathtaking, for what have you been engaging in, if not the fallacy of red herrings?

    Whether or not Barrett qualifies as an expert witness in a particular case involving homeopathy is not remotely relevant to Doctor’s Data’s threat of litigation should Barrett not remove inconvenient articles from the Quackwatch website. This has been pointed out to you. That you so pigheadedly persist on this tangent is evidence that you are very keen to defend Doctor’s Data, or at least to attack Barrett, and that the actual claims of DDI are either irrelevant to your intent, or are indefensible and therefore best avoided.

    I wonder which is actually true — are you here for a bit of schadenfreude, or are you actually attempting to somehow defend DDI? If it’s the former, then you are doing a fine job of looking a fool, but you may as well carry on. If it’s the latter, you are doing a hilariously poor job of it, as you have done nothing whatsoever to support their case — in which case, you may as well carry on. It will do no good, of course, but it is amusing.

  93. #93 Bronze Dog
    September 11, 2010

    The reliability in Barrett’s statements exist in real world measures like the quality of his citations and their consistency with scientific consensus. Duh! The so-called “authority” is in the scientific data, not in the individual.

    Of course, you’re the sort to hate living in a complex world like that, Icu. That’s why you’d prefer to deify judges and treat them as infallible god-men who can declare someone a heretic for going against sacred dogma. I reject the notion of such “authority.”

    The crazed emphasis on the individual arguer almost goes down to solipsism. That’s why emphasis on the individual, like you are doing, is a red herring. Good science makes the person presenting an argument irrelevant to its truthfulness. If you believe the truth changes based on who is making an argument, you’re divorcing yourself from the objective universe. That way leads to madness.

  94. #94 Vicki
    September 11, 2010

    That person in the black robes, with the gavel and the authority? S/he’s an ordinary human being; s/he makes ordinary mistakes; and s/he may have a mickey mouse shirt on under the robes. He’s not infallible, and the good ones don’t claim to be.

  95. #95 Todd W.
    September 11, 2010

    @icu

    What legal training do you have?

  96. #96 Chris
    September 11, 2010

    Actually, Todd, I was wondering when icu stopped taking his/hers meds.

  97. #97 Todd W.
    September 11, 2010

    @Chris

    I actually have a specific reason that I’m asking about icu’s legal background.

  98. #98 Chris
    September 11, 2010

    Oh, I think I know why. Carry on.

  99. #99 David N. Brown
    September 12, 2010

    @279:
    As far as I know, the judicial opinion you specifically cite about Barrett being “biased” and not an “expert” was specifically and solely about his testimony on HOMEOPATHY. (The judge overlooked the facts that a) homeopathic remedies are just water, b) any genuine results are the the product of “placebo” effect, and c) Barrett, as a credentialed psychiatrist, would be reasonably qualified to testify about placebos.)

    @282: O’Neill was also mentioned as the possible identity of “Dr. Health”. Canada seems to be the center of what distribution there is for “Bolen Report”, most of it courtesy of Trueman Tuck.

  100. #100 icu
    September 12, 2010

    So you all honestly believe that Barrett is an expert on FDA drug regulation because he read some literature on it,t asked with a few agents, and took some correspondence courses in law? This qualifies anyone as an expert in in any court in the world?

    As I stated before and will do so again, because Barrett lacks expertise in one area and is shown to be biased does not mean what Barrett has said about DDI is not correct.

    Tangible facts… please I need them to restore the credibility Barrett claimed he has. That would end any counter argument from me. I’m still waiting, gray falcon, as you said you jabber some. But thus far it’s just more arguments and no proof.

  101. #101 icu2
    September 12, 2010

    So you all honestly believe that Barrett is an expert on FDA drug regulation because he read some literature on it,t asked with a few agents, and took some correspondence courses in law? This qualifies anyone as an expert in in any court in the world?

    As I stated before and will do so again, because Barrett lacks expertise in one area and is shown to be biased does not mean what Barrett has said about DDI is not correct.

    Tangible facts… please I need them to restore the credibility Barrett claimed he has. That would end any counter argument from me. I’m still waiting, gray falcon, as you said you jabber some. But thus far it’s just more arguments and no proof.

  102. #102 Chris
    September 12, 2010

    What exactly is your legal training?

    Also what sentences about Doctor’s Data are flawed, and why?

  103. #103 Icu2
    September 12, 2010

    Todd, I have not even taken a few correspondence courses, and like Barrett, this does not qualify me as an expert witness. Thankfully.

  104. #104 Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2010

    So you all honestly believe that Barrett is an expert on FDA drug regulation because he read some literature on it,t asked with a few agents, and took some correspondence courses in law? This qualifies anyone as an expert in in any court in the world?

    Are you trying to make a point? Of any sort? This article, and this lawsuit, aren’t about expertise in a court of law, they are about whether he made false statements on his website. What you are talking about is not relevant in any way.

    As I stated before and will do so again, because Barrett lacks expertise in one area and is shown to be biased does not mean what Barrett has said about DDI is not correct.

    Which means everything that you’ve said and done to this point has been completely pointless and an absolute red herring. I, at least, gained a chance to play out my Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney fantasies.

    Tangible facts… please I need them to restore the credibility Barrett claimed he has. That would end any counter argument from me. I’m still waiting, gray falcon, as you said you jabber some. But thus far it’s just more arguments and no proof.

    I lost all patience with you with your wheedling attempt to feign humility and gain my sympathy. Quackwatch is has articles, references, and so on, and so it qualifies as a useful resource. In your previous paragraph, you actually agreed what he said was accurate. Trying to pretend it didn’t happen is foolish.

    Also, any attempt to bring up bias should be responded to with the fact that many of the pro-alternative medicine sources are the people selling the medicine, often for a fantastic profit.

  105. #105 Chris
    September 12, 2010

    icu:

    Todd, I have not even taken a few correspondence courses,

    So you have absolutely no qualifications. That is obviously why the several posts trying to clarify this issue is bouncing off your skull and not making to the stuff between your ears.

    Everyone, until this troll provides the sentences Barrett wrote about Doctor’s Data that are in error, please ignore him/her.

  106. #106 Icu2
    September 12, 2010

    Still no tangible facts….(yes, I’m repeating myself again I know)

  107. #107 IcTHROUGHu2
    September 12, 2010

    Still no tangible facts….(yes, I’m repeating myself again I know)… to prove Barrett’s FDA expertise. Cuz there is none.

    Seems the timing of me being banned from your blog of “facts,” and hence my need for various names to comment, is well timed, as I’ve yet to be shown any proof that Barrett is what he claimed he was. Quack= one who talks pretenciously without sound knowledge of the subject being discussed.

    I c u

  108. #108 icTHROUGHu2
    September 12, 2010

    “I have not even taken a few correspondence courses”
    “So you have absolutely no qualifications.”

    Correct, just like Barrett.

    quack, quack…

  109. #109 icTHROUGHu2
    September 12, 2010

    Everyone, until this troll provides proof that Dr. Barrett is the FDA expert he claimed he was, please ignore him/her.

  110. #110 triskelethecat
    September 12, 2010

    Now that the icu troll is just getting annoying, killfile to the rescue. Of course, he/she will probably claim victory since he/she can’t tell the difference between ignoring a stupid person and admitting defeat. Personally, since being hit with a cluebat has done nothing to icu and they are now playing with their names, I’m killing them. And why does this troll remind me of STY and all his/her/its name changes?

  111. #111 :)
    September 12, 2010

    “will probably claim victory”

    no victory claimed…just waiting for tangible fact of Dr. Barrett’s fda drug expertise to materialize.

    still waiting for the facts…and no one can simply address the reality that there is none.

  112. #112 :)
    September 12, 2010

    “Now that the icu troll is just getting annoying”

    in the words of the great Orac: “A STATEMENT OF FACT (Barrett is not an FDA drug expert like he claimed) CANNOT BE INSOLENT.”

    no evidence = opinion

    would be most entertaining (and surprising) if you could actually walk the talk that evidence is needed to support something…just as you ask of alt-meds.

    all hail, Orac…we follow blindly…without proof, we follow faithfully.

  113. #113 :(
    September 12, 2010

    ohhhhhhhmmmmm, yes great Orac. we will obey and attack others on the basis they have no evidence, and when we are asked for evidence and are without, we will avoid the question and look for a way to attack them.

    ohhhhmmmmmmm, oh great Orac, your words are wise in your post and we have obey…our “all too frequent response is to try to shut down criticism.”

  114. #114 :)
    September 12, 2010

    oohhhhhhhhhmmmmmm(quack!)mmmmmmmmmm.

  115. #115 Todd W.
    September 12, 2010

    @icu/icu2/:(

    You implied, though did not outright state, that Dr. Barrett is a quack by quoting this from his web site:

    “Dictionaries define quack as “one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed.”

    Now you have clearly stated:

    Todd, I have not even taken a few correspondence courses, and like Barrett, this does not qualify me as an expert witness. Thankfully.

    So, you have definitely taken a pretentious attitude (see post 257 for an example) and have spoken without sound knowledge of the subject (law, legal definition of what constitutes an expert, case proceedings, etc.) being discussed. By your own cherry picked quote, then, you are a quack. Well done, sir. Well done.

    Furthermore, your quote regarding the judge’s finding of Dr. Barrett’s credibility as an expert witness applies to that particular case only, not to Dr. Barrett in general.

    Likewise, as has been mentioned previously ad nauseam, the judge’s opinion (note, not a fact) is that Dr. Barrett did not qualify as an expert in that particular case, not to Dr. Barrett in general or to him in any other case.

    Even further, no one in this thread has claimed that Dr. Barrett is an expert in FDA expert, so why you harp on that is beyond me.

    Nothing of what you have said has had any bearing on the original article by Orac. You have further failed to show in any substantive manner why any of your comments should be taken seriously, being completely irrelevant and full of ignorance and condescension.

    You initially came in here stating that Dr. Barrett made a false claim in court and was caught. You failed to substantiate this assertion, since whether or not he meets the definition of an expert is an opinion, not an objective fact.

    You then shifted your goalposts to trying to get people to state, one way or another, whether Dr. Barrett was an expert on FDA drug regulation. Quite apart from being only tangentially related to your initial assertion, this also is completely irrelevant to the main article.

    Finally, you seem to be using two different definitions of “expert” interchangeably. You appear to attempt to use the legal definition to show that Dr. Barrett is not an expert in the colloquial sense.

    Now, make an on-topic statement or kindly be silent, you pompous, boor of a misbegotten slug. (Oh, and for the logic-impaired, that’s an insult, not an ad hominem.)

  116. #116 Todd W.
    September 12, 2010

    Oops. “in FDA expert” should be “in FDA drug regulation”.

  117. #117 Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2010

    Sorry for making this thread go on further, but icu, there’s a reason why your posts aren’t going through. It’s not censorship, it’s your habit of making large numbers of similar posts. Try to compose your thoughts and get everything out at once. Otherwise, you look like you are either a) a reckless fool, or b) a tweaker.

  118. #118 DLC
    September 12, 2010

    whoah. go away for a couple weeks and a thread takes off.
    For the dumbass who can’t see me:
    Look stupid, if I say “Orac is not an expert at 11th dimensional physics.” I am not making a statement of fact, but rendering my opinion.

  119. #119 Calli Arcale
    September 12, 2010

    Gray Falcon — quite right. Additionally, assuming that one is banned because one’s posts were caught by the spam-filter is a sign of either extreme naivety about how blogs work, or an inflated opinion of oneself. Or, quite frequently, both.

  120. #120 ...
    September 12, 2010

    todd, “Even further, no one in this thread has claimed that Dr. Barrett is an expert in FDA expert, so why you harp on that is beyond me.” one word…

    credibility = “worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.”

    “Dr. Barrett did not qualify as an expert in that particular case.” Is he upgrading his current credentials of correspondence courses, readings, and some chats with FDA agents? This statement of Barrett’s credentials is not an interpretation or opinion of what he presented to the court as his qualifications. These are Barrett’s own admissions for his qualifications. I don’t think many, if any, federal judges would qualify this as “recent and substantive knowledge and experience.” Do you consider a few conversations with agents, a few correspondence courses, and readings recent and substantive knowledge and experience?

    “Nothing of what you have said has had any bearing on the original article by Orac.”

    sure…the title is about a “defender of science-based medicine.” my post is about the title, not what the crowd is talking about, i.e., is barrett a model defender of SCIENCE-based medicine when he has a) shown himself to have a heightened idea of his FDA drug regulation expertise, and b) been shown to be heavily biased? a true defender of science-based medicine pushes aside bias in the name of truth.

    “You have further failed to show in any substantive manner why any of your comments should be taken seriously, being completely irrelevant and full of ignorance and condescension.” from previous posts to me by your compatriots and yourself…

    – “Something along the line of removing half of your brain so you don’t remember basic high school chemistry.”
    – “Oh, to answer your idiotic question…”
    – “I think I was in second grade when I learned…”
    – “Now go!”
    – “Goofus”
    – “The commenter called icu is a goat.”
    – “a sign of either extreme naivety about how blogs work, or an inflated opinion of oneself. Or, quite frequently, both.”

    ?

    re: “Look stupid, if I say “Orac is not an expert at 11th dimensional physics.” I am not making a statement of fact, but rendering my opinion.”

    Yes, and between your opinion and the fact lies methods of evaluation, a shared set of principle or standards that levels the playing field for all to be assessed by, e.g., AMA and ACLM guidelines for an “expert witness.”

    the only definition i use of “expert” is that defined by the AMA and ACLM.

    still waiting for evidence that he is an expert in fda drug regulations so that i will actually believe that he is a true defender of science-based medicine as is opined in the title, not just in talk, but in the walk. i ask this cuz all of you state that he might be (“it’s only one judge’s opinion”)…so show me why you say this.

    show me evidence to support your position (as you ask those in alt meds and as gray falcon said with tangible facts that you possess (you’ve still not answered whether you have them gray falcon).

    s

  121. #121 ...
    September 13, 2010

    “So, you…have spoken without sound knowledge of the subject (law, legal definition of what constitutes an expert, case proceedings, etc.) being discussed.”

    Actually, to avoid speaking from opinion only, i.e., unsound knowledge, if you’ll recall I used primary sources (AMA and American College of Legal Medicine guidelines) to define what an expert witness was…not my own opinion.

    “You have further failed to show in any substantive manner why any of your comments should be taken seriously, being completely irrelevant and full of ignorance and condescension…” and later you say…” you pompous, boor of a misbegotten slug. (Oh, and for the logic-impaired, that’s an insult.” seems you are not above your own reproach.

    “Nothing of what you have said has had any bearing on the original article by Orac…whether or not [Dr. Barrett] meets the definition of an expert is an opinion, not an objective fact.”

    now the relevance to this post is that the title includes a “defender of SCIENCE-based medicine.” is barrett really a model defender when he has heightened ideas of his own expertise and is found to have been unequivocally biased and not credible?

  122. #122 ...
    September 13, 2010

    to cut down on opinion in that federal case, the judge used easily comprehensible criterion from the AMA and American College of Legal Medicine: “recent and substantive knowledge and expertise in the area of testimony.”

    this is not opinion: dr. barrett’s qualifications are: a few law correspondence courses, a few conversations with fda agents, and readings. these are his own submissions to the court in support of his expertise.

    now, comparing the guidelines and what he submitted, i think every judge will say that a few correspondence courses, readings, and fda agent conversations does not satisfy the definition of recent and substantive knowledge and expertise.

    so you see, DLC, guidelines with a “constrained meaning,” as MI Dawn so aptly put it, help to minimize the influence of opinion in evaluations.

  123. #123 ...
    September 13, 2010

    “Assuming that one is banned because one’s posts were caught by the spam-filter is a sign of either extreme naivety about how blogs work, or an inflated opinion of oneself. Or, quite frequently, both.”

    That’s a whole lot of assumptions…

  124. #124 colmcq
    September 13, 2010

    blah blah, retarded ad-hom dumb guy: who cares if a judge during a trial felt he wasn’t an expert witness; this has no relevance to the factual accuracy or otherwise of Barret’s post about Doctor’s Data.

    Tell me what sentences about Doctor’s Data are flawed, and why.

    Or fuck the fuck off.

  125. #125 Todd W.
    September 13, 2010

    @Mighty Morphin Power Troll

    You still seem to be rather ignorant of what is opinion and what is fact.

    Facts: The qualifications offered in support of the assertion that Dr. Barrett qualifies as an expert witness.

    Opinion: Whether those qualifications meet a definition that is open to interpretation.

    The judge’s findings, once again, are opinion, not objective fact. And, as mentioned before, the judge’s opinions apply only to that particular case, despite your serpentine contortions of logic to claim that they are more generally applicable.

    Your effort, as it has gradually become clear as you slowly allow your reasons to ooze out of the ether, appears to be to show that Dr. Barrett is not a “defender of science-based medicine”. The single tool you use to achieve this goal is your attempt to show that he is not an expert in FDA drug regulation. The judge’s statement on Dr. Barrett’s credibility does not apply, because it is in reference to his credibility as a witness for that particular case (emphasis added since your reading comprehension seemed insufficient to get that from the judge’s opinion). You attempt to use only the evidence presented in that one case to show that, in a general sense, Dr. Barrett does not meet the criteria to be an expert. Since you seem not to have gotten it before, no one here has claimed that Dr. Barrett is currently an expert in FDA regulations and the judge’s (now 9 years old) only applies to that case. For that matter, given the age of the case and the evidence you are using from it, you cannot state that Dr. Barrett is not an expert on FDA drug regulation, since he may well have gained more experience since then.

    More to the point, whether or not he is an expert in FDA drug regulation matters not one jot whether or not he is a defender (model or otherwise) of science-based medicine. One need not be an expert in FDA drug regulation to be a defender of SBM. One simply needs to stand up for SBM and to do one’s best to stick to its tenets of basing medical care on the best science available. This includes showing why quackery is quackery (such as was done with DDI).

    Now, if you want to achieve your goal of showing that Dr. Barrett is not a defender of science-based medicine, you need to show that he does not stand up for and defend science-based medicine. That’s a pretty simple bit of logic that even you might be able to grasp. The FDA expert thing is just a non sequitur.

    No one here is going to bother answering your question because it doesn’t matter, not to mention that you have presented no current evidence to say whether he is or is not.

    As to the insult, well, you are pompous and you are a bit of a boor. Those matters I think the consensus would probably agree on. Whether or not you are also a misbegotten slug is up for debate, though. At any rate, it was simply a matter of personal opinion and really has no bearing on the rest of my post, which was substantive, relevant and a far sight less ignorant than your posts have been.

    Oh, and one last thing:

    Actually, to avoid speaking from opinion only, i.e., unsound knowledge, if you’ll recall I used primary sources (AMA and American College of Legal Medicine guidelines) to define what an expert witness was…not my own opinion.

    Your knowledge is not sound because you do not, by your own admission, possess substantive knowledge of the legal system, in particular the law, including case law, regarding how the definition of expert is to be applied and how to properly weigh the evidence presented. And your application of the definition is most certainly your opinion. Again, by your own cherry picked quote, you are a quack.

  126. #126 Gray Falcon
    September 13, 2010

    – “Something along the line of removing half of your brain so you don’t remember basic high school chemistry.”
    – “Oh, to answer your idiotic question…”
    – “I think I was in second grade when I learned…”
    – “Now go!”
    – “Goofus”
    – “The commenter called icu is a goat.”
    – “a sign of either extreme naivety about how blogs work, or an inflated opinion of oneself. Or, quite frequently, both.”

    The big difference is, these did not form the whole of our arguments. For example, the full text of the second grade on was: “I think I was in second grade when I learned the difference between “fact” and “opinion”. What’s your excuse, icu?”, while the one about the goat was actually a reference to your attempts at proof by repetition. I find it interesting that my accusation that you are a liar and the reference to your “wheedling attempt to feign humility” didn’t make the list.

    On the other hand, your argument consists entirely of trying to smear Barrett’s reputation based on a single statement by a judge pertaining to a single case. Let’s face it, you’re just a petty man with petty goals who obsesses on petty details.

  127. #127 :0)
    September 13, 2010

    Excellent rebuttal…what I expect from this blog, “F the F off.”

    So, Todd W., for an SBMer, it’s odd that you don’t understand the value of citing primary sources. Or perhaps you just forgot that you do. From you in 222, “It might help to post a link to the full, complete court transcript so that we can judge what claims Barrett actually made. You know, primary sources and all that.”

    Barrett “may well have gained more experience since then.” In SBM, we don’t work on may well haves. Again you are above your own reproaches… is it possible for you to show evidence to support your argument for once? (That was rhetorical, cuz I’ve yet to see any to support the “notion” that Barrett is an expert or that gray falcon has tangible facts, i.e., something useful to add)

    “More to the point, whether or not he is an expert in FDA drug regulation matters not one jot whether or not he is a defender (model or otherwise) of science-based medicine. One need not be an expert in FDA drug regulation to be a defender of SBM. One simply needs to stand up for SBM and to do one’s best to stick to its tenets of basing medical care on the best science available.” Right, Todd Woo…and doing so means being and objective and removing bias to find truth, which Barrett has yet to show us he is capable of doing so.

    From US legal as it pertains to Barrett, “Credibility is the quality, capability, or power to elicit belief or a capacity for belief. It may also refer to someone’s reputation for truthfulness. For example, the credibility of a witness may be attacked through questions asked of the witness. Credible means something that is believable or capable of being believed; believable. For example, credible evidence refers to evidence that is worthy of belief or trustworthy.” Hmmm…let’s take a look at Barrett’s credibility (and thank for presenting this source, Todd): “Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman.” What? Barrett wants to testify as an expert witness for the plaintiff and he is a board member of the plaintiff? “…Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff�s position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well.”

    It’s difficult for a leopard to change its spots.

  128. #128 Todd W.
    September 13, 2010

    Good god, you’re thick. Go back and reread my comment and then do try to post something that shows you actually understood what I wrote. Until then, I’m done talking to you. I’d have better fortune convincing a wall that it is a door than convincing you to use that grey matter between your ears to form a logical argument.

    Or, as Congressman Frank so eloquently put it, “talking to you is like talking to a dining room table.”

  129. #129 todd woo
    September 13, 2010

    woo woo

  130. #130 ...
    September 13, 2010

    Todd W.oops

  131. #131 woo
    September 13, 2010

    btw, todd, a judge’s decision on a person expert witness qualifications does not last only for that particular case.

    If the person does not meet the criteria then they cannot be an expert witness until they gain the education, experience and certifications needed.

  132. #132 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 13, 2010

    I think it’s apparent that the morphing troll is attempting to 606 the discussion; that is, behave in such an obnoxious way that all the sane adults will throw up their hands and leave the conversation, at which point he can insincerely claim victory. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work on sane adults who know the tactic.

    The core issue is not whether Dr. Barrett is an expert in “homeopathic medicine” or has been accepted as an expert witness on that subject or on FDA regulation or on any other subject. The core issue is is Doctors’ Data’s conduct scientifically defensible? If it is not, all else is irrelevant. If the morphing troll is not trying to give a scientifically reasonable rationale for performing and reporting laboratory tests for which no reference values exist then all he says is just frantic hand-waving, designed to distract people from the real issue.

  133. #133 squirrelelite
    September 13, 2010

    I have been following this thread for quite a while, but haven’t commented much. Mostly this was due to my involvement in other concerns, but also it was because a dozen or so of my fellow commenters were doing a much better job responding than I had time for.

    I completely agree with Todd W’s comment 325. But, it seemed to me that for the benefit of other patient lurkers and visitors who might wonder what all the arguing is about, I would offer a short summary and try to give a slightly different perspective from Todd’s.

    The original blog post was about Doctor’s Data Inc. (DDI) who provide lab test services for doctors. In one of these tests, a chemical (AKA a chelating agent) is injected into the patient. The chemical binds to mercury in the patient’s body and is excreted in the urine. The addition of this chemical (provoked testing) causes a higher, but gradually decaying, level of mercury in the patient’s urine than is normally present (unprovoked testing). Medical researchers have determined a normal, relatively safe level of mercury in the urine for comparison with unprovoked urine tests so that doctors and their patients can tell if they have too much mercury in their body. However, these comparison values have not been established for provoked urine testing. So, DDI and/or the doctors who send them tests compare the higher levels from a provoked test with the lower standard levels for unprovoked testing and tell the patient, “look, your body has too much mercury. You need chelation therapy.” (See Gray Falcon 286)

    This is misleading and incorrect. Dr Barrett pointed this out on his website Quackwatch.

    DDI did not like that, so one of their lawyers sent Dr Barrett a letter saying “you are posting false information. Take it down or we will sue you”. Dr Barrett (quite rightly IMHO) responded by asking DDI to tell him which statements were incorrect and he would then correct them or delete them. Instead of responding to that request, DDI chose to take him to court.

    For several weeks, the discussion on this thread centered on the attempts by one commenter (Spepp aka Tim Bolen, see comment #194) to discredit Dr Barrett’s credentials as an expert. Several commenters responded by pointing out that the key issue was the validity of the statements about DDI on Quackwatch and the choice of DDI to go to court rather than state what they believed was wrong with those statements.

    After Spepp’s last post 212 on 26 July, things remained relatively quiet until comment 216 on 9 Sept when a “new” commenter, icu (and several other pseudonyms) showed up to fan the embers back into flames.

    The sole thrust of comments by this person (whom I will refer to as Person X) is to attack Dr Barrett’s “Expertise in FDA regulation”.

    Now for the different perspective.

    Depending on how I spin out the explanation this thrust is either an ad hominem fallacy, a tu quoque fallacy or simply a reverse argument from authority. (The classical argument from authority is something like this: Person A is an expert. Person A said statement N. Therefore, statement N is true. But, this is fallacious in science because the truth of scientific statements does not depend on the credentials of the person making the statement. It depends on whether those statements provide a reasonably accurate description of reality as it has been tested and measured and on whether those statements make useful predictions about unknown matters which can be tested and confirmed by others.

    Person X’s version is that Dr Barrett was denied permission to testify as an expert in a court case on homeopathy. Dr Barrett posted statements about DDI. Therfore, those statements are false.

    But, Dr Barrett’s credentials as an expert are irrelevant to the truth of the statements he posts on Quackwatch. If he posts a statment that 2 + 2 = 4, does that automatically become false and he should take it down?

    Chris in comment 252 (and other commenters) have given Person X the same response that Dr Barrett gave to DDI. Identify the statements that are wrong and explain why.

    Person X has refused to do so.

    So, in the spirit of Comment 312, I offer the following:

    Sorry, Person X. Orac’s faithful attack dogs are too well trained to go haring off after your red herring.

    If you are willing to tackle the red squirrel extreme assault course

    and directly address the issue of this blog (i.e. comment 252), perhaps we can continue this discussion to some useful end.

    Until you do so, I and several other commenters will give your statements all the attention they deserve (i.e. NONE).

  134. #134 ...
    September 13, 2010

    barrett’s article on ddi might be 100% correct. i’m not arguing that.

    but his credibility has been marred by his false claims of being an fda drug regulation expert and his inability to be unbiased. a bit of thuggery that, isn’t it?

    anyways, i give up…you guys are too biased to even admit that he’s not a qualified expert witness in fda drug regulation. take care. it was fun.

  135. #135 NJ
    September 13, 2010

    …aaaaand after an absolutely clear explanation of why the “fda drug regulation” things was a red herring, someone comes in and offers up…

    The. Same. Red. Herring.

    At risk of degenerating this thread further into an OT discussion of eugenics, is it at least possible that there are people who are in every literal sense too stupid to live?

  136. #136 Bronze Dog
    September 13, 2010

    but his credibility has been marred by his false claims of being an fda drug regulation expert and his inability to be unbiased.

    In other words, you have absolutely no idea how to determine a person’s credibility.

    Credibility is not something given by a guy with a wooden hammer. Barrett earns credibility by providing good citations for what he rights.

    barrett’s article on ddi might be 100% correct. i’m not arguing that.

    In other words, you’re directly admitting that you don’t care the slightest bit about objectively measuring Barrett’s credibility, just legalistic mumbo-jumbo to justify your dogmatic Authoritarianism.

  137. #137 hawkman
    September 13, 2010

    anyone read Tim Bolen’s latest article “Is Terry Polevoy the Information Source for Doctor ‘ s Data?…” http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor's-Data-v-Barrett/Terry-polevoy-working-with-doctor's-data.htm

    what do you think?

  138. #138 Bronze Dog
    September 13, 2010

    Here’s a hint, icu: The legal procedures about declaring who is or isn’t an expert are about saving time at the cost of some accuracy. If courts had infinite time to determine the truth, they would be conducting scientific experiments and establish a consensus. You’re asking us to believe that one individual’s decision about how to save time carries more objectivity than the patient work of countless scientists across the globe.

    Who would you trust more: One potentially biased individual making a snap decision, or a massive international community devoted to eliminating bias?

    Barrett, by citing scientific articles, rejects the sort of magical capital-A authority you worship: His work is exactly as good as his citations. And yet, you believe that because someone with a wooden hammer argues he’s not an expert, somehow the experimental and observational work that Barrett cited but was not personally involved in is somehow magically tainted by the fact that he cited it years after the results came in.

    Let me guess: Now you’re going to tell me that when it comes time for me to defend my thesis, you’re going to tell me that I shouldn’t bother citing scientific articles to support my methodology. Instead, you’ll tell me that I should just get a judge to declare me an expert and hand a note to my professors.

  139. #139 Vicki
    September 13, 2010

    At the risk of furthering this barrel of crimson fish:

    The thing a scientist can say, which a judge often cannot, is “I don’t know.” A judge can rule broadly or narrowly, but once they take a case, they’re expected to make a ruling. That’s true both of large things (Is this person guilty? Does this company owe damages? Is this law constitutional?) and of the smaller bits that make that up, like who to accept as an expert witness and what to do if an attorney objects to some item of testimony.

  140. #140 Bronze Dog
    September 13, 2010

    Icu expects us to believe that the fundamental truths of the universe are based on whether or not you are Steven Barrett.

  141. #141 T. Bruce McNeely
    September 13, 2010

    icu (and his/her various alter egos)is perseverating.

    This is a symptom of frontal lobe damage associated with major brain injury and some types of dementia. Have pity on the poor slob…then again, don’t.

  142. #142 abc123
    September 13, 2010

    Presumably, the Judge found this person unqualified based on OBJECTIVE standards. This would be based on professional credentials and experience. It’s like any ruling a Judge might make. Most issues are not black and white but in the matter of qualification of an expert, probably 95% of Judges would rule the same way. Big case on that is DAUBERT. Just google it. That case stands for proposition that an expert must be recognized as such by peers. Cannot just be self-proclaimed expert. So yes, another Judge might rule differently but if one party wants to use a particular “expert”, the burden is on the opposing party to show lack of qualification. In other words, benefit of doubt goes to the party seeking qualification of the expert. Therefore, if an “expert” is found disqualified, there is probably a strong reason for that and other Judges likely to agree.

  143. #143 Bronze Dog
    September 13, 2010

    Therefore, if an “expert” is found disqualified, there is probably a strong reason for that and other Judges likely to agree.

    And thus the question becomes “what is that strong reason?”

    As for the other judges… Why would they be allegedly likely to agree?

    Icu’s not exactly forthcoming with answers for why he’s deliberately beating around the bush with legal technicalities instead of coming out and explaining whatever the hell he thinks is wrong with Barrett’s statements.

  144. #144 icu
    September 13, 2010

    “As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency enforces federal statutes and the agency’s own regulations. Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address.”

  145. #145 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 13, 2010

    Big case on that is DAUBERT. Just google it.

    Funny you should mention that, morphing troll. Daubert happens to be the case which established “the Daubert standard” (just Google it.) Judge Frumholz declined to accept Dr. Barrett as an expert witness in part because he had “no formal training in homeopathic medicine.” But homeopathic “medicine” itself does not meet the Daubert standard. What kind of judge would consider an expert witness more qualified because he has training in a subject that cannot itself be accepted in court? What’s next, declining an expert witness because he doesn’t have training in phrenology?

    Not that this is relevant to the core issue of the case, namely that Doctors’ Data has been taking money to perform tests which have no scientific value. The morphing troll merely wants to distract everyone from that.

  146. #146 icu
    September 13, 2010

    nothing about homeopathy in these sentences:

    “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.”

    “Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years.”

  147. #147 abc123
    September 13, 2010

    Did anyone read Tim Bolen’s latest article “Is Terry Polevoy the Information Source for Doctor ‘ s Data?…” http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor's-Data-v-Barrett/Terry-polevoy-working-with-doctor's-data.htm

    What do you think?

  148. #148 abc123
    September 13, 2010

    Did anyone read Tim Bolen’s latest article “Is Terry Polevoy the Information Source for Doctor ‘ s Data?…” http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor's-Data-v-Barrett/Terry-polevoy-working-with-doctor's-data.htm

    What do you think?

  149. #149 Composer99
    September 13, 2010

    Is it just me or is icu taking tips from augustine’s playbook and ramping them up on overdrive?

    In fact, I would go so far as to suggest sock puppetry is going on here (and not just icu’s mutable id).

  150. #150 Chris
    September 13, 2010

    I don’t know Composer99. I check the old article Orac linked to, and the person I think he was referring to was banned (though he has recently become divorced and lost custody of his child, so the crazy might be accelerated).

    I sometimes think it might be STY, about to ramp up his big reveal in a couple of months of his definitive proof.

    But there are lots of other candidates for the identity of this troll.

  151. #151 curious citizen
    September 14, 2010

    lol. “troll” for you guys = anyone with a different opinion to yours.

    and because my opinion differs, you start your conspiracy hypotheses about who i am…i’m not bolen and i’m not using “augustine’s playbook.” though since i’ve started commenting, i’ve come to learn who these people are thanks to you all.

    i’m just a person who wants to know how it’s “thuggery” being dispatched upon barrett when he is guilty of doing the very things that he accuses others (alt meds) of, i.e., making false claims (claimed he was an expert witness of FDA drug regulations) and being biased and not objective about his position (wanted to testify as an expert witness for the plaintiff while he was a board member of the plaintiff).

    if you want to truly be science-based and defend SBM, should you yourself not make false claims and be free from bias?

  152. #152 i'll take the blue pill
    September 14, 2010

    lol. “troll” for you guys = anyone with a different opinion to yours.

    and because my opinion differs, you start your conspiracy hypotheses about who i am…i’m not bolen and i’m not using “augustine’s playbook.” though since i’ve started commenting, i’ve come to learn who these people are thanks to you all.

    i’m just a person who wants to know how it’s “thuggery” being dispatched upon barrett when he is guilty of doing the very things that he accuses others (alt meds) of, i.e., making false claims (claimed he was an expert witness of FDA drug regulations) and being biased and not objective about his position (wanted to testify as an expert witness for the plaintiff while he was a board member of the plaintiff).

    if you want to truly be science-based and defend SBM, should you yourself not make false claims and be free from bias?

  153. #153 icu
    September 14, 2010

    hi gray falcon.

  154. #154 Chris
    September 14, 2010

    Of course, this morphing troll could also be one of those autistic folks who were taught by their mothers to hate themselves. This one seems to be persevering.

  155. #155 and it just keeps coming...
    September 14, 2010

    nice, chris, bringing the autistic into your slurs.

  156. #156 Orc
    September 14, 2010

    Orac: “That PLoS ONE actually published this tripe shows me that, for all its claims of being scientifically rigorous…”

    and for all of Barrett’s claims of being scientifically rigorous, i.e., unbiased and with substantive knowledge and experience as agreed upon by professional peers (not people on a blog)?

    (remember: “Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent…Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated.”)

  157. #157 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 16, 2010

    and for all of Barrett’s claims of being scientifically rigorous, i.e., unbiased and with substantive knowledge and experience as agreed upon by professional peers (not people on a blog)?

    GOOFUS thinks that “scientifically rigorous” is an adjectival phrase applied to a person, which denotes primarily how that person is regarded by their peers.

    GALLANT knows that “scientific rigor” is a quality that applies to actions, not to the people who take those actions. Gallant understands that it is a classic case of the ad hominem fallacy to claim that someone’s work lacks scientific rigor because he supposedly lacks sufficient reputation among his peers.

    i’m just a person who wants to know how it’s “thuggery” being dispatched upon barrett

    GOOFUS uses the old “just asking questions” gambit and demands explanations for things that pretty much explain themselves.

    GALLANT Reads The Fine Article and discovers that Doctors’ Data, which supposedly wants Dr. Barrett to retract certain “untruthful” statements, will not take the most obvious step that would be taken by any company which actually wanted a retraction of untruthful statements — namely, identifying the statements in question and explaining why they’re incorrect — and is instead only taking steps that seem designed to punish and intimidate. Gallant has no trouble making the connection between this thuggish behavior and the word “thuggery.”

    when he is guilty of doing the very things that he accuses others (alt meds) of, i.e., making false claims

    GOOFUS commits a two-for-one fallacy; first, committing the tu quoque fallacy by suggesting it’s okay to do bad things to Barrett as long as the facts can be twisted to make it look like Barrett did bad things first; second, returning to the long-debunked argument that, if any judge has ever declined to accept Barrett in any case as an expert witness, Barrett is making “false claims” to being an expert. As already pointed out, this argument depends absolutely on the false premise “All people who are experts to any degree will be accepted by all judges in all cases in all courts as expert witnesses”, a premise which Goofus was unable to defend, instead nonsensically trying to construct a syllogism out of the same claim said three different ways.

    GALLANT thinks it might be easier to teach a pig to sing opera than to get GOOFUS to stick to facts and logic.

  158. #158 antie feldspar
    September 16, 2010

    “supposedly lacks sufficient reputation among his peers”

    your insistence that it’s “supposed” is heartwarming.

    Anyways, what do you think of Tim Bolen’s latest article “Is Terry Polevoy the Information Source for Doctor’ s Data?” http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor's-Data-v-Barrett/Terry-polevoy-working-with-doctor's-data.htm

  159. #159 auntie feldsparkle
    September 16, 2010

    your argument wouldn’t hold up in court either. yes, i know, it’s just one opinion.

  160. #160 aunty feldsparkle
    September 16, 2010

    regarding DDI, what you think of Tim Bolen’s latest article “Is Terry Polevoy the Information Source for Doctor ‘ s Data?…” http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor's-Data-v-Barrett/Terry-polevoy-working-with-doctor's-data.htm

  161. #161 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 30, 2010

    I think it’s a very transparent attempt by Mr. Bolen to divert attention away from the true issue, which is that Doctor’s Data takes money to provide “test results” that have no actual scientific value. That’s of course the same thing you’ve been doing here, trying to divert attention from the real issue. Not once have you dared to try to defend Doctor’s Data’s “provoked urine tests,” because of course they are indefensible.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.