Thank you Myrl Jeffcoat!!! The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)
in [MCS]
|
Prev: Thank you Myrl Jeffcoat!!! The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)
Next: Thank you Myrl Jeffcoat!!! The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 2)
From: Myrl on 15 Apr 2008 14:22 Wow Ilena - You are really bouncing off the walls today. Of all the things that have been presented on newsgroups, one of the things that I haven't commented much about, has been MCS. Why you ask? - It's because I don't know enough about it to comment on it. I'm actually fairly open to a number of views about it, and haven't invested intellectually one way or another! Yes Ilena - I know that in your adnauseum attempts to align me with Barrett, Polevoy and others, you have been willing to step nearly off the cliff, a number of times. And, as I have said repeatedly, I don't agree with all of Polevoy, and Barrett's targets, but I agree with many of them. For certain, I am very grateful there are those out there that will attempt to weed out charlatans and quacks in the health industry. As a health consumer, I continue to wish the FDA would do more to protect the public from harmful and dangerous medical devices and medications. I wish there was some oversight and regulation of regimines in the alternative field. I fully recongnize that as a health consumer, there is a turf war between conventional and alternative medicine for our health care dollars! I see your disruption on newsgroups, and elsewhere on the internet, as nothing more than a distraction, and a disruption for dialogue to seek out the truth! And it is absolutely true that I like Barrett, Polevoy and many others, more than I like you! I won't apologize for that! On Apr 15, 11:02 am, Ilena Rose <B...(a)mundo.com> wrote: > Thanks to Myrl Jeffcoat for her usual confusion ... she attributes > this article to me, but I didn't write it. I will post it here thanks > to Myrl! > > www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.htmlwww.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm > > http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/ > > The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1) > > Never board certified in anything, his experience as a physician ended > with his 1958 internship. Yet, he proclaimed himself an expert in > medicine, nutrition, & law, as well as having declared himself the > media. He has belonged to private interest groups whose names > deceptively sound like government agencies, and he has been neither a > medical technologist, nor a cytopathologist, nor a biochemist, nor a > vaccinologist, nor a researcher, nor a forensic scientist, nor a ... > > January 16, 2007 > The Clone of a Salem Witch Hunter > > In the Year 2001, a retired > psychiatrist stated: "Today, > I am the media." He repeat- > edly presented himself as an > expert in medicine, nutrition, > and law, while having zero > experience as a practicing > physician, zero training in > nutrition, and zero bar as- > sociation membership. > > At the principle website that he operates, he is described > as a "medical communications expert" of national renown. > He even presented himself as a master in spiritual direction, > in book form. Representations of Stephen Barrett insinuate > that he alone can suffice as the voice of medicine. In fact, > representations of him make it sound as if, during any given > election, he should run for God. However, the factual score- > card on Barrett differs drastically from the representations > made of him. > > Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, > Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification > > [1] Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board-certified in > anything, at any time in his life. He has never been > able to speak with the authority of a board-certified > medical expert. > > [2] Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point > of a practitioner in any type of internal or dermatolog- > ical medicine. In fact, Stephen Barrett has not served > in the capacity of a physician since the end of his rotat- > ing internship days. Those days ended over 48 years > ago, in 1958. > > The "MD" affixed to his name simply means that he > graduated from a medical school. He did do that. > But, he did it over forty-nine years ago, in 1957. > > [3] Moreover, Stephen Barrett has never been a research- > er in any capacity; neither at the clinical level nor at the > murine test level. He has been neither a toxicologist, > nor a vaccinologist, nor a neurologist, nor a biochemist, > nor an immunologist, nor any type of medical technolo- > gist, nor a pharmacologist. This means that he has never > been able to speak from the vantage point of a research > colleague. That is to say, if Stephen Barrett had been > seen in a lab coat after 1958, it was during Halloween. > > [4] And Stephen Barrett has zero inventions/patents to his > name. Therefore, he has never been able to speak > from the vantage point of a medical innovator, either. > > [5] Furthermore, there is no evidence that Stephen Barrett > is a firsthand witness to illness on either side of the > coin; neither as a practicing physician nor as a patient. > That is to say, he has no known history of severe med- > ical impairment. By all appearances, he is not able to > offer any insight on what it is to intimately know intense > physical suffering in the first person singular. And his > callousness indicates this. > > [6] And as far as concerns Stephen Barrett being advertised > as a "medical communications expert," his curriculum > vitae indicates that he: > > - never managed disaster relief efforts, > - never developed medical software programs, > - never oversaw ambulance dispatch operations, > - never managed the allocation of medical supplies, > - never networked hospital communication systems, > - never transmitted emergency medical instructions to sea, > - never networked pharmaceutical communication systems, > - never translated medical literature into foreign languages. > > So where is the medical communicating that Stephen Barrett > is supposed to do so expertly ? > > Stephen Barrett's Allegation of Being a Legal Expert > > It was in a 21st Century California court where Barrett > presented himself as an expert in FDA regulatory law. It > concerned a case that he himself instigated, under the name > of a 501c non-profit organization of which he was/is a mem- > ber and even an officer. > > Barrett saw to the filing of the lawsuit (under the corporate > name), and then he hired himself as an expert witness, de- > spite the blatant conflict of interest. He then expected > money to be transferred from the 501c non-profit group's > bank account to his own personal account, in the form > of a fee payment. > > Needless to say, Stephen Barrett never worked for, with, > over, under, or besides the FDA. And the presiding judge > stated: > > "the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient > qualifications in this area." > > "He has never testified before any governmental > panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation > of drugs." > > "Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony > with respect to any of the issues associated with > Defendant's products." > > Furthermore, the judge stated that Stephen Barrett's > testimony should be "accorded little, if any, credibility." > > In the end, the 501c private corporation of which Barrett > is a member lost the case. It was ordered to pay the de- > fendant's attorney fees. And as an added note, he claimed > himself to be a 21st Century legal expert in FDA regula- > tory matters, because he completed one and a half years > of correspondence law school in 1963; and because he > had several conversations with FDA personnel, as well as > some sort of continuing education classes that he had not > attended in eight years prior to the judgment. > > Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits. Each one is an > article of its own. He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or > conspiracy. One report attached Barrett to a multiplicity > of lawsuits filed against forty defendants. And his most re- > cent courtroom loss is dated October 2005, in the Court > of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of Penn- > sylvania. In that court case, Barrett once again claimed that > he was a legal expert. > > Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own > name. And he also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as > well as in Pennsylvania -- also filed under his own name. > > In summary, Stephen Barrett was never the member of any > bar association. He never represented himself as his own > attorney in any of his many lawsuits. He was never a dis- > trict magistrate, and he was not a clerk of court. Yet, he > has formally claimed that he is a legal expert. Barrett did > have court appearances as an expert witness in criminal and > parole cases, but only in the capacity of a psychiatrist who > was never board certified. One such venue was the juve- > nile court system in San Francisco during the 1960s. > > Barrett's Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert > > As far as concerns his allegations of being a nutritional expert, > it was during the 1990s when he once testified against a nutri- > tionist who carried a number of credentials, including that > of a certification. This was at a hearing of the American > Dietetic Association. Barrett was only a non-trained and > honorary member of that association, yet he was presented > as one of its two expert witnesses. As a result of that hear- > ing, the lady against whom Barrett testified lost her registered > dietician credentials. Her reputation suffered harm, and her > future earnings potential was compromised. > > The woman then sued the association who presented Barrett > as a nutritional expert. And it was during a cross-examination > when Barrett finally conceded that he was not a nutritional > expert, being that had no training in the subject. He said that > he was an expert in "consumer strategy," instead. As a result, > the woman against whom Barrett testified had her credentials > restored in full. Notification of this was published in the cou- > rier & journal of the American Dietetic Association. The > woman also received an undisclosed settlement. > > A Sample of Stephen Barrett's Mode of Communication > > Stephen Barrett co-authored a book with a publicly known de- > frauder whose now-defunct paper review company, in providing > health reports to State Farm Insurance adjustors, was de- > clared "a completely bogus operation" by an Oregon judge. > > Concerning Barrett's fraudulent co-author, it was the NBC > television network who reported him as the ratifier of fraud- > ulent health reports. He is a Dr. Ronald Gots, founder of a > company named Medical Claims Review Services. That > company went out of business in 1995. > > The NBC television network obtained 79 of the reports that > Gots' paper review company provided for State Farm's ad- > justors. And ever-so-coincidentally, 100% of those 79 > reports favored State Farm over every auto accident claim- > ant profiled in those reports. > > The irony to this is that Stephen Barrett heralds himself as > an exposer of health fraud, as well as a defender of mankind > from persons committing health fraud. Yet, he elected to > have his name placed in print next to a notorious defrauder. > > For further information on this matter, see: > > The Paper Chase: A 15 month NBC Dateline Investigation > > The Barrett/Gots Book, itself > > The Barrett/Gots book is titled, "Chemical Sensitivity: The > Truth About Environmental Illness." Needless to say, the > book is a vehement denial of the valid existence of Chem- > ical Sensitivity. However, Chemical Sensitivity comes in > many case-specific and medically acknowledged forms; in > forms such as: > > > > > Red Cedar > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |