From: The Boom King on

"Mark Thorson" <nospam(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44691961.AEA3BB09(a)sonic.net...
> The Boom King wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> > One may as well ask the magician what's that
>> > lump up his sleeve.
>>
>> Yes, quite right. Good analogy. To someone who doesn't know what
>> they're talking about and is ignorant of the anatomy and physiology,
>> chiropractic looks like magic. But, if you ask the magician to show you
>> how its done and explain it, you're usually surprised at how simple and
>> logical it is. I have occasionally heard the word "miracle" come out
>> of my patients mouths and been quick to assure them that their own body
>> is doing the real work, not me.
>
> If "subluxations" really exist (as a phenomenon
> external to the mind of the chiropractor), how
> come different chiropractors will find those
> subluxations in different places in the same
> patient? The lack of constancy of diagnosis
> among chiropractors shows that it is an imagined,
> delusional phenomenon.
>
> Quoting from: <snip "story">

Interesting that you're quite willing to post a "story" by some discredited
crank whose biased agenda is smearing chiropractic. If one were to consider
this nonsense as having any value, wouldn't you go out and gather the
MILLIONS of stories of people who have had great experiences with
chiroparctors, or ask a Doctor of Chiropractic to relate all of his personal
success stories? When asked to validate the methods and philosophy of
chiropractic, our profession routinely has any data that isn't gathered in
the strictist scientific format discounted by "skeptics". Yet you are
posting obviously biased stories as if they have some sort of relevance to
the discussion. Would you have accepted a handful of my many stories that
have proven that chiropractic works to me as evidence?

I'm trying to figure out who was the intial Troll that got this thread
started, and right now my money's on you or the "skeptic" guy.


--
Boom...


From: Mark Thorson on
The Boom King wrote:
>
> "Mark Thorson" <nospam(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:44691961.AEA3BB09(a)sonic.net...
> >
> > If "subluxations" really exist (as a phenomenon
> > external to the mind of the chiropractor), how
> > come different chiropractors will find those
> > subluxations in different places in the same
> > patient? The lack of constancy of diagnosis
> > among chiropractors shows that it is an imagined,
> > delusional phenomenon.
>
> Interesting that you're quite willing to post a "story" by some
> discredited crank whose biased agenda is smearing chiropractic.

No, smearing is what you do -- making derisive comments
about somebody without backing up your statements
with fact. He's neither discredited nor a quack,
and certainly not because you say so. The information
he provides on his web site include his sources of
information. He doesn't just make accusations without
foundation -- he backs up what he says with information
so people can see the facts and logic behind his
conclusions. That's why many chiropractors (and
alternative practitioners generally) hate him so much.
His web site is effective and convincing. The only
defense people like you have against that is the smear
campaign -- exactly what you have been engaging in
when you make your unsupported, derisive comments.
From: Jan Drew on

"The Boom King" <Boom!@boom.boom> wrote in message
news:wHnag.49128$MM6.4535(a)bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Mark Thorson" <nospam(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:44691961.AEA3BB09(a)sonic.net...
>> The Boom King wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>
>>> > One may as well ask the magician what's that
>>> > lump up his sleeve.
>>>
>>> Yes, quite right. Good analogy. To someone who doesn't know what
>>> they're talking about and is ignorant of the anatomy and physiology,
>>> chiropractic looks like magic. But, if you ask the magician to show you
>>> how its done and explain it, you're usually surprised at how simple and
>>> logical it is. I have occasionally heard the word "miracle" come out
>>> of my patients mouths and been quick to assure them that their own body
>>> is doing the real work, not me.
>>
>> If "subluxations" really exist (as a phenomenon
>> external to the mind of the chiropractor), how
>> come different chiropractors will find those
>> subluxations in different places in the same
>> patient? The lack of constancy of diagnosis
>> among chiropractors shows that it is an imagined,
>> delusional phenomenon.
>>
>> Quoting from: <snip "story">
>
> Interesting that you're quite willing to post a "story" by some
> discredited crank whose biased agenda is smearing chiropractic. If one
> were to consider this nonsense as having any value, wouldn't you go out
> and gather the MILLIONS of stories of people who have had great
> experiences with chiroparctors, or ask a Doctor of Chiropractic to relate
> all of his personal success stories? When asked to validate the methods
> and philosophy of chiropractic, our profession routinely has any data that
> isn't gathered in the strictist scientific format discounted by
> "skeptics". Yet you are posting obviously biased stories as if they have
> some sort of relevance to the discussion. Would you have accepted a
> handful of my many stories that have proven that chiropractic works to me
> as evidence?
>
> I'm trying to figure out who was the intial Troll that got this thread
> started, and right now my money's on you or the "skeptic" guy.
>
>
> --
> Boom...

OrgName: Bell Canada
OrgID: LINX
Address:
City: toronto
StateProv: ON
PostalCode: K1G-3J4
Country: CA


Paul Nkui 23 messages total.


From: Mark Thorson on
Jan Drew wrote:
>
> "The Boom King" <Boom!@boom.boom> wrote in message
> news:wHnag.49128$MM6.4535(a)bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out who was the intial Troll that got this thread
> > started, and right now my money's on you or the "skeptic" guy.
>
> OrgName: Bell Canada
> OrgID: LINX
> Address:
> City: toronto
> StateProv: ON
> PostalCode: K1G-3J4
> Country: CA
>
> Paul Nkui 23 messages total.

Thus showing the the anonymous "Boom King"
makes accusations without foundation.
From: Jan Drew on

"Mark Thorson" <nospam(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446A249C.436CC240(a)sonic.net...

alt.test in the newsgroup box..as Mark Thorson is a LIAR and uses CHEAP
TRICKS.

BEWARE!!
Mark Thorson makes libellous statements and then retracts same when faced
with law suits.Being a slow learner he will always do this until he converts
to Falun Dafa. Rod

> The Boom King wrote:
>>
>> "Mark Thorson" <nospam(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:44691961.AEA3BB09(a)sonic.net...
>> >
>> > If "subluxations" really exist (as a phenomenon
>> > external to the mind of the chiropractor), how
>> > come different chiropractors will find those
>> > subluxations in different places in the same
>> > patient? The lack of constancy of diagnosis
>> > among chiropractors shows that it is an imagined,
>> > delusional phenomenon.
>>
>> Interesting that you're quite willing to post a "story" by some
>> discredited crank whose biased agenda is smearing chiropractic.
>
> No, smearing is what you do -- making derisive comments
> about somebody without backing up your statements
> with fact. He's neither discredited nor a quack,

That is a BLATANT LIE.

He has been discredited!

http://www.talkinternational.com/legal_barrett_baratz_king_bio_pharma...

[may no longer be available, nevertheless, court case on file]

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.


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. 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. Sampson's university course presents
what
is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. 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. 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





> and certainly not because you say so. The information
> he provides on his web site include his sources of
> information. He doesn't just make accusations without
> foundation -- he backs up what he says with information
> so people can see the facts and logic behind his
> conclusions.
That's why many chiropractors (and
> alternative practitioners generally) hate him so much.
> His web site is effective and convincing. The only
> defense people like you have against that is the smear
> campaign -- exactly what you have been engaging in
> when you make your unsupported, derisive comments.

Now for the *truth.*


Date: October 13, 2005



Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania



Court Case: Stephen Barrett, M.D. vs. Tedd Koren, D.C. and Koren
Publications, Inc.

Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the
State of Pennsylvania

Court Case No.: 2002-C-1837



Contact: Carlos F. Negrete, Esq.

LAW OFFICES OF CARLOS F. NEGRETE

San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

Phone: 949.493.8115

Fax 949.493.8170

email:
mediarelations(a)healthfreedomlaw.com


mediarelations(a)negretelaw.com

URL:
www.healthfreedomlaw.com


www.negretelaw.com



Dr. Tedd Koren, DC.

Phone: 800.537.3001


267.498.0071

Fax:
267.498.0078

email:
tkoren(a)korenpublications.com

URL:
www.korenpublications.com


www.foundationforhealthchoice.com



Subject: Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett loses Major
Defamation trial in Hometown


In a stunning development, Lehigh Valley Pennsylvania
Judge J. Brian Johnson on Thursday, October 13, 2005, tossed out
nationally known self-proclaimed "consumer medical advocate" Stephen
Barrett's defamation lawsuit just minutes before it was going to be
considered by a local jury.

The lawsuit, filed in August 2002, against also nationally
known Pennsylvania chiropractor, lecturer, researcher and publisher,
Dr. Tedd Koren sought unspecified damages against Koren and his
company, Koren Publications, Inc. for statements that he wrote in his
newsletter in 2001 about Barrett. Barrett, a long-time nemesis of
chiropractic, filed the lawsuit because of Koren's publication that
Barrett was "de-licensed" and "in trouble because of a $10 million
lawsuit" and because Barrett was called a "Quackpot." In his defense,
Koren contended that the statements were true and not defamatory and
that he had a First Amendment right to write them in his newsletter.

Thursday's ruling by Judge Johnson represented a major
reversal of the finding of an arbitration in August 2004 wherein a
panel of three local private attorneys reviewing the case had found in
favor of Barrett and awarded Barrett $16,500 in damages and that Koren
should publish a retraction. That award was appealed by Koren.

Dr. Koren was represented by well-known health freedom San
Juan Capistrano, California, attorney Carlos F. Negrete for trial and
Washington, D.C. attorney James Turner of Swankin & Turner. Easton,
Pennsylvania attorney Christopher Reid of Laub, Seidel, Cohen, Hof &
Reid served as local counsel for the team and was co-counsel for the
trial along with Negrete. Turner and Negrete have been well known for
their representation of clients in the health food, supplement and
vitamin industries as well as representing naturopaths, nurses,
dentists, physicians, chiropractors and complimentary therapists
across the country. Turner's experience dates back the 1960s when he
joined consumer advocate Ralph Nader and was one of the groundbreaking
Nader's Raiders that made consumer advocacy popular and brought about
significant changes in manufacturing and consumer protection.

In making the ruling to throw out the case, Judge Johnson
granted a rare directed verdict to the jury finding there was
insufficient evidence to support Barrett's claims. Judge Johnson
indicated that this case was one of those "rare times" where such a
motion was appropriate.

Barrett operates the web site www.quackwatch.org ,
www.chirobase.org and 20 other web sites and has been a long time
critic of chiropractic calling much of it "quackery." The victory to
chiropractor Koren comes almost 18 years to the date that
chiropractors received national attention with their victory against
the American Medical Association (AMA) by obtaining an injunction
against the AMA from an Illinois federal judge for engaging in illegal
boycotting of doctors chiropractic in Wilk et al vs. AMA. Barrett
had been an outspoken supporter of the AMA at the same time that Koren
had been a vocal advocate that the AMA has, in recent years, violated
the spirit of the federal judge's order.

After the ruling, Koren proclaimed that: "I am overjoyed
and enthusiastic that this nightmare is over and that the science, art
and philosophy of chiropractic and the work of all of my colleagues
have been vindicated." "This case took a toll on my life and family,
but I knew that I was right in publishing the truth." "Dr. Barrett
has no right to misinform the public about chiropractic and other
natural healing arts or to try to silence anyone who criticizes him or
tell consumers that he is not what he purports to be." "I believe
that it is not right to be silent when there is a duty to inform the
public and let the truth be told."

For years, Barrett has touted himself as a "medical
expert" on "quackery" in healthcare and has assisted in dozens of
court cases as an expert. He also was called upon by the FDA, FTC and
other governmental agencies for his purported expertise. He was the
subject of many magazine interviews, including Time Magazine and
featured on television interviews on ABC's 20/20, NBC's Today Show and
PBS. He has gained media fame by his outspoken vocal disgust and
impatience over natural or non-medical healthcare, including his
criticisms of two time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling.

Dr. Tedd Koren is known for his writings and lectures on
chiropractic science, research, philosophy, and chiropractic patient
adjusting. He is known for his Koren Publications chiropractic
patient education brochures, posters, booklets, books and other
products that are used in chiropractors' offices throughout the United
States and around the world. Dr. Koren also co-founded a
chiropractic college, is on the extension faculty of two chiropractic
colleges, is published in chiropractic and bio-medical journals and
has received numerous awards in his field. His web sites include
www.korenpublications.com and www.teddkorenseminars.com

In his 2001 newsletter, Koren published articles that
revealed that even though he touted himself as a medical expert,
Barrett had not been a licensed physician since the early 1990s. He
also published that Barrett had been the subject of a $10 million
racketeering lawsuit [that had been withdrawn] and called him a
"quackpot" for the contradiction of his website and lack of
credentials.

Koren's trial attorney, Carlos F. Negrete of San Juan
Capistrano, California, is known for his defense of physicians,
chiropractors, dentists, clinics and natural heath providers who
practice what is known as complimentary & alternative medicine and
holistic healthcare. Negrete has also handled groundbreaking cases
against HMOs in California and has represented many celebrities and
politicians.



At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete,
Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified
psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. This was
a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed "expert
testimony" as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court
cases. Barrett also had said that he was a "legal expert" even though
he had no formal legal training.

The most damming testimony before the jury, under the
intense cross-examination by Negrete, was that Barrett had filed
similar defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the
country within the past few years and had not won one single one at
trial. During the course of his examination, Barrett also had to
concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food &
Drug Administration (FDA).

This was not the first time that Negrete was a trial
attorney in a Barrett case. He also represented anti-fluoridation
advocate Darlene Sherrell in a federal lawsuit filed in Eugene, Oregon
by Barrett. Barrett also lost in trial of that case. Negrete also
represented Robert King of King Bio Natural Medicine of North Carolina
and MediaPower (manufacturers of CalMax and Nu-Zymes) of Maine in
cases filed by an organization led by Barrett, which were lost by
Barrett's organization. Barrett has also filed a lawsuit against
Negrete and his client Dr. Hulda Clark (author of The Cure for All
Diseases and The Cure for All Cancers) , which is now pending and
awaiting trial in San Diego, California federal court.

After the Koren trial, Negrete stated: "The de-bunker has
been de-bunked. I am pleased and satisfied with this outcome for Dr.
Koren and am proud that Dr. Koren did not succumb to the pressures of
the intimidation of Barrett's legal wrangling." "Not everyone can
stand up to someone as well known as Barrett."

Negrete continued, "It is another great day for health
freedom and alternative healthcare around the world. I am especially
pleased that this most important victory was in Barrett's own
hometown. It just goes to show you that there is justice anywhere,
even when you are a visitor challenging the home team. Barrett is a
shill for the medical and pharmaceutical cartels and his bully tactics
and unjustified discrediting of leading innovators, scientists and
health practitioners should not be tolerated."

Negrete said, "You can be assured that our legal team will
be wherever health freedom advocates and practitioners are being
persecuted. The tide is now turning and people are no long accepting
that synthetic drugs are the only form of treatment are the only way
to address health concerns. Every day, consumers are becoming more
educated about the benefits of holistic and alternative methods. This
is something that the medical establishment obviously fears and wants
to crush with false propaganda."

Koren said that he would now go back to his home in
Pennsylvania to spend more time with his family and continue to write,
research, and lecture on topics concerning chiropractic and healthcare
and the experiences he has gained from this precedent setting legal
battle. He plans to give new lectures to chiropractors across the
country that are under attack or have been subjected to governmental
actions. He also announced that he is forming a new organization
aimed at informing and assisting chiropractors across the country.

The trial started on Monday, October 10, 2005 and ended on
October 13, 2005 Barrett was represented by local Allentown
attorney, Richard Orloski.

===

http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/articles/p182.htm#quack