From: Jan Drew on

"Mark Thorson" <nospam(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446A29D4.FE24D9B3(a)sonic.net...
> 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.

Well, he certainly should know how to figure it out..


From: Jan Drew on

"Mark Thorson" <nospam(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446A29D4.FE24D9B3(a)sonic.net...
> 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.

LOL!!!

Just look who is talking.....

That would be anything like without any basis.would it....HYPOCRITE?!?!

Quoting: From Mark Thorson......

During the last several years, I have from time to time posted to this and
other newsgroups a file of information called "An Anatoxin-a Primer." I now
retract the statements made in the Anatoxin-a Primer.

The Anatoxin-a Primer implied that Super Blue Green Algae from Klamath Lake,
produced by Cell Tech, contains anatoxin-a (a neurotoxin I characterized as
addictive), and that Cell Tech deliberately avoids testing for this toxin
because anatoxin-a is responsible for the effects reported by SBGA users. I
have since been advised that Cell Tech conducts regular tests that would
disclose anatoxin-a, and that this toxin has never been found in Super Blue
Green Algae. I had no basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a
Primer, and I hereby retract it in full.


From: Hyderman DC on
Jan:

What started out as a discussion of Chiropractic from various points of view
has degenerated into name-calling. I am not suggesting you started anything
here, but it would appear you would be very interested in finishing it.
People say unkind things and even tell fibs. Get over it. You are not doing
this discuusion any good whatsoever.
As for myself, I respect someone's point of view that Stephen Barrett is an
authoritative voice on Chiropractic. I personally disagree with that point
of view absolutely, but I choose just to leave it at that.

Your entry into the discussion has basically enhanced its denigration into
name-calling.

Stuart Hyderman DC


"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:21qag.71519$_S7.1301(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "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
>


From: Mark Thorson on
Jan Drew wrote:
>
> "Mark Thorson" <nospam(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:446A249C.436CC240(a)sonic.net...
> >
> > 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.
>
> That is a BLATANT LIE.
>
> He has been discredited!
>
>
> 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.

That is only relevant to appearance in court as
an expert witness specifically on the topic
of homeopathic "drugs". It certainly does not
speak to his credibility in general, and in no
sense is it support for the idea that he is
"discredited".

If that's the best evidence you can muster,
it demonstrates you have no evidence at all.

The essays on Dr. Barrett's web site are all
well-reasoned, and he provides the background
for his reasoning. He doesn't make unfounded
smearing attacks, unlike the anonymous Boom King.
From: Happy Dog on
"The Boom King" <Boom!@spamsux.com>
>> Whatever. When did chiropractors start being able to explain the
>> mechanism by which spinal manipulation resolves non-musculo-skeletal
>> pathology?
>
> They haven't. It doesn't.

So it isn't claimed that anything but sore backs and necks are affected? No
claims that, for instance, the immune system is "strengthened" by spinal
manipulation?
>
>
>>Why can't a group of chiropractors reliably come up with the same
>>diagnosis of subluxation?
>>
> Some groups can. Depends on the skill of the DCs involved.

Details of the studies where they've done this? And why are all the rest so
incompetent?

m