Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

NCAHF Posts Names of 2,500 Physicians on Quack List

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ilena Rose - 03 Aug 2005 22:49 GMT
I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status
suspended.

Massachusetts doesn't put these on line ...

If anyone knows the facts on this ... or could contact the Secretary
of State of Massachusetts (I believe that is where they were
incorporated) ... please let us know.

More and more of us are fed up with the tactics of this Team going
after scientists and doctors figuring out complex medical challenges.

Thanks.

Very revealing letter of the quack tactics of Barrett's Guerrillas ...

http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/quack.html

NCAHF Posts Names of 2,500 Physicians on Quack List
Originally published July 1997
Lyn Behrens, PhD
President, Loma Linda University
Loma Linda, California 92350

Dear President Behrens:

This letter responds to yours of April 22 in which you responded to a
written complaint I submitted concerning facts and circumstances
surrounding acts of suppression of speech at a public forum held at
Loma Linda University. As you know, the forum was under the control of
Loma Linda University professor William Jarvis, PhD. The lecture
entitled 'Cancer Quackery: What You Should Know!' was open to the
public and held at the University's Wong Kerlee Conference Center in
the Cancer Research Pavilion. Fliers announcing the event invited
members of the public to attend without charge. Microphones were
available for members of the public who wished to express a view or
ask a question.

When I and three others who shared a similar viewpoint rose to correct
inaccuracies and defamatory remarks made by Dr. Jarvis against Dr.
Stanislaw Burzynski, Dr. Jarvis refused to permit us to express these
views and ordered University security police to escort three of us
from the lecture hall.

Your letter explains that the matter is under investigation. In that
regard, I wish to supplement the record with additional information.
As I pointed out in my original complaint Dr. William Jarvis is the
President of an entity known as the National Council Against Health
Fraud (NCAHF). The University's address property, and stationery have
been by Dr. Jarvis in the performance of hi duties for NCAHF. Records
of the NCAHF are housed at his university office. Dr. Jarvis holds
NCAHF events at the University. He makes frequent reference to his
University affiliation while performing duties for his NCAHF.

Dr. Jarvis' NCAHF is a controversial organization whose members
crusade across the nation against specific, named practitioners whom
they condemn as 'quacks' or 'frauds' in public forum, in print, on the
air, and in judicial and administrative proceedings. Indeed, Dr.
Jarvis used the facilities of Loma Linda University and its lecture
hall to do precisely that at the recent Loma Linda event. He defamed
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski by implying that he was a quack and a fraud.

Loma Linda should be deeply concerned that one of its professors has
elected to use its property, its name, and his University affiliation
to propagate rank character assassination and defamation against
health care practitioners.

Unfortunately, the NCAHF's anti quackery crusade is subjective and
results in defamation only. Dr. Jarvis and other NCAHF members usually
attack the character of their opponents, rather than the merits of
their views. Characteristically, as was Dr. Jarvis' attack on Dr.
Burzynski, NCAHF members harbor ignorance of key facts and frequently
lack a professional understanding of the science of the matter.

At the Loma Linda event, Dr. Jarvis identified Dr. Burzynski as a
typical example of a medical quack and fraud, but failed to mention
that after a two month trial Dr. Burzynski was acquitted of all fraud
charges, and not a single witness brought forth by the government to
testify against Dr. Burzynski questioned Dr. Burzynski's motives,
character or integrity. He also failed to mention that for almost six
months Dr. Burzynski's antineoplaston therapy has been undergoing
study in several dozen FDA-approved clinical trials, with Dr.
Burzynski as the principal investigator.

Dr. Jarvis chose to attack the honesty, character, integrity, and
personal characteristics of Dr. Burzynski. Such rank character
assassination is not only unbecoming of a professional but also
antithetical to educational dialogue at a University. Dr. Jarvis has
brought disrepute upon Loma Linda. His crusade seeks not only to
stifle opposing views but also to label those who express them as
frauds or quacks - the very antithesis of higher education. His
efforts convey the impression that Loma Linda University is not a
place where academic exchange of ideas and information is encouraged
but one where obvious overt bias and intolerance for dissenting views
predominate.

Unfortunately, the recent incident involving defamation against Dr.
Burzynski is not an isolated event. I offer four items for your
investigation that characterize the intent, actions, and consequences
of the NCAHF.

Item 1 - Deposition of Stephen Barrett, MD
The NCAHF recently attacked Dr. Shari Lieberman, RD, PhD, a
nutritionist and exercise physiologist in New York. Two of Dr. Jarvis'
fellow NCAHF board members defamed Dr. Lieberman, again without the
benefit of sound science or material facts.

Those NCAHF board members, Dr. Stephen Barrett and Ira Milner, RD,
testified against Dr. Lieberman at a hearing they themselves
instigated before the American Dietetic Association (ADA) which
resulted in the ADA publicly stripping Dr. Lieberman of her registered
dietitian (RD) credential. As you would imagine, this caused her loss
of prestige and credibility, hurt her financially, and caused her
public humiliation. In their testimony to the ADA, the two represented
themselves to be knowledgeable about several specific aspects of
nutrition science, yet neither had academic training nor publication
in those specific areas.

In the end, after the falsity of their charges came to light, the ADA
reinstated Dr. Leiberman's RD credential and published a statement
noting same in the ADA's Journal and Courier.

As the attached transcript from the Barrett deposition indicates,
NCAHF is a loose cannon that poses distinct liability risks for the
University. Under cross examination, Dr. Barrett admitted that he was
not in fact, an expert in nutrition science, describing himself
instead as an expert in 'consumer strategy' and a "journalist.' This
deposition clearly showed that Dr. Barrett did not have a thorough
grounding in the scientific research relevant to the serious charges
he made against Dr. Lieberman that caused her substantial harm.

Item 2 - Findings of Fact, and Opinion, and Final Adjudication of the
Regents of the University of the State of New York
Victor Herbert, MD, a long-time board member of NCAHF, apparently
implemented judicial proceedings against Warren Levin, MD, in New York
State. The proceedings were initially opened in 1980, apparently due
to a complaint by Dr. Herbert against Dr. Levin. The case was finally
adjudicated in Dr. Levin's favor, 14 years later in November 1994. Dr.
Levin was forced to declare personal and professional bankruptcy as a
result of the legal costs, but he remained in medical practice the
entire time, and is in full-time medical practice at this time.

Dr. Herbert apparently was the only one who complained about Dr.
Levin. There were no patient complaints. As President of Loma Linda
University, you should have particular interest in the findings of
fact, opinions, and adjudication of the Regents of the University of
the State of New York. Their harsh assessment of Dr. Victor Herbert
should cause you considerable concern, as it did me.

Dr. Herbert, long-term NCAHF Board member, was virtually
uncontrollable in a court of law. The Regents noted that "Dr. V.H.
many times in his testimony used inflammatory language, volunteered
characterizations and editorials, offered information which was beyond
and not responsive to the questions posed, subjected respondent and
his attorney to ad hominem attacks, and utilized other tactics to show
that respondent was guilty by association with others.' In spite of
numerous sustained objections from Dr. Levin's attorney, Victor
Herbert repeatedly and inappropriately used slanderous terms such as
'liar," 'quack,' 'obnoxious,' "vicious,' and "scumbag." He frequently
used the term "fraud,' according to the Regents, 'regardless of
whether he was answering a question posed by the respondent's
attorney, petitioner's attorney, or the hearing committee or whether
it was responsive to the question posed.' As the Regents pointed out,
these "personal attacks on respondent and characterizations [while]
testifying to the ultimate issue in dispute were improper.' That these
proceedings were allowed to continue in this vein should concern
anyone who values the basic tenets of a free society.

I received an amusing letter from Richard Hart, MD, Dean of the School
of Public Health that concluded that armed security police were
necessary because I was "rather disruptive and forceful in trying to
obtain control of the microphone....'

Nothing could be further from the truth. Offering an informed opinion
through an open mike is certainly not disruptive. An open lecture that
invites public comments cannot lawfully deny contrary views under
California's constitution. I suspect that Dr. Hart's finding of fact
and opinion would be difficult to sustain under judicial scrutiny.
Please inform Dr. Hart that he is to preserve all documents,
recordings, and other materials that he used to come to his
conclusion, and that their loss would be neither appropriate nor
helpful.

You might wish to send Dr. Hart the Regents of the University of the
State of New York's assessment of Victor Herbert, Board Member of the
NCAHF, to broaden his (Dr. Hart's) under-standing of the word
"disruptive.'

Item 3 - Persons on the Quack List Data Base
I have also enclosed a list of 2,551 names, with a computer-generated
numerical ID, compiled by Dr. John Renner, board member of the NCAHF,
and titled "Persons on the Quack List Data Base.' There is evidence
that the NCAHF has disseminated this list, or perhaps even sold it to
medical insurance companies for the purpose of interfering with the
payments for medical services provided by those on the list. There is
good evidence that it is sent to state medical boards and other
entities in an effort to harm professionally those on the list.
Persons so listed are never informed that they are listed, nor
informed as to who receives this list or why.
Obviously, considering the number of physicians listed, the only
criteria for being added to this defamatory list would be the
'opinions' of those within the NCAHF. Please note that the list
includes 1,137 MDs, 167 PhDs, 236 DOs, 79 DDSS, 228 DCs, and 441
others (BS, RN, ND, HMD, CSW, MSN). There are 52 double doctorates on
the list, with two or more of the following degrees, MD, PhD, DO, DDS,
DVM, DMD. Many have university affiliation, have published in the
peer-review literature, and are respected authors of books or even
textbooks.

Please note that this 'quack' list includes Linus Pauling, PhD.

Linus Pauling is the only individual to have won two unshared Nobel
Prizes, and virtually every other award for scientific achievement,
both national and international. In the 1970s the editors of the
British New Scientist listed Dr. Pauling as one of the top 20
scientists of all time. Albert Einstein was the only other scientist
in the 20th century listed along with Aristotle, Gallileo, Isaac
Newton, and Michael Faraday.

In the recently published book, Scientific Genius, The 20 Greatest
Minds of All Time, by Jim Glenn (Crescent Books, 1996). Linus Pauling
is again listed along with Archimedes, Gregor Mendel, William Harvey,
Charles Darwin, and Rend Descartes. Linus Pauling's achievements
should be lauded, not besmirched with this outrageously inexcusable
label of quack. As President of Loma Linda University, does it concern
you that Dr. Jarvis' NCAHF, a small group of about four men of no
significant distinction in ,the scientific arena, would 'secretly'
list Dr. Pauling as a 'quack,' and would actually send or sell this
list to others in the scientific or health field? Does it concern you
that the NCAHF is housed on the Loma Linda campus and by implication,
this clandestine and highly defamatory practice is condoned by the
University?

I will be communicating with each individual on this list, informing
them that this list or data similar to it is maintained and updated by
John Renner, MD, board member of NCAHF, and that the offices of NCAHF
are housed-on the campus of Loma Linda University. I will be
instructing each person contacted to address any questions or concerns
they may have concerning their defamatory labeling to you, the
President of Loma Linda University. I have already contacted the Linus
Pauling Institute and the Pauling family.

Item 4 - Quacks Condensed List
Benjamin R. Wilson, MD, working with John H. Renner, MD, compiled a
list of 1,500 which he called the 'Condensed Quack List.' After the
practitioner's degree, or degrees, Dr. Wilson lists two indices called
the NI and DDL. NI stands for 'Notoriety Index' which is a function of
the number of 'quack' organizations or academic groups the individual
has joined. Thus "guilt by association' is elevated to new heights in
that it is now numerically quantified and recorded. The DDI is the
Ding Dong Index' - a score reflecting the most nonsensical or
dangerous dubious procedures and/or illnesses they treat.

Please note that one way to get on the quack list is to simply join or
donate to any group or organization that the NCAHF deems to be quack.
Of course, the legality and charter of the group is irrelevant to the
NCAHF. The fact that the group may be for professionals only and puts
on regular scientific sessions that are approved for CME educational
credit for MDs and DOs is irrelevant to those marching with the NCAHF.

Incredibly, Dr. Wilson will put you on the 'quack list' if you are
listed as a donor to the National Health Federation, a chartered and
legal organization. This qualifies 'the quack' for the highest
Notoriety Index: a 10. Whereas the donor list of the NHF is public,
the 'quack list' with its additional indices is clandestine, and is
meant to cause harm.

Your letter stated that you were going to investigate this matter. I
believe that it is inappropriate to look upon the action of Dr. Jarvis
as an isolated incident. I believe that the action of Dr. Jarvis is
typical of the NCAHF. I trust that this material will enhance your
understanding of the NCAHF and their potential liability for the
University.

I am requesting two things from Loma Linda University.

First, an Opportunity for Counterspeech.

Under California constitutional law, a private establishment that
opens a forum to the public may not engage in viewpoint
discrimination. Loma Linda (through the agency of Dr. Jarvis) violated
the rights of those who wished to express a viewpoint contrary to Dr.
Jarvis when Dr. Jarvis refused to permit such views during the
question-and answer segment of the lecture. I respectfully request
that the University correct this injustice by holding another forum to
permit each of those ejected from the lecture hall to express their
contrary viewpoints.

The forum should be held at the same time, for the same length as the
original one, and at the same location (a larger room will likely be
necessary). It should again be open to the public, and it should be
promoted and advertised in the same manner as the first, inviting
members of the public to attend and hear a rebuttal.

Secondly, A letter of clarification. I respectfully request a letter
from you, - President of Loma Linda University, clarifying the status
of the NCAHF at the University. Please be specific in answering the
following questions. Does the University authorize the. use of its
property, stationery, name and reputation by the NCAHF and by Dr.
Jarvis in connection with and in support of the NCAHF's activities?
Does the University condone Dr. Jarvis' use of his University office
to house files and property to traffic in lists of "quacks'
substantiated by no objective evidence other than the .opinions' of
those aligned with NCAHF?

Does the University agree that it was appropriate to give Linus
Pauling, PhD, this pejorative label, and that such files defaming Dr.
Pauling and others could possibly be kept by Dr. Jarvis at the
University, or flow through his hands, in his University office? Does
the University condone Dr. Jarvis' reliance on the University
reputation to promote the NCAHF, an organization that is essentially
run by four irrational zealots whose obvious agenda is to cleanse the
medical profession of 'undesirables' and to purge society of all other
healing arts?

Please respond to these queries at your earliest convenience. Please
be assured that I hold the University responsible for the actions of
NCAHF both past and present.

Julian M. Whitaker, MD
The Whitaker Wellness Institute
4321 Birch, Suite 100
Newport Beach, California 92660 USA
714-851-1550
Fax 714-955-3005
Mark Probert - 04 Aug 2005 14:32 GMT
> I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status
> suspended.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> of State of Massachusetts (I believe that is where they were
> incorporated) ... please let us know.

You really are lazy. I found this in less than 60 seconds:

DISCLAIMER: The information displayed here is current as of JUL 29, 2005
and is updated weekly. It is not a complete or certified record of the
Corporation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC.
Number: C0834009 Date Filed: 12/8/1977 Status: suspended
Jurisdiction: California
Address
POST B 1276
LOMA LINDA, CA 92354
Agent for Service of Process
** RESIGNED ON 03/22/2003

However, note that the NCAHF website does not represent that they are a
corporation.

Thus, unlike the recent Humantics Affair, their status as a corporation
is irrelevant unless you can actually point out why they are suspended.
It could be because they have moved to Massachusetts where the esteemed
Robert Baratz, M.D. DDS, PhD is located.,
Ilena Rose - 04 Aug 2005 16:14 GMT
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Corporation
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Agent for Service of Process
>** RESIGNED ON 03/22/2003

~~~~~~~~

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
Mark Probert - 04 Aug 2005 22:19 GMT
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Corporation
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>Agent for Service of Process
>>** RESIGNED ON 03/22/2003

There is absolutely no bar against NCAHF still advertising or doing
anything in their own name. PROVE that they cannot still advertise using
their name.
Ilena Rose - 04 Aug 2005 16:59 GMT
>Thus, unlike the recent Humantics Affair, their status as a corporation
>is irrelevant unless you can actually point out why they are suspended.

We are not suspended ... and I did not know that defunct NCAHF was
registered before it's defunctness in California ...

Thanks for letting us know this in fact is true ...

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
LadyLollipop - 04 Aug 2005 18:34 GMT
>> I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status
>> suspended.
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> could be because they have moved to Massachusetts where the esteemed
> Robert Baratz, M.D. DDS, PhD is located.,

The *esteemed* Robert Baratz

Uh huh

FACT is Baratz is a L I A R.

*I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in both
federal and state courts. I have conducted extensive research in analytical
toxicology. I have more than 100 papers published in refereed journals.*

FACT is he has NOT

Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board

By Dr. Ralph Dougherty

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry

Florida State University

"To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz has
done
in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is either a
reflection
of ignorance, or intent to deceive."

Sincerely,

Ralph Dougherty
Ilena Rose - 04 Aug 2005 18:56 GMT
GReat find ... thanks Jan.

>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Ralph Dougherty
Mark Probert - 04 Aug 2005 22:18 GMT
>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status
>>>suspended.
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> Uh huh

M. D. DDS and PhD. Haley has only a PHD. esteemed he is.

> FACT is Baratz is a L I A R.

Nope. Not proven.

> *I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in both
> federal and state courts. I have conducted extensive research in analytical
> toxicology. I have more than 100 papers published in refereed journals.*
>
> FACT is he has NOT

Prove it. Prove he has not been qualified as an expert witness in
federal and state courts.

> Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board

I do not want second hand information. I want to see the exact quotes in
Baratz's own words. Do you not think that this is the fair way of doing it?

And, just where did you snip this from without attirbution? (I know, but
I want you to be honest).

Interestingly, your hero, Dr. Haley, cites an article by none other than
 Timmy Bolen. Now, anyone who cites him has got to be a loon.

> By Dr. Ralph Dougherty
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Ralph Dougherty
LadyLollipop - 05 Aug 2005 01:22 GMT
>>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status
>>>>suspended.
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Nope. Not proven.

LOL!

>> *I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in
>> both
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Prove it. Prove he has not been qualified as an expert witness in federal
> and state courts.

He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals.

Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12.

Niether is he an expert.

He LIED over and over.

>> Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> And, just where did you snip this from without attirbution? (I know, but I
> want you to be honest).

It's been posted numerous times before and YOU very well know it!

<snip diversion>

>> By Dr. Ralph Dougherty
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>
>> Ralph Dougherty

Baratz NEVER did back up ANY of his LYING claims!!!!!!!
http://www.altcorp.com/baratztestimony.htm

>> Review of Robert Baratz Testimony Before the Florida Dental Board by Two
>> Distinguished Chemistry Professors and Researchers

>> Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board

>> By Dr. Ralph Dougherty

>> Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry

>> Florida State University

>> Telephone: 850-644-5725

>> "I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in
>both
>> federal and state courts. I have conducted extensive research in
>analytical
>> toxicology. I have more than 100 papers published in refereed journals."

>> "To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz has
>done
>> in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is either a
>reflection
>> of ignorance, or intent to deceive."

>> Sincerely,

>> Ralph Dougherty

Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning amalgams and chemistry in
general are so pathetic that they almost defy sensible analysis. I WOULD
CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR.
BARATZ'S
COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing
this
is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's statements one at a
time in order of presentation.

Page 6, line 27-28. Dr. Baratz has no published basis for making this
statement. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can Dr. Baratz say
that a patient on a kidney dialysis program is not further injured by
additional mercury (a potent kidney toxicant) exposure from their amalgams?
I
don't think such a study has ever been undertaken. When exposing a person to
years of a chronic level of toxic mercury it is the responsibility of the
pro-amalgam group to prove it does no harm, not vice-versa. Can Dr. Baratz
or
the FDA confirm that the 22,000-fold increased mercury levels in the hearts
of
inter-city young men who die of Idiopathic Dialated Cardiomyopthy did not
come
from dental amalgams? { Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti, C.,
Caldarulo,
M., Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A.
Marked
Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Compared With Secondary Dysfunction. J. of the American College Cardiology
v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999,}

Page 6, lines 31-32. One grain of standard sucrose does not weigh near one
milligram. Therefore his visual aid is totally misleading and indicates that
he
has not, or does not, remember experiments where weighing small amounts was
involved.

Page 6, lines 37-41. Sodium metal when added to water burns violently, but
it
does not explode when added to a glass of water. I have done this as a
demonstration so I know the results first-hand. No one would be killed or
even
injured unless they touched the burning metallic sodium. Yes, chlorine gas
is
toxic and is a man-made material (as is metallic sodium) that does not exist
naturally. Dr. Baratz wants to claim that metallic sodium and chlorine gas
are
toxic but become non-toxic on conversion to a compound, sodium chloride, and
therefore, mercury in an amalgam is not toxic because it is surrounded by
other
(toxic) metals that he feels produces something that is not mercury. This is
banal.

Reactivity and biological compatibility is the essence of the amalgam issue.
Human blood contains about 140 millimolar chloride anion and 124 millimolar
sodium cation. This ions are not toxic because they are not very reactive
with
biomolecules. These ions are used to perform many biological functions
necessary for life, including maintaining the ionic gradient and electrical
potential across cell membranes. However, mercury is not found to serve any
useful purpose in human tissues and is a well known inhibitor of many
enzymes,
including the enzyme that transports sodium across cell membranes. In
contrast
to sodium cation, mercury cation, produced from mercury vapor by a blood
enzyme, is very reactive and inhibits almost every biological pathway or
enzyme
driven function in man. To compare amalgam material to sodium chloride in
the
manner Dr. Baratz has chosen to reveals a total misunderstanding of
chemistry
and biochemistry of heavy metal toxicity.

Page 6 line 42 to page 7 line 2. Since all of the metal components of
amalgam
are basic metallic elements with no charge how can someone make the inept
statement that there is no mercury in amalgams. It is an "element" and the
fact
that elements cannot be broken down or changed is a basic tenant of
chemistry.
The metals in amalgams have no net charge and therefore form only metallic
bonds. Mercury is a liquid at room temperature and quite volatile because it
forms weak metallic bonds with itself. This makes mercury unlike all other
metals. The metallic bonds formed between mercury and other metals in
amalgams
are stronger and a solid phase is produced---but the bonds between mercury
and,
say silver, are weaker than silver-silver metal bonds and therefore break
easier releasing elemental mercury vapor at a regular rate. This is why you
can
heat a gold ring covered with mercury and rapidly make it gold again and why
dimes made silvery with mercury soon resort to their old form. The bottom
line
is that inclusion of mercury into an amalgam reduces its vapor pressure but
it
does not reduce it to the point that mercury cannot be significantly
emitted.

Dr. Baratz states that if you detect traces of mercury from amalgams it is
because that material has been decomposed by heat and friction. How does he
explain the observations of the release of 43.5 micrograms mercury per cm2
surface area per day for two years straight in a test tube without
additional
heat and no friction? {Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S.
Long-term Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam.
Clinical
Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).} Bottom line is that it is
quite easy to demonstrate mercury release from a dental amalgam. I suggest
the
FDA not believe either Dr. Baratz or myself but instead make 20-30 amalgams
and
send them to the state universities in Florida and have them determine how
long
a single amalgam must be in a gallon of water before the water is considered
unsafe to drink by OSHA or EPA standards. Then the FDA can then make a
decent
decision on the mercury release and toxicity of amalgams using data from an
unbiased source.

Page 7, lines 10-13. Sodium chloride intake is necessary for life. Mercury
is
toxic to every type of cell. Dr. Baratz's comparison amalgams to sodium
chloride is ridiculous. Amino acids contain carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen
and
so does cyanide but the difference is how these molecules react in the
body---one is a food and the other a lethal toxin. Amalgams release mercury
and
other metal ions and solutions in which amalgams are soaked are cytotoxic! {
Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T. Correlation of
Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and Gallium-based Dental
Alloys
in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept. (1994)}

Page 7, lines 15-18. Yes, everything is toxic if an overdose is
obtained---that
is common sense. However, mercury has no food or biological function and is
toxic at concentrations much lower than even most other toxicants. Low
levels
of mercury have been shown to inhibit the same enzymes/proteins that are
found
inhibited in Alzheimer's diseased brain. { Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E.
Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks Brain -Tubulin-GTP Interactions:
Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer"s Disease. pp98-105 in Status Quo
and
Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials (International Symposium
Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme Verlag,
Stuttgart-New York (1995). Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J.,
Winfield, S.A. and Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits
Binding
of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in
Alzheimer's
Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997). Pendergrass, J.C. and
Haley, B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate
Interactions
by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain. In
Metal
Ions in Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478. Mercury and Its Effects on
Environment and Biology, Chapter 16. Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel
Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996)}

Later research with neurons in culture nanomolar (10-9M) levels of mercury
caused cell destruction and formation of three of the widely accepted
diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. { Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch.,
Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B., Herrmann, M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and
Hock, C. Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and
Increases
-amyloid Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J.
Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider,
F.L.
Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and
Formation
of Neruofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following In Vitro Exposure
to
Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4):733-737, 2001.} Therefore, being unnecessarily
exposed to continuous low doses of mercury for scores of years is an
unhealthy
situation. Does the FDA operate with the mantra of allowing itself to do
this
and eliminate any disagreement by posturing that no one has proven mercury
toxic when indeed this has been done over and over. Due to the overall
difficulty and complexity there is not one epidemiological study showing any
major negative effects of mercury from amalgams, but there are none showing
it
to be safe either. With all of the data on animal cell culture studies
showing
mercury toxicity showing concern and eliminating all long-term exposures to
mercury is justified.

Page 7 lines 15-34. This paragraph should convince everyone that Dr. Baratz
is
way off base. I had to replace all of the mercury thermometers in the
teaching
labs in our department of chemistry because of the OSHA/EPA restrictions
where
the spill of one thermometer could create a toxic in-building situation and
the
possible wash-out into the sewage stream caused an unacceptable
environmental
hazard. Dr. Baratz seems unaware of the long-term affects of mercury
accumulation. Sure, he could ingest liquid mercury a single time and walk
away
but how many industrial workers have been seriously injured by less severe
but
continuous mercury exposures? Also, if he did ingest liquid mercury then he
could pay a severe price later on in his life but he doesn't seem to know
this.
Why does he think the government has outlawed the sale of mercury
thermometers
to the general public?

In this paragraph Dr. Baratz states that mercury is not absorbed from the
gut.
This is totally incorrect. Mercury vapor is rapidly absorbed into all
hydrophobic areas of the body. Where is the publication to support his
absurd
contention? He is further incorrect in his statement that the amount that
comes
off of an amalgam is equivalent to the amount you get every day by breathing
air, drinking water and eating food. In a 1998 NIH study on 1,127 US
military
personnel it was shown that the blood/urine mercury levels were much higher
in
individuals with dental amalgams and the amount of mercury was correlated
with
the number of amalgams surfaces. The average amalgam bearer had 4.5 times
the
urine mercury level of individuals who were amalgam free. { Kingman, A.,
Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury Concentrations in Urine and Whole
Blood
Associated with Amalgam Exposure in a US Military Population. J. of Dental
Research v77(3): 461-471, 1998.}

Dr. Baratz states that even the most ardent anti-amalgamist have virtually
the
same amount of mercury in their bodies as does the members of the Florida
Board
of Dentistry. That would be true only if all of them are free of amalgams.
In a
published report removing amalgam fillings dropped the level of mercury in
the
urine in the patients by about 5-fold at a subsequent date. { Begerow, J.,
Zander, D., Freier, I. And Dunemann, L. Long-term Mercury Excretion in Urine
after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health v66
(3),
209-212, 1994.}

Neither Dr. Baratz nor I have the right to make sweeping statements without
providing the scientific literature on the subject that backs up our
statements. Under adjudication many of his statements, now on record, such
as
given on page 7 line 19, "So to say that dental amalgam has mercury in it is
false. It has what used to be mercury." will provide a feast for the
opposing
lawyers. I am very surprised that Dr. Baratz has chosen to pass himself off
as
an amalgam expert with no publications in the area and this is compounded by
what appears to be total ignorance of the relevant literature.

Page 8 lines 1 to 10. My comment is that the EPA and OSHA government units
don't think the amount of mercury released from amalgams is safe. If indeed
the
groups listed by Dr. Baratz say amalgams are safe (are amalgams listed on
the
Food and Drug Administration list of safe dental materials?) where are the
scientific studies that back their claims. Who represents the NIH and says
amalgams are safe? I challenge Dr. Baratz to find a single research article
where experimental protocols are used that provide proof of safety of dental
amalgams. It is easy to compose a "committee mainly pro-amalgam dentists"
and
have them proclaim amalgams safe, but have them show the relevant basic
research that proves this is another thing. Does he really have publications
from the Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer's Associations that claim amalgams
are safe? I would really like to see him produce these documents.

Page 8, line 30. Keeping or bringing science into the dental profession is
my
goal also. This means both Dr. Baratz and I have to back our statements with
refereed scientific publications, not wild, unjustified claims or opinions.
I
would like to challenge Dr. Baratz to produce the research papers that back
his
many claims.
Mark Probert - 05 Aug 2005 15:22 GMT
>>>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status
>>>>>suspended.
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>
> Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12.

I will accept the esteemed Mr. Bowditch as a credibile source.

> Niether is he an expert.

Wrong. I did a cursory search and found that he has qualified as an
expert in several court proceedings. That is just from Google.

I do have access to a special database, which is VERY expensive, that
can provide profiles on anyone who has qualified as an expert on any
court proceeding within the United States. If they ever have a freebie,
I will look him up.

> He LIED over and over.

Once, as the esteemed Mr. Bowditch has shown.

>>>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> It's been posted numerous times before and YOU very well know it!

> <snip diversion>

Diversion? You lying snake. Selling apples these days?

I stated this:

I do not want second hand information. I want to see the exact quotes in
Baratz's own words. Do you not think that this is the fair way of doing it?

And, like I said, it is a site from your hero, the abusive and
unrepentent Boyd Haley, who is also a liar, as proven by the esteemed
Mr. Peter Bowditch. (Now, do not be selective in believing what you
choose to believe since it is coming from Peter.)

Thus, I want to see his comments in context. I could not locate the
entire transcript. Perhaps you know where it is available.
LadyLollipop - 05 Aug 2005 18:21 GMT
>>>>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status
>>>>>>suspended.
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
>
> I will accept the esteemed Mr. Bowditch as a credibile source.

Peter Bowditch is not esteemed.

Baratz LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals

>> Niether is he an expert.
>
> Wrong. I did a cursory search and found that he has qualified as an expert
> in several court proceedings. That is just from Google.

Wrong, I just proved, he is a liar, using his own words.

> I do have access to a special database, which is VERY expensive, that can
> provide profiles on anyone who has qualified as an expert on any court
> proceeding within the United States. If they ever have a freebie, I will
> look him up.

I could care less what you have. His OWN WORDS are on record.

He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals.

>> He LIED over and over.
>
> Once, as the esteemed Mr. Bowditch has shown.

NOT once, neither is Peter Bowditch esteemed.

>>>>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>> <snip diversion>

>> By Dr. Ralph Dougherty

>> Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry

>> Florida State University

>> "To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz has
>> done in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is either a
>> reflection of ignorance, or intent to deceive."

>> Sincerely,

>> Ralph Dougherty

Baratz NEVER did back up ANY of his LYING claims!!!!!!!
http://www.altcorp.com/baratztestimony.htm

>> Review of Robert Baratz Testimony Before the Florida Dental Board by Two
>> Distinguished Chemistry Professors and Researchers Review of Dr. Baratz
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>reflection
>> of ignorance, or intent to deceive." Sincerely, Ralph Dougherty

Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning amalgams and chemistry in
general are so pathetic that they almost defy sensible analysis. I WOULD
CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR.
BARATZ'S
COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing
this
is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's statements one at a
time in order of presentation.

Page 6, line 27-28. Dr. Baratz has no published basis for making this
statement. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can Dr. Baratz say
that a patient on a kidney dialysis program is not further injured by
additional mercury (a potent kidney toxicant) exposure from their amalgams?
I
don't think such a study has ever been undertaken. When exposing a person to
years of a chronic level of toxic mercury it is the responsibility of the
pro-amalgam group to prove it does no harm, not vice-versa. Can Dr. Baratz
or
the FDA confirm that the 22,000-fold increased mercury levels in the hearts
of
inter-city young men who die of Idiopathic Dialated Cardiomyopthy did not
come
from dental amalgams? { Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti, C.,
Caldarulo,
M., Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A.
Marked
Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Compared With Secondary Dysfunction. J. of the American College Cardiology
v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999,}

Page 6, lines 31-32. One grain of standard sucrose does not weigh near one
milligram. Therefore his visual aid is totally misleading and indicates that
he
has not, or does not, remember experiments where weighing small amounts was
involved.

Page 6, lines 37-41. Sodium metal when added to water burns violently, but
it
does not explode when added to a glass of water. I have done this as a
demonstration so I know the results first-hand. No one would be killed or
even
injured unless they touched the burning metallic sodium. Yes, chlorine gas
is
toxic and is a man-made material (as is metallic sodium) that does not exist
naturally. Dr. Baratz wants to claim that metallic sodium and chlorine gas
are
toxic but become non-toxic on conversion to a compound, sodium chloride, and
therefore, mercury in an amalgam is not toxic because it is surrounded by
other
(toxic) metals that he feels produces something that is not mercury. This is
banal.

Reactivity and biological compatibility is the essence of the amalgam issue.
Human blood contains about 140 millimolar chloride anion and 124 millimolar
sodium cation. This ions are not toxic because they are not very reactive
with
biomolecules. These ions are used to perform many biological functions
necessary for life, including maintaining the ionic gradient and electrical
potential across cell membranes. However, mercury is not found to serve any
useful purpose in human tissues and is a well known inhibitor of many
enzymes,
including the enzyme that transports sodium across cell membranes. In
contrast
to sodium cation, mercury cation, produced from mercury vapor by a blood
enzyme, is very reactive and inhibits almost every biological pathway or
enzyme
driven function in man. To compare amalgam material to sodium chloride in
the
manner Dr. Baratz has chosen to reveals a total misunderstanding of
chemistry
and biochemistry of heavy metal toxicity.

Page 6 line 42 to page 7 line 2. Since all of the metal components of
amalgam
are basic metallic elements with no charge how can someone make the inept
statement that there is no mercury in amalgams. It is an "element" and the
fact
that elements cannot be broken down or changed is a basic tenant of
chemistry.
The metals in amalgams have no net charge and therefore form only metallic
bonds. Mercury is a liquid at room temperature and quite volatile because it
forms weak metallic bonds with itself. This makes mercury unlike all other
metals. The metallic bonds formed between mercury and other metals in
amalgams
are stronger and a solid phase is produced---but the bonds between mercury
and,
say silver, are weaker than silver-silver metal bonds and therefore break
easier releasing elemental mercury vapor at a regular rate. This is why you
can
heat a gold ring covered with mercury and rapidly make it gold again and why
dimes made silvery with mercury soon resort to their old form. The bottom
line
is that inclusion of mercury into an amalgam reduces its vapor pressure but
it
does not reduce it to the point that mercury cannot be significantly
emitted.

Dr. Baratz states that if you detect traces of mercury from amalgams it is
because that material has been decomposed by heat and friction. How does he
explain the observations of the release of 43.5 micrograms mercury per cm2
surface area per day for two years straight in a test tube without
additional
heat and no friction? {Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S.
Long-term Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam.
Clinical
Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).} Bottom line is that it is
quite easy to demonstrate mercury release from a dental amalgam. I suggest
the
FDA not believe either Dr. Baratz or myself but instead make 20-30 amalgams
and
send them to the state universities in Florida and have them determine how
long
a single amalgam must be in a gallon of water before the water is considered
unsafe to drink by OSHA or EPA standards. Then the FDA can then make a
decent
decision on the mercury release and toxicity of amalgams using data from an
unbiased source.

Page 7, lines 10-13. Sodium chloride intake is necessary for life. Mercury
is
toxic to every type of cell. Dr. Baratz's comparison amalgams to sodium
chloride is ridiculous. Amino acids contain carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen
and
so does cyanide but the difference is how these molecules react in the
body---one is a food and the other a lethal toxin. Amalgams release mercury
and
other metal ions and solutions in which amalgams are soaked are cytotoxic! {
Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T. Correlation of
Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and Gallium-based Dental
Alloys
in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept. (1994)}

Page 7, lines 15-18. Yes, everything is toxic if an overdose is
obtained---that
is common sense. However, mercury has no food or biological function and is
toxic at concentrations much lower than even most other toxicants. Low
levels
of mercury have been shown to inhibit the same enzymes/proteins that are
found
inhibited in Alzheimer's diseased brain. { Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E.
Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks Brain -Tubulin-GTP Interactions:
Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer"s Disease. pp98-105 in Status Quo
and
Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials (International Symposium
Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme Verlag,
Stuttgart-New York (1995). Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J.,
Winfield, S.A. and Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits
Binding
of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in
Alzheimer's
Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997). Pendergrass, J.C. and
Haley, B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate
Interactions
by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain. In
Metal
Ions in Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478. Mercury and Its Effects on
Environment and Biology, Chapter 16. Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel
Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996)}

Later research with neurons in culture nanomolar (10-9M) levels of mercury
caused cell destruction and formation of three of the widely accepted
diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. { Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch.,
Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B., Herrmann, M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and
Hock, C. Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and
Increases
-amyloid Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J.
Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider,
F.L.
Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and
Formation
of Neruofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following In Vitro Exposure
to
Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4):733-737, 2001.} Therefore, being unnecessarily
exposed to continuous low doses of mercury for scores of years is an
unhealthy
situation. Does the FDA operate with the mantra of allowing itself to do
this
and eliminate any disagreement by posturing that no one has proven mercury
toxic when indeed this has been done over and over. Due to the overall
difficulty and complexity there is not one epidemiological study showing any
major negative effects of mercury from amalgams, but there are none showing
it
to be safe either. With all of the data on animal cell culture studies
showing
mercury toxicity showing concern and eliminating all long-term exposures to
mercury is justified.

Page 7 lines 15-34. This paragraph should convince everyone that Dr. Baratz
is
way off base. I had to replace all of the mercury thermometers in the
teaching
labs in our department of chemistry because of the OSHA/EPA restrictions
where
the spill of one thermometer could create a toxic in-building situation and
the
possible wash-out into the sewage stream caused an unacceptable
environmental
hazard. Dr. Baratz seems unaware of the long-term affects of mercury
accumulation. Sure, he could ingest liquid mercury a single time and walk
away
but how many industrial workers have been seriously injured by less severe
but
continuous mercury exposures? Also, if he did ingest liquid mercury then he
could pay a severe price later on in his life but he doesn't seem to know
this.
Why does he think the government has outlawed the sale of mercury
thermometers
to the general public?

In this paragraph Dr. Baratz states that mercury is not absorbed from the
gut.
This is totally incorrect. Mercury vapor is rapidly absorbed into all
hydrophobic areas of the body. Where is the publication to support his
absurd
contention? He is further incorrect in his statement that the amount that
comes
off of an amalgam is equivalent to the amount you get every day by breathing
air, drinking water and eating food. In a 1998 NIH study on 1,127 US
military
personnel it was shown that the blood/urine mercury levels were much higher
in
individuals with dental amalgams and the amount of mercury was correlated
with
the number of amalgams surfaces. The average amalgam bearer had 4.5 times
the
urine mercury level of individuals who were amalgam free. { Kingman, A.,
Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury Concentrations in Urine and Whole
Blood
Associated with Amalgam Exposure in a US Military Population. J. of Dental
Research v77(3): 461-471, 1998.}

Dr. Baratz states that even the most ardent anti-amalgamist have virtually
the
same amount of mercury in their bodies as does the members of the Florida
Board
of Dentistry. That would be true only if all of them are free of amalgams.
In a
published report removing amalgam fillings dropped the level of mercury in
the
urine in the patients by about 5-fold at a subsequent date. { Begerow, J.,
Zander, D., Freier, I. And Dunemann, L. Long-term Mercury Excretion in Urine
after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health v66
(3),
209-212, 1994.}

Neither Dr. Baratz nor I have the right to make sweeping statements without
providing the scientific literature on the subject that backs up our
statements. Under adjudication many of his statements, now on record, such
as
given on page 7 line 19, "So to say that dental amalgam has mercury in it is
false. It has what used to be mercury." will provide a feast for the
opposing
lawyers. I am very surprised that Dr. Baratz has chosen to pass himself off
as
an amalgam expert with no publications in the area and this is compounded by
what appears to be total ignorance of the relevant literature.

Page 8 lines 1 to 10. My comment is that the EPA and OSHA government units
don't think the amount of mercury released from amalgams is safe. If indeed
the
groups listed by Dr. Baratz say amalgams are safe (are amalgams listed on
the
Food and Drug Administration list of safe dental materials?) where are the
scientific studies that back their claims. Who represents the NIH and says
amalgams are safe? I challenge Dr. Baratz to find a single research article
where experimental protocols are used that provide proof of safety of dental
amalgams. It is easy to compose a "committee mainly pro-amalgam dentists"
and
have them proclaim amalgams safe, but have them show the relevant basic
research that proves this is another thing. Does he really have publications
from the Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer's Associations that claim amalgams
are safe? I would really like to see him produce these documents.

Page 8, line 30. Keeping or bringing science into the dental profession is
my
goal also. This means both Dr. Baratz and I have to back our statements with
refereed scientific publications, not wild, unjustified claims or opinions.
I
would like to challenge Dr. Baratz to produce the research papers that back
his
many claims.
Nana Weedkiller - 05 Aug 2005 19:22 GMT
> >> LOL!
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals.

Once again, Jan brings out this rubbish that the esteemed Dr Baratz has
claimed to
have written more than 100 papers published in refereed journals. Dr Baratz
never
claimed that he had over 100 papers published in refereed journals.
Jan Drew continues to lie about this.
The fact is that the quote is attributed to Ralph Dougherty at the top of
this page.
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/baratztestimony.htm
Ralph Dougherty is the one claiming to have written more than 100 papers
published in referred journals.
Jan Drew owes the esteemed Dr Baratz an apology.
Mark Probert - 05 Aug 2005 21:57 GMT
>>>>LOL!
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> never
> claimed that he had over 100 papers published in refereed journals.

Re-reading the website you referenced, it does appear that Prof.
Dougherty did make that claim. He does appear to be well regarded
amongst his peers, but I was unable to locate his CV on the schools
website.

I did a GoogleScholar search and found four references to him.

A PubMed search yielded over 200 references to a Dougherty R, but could
not isolate anything he has written. No, I did not read every hit.

> Jan Drew continues to lie about this.
> The fact is that the quote is attributed to Ralph Dougherty at the top of
> this page.
> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/baratztestimony.htm
> Ralph Dougherty is the one claiming to have written more than 100 papers
> published in referred journals.

That sounds like an equally reasonable interpretation of that website.

> Jan Drew owes the esteemed Dr Baratz an apology.

An ever growing list.
LadyLollipop - 05 Aug 2005 23:35 GMT
A LIE!

Baratz is not esteemed, nor is an expert.

In FACT Baratz ia a PROVEN LIAR.

>>>>>LOL!
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> Re-reading the website you referenced, it does appear that Prof. Dougherty
> did make that claim.

Yes, I see that now, and I do apologize for that mistake.

<snip>

>> Jan Drew continues to lie about this.
>> The fact is that the quote is attributed to Ralph Dougherty at the top of
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> An ever growing list.

I owe NO apology to Liar Baratz, who is not esteemed, nor an expert

Two liars here ae both Probert and Nidiffer..
Nana Weedkiller - 06 Aug 2005 02:10 GMT
> A LIE!
>
> Baratz is not esteemed, nor is an expert.
>
> In FACT Baratz ia a PROVEN LIAR.

You stated that Dr Baratz claimed to have over 100 papers published
in refereed journals. You have called Dr Baratz a liar for over 2 years
because
you misread/lied about a quote by someone other than Dr Baratz.

You do in fact owe an apology for calling Dr Baratz a liar.

Remember that God is watching.

> >>>>>LOL!
> >>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12.
mlowry3@bellsouth.net - 06 Aug 2005 02:22 GMT
...smoe nonsense...

Pound sand, Lollypoop.  You're an ignorant bigot.

Mark
mlowry3@bellsouth.net - 06 Aug 2005 02:22 GMT
...some nonsense...

Pound sand, Lollypoop.  You're an ignorant bigot.

Mark
LadyLollipop - 06 Aug 2005 03:10 GMT
Mark MD is a proven liar.

Asked and answered was a lie.
Rich.@. - 06 Aug 2005 03:40 GMT
>Mark MD is a proven liar.
>
>Asked and answered was a lie.

Is Mark MD the subject?

Aloha,

Rich


-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

Best defense to logic is ignorance
LadyLollipop - 06 Aug 2005 03:57 GMT
>><mlowry3@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

LadyLollipop wrote:

...some nonsense...

Pound sand, Lollypoop.

Mark

Is LadyLollipop the subject?
Mark Probert - 06 Aug 2005 13:52 GMT
> A LIE!
>
> Baratz is not esteemed, nor is an expert.

I have posted proof of both claims. If you can, refute them. If you
cannot, then suffer with the facts.

> In FACT Baratz ia a PROVEN LIAR.

nope. No proof at all. Dougherty was making that claim.

>>>>>>LOL!
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 77 lines]
>
> Two liars here ae both Probert and Nidiffer..
Peter Bowditch - 06 Aug 2005 00:43 GMT
>> >> LOL!
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>published in referred journals.
>Jan Drew owes the esteemed Dr Baratz an apology.

Beautiful!!

PubMed has 244 papers with an author "R Dougherty"

RH - 14
RF - 14
RC - 18
RW - 62
RJ - 12
RM - 80
RB - 2
RL - 4
RD - 2
RE - 3
No middle initial - 33

Who is the person who signs himself "Ralph Dougherty" with no middle
initial?

Is 33 > 100?

And, yes, there are 12 papers listed with the author "RS Baratz". I
apologise to (triple) Doctor Baratz for not picking up sooner on the
fact that people supposedly quoting him were actually quoting someone
else. My mistake, however, has allowed me the pleasure of being cited
by Jan Drew as an authority on something.

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Nana Weedkiller - 06 Aug 2005 02:18 GMT
> >> >> LOL!
> >> >>
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
>
> Is 33 > 100?

Our esteemed Ralph Dougherty has the middle initial "C".
http://144.92.39.64/journal/issues/1997/Jun/abs722.html

Adding the RC initial =18 plus the no middle initial=33 we have 51.
Is 51> 100?

How confident are we to be in a professor who calls dental amalgams
"mercury amalgams".

Is it possible he's hanging around with the anti-amalgamists?

> And, yes, there are 12 papers listed with the author "RS Baratz". I
> apologise to (triple) Doctor Baratz for not picking up sooner on the
> fact that people supposedly quoting him were actually quoting someone
> else. My mistake, however, has allowed me the pleasure of being cited
> by Jan Drew as an authority on something.
LadyLollipop - 06 Aug 2005 03:00 GMT
>>> >> LOL!
>>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
> Beautiful!!

LOL!

Baratz is NOT esteemed, I owe him no apology, and he is indeeed a liar.

> PubMed has 244 papers with an author "R Dougherty"
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> else. My mistake, however, has allowed me the pleasure of being cited
> by Jan Drew as an authority on something.

You are a liar also.

I did not cite you an an authority.

I said Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12.

Thanks for showing us how you lie.

Give them enough rope,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Mark Probert - 06 Aug 2005 13:51 GMT
>>>>>>LOL!
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 100 lines]
>
> I said Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12.

That sounds like you are citing him as an authority.

> Thanks for showing us how you lie.
>
> Give them enough rope,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

And Jan will abuse you.
Mark Probert - 05 Aug 2005 21:38 GMT
>>>>>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status
>>>>>>>suspended.
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>
> Peter Bowditch is not esteemed.

Sure he is. You cited him as an expert. Of course, if you want to
impeach your expert, go right ahead.

> Baratz LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals

Like I acknowledged.

>>>Niether is he an expert.
>>
>>Wrong. I did a cursory search and found that he has qualified as an expert
>>in several court proceedings. That is just from Google.
>
> Wrong, I just proved, he is a liar, using his own words.

No, right. I checked him and found that he has been admitted as an
expert in several court proceedings. If you disagree, prove that he has
not.

>>I do have access to a special database, which is VERY expensive, that can
>>provide profiles on anyone who has qualified as an expert on any court
>>proceeding within the United States. If they ever have a freebie, I will
>>look him up.
>
> I could care less what you have. His OWN WORDS are on record.

I know that you do not care about truth that refutes you lies.

If those are truly his own words, and they are truly part of a public
record, then they can be used to impeach his credibility if he is going
to be testifying as an expert.

> He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals.

Like I said, I want to see the original, not just some report of what
was said. All too often during a trial prep I find that what was alleged
to have been said is not what the actual transcript shows.

>>>He LIED over and over.
>>
>>Once, as the esteemed Mr. Bowditch has shown.
>
> NOT once, neither is Peter Bowditch esteemed.

So, far, once, assuming that the hearsay report is accurate. Remember,
hearsay evidence is considered less reliable than direct evidence.

As for "over and over" what is #2?

>>>>>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Baratz NEVER did back up ANY of his LYING claims!!!!!!!
> http://www.altcorp.com/baratztestimony.htm

First, I want to see what Baratz actually said and in the context he
said it. Second, I would like to see what Doughery reviewed when he
claimed that.

Original source material is always more accurate than a persons
characterization of it.
LadyLollipop - 06 Aug 2005 00:12 GMT
>>>>>>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate
>>>>>>>>status
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>
> Sure he is. You cited him as an expert.

Wow!

What a total liar you are.

<snip>

>> Baratz LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed
>> journals
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> No, right. I checked him and found that he has been admitted as an expert
> in several court proceedings. If you disagree, prove that he has not.

I did.

I proved the lies he told.

>>>I do have access to a special database, which is VERY expensive, that can
>>>provide profiles on anyone who has qualified as an expert on any court
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> record, then they can be used to impeach his credibility if he is going to
> be testifying as an expert.

B I N G O!!!!!

>> He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals.
>
> Like I said, I want to see the original, not just some report of what was
> said. All too often during a trial prep I find that what was alleged to
> have been said is not what the actual transcript shows.

There is a number provided for you to call. The page numbers are there, help
thyself.

>>>>He LIED over and over.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> So, far, once, assuming that the hearsay report is accurate. Remember,
> hearsay evidence is considered less reliable than direct evidence.

See above.

> As for "over and over" what is #2?

Posted.

>>>>>>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> Original source material is always more accurate than a persons
> characterization of it.

Original source is quoted.

http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/baratztestimony.htm

With regards to statements made by Dr. Baratz. First, to be an esteemed
academic as claimed one should hold an academic position and publish
articles in refereed journals on his subject of expertise. I have been
unable to find a single research article on mercury or amalgams or about
anything authored by Dr. Baratz. I further could not find any source of
academic appointments in tenure leading positions. With my personal
knowledge of numerous outstanding and productive academic research
scientists available to the FDA for consultation I am somewhat perplexed
that they would select someone with such weak credentials---unless they were
searching for someone who would adamantly support their preconceived
position of amalgams being totally safe. Dr. Baratz is evidently well known
for taking that position. Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning
amalgams and chemistry in general are so pathetic that they almost defy
sensible analysis. I WOULD CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT
CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE
UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR. BARATZ'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF
AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing this is unlikely I will deal as best
I can with Dr. Baratz's statements one at a time in order of presentation.
Page 6, line 27-28. Dr. Baratz has no published basis for making this
statement. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can Dr. Baratz say
that a patient on a kidney dialysis program is not further injured by
additional mercury (a potent kidney toxicant) exposure from their amalgams?
I don't think such a study has ever been undertaken. When exposing a person
to years of a chronic level of toxic mercury it is the responsibility of the
pro-amalgam group to prove it does no harm, not vice-versa. Can Dr. Baratz
or the FDA confirm that the 22,000-fold increased mercury levels in the
hearts of inter-city young men who die of Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopthy
did not come from dental amalgams? { Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti,
C., Caldarulo, M., Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and
Maseri, A. Marked Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic
Dilated Cardiomyopathy Compared With Secondary Dysfunction. J. of the
American College Cardiology v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999,}

Page 6, lines 31-32. One grain of standard sucrose does not weigh near one
milligram. Therefore his visual aid is totally misleading and indicates that
he has not, or does not, remember experiments where weighing small amounts
was involved.

Page 6, lines 37-41. Sodium metal when added to water burns violently, but
it does not explode when added to a glass of water. I have done this as a
demonstration so I know the results first-hand. No one would be killed or
even injured unless they touched the burning metallic sodium. Yes, chlorine
gas is toxic and is a man-made material (as is metallic sodium) that does
not exist naturally. Dr. Baratz wants to claim that metallic sodium and
chlorine gas are toxic but become non-toxic on conversion to a compound,
sodium chloride, and therefore, mercury in an amalgam is not toxic because
it is surrounded by other (toxic) metals that he feels produces something
that is not mercury. This is banal.

Reactivity and biological compatibility is the essence of the amalgam issue.
Human blood contains about 140 millimolar chloride anion and 124 millimolar
sodium cation. This ions are not toxic because they are not very reactive
with biomolecules. These ions are used to perform many biological functions
necessary for life, including maintaining the ionic gradient and electrical
potential across cell membranes. However, mercury is not found to serve any
useful purpose in human tissues and is a well known inhibitor of many
enzymes, including the enzyme that transports sodium across cell membranes.
In contrast to sodium cation, mercury cation, produced from mercury vapor by
a blood enzyme, is very reactive and inhibits almost every biological
pathway or enzyme driven function in man. To compare amalgam material to
sodium chloride in the manner Dr. Baratz has chosen to reveals a total
misunderstanding of chemistry and biochemistry of heavy metal toxicity.

Page 6 line 42 to page 7 line 2. Since all of the metal components of
amalgam are basic metallic elements with no charge how can someone make the
inept statement that there is no mercury in amalgams. It is an "element" and
the fact that elements cannot be broken down or changed is a basic tenant of
chemistry. The metals in amalgams have no net charge and therefore form only
metallic bonds. Mercury is a liquid at room temperature and quite volatile
because it forms weak metallic bonds with itself. This makes mercury unlike
all other metals. The metallic bonds formed between mercury and other metals
in amalgams are stronger and a solid phase is produced---but the bonds
between mercury and, say silver, are weaker than silver-silver metal bonds
and therefore break easier releasing elemental mercury vapor at a regular
rate. This is why you can heat a gold ring covered with mercury and rapidly
make it gold again and why dimes made silvery with mercury soon resort to
their old form. The bottom line is that inclusion of mercury into an amalgam
reduces its vapor pressure but it does not reduce it to the point that
mercury cannot be significantly emitted.

Dr. Baratz states that if you detect traces of mercury from amalgams it is
because that material has been decomposed by heat and friction. How does he
explain the observations of the release of 43.5 micrograms mercury per cm2
surface area per day for two years straight in a test tube without
additional heat and no friction? {Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh,
T. S. Long-term Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam.
Clinical Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).} Bottom line is
that it is quite easy to demonstrate mercury release from a dental amalgam.
I suggest the FDA not believe either Dr. Baratz or myself but instead make
20-30 amalgams and send them to the state universities in Florida and have
them determine how long a single amalgam must be in a gallon of water before
the water is considered unsafe to drink by OSHA or EPA standards. Then the
FDA can then make a decent decision on the mercury release and toxicity of
amalgams using data from an unbiased source.

Page 7, lines 10-13. Sodium chloride intake is necessary for life. Mercury
is toxic to every type of cell. Dr. Baratz's comparison amalgams to sodium
chloride is ridiculous. Amino acids contain carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen
and so does cyanide but the difference is how these molecules react in the
body---one is a food and the other a lethal toxin. Amalgams release mercury
and other metal ions and solutions in which amalgams are soaked are
cytotoxic! { Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T.
Correlation of Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and
Gallium-based Dental Alloys in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept.
(1994)}

Page 7, lines 15-18. Yes, everything is toxic if an overdose is
obtained---that is common sense. However, mercury has no food or biological
function and is toxic at concentrations much lower than even most other
toxicants. Low levels of mercury have been shown to inhibit the same
enzymes/proteins that are found inhibited in Alzheimer's diseased brain. {
Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks
Brain -Tubulin-GTP Interactions: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer"s
Disease. pp98-105 in Status Quo and Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental
Materials (International Symposium Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and G.
N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart-New York (1995). Pendergrass,
J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J., Winfield, S.A. and Lorscheider, F.L.
Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain:
Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's Disease Brain.
Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997). Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E.
Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate Interactions by
Mercury: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain. In Metal
Ions in Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478. Mercury and Its Effects on
Environment and Biology, Chapter 16. Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel
Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996)}

Later research with neurons in culture nanomolar (10-9M) levels of mercury
caused cell destruction and formation of three of the widely accepted
diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. { Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch.,
Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B., Herrmann, M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and
Hock, C. Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and
Increases -amyloid Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma
Cells. J. Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and
Lorscheider, F.L. Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural
Integrity and Formation of Neruofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones
Following In Vitro Exposure to Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4):733-737, 2001.}
Therefore, being unnecessarily exposed to continuous low doses of mercury
for scores of years is an unhealthy situation. Does the FDA operate with the
mantra of allowing itself to do this and eliminate any disagreement by
posturing that no one has proven mercury toxic when indeed this has been
done over and over. Due to the overall difficulty and complexity there is
not one epidemiological study showing any major negative effects of mercury
from amalgams, but there are none showing it to be safe either. With all of
the data on animal cell culture studies showing mercury toxicity showing
concern and eliminating all long-term exposures to mercury is justified.

Page 7 lines 15-34. This paragraph should convince everyone that Dr. Baratz
is way off base. I had to replace all of the mercury thermometers in the
teaching labs in our department of chemistry because of the OSHA/EPA
restrictions where the spill of one thermometer could create a toxic
in-building situation and the possible wash-out into the sewage stream
caused an unacceptable environmental hazard. Dr. Baratz seems unaware of the
long-term affects of mercury accumulation. Sure, he could ingest liquid
mercury a single time and walk away but how many industrial workers have
been seriously injured by less severe but continuous mercury exposures?
Also, if he did ingest liquid mercury then he could pay a severe price later
on in his life but he doesn't seem to know this. Why does he think the
government has outlawed the sale of mercury thermometers to the general
public?

In this paragraph Dr. Baratz states that mercury is not absorbed from the
gut. This is totally incorrect. Mercury vapor is rapidly absorbed into all
hydrophobic areas of the body. Where is the publication to support his
absurd contention? He is further incorrect in his statement that the amount
that comes off of an amalgam is equivalent to the amount you get every day
by breathing air, drinking water and eating food. In a 1998 NIH study on
1,127 US military personnel it was shown that the blood/urine mercury levels
were much higher in individuals with dental amalgams and the amount of
mercury was correlated with the number of amalgams surfaces. The average
amalgam bearer had 4.5 times the urine mercury level of individuals who were
amalgam free. { Kingman, A., Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury
Concentrations in Urine and Whole Blood Associated with Amalgam Exposure in
a US Military Population. J. of Dental Research v77(3): 461-471, 1998.}

Dr. Baratz states that even the most ardent anti-amalgamist have virtually
the same amount of mercury in their bodies as does the members of the
Florida Board of Dentistry. That would be true only if all of them are free
of amalgams. In a published report removing amalgam fillings dropped the
level of mercury in the urine in the patients by about 5-fold at a
subsequent date. { Begerow, J., Zander, D., Freier, I. And Dunemann, L.
Long-term Mercury Excretion in Urine after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int.
Arch. Occup. Environ. Health v66 (3), 209-212, 1994.}

Neither Dr. Baratz nor I have the right to make sweeping statements without
providing the scientific literature on the subject that backs up our
statements. Under adjudication many of his statements, now on record, such
as given on page 7 line 19, "So to say that dental amalgam has mercury in it
is false. It has what used to be mercury." will provide a feast for the
opposing lawyers. I am very surprised that Dr. Baratz has chosen to pass
himself off as an amalgam expert with no publications in the area and this
is compounded by what appears to be total ignorance of the relevant
literature.

Page 8 lines 1 to 10. My comment is that the EPA and OSHA government units
don't think the amount of mercury released from amalgams is safe. If indeed
the groups listed by Dr. Baratz say amalgams are safe (are amalgams listed
on the Food and Drug Administration list of safe dental materials?) where
are the scientific studies that back their claims. Who represents the NIH
and says amalgams are safe? I challenge Dr. Baratz to find a single research
article where experimental protocols are used that provide proof of safety
of dental amalgams. It is easy to compose a "committee mainly pro-amalgam
dentists" and have them proclaim amalgams safe, but have them show the
relevant basic research that proves this is another thing. Does he really
have publications from the Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer's Associations
that claim amalgams are safe? I would really like to see him produce these
documents.

Page 8, line 30. Keeping or bringing science into the dental profession is
my goal also. This means both Dr. Baratz and I have to back our statements
with refereed scientific publications, not wild, unjustified claims or
opinions. I would like to challenge Dr. Baratz to produce the research
papers that back his many claims.
Peter Bowditch - 06 Aug 2005 00:53 GMT
>>>>>Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>What a total liar you are.

She cites me as an authority, and then she denies me. Sad. Still,
anyone with my first name should be aware of the possibility of
denying something three times before the cock crows.

Cite me, do I not bleed?

(Apology to Jan - the line above is a reference to something said by
one of the types of people who always lie in newsgroups so you will
probably label it a lie. If you like you could even go one better,
because the person who was supposed to have said it was fictional so
the entire character of this person is a lie. Also, as a fictional
Jew, he could not possibly know anything about the 10 Commandments. on
the other hand, as he was a fictional adult he had never been a boy.
Another lie.)

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

LadyLollipop - 06 Aug 2005 02:52 GMT
>>>>>>Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12.
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> She cites me as an authority,

No, I did not site you as an authority.

I did not site you as an expert.

<snip>
Mark Probert - 06 Aug 2005 13:57 GMT
>>>>>>>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate
>>>>>>>>>status
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
>
> What a total liar you are.

Nope. It is the truth. You seem to be having trouble recalling what you
wrote.

> <snip>

Chicken.

>>>Baratz LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed
>>>journals
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> I proved the lies he told.

No, you cited something where Dougherty claims to have written over 100
papers. I could not find any evidence of that.

>>>>I do have access to a special database, which is VERY expensive, that can
>>>>provide profiles on anyone who has qualified as an expert on any court
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
>><snip>

Another chicken.

>>If those are truly his own words, and they are truly part of a public
>>record, then they can be used to impeach his credibility if he is going to
>>be testifying as an expert.
>
>  B I N G O!!!!!

However, I find no evidence that it has been done since then. Thus,
there is a major question as to the representation on Haley's site.

>>>He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> There is a number provided for you to call. The page numbers are there, help
> thyself.

You cited it, you provide it.

>>>>>He LIED over and over.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> See above.

Your drivel dripped down....

>>As for "over and over" what is #2?
>
> Posted.

Not found.

>>>>>>>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Original source is quoted.

Who is to say what the context is and whether the quote is accurate.
Original source is not a quote of original source.
mlowry3@bellsouth.net - 06 Aug 2005 02:20 GMT
...the usual drivel...

Pound sand, Lollypoop.  You're an ignorant bigot.

Mark
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.