Medical Forum / General / Alternative / December 2006
Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ilena Rose - 02 Dec 2006 02:38 GMT http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html
1 December 2006
Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases
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 damning 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).
P R E S S R E L E A S E
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
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 LAW OFFICES OF CARLOS F. NEGRETE San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Phone: 949.493.8115 Fax: 949.493.8170 email: mediarelations@healthfreedomlaw.com mediarelations@negretelaw.com URL: www.healthfreedomlaw.com www.negretelaw.com
Dr. Tedd Koren, DC. Phone: 800.537.3001 267.498.0071 Fax: 267.498.0078 URL: www.korenpublications.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 Barretts 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 Korens publication that Barrett was 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.
Thursdays 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.
Turners experience dates back the 1960s when he joined consumer advocate Ralph Nader and was one of the groundbreaking Naders 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 Barretts 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 judges 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 ABCs 20/20, NBCs 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.
Korens 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 Barretts 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 Barretts 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 who 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm
Rod - 02 Dec 2006 13:28 GMT That's nice Ilena We all know that Barrett is a loser so why go on with it.
Let it be and get on with the remainder of life.
Cheers, rod
> http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html > [quoted text clipped - 254 lines] > > www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm Peter Bowditch - 02 Dec 2006 22:15 GMT >That's nice Ilena > We all know that Barrett is a loser so why go on with it. Ilena forgets to mention how she lost when she sued AOL and some people a few years back. Note - Ilena initiated the action.
She still hasn't paid the court-ordered costs.
 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
Ilena Rose - 02 Dec 2006 14:40 GMT Hi Rod ... nice to hear from you again.
I wanted to respond to your comments here and on a couple other threads.
True, Barrett is a loser ... but a very bad one.
He cowers behind the scenes and has his publicists like disbarred Probert and Willa Nanaweedkiller Nidiffer post for him ...
I was away for several days and came back to their lies about the case they just lost.
This article was just published yesterday ... can you imagine the Chutzpah of Barrett .... who FAILED the medical boards ... declaring himself the authority to harass others of his dubious "Credential Watch"???
I'll stop defending myself when they stop attacking me and spreading lies about me and their losing case.
www.breastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
>http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html > [quoted text clipped - 254 lines] > >www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm pmoran - 02 Dec 2006 21:23 GMT > Hi Rod ... nice to hear from you again. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'll stop defending myself when they stop attacking me and spreading > lies about me and their losing case. Rod is right that it is about time this stopped.
You go first, because you started it It is absolutely clear that you spread libellous material about Barrett and Polevoy before they said anything at all about you. And what lies have they ever spread about you?
Those who feel it might be prudent to hear the other side of Barrett's dealing's with Koren (who was also spreading Bolen's lies as though they were true ) should consult the following site that has links to the original court documents of cases involving Koren.
http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=koren
Peter Moran
> www.breastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm > [quoted text clipped - 258 lines] > > > >www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm pmoran - 02 Dec 2006 22:17 GMT As an example of some of the harrassment that Barrett has had to put up with, from parties that Ilena supports, see -- .
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/negrete.html
Take particular note of the US Court of Appeals comments at the end.
This is to do with the racketeering accusation that was made against numerous critics of Hulda Clark.
I haven't seen most of this material before. It is well-documented and provides a startlingly different perspective to Ilena's..
PM
Peter Bowditch - 03 Dec 2006 00:33 GMT >As an example of some of the harrassment that Barrett has had to put up >with, from parties that Ilena supports, see -- . [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >This is to do with the racketeering accusation that was made against >numerous critics of Hulda Clark. Has Negrete got this on his web site yet?
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/clark07.htm
I loved it when this man who claims to be a lawyer (and not even a disbarred one) called me a "bottom feeding parasite" while simultaneously rambling on about how I was defaming someone. I wonder which law school he went to.
>I haven't seen most of this material before. It is well-documented >and provides a startlingly different perspective to Ilena's.. > > >PM  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
David Wright - 03 Dec 2006 00:30 GMT >>As an example of some of the harrassment that Barrett has had to put up >>with, from parties that Ilena supports, see -- . [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >simultaneously rambling on about how I was defaming someone. I wonder >which law school he went to. I believe it was the "Close Cover Before Striking School of Law."
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins
Mark Probert - 03 Dec 2006 18:28 GMT > As an example of some of the harrassment that Barrett has had to put up > with, from parties that Ilena supports, see -- . > > http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/negrete.html I had forgotten about this:
"The suit against my wife (a family physician) was done purely for harassment purposes. She was not a member of Quackwatch, and her only involvement in antiquackery activity is to answer medical questions when I need help and to provide me with journal articles she thinks might interest me. She was not involved in any way in my criticism of Hulda Clark. Even though she submitted an affidavit stating these facts, Negrete would not drop her from the suit and even tried (unsuccessfully) to force both of us to travel to California for depositions. In May 2002, I filed discovery requests in the Clark suit which demanded that Negrete reveal precisely what alleged facts could support the charges he made in the cross-complaints. When he refused, we filed motions to compel him to do so. In June, rather than face the judge and admit that the suit was bogus, he withdrew it."
These disgusting, indecent people use the courts to stalk and harass, and then hide behind the Communications *Decency* Act. How pathetic of them.
> Take particular note of the US Court of Appeals comments at the end. Peter, people are lazy, here is the quote:
The scurrilous nature of the defendants' allegations of wrongdoing and their efforts to publicize them widely on the Internet, when coupled with their utter failure to offer any proof of their charges, gives rise to a compelling inference of malice [10].
> This is to do with the racketeering accusation that was made against > numerous critics of Hulda Clark. > > I haven't seen most of this material before. It is well-documented > and provides a startlingly different perspective to Ilena's.. No surprise there.
Sdores - 03 Dec 2006 23:58 GMT Goodness, all of you give it a rest already, please! UM MOM Susan
Ilena Rose - 02 Dec 2006 22:12 GMT LOL ... what arrogance and chutpah and ignorance all mixed together, Moran!
I would hate to be a patient of yours.
The courts have specifically ruled that nothing I wrote or reposted about your hero, never board certified Barrett ... and your continuing the lie about this for him speaks volumes.
Here are the words from the Supreme Court decision.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122953.PDF QUOTE;
As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory.
UNQUOTE
Barrett should never have tried to get thousands of dollars from me by his threats.
You ignore ... either by ignorance or negligence ... all evidence that doesn't suit your biased preconceptions ... and form conclusions inaccurately drawn from that biased place.
When I catch an extra hour or so ... I will dedicate a page to YOU, Healthfraud Moran and respond point by point to his lies and false accusations and conclusions.
Stephen Barrett demanded first $500 and then $2000 from me for reposting Mr. Bolen's piece and made the false conclusion that it was "defamatory" calling someone (him, in this case) a "quack."
This, from a non licensed, never board certified so called "doctor" who had made his living for years labeling others as such ... and waging smear campaigns to destroy their lives and work.
What arrogance and ignorance mixed together!
He too, made many false claims ... and even declared under penalty of perjury that he couldn't "remember" publicly calling "anyone a quack."
How convenient.
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
Ilena Rose - 02 Dec 2006 22:36 GMT After several years of being harassed by then President of Inamed (McGhan) ... also denying his paymasters, Patrick O'leary ... I did indeed sue him for all the lies he and his team posted about me.
I had never heard of a SLAPP suit before ...
For that whole story ...
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PatrickOleary.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWAtch.htm
Peter Bowditch - 03 Dec 2006 00:33 GMT >After several years of being harassed by then President of Inamed >(McGhan) ... also denying his paymasters, Patrick O'leary ... I did >indeed sue him for all the lies he and his team posted about me. Tell us the result, Ilena.
Tell us how much you were ordered to pay to Dr O'Leary.
Tell us how much you have actually paid.
 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
Ilena Rose - 03 Dec 2006 18:46 GMT LOL ... disbarred and discredited Stephen Barrett Promoter, Mark S Probert illustrates perfectly the idiocy behind the Healthfraud Campaigns.
The 3 wackos ... including Christopher Grell (who I had NEVER even mentioned before he sued me for "conspiracy to libel" and "libel" ) ... named other people in their SLAPP suit who had never posted a word about any of them.
Typical Quack / Healthfraud Attack Tactics ...
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Polevoy.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.html
pmoran - 02 Dec 2006 23:36 GMT > LOL ... what arrogance and chutpah and ignorance all mixed together, > Moran! > > I would hate to be a patient of yours. Typical ad hominem. You can't help it, can you?
> The courts have specifically ruled that nothing I wrote or reposted > about your hero, never board certified Barrett ... and your continuing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile > comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory. This was a throw-away line by one of the judges at the end of his submission on the question of whether there was a conspiracy. I wonder if he would rephrase it if he knew that you were using this to justify what you did.
What the courts actually said was the statements were not "actionable" under current law, and all the other judges expressed concern at the implications of the decision that they were forced to make under that law.
This is what the other judges said -- .
"The court granted the motion, finding that Rosenthal's statements concerned an issue of public interest within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, and were, for the most part, not actionable because they contained no provably false assertions of fact. Plaintiffs do not challenge that ruling. The court determined that the only actionable statement appeared in an article Rosenthal received via e-mail from her codefendant Tim Bolen."
We now know that you were not even an completely innocent party simply passing on views that you knew nothing about. The court documents show that you were a personal friend of Bolen, and undoubtedly a knowing accomplice of that disreputable character in this vicious attack on undeserving parties.
Also, since you claim what you said was not defamatory, are you prepared to stand by everything you said and support the claims with direct evidence? I asked this before.
Your bare claim that the "hostile accusations" were not defamatory carries with it the clear implication that everything you said was true. The courts have not said that, and Barrett and others deserve this to be stated loudly and clearly and as often as it takes.. That is mainly all I have been saying.
> When I catch an extra hour or so ... I will dedicate a page to YOU, > Healthfraud Moran and respond point by point to his lies and false > accusations and conclusions. Yes, that is what you do. I expect no less of you. I will not give you the pleasure of looking at it as I am sure I would find it hurtful. But that is its intent, isn't it? Not to inform. Not to reveal the truth. Simply to get back at those who are responding to the unjustified implications that you and others have been drawing from the court's decision and that you are repeatedly referring to on these newsfoups. Stop doing that and I will also shut up.
> Stephen Barrett demanded first $500 and then $2000 from me for > reposting Mr. Bolen's piece and made the false conclusion that it was > "defamatory" calling someone (him, in this case) a "quack." I suggest everyone reads Barrett's version of the events at the sites I have posted.
> This, from a non licensed, never board certified so called "doctor" > who had made his living for years labeling others as such ... and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > He too, made many false claims ... and even declared under penalty of > perjury that he couldn't "remember" publicly calling "anyone a quack." After having about three days to justify yourself, this is the best you can come up with?
Peter Moran.
Ilena Rose - 03 Dec 2006 14:16 GMT After several years of being harassed by then President of Inamed (McGhan) ... also denying his paymasters, Patrick O'leary ... I did indeed sue him for all the lies he and his team posted about me.
I had never heard of a SLAPP suit before ...
For that whole story ...
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PatrickOleary.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWAtch.htm
Since Bowditch is asking ... and the answers are above ... perhaps he'd like to share how much the more than dubious NCAHF was ordered to pay to King Bio and how much they have paid already.
Peter Bowditch - 03 Dec 2006 19:37 GMT >After several years of being harassed by then President of Inamed >(McGhan) ... also denying his paymasters, Patrick O'leary ... I did [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >he'd like to share how much the more than dubious NCAHF was ordered to >pay to King Bio and how much they have paid already. I have no way of knowing how much, if anything, NCAHF has paid to the admitted fraudsters and liars at King Bio. I was asking YOU how much YOU were ordered to pay to Dr O'Leary and how much YOU had actually paid.
(The reason I call King Bio "admitted fraudsters and liars" is that the King Bio web site at one time noted that the only differences between King Bio products was labelling - all products were chemically identical. And I am still waiting for their cancer cure which was due years ago.)
 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
|
|
|