^^^^^

Now you've done it.  Do you really think that there's any hope that we'll
be able to convince Bee that we aren't all Rich Rosen?

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

Must hit something with my post---otherwise you'd leave it alone!

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542473

See his lies and mumbo jumbo there.

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/california_superior_court_judge_.htm

. Wallace I. Sampson, M.D.
Dr. Sampson was offered apparently to testify concerning the scientific
method generally, standards of clinical medical research the nature of
homeopathic medical science, and the nature of the information upon which
much of homeopathic science may be said to rest. The thrust of his testimony
appeared directed to the conclusion that the evidence supporting claims of
efficacy for homeopathic drugs does not meet the standard that he believes
applies to valid clinical studies. In this regard, his testimony was largely
an attempt to discredit the group of reference sources known as "Materia
Medica," which resources the U.S. FDA recognizes as a significant source of
information concerning homeopathic drugs.

All of Dr. Sampson's testimony was quite general in nature and he did not
provide any specific facts that would tend to support any particular finding
as to Defendants' products. Dr. Sampson, a retired medical doctor with an
oncology specialty, has had only limited involvement in clinical research
studies. He has little expertise in research methodology and does not
instruct in that area. He is not an expert in pharmacology. He admitted to
having had no experience with or training in homeopathic medicine or drugs.
He was unfamiliar with any professional organizations related to homeopathy,
including the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia Convention of the United States,
which group is responsible for designation and de-designation of such drugs
as "official" drugs recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. He
thus does not have expertise as to the drug products that are the sole
products at issue in this case. While he stated that he teaches a university
course on "alternative medicine," Dr. Sampson admitted that the course does
not instruct on how such methods may be practiced, but rather is a course
designed to highlight the criticisms of such alternative practices.
Therefore, the Court finds that Dr. Sampson has relatively thin credentials
to opine on the general questions of the proper standards for clinical or
scientific research or other methods of obtaining valid evidence about the
efficacy of drugs. The Court further finds that Dr. Sampson lacks experience
in the field of homeopathic drugs, which renders his testimony of little or
no weight in this case.

In addition, Dr. Sampson admitted to having done absolutely no investigation
concerning Defendants' specific products. He admitted to no real knowledge
as to their ingredients and acknowledged that he had not seen any of the
products prior to the trial. He admitted that he was aware of no tests ever
performed on Defendants' products by anyone. In view of the foregoing, Dr.
Sampson did not show that the evidence in the Materia Medica as it relates
to the ingredients in Defendants' products is invalid. Accordingly, the
Court finds that the testimony of Dr. Sampson did not show that there is no
valid scientific or medical evidence to support the claims associated with
Defendants' products, even according to his own standards.

B. Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Dr. Barrett was offered on several issues by the Plaintiff, but the Court
found that there was substantial overlap on the issues that he and Dr.
Sampson were asked to address. Thus, in order to avoid duplicative or
cumulative evidence (see Cal. Evidence Code §§ 352, 411, 723), Dr. Barrett's
testimony was limited by the Court to the sole issue of FDA treatment of
homeopathic drugs. The relevancy of this issue was questionable at best,
since the Plaintiff had previously asserted that its case did not depend on
or seek to establish any violation of federal food and drug laws or
regulations. Nevertheless, Plaintiff elicited testimony from Dr. Barrett on
his experience with the FDA as it relates to regulation of homeopathic
drugs.

Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point
he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he
has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although he claims
to have read and written extensively on homeopathy and other forms of
alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett's claim to expertise on FDA issues arises
from his conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional
literature on the subject and certain continuing education activities.

As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs,
the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this
area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency
enforces federal statutes and the agency's own regulations. Dr. Barrett's
purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a
lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence
law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations
with FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his
own instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information
for his various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified
before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation
of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are
outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven
years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr.
Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address.
Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of
the issues in this case associated with Defendants' products.

C. Credibility of Plaintiff's experts

Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are
biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded
their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of
the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in
an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict
the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson's university course presents
what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr.
Barrett's heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative
medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about
which he opines. Both witnesses' fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid
from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such
as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr.
Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf
of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and
thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett.
It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial
interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors,
Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the
Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses
or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can
fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and
therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on
that basis as well.

OUACKBUSTERS  - There has emerged over the years a  self appointed group who
refer to themselves as quackbusters This group operates a network of eight
websites under different names, two of the most active being Quackwatch and
its affiliate the so called NCAHF (national council against health fraud).
These self designated "experts" label all forms of complementary and
alternative treatments (CAM) as quackery and fraud. They never question
conventional medicine and with their misguided philosophy have caused
un-necessary suffering for countless numbers of people over the years. This
extreme right wing network actively encourage lawsuits against CAM
physicians and then pocket large sums of money by presenting themselves as
"expert "witnesses. They have however suffered a series of setbacks in U.S.
courts in recent years.Acting on behalf of the so called NCAHF two of their
leading members,Stephen Barrett founder of Quackwatch,and Wallace Sampson
M.D., were found by the Californian appeals court in April 2003 "To be
biased and unworthy of credibility".Likewise both were found by the superior
court to lack expertise.The court also found that both Barrett and Sampson
had a direct personal and financial interest in the proceedings. This group
also  receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry to help maintain the
industrial/ pharmaceutical monopoly over orthodox medicine.Despite court
findings against them they still continue to engage in a campaign of
misinformation to discredit Chelation therapy, and to discredit doctors who
integrate it into their practices.Another of their members Saul Green PH.D.
has collaborated with Wallace Sampson M.D in attacking CAM treatments,
despite the fact that Sampsons evidence has already been deemed by the U.S.
courts to be"unworthy of credibility"and to lack expertise.This self
appointed group are simply a front for the Pharmaceutical Industry.They like
to quote one of their own members Saul Green PhD who is also supported and
financed by the Pharmaceutical Industry,and his arguments against
chelation.Each and every one of his arguments have been debunked by Elmer
Cranton MD.See "Busting the Quackbusters" rebuttal to Saul Green
below.Likewise,Joel M Kauffman PhD has effectively   debunked Saul Greens
claims against chelation therapy, and he goes on to state that Greens use of
"supposed" chemical knowledge"was a deliberate effort to feign knowledge of
chemistry in order to discredit chelation by strewing non-facts of
chemistry"(Joel M Kauffman PhD 2006).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is time for Congress to defund the National Center for Complementary and
Alternative Medicine (NCCAM.) After ten years of existence and over $200
million in expenditures, it has not proved effectiveness for any
"alternative" method. Quack Sampson.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542473

See his lies and mumbo jumbo there.

I've visited Stanford *twice* -- once while considering it for graduate school,
and once for an interview for a postdoc (I ended up across the bay at UC
Berkeley in both cases).  And not only that -- I once spent a weekend in
Palo Alto with some friends of mine.  I guess they're finally on to us.

Unfortunately, the copy of the Monty Python Papperbok that I bought at a
bookstore on the second visit was ruined in a flood caused during a rainstorm
when all of the water draining from the roof of my building decided to obey
the laws of physics (too bad Bee wasn't there) and enter my apartment via
the hole in the drainpipe that had been drilled by the "professionals" who
had installed my air conditioner (the same "professionals" who seemed to
think that the water accumulated from the condensation at the compressor was
likely to flow uphill).  But I digress.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."