Talk:Stephen Barrett: Difference between revisions

Is there a source for the claim that Barrett isn't currently licensed to practice medicine? --Icarus 03:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we need a source. This is not the first time Ive heard this, so there may be somthing to it more than POV by the anon user, but without a source, it needs a source. Stbalbach 04:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say we leave it for a week or so to allow someone to add a source, and then remove it if it does not have a source at that point. If it's true, it can always be added back whenever someone does present a source. --Icarus 07:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I may remember wrong, but I think Barrett had said that he didn't renew his membership in his psychiatric council-ma-bob thing... I need to figure out what I'm thinking of Tyciol 08:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article I posted, under oath Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. If this is verified, I think it should be part of this article. Levine2112 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article you posted takes the text verbatim from www.healthfreedomlaw.com, the author of which doesn't provide a transcript of the trial. --CDN99 18:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a transcipt available? I can't find the article on healthfreedomlaw.com. It's kind of a sloppy site. Can you point me to the page where you saw this article verbatim? Levine2112 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just found this from another article:

'At trial, while on the stand, Barrett had to admit that he not only gave up his license in 1994, but that he was, in fact, not a board-certified psychiatrist, because he had flunked the examination that was required to receive certification. More significantly, under intense cross-examination, Barrett admitted that he did not pass the neurological portion of the exam.'

Levine2112 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down the main page at www.healthfreedomlaw.com to "breaking news!!!". Chiroweb also quotes from www.healthfreedomlaw.com in that article. --CDN99 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the truth here? Did Barrett indeed fail his psychiatric board examinations as those articles claim he admitted on the stand? I don't want to post a lie to the article. But with several references now, does this become verifiable? Do courts often publish trial transcipts? Has Barrrett ever responded to these allegations about what he said on the stand? Levine2112 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, you're all mixing two very different matters together. This is confusing, so here they are:

1. Letting his license lapse when he retired.

This is standard practice for MDs. It's expensive to keep one's license to practice active. One has to pay very expensive malpractice insurance, dues, continuing education, etc. He will always be an MD. That's his education.

• Early history:

During the mid-1970s, I began writing about what I found and gradually evolved into a medical writer and editor. As I did so, I gradually reduced my psychiatric work until 1993, when I retired so I could spend more time writing about my findings. The original committee, renamed Quackwatch in 1997, has evolved into an informal network of individuals who provide help when asked. FAQ

• What is the status of your medical license?

In 1993, I decided to devote my full energy to investigating and writing about quackery and inactivated my Pennsylvania license. Since 1999, there has been an organized attempt to destroy my reputation by falsely describing my status as "de-licensed"-a derogatory term that means having one's licensed revoked for misconduct. I have committed no misconduct. I retired in good standing and can reactivate my license by paying the renewal fee. But since I no longer see patients, there is no reason to do so. I have filed libel suits against several of the people who orchestrated the campaign.

Tim Bolen's most blatant lie is the "de-licensed" claim. He has been confronted with it and yet continues to do it.

2. Never being Board Certified.

He has never claimed to be Board Certified. He was and is still an MD and a psychiatrist. Being "Board Certified" is nice, but far from all MDs, including psychiatrists, are Board Certified.

3. Frequently Asked Questions about My Activities -- Stephen Barrett, M.D.

• What got you interested in fighting quackery?
• What promoted you to start the Quackwatch Web site?
• What qualifies you to write on so many topics?
• Do you yourself follow a healthy lifestyle?
• What are your goals?
• What is the status of your medical license?
• What would you do if you were told you were terminally ill?
• Additional information about me
• Additional information about Quackwatch

Just ask

If you have any other matters that need answering, just ask. The answers usually exist, and I know the people who can provide them. Keep in mind that Barrett, the NCAHF, etc. are open about their activities. They have nothing to hide. The information is there if you know where to look. Even participation on the Healthfraud Discussion List requires using ones real name.

Regards, Paul -- Fyslee 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no factual reson to doubt the documents authenticity. Court records are not always made available online by the court, and any transcript made available from a third party could just as easily be discounted for the same reasons, its a burdon of proof that is extreme, Wikipedia is not original research, it reports on what others are saying and lets the reader decide. Stbalbach 20:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A trial transcript is not "original research." In fact, the guideline on reliable sources specifically mentions trial transcripts as credible primary sources. By contrast, a press release issued by one side in a contentious court dispute is far from a reliable source. If a transcript is not available, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't be in this case, a neutral and uninvolved news article about the proceedings should be cited at the very least.

It's hardly extreme to ask for a citation from a work that doesn't happen to be online; people cite printed material all the time here. Don't be lazy! The clerk of courts of the civil division of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas can be reached at (610) 782-3148. Ask for a transcript from case number 2002-C-1837 and I'm sure she'll be happy to help you out. --PHenry 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a transcript costs money and time. I am curious, but not that much -- but perhaps the person who added the link would like to follow up with it. I've added a note to their talk page. Stbalbach 22:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"critical is positive" is your POV, please don't impose it on the article - I dont know about "imposing", your the one who is creating sections based on value judgement terms. Most articles dont do that. In any case, youve changed the word "positive" to the more neutral "Advocacy" which I can live with. --Stbalbach 13:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many other articles dealing with controversial subjects have separate sections for external links. The descriptions vary, but they do exist as a common practice. You are using the word "positive" in a different sense than was intended, which is an unfair trick. I used it in the sense normally used in such cases - links positively oriented towards the subject of the article. The other links - labeled critical - are obviously critical of the subject. I changed the word (to a more awkward one) to hopefully avoid an editing war. -- Fyslee 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "positive" can imply a value judgement (opposite = "negative"). There's no "trick", seems positivly obvious to me, unless your casting negative light on the matter for other reasons. --Stbalbach 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can mean the opposite of negative, but I wrote "critical." They are simply descriptive words to identify the type of content. Some links are "positively" for Barrett, while the others are "critical" and against Barrett. My headings described quite accurately the two types of POV links. Accurate documentation is considered allowable.

Bolen's libelous publications (for which he is soon to appear in court) are not considered to even be close to an attempt at accuracy. They are clearly prejudiced and inflammatory paid spin doctoring. He is running interference for his employers - Hulda Clark, among others. He doesn't hesitate to deceive by repeating claims and accusations he knows to be falsehood. He has been confronted with them, but refuses to change. He knows they are lies, but continues to repeat them. So far he hasn't presented any evidence for his false claims. If you know of any evidence (he isn't producing it), I'd like to see it.

Here are some informative links about the libel situation:

• A Response to Tim Bolen - Stephen Barrett, MD
• Careless reporting by Tim Bolen - Stephen Barrett, MD
• Full Canvas Jacket Award - Peter Bowditch
• Tim Bolen the Defamer - Terry Polevoy, MD

Here's a picture of Bolen.

-- Fyslee 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have an ax to grind with Bolen. --Stbalbach 04:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! you can say that again. He has consistently libeled and attacked many of us, and without any proof at that. Here's just one of the most prominent of examples (I am named):

• The Clark v. Barrett countersuit: Racketeering suit - a Cross Complaint to the Libel suit

The accusations against Barrett and some 30 others, myself included, is very long. Quackbusters consider the accusations to be fitting for a Mafia godfather:

Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Cross-Defendants have engaged in, but not limited to, the following illegal conduct and acts prior to the time of the filing of this Cross-Complaint:

Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; Perjury; Subornation of Perjury; Extortion; Stalking; Terrorist threats; Assault; Filing false police reports; Illegal lobbying; Illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies; Trespass; Invasion of Privacy; Web site tampering; Internet Spam; Investigation without license; Violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech; Interference with Right of Free Speech and Association.

That countersuit was conveniently withdrawn without ever coming to trial (but the accusations are still on the internet): Bogus "Anti-Quackbuster" Suit Withdrawn

Obviously having been accused of such crimes without a shred of evidence, and having the accusations published all over the internet, isn't a very pleasant experience, but then Bolen isn't interested in playing fair and has never claimed to be.

• A follow-up "Malicious Prosecution" suit against Carlos Negrete, Hulda Clark's attorney, is pending: [1]

How would *you* feel if I accused *you* of committing Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; Perjury; Subornation of Perjury; Extortion; Stalking; Terrorist threats; Assault; Filing false police reports; Illegal lobbying; Illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies; Trespass; Invasion of Privacy; Web site tampering; Internet Spam; Investigation without license; Violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech; Interference with Right of Free Speech and Association, and many more crimes?

That kind of lawsuit is a first class example of a SLAPP suit. Even on the face of it it's obvious they are trumped up charges, intended to provoke and intimidate, but not anywhere near the truth.

Can you now understand why I "have an ax to grind" with him? Before he personally threatened me for the first time back in 1999 (or 2000), I had only criticized Hulda Clark for her dubious methods. She employed him to defend her, and since his favorite mode is the attack mode (by his own admission), he promptly emailed me with personal threats. Nice guy! (not).

I'm just an ordinary PT in practice with my wife, also a PT. We're ordinary people with average incomes, two children, two dogs and three cats. I don't lie about people, threaten them, sue them, or otherwise engage in any devious activities. I do criticize quackery and fraud when I see it, and I can easily document it. Whatever I write can stand up in court. Bolen doesn't like that, and he knows I have enough stuff on him to win.

I'd really like to hear you tell me how *you* would feel if accused of such a long list of crimes. -- Fyslee 16:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess my concern is that your edits about Bolen are being made in Good Faith, a central foundation of Wikipedia. You obviously have an ax to grind with him and since you wrote almost the entire article on Tim Bolen (deleting almost everything that was there previously), it does raise the question that your edits were made in Good Faith to be neutral and fair. I found most of your edits of that article to emphasis negative stuff and not mention the positive (a "blackwash"). --Stbalbach 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you'll go back to the time I made my edits and additions, I reformatted it, but without eliminating anything essential. There wasn't much there at the time.

When you objected I wrote the following, but never got any reply:

Okay, what do you propose? I'm not sure what you're thinking about when you write "representative." Since I know Bolen's tactics and opinions quite well, and have been on the receiving end of his attacks, I've learned quite a bit about him, his websites, and his newsletters, which I receive. Maybe I'm too close to be able to do this properly, but my knowledge should be useful in some way.

In what way are the quotes "negative?" They are his true opinions. I feared that if I were to write about his motives and opinions myself, I'd be accused of painting a negative picture, so I chose to give him the word.

This article should describe the website and its purpose. Since it consists entirely of his newsletters, it's his opinions that become the subject matter for the article.

Please come with some suggestions. I'm open to dialogue.-- Fyslee 16:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously would like to know what you mean. -- Fyslee 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well back then I worked on it for over 45 mins and then pressed the wrong button and lost it all and havent had the heart to go back since. --Stbalbach 00:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! What a bummer. I feel with you. -- Fyslee 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! I concur on the horribility of it all, that's happened to me many times on forums. A couple times on here but not so much. Generally with faulty things like that it's good to fall back on notepad, but when nothing happens for a while we fall back on the more conveniant way until something jarring occurs. Generally it's good for the larger changes, which is why modifying things with smaller changes is good, among other reasons Tyciol 08:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]