The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)
Never board certified in anything, his experience as a physician ended with his 1958 internship. Yet, he proclaimed himself an expert in medicine, nutrition, & law, as well as having declared himself the media. He has belonged to private interest groups whose names deceptively sound like government agencies, and he has been neither a medical technologist, nor a cytopathologist, nor a biochemist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a researcher, nor a forensic scientist, nor a ...
January 16, 2007 The Clone of a Salem Witch Hunter
In the Year 2001, a retired psychiatrist stated: "Today, I am the media." He repeat- edly presented himself as an expert in medicine, nutrition, and law, while having zero experience as a practicing physician, zero training in nutrition, and zero bar as- sociation membership.
At the principle website that he operates, he is described as a "medical communications expert" of national renown. He even presented himself as a master in spiritual direction, in book form. Representations of Stephen Barrett insinuate that he alone can suffice as the voice of medicine. In fact, representations of him make it sound as if, during any given election, he should run for God. However, the factual score- card on Barrett differs drastically from the representations made of him.
Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
[1] Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board-certified in anything, at any time in his life. He has never been able to speak with the authority of a board-certified medical expert.
[2] Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point of a practitioner in any type of internal or dermatolog- ical medicine. In fact, Stephen Barrett has not served in the capacity of a physician since the end of his rotat- ing internship days. Those days ended over 48 years ago, in 1958.
The "MD" affixed to his name simply means that he graduated from a medical school. He did do that. But, he did it over forty-nine years ago, in 1957.
[3] Moreover, Stephen Barrett has never been a research- er in any capacity; neither at the clinical level nor at the murine test level. He has been neither a toxicologist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a neurologist, nor a biochemist, nor an immunologist, nor any type of medical technolo- gist, nor a pharmacologist. This means that he has never been able to speak from the vantage point of a research colleague. That is to say, if Stephen Barrett had been seen in a lab coat after 1958, it was during Halloween.
[4] And Stephen Barrett has zero inventions/patents to his name. Therefore, he has never been able to speak from the vantage point of a medical innovator, either.
[5] Furthermore, there is no evidence that Stephen Barrett is a firsthand witness to illness on either side of the coin; neither as a practicing physician nor as a patient. That is to say, he has no known history of severe med- ical impairment. By all appearances, he is not able to offer any insight on what it is to intimately know intense physical suffering in the first person singular. And his callousness indicates this.
[6] And as far as concerns Stephen Barrett being advertised as a "medical communications expert," his curriculum vitae indicates that he:
- never managed disaster relief efforts, - never developed medical software programs, - never oversaw ambulance dispatch operations, - never managed the allocation of medical supplies, - never networked hospital communication systems, - never transmitted emergency medical instructions to sea, - never networked pharmaceutical communication systems, - never translated medical literature into foreign languages.
So where is the medical communicating that Stephen Barrett is supposed to do so expertly ?
Stephen Barrett's Allegation of Being a Legal Expert
It was in a 21st Century California court where Barrett presented himself as an expert in FDA regulatory law. It concerned a case that he himself instigated, under the name of a 501c non-profit organization of which he was/is a mem- ber and even an officer.
Barrett saw to the filing of the lawsuit (under the corporate name), and then he hired himself as an expert witness, de- spite the blatant conflict of interest. He then expected money to be transferred from the 501c non-profit group's bank account to his own personal account, in the form of a fee payment.
Needless to say, Stephen Barrett never worked for, with, over, under, or besides the FDA. And the presiding judge stated:
"the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area."
"He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs."
"Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues associated with Defendant's products."
Furthermore, the judge stated that Stephen Barrett's testimony should be "accorded little, if any, credibility."
In the end, the 501c private corporation of which Barrett is a member lost the case. It was ordered to pay the de- fendant's attorney fees. And as an added note, he claimed himself to be a 21st Century legal expert in FDA regula- tory matters, because he completed one and a half years of correspondence law school in 1963; and because he had several conversations with FDA personnel, as well as some sort of continuing education classes that he had not attended in eight years prior to the judgment.
Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits. Each one is an article of its own. He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or conspiracy. One report attached Barrett to a multiplicity of lawsuits filed against forty defendants. And his most re- cent courtroom loss is dated October 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of Penn- sylvania. In that court case, Barrett once again claimed that he was a legal expert.
Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own name. And he also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as well as in Pennsylvania -- also filed under his own name.
In summary, Stephen Barrett was never the member of any bar association. He never represented himself as his own attorney in any of his many lawsuits. He was never a dis- trict magistrate, and he was not a clerk of court. Yet, he has formally claimed that he is a legal expert. Barrett did have court appearances as an expert witness in criminal and parole cases, but only in the capacity of a psychiatrist who was never board certified. One such venue was the juve- nile court system in San Francisco during the 1960s.
Barrett's Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert
As far as concerns his allegations of being a nutritional expert, it was during the 1990s when he once testified against a nutri- tionist who carried a number of credentials, including that of a certification. This was at a hearing of the American Dietetic Association. Barrett was only a non-trained and honorary member of that association, yet he was presented as one of its two expert witnesses. As a result of that hear- ing, the lady against whom Barrett testified lost her registered dietician credentials. Her reputation suffered harm, and her future earnings potential was compromised.
The woman then sued the association who presented Barrett as a nutritional expert. And it was during a cross-examination when Barrett finally conceded that he was not a nutritional expert, being that had no training in the subject. He said that he was an expert in "consumer strategy," instead. As a result, the woman against whom Barrett testified had her credentials restored in full. Notification of this was published in the cou- rier & journal of the American Dietetic Association. The woman also received an undisclosed settlement.
A Sample of Stephen Barrett's Mode of Communication
Stephen Barrett co-authored a book with a publicly known de- frauder whose now-defunct paper review company, in providing health reports to State Farm Insurance adjustors, was de- clared "a completely bogus operation" by an Oregon judge.
Concerning Barrett's fraudulent co-author, it was the NBC television network who reported him as the ratifier of fraud- ulent health reports. He is a Dr. Ronald Gots, founder of a company named Medical Claims Review Services. That company went out of business in 1995.
The NBC television network obtained 79 of the reports that Gots' paper review company provided for State Farm's ad- justors. And ever-so-coincidentally, 100% of those 79 reports favored State Farm over every auto accident claim- ant profiled in those reports.
The irony to this is that Stephen Barrett heralds himself as an exposer of health fraud, as well as a defender of mankind from persons committing health fraud. Yet, he elected to have his name placed in print next to a notorious defrauder.
For further information on this matter, see:
The Paper Chase: A 15 month NBC Dateline Investigation
The Barrett/Gots Book, itself
The Barrett/Gots book is titled, "Chemical Sensitivity: The Truth About Environmental Illness." Needless to say, the book is a vehement denial of the valid existence of Chem- ical Sensitivity. However, Chemical Sensitivity comes in many case-specific and medically acknowledged forms; in forms such as:
anuary 16, 2007 Objective Medical Findings in the Chemically Sensitive that were Never Disclosed by Stephen Barrett
Posted below is a list of objective medical findings in chemically sen- sitive patients. It appears after an introduction and the narration of a recent case study. The introduction illustrates how objective medical findings can be entirely missed dur- ing cursory exams. And the case study reminds us that, simply be- cause corporate attorneys allege something in a workman's comp case, it doesn't mean it's true.
Not Detected by the Standard Chest CT Scan. Yet Detected via the End-expiratory CT Scan.
A January 2002 article that remains posted on the Fox News website declared it "junk science." It was/is the emergent ill- ness which afflicted persons exposed to the debris of the World Trade Center collapse. Unofficially called "World Trade Center Syndrome," its distinctive feature is the "the WTC Cough," and its symptoms include shortness of breath.
The article attributed the ills of the afflicted WTC cleanup crew members to the 2002 "flu season." It furthermore at- tributed the ills of affected Manhattan residents to "anxiety salted with hypochondria." Its conclusion was that only "minor and transient health effects from the site" were to be expected.
A newly emerged illness had just made the scene, and just as quickly on the scene was a political operative ridiculing people's notice of it. Then came November 30, 2004, when a press release reported that some of the afflicted crew members of the ground zero cleanup operation were actually suffering from the trapping of air. They had Small Airways Disease. And it was the end-expiratory CT scan that confirmed it. The standard chest CT scan entirely overlooked it.
The Fiberoptic Rhinolaryngoscopy Detects that which the Garden Variety Cursory Exam Overlooks
The upper airway endoscopy is recognized by mainstream medical science as an effective means by which pathologies of the septum, turbinates, mucosa, nasopharynx, adenoids, eustachian tube orifice, tonsils, posterior tongue, epiglottis, glottis, and vocal cords can be easily seen. And it was the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam which resulted in re- searchers realizing (in the early 1990s) that the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome which was presumed to involve no objective medical findings showed signs of a physical pathology. In addition, the golden rule for diagnos- ing Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction came to be that of a flexible fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam per- formed upon a patient while the patient is symptomatic.
The human body is regarded as exceptionally complex. There- fore, the reasonably minded person should understand that the cursory physical exam and garden variety testing do not detect everything. This understanding, in addition to the preceding paragraphs, offers insight as to why a number of chemically sensitive persons have been declared to have no objective medical findings. The account posted directly below should offer more detailed insight to this. It involves a recent case study. And, as was previously stated, the lesson derived from it is that simply because defense attorneys assert some- thing in a workman's comp case, it doesn't automatically mean that it's true.
She Was Claimed to Have No Objective Medical Findings to Verfiy Her Symptoms. Multiple Medical Findings Were Documented in One Day.
A woman whose workplace was a former coal tar research building became ill six months after having worked there. A laboratory would come to confirm that her workplace was laden with very fine monofilament fibers. And the smaller the molecular agent, the greater is its potential to infiltrate and afflict the inner recesses of the complex human anatomy. Furthermore, there is also the matter of pesticide exposure, ambient solvent exposure, and mold exposure to take into account, concerning the woman's workplace environment.
After the woman had initially become ill, she kept going to work. Her condition then worsened and she had to quit work entirely. A fellow employee also quit working, and he moved to Arizona. Other fellow employees mentioned that they were being sickened, too. In fact, the business no long- er operates in the former coal tar research building. And it is a large corporation that is involved in this matter, even though the antics of a small fly-by-night business are de- scribed. In fact, the corporaton's total stockholder equity was marked at over eleven billion dollars in 2005.
Her Symptoms
The woman's symptoms included:
[1] a stinging tongue. [2] shortness of breath. [3] burning nasal passages. [4] a metallic taste in the mouth. [5] an adrenal-like stream throughout her solar plexus. [6] headaches accompanied by the bruised feeling at the cheekbones and temples. [7] ice-like numbness pervading her upper-respiratory tract (on specific occasion.)
She would be able to detect the presence of certain airborne agents, simply because she unavoidably tasted them on her tongue. She could no longer go to the places she used to frequent without becoming severely symptomatic. A number of airborne agents would trigger her ills. And this included solvents, fragrances, engine exhausts, and musty cardboard boxes. In addition, she lived in the american state which presently has the fourth worse air quality in the entire United States. Plus, she had no prior history of asthma, no prior history of chronic upper-respiratory ills, and no history of allergies.
She received the diagnosis of agoraphobia & panic attacks, by a "mental health person." And the corporate attorneys in- volved in her workman's comp case asserted that she had no objective medical findings to support her claims. However, an allergist & immunologist gave her the diagnoses of Asthma, Rhinitis, and Chemical Sensitivities, while a cytopathologist gave her the additional diagnosis of Reactive Hyperplasia. In fact, in ER settings she received the Asthma and Rhinitis diagnosis. Yet, assertions of mental illness had been set forth on record and asserted in court depositions as the cause of her ills. The assertions were significantly weakened in less than an hour.
Grossly Enlarged Turbinates, for Starters
On October 13, 2005, a fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic exam was performed on her. It was conducted by an Ear Nose Throat & Allergy Specialist who was also a fellow of the American College of Surgeons. The woman who was said to have no objective medical findings to support her symptoms was found to have:
[1] postauricular adenopathy. [2] grossly enlarged turbinates. [3] shoddy posterior cervical adenopathy [4] some erythematous changes of the uvula. [5] some mild edema of the true vocal cords. [6] thickened coating over the dorsum of the tongue.
The physician's impressions, as are stated on record, were:
[1] multiple chemical and irritant sensitivities. [2] rhinitis and turbinate hypertrophy. [3] glossitis (tongue inflammation).
Whatever be the medical condition that this woman has, it is one of a physical origin and mechanism. It is not a mat- ter of mental illness. Therefore, if she were not made ill from workplace exposure, then she was made ill by some other physical cause.
Gruntled Breathing and Rales Were Already Observed
The story isn't over, of course. Objective medical findings had been entered into her records even before the October exam. She was documented as having "gruntled breathing" during one ER visit. She was recorded as having wheezed and crackled during other ones. And she had already been found to have the previously mentioned adenopathy. In fact, tachycardia, erythema of the oropharynx, and hypopotassemia had also been entered into her medical records before the October 13 rhinolaryngoscopy. Yet, she was branded with the "mental illness stigma," especially by the corporate attorneys and independent medical exam- iner involved in her workman's comp case.
Furthermore, after she had become ill, she tested severely positive for dust mites and no other high weight molecular agent (such as ragweed, tree pollen, etc.) And she has no prior history of allergies. Now, she was exposed to inordi- nate amounts of dust at her former place of work, and a person can become sensitized to dust mites. In fact, there are cases where barn workers became sensitized to storage mites.
The account of the chemically sensitive woman who has over a dozen objective meidcal findings attached to her medical re- cords can be accessed by clicking on the web link provided directly below.
Narrative of the chemically sensitive woman with over a dozen objective medical findings
Chemical Exposure During Testing is Often a Necessity
There is one thing to note about chemical sensitivity condi- tions. In order to acquire objective medical findings, you often have to be tested/examined while exposed to a chem- ical agent that assails you. You have to be tested while you are symptomatic. You will not acquire objective medical findings in a vaccuum, in most testing/examing. Thus, it is not an unheard event for a chemically sensitive patient to be found hunched over a waste basket after having been ad- ministered a skin prick test. Patch testing has resulted in a few occasions of anaphylaxis. And being made sympto- matic before a rhinolaryngoscopic exam is not a painless event. Moreover, the inhalation challenge test that mea- sures FEV1 and the such is not recommended for those who are extremely hyperresponsive.
If the Detractors of MCS Admit to Even One Objective Medical Finding in any Type of Chemically Sensitive Patient, the Effect of their Propaganda Will Be Diluted
If the detractors of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disclose even one objective medical finding in chemically sensitive patients, they will risk extinguishing the disrespect and indifference that their
...
Wow Ilena - You are really bouncing off the walls today. Of all the things that have been presented on newsgroups, one of the things that I haven't commented much about, has been MCS. Why you ask? - It's because I don't know enough about it to comment on it. I'm actually fairly open to a number of views about it, and haven't invested intellectually one way or another!
Yes Ilena - I know that in your adnauseum attempts to align me with Barrett, Polevoy and others, you have been willing to step nearly off the cliff, a number of times. And, as I have said repeatedly, I don't agree with all of Polevoy, and Barrett's targets, but I agree with many of them.
For certain, I am very grateful there are those out there that will attempt to weed out charlatans and quacks in the health industry. As a health consumer, I continue to wish the FDA would do more to protect the public from harmful and dangerous medical devices and medications. I wish there was some oversight and regulation of regimines in the alternative field.
I fully recongnize that as a health consumer, there is a turf war between conventional and alternative medicine for our health care dollars!
I see your disruption on newsgroups, and elsewhere on the internet, as nothing more than a distraction, and a disruption for dialogue to seek out the truth!
And it is absolutely true that I like Barrett, Polevoy and many others, more than I like you! I won't apologize for that!
On Apr 15, 11:02 am, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo.com> wrote:
> Thanks to Myrl Jeffcoat for her usual confusion ... she attributes > this article to me, but I didn't write it. I will post it here thanks > to Myrl!
> The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)
> Never board certified in anything, his experience as a physician ended > with his 1958 internship. Yet, he proclaimed himself an expert in > medicine, nutrition, & law, as well as having declared himself the > media. He has belonged to private interest groups whose names > deceptively sound like government agencies, and he has been neither a > medical technologist, nor a cytopathologist, nor a biochemist, nor a > vaccinologist, nor a researcher, nor a forensic scientist, nor a ...
> January 16, 2007 > The Clone of a Salem Witch Hunter
> In the Year 2001, a retired > psychiatrist stated: "Today, > I am the media." He repeat- > edly presented himself as an > expert in medicine, nutrition, > and law, while having zero > experience as a practicing > physician, zero training in > nutrition, and zero bar as- > sociation membership.
> At the principle website that he operates, he is described > as a "medical communications expert" of national renown. > He even presented himself as a master in spiritual direction, > in book form. Representations of Stephen Barrett insinuate > that he alone can suffice as the voice of medicine. In fact, > representations of him make it sound as if, during any given > election, he should run for God. However, the factual score- > card on Barrett differs drastically from the representations > made of him.
> Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, > Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
> [1] Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board-certified in > anything, at any time in his life. He has never been > able to speak with the authority of a board-certified > medical expert.
> [2] Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point > of a practitioner in any type of internal or dermatolog- > ical medicine. In fact, Stephen Barrett has not served > in the capacity of a physician since the end of his rotat- > ing internship days. Those days ended over 48 years > ago, in 1958.
> The "MD" affixed to his name simply means that he > graduated from a medical school. He did do that. > But, he did it over forty-nine years ago, in 1957.
> [3] Moreover, Stephen Barrett has never been a research- > er in any capacity; neither at the clinical level nor at the > murine test level. He has been neither a toxicologist, > nor a vaccinologist, nor a neurologist, nor a biochemist, > nor an immunologist, nor any type of medical technolo- > gist, nor a pharmacologist. This means that he has never > been able to speak from the vantage point of a research > colleague. That is to say, if Stephen Barrett had been > seen in a lab coat after 1958, it was during Halloween.
> [4] And Stephen Barrett has zero inventions/patents to his > name. Therefore, he has never been able to speak > from the vantage point of a medical innovator, either.
> [5] Furthermore, there is no evidence that Stephen Barrett > is a firsthand witness to illness on either side of the > coin; neither as a practicing physician nor as a patient. > That is to say, he has no known history of severe med- > ical impairment. By all appearances, he is not able to > offer any insight on what it is to intimately know intense > physical suffering in the first person singular. And his > callousness indicates this.
> [6] And as far as concerns Stephen Barrett being advertised > as a "medical communications expert," his curriculum > vitae indicates that he:
> - never managed disaster relief efforts, > - never developed medical software programs, > - never oversaw ambulance dispatch operations, > - never managed the allocation of medical supplies, > - never networked hospital communication systems, > - never transmitted emergency medical instructions to sea, > - never networked pharmaceutical communication systems, > - never translated medical literature into foreign languages.
> So where is the medical communicating that Stephen Barrett > is supposed to do so expertly ?
> Stephen Barrett's Allegation of Being a Legal Expert
> It was in a 21st Century California court where Barrett > presented himself as an expert in FDA regulatory law. It > concerned a case that he himself instigated, under the name > of a 501c non-profit organization of which he was/is a mem- > ber and even an officer.
> Barrett saw to the filing of the lawsuit (under the corporate > name), and then he hired himself as an expert witness, de- > spite the blatant conflict of interest. He then expected > money to be transferred from the 501c non-profit group's > bank account to his own personal account, in the form > of a fee payment.
> Needless to say, Stephen Barrett never worked for, with, > over, under, or besides the FDA. And the presiding judge > stated:
> "the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient > qualifications in this area."
> "He has never testified before any governmental > panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation > of drugs."
> "Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony > with respect to any of the issues associated with > Defendant's products."
> Furthermore, the judge stated that Stephen Barrett's > testimony should be "accorded little, if any, credibility."
> In the end, the 501c private corporation of which Barrett > is a member lost the case. It was ordered to pay the de- > fendant's attorney fees. And as an added note, he claimed > himself to be a 21st Century legal expert in FDA regula- > tory matters, because he completed one and a half years > of correspondence law school in 1963; and because he > had several conversations with FDA personnel, as well as > some sort of continuing education classes that he had not > attended in eight years prior to the judgment.
> Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits. Each one is an > article of its own. He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or > conspiracy. One report attached Barrett to a multiplicity > of lawsuits filed against forty defendants. And his most re- > cent courtroom loss is dated October 2005, in the Court > of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of Penn- > sylvania. In that court case, Barrett once again claimed that > he was a legal expert.
> Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own > name. And he also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as > well as in Pennsylvania -- also filed under his own name.
> In summary, Stephen Barrett was never the member of any > bar association. He never represented himself as his own > attorney in any of his many lawsuits. He was never a dis- > trict magistrate, and he was not a clerk of court. Yet, he > has formally claimed that he is a legal expert. Barrett did > have court appearances as an expert witness in criminal and > parole cases, but only in the capacity of a psychiatrist who > was never board certified. One such venue was the juve- > nile court system in San Francisco during the 1960s.
> Barrett's Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert
> As far as concerns his allegations of being a nutritional expert, > it was during the 1990s when he once testified against a nutri- > tionist who carried a number of credentials, including that > of a certification. This was at a hearing of the American > Dietetic Association. Barrett was only a non-trained and > honorary member of that association, yet he was presented > as one of its two expert witnesses. As a result of that hear- > ing, the lady against whom Barrett testified lost her registered > dietician credentials. Her reputation suffered harm, and her > future earnings potential was compromised.
The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD (Part 1)
Never board certified in anything, his experience as a physician ended with his 1958 internship. Yet, he proclaimed himself an expert in medicine, nutrition, & law, as well as having declared himself the media. He has belonged to private interest groups whose names deceptively sound like government agencies, and he has been neither a medical technologist, nor a cytopathologist, nor a biochemist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a researcher, nor a forensic scientist, nor a ...
January 16, 2007 The Clone of a Salem Witch Hunter
In the Year 2001, a retired psychiatrist stated: "Today, I am the media." He repeat- edly presented himself as an expert in medicine, nutrition, and law, while having zero experience as a practicing physician, zero training in nutrition, and zero bar as- sociation membership.
At the principle website that he operates, he is described as a "medical communications expert" of national renown. He even presented himself as a master in spiritual direction, in book form. Representations of Stephen Barrett insinuate that he alone can suffice as the voice of medicine. In fact, representations of him make it sound as if, during any given election, he should run for God. However, the factual score- card on Barrett differs drastically from the representations made of him.
Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
[1] Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board-certified in anything, at any time in his life. He has never been able to speak with the authority of a board-certified medical expert.
[2] Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point of a practitioner in any type of internal or dermatolog- ical medicine. In fact, Stephen Barrett has not served in the capacity of a physician since the end of his rotat- ing internship days. Those days ended over 48 years ago, in 1958.
The "MD" affixed to his name simply means that he graduated from a medical school. He did do that. But, he did it over forty-nine years ago, in 1957.
[3] Moreover, Stephen Barrett has never been a research- er in any capacity; neither at the clinical level nor at the murine test level. He has been neither a toxicologist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a neurologist, nor a biochemist, nor an immunologist, nor any type of medical technolo- gist, nor a pharmacologist. This means that he has never been able to speak from the vantage point of a research colleague. That is to say, if Stephen Barrett had been seen in a lab coat after 1958, it was during Halloween.
[4] And Stephen Barrett has zero inventions/patents to his name. Therefore, he has never been able to speak from the vantage point of a medical innovator, either.
[5] Furthermore, there is no evidence that Stephen Barrett is a firsthand witness to illness on either side of the coin; neither as a practicing physician nor as a patient. That is to say, he has no known history of severe med- ical impairment. By all appearances, he is not able to offer any insight on what it is to intimately know intense physical suffering in the first person singular. And his callousness indicates this.
[6] And as far as concerns Stephen Barrett being advertised as a "medical communications expert," his curriculum vitae indicates that he:
- never managed disaster relief efforts, - never developed medical software programs, - never oversaw ambulance dispatch operations, - never managed the allocation of medical supplies, - never networked hospital communication systems, - never transmitted emergency medical instructions to sea, - never networked pharmaceutical communication systems, - never translated medical literature into foreign languages.
So where is the medical communicating that Stephen Barrett is supposed to do so expertly ?
Stephen Barrett's Allegation of Being a Legal Expert
It was in a 21st Century California court where Barrett presented himself as an expert in FDA regulatory law. It concerned a case that he himself instigated, under the name of a 501c non-profit organization of which he was/is a mem- ber and even an officer.
Barrett saw to the filing of the lawsuit (under the corporate name), and then he hired himself as an expert witness, de- spite the blatant conflict of interest. He then expected money to be transferred from the 501c non-profit group's bank account to his own personal account, in the form of a fee payment.
Needless to say, Stephen Barrett never worked for, with, over, under, or besides the FDA. And the presiding judge stated:
"the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area."
"He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs."
"Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues associated with Defendant's products."
Furthermore, the judge stated that Stephen Barrett's testimony should be "accorded little, if any, credibility."
In the end, the 501c private corporation of which Barrett is a member lost the case. It was ordered to pay the de- fendant's attorney fees. And as an added note, he claimed himself to be a 21st Century legal expert in FDA regula- tory matters, because he completed one and a half years of correspondence law school in 1963; and because he had several conversations with FDA personnel, as well as some sort of continuing education classes that he had not attended in eight years prior to the judgment.
Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits. Each one is an article of its own. He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or conspiracy. One report attached Barrett to a multiplicity of lawsuits filed against forty defendants. And his most re- cent courtroom loss is dated October 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of Penn- sylvania. In that court case, Barrett once again claimed that he was a legal expert.
Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own name. And he also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as well as in Pennsylvania -- also filed under his own name.
In summary, Stephen Barrett was never the member of any bar association. He never represented himself as his own attorney in any of his many lawsuits. He was never a dis- trict magistrate, and he was not a clerk of court. Yet, he has formally claimed that he is a legal expert. Barrett did have court appearances as an expert witness in criminal and parole cases, but only in the capacity of a psychiatrist who was never board certified. One such venue was the juve- nile court system in San Francisco during the 1960s.
Barrett's Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert
As far as concerns his allegations of being a nutritional expert, it was during the 1990s when he once testified against a nutri- tionist who carried a number of credentials, including that of a certification. This was at a hearing of the American Dietetic Association. Barrett was only a non-trained and honorary member of that association, yet he was presented as one of its two expert witnesses. As a result of that hear- ing, the lady against whom Barrett testified lost her registered dietician credentials. Her reputation suffered harm, and her future earnings potential was compromised.
The woman then sued the association who presented Barrett as a nutritional expert. And it was during a cross-examination when Barrett finally conceded that he was not a nutritional expert, being that had no training in the subject. He said that he was an expert in "consumer strategy," instead. As a result, the woman against whom Barrett testified had her credentials restored in full. Notification of this was published in the cou- rier & journal of the American Dietetic Association. The woman also received an undisclosed settlement.
A Sample of Stephen Barrett's Mode of Communication
Stephen Barrett co-authored a book with a publicly known de- frauder whose now-defunct paper review company, in providing health reports to State Farm Insurance adjustors, was de- clared "a completely bogus operation" by an Oregon judge.
Concerning Barrett's fraudulent co-author, it was the NBC television network who reported him as the ratifier of fraud- ulent health reports. He is a Dr. Ronald Gots, founder of a company named Medical Claims Review Services. That company went out of business in 1995.
The NBC television network obtained 79 of the reports that Gots' paper review company provided for State Farm's ad- justors. And ever-so-coincidentally, 100% of those 79 reports favored State Farm over every auto accident claim- ant profiled in those reports.
The irony to this is that Stephen Barrett heralds himself as an exposer of health fraud, as well as a defender of mankind from persons committing health fraud. Yet, he elected to have his name placed in print next to a notorious defrauder.
For further information on this matter, see:
The Paper Chase: A 15 month NBC Dateline Investigation
