Another Huge Loss for the Quack Team ...

EXCERPTS:

"Having reviewed and considered all these matters, and
having considered and weighed the evidence presented by the Plaintiff in its
case in-chief, as well as the evidence adduced through cross-examination of
the Plaintiff's witnesses, the Court hereby grants Defendants motion and
directs that judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendant, and
against Plaintiff, as set forth below."

"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."

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....

...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.

~~~~~~~~~~~

   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

KING BIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; FRANK J. KING, JR.; and DOES 1-50,

Defendants ________________________________
   CASE NO. BC 245271

Assigned for all purposes to Judge Haley J. Fromholz, Dept. 20

REVISED STATEMENT OF DECISION

Pursuant to the Court's order dated December 3, 2001 Defendants King Bio
Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Dr. Frank J. King, Jr. hereby submit the following
proposed revised statement of decision which incorporates the Court's
revisions to that document.

I. Overview of Proceedings

The trial in this action was held commencing on October 22, 2001 in Dept. 20
of the above-entitled court, Hon. Haley J. Fromholz, Judge, presiding.
Plaintiff National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or
"NCAHF") was represented by Morse Mehrban, Esq. Defendants King Bio
Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Dr. Frank J. King, Jr. ("Defendants") were
represented by Scott D. Pinsky, Esq.

Following opening statements by the parties, Defendants moved for a non-suit
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 631.8 on the grounds that the
Plaintiff had not identified in its opening statement evidence sufficient to
establish a prima facie case. The Court heard argument by counsel for the
parties on Defendants' motion and denied the motion without prejudice.
Thereafter, NCAHF presented its case, which began with the testimony of two
proffered experts, Wallace I. Sampson, M.D. and Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Plaintiff also offered brief testimony by its counsel, Mr. Mehrban, and
called Defendant Frank J. King as a witness. By stipulation of the parties,
the expert witness designated by Defendants, Jacquelyn J. Wilson, M.D., was
called by Defendants to testify out of order and during the presentation of
the Plaintiff's case due to scheduling reasons. Cross examination was
permitted as to all of the above witnesses. In addition to the foregoing
evidence, both sides filed extensive trial briefs and supplemental trial
briefs both prior to and during the course of the trial, and also submitted
further authorities during the course of the proceedings for the Court's
consideration.

Following the close of Plaintiff's presentation of evidence, Defendants
renewed their motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §
631.8. The Court again heard argument by counsel for the parties on
Defendants' motion. The Court also considered and weighed the evidence
presented by the above-stated witnesses for the parties. Moreover, the Court
considered the various trial briefs and supplemental trial briefs and
supporting authorities submitted and argued by the parties on the issues
before the Court. Having reviewed and considered all these matters, and
having considered and weighed the evidence presented by the Plaintiff in its
case in-chief, as well as the evidence adduced through cross-examination of
the Plaintiff's witnesses, the Court hereby grants Defendants motion and
directs that judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendant, and
against Plaintiff, as set forth below. The reasons for the Court's ruling
are as follows.

II. Plaintiff's claims and elements thereof

Plaintiffs' claims are brought principally under certain provisions of the
Cal. Business and Professions ("B & P") Code, specifically B & P Code §§
17200, 17500 and 17508. Sections 17500 and 17508 of the Code prohibit false
or misleading advertising. A violation of these false advertising
prohibitions may also constitute a separate, parallel violation of the
unfair business practices bar under B & P Code § 17200. Section 17200 also
permits an action based on any business practice that is unlawful,
fraudulent or unfair. The principal allegations in the Complaint and the
focus of the Plaintiff's evidence at trial indicate that the primary
violation of law alleged by NCAHF against the Defendants is false
advertising, i.e. some form of false, deceptive or misleading statements or
representations in the labeling or advertising used by Defendants in
marketing their products. The plaintiff did not strongly assert that the
Defendants have violated the other prongs of B & P Code § 17200, which
prohibit business practices that are unlawful, fraudulent or unfair.
Plaintiff did make an attempt to argue that the evidence adduced at trial
could be viewed as supporting a finding that Defendants' actions were
unlawful, fraudulent or unfair within the meaning of § 17200. But the only
evidence offered by Plaintiff concerned the alleged falsity of Defendant's
advertising.

Although Plaintiff did not present evidence specifically pertaining to the
labeling of Defendants' products, there was no dispute between the parties
that the labels affixed to Defendants' products contained substantively the
same information as was contained in the advertising which formed the basis
for the Plaintiff's claims. The parties further agreed that the products in
question are homeopathic drugs regulated under numerous provisions of
federal and state law. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 321 et seq.; B & P Code §§ 13 and
4025; Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 11014, 109985, 111225 and 111235.
Plaintiff also admitted that there is no evidence of a violation of such
state or federal drug laws by Defendants; Plaintiff offered no evidence or
legal authority respecting any such possible violation. Plaintiff further
did not dispute that Defendants' products fall squarely within the
definition of legal, non-prescription homeopathic "drugs" under both federal
and state laws. Id.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff argued and attempted to offer testimony to the effect
that the claims stated in Defendants' advertising are scientifically
unsupportable and is therefore allegedly false.

III. Burden of proof

The Plaintiff's initial trial brief argued that the burden of proof in this
action should be shifted to the Defendants, citing several California and
federal administrative cases. The Plaintiff's trial brief seemed implicitly
to concede that the Plaintiff could not meet its burden of proof--i.e. the
establishment of Defendants' liability by a preponderance of the evidence-if
the burden were not so shifted to Defendants. The Defendants filed a
supplemental brief responding to the Plaintiff's arguments and asserted that
the burden lies with NCAHF and that the cases it cited to the contrary are
inapposite or do not govern in California. The Court finds that the
authorities cited by the Plaintiff do not support Plaintiff's position on
this issue. There appears to be no case in California to support the
shifting of the burden of proof to the Defendant in a case of this type. The
burden of establishing each element of its claims therefore lies with
Plaintiff NCAHF. Cal. Evid. Code § 500.

In a subsequent, supplemental brief, the Plaintiff next argued that even if
the burden lies initially with the plaintiff in a false advertising case,
only slight evidence is required to then shift the burden to the defendant.
This argument was based on several federal appellate opinions from appeals
of administrative hearings before the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. No
authority was presented to suggest that these decisions are applicable to
the issues at bar, namely who has the burden of proof and to what degree in
a civil action brought in state Court. Since Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate through appropriate authorities that the burden of proof is in
any way transferred or modified by any of the authorities it cited, the
Court finds that the burden is on the Plaintiff NCAHF to prove its case by
establishing each element of its various causes of action by a preponderance
of the evidence.

IV. Analysis and evaluation of evidence

The Court now reviews the evidence presented by the parties.

A. 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 ...

read more »

YEA!  Wonder if they will get the message that *THEY* don't control the
world,,,,,,,,and QUIT wasting the courts time?????

Thanks IIena!

Jan

...

read more »

In my opinion the court erred in assuming that there is nothing special
about medical claims.     Nearly all countries have laws specific to health
products requiring those making major health claims to produce evidence for
them.    The defendant in this case made major claims for his company's
remedies, but was not required to show that any of them did what was
claimed.   The case was dismissed for legalistic reasons.

Are alternative supporters all entirely happy that any old fraud or
charlatan can peddle any old snake oil to anyone?   Many on this list
apparently assume that they can tell the "real thing", but there are a great
many less informed (?) people out there, and the sophistication of many
scams has moved far beyond what most people can sort out by themselves.

Regards

Peter Moran

Good.

I can't speak for all, but anytime Stephen Barrett loses a case, that makes me
happy. He is sue happy and has a control problem. Fraud, chalatan, and snake
oil are favorite words of *organized medicine*. IMHO Stephen Barrett is a
fraud, when he claims to be protecting the public,,,,,,,,,,,but does NOT
mention the biggests killers of all.

He needs to QUIT wasting the courts time.

And *some* on this list encougage curses.

Jan

In article <xypY7.102150$li3.1224...@ozemail.com.au>, "P Moran"

**Are alternative supporters all entirely happy that any old fraud or
**charlatan can peddle any old snake oil to anyone?

You obviously missed the content of the Ruling.

The Judge clearly illustrated that these old frauds and charletans were
not "experts" and had no viable cause of action against the defendent ...
who had complied to the rules required.

Perhaps a re-reading might illustrate that the Quack Regime pays itself to
further its slanted viewpoint ... and for way too many years, have
pretended to be experts in matters in which they have a clear and
profitable agenda.

"Dr. Barrett's purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent."

The Doctors Sue fabricated a case against this defendent, hired themselves
as "experts" ... yet fortunately, fooled no one but themselves in this
case.

Another victim of these homeopathic lawsuits contacted me after being sued
... he let me know how Barrett was pushing him to "settle" and even
admitted something like they intended to use any monies collected to go
after his "competitors."

He refused.

In article <20020101162805.08802.00003...@mb-cv.aol.com>,

**He needs to QUIT wasting the courts time.
**

The courts and we defendants.

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm

Hopefully, their Reign of Terror is coming to an end soon.

Careful, Ilena. You just admitted to being part of a conspiracy.

-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket       http://www.ratbags.com/ranters

In article <6kd43u4c16hmmpkrjb09a6ppkjoc4oh...@4ax.com>,

**
**>Another victim of these homeopathic lawsuits contacted me after being sued
**>... he let me know how Barrett was pushing him to "settle" and even
**>admitted something like they intended to use any monies collected to go
**>after his "competitors."
**
**Careful, Ilena. You just admitted to being part of a conspiracy.
**

in your hallucinations.

i merely re-iterated a phone conversation, Desperado.

Why this "thing" about Stephen Barrett?    A very wide range of people,
including journalists and politicians in some countries are concerned about
the explosion of "anything that I can get away with"  claims regarding often
patently useless health care products, especially when the seriously ill are
being targeted.  They would see this case as encouraging more of the same.
Or, do you not see anything to be worried about?

You have not answered my question as to whether you are content to be
bombarded with new unsubstantiated health care claims every day.  If you are
unfortunate enough to get cancer you will be urged  to try a combination of
up to sixty different very dubious treatments, or spend thousands of dollars
at clinics that are never required to reveal their results .

Until persons WITHIN alternative medicine  refuse to accept garbage (read
unverifiable anecdotal material), garbage is mostly all they will get.

Peter

I have told you what numerous times. Did I mention ALL the REAL diseases he
denies??

An even wider range of people are concerned about *organized medicine* Who
claim that ANYTHING alternative is useless. They are also concerned with
getting NO answers. They are TIRED of being told nothing is worng,,,,,,,it's
all imagined.

INDEED,,,,,,,,,,,,,and told they are mentally ill.

 They would see this case as encouraging more of the same.

Of course. There will always be shams. I am MORE worried about what we know are
BIG problems.

Sure I have. I am MORE concerned about the close mindedness of *organized
medicine* Many of the *unsubstantiated* health claims will REMAIN
unsubstantiated, as long as *organized medicine* stays in *control*. In the
meantime many are suffering because of this DENIAL.

That's where one needs to do their own research. Just as I did. I was one of
those *unfortunate* people to get both mercury poisoning and peripheral
neuropathy,,,,,,,,,both caused by heavy metals. EVEN though *organized medicine
AND dentistry* denies it can happen from metal in the mouth. EVEN though there
are tons of studies, documents and evidence proving the dangers!!!!!

This person WITHIN alternative medicine REFUSED to believe all the *organized
medicine and dentistry* GARBAGE,,,,,,,,,,,found my problem and am regaining my
health. Had I NOT done my own research and learned which is GARBAGE and which
is not,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I shudder to think where I would be right now.

Jan

Good on you, Jan. Why should anyone try to stop people from making
false claims in business?

After all, it was just someone trying to be a control freak who wrote
in Leviticus 19:35 "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in
measures of length, of weight, or of quantity" (That's the American
Standard Bible - the KJV says "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in
judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure".)

-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket       http://www.ratbags.com/ranters

While they are busy making false claims themselves.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

You are comparing Stephen Barrett to someone who wrote the bible??

Jan

In article <m9353ucvscvc65bn07u335qh0dapora...@4ax.com>,

**
**>>From: il...@san.rr.com  (Ilena Rose)
**>>Date: 1/1/02 10:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
**>>Message-id: <ilena-0101021046220...@dt011n65.san.rr.com>
**>
**>>Another Huge Loss for the Quack Team ...
**>
**>YEA!  Wonder if they will get the message that *THEY* don't control the
**>world,,,,,,,,and QUIT wasting the courts time?????
**>
**>Thanks IIena!
**>
**>Jan
**
**Good on you, Jan. Why should anyone try to stop people from making
**false claims in business?
**

Great ...

However, no one from your Team, ever wants to stop Barrett and his Quack
Bu$ine$$ from making false claims in business.

Barrett & Sampson & the rest of the Quack Team have been peddling their
phony "Expert" biz for years ... look at these names ... they appear over
& over & over ... in NCAHF, ACSH, the accurately named "HealthFraud" list
... they have their cheering teams infiltrated into every discussion and
newsgroup on the Internet which discussed alternative therapies and other
topics for which they claim false expertise.

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/QUACK-QW-HF-ACSH.html

They interrogate and make up stories about their non Praisors like me ...
yet QuackWatch answers no questions about their "non profit" and refuses
to admit their very, very close relationship with ACSH.

This Judge got their game.

EXCERPT from Ruling:

"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....

...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.

No, Jan. I am pointing out that the writer of Leviticus didn't like
people who lied about the measurements of things they sold. I am just
saying that chasing after liars who sell distilled water and claim
that it contains some magic ingredient is supported by what the Bible
says about how business should be conducted.

Are you seriously suggesting that pointing out that someone is acting
in accordance with principles set out in the Bible is comparing them
with the authors of the Bible?  By that reasoning, you should not tell
children not to steal because the writers of the Bible said in Exodus
20:15 "Thou shalt not steal" and living by that principle would be
comparing yourself with the writers.

-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket       http://www.ratbags.com/ranters

I think it has been suggested we not discuss the bible or religious subjects.
Yet it seems to be those who suggest it to keep bringing it up.

The title of this thread is Barrett/NCAHF LOSE Again in California.

Oh........so now you are comparing Stephen Barrett's chasing all over after
liars to be supported by the bible.

Wonder what it says about those who make claims of protecting the
public,,,,,,,,,yet leave out the BIGGEST killers of all???

Or those who DENY REAL diseases that researchers has proven are indeed VERY
real?

Or *organizations* that are untruthful and try to control other peoples'
choices??

Jan

Ooops, forgot to address this point.

You surly aren't suggesting that someone acting in accordance with the bible is
Stephen Barrett??

Lord have mercy!

What lengths one puts forth to try and protect the beloved Stephen Barrett.

Perhaps he could use you as his new lawyer??

Jan

If you are claiming that every patient claiming to suffer from GWS, CFS,
MCS, Amalgam toxicity etc has a purely organic illness, you don't have just
Barrett to deal with.   Most doctors observe, and a large slice of
alternative practice  believes, and indeed a lot of research shows, that
there are prominent psychosomatic elements in  many of those purported to be
suffering from these "diagnoses"  (if a small few have  ALS then it is  ALS
they have, not "GWS").

And if you want have a piece of someone for  being too eager to look for
psychological causes of illnesses, I wish you would go after those in the AM
camp who insist that  even cancer is caused by  bad thoughts, and that if
you don't get well it is your own fault.  I can tell you where to go.

I am glad for you, except when you think you can prove something with your
own interpretation of your illnesses.

Peter Moran

Because he is a biased reporter and very selective in the evidence he posts.

Not at all, homeopathy is well regulated by the FDA, etc.   Barrett chose the
wrong target.

Every therapy, CM or AM, is unsubstantiated until definitive trials are done by
CM researchers.

Ah Peter, you know my position on this.

For every effective therapy, unverifiable anecdotal evidence is all that is
available until acceptable trials have been done.
And as you have seen here before, only when the therapy is taken up by CM
researchers can those trials be done.
Some of that 'garbage' may be life saving therapies.   You will never know if
you reject it from the start.
It's like panning for gold, you must examine and discard the dross to find the
nuggets.
You must examine those dubious therapies and reject those that prove
ineffective.

Or is it your contention that there are no nuggets there at all?

As you know I have proposed a mechanism to do this.

Best wishes
--
John Bain
UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor
http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html
Surround Sound for Television

One of us is misreading this, Peter.  Or are we quibbling over 'legalistic'
Judge Haley J. Fromholz
"The complexity
necessarily involved in the development and interpretation of clinical tests
and trials of drug products suggest strongly that questions of enforcement
and regulation of drug advertising and labeling requirements should be
brought before the agency possessing the expertise and experience most
needed to resolve medical and scientific issues involved in drug regulation.
That agency, obviously, is the U.S. FDA."

E. Jacquelyn J. Wilson, M.D.
She also
testified about the general manner in which homeopathic drugs are recognized
and regulated by the FDA. Dr. Wilson further explained through her testimony
that, according to FDA guidance in this area, the "indications" (i.e., drug
effects) that must be placed on the label or package of any homeopathic drug
may be taken from the Materia Medica.
With respect to the products at issue in this case, Dr. Wilson is the only
expert who investigated and evaluated any of the Defendants' products and
their ingredients. Based on her review and general knowledge of the field,
she offered her opinion that all of the ingredients in Defendants' products
are listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States, which is
the federally approved reference guide for all officially recognized
homeopathic drugs. She also testified that all of Defendants' labeling was
consistent with the information respecting drug indications found in the
Materia Medica. Based thereon, Dr. Wilson concluded, the Defendants'
products complied with all applicable FDA laws and regulations.

The Judge
Furthermore, the Court notes that the logical end-point of Plaintiff's
burden-shifting argument would be to permit anyone with the requisite filing
fee to walk into any court in any state in the Union and file a lawsuit
against any business, casting the burden on that defendant to prove that it
was not violating the law. Such an approach, this Court finds, would itself
be unfair.

But this is not 'any old fraud'.   The defendents were producing homeopathic
'drugs' to the standards laid down in the Materia Medica and with indications
for use as specified in the Materia Medica.
The Materia Medica is accepted by the FDA as the authority for this purpose.

Best wishes
--
John Bain
UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor
http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html
Surround Sound for Television

Therefore, it is no surprise that an antidepressant such as Elavil
would be a somewhat effective treatment for such disorders.

Ah yes *organized medicine*. Where are your references for a large slice of
alt. practice who believe there are prominent psychosomatic elments??  Do *you*
believe Peter that GWS, CFS and MCS are REAL diseases?

Well no I don't want a piece of anyone.

I dare say that *organized medicine* are the ones that use ye ole psychosomatic
as an explanation for *anything* not in the little scientific recipe book.

Along with ye ole placebo as a explanation of *anything*  successful coming
from the alt. camp.

Oh?

Just can't resist,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I have been told that many
times...............:-).

You are glad for me. But you just can't bring yourself to believe it. I have
regained my health AFTER doing my own research and making a decision. I just
happen to be a real live one on this ng. *I* am not the only one Peter. There
are MANY others.MY concern is for those*just like me* who are STILL searching.

What good is it to search *within* conventional medicine,,,,,,,,,,,,,,if they
are in DENIAL???

I repeat:

GARBAGE and which is not,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I shudder to think where I would be right
now.

The ADA lies when they say there are only 100 cases of allergies to mercury
amalgams. The AMA believes the ADA.

http://www.talkinternational.com/adaletters.htm

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/index.html

I. DENTAL AMALGAM FILLINGS PAGE- documents high common mercury exposure levels
from dental amalgam fillings; and common adverse health effects on people and
dental staff; plus results of 60,000 clinical cases of significant improvements
to chronic conditions after amalgam replacement and treatment- as followed and
documented by doctors; plus environmental effects of amalgam that affect
everyone.

(over 1500 peer-reviewed medical study or Gov't Agency references documenting
mechanisms by which mercury from amalgam causes over 30

chronic health conditions)

Are these ALL psychosomatic??

Jan

EXCELLENT,,,,,,as usual John!

Jan

Excellent example of organized medicine talk. If one has amalgam toxicity and a
high mercury level,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,just give um an antidpressant.

LOL.

Jan