Quackbusters sqwaking their last quack

[Guest guest]

>

>On another subject, has anybody seen the quackwatch site? The comment about

>anti-vaccination advocates as being murderers

>

>

>

><A HREF= " http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/categories.htm " >The Millenium Project

>- Categories</A>

>

Oh, yeah - but they are getting their just desserts (they are pretty

disturbed individuals - ratbags guy has written to me personally -yikes -

wouldn't want to meet him alone.

>

> The Last Days of the Quackbusters - Revisited...

>

> Opinion by " Consumer Advocate " Tim Bolen

>

> November 3, 2001

>

>

> There was a day when the " quackbusters " were a force to reckon

> with. But now, they've been beaten so soundly, in so many

> places, over so many issues, that they have no credibility left.

> They are, simply, nothing to fear. Their teeth have been pulled.

>

> The court case they recently lost in California, " Homeopath

> Smashes 'Quackpot Menace' in California, " was more than just one

> more victory for the forces of good. It was a MILESTONE in the

> war against quackbuster evil.

>

>

> THE IMPORTANCE OF THE " HOMEOPATHIC " COURT CASE...

>

> In this current assault against health freedom by delicensed MD

> Barrett and his minions, the National Council Against

> Health Fraud (NCAHF), had posed as an injured Plaintiff using

> what's called California's " Private Attorney General " law.

> Basically, Barrett, et al, were claiming that about fifteen

> manufacturers of Homeopathic products in the USA were

> " fraudulently advertising " homeopathic products, asserting that

> " homeopathy has never been scientifically proven - therefore, it

> is fraud. "

>

> This first case, the one decided on Hill Street in Los Angeles,

> was filed against King, and King Bio Pharmaceuticals

> (www.kingbio.com) of Asheville, North Carolina. Barrett rushed

> this one to trial, I believe, thinking he could get an early

> victory against a small manufacturer of homeopathic products -

> and use that victory to bludgeon larger producers into cash

> settlements.

>

> It didn't work. Barrett's strategy backfired. He, in his

> mega-arrogance, didn't count on members of the Health Freedom

> Movement setting up an ambush, right there on Hill Street.

> Barrett, and his cronies, walked right into it.

>

> Pinsky, Hill's attorney in California, assembled a

> strong defensive case, based on the simple premise that " The

> NCAHF presented no evidence that the health discipline called

> Homeopathy was fraudulent. " It worked. Pinsky, during the

> actual trial, also had the backing of famed California civil

> litigator Negrete - a serious veteran of courtroom wars.

> The combination crushed the NCAHF - easily. The NCAHF really

> didn't have a case...

>

> Barrett had based the whole NCAHF case on HIS OWN opinions, and

> had used his own writings as his so-called evidence.

>

>

> SO, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CASE, WHY DID THE NCAHF PROCEED AGAINST

> THE HOMEOPATHS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

>

> Good question.

>

> The answer is complex, I believe, and centers around two

> important factors: (1) a desire to counter the growing number

> of humiliating losses the " quackbusters " have been suffering,

> around North America, at the hands of Health Freedom activists.

> (2) Bad leadership.

>

> When Renner was still alive, he held the annual meeting for

> the NCAHF in his home town in Missouri. All of twenty-five

> stalwarts showed up for the annual event. The turn-out was so

> pathetic, Renner had to down-size his meeting plans several

> times. In contrast, Health Freedom activists can put 100

> activists into a coffee-shop meeting on two days notice - and can

> deliver, literally, thousands of people to just come and " stare "

> at Medical Board members during quarterly meetings - anywhere in

> North America.

>

> Barrett took over management of the NCAHF after Renner

> died - and decided to use it, I think, to bolster his own

> " testifying business, " the one he uses www.quackwatch.com to

> promote. Barrett runs his business out of his basement in

> town, PA. In order for Barrett to continue to generate

> business, he must make it appear to attorneys out there, that he

> has a good product to offer. His product, he claims, is

> " anti-quackery testimony " for which he demands a significant fee.

>

> But Barrett's problem, and the problem of all of the so called

> " quackbusters, " is that in order to command those " significant

> fees, " he (and the others) have to have a track record of

> " victories, " an attorney can rely on. Of late, Barrett, et al,

> have been battered in the courtroom - with opposing attorneys

> simply questioning their credentials. Everybody remembers

> " quackbuster wanna-be " S. Baratz's submission of false

> employment claims in the case in Florida - so he could

> be paid as an " expert witness. "

>

> Attorneys all over North America learned a few simple lessons

> from the Baratz incident - if a " quackbuster " comes to testify,

> FIRST carefully examine their resume claims, then lead the

> " testifier " through cross-examination right through those " false

> resume claims " right into a PERJURY situation. If they want to

> lie in a courtroom - let them do it - then exact the penalty.

>

> But it isn't just about lying, or misrepresenting, in a

> courtroom. In Barrett's case, and others, attorneys are now

> carefully examining Barrett's personal qualifications to testify

> AT ALL. After all, it must be remembered that Barrett, not only

> couldn't become Board Certified as a Psychiatrist, but he had to

> give up his medical license for reasons he doesn't satisfactorily

> explain, in 1993. The obvious premise here is - if he couldn't

> make it in the SIMPLE world of " drug prescribing " how can he

> claim to be an expert on COMPLEX " leading edge " health

> disciplines?

>

> Attorneys, all over North America, have been asking just those

> types of questions of Barrett, et al. And Barrett doesn't have

> satisfactory answers - ones that would satisfy Judges and juries.

> Attorneys who previously counted on Barrett, et all, to make

> their case, have been finding out, the hard way, that Barrett

> can't stand and deliver. The message now is " If Barrett is your

> 'expert witness' you are going to lose your case. "

>

> The bottom line here, is that Barrett needed, what he thought

> would be, a " slam dunk " to restore his previous reputation as an

> " expert witness who can win cases. " He didn't get it. In fact,

> on Hill Street, he got the opposite.

>

>

> NOW, BARRETT'S GOT REAL PROBLEMS WITH HIS OWN PEOPLE...

>

> Barrett, and others, had touted this attack against the

> Homeopaths, and others in California, as the quackbuster's return

> to prominence in the field of Health Policy. His plan fizzled

> miserably. Now, I think, Barrett has credibility issues with the

> whole " quackbuster " membership.

>

> He simply can't deliver...

>

> Tim Bolen

> JuriMed - Public Relations and Research Group

> jurimed2@...

>

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

vaccineinfo@...

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

PO Box 1563 Nevada City CA 95959 530-740-0561 Voicemail in US

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE

DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

Well Within's Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin

International Tours, Homestudy Courses, ANTHRAX & OTHER Vaccine Dangers

Education, Homeopathic Education

CEU's for nurses, Books & Multi-Pure Water Filters