Re: Glucosamine/ Barrett - NOT MD

[Guest guest]

Hi All - didn't someone suggest that this source not be used? I thought

that was a great idea as I have followed the actions of this

organization since it was formed and originated by Renner (now

deceased) et. al. of Kansas City, Mo., around 20 years ago.

Barrett is a delicensed psychiatrist who retired and gave up his

license in 1993. He is being sued continuously.

PDF from the District Court, City & County of Denver attached

[Guest guest]

Hi All - didn't someone suggest that this source not be used? I thought

that was a great idea as I have followed the actions of this

organization since it was formed and originated by Renner (now

deceased) et. al. of Kansas City, Mo., around 20 years ago.

Barrett is a delicensed psychiatrist who retired and gave up his

license in 1993. He is being sued continuously.

PDF from the District Court, City & County of Denver attached

[Guest guest]

Yes, that would be me. Do you have a suggestion for an

alternative clearinghouse of analysis for the layperson?

You must admit the idea of an unbiased quackwatch is a

good one, and with all the snake-oil salesmen lurking on

the internet and early-morning infomercials these days,

a decidedly important one.

-

>

> Hi All - didn't someone suggest that this source not be used? I

thought

> that was a great idea as I have followed the actions of this

> organization since it was formed and originated by Renner (now

> deceased) et. al. of Kansas City, Mo., around 20 years ago.

>

> Barrett is a delicensed psychiatrist who retired and gave

up his

> license in 1993. He is being sued continuously.

>

> PDF from the District Court, City & County of Denver attached

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, that would be me. Do you have a suggestion for an

alternative clearinghouse of analysis for the layperson?

You must admit the idea of an unbiased quackwatch is a

good one, and with all the snake-oil salesmen lurking on

the internet and early-morning infomercials these days,

a decidedly important one.

-

>

> Hi All - didn't someone suggest that this source not be used? I

thought

> that was a great idea as I have followed the actions of this

> organization since it was formed and originated by Renner (now

> deceased) et. al. of Kansas City, Mo., around 20 years ago.

>

> Barrett is a delicensed psychiatrist who retired and gave

up his

> license in 1993. He is being sued continuously.

>

> PDF from the District Court, City & County of Denver attached

>

[Guest guest]

It has been interesting to see the discussions about Barrett,

his qualifications, and what he said about glucosamine.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/glucosamine.html

Clearly, if he is not an M.D. and he tries to pass himself off as one,

his credibility is undermined and it raises questions about his

competence, motivation, and the reliability of his opinions.

However, the article on glucosamine seems to be well researched and it

provides references to reliable sources (e.g., JAMA) which can be

verified by those who want to inquire further or determine the

veracity of the report. The opinions expressed don't seem to promote

or discourage the use or these supplements. They advocate a cautious

approach consisting of:

1) obtaining a competent diagnosis,

2) exploring the pros and cons of treatment options with a competent

physician

3) having a knowledgeable physician guide you if you decide to try

glucosamine and/or chondroitin.

From my point of view, I cannot find fault in the presentation or the

recommendations of Barret with regard to these supplements.

This is a well-written, objective description, even if the

quackwatcher is a quack himself.

Tony

ad hom·i·nem (h & #335;m' & #601;-n & #277;m', -n & #601;m) adj.

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.

====

>

> Yes, that would be me. Do you have a suggestion for an

> alternative clearinghouse of analysis for the layperson?

>

> You must admit the idea of an unbiased quackwatch is a

> good one, and with all the snake-oil salesmen lurking on

> the internet and early-morning infomercials these days,

> a decidedly important one.

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

It has been interesting to see the discussions about Barrett,

his qualifications, and what he said about glucosamine.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/glucosamine.html

Clearly, if he is not an M.D. and he tries to pass himself off as one,

his credibility is undermined and it raises questions about his

competence, motivation, and the reliability of his opinions.

However, the article on glucosamine seems to be well researched and it

provides references to reliable sources (e.g., JAMA) which can be

verified by those who want to inquire further or determine the

veracity of the report. The opinions expressed don't seem to promote

or discourage the use or these supplements. They advocate a cautious

approach consisting of:

1) obtaining a competent diagnosis,

2) exploring the pros and cons of treatment options with a competent

physician

3) having a knowledgeable physician guide you if you decide to try

glucosamine and/or chondroitin.

From my point of view, I cannot find fault in the presentation or the

recommendations of Barret with regard to these supplements.

This is a well-written, objective description, even if the

quackwatcher is a quack himself.

Tony

ad hom·i·nem (h & #335;m' & #601;-n & #277;m', -n & #601;m) adj.

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.

====

>

> Yes, that would be me. Do you have a suggestion for an

> alternative clearinghouse of analysis for the layperson?

>

> You must admit the idea of an unbiased quackwatch is a

> good one, and with all the snake-oil salesmen lurking on

> the internet and early-morning infomercials these days,

> a decidedly important one.

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Hi :

You could try ; ^ )))

Rodney.

--- In , " cronzen " <truepatriot@...>

wrote:

> Do you have a suggestion for an alternative clearinghouse of

> analysis for the layperson?

[Guest guest]

Hi :

You could try ; ^ )))

Rodney.

--- In , " cronzen " <truepatriot@...>

wrote:

> Do you have a suggestion for an alternative clearinghouse of

> analysis for the layperson?

[Guest guest]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have found his presentations

to be rather objective. However, I brought it up in the past as

how he is *perceived* by Mercola'ites, et al, who do engage in

ad hominem attacks (though maybe that is also what we do when we

shun any references to those sites?).

-

>

> It has been interesting to see the discussions about

Barrett,

> his qualifications, and what he said about glucosamine.

>

>

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/glucosamine.htm

l

>

> Clearly, if he is not an M.D. and he tries to pass himself off as

one,

> his credibility is undermined and it raises questions about his

> competence, motivation, and the reliability of his opinions.

>

> However, the article on glucosamine seems to be well researched

and it

> provides references to reliable sources (e.g., JAMA) which can be

> verified by those who want to inquire further or determine the

> veracity of the report. The opinions expressed don't seem to

promote

> or discourage the use or these supplements. They advocate a

cautious

> approach consisting of:

> 1) obtaining a competent diagnosis,

> 2) exploring the pros and cons of treatment options with a

competent

> physician

> 3) having a knowledgeable physician guide you if you decide to try

> glucosamine and/or chondroitin.

>

> From my point of view, I cannot find fault in the presentation or

the

> recommendations of Barret with regard to these supplements.

> This is a well-written, objective description, even if the

> quackwatcher is a quack himself.

>

> Tony

>

> ad hom·i·nem (h & #335;m' & #601;-n & #277;m', -n & #601;m) adj.

> Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or

reason.

>

> ====

>

> --- In , " cronzen " <truepatriot@>

wrote:

> >

> > Yes, that would be me. Do you have a suggestion for an

> > alternative clearinghouse of analysis for the layperson?

> >

> > You must admit the idea of an unbiased quackwatch is a

> > good one, and with all the snake-oil salesmen lurking on

> > the internet and early-morning infomercials these days,

> > a decidedly important one.

> >

> >

> > -

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have found his presentations

to be rather objective. However, I brought it up in the past as

how he is *perceived* by Mercola'ites, et al, who do engage in

ad hominem attacks (though maybe that is also what we do when we

shun any references to those sites?).

-

>

> It has been interesting to see the discussions about

Barrett,

> his qualifications, and what he said about glucosamine.

>

>

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/glucosamine.htm

l

>

> Clearly, if he is not an M.D. and he tries to pass himself off as

one,

> his credibility is undermined and it raises questions about his

> competence, motivation, and the reliability of his opinions.

>

> However, the article on glucosamine seems to be well researched

and it

> provides references to reliable sources (e.g., JAMA) which can be

> verified by those who want to inquire further or determine the

> veracity of the report. The opinions expressed don't seem to

promote

> or discourage the use or these supplements. They advocate a

cautious

> approach consisting of:

> 1) obtaining a competent diagnosis,

> 2) exploring the pros and cons of treatment options with a

competent

> physician

> 3) having a knowledgeable physician guide you if you decide to try

> glucosamine and/or chondroitin.

>

> From my point of view, I cannot find fault in the presentation or

the

> recommendations of Barret with regard to these supplements.

> This is a well-written, objective description, even if the

> quackwatcher is a quack himself.

>

> Tony

>

> ad hom·i·nem (h & #335;m' & #601;-n & #277;m', -n & #601;m) adj.

> Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or

reason.

>

> ====

>

> --- In , " cronzen " <truepatriot@>

wrote:

> >

> > Yes, that would be me. Do you have a suggestion for an

> > alternative clearinghouse of analysis for the layperson?

> >

> > You must admit the idea of an unbiased quackwatch is a

> > good one, and with all the snake-oil salesmen lurking on

> > the internet and early-morning infomercials these days,

> > a decidedly important one.

> >

> >

> > -

>