Re: What much of mainstream medicine still perceives.

[Guest guest]

This is the kind of BS that just makes me want to scream!!!! I wasn't

depressed at all before getting sick. I loved my job, my life and was totally

happy with everything including my two wonderful teenagers!!!!!

Sue

Summary: I think you are dealing with essentially depressed people, whose

self images are so firmly impressed on their personal views of the world,

that

they are essentially unreachable through rational approaches and argument.

The

press periodically revives the issue with convincing personal stories and

quotes from naive physicians and scientists who do not have experience in

the

field.

[Guest guest]

Lemme guess....shrink/psychologist wrote the response..

They need to identify physical illnesses into posychological ones in order

to keep themselves in business.

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 snk1955@... wrote:

> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 16:55:59 EST

> From: snk1955@...

> Reply-

>

> Cc: AspergillusSupport@...

> Subject: [] What much of mainstream medicine still perceives.

>

> Hi All,

>

> I have been messing around on a medical chatboard of self proclaimed

> skeptics on a variety of subject. They have been mostly gracious in their

> responses, but FYI, this is what much of main stream medicine still sees.

Quite

> disheartening.

>

> Sharon

>

> I posted:

>

>

> Find this article at:

> http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/1005gulfwar

> .html

>

> The response was:

>

>

>

> Thanks for sending this.

>

> However, this article is one more of hundreds of similar ones attempting to

> describe the complex symptoms as organic syndromes and diseases, which they

> are not.

>

> This is not new. We have followed the body of complaints, descriptions,

> attempts at legislation, attempted cures, etc.for decades, and through the

> various name changes.

>

> We think the problem is one disorder - somatization disorder. It is well

> described, books are written on it, and we are agreed that it is a set of

> perceived symptoms precipitated by depression and failure of the individual to

cope

> successfully with life situations and to adjust to traumas and stresses. If

> you can stand reading about this, I recommend Shorter's books - From

> Paralysis to Fatigue, which traces the changes in symptoms that have occurred

> as medicine itself changes, and the history from mid-19th century and

> Charcot and Freud to the present. The book is in lay terminology, easy to

read, and

> better than any medical book I have seen.

>

> I will write to the physicians at State for their data. The NIH

> people have found a few differences in people with chr. fatigue syndrome such

as

> blood pressure responses to position changes, but no other organic changes.

The

> WSU findings would be a first in my experience.

>

> But which enzymes? Liver enzyme changes are common from common drugs

> including aspirin and phenacetin, alcohol, etc. It would be hard to adjust for

> common drug intake. Most other enzymes are not easily testable.

>

> Summary: I think you are dealing with essentially depressed people, whose

> self images are so firmly impressed on their personal views of the world, that

> they are essentially unreachable through rational approaches and argument. The

> press periodically revives the issue with convincing personal stories and

> quotes from naive physicians and scientists who do not have experience in the

> field.

>

> Although we deal with these problems in our journal, arguing on the HF

> list will be frustrating and unproductive.

>

> If you find this all hard to take and digest, I understand. Take some time

> and read, discuss, allow the mind to open to other explanations, and join our

> often frustrating group.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon and Group,

Send them my Bio, attached, and ask if I fit their profile of " somatization

disorder. ... and we are agreed that it is a set of perceived symptoms

precipitated by depression and failure of the individual to cope

successfully with life situations and to adjust to traumas and

stresses. "

If they argue that I used to fit their profile but no longer do, then why am

I still vulnerable? Yes, I am able to function - at a high level - but only

when I continue to actively manage my exposures and balance activity with

rest. With my lifestyle, national involvement and travel, I don't think I'm

" depressed and (failing) to cope successfully with life situations and

adjust to traumas and stresses. "

Would they say that about me if they observed me at any of the

activities listed on my Bio? Including the two last week?

But what do I know? I'm just one person. And anecdotal at that. I'm

probably, at this very moment, hallucinating my own existence.

Quick, have them call me so I can understand my experience and

interpret its meaning. I NEED THEM NOW!

Oh, my God!

Thank this group for me as they have shown me the light and

revealed the truth. Without them I would have rejected my plan

to crawl into a hole and impatiently wait for death.

Would that make them happy and the world a better place for

us all? For our recently departed group members?

And for me?

Sorry I'm not as " gracious " as they seem to be but their bedside

manners stink and are unctuously offensive.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Hi All,

>

> I have been messing around on a medical chatboard of self proclaimed

> skeptics on a variety of subject. They have been mostly gracious in

> their responses, but FYI, this is what much of main stream medicine

> still sees. Quite disheartening.

>

> Sharon

>

> I posted:

>

>

> Find this article at:

> http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/1005g

> ulfwar .html

>

> The response was:

>

>

>

> Thanks for sending this.

>

> However, this article is one more of hundreds of similar ones

> attempting to describe the complex symptoms as organic syndromes and

> diseases, which they are not.

>

> This is not new. We have followed the body of complaints,

> descriptions, attempts at legislation, attempted cures, etc.for

> decades, and through the various name changes.

>

> We think the problem is one disorder - somatization disorder. It is

> well described, books are written on it, and we are agreed that it is

> a set of perceived symptoms precipitated by depression and failure of

> the individual to cope successfully with life situations and to

> adjust to traumas and stresses. If you can stand reading about this,

> I recommend Shorter's books - From Paralysis to Fatigue,

> which traces the changes in symptoms that have occurred as medicine

> itself changes, and the history from mid-19th century and Charcot and

> Freud to the present. The book is in lay terminology, easy to read,

> and better than any medical book I have seen.

>

> I will write to the physicians at State for their data. The NIH

> people have found a few differences in people with chr. fatigue

> syndrome such as blood pressure responses to position changes, but no

> other organic changes. The

> WSU findings would be a first in my experience.

>

> But which enzymes? Liver enzyme changes are common from common drugs

> including aspirin and phenacetin, alcohol, etc. It would be hard to

> adjust for common drug intake. Most other enzymes are not easily

> testable.

>

> Summary: I think you are dealing with essentially depressed people,

> whose self images are so firmly impressed on their personal views of

> the world, that they are essentially unreachable through rational

> approaches and argument. The

> press periodically revives the issue with convincing personal stories

> and

> quotes from naive physicians and scientists who do not have

> experience in the field.

>

> Although we deal with these problems in our journal, arguing on the

> HF

> list will be frustrating and unproductive.

>

> If you find this all hard to take and digest, I understand. Take some

> time and read, discuss, allow the mind to open to other explanations,

> and join our often frustrating group.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:55:59 -0500 (EST), you wrote:

>Hi All,

>

>I have been messing around on a medical chatboard of self proclaimed

>skeptics on a variety of subject. They have been mostly gracious in their

>responses, but FYI, this is what much of main stream medicine still sees.

Quite

>disheartening.

>

>Sharon

Where is this chatboard? I like debate on the subject. The more they

talk about it the more they have to think. If they think enough they

may just see the problem with their belief. It's not grounded in

science.

[Guest guest]

ME TOO, SUE--I CAN SECOND THAT MOTION, & I GET SOOOOOOOO FRUSTRATED AT THE

IDIOTS THAT SAY THIS TYPE OF THING!

V.

Re: [] What much of mainstream medicine still

perceives.

>

>

>

> This is the kind of BS that just makes me want to scream!!!! I wasn't

> depressed at all before getting sick. I loved my job, my life and was

> totally

> happy with everything including my two wonderful teenagers!!!!!

> Sue

>

>

> Summary: I think you are dealing with essentially depressed people, whose

> self images are so firmly impressed on their personal views of the world,

> that

> they are essentially unreachable through rational approaches and

> argument.

> The

> press periodically revives the issue with convincing personal stories and

> quotes from naive physicians and scientists who do not have experience

> in

> the

> field.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Arguing or trying to debate/educate allopaths is analgous to putting

diapers on piss clams....the ultimate effort in futility.

MD= minor diety.

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006, Christ wrote:

> Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 00:23:59 -0500

> From: Christ <antares41-41@...>

> Reply-

>

> Subject: Re: [] What much of mainstream medicine still perceives.

>

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:55:59 -0500 (EST), you wrote:

>

>> Hi All,

>>

>> I have been messing around on a medical chatboard of self proclaimed

>> skeptics on a variety of subject. They have been mostly gracious in their

>> responses, but FYI, this is what much of main stream medicine still sees.

Quite

>> disheartening.

>>

>> Sharon

>

> Where is this chatboard? I like debate on the subject. The more they

> talk about it the more they have to think. If they think enough they

> may just see the problem with their belief. It's not grounded in

> science.

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/4/2006 9:30:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,

antares41-41@... writes:

Where is this chatboard? I like debate on the subject. The more they

talk about it the more they have to think. If they think enough they

may just see the problem with their belief. It's not grounded in

science.

It's Quackwatch. But please do not go in and get them to debate. This is a

chatboard of self-professed cynics on a variety of subjects. And I have to

say after reading their posts, that although they appear to be very narrow

minded, some of the things they are upset about have merit.

They typically keep track of people practicing without a license, tainted

herbal remedies coming into the US with no controls, etc.

They don't debate on that board. They just inform each other of practices

of Quackery - medical practices without scientific foundation.

I was proposing to them that they were practicing Quackery when assigning

physiological symptoms of mold to psychological origins.

They have actually been quite polite and quite helpful in most cases. A few

minor zings. One doctor wrote he was familiar with " a symptom complex...and

Mold. I wrote back I was familiar with " a symptom complex....and a medical

degree " .

They have pointed me to some good info that we can use to establish the

error of mainstream medicine's ways when dealing with the mold issue.

Let them go. You will not change their minds simply through emails. Mold

is not a forefront interest to them, anyway. Improper medical practices is

their field of " study " .

Sharon

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/2006 8:56:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,

antares41-41@... writes:

I break it down this way, you have medical rip off's that prostitute

themselves out to the multi trillion dollar industries that together

never want the truth to come to light. Than you have the medical

retards that are not smart enough to think for themselves and take

everything they are told at face value no questions asked. Hence the

name " The American Medical Ripoff's and Retards's " Clearly job

security comes into play for psychologist's but that does not answer

for the rest of the people in medicine. Especially Epidemiology.

I think this is the bottom line: Environmental illnesses are greatly on the

rise, and for whatever reason, mainstream medicine is clearly behind the

curve on addressing these.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Loni,

I was taken from my classroom to the ER, in 2002, with symptoms of a heart

attack. ALLTESTING including a heart cath proved that my heart was in

EXCELLENT condition! SO not knowing what else to say my family Dr. decided it

must

be stress/anxiety and handed me antidepressants!! I continued to get sicker

by the day with all types of problems. Headaches, dizziness, blurred vision,

slurred speech, horrible fatigue, itchy skin, confusion, memory loss, sore

muscles & joint pain so bad I couldn't squeeze toothpaste or hold a pencil.

Guess

what? The Dr. changed my medication & told me I should see a

psycologist!!!!! Without my own research and determination I guess they would

have suggested

the looney bin!!!!! Very frustrating but I'm still here, feeling better and

certainly not taking ANY antidepressants & saved a lot of $ on tylenol &

kleenex. If anyone should be depressed it would be NOW because I am

unemployed, have a chronic illness, & trying to keep 2 wonderful kids in

college.

Since I left the toxic dump they call a school, 2 yrs. ago & seeing Dr.

Shoemaker, my symptoms are gone & I haven't had any sore throats, congestion,

post nasal drip, headaches (unless I have been exposed somewhere), bronchitis,

laryngitis, not even one common cold!! That in it self is amazing!

Believe me we are not crazy OR depressed!!!

Sue

I know what you mean. My family took me to some MD's & one phsychiatrist

($200) & they all wanted to put me on antidepressants. Nothing seen on the

blood

test. So my husband is sure that is what it is. Not that I got poisoned. It

does make you want to scream. I'm so happy we have each other! Loni

[Guest guest]

I break it down this way, you have medical rip off's that prostitute

themselves out to the multi trillion dollar industries that together

never want the truth to come to light. Than you have the medical

retards that are not smart enough to think for themselves and take

everything they are told at face value no questions asked. Hence the

name " The American Medical Ripoff's and Retards's " Clearly job

security comes into play for psychologist's but that does not answer

for the rest of the people in medicine. Especially Epidemiology.

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 23:14:45 +0000 (UTC), you wrote:

>Lemme guess....shrink/psychologist wrote the response..

>

>They need to identify physical illnesses into posychological ones in order

>to keep themselves in business.

[Guest guest]

I sure hear you Sue

[Guest guest]

Yes, the CSM and being out of the school.

Sue

Do you owe it to the CSM or was it other treatment that DR Shoe did in

addition to that? LOni

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/2006 1:04:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,

grimes@... writes:

Sharon,

Is Quackwatch related to Quackbusters and Barrett? Then there

is Quackpotwatch by Tim Bolin that is fighting Quackbusters

www.quackpotwatch.org

Yes.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/2006 1:20:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,

antares41-41@... writes:

I agree with you about quackwatch putting the heat on all of the

charlatans out there that pray on desperate people with no money to

spare. I am glad they are doing this. God Bless them in this regard.

Yes I agree, but I think they are missing the point:

Somebody posted this:

The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the United

States has greatly increased during the past decade. Using survey data

from the 2002 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), we show that

adults who did not get, or delayed, needed medical care because of cost

in the prior twelve months were also more likely than all other adults

to use CAM. Recent increases in CAM use could be the result of not only

the desire for individual empowerment and patient dissatisfaction with

conventional medicine, as has been claimed, but also of increases in the

relative cost of conventional health care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abst

ract & list_uids=15647238 & query_hl=1 & itool=pubmed_docsum

I posted back:

Thank you for finding that information. It is exactly what I am saying.

Nice to know the National Institute of Health has come to the same

conclusion.

I completely understand that the motivation of this board is honorable

in bringing to light practices of individual Quackery. But I think trying

to

solve a problem without looking at the underlying cause of what is driving

the increased profitibility and presence of Quacks, is like trying to put

out a

fire with a squirt gun.

Here is the bottom line: Environmental illnesses are rapidly

increasing. You all are trying to treat them with old standard methods of

antibiotics,

steriods, and other useless remedies. People are frustrated with you. The

limited availability of insurance for many is also keeping them away from

you.

Thus, the increase in alternative solutions.

Mainstream medicine is way behind the curve on treating environmental

illnesses. That is the reason for the increase in alternative measures -

which

allows Quacks to cash in on the situation.

As I have stated before, we love our mainstream doctors. They are good

men working their tails off on a daily basis. So what. If they are not

taught how to properly recognize, diagnose and treat the rapidly increasing

environmental illnesses, then they do no one any good.

Physician, heal thyself. We need you!!!!

(then he posted back this was not the position of the NIH, merely published

there)

[Guest guest]

I know what you mean. My family took me to some MD's & one phsychiatrist ($200)

& they all wanted to put me on antidepressants. Nothing seen on the blood test.

So my husband is sure that is what it is. Not that I got poisoned. It does make

you want to scream. I'm so happy we have each other! Loni

ssr3351@... wrote:

This is the kind of BS that just makes me want to scream!!!! I wasn't

depressed at all before getting sick. I loved my job, my life and was totally

happy with everything including my two wonderful teenagers!!!!!

Sue

Summary: I think you are dealing with essentially depressed people, whose

self images are so firmly impressed on their personal views of the world,

that

they are essentially unreachable through rational approaches and argument.

The

press periodically revives the issue with convincing personal stories and

quotes from naive physicians and scientists who do not have experience in

the

field.

[Guest guest]

Do you owe it to the CSM or was it other treatment that DR Shoe did in addition

to that? LOni

ssr3351@... wrote: Loni,

I was taken from my classroom to the ER, in 2002, with symptoms of a heart

attack. ALLTESTING including a heart cath proved that my heart was in

EXCELLENT condition! SO not knowing what else to say my family Dr. decided it

must

be stress/anxiety and handed me antidepressants!! I continued to get sicker

by the day with all types of problems. Headaches, dizziness, blurred vision,

slurred speech, horrible fatigue, itchy skin, confusion, memory loss, sore

muscles & joint pain so bad I couldn't squeeze toothpaste or hold a pencil.

Guess

what? The Dr. changed my medication & told me I should see a

psycologist!!!!! Without my own research and determination I guess they would

have suggested

the looney bin!!!!! Very frustrating but I'm still here, feeling better and

certainly not taking ANY antidepressants & saved a lot of $ on tylenol &

kleenex. If anyone should be depressed it would be NOW because I am

unemployed, have a chronic illness, & trying to keep 2 wonderful kids in

college.

Since I left the toxic dump they call a school, 2 yrs. ago & seeing Dr.

Shoemaker, my symptoms are gone & I haven't had any sore throats, congestion,

post nasal drip, headaches (unless I have been exposed somewhere), bronchitis,

laryngitis, not even one common cold!! That in it self is amazing!

Believe me we are not crazy OR depressed!!!

Sue

I know what you mean. My family took me to some MD's & one phsychiatrist

($200) & they all wanted to put me on antidepressants. Nothing seen on the

blood

test. So my husband is sure that is what it is. Not that I got poisoned. It

does make you want to scream. I'm so happy we have each other! Loni

[Guest guest]

I wish I could agree with you but theirs a difference between stupid

and stupid like a fox. They are the latter. It's about money not

answers or peoples lives. In my opinion not only do they know what we

speak of they have test's to confirm it but choose to pretend

otherwise. This condition is not new, it started in ww1 with chemical

weapons. Their is nothing that they don't know about these

conditions. Do I think all people in medicine are evil? No. Do I

think everyone is conspiring to hide the truth? No. I think most

people in medicine are decent misguided people. Our condition is

rare enough that they are not confronted with it on a scale large

enough to draw their concern or mistrust. The psychological model

sounds very feasible to them and it's easier to go with the grain than

against it. The same pressure a cult member might feel not to make

any waves is prevalent in the medical community. As long as they go

the party line they get high five's. If they differ with the party

line they feel pressure from their peers to conform.

I agree with you about quackwatch putting the heat on all of the

charlatans out there that pray on desperate people with no money to

spare. I am glad they are doing this. God Bless them in this regard.

>I think this is the bottom line: Environmental illnesses are greatly on the

>rise, and for whatever reason, mainstream medicine is clearly behind the

>curve on addressing these.

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

Is Quackwatch related to Quackbusters and Barrett? Then there

is Quackpotwatch by Tim Bolin that is fighting Quackbusters

www.quackpotwatch.org

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> It's Quackwatch. But please do not go in and get them to debate.

> This is a chatboard of self-professed cynics on a variety of

> subjects. And I have to say after reading their posts, that although

> they appear to be very narrow minded, some of the things they are

> upset about have merit.

>

> They typically keep track of people practicing without a license,

> tainted herbal remedies coming into the US with no controls, etc.

>

> They don't debate on that board. They just inform each other of

> practices of Quackery - medical practices without scientific

> foundation.

>

> I was proposing to them that they were practicing Quackery when

> assigning physiological symptoms of mold to psychological origins.

>

> They have actually been quite polite and quite helpful in most cases.

> A few minor zings. One doctor wrote he was familiar with " a symptom

> complex...and Mold. I wrote back I was familiar with " a symptom

> complex....and a medical degree " .

>

> They have pointed me to some good info that we can use to establish

> the error of mainstream medicine's ways when dealing with the mold

> issue.

>

> Let them go. You will not change their minds simply through emails.

> Mold is not a forefront interest to them, anyway. Improper medical

> practices is their field of " study " .

>

> Sharon

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Don't forget the paid whores...oops, I mean the *doctors* who do the so

called UNBIASED/INDEPENDENT IME's.

There is one sure bet in this life...who ever writes the check for the IME

thats who is FAVORED in the IME narrative!

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006, Christ wrote:

> Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:22:45 -0500

> From: Christ <antares41-41@...>

> Reply-

>

> Subject: Re: [] What much of mainstream medicine still perceives.

>

> I break it down this way, you have medical rip off's that prostitute

> themselves out to the multi trillion dollar industries that together

> never want the truth to come to light. Than you have the medical

> retards that are not smart enough to think for themselves and take

> everything they are told at face value no questions asked. Hence the

> name " The American Medical Ripoff's and Retards's " Clearly job

> security comes into play for psychologist's but that does not answer

> for the rest of the people in medicine. Especially Epidemiology.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 23:14:45 +0000 (UTC), you wrote:

>

>> Lemme guess....shrink/psychologist wrote the response..

>>

>> They need to identify physical illnesses into posychological ones in order

>> to keep themselves in business.

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oh geeze...is that with the finally unmasked, no board credentials, been

taken to task by courts both in US and Canda...aka Barrett?

I kniw Barrett is associated with Quackbusters...

If it's Barretts list, I have a compilation of what the courts have said

about him and what he has said under oath during a trial, I think in

California. He is worthless and has his little lemmingss following

him....

Must be tough going thru all that training and finding out you are too

stupid to pass the board certification that you have been telling people

you have. Along with never being a success in the private sector.

A few nippets on the credability of Barrett.....

B. Barrett, M.D.

Dr. Barrett was offered on several issues by the Plaintiff, but the Court

found that there was substantial overlap on the issues that he and Dr.

Sampson were asked to address. Thus, in order to avoid duplicative or

cumulative evidence (see Cal. Evidence Code 352, 411, 723), Dr. Barrett's

testimony was limited by the Court to the sole issue of FDA treatment of

homeopathic drugs. The relevancy of this issue was questionable at best,

since the Plaintiff had previously asserted that its case did not depend

on or seek to establish any violation of federal food and drug laws or

regulations. Nevertheless, Plaintiff elicited testimony from Dr. Barrett

on his experience with the FDA as it relates to regulation of homeopathic

drugs.

Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which

point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr.

Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs,

although he claims to have read and written extensively n homeopathy and

other forms of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett's claim to expertise on

FDA issues arises from his conversations with FDA agents, his review of

professional literature on the subject and certain continuing education

activities.

As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs,

the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this

area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency

enforces federal statutes and the agency's own regulations. Dr. Barrett's

purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a

lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence

law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past

conversations with FDA representatives, these appear to have been

sporadic, mainly at his own instigation, and principally for the purpose

of gathering information for his various articles and Internet web-sites.

He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues

relating to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional

continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a

current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is

no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on

the issues he was offered to address. oreover, there was no real focus to

his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case associated

with Defendants' products.

Barrett - Professional Crackpot...

The Internet needs health information it can trust. Barrett

doesn't provide it...

Barrett is one of those people whose ambitions and opinions of himself

far exceeds his abilities. Without ANY qualifications he has set himself

up as an expert in just about everything having to do with health care -

and more.

And this from a man who is a professional failure.

Records show that Barrett never achieved any success in the medical

profession. His claim to being a " retired Psychiatrist " is laughable. He

is, in fact, a " failed Psychiatrist, " and a " failed MD. "

The Psychiatric profession rejected Barrett years ago, for Barrett could

NOT pass the examinations necessary to become " Board Certified. " Which,

is no doubt why Barrett was, throughout his career, relegated to lower

level " part time " positions.

Barrett, we know, was forced to give up his medical license in

Pennsylvania in 1993 when his " part-time " employment at the State Mental

Hospital was terminated,and he had so few (nine) private patients during

his last five years of practice, that he couldn't afford the Malpractice

Insurance premiums Pennsylvania requires.

In a job market in the United States, where there is a " doctor shortage, "

Barrett, after his termination by the State mental Hospital,

couldn't find employment. He was in his mid-50s at the time. He should

have been at the top of his craft - yet, apparently, he couldn't find

work.

It is obvious, that, after one humiliation after another, in 1993 Barrett

simply gave up his medical aspirations, turned in his MD license, and

retreated, in bitterness and frustration, to his basement.

It was in that basement, where Barrett took up " quackbusting " - which, in

reality, means that Barrett attacks " cutting-edge " health professionals

and paradigms - those that ARE achieving success in their segment of

health care.

And there, in " quackbusting " is where Barrett finally found the attention

and recognition he seems to crave - for, a while, that is, until three

California Judges, in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court decision, took a HARD look

at Barrett's activities, and declared him " biased, and unworthy of

credibility. "

Bitterness against successful health professionals is Barrett's hallmark.

To him they're all " quacks. " In this, his essays are repetitive and

pedestrian.

Barrett, in his writings, says the same things, the same way, every time

- change the victim and the subject, and still you yawn your way through

his offerings. It's like he's filling out a form somebody gave him...

Take an overactive self importance, couple it with glaring failure and

rejection in his chosen profession, add a cu of molten hatred for those

that do succeed, pop it in the oven - and out comes Barrett -

self-styled " expert in everything. "

Barrett, we know, along with his website, is currently named, among other

things, in a racketeering (RICO) case in Federal Court in Colorado.

He's also being sued for his nefarious activities in Ontario, Canada.

Barrett, in the Canadian case, has formally admitted, according to

Canadian law, to a number of situations put to him by the Plaintiff,

including:

" The sole purpose of the activities of Barrett & Baratz are to discredit

and cause damage and harm to health care practitioners, businesses that

make alternative health therapies or products available, and advocates of

non-allopathic therapies and health freedom. "

" Barrett has interfered with the civil rights of numerous Americans, in

his efforts to have his critics silenced. "

" Barrett has strategically orchestrated the filing of legal actions in

improper jurisdictions for the purpose of frustrating the victims of such

lawsuits and increasing his victims costs. "

" Barrett failed the exams he was required to pass to become a Board

Certified Medical Doctor. "

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 snk1955@... wrote:

> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:51:49 EST

> From: snk1955@...

> Reply-

>

> Subject: Re: [] What much of mainstream medicine still perceives.

>

>

> In a message dated 2/4/2006 9:30:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> antares41-41@... writes:

>

> Where is this chatboard? I like debate on the subject. The more they

> talk about it the more they have to think. If they think enough they

> may just see the problem with their belief. It's not grounded in

> science.

>

>

>

> It's Quackwatch. But please do not go in and get them to debate. This is a

> chatboard of self-professed cynics on a variety of subjects. And I have to

> say after reading their posts, that although they appear to be very narrow

> minded, some of the things they are upset about have merit.

>

> They typically keep track of people practicing without a license, tainted

> herbal remedies coming into the US with no controls, etc.

>

> They don't debate on that board. They just inform each other of practices

> of Quackery - medical practices without scientific foundation.

>

> I was proposing to them that they were practicing Quackery when assigning

> physiological symptoms of mold to psychological origins.

>

> They have actually been quite polite and quite helpful in most cases. A few

> minor zings. One doctor wrote he was familiar with " a symptom complex...and

> Mold. I wrote back I was familiar with " a symptom complex....and a medical

> degree " .

>

> They have pointed me to some good info that we can use to establish the

> error of mainstream medicine's ways when dealing with the mold issue.

>

> Let them go. You will not change their minds simply through emails. Mold

> is not a forefront interest to them, anyway. Improper medical practices is

> their field of " study " .

>

> Sharon

>

>

>

>