Jan's point

[Guest guest]

Good point, Jan. The criteria for legitimate inquiries v. fakes is,

insisting on the same level of proof from everybody, regardless who

they are. I treated my sister's claims the same way I treated any

claim in all my years as a professional investigator (for the

government of Alberta, and now in private practice).

Leo.

>

>

> << Please stop judging and trying to speculate about Barrett or

myself. Go

> to the data if you dare, and tell

> us what Barrett is wrong about. I don't think you will do it, and

you'll

> have some excuse as to why you

> won't. >>

>

> Since when have I ever made excuses Bill? I am a straight forward

person.

> Didn't I take much time with you in private e-mail? I will do that

when I

> have time, but for starters, I will just say that Barrett makes a

statement

> about Dr NOT giving the patient a physical. This is

preposterous, and

> is how he throws in his little nasty remarks. He also states that

she says

> all cancers are alike. She does NOT say that. So there's two. He

also

> refers to the article which he has absolutely NO PROOF of. I

know many

> people who have been to her clinic and it is NONE of the things

that

she

> states. So there is three. Quack Barrett is ready to believe a

reporters

> story.....WITHOUT checking to see if it is true?? And post it as

fact on his

> website. This is how the man operates. All of his websites are the

same. Yet

> you want PROOF from Dr 's supporters?? And NONE from Barrett??

>

> Jan