To: "Health Freedom, Codex Issues
Subject: Open Letter to "Quackbuster" Stephen Barrett of Allentown PA Re Court Transcript Herein
From: John Hammell firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 22:10:01 -0500
IAHF List: [See my letter to Barrett below.] [His email address, should any of you want to email him yourself, is email@example.com] The legitimacy of the (so called) "National Council Against Health Fraud" (and Stephen Barrett, MD from Allentown PA) took a serious pounding in a decision rendered against the "quackbusters" on December 17, 2001 by Judge Haley J. Fromholz in California Superior Court.
Excerpted below my letter to Barrett are exerpts from the court transcript in which the Judge severely called to task the legitimacy of the National Council Against Health Fraud, and seriously called into question qualifications of Stephen Barrett, MD (OF ALLENTOWN PA) and Wallace Sampson, MD to appear in court as supposed "expert witnesses" in cases involving alternative medicine. Although it is difficult to imagine that these two men will continue their outrageous attacks on alternative medicine in the aftermath of this sort of public humiliation, they show every sign of being very hard headed gluttons for punishment, so my guess is that they will continue bringing frivolous lawsuits such as this against more plaintiffs until they get kicked in the teeth a few MORE times just as they did here, until they are writhing on the ground in total agony to the point where they can no longer bear the pain of this kind of humiliation. I decided to write directly to Dr.Barrett himself to inquire as to his thoughts regarding Judge Fromhoz's decision, to see if he has anything to say in his own defense. I will post any response he makes to my message below, (provided he actually responds at all.) (Any LACK of a response on his part will be very conspicuous to visitors to the IAHF website.)
Anyone can be in the IAHF list: sign up at http://email.sparklist.com/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=IAHF or sign up at http://www.iahf.com Appreciate this info? Kindly slide a few simolians in my direction via paypal at http://www.iahf.com or via IAHF POB 625 Floyd, VA 24091 USA....... and kindly mass forward this>>>>
Judge Fromholz or California Superior Court has seriously called you to task for bringing this frivolous lawsuit against the defendants, King Bio Pharmaceuticals, makers of homeopathic products. In his statement here, the Judge seriously questions your credability as witnesses given that you have zero expertise in the field of homeopathy, (or any other aspect of alternative medicine) and that your primary reason for testifying was for your own financial gain, to attempt to pump some quick cash into the legal coffers of the NCAHF.
Given that you have failed so miserably here, and given that you are gettin' mighty creaky, and will soon have to give a complete accounting of your EVIL actions before your Creator and your Lord, don't you think it might be wise to ponder the error of your ways, cut your losses, and stop opening yourself up to this sort of public ridicule so that you don't KEEP getting kicked in the teeth in court as you did here?It would appear that you are a SERIOUS glutton for punishment (!!)
I would like to know your views on the following statements by Judge Fromholz, which were taken from the transcript of the decision rendered against you and the other insufferably ignorant fools at NCAHF on December 17, 2001 (see complete transcript at http://www.savedrclark.org/ via the hypertext link titled "A Judges View of the Quackbusters"
Do you think the judge was unfair to you in any way, and if so how? Please let me know your thoughts in detail. I would be pleased to post any forthcoming response from you regarding this on the IAHF website, however if none should be forthcoming, its absence would seem quite conspicuous in the world of public opinion, and could really cause the tide of public opinion to turn seriously against you and your organization.
So, if you think the Judge was wrong, and that you have a shred of credability after all, lets have it straight from the horse's mouth: I want YOUR views on this court transcript, DOCTOR.
With Serious Concern for Your (Theoretically) Immortal Pharma Cartel, FDA Lovin' Soul,
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
Excerpted from Judges decision rendered against NCAHF 12/17/01 by Judge Framholz in California Superior Court, See complete transcript at http://www.savedrclark.org via hypertext link titled "A Judges View of the Quackbusters"
B. Stephen 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 on 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. Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case associated with Defendants' products.
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. Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson's university course presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett's heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses' fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. 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.