Guest guest Posted August 15, 2002 Report Share Posted August 15, 2002 HI, All Can anyone shed some light for me concerning Dr. Stephen Barrett and his websit Quackwatch.com? Is he credible? Thanks. Morton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2002 Report Share Posted August 15, 2002 Evening Morton, Can anyone shed some light for me concerning Dr. Stephen Barrett and >his websit Quackwatch.com? Is he credible? Did you recently find this nut? He is not even a doctor, according to some reports and he will not reveal the source of his funding. Plus, I think he was sued and lost. I have some older messages about all this. His information is like all information, we have to spend the rest of our lives trying to prove or disprove it. Try the search engines and put in " Dr. Stephen Barrett " . You will find he has been in bed with the FDA or AMA for years. As for my opinion, I think he is the biggest quack on Quack Watch. Wayne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2002 Report Share Posted August 15, 2002 Barrett is an orthodox medicine super-warrior. I e-mailed Quackwatch with some dissenting views, and Barrett soon e-mailed me, and, without so much as a warning, threw me off his list. Is he " credible? " Yes, if you take conventional medicine as infallible, and you believe that " alternative " medicine is entirely fraudulent, useless and harmful. I believe, one of my posts included a remark that the entire Quackwatch effort would produce vastly more benefit to the health of Americans, if it devoted all of its time and resources discouraging smoking among children, and the various propaganda and media efforts of the giant cigarette companies to ensare children with the most addictive poison known to man. - " Morton Bodanis " <mortonmb " alternacare " <alternacare >; " getting well " ; " Optimal Health " <Optimal_Health_and_Longevity >; " orthomolecular " <orthomolecular > Wednesday, August 14, 2002 6:21 PM Quackwatch > HI, All > Can anyone shed some light for me concerning Dr. Stephen Barrett and > his websit Quackwatch.com? Is he credible? > Thanks. > Morton > > > > > Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health > and well being. > > list or archives: Gettingwell > > ........ Gettingwell- > post............. Gettingwell > digest form...... Gettingwell-digest > individual emails Gettingwell-normal > no email......... Gettingwell-nomail > moderator ....... Gettingwell-owner > ...... Gettingwell- > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2002 Report Share Posted August 15, 2002 Wayne Fugitt wrote: > Evening Morton, > > Can anyone shed some light for me concerning Dr. Stephen Barrett and > >his websit Quackwatch.com? Is he credible? > > Did you recently find this nut? He is not even a doctor, according > to some reports and he will not reveal the source of his funding. > > Plus, I think he was sued and lost. I have some older messages > about all this. > > His information is like all information, we have to spend the rest of > our lives trying to prove or disprove it. > > Try the search engines and put in " Dr. Stephen Barrett " . You will > find he has been in bed with the FDA or AMA for years. > > As for my opinion, I think he is the biggest quack on Quack Watch. > > Wayne Hi, Wayne Thanks for the response. Yes, I recently found him. His web site asks for donations, anywhere from $1 to $50 to help fund it. I had some similar other opinions. Here is one: My opinion: He has a huge ax to grind against almost all alternative health modalities. Worse yet, he has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to be responsive to honest attempts at dialogue. Intellectual obfuscation with credentials is what he provides. He is not even-handed or fair or open. One wonders if he is the mouthpiece for some interest or other. Terry L. Petty, a proud chiropractor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2002 Report Share Posted August 16, 2002 Gettingwell, Morton Bodanis <mortonmb@c...> wrote: > > > Wayne Fugitt wrote: > > > Evening Morton, > > > > Can anyone shed some light for me concerning Dr. Stephen Barrett and > > >his websit Quackwatch.com? Is he credible? > > > Intellectual obfuscation with credentials is what he provides. > > He is not even-handed or fair or open. One wonders if he is the mouthpiece > for some interest or other. > > Terry L. Petty, a proud chiropractor. Hello to all, I'm new, just found this group. And I'm relatively new to alternative medicine ideas - coming from a previously closed mind. I'm a layman, accountant by education. But I've had a relationship spanning 35 years with a scientist who is a molecular biologist, researcher (doctorate degree in medicine). He taught me more than I ever learned in school and basically influences my thought and direction on health issues. A few months ago on his recommendation, I went on Atkins diet and supplements (Estroven, DHEA, 5-HTP, multivitamins, calcium, and magnesium) to deal with depression and fatigue. I had been on antidepressants for years, wanted off but I would get incredible suicidal thoughts. I had memory problems, anxiety attacks I was taking Xanax for, problems sleeping so I took Remeron - in general, I felt horrid most of the time and it just kept getting worse. I was actually shocked at his recommendations because he had been typical establishment and always critical of alternative ideas. He is no longer, I think partly because of his intellectual commitment to the search for truths, his own professional experiences from the inside and awareness of problems within the health industry, and he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and faced the reality that established medicine could not help him but laws prevented his right to use some treatments not approved by FDA for lack of reason other than money and politics. He is currently defying his prognosis that he would be dead by now. He is now particularly interested in sugars and the resulting overproduction of insulin, lack of proper nutritional intake caused by the anti-cholesteral/anti-fat movement, as being primary culprits in many (if not most) of our contemporary health issues. From what I've been finding, there seems to be a growing number over the past few years within mainstream science looking in this direction. I am no longer on antidepressants, no longer suicidal, depressed, fatigued. I'm actually feeling great and can't remember when I felt such freedom from depression (and perscription medications). I may be a too emphatic but feel I'm still in shock at such a simple revelation and solution after years of mainstream symptomatic treatment. I've had a life of experiences but few that I can relate my stories with. From what I have read on this board, I'm hoping I've found a place to share and learn. I'm now trying to get my son off antidepressants. He was diagnosed with a circadian rhythmn sleep disorder several years ago and so the prescriptions started, along with significant weight gain, social withdrawal etc. I'm also particularly interested in asthma which my daughter has, and diabetes, multiple sceloris, and affective disorders which plague my family of origin. I flipped over and read some of Dr. Garrett. The only credential I saw was that of MD, not PhD. It brought to my memory the many occassions I listened to professors of medicine (PhDs) grip that MD's were not given sufficient education in med school to be considered experts, particularly in science, dispite the delusion presented to the public that they are. Reading Garrett's article on " How Quackery Harms " , he states that when establishment tells you that you have cancer and are dying, that you should spend your remaining time digging your own grave, and not fighting death by trying anything and everything to stay alive. That to me is the epitome of vanity, arrogance, and the complete opposite of what that Hippocratic Oath that he took says to do - use his knowledge to promote life, not death. His credibility to me flies out the window right there. I read one of his where he attacked vitamins as being a multi- million dollar industry but I could not find anything that addresses the pharmaceutical industry who brings in 90 billion dollars a year and is the most profitable industry in this country. As a business major, multi-millions do not exactly compare well with what is close to being a trillion and it just seems that common sense would say that this industry would greater merit such watchdogs as Dr. Garrett rather than the alternatives who are incidental in comparison. I wouldn't argue that there is quackery in alternatives - alternatives by definition encompass an extremely broad span of any and all ideas outside of mainstream medicine. But I would argue that there is an absence of " quackery " by his own definition in establshed medicine, as well as most all other professions and he is very misleading in not addressing this. His arguments could be applied to mainstream medicine just as well complete with examples so he exactly as Terry above states, " is not even-handed, fair or open " . As an accountant, I watch with close interest the news on the corporate robber barons and accounting scandals. Recently the Houston Chronicle (I believe it also in the Washington Post) exposed the fact that the president of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center was involved in the Imclone scandal (ref Martha Stewart) the company being based on " his " drug. And it was revealed that MD Anderson has had a policy for years of treating patients with experimental medications without their knowledge or consent - his drug included. I've d to Garrett's discussion and intend on asking him if he thinks MD Anderson would meet his claim of " misplaced trust " in cancer therapies with unproven treatments - it certainly fits it to me. Considering its fame, I think the violation of trust and faith from patients to be without comparison to his isolated cases of alternative quacks who are hardly hiding within such a respected institution. I find it hard to believe that MD Anderson, number one cancer treatment center in the world, would be alone in such a practice. Considering the money sought to be made personally from these treatments once FDA approval was given based on these clinical trials using unknowing human beings as their guinea pigs, who should we be most suspicious of exploiting us? I'm not trying to say mainstream medicine is bad and alternative good, but rather that Garrett is not even realistic about the most significant issues going on. Mary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.