Politics and Medicine - PRESS RELEASE: Quackpot loses in a court of law

Author

PRESS RELEASE: Quackpot loses in a court of law

Mr-Natural-Health

2005-10-16, 11:07 am

"More about - Quackbuster Barrett
BROKEN in aHome Towna Court... CONTINUED
http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_article.htm

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Saturday, October 15th, 2005

Here's the Press Release:
http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_...rratt_Trial.htm
aQuackwatcha Founder Stephen Barrett loses Major Defamation trial in
Hometown

In a stunning development, Lehigh Valley Pennsylvania Judge J. Brian
Johnson on Thursday, October 13, 2005, tossed out nationally known
self-proclaimed "consumer medical advocate" Stephen Barrett's
defamation lawsuit just minutes before it was going to be considered by
a local jury.

The lawsuit, filed in August 2002, against also nationally known
Pennsylvania chiropractor, lecturer and publisher, Dr. Tedd Koren
sought unspecified damages against Koren and his company, Koren
Publications, Inc. for statements that he wrote in his newsletter in
2001 about Barrett.

Barrett filed the lawsuit because of Koren's publication that Barrett
was "de-licensed" and "in trouble because of a $10 million
lawsuit" and because Barrett was called a "Quackpot." In his
defense, Koren contended that the statements were true and not
defamatory and that he had a First Amendment right to write them in his
newsletter.

Thursday's ruling by Judge Johnson represented a major reversal of
the finding of an arbitration in August 2004 wherein a panel of three
local private attorneys reviewing the case had found in favor of
Barrett and awarded Barrett $16,500 in damages and that Koren should
publish a retraction. That award was appealed by Koren.
...."

Read more at:
http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_...rratt_Trial.htm
and at:
http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_article.htm

--
The above is a direct quotation of what is clearly labeled as an
opinion piece written by Tim Bolen, and is reproduced here under the
fair use doctrine (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html).

'Tim Bolen is a Crisis Management Consultant, and a Consumer Advocate,
in the Health Care Industry.'
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinio...tim%20bolen.htm

The views expressed above are solely the opinion of Tim Bolen. The
poster, the newsgroups, nor any other Internet forum that this and
previous posts might appear on do NOT necessarily subscribe to any of
the views expressed on these opinion pieces written by Tim Bolen.

Recommended anti-quackbusters web pages:
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/
http://www.bolenreport.net/
http://www.northamericanconsumersag...ealthfraud.org/
http://www.iahf.com/
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/.../uslawsuits.htm
http://www.wcanews.com/archives/2002/may2202c.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/dag/pubdoc/hipaa01fe19.htm
http://www.nutritioninstituteofamer...ByMedicine1.htm

outsor@citynet.net

2005-10-16, 6:00 pm

From the web page:

"After the ruling, Koren proclaimed that: I am overjoyed and
enthusiastic that this nightmare is over and that the science of
chiropractic treatment and the work of all of my colleagues has been
vindicated. "

It was not, the whole question before the court was as to defamation of
one party to another about some personal aspects of one of the parties.
The quack practices of the other party were not at issue. The quacks will
attempt to confuse the two, as amptly seen on this ng already. But at the
end of the day the court of science will have the last word and the quacks
have lost all cases so far and no salvation in sight.

Ilena Rose

2005-10-17, 12:59 am

On 16 Oct 2005 19:41:56 GMT, outsor@citynet.net wrote:

> But at the
>end of the day the court of science will have the last word and the quacks
>have lost all cases so far and no salvation in sight.

True. Quack Barrett continues to lose in court ... to me ... to
Darlene Sherrill, to King Bio, and now to Dr. Koren.

Mark Probert

2005-10-17, 11:06 am

Ilena Rose wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2005 19:41:56 GMT, outsor@citynet.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
> True. Quack Barrett continues to lose in court

He said the "court of science" where facts mean something.

outsor@citynet.net

2005-10-17, 11:06 am

"to me ... to Darlene Sherrill, to King Bio, and now to Dr. Koren."

The person in question is not the problem with quacks, the problem is the
quacks can't demonstrate in science their truth claims valid. If he
should never say another word the claims of the quacks would not be
supported and science is full of folk saying now and who will not stop
saying that quacks have no basis for claims made based in scientific
evidence. All this civil legal fuss and bother means something to you as
a person, in the court of validity in science it is invisible and carries
no consideration whatsoever.

Mark Probert

2005-10-17, 6:02 pm

outsor@citynet.net wrote:
> "to me ... to Darlene Sherrill, to King Bio, and now to Dr. Koren."
>
>
> The person in question is not the problem with quacks, the problem is the
> quacks can't demonstrate in science their truth claims valid. If he
> should never say another word the claims of the quacks would not be
> supported and science is full of folk saying now and who will not stop
> saying that quacks have no basis for claims made based in scientific
> evidence. All this civil legal fuss and bother means something to you as
> a person, in the court of validity in science it is invisible and carries
> no consideration whatsoever.

Very well put. Simply put, Barrett, et al could drop dead tonight, and
tomorrow, the quacks would be just as wrong as they are today. Just note
that Ilena, et al, consider Barrett to be a quack becuase he disagrees
with them, not because they have proven him wrong.

LadyLollipop

2005-10-18, 1:05 am

<outsor@citynet.net> wrote in message
news:4353b15d$0$280$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
> "to me ... to Darlene Sherrill, to King Bio, and now to Dr. Koren."
>
>
> The person is

Sue Happy Quack Barrett and his FALSE CLAIMS, wasting the courts time, with
LYING claims of defaming, while, he has over 400 pages that ARE DEFAMING.

HE IS A TOTAL HYOPCRITE!

Then there are people like *you* who twist.

LadyLollipop

2005-10-18, 1:05 am

<outsor@citynet.net> wrote in message
news:4353ae70$0$280$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
>"> True. Quack Barrett continues to lose in court"
>
> There ain't no salvation in rhetorical obfuscation either.

You might try getting real.

It's called *truth*

Peter Bowditch

2005-10-18, 1:05 am

"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:

>
><outsor@citynet.net> wrote in message
>news:4353ae70$0$280$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
>
>You might try getting real.
>
>It's called *truth*
>

Why is Dr Barrett's business any of your business, Jan?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Ilena Rose

2005-10-18, 1:05 am

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:55:49 -0400, Mark Probert
<markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>Just note
>that Ilena, et al, consider Barrett to be a quack becuase he disagrees
>with them, not because they have proven him wrong.

LOL ... you are as wacked out as Terry Vera Teasdale Polevoy parading
around dressed as a woman and then nuking his post exposing his
panties.

LadyLollipop

2005-10-18, 1:05 am

Asked and answered.

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:ltl8l15np8m08715ithdc8njb9be8marb6@4ax.com...
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why is Dr Barrett's business any of your business, Jan?
> --
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243
> The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
> Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Mark Probert

2005-10-18, 11:17 am

Ilena Rose wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:55:49 -0400, Mark Probert
> <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> LOL ... you are as wacked out as Terry Vera Teasdale Polevoy parading
> around dressed as a woman and then nuking his post exposing his
> panties.
>

Sadly, you are projecting again.

Mark Probert

2005-10-20, 6:52 pm

Mark Probert

2005-10-24, 2:11 am

Mark Probert

2005-10-26, 11:51 am

Mark Probert

2005-10-27, 6:48 pm

Mark Probert

2005-10-29, 11:44 am

Mark Probert

2005-10-30, 6:25 pm