Politics and Medicine - "Credibility" of Stephen Barrett and Defunct NCAFH

Author

"Credibility" of Stephen Barrett and Defunct NCAFH

Ilena Rose

2005-08-16, 10:55 pm

Huge Loss for the Quack Team ...

That's why the use "Publicists" from the Ragtag Posse to attempt to
harm their critic's credibility ...

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...3fa3dce3e067ef9

EXCERPTS:

"Having reviewed and considered all these matters, and
having considered and weighed the evidence presented by the Plaintiff
in its
case in-chief, as well as the evidence adduced through
cross-examination of
the Plaintiff's witnesses, the Court hereby grants Defendants motion
and
directs that judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendant, and
against Plaintiff, as set forth below."

"In addition, Dr. Sampson admitted to having done absolutely no
investigation
concerning Defendants' specific products. He admitted to no real
knowledge
as to their ingredients and acknowledged that he had not seen any of
the
products prior to the trial."

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....

....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.

Mark Probert

2005-08-17, 6:01 pm

Ilena Rose wrote:
> Huge Loss for the Quack Team ...
>
> That's why the use "Publicists" from the Ragtag Posse to attempt to
> harm their critic's credibility ...
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group...3fa3dce3e067ef9
>
> EXCERPTS:
>
>
> "Having reviewed and considered all these matters, and
> having considered and weighed the evidence presented by the Plaintiff
> in its
> case in-chief, as well as the evidence adduced through
> cross-examination of
> the Plaintiff's witnesses, the Court hereby grants Defendants motion
> and
> directs that judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendant, and
> against Plaintiff, as set forth below."
>
>
> "In addition, Dr. Sampson admitted to having done absolutely no
> investigation
> concerning Defendants' specific products. He admitted to no real
> knowledge
> as to their ingredients and acknowledged that he had not seen any of
> the
> products prior to the trial."
>
>
> 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....
>
>
> ...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.

Just remember, Barrett was permitted to testify as an expert. Breggin
was barred from doing so, as his "expertise" was clearly lacking from
the get-go.

Ilena Rose

2005-08-17, 6:01 pm

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:56:05 -0400, Mark Probert
<markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>Just remember, Barrett was permitted to testify as an expert.

LOL ... and he was totally discredited!

Ilena Rose

2005-08-17, 6:01 pm

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:56:05 -0400, Mark Probert
<markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>Breggin
>was barred from doing so, as his "expertise" was clearly lacking from
>the get-go.

Let's put some reality into your claim Marla:

http://breggin.com/juryawards.htm

Jury Awards $635,000 in Shock Suit

In June 2005 in Columbia, South Carolina, a jury awarded $635,000 in a
malpractice suit against a psychiatrist who referred a patient for
electroshock treatment. The hospital had previously settled for a
small amount and the doctor who administered the treatment was not
found negligent. The plaintiff, Peggy Salters, is a former nurse who
lost her memory for many years of her life, including her professional
training and the raising of her children. Her cognitive abilities
remain impaired for new learning as well. She was found permanently
disabled by the shock treatment. Mrs. Salters viewed the jury award as
a victory for all victims of electroshock. It is probably the first
jury award in an electroshock malpractice case. The fact that the
referring physician was found negligent may encourage greater caution
on the part of physicians who refer their patients to “shock doctors”
for treatment. Dr. Peter Breggin was the medical expert on behalf of
Mrs. Salter’s. The attorney was Mark Hardee (phone 803 799 0905).

LadyLollipop

2005-08-17, 6:01 pm

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote

<snip diversion>

> Ilena Rose wrote:
>

Mark Probert

2005-08-18, 5:56 pm

Ilena Rose wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:56:05 -0400, Mark Probert
> <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> LOL ... and he was totally discredited!

He was not beleived by the court. However, Breggin has been BARRED from
testifying as his ideas are so out of sight that no rational person
would accept them.

That is what is meant when he did not pass Daubert or Frye. Barrett
passed that.

Mark Probert

2005-08-18, 5:56 pm

Ilena Rose wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:56:05 -0400, Mark Probert
> <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Let's put some reality into your claim Mark:

Yes, the reality is that Barrett was allowed to testify and not found
credible, while Breggin was found to be utterly incredible and not
allowed to testify.

This case you cite is so outlandish that YOU could testify as an expert
and get a large jury verdict. The doctors should have had their licenses
pulled.

> http://breggin.com/juryawards.htm
>
> Jury Awards $635,000 in Shock Suit
>
> In June 2005 in Columbia, South Carolina, a jury awarded $635,000 in a
> malpractice suit against a psychiatrist who referred a patient for
> electroshock treatment. The hospital had previously settled for a
> small amount and the doctor who administered the treatment was not
> found negligent. The plaintiff, Peggy Salters, is a former nurse who
> lost her memory for many years of her life, including her professional
> training and the raising of her children. Her cognitive abilities
> remain impaired for new learning as well. She was found permanently
> disabled by the shock treatment. Mrs. Salters viewed the jury award as
> a victory for all victims of electroshock. It is probably the first
> jury award in an electroshock malpractice case. The fact that the
> referring physician was found negligent may encourage greater caution
> on the part of physicians who refer their patients to “shock doctors”
> for treatment. Dr. Peter Breggin was the medical expert on behalf of
> Mrs. Salter’s. The attorney was Mark Hardee (phone 803 799 0905).
>
>
>

Mark Probert

2005-08-18, 5:56 pm

LadyLollipop wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote
>
> <snip diversion>

Jan, it is not a diversion to mention that Breggin is not recognized by
several courts as an expert. In fact, he was not even permitted to testify.

In this case, which I snipped since it is available upthread, the
doctors were allowed to testify, thus signifying that they met certain
standards as set down in Frye and Daubert. Not all states recognize
those cases as determinative of the qualifications of hired gun experts
like Breggin, who charges more than $40,000 per case to testify.

LadyLollipop

2005-08-19, 9:01 am

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:MU7Ne.20$KX7.1@fe10.lga...
> Ilena Rose wrote:
>
> He was not beleived by the court.

<snip diversion>

LadyLollipop

2005-08-19, 9:01 am

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:SY7Ne.22$KX7.3@fe10.lga...
> LadyLollipop wrote:
>
> Jan, it is not a diversion to mention that Breggin

See the title of this thread?????

<snip diversion>

Mark Probert

2005-08-19, 11:52 am

LadyLollipop wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:MU7Ne.20$KX7.1@fe10.lga...
>
>
>
> <snip diversion>

You have a very weird vocabulary. I did not post a diversion. What I
posted are facts that YOU CANNOT handle, as they show what a lousy
witness your hero is:

He was not beleived by the court. However, Breggin has been BARRED from
testifying as his ideas are so out of sight that no rational person
would accept them.

That is what is meant when he did not pass Daubert or Frye. Barrett
passed that.

Mark Probert

2005-08-19, 11:52 am

LadyLollipop wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:SY7Ne.22$KX7.3@fe10.lga...
>
>
>
> See the title of this thread?????

Yes, and I am placing the trashing into context. I appologize if the
context is not to your liking.

> <snip diversion>

This is the context you do not like:

Jan, it is not a diversion to mention that Breggin is not recognized by
several courts as an expert. In fact, he was not even permitted to testify.

In this case, which I snipped since it is available upthread, the
doctors were allowed to testify, thus signifying that they met certain
standards as set down in Frye and Daubert. Not all states recognize
those cases as determinative of the qualifications of hired gun experts
like Breggin, who charges more than $40,000 per case to testify.