Francais | English | Espanõl

Stephen Barrett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Image:Stephen Barrett MD Quackwatch.jpg Stephen J. Barrett, M.D. (born 1933), is a retired American psychiatrist and author best known for his consumer advocacy related work regarding health issues. He is a founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) and webmaster of twenty-two websites which describe what he considers to be "quackery and health fraud," most notably on Quackwatch, a non-profit consumer information website partially funded through donations and book sales. He bases his writings in consumer protection, medical ethics, and scientific skepticism. Barrett's critics have accused him of bias, lack of objectivity, and of lacking the proper credentials to make certain charges. He has been involved in litigation and has filed several libel lawsuits with mixed outcomes.

Contents

[edit] Biography

Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and was a licensed physician until retiring from active practice in 1993. He resides in Allentown, Pennsylvania. He has said that his appreciation of medical science probably began with a college course in medical statistics, from which he "learned what makes the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning". He went on to say "My anti-quackery activities have intensified my interest and concern in distinguishing science from pseudoscience, quackery and fraud." <ref> Response to a survey by "Spiked-online" [1]</ref>

In addition to webmastering his websites, Barrett is a founder, vice-president and a board member of the National Council Against Health Fraud. He is an advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). From 1987 through 1989, he taught health education at The Pennsylvania State University.

Barrett is the medical editor of Prometheus Books and is a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals. He has written more than 2,000 articles and delivered more than 300 talks at colleges, universities, medical schools, and professional meetings. His media appearances include Dateline, the Today Show, Good Morning America, Primetime, Donahue, CNN, National Public Radio, and more than 200 other radio and television talk show interviews.

Barrett's work has received numerous awards, including the Best physician-authored site by MD NetGuide, May 2003. <ref name="nettie">Staff report. Pass the Envelope, Please... MDNetGuide, May/June 2003.</ref> He has been named as one of the outstanding skeptics of the 20th century by Skeptical Inquirer. <ref name="csicop">Skeptical Inquirer Magazine Names the Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century.</ref> In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery. In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. Barrett has been profiled in Biography Magazine <ref name="rosen">Rosen, Marjorie (October 1998). Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D. Biography Magazine</ref> and in Time Magazine. <ref name="jaroff">Jaroff, Leon (April 30, 2001). The Man Who Loves To Bust Quacks. Time Magazine, via chiro.org, retrieved July 29, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Online activism

The Quackwatch website is Barrett's main platform for describing that which he considers to be quackery and health fraud. The website is part of Quackwatch, Inc., a nonprofit corporation that aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." <ref>Quackwatch mission statement.</ref> Barrett's writing is supplemented with contributions from 150+ scientific, technical, and lay volunteers. <ref name="advisors">Barrett SJ. 150+ Scientific and Technical Advisors. Quackwatch. Retrieved July 19, 2006.</ref> Barrett defines quackery as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health," <ref name="quackdef">Barrett SJ. Quackery: How Should It Be Defined? Quackwatch. Retrieved July 19, 2006.</ref> and reserves the word fraud "only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved." <ref name="frauddef">Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT (January 3, 2001). Quackery, Fraud and "Alternative" Methods: Important Definitions. Quackwatch. Retrieved July 19, 2006.</ref>

Barrett has written about numerous modalities that he (based on his analysis of the claims made for them) either considers to be quackery, or to include it in one way or another, for example: Acupuncture; Algae-based therapies; Alternative medicine; Amalgam removal within dentistry; Applied kinesiology; Ayurvedic medicine; Candidiasis (yeast allergies); Chelation therapy; Chinese herbal medicine; Chiropractic; Colloidal silver and minerals; Craniosacral therapy; Detoxification therapies; DHEA; Dietary supplements; Ear candling; Ergogenic aids; Faith healing; Genetic diagnoses; Glucosamine; Growth hormones; Hair analysis; Herbal medicine; Homeopathy; Hyperbaric oxygen therapy; Iridology; Juicing; Magnet therapy; Metabolic therapy; Nutritional therapy for emotional problems; Organic food; Osteopathy; Pneumatic trabeculoplasty; Reflexology; and Therapeutic touch

Barrett, on his main website, also maintains public lists of sources, individuals, and groups which he considers questionable and non-recommendable, <ref name="nonrecsource">Barrett SJ. Nonrecommended Sources of Health Advice Quackwatch. Retrieved July 19, 2006.</ref> <ref name="nonrec">Barrett SJ. Questionable Organizations: An Overview. Quackwatch. Retrieved July 19, 2006.</ref> including two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling (for his claims about mega-doses of Vitamin C <ref name="pauling">Barrett SJ (May 5, 2001). The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy. via Quackwatch. Retrieved July 29, 2006.</ref>) and integrative medicine proponent Andrew Weil, MD. <ref name="weil">Relamn AS (December 14, 1998). A Trip to Stonesville: Some Notes on Andrew Weil. New Republic, via Quackwatch.</ref>.

[edit] Controversies & Litigation

[edit] Accusations of bias and lack of objectivity

Barrett has ongoing disputes with a number of individuals, largely as a result of his widely-publicised views on non-traditional health practices.

  • As part of his activities Barrett wrote a short email to Sahelian inquiring about his relationship with Physician Formulas. Ray Sahelian, B.Sc.(nutrition) M.D., is Board certified in Family Medicine, the author of health related books, an expert in nutrition and a proponent of supplements. <ref name="SahelianBio">Biography of Ray Sahelian, M.D. from website.</ref> According to Sahelian, the "rude" e-mail prompted him to comment:
"Dr. Barrett does some good in pointing out scams in the alternative health field, but, in my opinion, he is not fair and balanced, and he is not a true objective scientist as he claims to be. Someone who has a website specifically tailored for criticism needs to have higher and more objective scientific standard, and Barrett fails in this regard." He asks: "Why has Stephen Barrett, M.D. focused most of his attention on the nutritional industry and has hardly spent time pointing out the billions of dollars wasted each year by consumers on certain prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical drugs?" <ref name="Sahelian">Quackwatch sends an email to Dr. Sahelian. via www.raysahelian.com. Retrieved August 27, 2006</ref>
Barrett admits to not giving equal time to some subjects, and has written on his web site:
"... quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services?" <ref name="Barrett">How do you respond to accusations that your writing is unbalanced?. retrieved September 8, 2006</ref>.
Sahelian admits that he is not "perfectly fair" either:
"Am I, Ray Sahelian, M.D., perfectly fair in my review of supplement research? No, I am not, and I don't believe anyone can be. It is well known in psychology that people perceive things according to how they want to see them." <ref name="Sahelian"/> (See: Confirmation bias). Sahelian says: "We did not feel the need to respond to Stephen Barrett, M.D. It is quite presumptuous of him to probe in this manner, plus I felt it was a rude way of asking. There was no polite introduction such as "Dr. Sahelian, I hope you are well, would you mind if I ask you a personal question" or ending the request with something like "thanks for your time," or 'sincerely' etc. Ending the email with "or what?" is extremely impolite and shows lack of manners and sensitivity. Didn't Stephen Barrett's mother, father, or schoolteacher teach him the proper way to address a letter? If he had addressed the letter politely, I would have asked my staff to respond to him." <ref name="Sahelian"/>
  • Some assertions of Sahelian find support in an article by Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D.(MIT), professor emeritus of the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. <ref> USP - Faculty</ref> Kauffman analyzed eight Quackwatch articles, including five written by Stephen Barrett, and found them to be:contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo and gives numerous examples with extensive, peer reviewed references, stating that: "it is very probable that many...have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity," <ref name="Kauffman">Kauffman 2001. Joel M. Kauffman, "Alternative Medicine: Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch", Website Review, J. Scientific Exploration 16(2), 312-337 (2002). available online (PDF)</ref> "With 80 papers on chemical and medical topics, and 11 patents, including 2 on antituberculosis drugs, Dr. Kauffman has turned his attention to exposing fraud in medicine"<ref>[icimed.com/DR_CV/Joel_M_Kauffman.pdf] CV, Joel M. Kauffman</ref>and is also author of Malignant Medical Myths: Why Medical Treatment Causes 200,000 Deaths in the USA each Year and How to Protect Yourself.<ref>ISBN 0-7414-2909-8 Joel Kauffman, Malignant Medical Myths: Why Medical Treatment Causes 200,000 Deaths in the USA each Year and How to Protect Yourself. Infinity Publishing (January 30, 2006) ISBN 0-7414-2909-8</ref> Kauffman's review was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a peer-reviewed publication which provides "a professional forum for presentations, criticism, and debate concerning topics which are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science." <ref name="JSE">"Mission Statement", Journal of Scientific Exploration available online</ref>
  • An article in the Village Voice written by journalist Donna Ladd also raised the issue of Barrett's objectivity. Ladd wrote: He does not criticize conventional medicine because he says "that's way outside my scope" but he depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work to criticize alternative medicine. According to Barrett, most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable and he believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. She then quotes Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine as saying of Barrett that "He seems to be putting down trying to be objective." <ref name="Ladd">Dr. Who. Diagnosis medical fraud may required a second opinion.via http://www.villagevoice.com. Retrieved September 2, 2006</ref>
  • As president of the American Chiropractic Association, James A. Mertz, DC, DACBR wrote in a letter to Time in 2001: "The American public is being grossly misled by Dr. Stephen Barrett. While he positions himself as a protector of the public, his statements are, in reality, so one-sided that he simply cannot be taken seriously." <ref> Setting the Record Straight</ref>
  • Lorraine Day M.D, a proponent of natural and alternative therapies, states that "a large percentage of people realize that Stephen Barrett is just a shill for Organized Medicine and the Pharmaceutical Companies". "Stephen Barrett, along with his cronies in Organized Medicine and the Pharmaceutical Industry, would like you to believe that you have no control over your health – no control over whether or not you develop disease. He wants you to be totally helpless. He wants you to have to rely on the drug doctors who will give you dangerous pills that will only cover up the symptoms and never cure the disease." <ref name="drday">New York Times attacks Dr. Day, April 21, 2006, Lorraine Day, MD. available online</ref>
  • Tim Bolen, who also acts on behalf of some of those criticised by Quackwatch, accuses Barrett of bias, and being part of a conspiracy to suppress "innovative forms of treatment". <ref name="bolendeposition">Deposition of Patrick Timothy Bolen (PDF) In re Cavitat Medical Technologies v. Aetna, No. 04-cv-01849-MSK-MEH</ref>. Bolen is "hired by clients to deal with their public relations component of when they may be attacked by medical board or similar entity". <ref name="bolendeposition"/>
  • A number of practitioners criticized by Barrett held degrees from the now-defunct Columbia Pacific University. <ref name="CPUclose">Barrett SJ (2000). Court Orders Columbia Pacific University to Cease Operating Illegally in California. Retrieved July 23, 2006.</ref> <ref name="CPU-ca">California Department of Consumer Affairs. Columbia Pacific University ordered to close permanently. News Release, Jan 13, 2000.</ref> One such alumnus, Paul Hartal, writes: Barrett's "Quackwatch" misleads the public. His method of data selection is guided by the principle of not letting the facts interfere with his biased judgement of wholistic therapies. He has no training in natural medicine, herbalism, chiropractic, ayurveda, yoga, acupuncture, homeopathy, or other alternative health care modalities, but nevertheless he dismisses all non allopathic practices as frauds. <ref name="hartal">Debunking "Quackwatch", Why the Medical Establishment Attacks Columbia Pacific University, Paul Hartal, PhD, available online</ref>
  • Ayurveda proponent Deepak Chopra, M.D. has called Barrett "a self-appointed vigilante for the suppression of curiosity" after Barrett called Chopra a purveyor of "Ayurvedic mumbo jumbo." <ref name="jaroff"/>
  • Alternative medicine proponent Burton Goldberg wrote: "It is genuinely hard to imagine how a suffering patient could actually be persuaded by Barrett to dismiss alternative approaches when the conventional ones were not useful, or even worse, were harmful." <ref name="goldberg">What's Eating Stephen Barrett?, Burton Goldberg, Alternative Medicine Digest, July 1998 available online</ref> Goldberg continues, "In the paradox of 'quackbusting,' the quackbusters say they're protecting public health, but in fact, they're abandoning the public to their own suffering to protect the financial interests of conventional medicine, which has no interest in or ability to produce benefits for these conditions. The 'quackbusters' say they're serving the public, but the truth is they're grossly disserving patients.<ref name="goldberg"/> Barrett describes himself as an author, editor, consumer advocate and expert in medical communications.<ref>Stephen Barrett's bio at Quackwatch</ref>

[edit] Litigation

In a biographical article about Barrett, Fred D. Baldwin wrote:

"Despite Barrett's pattern of naming names of people as well as products, he has never been sued for libel, except for a counter-suit to a libel suit he once filed (the counter-suit was dismissed <ref name="barrettVnegreteRemand">Appeals Court Upholds Malicious Prosecution Suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete , (Mem,. No. 04-55193 D.C. No. CV -02-0221 O-JML; No. 03-56663 D.C. No. CY -02-0221 O-JML March 14, 2005).</ref>). His explanation? 'I protect myself by not saying anything that isn't true.'" <ref name="baldwin_bio">If It Quacks Like a Duck ..." by Fred D. Baldwin, Summer 2002 issue of MedHunters magazine.</ref>

Barrett has filed several libel suits against various individuals who have reposted Tim Bolen's "opinion pieces." <ref name="opinion_pieces">Opinion pieces</ref> Barrett considers certain claims made in them to be libelous, and has explained why he has therefore filed the libel suits:

"None of us are thin-skinned or care when people attack our ideas. But unjustified attacks on our character or professional competence are another matter. As Bolen's campaign unfolded, my colleagues and I have notified him and many of the people spreading his messages that libel is a serious matter and that they had better stop. Some did, but it soon became clear that others would not. To defend ourselves, several of us have filed suit for libel." <ref name="bolen_response">"A Response to Tim Bolen"</ref>

Barrett and the NCAHF have had mixed results in these cases. Courts dismissed two of the suits under Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) statutes and ordered Barrett and the NCAHF to pay attorneys' fees of the parties they sued. The results of such lawsuits are explained below.

[edit] Libel suits filed by Barrett

Barrett v. Mercola suit

Barrett v. Clark suits

  • In 2005, an appeals court reversed the district court's decision, and the case against Carlos F. Negrete and Hulda Regehr Clark was remanded for further procedings. "The scurrilous nature of the defendants' allegations of wrongdoing and their efforts to publicize them widely on the Internet, when coupled with their utter failure to offer any proof of their charges" provided sufficient reason for the case to proceed. <ref name="barrettVnegreteRemand">Appeals Court Upholds Malicious Prosecution Suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete , (Mem,. No. 04-55193 D.C. No. CV -02-0221 O-JML; No. 03-56663 D.C. No. CY -02-0221 O-JML March 14, 2005).</ref>

Barrett v. Rosenthal suit

  • In July 2001, an Alameda County (California) judge dismissed Barrett's libel suit against Ilena Rosenthal and awarded Rosenthal attorney's fees against Barrett, Christopher Grell, and Terry Polevoy. The judge states: Rosenthal's statements that appellants are "quacks," that appellant Barrett is "arrogant" and a "bully," and that Barrett tried to "extort" her "are not actionable," the court stated, "because they do not contain provably false assertions of fact, but rather are expressions of subjective judgment." Insofar as it relates to Barrett, appellants do not seriously refute this determination, which we find to have been correct. And The court's conclusion that appellant Barrett could not prevail on his defamation claim was correct, as the statements respondent Rosenthal published that relate to him are not demonstrably false statements of fact. <ref name=rosenthal">Barrett, et al. v. Rosenthal. A096451 (Cal. App. Crt., 1st App. Dist., 2003). (114 Cal.App.4th 1379, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 142), opinion superseded by California Supreme Court review.</ref> The Court of Appeals decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act did not grant Rosenthal immunity from liability because Barrett provided notice that content on her website alleged defamed him, but the California Supreme Court overturned that decision, ruling that Section 230 did grant immunity. See also Barrett et al. v. Rosenthal

Barrett v. Fonorow suit

  • In July 2001, Barrett filed a libel suit against Owen R. Fonorow, and Intelisoft Multimedia, Inc.<ref>Barrett v. Fonorow, 18th Cir., DuPage County, Illinois, No. 01 L 820.</ref> That case was dismissed, and Fonorow filed a motion for sanctions, which was also dismissed. Both lower court decisions were affirmed on appeal. <ref name="fonorowappeal">See Circuit Court of Du Page County, Barrett v. Fonorow, No. 2--02--0886.</ref>

Barrett v. Sherrell suit

  • In November 2002, a federal court judge in Eugene, Oregon ruled that Barrett is a "public figure and the defamatory statements involve a matter of public concern, and that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to prove actual malice, and/or actual injury". The judge dismissed Barrett's $100,000 defamation lawsuit against anti-fluoridation advocate Darlene Sherrell. <ref name="sherrell">Barrett v. Sherrell (PDF) 99-813-HO, 2002.</ref>

Barrett v. Koren suit

  • In October 2005, Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas overturned an earlier arbitration ruling that chiropractor Tedd Koren had committed libel after Koren published that Barrett was "de-licensed," "in trouble because of a $10 million lawsuit" and a "Quackpot." The judge found that Barrett had failed to prove "actual malice" ("knowledge of falsity" or "reckless disregard for the truth"). <ref name=barrettvkoren">Barrett vs. Koren, In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Civil Division, No. 2002-C-1837</ref>

[edit] A different type of suit

One of the stated missions <ref name="mission">Barrett SJ (July 6, 2006). Mission Statement via Quackwatch. Retrieved July 23, 2006.</ref> of Quackwatch Inc. is "assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits." <ref>Plaintiffs Wanted for Consumer Protection Suits</ref>

King Bio suit

  • In a 2001 suit NCAHF brought against King Bio Pharmaceuticals, a homeopathic pharmaceutical company, Judge Haley J. Fromholz noted that "both witnesses’ fees...are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF," thus giving them a "direct, personal financial interest in the outcome.... 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." The judge declared Barrett and Sampson to be "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts." He then concluded that "their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility". <ref name="fromholz">California Superior Court Judge Rules on Quackbuster "Credibility" via Quackpotwatch.</ref> King Bio won the case, and also the 2003 appeal case. <ref> Appeal of NCAHF and King Bio</ref>

Barrett disputes the account regarding payments and has provided supplemental information <ref>Barrett account 1</ref><ref>Barrett account 2</ref><ref>Barrett account 3</ref> about what he claims happened behind the scenes.

[edit] Credentials

Although he has provided expert testimony as a psychiatrist, a discipline in which he practiced for thirty years, Barrett was never board certified in psychiatry. He qualified as a physician in 1957 and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, but failed the neurology portion of the optional board certification exam in 1964. According to Barrett, only about 1/3 of psychiatrists were board certified at the time so he chose not to resit, because "when I began practice (early 1960s), nobody cared," and "I was grandfathered on the staffs of the hospital clinics where I worked and was not dependent on HMOs for private patients." <ref>Dr. Barrett responds: It had no effect on my career. "MD1954" is correct that nowadays, lack of certification would make it difficult to repeat what I did. However, when I began practice (early 1960s), nobody cared. Requirements for hospital staff membership and HMO participation began to tighten during the 1980s, but I was grandfathered on the staffs of the hospital clinics where I worked and was not dependent on HMOs for private patients. Sbinfo 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)</ref> <ref>Stephen Barrett, M.D. Curriculum Vitae</ref> In the 1970s the number of board-certified medical specialists rose steeply <ref>Moore FD, Priebe C. Board-certified physicians in the United States, 1971-1986. N Engl J Med. 1991 Feb 21;324(8):536-43.</ref> and when Barrett retired in 1993, about 81% of eligible physicians (74% of total physicians) were board certified by the ABMS. <ref name="ABMS">American Board of Medical Specialties. Statistics on Physicians in Training and Practice 1989 to 1999. (PDF)</ref> Barrett says that "nowadays, lack of certification would make it difficult to repeat what I did."

According to Negrete, Barrett claimed to be a "legal expert" even though he had not completed his formal legal training. <ref> Carlos Negrete</ref> In one court case the Judge said "Dr. Barrett's purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer." <ref>National Council Against Health Fraud v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Case No. BC 245271, affirmed on appeal by Grignon et. al. in 2003 </ref> <ref>Case B156585. (PDF)</ref> According to his CV he completed 1½ years of the correspondence program in American Law and Procedure, at the now defunct LaSalle University Extension Division, Chicago, from 1966 to 1968. <ref name="Barrett CV">Barrett's Curriculum Vitae Retrieved July 25, 2006</ref>

Regarding his qualifications on alternative medicine modalities, to the question "What qualifies you to write on so many topics?" Barrett answers:

"My medical education has provided the background to understand most aspects of health, disease, and health care. Many experts are available to review what I write and answer questions that come up. The most convenient is my wife, who happens to be a very scholarly family physician. Much of my writing is based on my own investigations of the health marketplace." <ref> What qualifies you to write on so many topics?</ref>

However Judge Haley J. Fromholz wrote in a court decision:

"(Barrett) 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."<ref>Quackpotwatch summary of the judgment</ref>

Ray Salhelian M.D. adds:

"According to the Quackwatch website, Stephen Barrett, M.D. says this about quackery: "Dictionaries define quack as 'a pretender to medical skill; a charlatan' and 'one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed.'" <ref> Quackery: How Should It Be Defined? </ref> <ref>Definition of quack - Online dictionary</ref> "Stephen Barrett, M.D. does not have a degree in nutrition science. He has been trained in Psychiatry but has not practiced psychiatry for many, many years and has, to the best of my understanding, never practiced nutritional medicine. In my opinion, Stephen Barrett, M.D., when it comes to the field of nutritional supplements, can be easily defined as a Quack since he pretends to 'have skills or knowledge in supplements and talks pretentiously' without actually having clinical expertise or sound knowledge of herbal and nutritional medicine." <ref name="Sahelian"/>

Julian M. Whitaker, M.D., in a 1997 letter to Lyn Behrens, Ph.D. President, Loma Linda University also raised the issue of Barrett's credentials in nutrition : " Under cross examination, Dr. Barrett admitted that he was not in fact, an expert in nutrition science, describing himself instead as an expert in 'consumer strategy' and a "journalist.'" <ref> Barret not an expert in nutrition science- NCAHF Posts Names of 2,500 Physicians on Quack List </ref>

[edit] Selected publications

In 1985, Barrett was the author of an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that exposed commercial laboratories performing multimineral hair analysis. He concluded that "commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal." <ref name="hairanalysis">Barrett SJ (August 23, 1985). Commercial hair analysis. Science or scam? JAMA Vol. 254 No. 8.</ref> His report has been cited in later articles, including one which concluded that such testing was "unreliable." <ref>Assessment of Commercial Laboratories Performing Hair Mineral Analysis, Seidel S, et al. , JAMA. 2001;285:67-72.</ref>

His 50 books <ref>Books and book chapters</ref> include:

  • Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions - Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT, Kroger M, London WM (2006). (textbook, 8th ed.) McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-248521-3
  • The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America - Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT, eds. (1993). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-855-4
  • Health Schemes, Scams, and Frauds - Barrett SJ (1991). Consumer Reports Books, ISBN 0-89043-330-5
  • The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry Is Selling America a Bill of Goods - Barrett SJ, Herbert V (1991). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-909-7

[edit] References

<references/>

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Barrett official website

[edit] Critics that are or have been involved in litigation with Barrett

[edit] Other links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikivisual.com/index.php/Stephen_Barrett"
Personal tools