And this is a critique that has been pretty steady within the scientific community over the last 20 yrs. people need to spend a bit more time on google scholar and less skimming the science journalists, who aim for sensationalism (like most journalists).
There are many scientific articles on the issue. Several which have been posted. And remember this has come to light by scientists. I'm not sure why you think scientists aren't taking it seriously. What is your criteria?
You reframed it? I don't recall. Well, what's important is that you've dropped the silly STEM thing and are now posing a reasonable question. I don't imagine anyone would object to the way you put it now. I certainly wouldn't. Again, well done.
Those decisions have absolutely nothing to do with that.
You are relying on court decisions about being qualified as an impartial expert witness. These are technical legal issues in a particular context.
I think you will find it instructive to run it by someone with legal training who you...
The case required an expert on regulation. The lawyer should have chosen someone with those qualifications. Being deemed an expert witness in a lawsuit had certain criteria. The same person can be a valid expert in one case but not another.
And again, the issue was not that he called himself a...
Thank you for the links.
I read the entire decision. This is a motion to dismiss by Barrett where he was successful in dismissing a number of the counts against him in a defamation suit. Nothing in it supports your allegations from what I can see. There is no allegation that Dr. Barrett...
Still not clear to me what the situation is. Being rejected as an expert witness is not fraud. Nor is losing a defamation case (where he is the plaintiff).
I don't know who mercola is but if he did something wrong it's on him. Doesn't apply to others.