Critiques of Science as Currently Praticed

  • Thread starter Sciborg_S_Patel
  • Start date
Use google and stop pedestalizing him
I don't know anything about the guy. I've never even seen his website. As for googling, from what I've read following your posts I think you've misunderstood what was in that judgment. But I'll take your lead and drop it.

You may want to not just rely on blog posts that don't provide sources. It is always important to verify what is being claimed. It's a big red flag when no sources are provided.
 
There are multiple sources if you want to search feel free to use any search engine you wish. If the topic is not important or of interest to you, you would not ask questions about it.

My point is Novella has/had friendship with Barrett and am skeptical of them both. Barrett never published a study in his career and was never a psychiatrist, He lied....if Novella associated with people like that I have a right to be skeptical isolated incidence or not.

There is no difference of what Barrett was peddling with out a degree to the average layman could do.

Integrity, Honest from these 2 diminishes from me, and I rightly hold their views and "agendas" in skepticism
 
There are multiple sources if you want to search feel free to use any search engine you wish. If the topic is not important or of interest to you, you would not ask questions about it.

My point is Novella has/had friendship with Barrett and am skeptical of them both. Barrett never published a study in his career and was never a psychiatrist, He lied....if Novella associated with people like that I have a right to be skeptical isolated incidence or not.

There is no difference of what Barrett was peddling with out a degree to the average layman could do.

Integrity, Honest from these 2 diminishes from me, and I rightly hold their views and "agendas" in skepticism
You shouldn't simply accept their word. You should evaluate what they say and see if it holds up. When Novella posts his sources look them up and see if they back up what he says.
 
You shouldn't simply accept their word. You should evaluate what they say and see if it holds up. When Novella posts his sources look them up and see if they back up what he says.
Novella cherry picks data, There are court documents online about Barrett a failed psychiatrist who lied and was held up on it in court, and court documents. Take your own advice
 
As for Barrett if he has been diciplined by his medical association and lost his licence you should be able to find a reference to it on the medical board's site.
 
It's all documented in court papers
Google is your friend.

Are you implying novella doesn't cherry pick data? Does novella reference conflicting studies or only studies that confirm his bias? I doubt novella has the time to reference 100s or thousands of studies
 
It's all documented in court papers
Google is your friend.

Are you implying novella doesn't cherry pick data? Does novella reference conflicting studies or only studies that confirm his bias? I doubt novella has the time to reference 100s or thousands of studies
The court decisions I've seen have related to his status as an expert witness. I haven't found any that support your claim. Unless that's what you're talking about in which case I think you've misunderstood. Since you won't post your links it's hard to know what you are talking about. Not sure why you are unwilling to share your sources. I'm happy to post mine. Up to you.

As for Novella, I can't say he's never cherry picked. Most people have! Something we must all be en guard for.
 
Novella probably does have controlled studies my point is simply its not the full body of studies on whatever subject in his expertise or out his expertise he's talking about. That just doesn't go for Novella, that is many other scientists in different fields. They just wouldn't have the time to go through all the full body of research. It would take too much time and resources.

Lord knows if a similar situation happened to Mercola, like it did with Barrett "proponents" would never hear the end of it
 
Novella probably does have controlled studies my point is simply its not the full body of studies on whatever subject in his expertise or out his expertise he's talking about. That just doesn't go for Novella, that is many other scientists in different fields. They just wouldn't have the time to go through all the full body of research. It would take too much time and resources.

Lord knows if a similar situation happened to Mercola, like it did with Barrett "proponents" would never hear the end of it
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.
 
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/california_superior_court_judge_.htm
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2010cv03795/244564/82/


Quackbuster Stephen Barrett:
"Not an Expert," Declares Judge!
The judge concluded:
-As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area.
-Dr. Barrett's purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent.
-Barrett who claims to be backed by the FDA, FTC, DHHS, NCI, HIH, AMA, and ADA showed up with one witness and his own lame testimony. Barrett claimed to have hundreds of studies, but couldn't produce one.

http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2003/2ndDistrict/October/Html/2020886.htm
 
Last edited:
Top