Arouet
Member
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 falsely represented himself as a psychiatrist.
This is from a different case and is what I referred to above. The court ruled that Barrett was not to be accepted as an expert in regulating homeopathy. It did not label him a fraud. Nor did it accuse him of falsely calling himself a psychiatrist.
It just found he was not as expert in the area of the regulation of homeopathy.
Expert witnesses get rejected all the time. This doesn't make them frauds. With all due respect you have misunderstood this decision.
I think you need to reevaluate your position on this. It does not seem to be supported by the documents you believe support it. Maybe someone had misled you as to their contents.
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 falsely represented himself as a psychiatrist.
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.
This is from a different case and is what I referred to above. The court ruled that Barrett was not to be accepted as an expert in regulating homeopathy. It did not label him a fraud. Nor did it accuse him of falsely calling himself a psychiatrist.
It just found he was not as expert in the area of the regulation of homeopathy.
Expert witnesses get rejected all the time. This doesn't make them frauds. With all due respect you have misunderstood this decision.
I read the entire decision. It is mostly a technical argument about if the defendant was an information content publisher. The defendants had admitted that they had made tortious comments against Barrett but they got off on a technicality. I'm not clear on why l you think this supports your claim. Did you actually read it?
I think you need to reevaluate your position on this. It does not seem to be supported by the documents you believe support it. Maybe someone had misled you as to their contents.