MCS Denier, EPIC Takedown #2: Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Formaldehyde

In the Year 2001, a retired psychiatrist who was never board certified in anything stated: “Today, I am the media.” He repeatedly presented himself  as an expert in medicine, nutrition, and law, while having zero experience as a practicing physician, no training in nutrition, and zero bar association membership.

He is a naysayer of everything which competes for big pharma dollars.  He is too obvious. At the principle website that he operates, he is described as a medical communications expert of national renown. He even presented himself as a master in spiritual direction, in book form. Representations of Stephen Barrett insinuate that he alone can suffice as the voice of medicine.  In fact, representations of  him make it sound as if, during any given election, he should run for God. However, the scorecard on Barrett differs drastically from the representations made of  him.

Stephen Barrett’s Extensive Lack of  Credentials, Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification

[1]  Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board-certified in anything, at any time in his life.  He has never been able to speak with the authority of a board-certified medical expert.

[2]  Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point of  a practitioner in any type of  internal or dermatological medicine.  In fact, Stephen Barrett has not served in the capacity of  a physician since the end of  his rotating internship days.  Those days ended over 55 years ago, in 1958.  Thus, we have a 55 year time lapse involved.

The “MD” affixed to his name simply means that he graduated from a medical school.  He did do that.  But, he did it over a half century ago, in 1957 … 56 years ago.

[3]  Barrett has never been a researcher in any capacity; neither at the clinical level nor at the murine test level.  He has been neither a toxicologist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a neurologist, nor a biochemist, nor an immunologist, nor any type of  medical technologist, nor a pharmacologist.  This means that he has never been able to speak from the vantage point of  a research colleague.

That is to say, if  Stephen Barrett had been seen in a lab coat after 1958, it was during Halloween.

[4]  And Stephen Barrett has zero inventions/patents to his name. Therefore, he has never been able to speak from the vantage point of a medical innovator, either.

[5]  Furthermore, there is no evidence that Stephen Barrett is a firsthand witness to illness on either side of the coin; neither as a practicing physician nor as a patient.  That is to say, he has no known history of severe medical impairment.  By all appearances, he is not able to offer any insight on what it is to know intense physical suffering in the first person singular.  His ruthlessness and callousness indicates this.

[6]  And as far as concerns Stephen Barrett being advertised as a medical communications expert, his curriculum vitae indicates

that he:

– never managed disaster relief efforts,

– never developed medical software programs,

– never oversaw ambulance dispatch operations,

– never managed the allocation of medical supplies,

– never networked hospital communication systems,

– never transmitted emergency medical instructions to sea,

– never networked pharmaceutical communication systems,

– never translated medical literature into foreign languages.

So where is the medical communicating that Stephen Barrett is supposed to do so expertly?

Stephen Barrett’s Allegation of Being a Legal Expert

It was in a 21st Century California court where Barrett presented himself as an expert in FDA regulatory law.  The matter concerned a case that he himself  instigated, under the name of a 501c non-profit organization of  which he was/is a member and even an officer. Barrett saw to the filing of the lawsuit (under the corporate name), and then he hired himself as an expert witness, despite the blatant conflict of interest.  He then expected money to be transferred from the 501c non-profit group’s bank account to his own personal account, in the form of a fee payment.

Needless to say, Stephen Barrett never worked for, with, over, under, or besides the FDA.

The presiding judge stated:

the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area.

He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs.

“Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues associated with Defendant’s products.”

Furthermore, the judge stated that Stephen Barrett’s testimony should be “accorded little, if any, credibility.

In the end, the 501c private corporation of which Barrett is a member lost the case.  It was ordered to pay the defendant’s attorney fees.  As an added note, he claimed himself to be a 21st Century legal expert in FDA regulatory matters, because he completed one and a half years of correspondence law school in 1963;  and because he had several conversations with FDA personnel, as well as some sort of  continuing education classes that he had not attended in eight years prior to the judgment.

Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits.  Each one is an article of its own.  He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or conspiracy.  One report attached Barrett to a multiplicity of  lawsuits filed against forty defendants.  This is reminiscient of a con artist who pretends getting hit by autos … repeatedly.  This is ridiculous.

Barret had acourtroom loss is dated October 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of  Pennsylvania.  In that court case, Barrett once again claimed that he was a legal expert. Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own name.  He also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as well as in Pennsylvania, also filed under his own name.

In summary, Stephen Barrett was never the member of  any bar association.  He never represented himself as his own attorney in any of  his many lawsuits.  He was never a district magistrate, and he was not a clerk of  court.  Yet, he has repeated claimed that he is a legal expert.  Barrett did have court appearances as an expert witness in criminal and parole cases, but only in the capacity of a psychiatrist who was never board certified.  One such venue was the juvenile court system in San Francisco during the 1960s.

Barrett’s Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert

As far as concerns his allegations of being a nutritional expert, it was during the 1990s when he once testified against a credentialed and certified nutritionist.  This was at a hearing of the American Dietetic Association.  Barrett was only a non-trained and honorary member of  that association, yet he was presented as one of its two expert witnesses.  As a result of  that hearing, the lady against whom Barrett testified lost her registered dietician credentials.  Her reputation suffered harm, and her future earnings potential was compromised.

The woman then sued the association who presented Barrett as a nutritional expert.  And it was during a cross-examination when Barrett finally conceded that he was not a nutritional expert, being that had no training in the subject.  He said that he was an expert in consumer strategy, instead.  As a result, the woman against whom Barrett testified had her credentials restored in full.  Notification of  this was published in the courier & journal of  the American Dietetic Association.

The woman also received an undisclosed settlement.

A Sample of Stephen Barrett’s Mode of Communication

Stephen Barrett co-authored a book with a publicly known defrauder whose now-defunct paper review company, in providing health reports to State Farm Insurance adjustors, was declared “a completely bogus operation” by an Oregon judge.

Concerning Barrett’s fraudulent co-author, it was the NBC television network who reported him as the ratifier of fraudulent health reports. He is a Dr. Ronald Gots, founder of Medical Claims Review Services.

The company went out of business in 1995.

The NBC television network obtained 79 of the reports that Gots’ paper review company provided for State Farm’s adjustors.  Ever-so-coincidentally, 100% of those 79 reports favored State Farm over every auto accident claimant profiled in those reports. The irony to this is that Stephen Barrett heralds himself as an exposer of health fraud, as well as a defender of mankind from persons committing health fraud.  Yet, he elected to have his name placed in print next to a notorious defrauder.

For further information on this matter, see:

The Paper Chase: A 15 month NBC Dateline Investigation

The Barrett/Gots Book, itself

The Barrett/Gots book is titled, “Chemical Sensitivity:  The Truth About Environmental Illness.”  Needless to say, the book is a vehement denial of the valid existence of  Chemical Sensitivity.  However, Chemical Sensitivity comes in many case-specific and medically acknowledged forms; in forms such as:

> Red Cedar Asthma (Plicatic Acid Sensitivity),

> IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity,

> Pine Allergy (Abietic Acid Sensitivity),

> Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis,

> Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity,

> Ammonium Persulfate Sensitivity,

> Glutaraldehyde-induced Asthma,

> Phenyl Isocyanate Sensitivity,

> Halothane-induced Hepatitis,

> Sulfite-induced Anaphylaxis,

> Chemical Worker’s Lung,

> TDI-induced Asthma,

> NSAID Intolerance,   . . .

. . .  and numerous other forms, such as

Similarly, the Barrett/Gots book is a denial of the existence of the Environmental Illness which comes in of medically acknowledged case-specific forms; in forms such as:

> Vasomotor Rhinitis,

> Occupational Urticaria,

> Irritant-induced Asthma,

> Occupational Rhinosinusitis,

> Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis,

> Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis,

> Airborne-irritant Contact Dermatitis,

> Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome,

> Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction,

> Sick Building Syndrome (Building-related Illness),   . . .

. . . and a few other forms.

In fact, the Barrett/Gots book calls Sick Building Syndrome “a fad diagnosis.”  However, Sick Building Syndrome is listed as one of the “Most Common Diagnoses” at the Occupational & Environmental Health centres of:

> Iowa University,

> Johns Hopkins University,

> The University of Pittsburgh,

> The University of Stony Brook,

> Detroit’s Wayne State University,

> The University of Illinois-Chicago,

> The University of California-Davis,

> Boston Medical Center, as Building-related Illness,

> Washington University’s Harborview Medical Center,

> The University of Maryland, as Building Related Disease,

> Nat. Jewish Med. Research Ctr, as Building Related Illness.

Needless to say, the Barrett/Gots book also denies the physiological existence of  the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which is listed as one of the “Most Common Diagnoses” at the O&E Health centres of:

> the world renowned Yale University,

> the world renowned Mount Sinai Hospital,

> the world renowned Johns Hopkins University,

> a hospital affiliated with Harvard University,

> and a few other American medical institutions

which are licensed and certified centres of practice.

The listing thereof is done by the Association of Occupational & Environmental Clinics.   For more information, see:

http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MA.htm

http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_NY.htm

http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_CT.htm

http://www.aoec.org/content/directory_MD.htm

The Objective Medical Findings of Chemically Sensitive Patients that Barrett Conveniently Neglected to Disclose

For the record, there do exist objective medical findings in the world of Chemical Sensitivity.  The following findings have been documented in the records of chemically sensitive patients:

> dermatitis,

> anaphylaxis,

> angioedema,

> turbinate swelling,

> glandular hyperplasia,

> excessive nasal pallor,

> edema of the adenoids,

> edema of the true vocal cords,

> nasal and/or laryngeal erythema,

> protuberant/distended abdomen,

> permeability of epithelial cell junctions,

> hepatotoxicity in the absense of viral hepatitis,

> paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords,

> marked cobblestoning of the posterior pharynx,

> inflammation of  the alveoli (air sacs of the lungs),

> a 20%+ drop in FEV1 during inhalation challenge testing,

… and a few other things, such as visible and measurable wheals produced during placebo-controlled skin testing,

Barrett’s Contradiction

Barrett also wrote a 64 page booklet on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Furthermore, he wrote a text of much shorter length, titled: “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis.

In that article, Barrett states:

“Legitimate cases exist where exposure to large or cumulative amounts of toxic chemicals has injured people.”

Well, such exposure scenarios are the causes of Chemical Sensitivity. That is why lay persons regard it as “Chemical Injury.”  In as much, Barrett first denies the existence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in name.  Yet, he describes Chemical Sensitivity in function.  But, he does so in such a way that he leaves the reader uncertain as to what his statement is intended to mean.  After all, a novice might assume that Barrett is referring to resolvable acute toxicity cases, instead of long-term chemical sensitisation illnesses.

A Duly Noted Hypocrisy

Stephen Barrett markets fear.  For example, he has marketed fear of the formerly overrated echinacea flower which is only harmful to persons severely allergic to the inulin that it contains; to the inulin which is also present in Jerusalem artichokes, leeks, bananas, garlic, and onions.  Yet, has Barrett ever warned people about bananas, onions, and Jerusalem artichokes?  Has he ever warned people about things as tragic as VIOXX, BEXTRA, ZYPREXA and the other pharmaceuticals that caused harm to mankind?

All in all, when you attack as many persons as does Stephen Barrett, the statistical probability is that you are going to be correct some of the time.  However, the same statistical probability is that you’re going to be wrong some of the time, especially when you’re unqualified to comment.  Being that Stephen Barrett neither scored a 100% nor a passing grade on his board exams, he cannot be reasonably expected to be 100% correct in his volumes of writings.

People have brain cells.  They can recognise “quackery” by ill effect or lack of effect.  They don’t have need of a “Stephen Barrett” to tell them.  Not only can reasonable people detect a “quack” when they see one, they can just as easily detect a disingenuous political operative when they read one.

Stephen Barrett’s Cookie Cutter Techniques

It is not an incident of unheard proportions for Barrett to have cited an obsolete reference, as well as an outdated and isolated instance, in order to have mankind adhere to an assertion of  his.  For example, in order to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is nothing more than a mental illness, Barrett cited an incident which was put into writing 120 years ago, in 1886, concerning one woman and one woman only.

That incident was not about chemicals.  It was about roses.

Now, concerning the medical practices and medical doctrines that Barrett opposes, he is repeatedly found stating, “inconclusive and not yet proven.”  If  he cannot discredit something on technical merits, he cites an isolated case here and an isolated case there, concerning an unauthorized billing or a marketing violation committed by a person engaged in something that Barrett wants deleted from the face of the Earth.  Yet, Barrett never mentions the dozens of  frauds that were committed under the supervision of his co-author, Dr. Ronald Gots. Barrett never mentions the vast number of  lawsuits filed against pharmaceutical companies.

Barrett often mentions what treatments and tests the Aetna Insurance Company will not cover, as if Aetna is a charity organisation founded by Mother Theresa; as if it’s not a profit minded corporation that benefits from the denial of claims.  In as much, there is no insurance company which will pay for redundant treatment or redundant testing.

Therefore a similar test or treatment will not be covered.  Furthermore, insurance companies will not pay for anything that is regarded as being in the experimental & investigational stage.  As a side note, everything in established medicine today was at the experimental & investigational stage yesterday.

The Ironies about Dr. Stephen Barrett, in Light of the Fact that He is a Retired Psychiatrist

The great irony about Barrett is that a psychiatrist is expected to be a master at procuring peace in the minds and hearts of men.  A tree is known by its fruits.  Barrett’s fruits have been made known. Another great irony is that a psychiatrist is expected by the reasonably minded person to be a master in neurology. 

Barrett failed the Neurology section of his board exams.

Yet another irony is that a psychiatrist is expected to have a reflex action for keeping confidentiality, being that patients confide intimate details to a psychiatrist.  However, Barrett has placed person after person in an unfavourable spotlight.  He’s even known to have revealed the tax problems of one of  his opponents; not so that the man can use someone’s help, but rather, to provoke ill regards for the man.  Yet, when has Stephen Barrett ever placed the spotlight on the exorbitant price mark-ups of pharmaceuticals in America?

After all, Barrett claims that he’s a consumer advocate.  So, where is the consumer advocating in one of  the most taxing impositions on the American economy and consumer?

___________________________________________________

Written by Patrick Pontillo at the blog Blue Marble Album. Gratefully reprinted at The Labyrinth with full copyright permission 2015 (You can follow Patrick on Google Plus, here)

More

By Patrick Pontillo from Blue Marble Album published here at The Labyrinth: Herman Staudenmayer: The erroneous presumptions in his research undertaking that anti-MCS propagandists waved like a national flag

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on this?

Information, products and views presented by guest bloggers @The Labyrinth are not necessarily the same as those held by this blog's author, Michellina van Loder. Reviews are my own personal opinions (unless stated otherwise); and satire is used throughout personal posts. Any health topics discussed are not to be taken as medical advice. Seek out medical attention if needed and do your own research; however, you're welcome to use mine as a start.
Translate »