Gosh, yes. You are right. Stephen (aka liar) Barrett = quackwatch. (George you really need to check your sources before posting. Hint: Look for credibility.)
From: quackpotwatch.org
ABUSING THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO HARASS AND INTIMIDATE...
Barrett brags about how he sues people. He sends threatening letters demanding money of those that disagree with him publicly, claiming he "will flatten them." He gloats in his communications about how much money he has cost those that disagree with him.
To [Tim Bolen], there is no substance to any of Barrett's legal actions - it's ALL "harassment and intimidation." It is the way Barrett operates.
My research finds that Barrett has NEVER won a case in a court of law - period. And, he has never, EVER, had to face a jury. He has, though, LOST legal actions, because of legal screw-ups, six times that I know of, at the hands of Judges.
CRACKPOT LAWSUITS?
(1). Stephen Barrett sued an author and a publisher over statements made about Barrett in a book. The author lives in Louisiana, and the publisher is in Virginia. Barrett lives in Pennsylvania. So why then did Barrett sue them in Minnesota?
That's what the Minesota Judge wanted to know, and when he wasn't satisfied with the answer, he dismissed the cases. Barrett LOST TWICE (author and publisher).
Was there a sale on lawsuits in Minnesota that day?
(2). Barrett sued the authors of another book, and someone who quoted it, in Pennsylvania. The authors lived in California, and the person who quoted the book lived (at the time) in Oregon. The Oregonian challenged the jurisdictional issue - and of course the Pennsylvania Judge (probably scratching his head) agreed, dismissing the case. Barrett LOST again.
The authors, not to be outdone, pointed out to the Pennsylvania Judge, that Barrett conveniently neglected to file the case within the statute of limitations time period. The Judge agreed (again, probably scratching his head) dismissing the case. Barrett LOST TWICE more (two authors).
(3). Barrett sued a prominent California MD over an article published in a magazine. The doctor pointed out to the Judge that, again, Barrett neglected to remember (or intentionally forgot?) the time limits imposed by the statute of limitations principle. The Judge agreed (more head scratching?) and dismissed the case. Barrett LOST again.
(4). Barrett has since sued a DEAD MAN in Oregon. We are awaiting the outcome of that action. I surmise that when you are dead it may be difficult to defend yourelf in a court of law. Barrett may have found, in this tactic, a way to WIN a case.
If this works for Barrett, I can picture his quackpot minions scanning the "Obituary" columns in their local newspapers.
BARRETT'S CRACKPOT "NON-LAWSUIT" AGAINST ME...
There are simple rules for legal actions. They must be followed. Those rules are relatively the same across the US. As you can see from above, Barrett has a little trouble with two of those rules, "Jurisdiction" and "Statute of Limitations."
But I have another rule to point out he's having trouble with. It is called "Service." When you sue someone you have to OFFICIALLY tell that person, or entity, that you are suing them. Although it would certainly be handy to be able to sue someone, and not have to tell them, so you could have the judge, the courtroom, and the jury "all to yourself" - it just isn't "our way" in America.
Supposedly, Barrett filed a lawsuit some time last November, 2000, against me, and several other alleged defendants. However, AFTER FIVE MONTHS, NONE OF US HAVE EVER BEEN PROPERLY SERVED.
I have no explanation for Barrett's antics on his website, regarding the alleged lawsuit.
Draw your own conclusions...
Tim Bolen
JuriMed - Public Relations and Research Group
jurimed1@yahoo.comThe Department of Health of Florida reports that the Schindler's neurologist has his
license in probation.
The Department of Health of Florida website reports that the Schindler's neurologist has two fines in his record, one for $2,000 and another for $52,084.40
Therefore, the claims in Quack Watch have been taken seriously by other doctors beyond Quack Watch.
Furthermore, Harvard's neurologists' bulletin board reports about the Schindler's neurologist:
If you do a medline search using his name, you will find that NO reliable medical journal has published his work. What this means is that, if he had evidence that he felt WOULD be scientifically proveable, and submitted that evidence, upon review by his peers it was found to be not valid.
Most of us are helped to a degree by increased blood flow, which is why exercise is generally recommended, but I believe dialating the vessels to accomplish that could be deadly to certain individuals.
The
St Petersburg's Times confirms the above:
Some patients said Hammesfahr's mixture of heart and blood pressure drugs worked wonders. But other doctors said nobody could tell whether his treatment works because he has not subjected his theory to controlled, scientific studies. He was mentioned on Quackwatch, a Web site focusing on fraud and quackery in medicine, and his articles were turned down by well-known medical journals.
Is this controversial doctor the only neurologist that the Schindlers could find to support their case?