Reply #14: You don't have your facts straight on Barrett or Quackwatch

[philb]

Its not true that he simply gave up his licence at retirement. His background and credibility along with that
of the other main person involved in that organization have been
examined in many court cases and hearings and found wanting by judges. This is a matter of record.
And criticism of him and his organization and web site is not restricted to those he chooses to defame.
Many judges have many times found that he had no credible background or credible information regarding those
he chooses to defame on his site. The purpose of his site is to defame practitioners of alternative medicine.
Its easy to find major problems with the information on his site.
But he and others involved in his site who have been paid huge amounts of money to do this, all have serious
background and crediblity issues. Courts have many times found their credentials exagerated or non-existant
and their claims to be bogus. I have personal knowledge and experience from hearings in my state where
their claims and information were found to be bogus by Gov't Hearing officers.
I could provide information on specifics, but this is a distraction, not directly relevent to the issue at question.
If you are going to read the Quackwatch site, also read the Bolan site. quackpotwatch.com or .org
I don't read either, but Bolan's is more credible I think. But he's an advocate and not perfect either.

If you really want to debate the quackpotwatch/quackwatch issue, I can get into a lot of specifics of information on their
site and people they have defamed improperly. But I'd rather stick to science and leave the quackpots out of the discussion.