Eric Entemann wrote, wrt Stephen 'quackwatch' Barrett M.D,
>What cases has he lost save for defamation cases? Those are
>notoriously hard for a public figure such as himself to win.
I've had a bit to do with defamation suits and endorse Eric's opinion.
>Do you feel that many of the areas he attacks are actually valid
>science or medicine? I read your seeming support for homeopathy and
>naturopathy. What else?
I'd say Quackwatch is superior to a lot of of the 'medical'
stuff on the internet. I disagree with Barrett on several issues,
but don't object to his approach. (Some who are far short of Noo
Eege flakiness will find him too narrowly scientific regarding some
issues in medicine that cannot be settled by only science.)
It may be of some interest that when I accosted him from out
of the blue with some minor corrections of his generally good
bulletin on the Showa Denko lethal GM-tryptophan (see
<http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/trypto.html> ) he was entirely
receptive and not at all evasive or arrogant - he accepted the
corrections and implemented them on his website.