Barrett says so much that can easily be refuted it's difficult to say where
to start. That is, I believe, what Goldberg is getting at, it is questioning
Barrett's intent rather than trying to pick apart thousands upon thousands
of lies, distortions, extreme exaggerations, with a few nuggets of truth
about a few obvious crackpot alternative health "specialists" like Hulda
Clark, who discredit the natural health movement. (And Bolen, who I don't
particularly like, does everyone a disservice by supporting Clark.)
I believe I remember that Bolen tracked down Barrett's operation to being
funded by a pharma PR firm.
If there is anything that gives Barrett away, it is the fact that nowhere on
his website is there any mention of the known damage done by pharmaceutical
drugs and by allopathic medical doctors. What is really going on here is
that the pharmaceutical industry is a growth industry whose business model
is lifetime illness maintenance, whereas hundreds of thousands of people
have discovered that they can be literally "medicine free" and maintain
their health utterly and completely through nutrition and certain
I know from my own personal experience that the latter is real, having been
always on the edge of being sick for much of my life, now living completely
healthfully (for the last decade) without ever having touched any
pharmaceutical medications except for aspirin (a bioidentical synthesis of
willow extract) on occasion. How many people do you know who have not missed
a single day of work for more than ten years as a result of illness? The
drug companies see this paradigm not just as competition, but as a threat to
their very existence. Barrett's extreme, fraudulent diatribes against
naturopathic medicine can only come from something beyond a personal
I can also tell you that my own experience helping people to overcome
chronic illness and live healthy lives, using these same techniques and
supplements, has been very gratifying. It mirrors such books as Healing AIDS
Naturally by Laurence Badgely, The AIDS Fighters by Ian Brighthope, Every
Second Child by Arnie Kalokerinos, Triumph Over Hepatitis C by Lloyd Wright,
and dozens of other books documenting naturopathic treatments and cures and
health maintenance regimens. All quackery, says Barrett.
I urge you to see for yourself. Buy a copy of the Encyclopedia of Natural
Medicine by Drs. Michael Murray and Joseph Pizzorno. They are Naturopathic
Physicians, or ND for short. NDs must go through 4 years of rigorous medical
school training (life sciences, A & P, neurology, etc., etc., the same
training as an MD but with specific training about nutritional approaches to
acute and chronic disease instead of pharmacology), such as at Bastyr
University (founded by Pizzorno), plus internship and residency at a
naturopathic-oriented health facility (Bastyr Clinic, Wright Clinic,
Whitaker Wellness Center, etc).
Once you have done that, take Neo's Red Pill. Begin reading the literature
critical of the medical profession and pharmaceutical industry. Read
Duesberg (Inventing the AIDS Virus) critically, not with blinders. Read Rath
and Pauling's paper on the root cause of cardiovascular disease. Read
Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins by Thomas Levy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Entemann" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Quackwatch -- Not so fast ....
> In fact, in the article cited by you, Goldberg makes NO arguments about
> "Barrett's actual published statements", but instead says "Most of what
> Barrett claims can be refuted, easily and decisively. That's not my
> intention here. I'm more interested in looking at the bigger picture-what
> is Barrett really saying amidst his quackbusting bluster, and why?"
> Could you cite any actual argument (as opposed to assertion without
> anything more than anecdotal evidence) made by Goldberg that purports to
> refute any statement by Barrett? After all, scientists are supposed to
> make decisions by weighing the evidence. Clear but false statements about
> scientific matters (theories) can be proved false once the technology
> becomes available, but allegedly true statements can never be proved true.
> Otherwise the statements are not about science. Can Goldberg prove that
> anything Barrett says is false?
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Quackwatch -- Not so fast ....
> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:13:28 -0500
> Eric, I agree with a strong critique of Bolen, but not of Goldberg.
> But you did not address even ONE of the arguments Goldberg makes about
> Barrett's actual published statements, which reflect his worldview.
> It's not a question of him being "overzealous," it's a question of Barrett
> being totally wrong in what he has actually said and done.
> Goldberg's books on heart disease and alternative cancer treatments are
> extremely helpful and have saved many lives.
> I know it is tempting to knock down the credibility of an individual based
> on which side they are perceived to be on or their lack of Ph.D.
> credentials in the field (in Goldberg's case), but it would be more
> instructive to deal with what they actually say and how competent is the
> actual research they've produced.
> Mitchel Cohen
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Eric Entemann <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Feb 22, 2007 11:15 AM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Quackwatch -- Not so fast ....
> >I'm certainly not claiming that Barrett is right about everything, and I
> >doubt Robert is either. In fact, Robert just recently posted that Barrett
> >accepted a correction from him quite readily. Barrett may be a bit
> >overzealous, but much of what he has written that I have read has the
> >of truth, and mostl criticisms that I have read of him do not.
> >But if you look at those with whom Bolen, one of Barrett's primary
> >detractors, associates, he loses all credibility. He defends Hulda
> >whose beliefs and practices I would challenge anyone out there to defend.
> >She is truly an outrageous quack. And Mitchel seems to defend Bolen,
> >puts him in very bad company, in my opinion.
> >And here's a bit about Burton Goldberg, the critic of Barrett just quoted
> >"BURTON GOLDBERG, PRES. alternativemedicine.com, a former hotelier,
> >restaurateur and developer, discovered Alternative Medicine 18 years ago
> >when his friendÔ?Ts daughter attempted suicide. After conventional
> >Treatment failed she was referred to a Holistic Physician, who treated
> >with diet and supplements. Amazed at her complete recovery, Mr. Goldberg
> >concluded that Conventional Medicine paid little attention to biochemical
> >I think one gets a good sense of his science credentials from this....
> >Bolen and Goldberg don't convince me of anything. I wouldn't buy a used
> >from either.
> >----Original Message Follows----
> >From: Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
> ><[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Quackwatch -- Not so fast ....
> >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:26:12 -0500
> >Eric Entemann and Robert Mann have defended so-called Quackwatch "expert"
> >Stephen Barrett, and avoid the serious critiques of Barrett's science by
> >reducing them to Barrett's losing of a few "hard to win" defamation
> >Here's an excerpt from one critic, which puts Barrett's ideas into a very
> >different and much harsher context:
> >Multiple chemical sensitivity, sick building syndrome, food-related
> >hyperactivity, mercury amalgam toxicity, candidiasis hyperactivity, Gulf
> >syndrome-these are all costly misbeliefs and fad diagnoses, says Barrett.
> >"Many Americans believe that exposure to common foods and chemicals makes
> >them ill," he says. "This book [Barrett's] is about people who hold such
> >beliefs but are wrong."
> >.... Patients presume they are being made allergic or toxic or even being
> >poisoned by the mass of modern chemicals, cosmetics, cleaning agents,
> >and other human-made substances. They are mistaken, says Barrett. Their
> >misbeliefs are especially hard to understand, Barrett says, "at a time
> >our food supply is the world's safest and our antipollution program is
> >best we've ever had."
> >Patients' symptoms are mental (psychosomatic) in origin -- "they react to
> >stress by developing multiple symptoms." Their symptoms are not caused by
> >chemicals or dietary factors, he says. In fact, Barrett suggests that
> >patients are "hysterical," others are "paranoid," and the rest have
> >psychological factors" that "predispose" them to "develop symptoms" and
> >seek out "questionable" doctors (meaning alternative medicine
> >who will attach a ("not scientifically recognized") disease label to
> >Regarding Gulf War syndrome, for example, Barrett declares: "It provides
> >feeding trough for serious scientists, since funding is abundant, and for
> >every charlatan with a newsworthy theory." On the matter of the dangers
> >mercury fillings, he states: "The false diagnosis of mercury-amalgam
> >toxicity is potentially very harmful and reflects extremely poor
> >For the most part, of the illnesses listed above, nearly all are mere
> >"labels" rather than legitimate illness conditions, asserts Barrett;
> >not caused by foods or chemicals; there are no "scientific" studies
> >conclusively proving the association of diet, chemicals, and illness; and
> >are best advised to dismiss them out of hand, he says.
> >In most cases and for most of the illnesses commonly associated with
> >chemical sensitivity, Barrett says the mass of mistaken patients would be
> >better off seeking "mental help" from a psychiatrist or other "mental
> >practitioner." Alternative medicine physicians and especially "clinical
> >ecologists" (the old name for practitioners of environmental medicine,
> >links exposures to toxic substances with health conditions) should be
> >chastised, investigated, put on notice, and if possible, put out of
> >business, says Barrett.
> >(from http://www.whale.to/a/goldberg.html "What's Eating Stephen
> >by Burton Goldberg)
> >There's a lot more, but that should give you an idea of Barrett's biases
> >erroneous views.
> >- Mitchel Cohen
> >Play Flexicon: the crossword game that feeds your brain. PLAY now for
> > http://zone.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmtagline
> The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian.