Stephen Barrett posted an extremely interesting and highly detailed piece 
regarding his attempts to fight defamatory statements issued by Tim Bolen, a 
"publicist" for the outrageous quack Hulda Clark, and others:

----Original Message Follows----
From: Robt Mann <[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: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:24:43 +1200

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 
<> ) he was entirely receptive 
and not at all evasive or arrogant  -  he accepted the corrections and 
implemented them on his website.


Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more….then map the best route!