De-licensed MD Stephen Barrett

What kind of man would drop out of the medical profession and dedicate his life to STOPPING advancement in the health sciences?

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Location of Stephen Barrett's "" - the basement of his home at 2421 West Greenleaf Street, Allentown, PA 18104

Stephen Barrett -  Crackpot...

De-licensed MD Stephen Barrett, I believe, is one of those people whose ambitions, and opinions of himself,  far exceed his abilities.  

Barrett never achieved any success in his chosen medical profession.  Because of that, he has found frustration.   He is rabidly jealous of those that actually accomplish things.  As an outlet for that frustration, he hatefully attacks his betters.

And, there's always a market for hatred...

Bitterness against successful  health professionals is Barrett's hallmark.  To him they're all "quacks."  In this, his essays are repetitive and pedestrian.  He says the same things, the same way, every time - change the victim and the subject, and still you yawn your way through his offerings.  It's like he's filling out a form somebody gave him...

It looks to me; that Quackbusting is the first successful thing Barrett has ever been involved in.  It is the only place he has ever had, or could hope to have, recognition..  He is, and was,  a failure as an MD, and certainly as a Psychiatrist.  He gave up his aspirations in the medical profession, and retreated to his basement, years ago.

In Barrett's chosen profession (Psychiatry), it is obvious that three things became evident to him (1) finishing even the minimum Board Certification requirements was intellectually beyond him.  (2)  he would never achieve eminence,   (3) consequently, the Psychiatric industry quickly relegated Barrett to his appropriate level (the bottom)..

A look at Barrett's CV bears out my assertions.  Not only could he not hold a Psychiatric position for any length of time, but the positions he held were dubious, to say the least.   

I also suspect that, during his so-called "medical career," Barrett was having serious trouble even maintaining minimum MD requirements.  MDs are required to keep up CMEs (continuing medical education units) - and Barrett's writings show, to me, that he wasn't (and isn't) keeping up with new health trends.  Licensing Boards monitor licensed MDs and force compliance with the rules.  

It looks to me that, in 1993 Barrett simply gave up his medical aspirations,  turned in his MD license, and went into a business where he could get the attention he seems to crave.

Take an overactive self importance, couple it with glaring failure and rejection in his chosen profession, add a cup of molten hatred for those that do succeed, pop it in the oven - and out comes Stephen Barrett - self-styled "expert in everything."

Stephen Barrett- professional CRACKPOT...

Barrett, we know, along with his website, is currently named, among other things, in a racketeering (RICO) case in Federal Court in Colorado. 

He's also being sued for his nefarious activities in Ontario, Canada. 

In California, he's been FORMALLY discredited in Superior Court, and in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court decision, where he was described, by the three Judge panel, as "biased, and unworthy of credibility."

Barrett, we also know, was forced to give up his medical license in Pennsylvania in 1993 when his part-time employment at the State Mental Hospital was terminated, and he had so few (nine) private patients during his last five years of practice, that he couldn't afford the Malpractice Insurance premiums Pennsylvania requires. 

In a job market in the United States, where there is a "doctor shortage," Stephen Barrett, after his termination by the State mental Hospital, couldn't find employment.  He was in his mid-50s at the time.  He should have been at the top of his craft - yet, apparently, he couldn't find work.

In a California Court case, former Barrett peer, and fellow Board Member of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), William Jarvis PhD, testified, under oath, that Barrett and Robert Baratz conspired to use the NCAHF, without Board permission, as a Plaintiff in over 40 cases in California, where Barrett and Baratz were to testify as "expert witnesses," and get expert witness fees.  The NCAHF Board was never consulted.

One of those cases caused the NCAHF to be saddled with over $100,000 in legal fees awarded their victim - and the NCAHF doesn't have the money to pay that debt.  In fact, the NCAHF is SO DESPERATE for funds it is being run out of a cardboard box in the back room of Baratz's Braintree, Massachusetts hair removal and ear piercing salon.

Those type of cases Barrett involved the NCAHF in were considered so heinous that the people of California just passed an initiative (Proposition #64) banning this kind of lawsuit for all time.

Barrett, in the Canadian case, has formally admitted, according to Canadian law, to a number of situations put to him by the Plaintiff, including:

"The sole purpose of the activities of Barrett & Baratz are to discredit and cause damage and harm to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative health therapies or products available, and advocates of non-allopathic therapies and health freedom."

"Barrett has interfered with the civil rights of numerous Americans, in his efforts to have his critics silenced."

"Barrett has strategically orchestrated the filing of legal actions in improper jurisdictions for the purpose of frustrating the victims of such lawsuits and increasing his victims costs."

"Barrett failed the exams he was required to pass to become a Board Certified Medical Doctor."

How insulting to American consumers. 

The Internet needs health information it can trust...  Stephen Barrett doesn't provide it...





Stephen Barrett - the Village Idiot...

What's humorous (dark humor) about Stephen Barrett's attack on leading-edge health professionals, is Barrett's crude, uneducated,  attempts to explain what he thinks is wrong with his victim's theories. 

Barrett's lack of education, and understanding of his victims' basic concepts and theories is awesome to regard.

For instance, one of the biggest complaints that the quackbuster dolts make about scientist, author, and  health humanitarian Hulda Regehr Clark PhD, is that "there is no evidence of the validity of her work in the peer reviewed journals."

Huh????  What a quintessentially STUPID statement.  

The quackbuster minions are so ignorant that they really do not understand that that IS THE NATURE of new research - new findings are not in the literature - they're NEW.  Like, was Thomas Edison NOT supposed to come out with the light bulb because no one else had already invented it, or written about it?

What Barrett, and his idiot henchmen, are trying to say is that "If Clark were right, somebody else would have already invented it... so therefore she can't be right"


Organized Stupidity is the Hallmark of the Quackbuster Conspiracy...

Barrett, and his vacuous minions, like to spout off other stupid "rules" that they think should apply.  The application of which, has to make the scientific community shudder.

One of the other totally BRAINLESS statements Barrett's parrotts like to to screech out is "It hasn't been double-blind studied!!"

The "double-blind study" is one of about 45 different kinds of scientific studies used, and approved for use, within the scientific community.  It was designed for, and  is usually restricted to, testing new dangerous drugs for the claims drug companies wish to make about their new laboratory produced products.  Generally, in this type of study, you give half of the group the new pill, and the other half gets a sugar pill that looks just like the original. This type of study simply does not apply to new research.  Never has, never will.

There's a lot more...

Barrett's Funding - TOP SECRET...

Barrett was cornered in a Federal case in the State of Oregon not long ago, and asked about his income.  He testified that over the past two years he made a TOTAL of $54,000.

How then does he afford to carry on fourteen (14) separate legal actions at one time?

If each legal action cost him $100,000, that would come to 1.4 million dollars ($1,400,000).

How do you squeeze 1.4 million out of a $54,000 total income?

Good question...