CLARK UPDATE: The Figueroa vs. Clark case - WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING....

November 13, 2000

Opinion by Tim Bolen

Everyone in the American Health movement knows about the legal troubles (the Indiana case) dumped on Hulda Regehr Clark - and the outcome. What many don't know is that there is, and was, a plot to cause her these problems - and that there is one specific individual, a kingpin, an aging propagandist, behind it all. His name is Stephen Barrett, and he is a de-licensed MD, operating out of his basement in Allentown, PA. Barrett is now, and has been, conducting a "wild-eyed" onslaught against world health humanitarian Hulda Regehr Clark. PhD, ND.

Early in 1999, Barrett ordered his minions, including his personal attorney Christopher Grell, to mount an all-out, anything goes, attack against Clark.

Clark's books had been selling well, far better than Barrett's books.

With big promises of financial reward, Barrett had advertised on his website ( for, and found, a female plaintiff to claim that Clark had somehow damaged her at Clark's research clinic in Mexico - a bogus lawsuit against Clark and twenty one other defendants.

Barrett's attack against Clark didn't stop with just that bogus lawsuit. Barrett goes far further than that. He mounted an all-out attack, one that if Clark supporters hadn't been prepared for, might have worked.



(1). Apparently, in early 1999, Barrett ordered attorney Grell to file criminal charges against Clark with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Diego. The FBI declined to investigate (they had better things to do), but did run an NCIC check which, we all know, ended up in Clark's arrest on seven year old charges, which were later dropped, in Indiana.

(2). During the case activity, Barrett sent an emotionally disturbed man, who blames Clark for his mother's death of cancer, to a Clark rally for the express purpose of disrupting it. The man claims that although his mother never did Clark's protocol (he wouldn't let her), that somehow Clark is still responsible for his mother's death. Barrett, who has had Psychiatric training (although never Board Certified), was well aware that this man had said in public "I don't know what I'd do if I ever met Clark." Barrett sent him anyway, and did not notify police of the potential danger to Clark, and her supporters. Fortunately, Clark supporters, monitoring Barrett's chat group (healthfraud.ssr), intercepted the discussion, and alerted authorities. The man was ordered off the property, and Clark was kept safe.

(3). Barrett's heir apparent to the "quackbuster" throne is, I believe, Terry Polevoy, MD, a "pimple doctor" in Canada. Polevoy is now, and has been, under investigation by Canadian authorities for a number of reasons. According to the Canadian press, Polevoy entered Canada as a draft dodger from the United States. Polevoy stalked Canadian Radio personality Christine McPhee for months, and other females for shorter periods of time. Polevoy may have ceased his clandestine following of McPhee, and others, after police raided his home late one night, questioning his activities. Canadian medical authorities are investigating allegations of mental instability and professional misconduct against Polevoy. Polevoy could lose his medical license.

Polevoy operates a "hate" website where he specializes in attacks against leading-edge health professionals that spurn the heavy prescribing of dangerous drugs. Polevoy conducted such a virulent attack against Clark in Canada that Clark Supporters felt it necessary to put an armed cordon around Clark when she was the guest speaker in Toronto. Toronto police were standing by to assist. Polevoy's website was turned off by his original provider, but he has since found space for his virulence from another fringe group..

(4). Barrett conducts an internet campaign to disrupt Clark's activities and her support network. (a) Barrett has set up a system whereby when someone "searches" for Clark information on the internet, they are sent to a series of websites, including his own and Polevoy's, where virulent dis-information is thrust at the reader as authoritative. The websites are run by a house painter in Ohio, a 22-year old veterinary student (who works with Polevoy) in Canada, an unemployed computer consultant (whose wife supports him) in Australia - not by anyone with credentials. (b) Barrett minions have infiltrated and disrupted the Clark discussion groups. Several of Barrett's hate-mongers have infiltrated the DrClark@eGroups list and verbally truncheon Clark supporters and those interested in information on Clark's protocols. (c) Barrett threatens lawsuits against anyone who tells Clark supporters the truth about Barrett's activities. (d) Barrett is making false statements, and providing mis-information, to internet service providers in attempts to damage the Clark network. (e) and more...



San Francisco based lawyer Christopher Grell is Stephen Barrett’s personal attorney, and has represented him, AND LOST, in at least two cases we know of. Grell has a record of absurdly filed lawsuits, which he spends a lot of time on. He causes the opposition to spend a lot of time (and money) on these cases, and then he loses - and then loses on appeal.

I believe that Barrett and his minions, including Grell, have conspired to intentionally abuse our court system to “stalk” Hulda Regehr Clark for the express purpose of stopping, or slowing, the research she has devoted her life to. I believe Barrett and his minions know that Clark's protocols have helped thousands of people - and for that reason they want them stopped. I believe that Barrett, and his henchmen, want the protocols stopped knowing that such an action would cause the suffering and deaths of millions of people worldwide - and they don't care.

I have reason to believe that Christopher Grell is a legal “stalker-for-hire.” I believe that Stephen Barrett, directly, or once-removed, is a “wild-eyed” vexatious litigant, and is the “real litigant” behind Figuero vs. Clark. In California there is law forbidding “vexatious litigants,” those that use the courts to harass, and stalk, people they do not like, or do not agree with.

I have reason to believe, Barrett, and hence Grell, are working directly for, and indirectly for, and are being paid directly, and indirectly, by the sleaziest of the drug lords.



Stephen Barrett has threatened to sue me several times over my opinions about his activities, but has failed to do so. I believe he knows that I would use the opportunity to sieze his records with a court order, and I'd be in his basement lair with my research team, and their microscopes, before he could bellow "Heil Hitler" four times in a row.

Stephen Barrett is scared to death of me - and he should be - for if I get access to his records, I'll turn over everything I find interesting to a Federal Grand Jury investigation, and write a book about it...



The public needs to know “Who exactly is paying Christopher Grell’s legal fees?” In the Clark case alone (two years of litigation against 22 defendants), it looks like Grell was able to amass billing hours somewhere between $700,000 to 1.2 million dollars. As far as I know the Figueroas don’t have this kind of money, and I doubt that Stephen Barrett is sending him personal checks. So where is the money coming from?

Specifically, who, EXACTLY, is PAYING Grell to harass Clark?


Barrett makes claim to be an "expert in quackery.” He, and his minions, have named Hulda Clark as a “quack.” Barrett’s “lack of expertise” was exposed last year in a court case in New York state, when it was discovered, in the courtroom, that Barrett mis-represents his credentials, claiming he is “a retired Psychiatrist.” Barrett was forced to admit, under oath, that he, in fact, had never been Board Certified, in any State, or anywhere in the world, as a Psychiatrist.

Barrett's publicized Curriculum Vitae seems to indicate that he, for whatever reason, was unable to hold a job for any length of time, over the ENTIRE LENGTH of his career.


The government of New Zealand, in a scathing report, OFFICIALLY declared the writings of Stephen Barrett as “propaganda, and of no evidentiary value.”



Carlos F. Negrete is a well known California based Civil attorney who takes on, and WINS, high profile cases. Among his many experiences, he has successfully fought HMOs for their refusal to treat patients. He is a known advocate of patients’ rights.

After analyzing the Clark case Negrete says “This is a very suspicious case. It looks to me that there is a hidden agenda here, that has nothing to do with the original filing of the case. For good cause, we are demanding that Plaintiff's attorney immediately produce evidence backing their doubtful claims - and produce the Plaintiffs for deposition, which we will video tape. Up to now, although the Plaintiff's attorney has made grandiose claims, he has failed to come forward with any meaningful evidence. Shockingly, the Plaintiff's attorney has failed to produce one single piece of medical documentation to support ANY of his client's dubious claims. More importantly, the Plaintiffs have not “legally verified” any of the answers to our questions. And, attorney Grell is refusing to produce the Plaintiffs for deposition. I’m beginning to wonder if there really is a Plaintiff, at all, or whether Grell has made them up out of whole cloth.”

Negrete also says “Dr. Clark will not be intimidated into stopping the research that she has devoted her life to, for the benefit of millions of people. We intend to vigorously fight these specious, unsupported, and irresponsible claims. Dr. Clark does not intend to cower away from mean spirited attacks on her reputation. We strongly believe that Dr. Clark will ultimately prevail in the lawsuit and be vindicated."

Barrett isn't going to like Negrete, one bit...



Christopher Grell sued twenty-two defendants in the Figueroa vs. Clark case. In almost two years he has made no effort to subpoena more than half of those. Some of those named in the suit as co-defendants with Dr. Clark, the Clark team has never heard of, and it is not explained in the suit what their relationship might be. One of the defendants named does not exist at all, and never has. Another defendant wasn’t even around during the time of the supposed incident.

It is not known whether Barrett’s lawyer, Christopher Grell, did shoddy preparation for the Figuero lawsuit, or whether his actions were intentional. There are facts about Grell and Barrett which point in either, and both, directions. Shoddy preparation and inadequate legal activities can be a tactic to exhaust the opposition’s legal funds.

Grell can’t, or won’t, produce the so-called Plaintiffs, Esther and Jose Figueroa. The Plaintiffs don’t appear to have any part in the case. And it looks like they are not, themselves, answering the court-ordered legal “interrogatories” and demands for information. It may be that Grell/Barrett are keeping the Figueroas themselves in the dark, for their own reasons, or to further their own agenda.

Meanwhile, Stephen Barrett’s minions announce the so-called Figueroa "complaints" in the case all over the internet as though they were true.



Tim Bolen

JuriMed - Public Relations and Research Group


FDA "Backs Down(?)" Over Deadly Mercury Amalgams...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen  

Monday, March 19th, 2007

One of the biggest scandals in American health care is coming to a head this March 27th, 2007.  In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a case, called "Moms Against Mercury, et al., v. FDA" will get its time in the sunlight, and the Defendant, the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) isn't doing well in its Defense.

The case is simple.  Citizens are suing the FDA for NOT, during the last THIRTY YEARS, ruling on the safety, or danger, of mercury amalgam tooth fillings.  The Plaintiffs want mercury amalgam tooth fillings banned completely, and forever.

And, the FDA has virtually no defense...

The US anti-amalgam movement, an aggressive division of the North American Health Freedom Movement, has for years, chipped away at "official dentistry's" promotion of mercury amalgam tooth fillings, pointing out, correctly, their inherent dangers.  But "official dentistry" doesn't  listen, and in fact, actively punishes dentists that shy away from, or actively advertise the removal of, mercury amalgam fillings.  The war has been active for a long time.

With this legal assault the anti-amalgams have adopted an effective offense.  In essence, you might say, the anti-amalgam people, armed with silver bullets, have found the secret entrance to the FDA's dungeon, climbed down into the sanctuary during the daylight hours, opened the coffins of the FDA's sleeping staff dentists, sprinkled holy water over them, and driven wooden stakes through their hearts.  So to speak.

This case can be the decisive blow - for the FDA attorneys don't have very good answers.   The case reads:


Thirty years after being directed to classify all devices, 20 years after classifying all other dental fillings materials, 13 years after being mandamused to classify but winning on exhaustion grounds, nine years after specifically promising (in writing) to classify, four years after pleading no excuses to Congress for not classifying, it’s clear that FDA’s policy is not to classify encapsulated mercury amalgam. To say FDA ignores this issue is incorrect: FDA’s public relations machine is has been in high gear, as the Center for Devices bobs and weaves about its duty to classify through three “literature reviews,” three “consumer updates,” one “white paper,” and a plethora of sound bites.

The decision not to classify – a plain violation of the statute – is thus a reviewable decision.

FDA’s choice of cheerleader for amalgam, instead of regulator of amalgam, is not acceptable. FDA otherwise bans, limits, and warns against other products, drugs, or foods containing mercury, while other federal health agencies and the health regulators of other nations condemn mercury amalgam.

FDA not only ducks classifying, but also refuses to do an environmental assessment, which would plainly indicate the need for an environmental impact statement. Nor will FDA seek a timely and valid panel recommendation – the previous one being too old (1994), procedurally invalid (no statement for departing from Class III), and sub silentio overruled in September 2006. The writing is on the wall in both cases: An environmental assessment will plainly indicate the need for an environmental impact statement, which report would show alternatives to toxic mercury can be used in fillings, thereby eliminating the major source of mercury in the nation’s wastewater – amalgam. In September, the FDA panel decisively rejected the FDA staff’s pseudo-science about amalgam (e.g., it is safe because it’s been used for a long time), so FDA ducks asking the panel for formal action.

FDA keeps amalgam on the market via a sham substantial equivalence test, pretending that a powder half-device containing no mercury equates to a full device capsule that is 50% toxic mercury. When asked by Senator Kennedy why this practice is allowed, Commissioner Von Eschenbach in writing denied that FDA considers the two devices to be substantially equivalent. Since the staff has ten times approved amalgam under this test in the past six years (and many times before that), perhaps the Center for Devices is engaged in rogue activity unknown to the Commissioner’s office.

The correct recourse is not a mere order to classify, allowing an unclassified, unregulated device – with 50% mercury and for which substitute materials are legal and available for any dentist to place – to remain in commerce, but to remove it from commerce temporarily until FDA complies with its legal duties.


This Court must direct FDA to start being amalgam’s regulator instead of amalgam’s cheerleader. Whether by intention or lethargy, FDA’s Center for Devices has protected the marketing of mercury fillings by doing none of its regulatory duties – neither classifying nor requiring proof of safety nor doing an environmental assessment nor seeking a valid recommendation from the scientific panel. Since they have ducked and dodged classifying encapsulated amalgam after classifying all other dental filling materials in the 1980s, the mercury apologists at the Center for Devices by now realize that completing any of these tasks will lead straight to the end of mercury in dentistry.

Thus, an order to classify is not enough. The legal prerequisites (environmental impact statement and Panel referral) mean the process will take months; the record of bad faith suggests it will take years. Amalgam is illegally in commerce. It must be removed from commerce forthwith, temporarily, until FDA chooses to complete its regulatory duties.

What was the FDA's response to this legal action?

Not much.

Charlie Brown, two-time elected Attorney General for the State of West Virginia, and now attorney for the Plaintiffs, says of the case:

Our case, filed April 27, 2006, by 9 petitioners (names below)* charges FDA with illegally allowing the sale of mercury fillings.  For thirty years, FDA has defiantly refused to classify amalgam -- even though this step is required as the legal prerequisite to sale of any implants.  Even the repudiation of its pseudo-science by two FDA Scientific Panels on September 7, 2006 has not deterred FDA, who is making false and deceptive claims to mask the vote of these Panels.

Faced with standing before a federal court, FDA now departs from its role as chief cheerleader for mercury fillings.  In its brief, FDA admits, five times, that it does not know if mercury amalgam is safe or unsafe!

The nine petitioners who sued FDA:  Four organizations: Moms Against Mercury (Amy Carson, Angela Medlin), Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice (Mark Mitchell, M.D.), Oregonians for Life (Mary Starrett), and California Citizens for Health Freedom (Frank Cuny);  two state officials: California Dental Board Public Member Kevin J.Biggers, and Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson;  three individuals: Dr. Andy Landerman, Linda Brocato, and Anita Vazquez Tibau.

This is a breakthrough not thought possible a year ago.  To repeat, FDA now admits that the evidence is “changing,” thus the safety of mercury fillings is not “definitive” and is “the subject of intense disagreement.”  Quotations from FDA’s brief, containing those admissions, are below.**

FDA’s admissions in its brief to the US Court of Appeals:  “there is a lack of conclusive evidence regarding the health effects of mercury fillings”;  “constantly changing scientific evidence” exists on mercury amalgam;  “complex issues and intense disagreement [exist] about the scientific evidence regarding mercury and its potential health effects”;  “the complexity of the issue and the lack of conclusive scientific evidence on the health effects of dental amalgams”;  “the lack of … definitive scientific evidence.”

Let's see what happens next. 

Stay tuned...

Tim Bolen  - Consumer Advocate