Stephen Barrett supporters in a Tizzy Over Barrett Getting Sued in Doctor's Data case

A friend of mine sent me a link to a blog calling itself "Respectful Insolence," run by the guy I thought was going to be Barrett's replacement "Orac the Nipple Ripper."

Ok, the guy doesn't actually call himself "Orac the Nipple Ripper." I call him that. He calls himself just plain "Orac." But since I found out he is a breast cancer surgeon in Detroit, well, you know, I tend to call a spade a spade - and, a nipple ripper a Nipple Ripper.

For the most part I avoid venturing into quackpot discussions for I have a similar reaction, I think, that a prison guard would have after having to listen in on a group of pedophile prisoners talking. But, this time, I ventured in, read the material, then made a few selected comments using a pseudonym, and I struck pay dirt.

Imagine, for a moment, being a police officer, and stopping on your way home in a bar for a beer only to have the guy next to you brag that he is the guy who's been robbing all those banks they're looking for - and give you the details... and show you the gun.

I withdraw my nomination for "Orac" to replace Barrett. I was wrong. This guy is never going to be called up from the quackpot Farm Team. After what will probably happen to him, he'll probably go the way of Canada's Terry Polevoy - he can make as much noise as he wants but nobody will return his phone calls.

Besides the fact that "Orac" whined, like a girl, through the entire article, his comments, it looks to me, are more than enough to get him added on as a Defendant in the case. I can see that coming. But better, and this where I give him the "dumb of the dumbest" rating, was his last paragraph saying:

ADDENDUM: You can help Dr. Barrett, too. If you're a blogger, please write about this.

What "Orac" was doing was soliciting MALICE - and he was successful. The kiss-ups went to work organizing what's called a "Googlebomb" insuring that their totally libelous version of Doctor's Data, and their version alone, dominated the internet search engines.

Stupid? You bet. Legal "Malice" is just about indefensible in Court, and comes with the penalty, in virtually every jurisdiction in the US, of bringing on massive punitive damages without having to prove any damages in the first place. The punitive damages are applied JUST BECAUSE there was Legal Malice. Like this:

"Malice, to most people, is a nasty feeling of wanting to hurt another person. What many people do not know is that if malicious action is taken against one party, the other party has the civil right to bring a lawsuit. This is called legal malice, or one party�s intent to cause harm to another party. What is important to note here is that malice is the intention of causing harm. Criminal offenses of causing actual harm to another party is separate from legal malice. It is important, also, to determine whether the malice is expressed or implied. In expressed malice, one party gives an outward indication of the intention to cause harm to another party. This may include an oral statement or printed statement. Implied then, is the implied intention of harm in a killing or harming of another party. "

Oh boy! This is going to be an easier case (Doctor's Data v Barrett, et al) than I thought. These people don't even have to be led into a trap. They yank the "Beware of Minefield" sign out of the ground and use it as a sunshade while they march authoritatively onto the killing ground.

You should see the blogs they've put together about this case. I haven't seen even ONE that was not actionable. I love it.

I'll bet the attorneys for Doctor's Data are sitting there today scratching their heads, saying "what the hell are these people doing? They're coming to a slaughter."

For some reason my carefully reasoned (smile here), but skeptical, comment below seemed to send most of them into a rage. Read it. Does it seem offensive to you? I was posting using the name Spepp Tickskehpptic (speptic skeptic).

But, I thought I'd take the time to explain in layman's language exactly what I think you are up against here - and it is a lot. Then I will give you a recommendation. You should take it.

Simply - Barrett is going to lose this case. His best move right now would be to kneel down and beg Doctor's Data for forgiveness and take down the information from his website. The more he fights the more it is going to cost him and he does not have that much to lose before he runs out of assets.

(1) Barrett got a letter from an attorney. He should have consulted an attorney about the letter and gotten advice and acted on that advice. He didn't do that. Barrett obviously thought he knew the law better than attorneys. Bad move. More than stupid.

(2) Barrett does not have official credibility. Certainly not the credibility to have made the statements he made about Doctor's Data. (a) He has not been licensed to practice medicine since 1993. (b) That court case NCAHF v King Bio is going to haunt him. The courts really did declare him to be generally biased, and unworthy of credibility. (c) Barrett cannot qualify as an expert witness using AMA and US court standards (Daubert) and did not refer to any research other than his own in his articles. (d) He could not even pass the simple tests to become Board Certified as a Psychiatrist. So where is his scientific background.

(3) Barrett used the word Fraud in regard to Doctor's Data stating or implying openly that Doctor's Data was committing a State or Federal Crime punishable by imprisonment. Barrett should have consulted an attorney before writing this. Actually he should have contacted a police agency if he thought he had a valid complaint. It is possible he did but was told to go away.

(4) Barrett involved the NCAHF most likely without their permission - supposedly sending out the Consumer Health Digest newsletter in partnership with them. He got them sued and they don't have two nickels to rub together. They are not going to like any of this because most likely they were not actually involved. Now they have to hire an attorney firm whether they want to or not. I do not think they are going to be Barrett's friend.

(5) The deposition of Barrett is going to go badly for him. Doctor's Data will most likely videotape it. If Tim Bolen gets a hold of it you will see it on the internet. Barrett will have to fight to keep it from him which means more legal fees.

(6) Doctor's Data is probably going to buy the $112,000 plus interest Court Judgment against the NCAHF who owes six homeopathic manufacturers for attorneys fees. That would give Doctor's Data immediate access to Barrett's financial records without having to wait for Discovery in this new case. Then they could start the process of seizing any money they find including contributions for his legal fund. Judgments last forever and are unstoppable.

(7) Doctor's Data is going to seize Barrett's telephone and email records. That means that they will then find reason to add many of you on as Defendants in the case. Look at Count number nine - Civil Conspiracy.

(8) Doctor's Data will be looking carefully for evidence of any criminal act. If they find any they will be able to roll the Civil Conspiracy Count into a full-blown RICO charge.

(9) Doctor's Data will no doubt demand that Barrett be examined by a Psychiatrist of their choice - probably more than one. They will no doubt go to the Judge and get a Court Order for this and they will have done their homework to justify it.

(10) Doctor's Data will no doubt drag every one of you that mouth-off into the case as Defendants. Don't think that a pseudonym will protect you. They will find you.

About Bolen Report	Contact	News	Library	Newsletter Signup	Search this site	Back to Home Page

Copyright 2005-2010 by Jurimed Public Relations & Research Group \| All Rights Reserved