onsdag 27 juni 2012

Little, about a chiropractic "critic"

The More on S. Barrett....

The New Zealand Report-1978expressed a definite opinion about Stephen Barrett.
A little about the Commission:

"Commissioned by the New Zealand Government in 1978, The New Zealand Report developed into the most comprehensive and detailed independent examination, at that time, of chiropractic ever undertaken in any country. The focus of the investigation was to consider whether health and accident benefits should be made for chiropractic services. When the Report was commissioned, it was believed it would take a month or two at the most to resolve the issues, but it took nearly two years, generating over 3600 pages of testimony under Oath from numerous witnesses and thousands of pages documents submitted from organizations and private parties from around the world. 

The investigators also traveled to Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia in their quest for information. The lengthy report was presented in September 1979, long before the findings, favorable to chiropractic and manipulation, appeared in the Rand Study, Meade studies, BMJ, Magna Report, ACHPR report on back pain, and the subsequent numerous journal research studies.

In the United States, the Commission interviewed the American Medical Association, American Chiropractic Association, Council on Chiropractic Education, Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research, Blue Cross & Blue Shield, and various individuals.

It says among other things:
"13.   We have considered material published over Barrett's name. The chapter on chiropractic in The Health Robbers (entitled "The Spine Salesmen") was written by him.It is plainly propaganda. What we have seen of the rest of his writings on chiropractic has the same tone. Nothing he has written on chiropractic that we have considered can be relied on as balanced."

But there was still a part of the United States who believed that S Barrett was a "Consumer Advocate", but he even then a "scientific advisor" to
lobbying organization, ACSH, and it has been since 1978 Barrett then ACSH started. But then it was not so many who realized what was ACSH. it was
one more time before SourceWatch could describe them:


Of course, not all Barrett writes wrong, but he already had an agenda, that not so many are familiar with. Carefully read the link above about ACSH.
   But when this book was published was not S Barrett, as famous as he is today.:


The ACSH adviser has sued many people. It has become known from inquisitive lawyers, when Barrett sued various individuals such as Ilena Rosenthal. Read about her experiences on her blog:


If you search by Ilena Rosenthal's name on the internet, so it will come up a lot of pages with derogatory comments about Ilena. It just shows how lobbyists work.

Here is more info on Barrett's activities:


S. Barrett is "CSI fellow and he spreads his propaganda through the" skeptic "movement.
The Swedish branch of the "skeptic" movement links to his website under the title: "Skeptical
online resources. "But his side have nothing to do with skepticism, but is just propaganda.
Barrett propagates also ACSH as an "Anti-Qackery web-site." ACSH is a lobbies
organization, which is primarily for chemistry-corporate actions, when they themselves do not stand up for the views, and
provided that the company "donates" money to the ACSH.


Sceptic`s dictionary is another site that spreads AMA banned Committee "opinions". The site
begins with a quote by William T. Jarvis, Ph.D., he led one of the States which created come, to give the impression that there were "opinions" that was shared by many. Stephen Barrett led another Subcommittee who got money and materials from the AMA's now banned committee, and that it would not be noticed that there was a campaign to wipe out chiropractic from the AMA, so had the AMA organized four pieces in committees that would appear to be independent .


6 kommentarer:

  1. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

    1. America's health care is expensive and deficient in many ways, yet it takes twice the share of GDP in claims compared with the Swedish health (16_18%). Insurance companies' role is not always so pretty. They use lobbyists, and misbehave in several ways.

      "Caquais's defensive strategy was simple. He Said: .....
      See: http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor's-Data-v-Barrett/CaquiasCleared.htm

    2. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

  2. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

  3. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

  4. Of course, one can distinguish their reputation destruction from serious criticism, which is the combination of ideas for improvements or point out flaws in the training.