1. Curt Fischer on July 1, 2010 10:38 AM writes...

The antecedent of "these people" is a bit unclear. I had to read to the end of the last paragraph to figure out "these people" was Doctor's Data and not Quackwatch.

2. Epistudent on July 1, 2010 5:45 PM writes...

It's always nice to see good bloggers raising awareness when lawsuits like this happen. It's a shame that they happen so frequently...

3. sepisp on July 2, 2010 2:41 AM writes...

How is this not unauthorized practice of medicine? How can they have the impunity to sue while blatantly administering medical treatment (the chelation) without a license? I don't see a clinical qualification in their list, just clinical *laboratory* licenses. What is the FDA for if not for this, and why are they not taking action?

4. Josh Bloom on July 2, 2010 5:15 AM writes...

I've read Barrett's writings on homeopathy (speaking of quackery). Right on the money. Just sent in a donation, despite being unemployed for 4 months.

5. Anononymous BMS Researcher on July 4, 2010 8:05 AM writes...

I hope Quackwatch, for whom I have considerable respect, is in a jurisdiction with a strong anti-SLAPP statute and can countersue.

6. opsomath on July 5, 2010 8:18 PM writes...

Dr. Lowe,

With all due respect, while in this particular case Quackwatch's criticisms of the target company are probably valid, I ain't paying that guy any money. He seems to have taken as his personal mission in life opposition to the entire ill-defined field of "alternative medicine."

7. AutismNewsBeat on July 19, 2010 7:33 PM writes...

Opso, if by "alternative medicine" you mean "not yet proven", then you are right. But what's wrong with asking erstwhile health care providers to prove their methods are safe and effective? Do you have a specific case in mind where you believe Barrett was wrong?

8. isles on July 20, 2010 5:10 PM writes...

I donated. I don't know why anyone would object to "alternative medicine" as a target. If it's "alternative," it's not "medicine."

9. Lu-Lu on September 27, 2010 5:28 AM writes...

Many heavy metals BIND to tissues. They do not circulate in the blood, to be removed by the kidneys into the urine, except for maybe a few days to a couple weeks. After that, urine or blood can not reveal true poisoning or toxicity. Without provoked testing, you have no idea of the heavy metals burden--unless you were poisoned the day before the test. The reference level is non-provoked, because you shouldn’t have poisons your body can't remove.

Doctors Data toxic metals tests were especially useful as a GUIDE to how much mercury I had & how efficiently my body was eliminating it. This was supervised by a qualified professional--an ND who is NOT a quack. Mercury toxicity is a serious issue which most MDs don't take seriously. MDs don't have all the answers. There will always be charlatans, & many of them are MDs. Does Barrett write about them???

10. Ed Holmes on April 22, 2012 9:37 AM writes...

Conventional medicine kills more Americans than alternative medicine. CDC reports 2,000,000 hospital admissions in 2011 for advserse reactions to prescription drugs and 1,600,000 deaths from prescription drugs the same year.
There has never been a death caused by prescription drugs.

Stephen Barrett, not a doctor, is a stale-dated, myopic old man. He is neither relevant nor important. He does not possess any requisite academics or expertise to comment on anything medical. His qualifications as a self-appointed expert have always been rejected in the courts. Doctors Data will win this case and hopefully Barrett infarcts himself into
oblivion.

11. Ed Holmes on April 22, 2012 9:38 AM writes...

Conventional medicine kills more Americans than alternative medicine. CDC reports 2,000,000 hospital admissions in 2011 for advserse reactions to prescription drugs and 1,600,000 deaths from prescription drugs the same year.
There has never been a death caused by prescription drugs.

Stephen Barrett, not a doctor, is a stale-dated, myopic old man. He is neither relevant nor important. He does not possess any requisite academics or expertise to comment on anything medical. His qualifications as a self-appointed expert have always been rejected in the courts. Doctors Data will win this case and hopefully Barrett infarcts himself into
oblivion.

12. Henry on November 15, 2012 5:41 AM writes...

Good look Doctor's Data! The analytics from DD are a good source of information. Stephen Barret arguments are very silly. He and most practitioners (including many naturophats) simply don't know how to interpret it.