February 9, 2024

Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Formaldehyde: The 89 yr old Stephen Barrett, MD

In the Year 2001, a retired psychiatrist
who was never board certified in any-
thing stated: "Today, I am the media."
He repeatedly presented himself  as an
expert in medicine, nutrition, and law,
while having zero experience as a prac-
ticing physician, no training in nutrition,
and zero bar association membership.
He is a naysayer of everything which
competes for big pharma dollars.  He
is too obvious.

At the principle website that he operates, he is described as a medical
communications expert of  national renown.  He even presented him-
self  as a master in spiritual direction, in book form.  Representations
of Stephen Barrett insinuate that he alone can suffice as the voice of
medicine.  In fact, representations of  him make it sound as if, during
any given election, he should run for God.  However, the scorecard
on Barrett differs drastically from the representations made of  him. 

Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of  Credentials,
Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification

[1]  Stephen Barrett, M.D. was never board-certified in anything, at
       any time in his life.  He has never been able to speak with the au-
       thority of  a board-certified medical expert.

[2]  Nor has he been able to speak from the vantage point of  a practi-
       tioner in any type of  internal or dermatological medicine.  In fact,
       Stephen Barrett has not served in the capacity of  a physician since
       the end of  his rotating internship days.  Those days ended over 57
       years ago, in 1958.  Thus, we have a 59 year lapse in time involved
       with Stephen Barrett's writings on non-psychiatric subjects.

       The "MD" affixed to his name simply means that he graduated from
       a medical school.  He did do that.  But, he did it over a half century
       ago, in 1957 ... 62 years ago.

[3]  Barrett has never been a researcher in any capacity; neither at the
       clinical level nor at the murine test level.  He has been neither a
       toxicologist, nor a vaccinologist, nor a neurologist, nor a bio-
       chemist, nor an immunologist, nor any type of  medical tech-
       nologist, nor a pharmacologist.  This means that he has never
       been able to speak from the vantage point of  a research col-
       league.  That is to say, if  Stephen Barrett had been seen in a
       lab coat after 1958, it was during Halloween or a masquerade

[4]  And Stephen Barrett has zero inventions/patents to his name.
       Therefore, he has never been able to speak from the vantage
       point of a medical innovator, either.

[5]  Furthermore, there is no evidence that Stephen Barrett is a first-
       hand witness to illness on either side of  the coin; neither as a
       practicing physician nor as a patient.  That is to say, he has no
       known history of severe medical impairment.  By all appear-
       ances, he is not able to offer any insight on what it is to know
       intense physical suffering in the first person singular.  His ruth-
       lessness and callousness indicates this.

[6]  And as far as concerns Stephen Barrett being advertised as a
       medical communications expert, his curriculum vitae indicates
       that he:

- never managed disaster relief  efforts,
- never developed medical software programs,
- never oversaw ambulance dispatch operations,
- never managed the allocation of medical supplies,
- never networked hospital communication systems,
- never transmitted emergency medical instructions to sea,
- never networked pharmaceutical communication systems,
- never translated medical literature into foreign languages.

  So where is the medical communicating that Stephen Barrett
   is supposed to do so expertly ?

Stephen Barrett's Allegation of Being a Legal Expert

It was in a 21st Century California court where Barrett presented him-
self as an expert in FDA regulatory law.  The matter concerned a case
that he himself  instigated, under the name of a 501c non-profit organi-
zation of  which he was/is a member and even an officer.

Barrett saw to the filing of  the lawsuit (under the corporate name), and
then he hired himself as an expert witness, despite the blatant conflict of
interest.  He then expected money to be transferred from the 501c non-
profit group's bank account to his own personal account, in the form of
a fee payment.

Needless to say, Stephen Barrett never worked for, with, over, under,
or besides the FDA.  The presiding judge stated:

       "the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient
         qualifications in this area."

       "He has never testified before any governmental
         panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation
         of drugs."

       "Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony
         with respect to any of the issues associated with
         Defendant's products."

        Furthermore, the judge stated that Stephen Barrett's
        testimony should be "accorded little, if any, credibility."

In the end, the 501c private corporation of which Barrett is a member
lost the case.  It was ordered to pay the defendant's attorney fees.  As
an added note, he claimed himself to be a 21st Century legal expert
in FDA regulatory matters, because he completed one and a half years
of correspondence law school in 1963;  and because he had several
conversations with FDA personnel, as well as some sort of  continuing
education classes that he had not attended in eight years prior to the

Stephen Barrett has filed many lawsuits.  Each one is an article of its
own.  He usually sues for libel, malice, and/or conspiracy.  One re-
port attached Barrett to a multiplicity of  lawsuits filed against forty
defendants.  This is reminiscient of a con artist who pretends getting
hit by autos ... repeatedly.  This is ridiculous.

Barret had acourtroom loss is dated October 2005, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Lehigh County for the State of  Pennsylvania.  In
that court case, Barrett once again claimed that he was a legal expert. 
Barrett lost a court case filed in California, under his own name.  He
also lost cases in Oregon and Illinois, as well as in Pennsylvania, also
filed under his own name.

In summary, Stephen Barrett was never the member of  any bar as-
sociation.  He never represented himself as his own attorney in any
of  his many lawsuits.  He was never a district magistrate, and he
was not a clerk of  court.  Yet, he has repeated claimed that he is a
legal expert.  Barrett did have court appearances as an expert wit-
ness in criminal and parole cases, but only in the capacity of a
psychiatrist who was never board certified.  One such venue
was the juvenile court system in San Francisco during the 60s.

Barrett's Claim of Being a Nutritional Expert

As far as concerns his allegations of being a nutritional expert, it was
during the 1990s when he once testified against a credentialed and
certified nutritionist.  This was at a hearing of the American Dietetic
Association.  Barrett was only a non-trained and honorary member
of  that association, yet he was presented as one of its two expert
witnesses.  As a result of  that hearing, the lady against whom Bar-
rett testified lost her registered dietician credentials.  Her reputation
suffered harm, and her future earnings potential was compromised.

The woman then sued the association who presented Barrett as a nu-
tritional expert.  And it was during a cross-examination when Barrett
finally conceded that he was not a nutritional expert, being that had
no training in the subject.  He said that he was an expert in consumer
strategy, instead.  As a result, the woman against whom Barrett testi-
fied had her credentials restored in full.  Notification of  this was pub-
lished in the courier & journal of  the American Dietetic Association.
The woman also received an undisclosed settlement.

A Sample of Stephen Barrett's Mode of Communication

Stephen Barrett co-authored a book with a publicly known defrauder
whose now-defunct paper review company, in providing health reports
to State Farm Insurance adjustors, was declared "a completely bogus
operation" by an Oregon judge.

Concerning Barrett's fraudulent co-author, it was the NBC television
network who reported him as the ratifier of fraudulent health reports.
He is a Dr. Ronald Gots, founder of Medical Claims Review Services.
The company went out of business in 1995.

The NBC television network obtained 79 of the reports that Gots'
paper review company provided for State Farm's adjustors.  Ever-
so-coincidentally, 100% of those 79 reports favored State Farm
over every auto accident claimant profiled in those reports. 

The irony to this is that Stephen Barrett heralds himself as an exposer
of health fraud, as well as a defender of mankind from persons com-
mitting health fraud.  Yet, he elected to have his name placed in print
next to a notorious defrauder.

For further information on this matter, see:

The Paper Chase: A 15 month NBC Dateline Investigation

The Barrett/Gots Book, itself

The Barrett/Gots book is titled, "Chemical Sensitivity:  The Truth 
About Environmental Illness."  Needless to say, the book is a ve-
hement denial of the valid existence of  Chemical Sensitivity.  How-
ever, Chemical Sensitivity comes in many case-specific and medi-
cally acknowledged forms; in forms such as:

> Red Cedar Asthma (Plicatic Acid Sensitivity),
> IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity,
> Pine Allergy (Abietic Acid Sensitivity),
> Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis,
> Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity,
> Ammonium Persulfate Sensitivity,
> Glutaraldehyde-induced Asthma,
> Phenyl Isocyanate Sensitivity,
> Halothane-induced Hepatitis,
> Sulfite-induced Anaphylaxis,
> Chemical Worker's Lung,
> TDI-induced Asthma,
> NSAID Intolerance,   . . .

. . .  and numerous other forms, such as

Similarly, the Barrett/Gots book is a denial of  the existence of the En-
vironmental Illness which comes in of medically acknowledged case-
specific forms; in forms such as:

> Vasomotor Rhinitis,
> Occupational Urticaria,
> Irritant-induced Asthma,
> Occupational Rhinosinusitis,
> Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis,
> Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis,
> Airborne-irritant Contact Dermatitis,
> Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome,
> Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction,
> Sick Building Syndrome (Building-related Illness),   . . .

. . . and a few other forms.

In fact, the Barrett/Gots book calls Sick Building Syndrome "a fad di-
agnosis."  However, Sick Building Syndrome is listed as one of the
"Most Common Diagnoses" at the Occupational & Environmental
Health centers of:

> Iowa University,
> Johns Hopkins University,
> The University of Pittsburgh,
> The University of Stony Brook,
> Detroit's Wayne State University,
> The University of Illinois-Chicago,
> The University of California-Davis,
> Boston Medical Center, as Building-related Illness,
> Washington University's Harborview Medical Center,
> The University of Maryland, as Building Related Disease,
> Nat. Jewish Med. Research Ctr, as Building Related Illness.

Needless to say, the Barrett/Gots book also denies the physiological
existence of  the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which is listed as one
of the "Most Common Diagnoses" at the O&E Health centers of:

> the world renowned Yale University,
> the world renowned Mount Sinai Hospital,
> the world renowned Johns Hopkins University,
> a hospital affiliated with Harvard University,
> and a few other American medical institutions
  which are licensed and certified centers of practice.

The listing thereof is done by the Association of Occupational
& Environmental Clinics.   For more information, see:





The Objective Medical Findings of Chemically Sensitive 
Patients that Barrett Conveniently Neglected to Disclose

For the record, there do exist objective medical findings in the world
of Chemical Sensitivity.  The following findings have been document-
ed in the records of chemically sensitive patients:

> dermatitis,
> anaphylaxis,
> angioedema,
> turbinate swelling,
> glandular hyperplasia,
> excessive nasal pallor,
> edema of the adenoids,
> edema of the true vocal cords,
> nasal and/or laryngeal erythema,
> protuberant/distended abdomen,
> permeability of epithelial cell junctions,
> hepatotoxicity in the absense of viral hepatitis,
> paradoxical adduction of the true vocal cords,
> marked cobblestoning of the posterior pharynx,
> inflammation of  the alveoli (air sacs of the lungs),
> a 20%+ drop in FEV1 during inhalation challenge testing,
... and a few other things, such as visible and measurable
wheals produced during placebo-controlled skin testing, 

Barrett's Contradiction

Barrett also wrote a 64 page booklet on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
Furthermore, he wrote a text of much shorter length, titled: "Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis."  In that article, Barrett

          "Legitimate cases exist where exposure to large
            or cumulative amounts of toxic chemicals has
            injured people."

Well, such exposure scenarios are the causes of Chemical Sensitivity.
That is why lay persons regard it as "Chemical Injury."  In as much,
Barrett first denies the existence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in
name.  Yet, he describes Chemical Sensitivity in function.  But, he
does so in such a way that he leaves the reader uncertain as to what
his statement is intended to mean.  After all, a novice might assume
that Barrett is referring to resovable acute toxicity cases, instead of
long-term chemical sensitization illnesses.

A Duly Noted Hypocrisy

Stephen Barrett markets fear.  For example, he has marketed fear of
the formerly overrated echinacea flower which is only harmful to per-
sons severely allergic to the inulin that it contains; to the inulin which
is also present in Jerusalem artichokes, leeks, bananas, garlic, and
onions.  Yet, has Barrett ever warned people about bananas, onions,
and Jerusalem artichokes?   Has he ever warned people about things
as tragic as VIOXX, BEXTRA, ZYPREXA and the other pharma-
ceuticals that caused harm to mankind?

All in all, when you attack as many persons as does Stephen Barrett,
the statistical probability is that you are going to be correct some of
the time.  However, the same statistical probability is that you're go-
ing to be wrong some of the time, especially when you're unqualified
to comment.  Being that Stephen Barrett neither scored a 100% nor
a passing grade on his board exams, he cannot be reasonably expect-
ed to be 100% correct in his volumes of writings.

People have brain cells.  They can recognize "quackery" by ill effect
or lack of effect.  They don't have need of a "Stephen Barrett" to tell
them.  Not only can reasonable people detect a "quack" when they
see one, they can just as easily detect a disingenuous political opera-
tive when they read one.

Stephen Barrett's Cookie Cutter Techniques

It is not an incident of unheard proportions for Barrett to have cited
an obsolete reference, as well as an outdated and isolated instance, in
order to have mankind adhere to an assertion of  his.  For example,
in order to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is nothing more
than a mental illness, Barrett cited an incident which was put into writ-
ing 120 years ago, in 1886, concerning one woman and one woman
only.  That incident was not about chemicals.  It was about roses.

Now, concerning the medical practices and medical doctrines that
Barrett opposes, he is repeatedly found stating, "inconclusive and not
yet proven."  If  he cannot discredit something on technical merits, he
cites an isolated case here and an isolated case there, concerning an
unauthorized billing or a marketing violation committed by a person
engaged in something that Barrett wants deleted from the face of the
Earth.  Yet, Barrett never mentions the dozens of  frauds that were
committed under the supervision of his co-author, Dr. Ronald Gots.

Barrett never mentions the vast number of  lawsuits filed against
pharmaceutical companies.

Barrett often mentions what treatments and tests the Aetna Insurance
Company will not cover, as if Aetna is a charity organization found-
ed by Mother Theresa; as if it's not a profit minded corporation that
benefits from the denial of claims.  In as much, there is no insurance
company which will pay for redundant treatment or redundant testing.
Therefore a similar test or treatment will not be covered.  Furthermore,
insurance companies will not pay for anything that is regarded as being
in the experimental & investigational stage.  As a side note, everything
in established medicine today was at the experimental & investigational
stage yesterday. 

The Ironies about Dr. Stephen Barrett,
in Light of the Fact that He is a Retired Psychiatrist

The great irony about Barrett is that a psychiatrist is expected to be
a master at procuring peace in the minds and hearts of men.  A tree
is known by its fruits.  Barrett's fruits have been made known.

Another great irony is that a psychiatrist is expected by the reason-
ably minded person to be a master in neurology.  Barrett failed the
Neurology section of his board exams.

Yet another irony is that a psychiatrist is expected to have a reflex
action for keeping confidentiality, being that patients confide inti-
mate details to a psychiatrist.  However, Barrett has placed person
after person in an unfavorable spotlight.  He's even known to have
revealed the tax problems of one of  his opponents; not so that the
man can use someone's help, but rather, to provoke ill regards for
the man.  Yet, when has Stephen Barrett ever placed the spotlight
on the exorbitant price mark-ups of pharmaceuticals in America?
After all, Barrett claims that he's a consumer advocate.  So, where
is the consumer advocating in one of  the most taxing impositions
on the American economy and consumer?