In a stunning development, Lehigh Valley Pennsylvania Judge J. Brian Johnson on Thursday, October 13, 2005, tossed out nationally known self-proclaimed “consumer medical advocate” Stephen Barrett’s defamation lawsuit just minutes before it was going to be considered by a local jury.

            The lawsuit, filed in August 2002, against also nationally known Pennsylvania chiropractor, lecturer, researcher and publisher, Dr. Tedd Koren sought unspecified damages against Koren and his company, Koren Publications, Inc. for statements that he wrote in his newsletter in 2001 about Barrett.   Barrett, a long-time nemesis of chiropractic, filed the lawsuit because of Koren’s publication that Barrett was “de-licensed” and “in trouble because of a $10 million lawsuit,” and in addition, because Barrett was called a “Quackpot.”  In his defense, Koren contended that the statements were true and not defamatory and that he had a First Amendment right to write them in his newsletter.

            Thursday’s ruling by Judge Johnson represented a major reversal of the finding of an arbitration panel in August 2004 wherein the panel consisting of three local private attorneys reviewing the case had found in favor of Barrett and awarded Barrett $16,500 in damages and that Koren should publish a retraction.  Koren appealed that award. 

            Dr. Koren was represented by well-known health freedom San Juan Capistrano, CA, attorney Carlos F. Negrete for trial and Washington, D.C. attorney James Turner of  Swankin & Turner.  Easton, PA, attorney Christopher Reid of Laub, Seidel, Cohen, Hof & Reid served as local counsel for the legal team and co-counsel for the trial along with Negrete.  Turner and Negrete have been well-known for their representation of clients in the health food, supplement and vitamin industries, as well as representing naturopaths, nurses, dentists, physicians, chiropractors and complimentary therapists across the country.  Turner’s experience dates back to the 1960s when he joined consumer advocate Ralph Nader and was one of the groundbreaking Nader’s Raiders that made consumer advocacy popular, and which brought significant changes in manufacturing and consumer protection.  The Nader’s Raders’ campaigns received worldwide attention.

            In making the ruling to throw out the case, Judge Johnson granted a rare directed verdict to the jury finding there was insufficient evidence to support Barrett’s claims.  Judge Johnson indicated that this case was one of those “rare times” where such a motion was appropriate.

            Barrett operates the web site www.quackwatch.org , www.chirobase.org and 20 other web sites and has been a long time critic of chiropractic calling much of it “quackery.”  The victory to chiropractor Koren comes almost 18 years to the date that chiropractors received national attention with their victory against the American Medical Association (AMA) by obtaining an injunction against the AMA from an Illinois federal judge for engaging in illegal boycotting of doctors of chiropractic in Wilk et al vs. AMA.   Barrett had been an outspoken supporter of the AMA at the same time that Koren had been a vocal advocate that the AMA has, in recent years, violated the spirit of the federal judge’s order.

            After the ruling, Koren proclaimed: “I am overjoyed and enthusiastic that this nightmare is over and that the science, art and philosophy of chiropractic and the work of all of my colleagues have been vindicated.  This case took a toll on my life and family, but I knew that I was right in publishing the truth.  Dr. Barrett has no right to misinform the public about chiropractic and other natural healing arts or to try to silence anyone who criticizes him or tell consumers that he is not what he purports to be.  I believe that it is not right to be silent when there is a duty to inform the public and let the truth be told.”  

            For years, Barrett has touted himself as a “medical expert” on “quackery” in healthcare and has assisted in dozens of court cases as an expert.  Also, Barrett has testified that was called upon by the FDA, FTC and other governmental agencies for his purported expertise.   He was the subject of many magazine interviews, including Time Magazine and featured on television interviews on ABC’s 20/20, NBC’s Today Show and PBS.   He has gained media fame by his outspoken vocal disgust and impatience over natural or non-medical healthcare, including his criticisms of two time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling.

            Dr. Tedd Koren is known for his writings and lectures on chiropractic science, research, philosophy and chiropractic patient adjusting.  He is known for his Koren Publications chiropractic patient education brochures, posters, booklets, books and other products that are used in chiropractors’ offices throughout the United States and around the world.   Dr. Koren also co-founded a chiropractic college, is on the extension faculty of two chiropractic colleges, is published in chiropractic and bio-medical journals, and has received numerous awards in his field.  His web sites include www.korenpublications.com and www.teddkorenseminars.com. 

            In his 2001 newsletter, Koren published articles that revealed that even though Barrett had touted himself as a medical expert, he had not been a licensed physician since the early 1990s.   Koren also published that Barrett had been the subject of a $10 million racketeering lawsuit [that had been withdrawn] and called him a “quackpot” for the contradiction of his web site and lack of credentials.

            Koren’s trial attorney, Carlos F. Negrete of San Juan Capistrano, CA, is known for his defense of physicians, chiropractors, dentists, clinics and natural heath providers who practice what is known as integrated, complimentary & alternative medicine and holistic healthcare.   Negrete has also handled groundbreaking cases against HMOs in California and has represented many celebrities, corporations and politicians.

            At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam.   This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed “expert testimony” as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases as such.  Also, Barrett had said that he was a “legal expert” even though he had no formal legal training. 

            The most damning testimony before the jury, under the intense cross-examination by Negrete, was that Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single one at trial.  During the course of his examination, Barrett also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

            This was not the first time that Negrete was a trial attorney in a Barrett case.  He also represented anti-fluoridation advocate Darlene Sherrell in a federal lawsuit filed in Eugene, Oregon by Barrett.  Barrett also lost in trial of that case.   In addition, Negrete represented Dr. Frank J. King, Jr. ND, DC of King Bio Natural Medicine of North Carolina and MediaPower (manufacturers of CalMax and Nu-Zymes) of Maine in cases filed by an organization led by Barrett, which were also lost by Barrett’s organization.  Barrett has also filed a lawsuit against Negrete and his client Dr. Hulda Clark (author of The Cure for All Diseases and The Cure for All Cancers), which is now pending and awaiting trial in San Diego, California federal court. 

            After the Koren trial, Negrete stated: “The de-bunker has been de-bunked.  I am pleased and satisfied with this outcome for Dr. Koren and am proud that Dr. Koren did not succumb to the pressures of the intimidation of Barrett’s legal wrangling.  Not everyone can stand up to someone as well known as Barrett.”  

            Negrete continued, “It is another great day for health freedom and alternative healthcare around the world.  I am especially pleased that this most important victory was in Barrett’s own hometown.  It just goes to show you that there is justice anywhere, even when you are a visitor challenging the home team.  Barrett acts like a shill for the medical and pharmaceutical cartels and his bully tactics and unjustified discrediting of leading innovators, scientists and health practitioners should not be tolerated.”  

            Negrete proclaimed “You can be assured that our legal team will be wherever health freedom advocates and practitioners are being persecuted.  The tide is now turning and people are no longer accepting that synthetic drugs are the only way to address health concerns.  Every day, consumers are becoming more educated about the benefits of holistic and alternative methods.  This is something that the medical establishment obviously fears and wants to crush with false propaganda.”

            Koren said that he would now go back to his home in Pennsylvania to spend more time with his family and continue to write, research and lecture on topics concerning chiropractic and healthcare and the experiences he has gained from this precedent setting legal battle.  He plans to give new lectures to chiropractors across the country that are under attack or have been subjected to governmental actions.   He also announced that he is forming a new organization aimed at informing and assisting chiropractors across the country.

            The trial started on Monday, October 10, 2005 and ended on October 13, 2005.   Barrett was represented by local Allentown attorney, Richard Orloski.

FEDERAL JUDGE THROWS

OUT BARRETT LAWSUIT

DR. CLARK & CARLOS NEGRETE

READ FULL TEXT OF RULING

ADOBE PDF FORMAT    THUMBNAIL

    In yet another stunning victory for Health Freedom and against Stephen Barrett, a Federal Judge in San Diego, California, hands down a ruling on June 20, 2003 dismissing the libel lawsuit filed by self-described "medical expert & journalist" Stephen Barrett of the National Council Against Health Fraud.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the June 20, 2003 and sent the case back to the San Diego trial court where it is set to go to trial.   Dr. Clark and Carlos Negrete eagerly await to have their day in court and be vindicated once again.

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL HANDS DOWN

LANDMARK RULING

IN FAVOR OF HOMEOPATHY -

BARRETT DEFEATED ONCE AGAIN!

READ FULL TEXT COURT OF APPEALS RULINGS

WORD FORMAT                ADOBE PDF FORMAT

        On April 22, 2003, the California Court of Appeals handed down a far reaching landmark decision in favor of homeopathy and against the National Council Against Health Fraud (Stephen Barrett, M.D.¹ was one of the two main self-described "expert" witnesses on the side of NCAHF).

        NCAHF [which professes itself to be a "consumer watchdog" against what it calls as health "quackery"] filed a lawsuit on February 16, 2001, as a representative of California Consumers, against King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its president Dr. Frank J. King, Jr., N.D., D.C., a leading manufacturer and distributor of homeopathic products.

        The lawsuit accused Dr. King and King Bio of false and misleading advertisement and unfair competition under the California Business & Professions Code. It was the first case of this type to go all the way to trial with respect to homeopathy. In the lawsuit, Barrett and NCAHF challenged homeopathy by proceeding on the theory that there is no scientific basis for the advertised efficacy of King Bio’s products and the King Bio’s products were "drugs."    

        Dr. King has been an active contributor to the national chiropractic community since 1979. He is the Founder and President of King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a registered homeopathic manufacturing company dedicated to the research, development, promotion and education of the many benefits of homeopathy. Dr. King is also a member of the prestigious Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention of the United States (HPCUS). The HPCUS works directly with the FDA as a governing authority of homeopathy in the United States.

        For more information on King Bio and Dr. Frank King, you can refer to www.kingbio.com .

        Barrett and NCAHF are outspoken critics of homeopathic medicine calling it "worthless" and unproven. Barrett has recently launched a web site to publicly discredit homeopathy. See www.homeowatch.org . Despite Barrett’s dubious claims against homeopathy, he has no formal training or scientific expertise in the science of homeopathy.

        King Bio, like many other homeopathic and supplement companies targeted by NCAHF in similar lawsuits, refused to capitulate to any sort of settlement with Barrett and NCAHF. Instead, Dr. King decided to take the lead and defend his own integrity and that of his company by deciding to "have his day in court" and taking the case to trail.

        The trial took place on October, 2001 in Los Angeles, California. The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete and Carlos F. Negrete provided support and assistance for the trial.

        Under cross-examination of NCAHF’s witnesses at the trial, it was revealed that NCAHF had never tested any of the Dr. King products or even conducted any sort of scientific study. Something which Barrett and NCAHF have steadfastly argued should be performed by all supplement manufacturers and alternative therapists if they are to be recognized by the likes of NCAHF and Barrett.

        After NCAHF presented its case with little or no real evidence, Dr. King’s attorneys requested that the court end the case and rule in its favor. The trial court sided with Dr. King and awarded a judgment in favor of King Bio and Dr. King. NCAHF’s case was so weak and lacking of evidence that Dr. King and King Bio did not even have to present it full case in defense before the judge ruled.

        Despite the overwhelming defeat at trial, NCAHF decided to challenge the judge’s decision and filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal in California.

        During the appeal process, NCAHF’s attorney, Morse Mehrban, was joined by another purported "consumer watchdog" attorney who fights against alternative therapies and supplements, Mark Boling, on behalf of a little known organization called Consumer Justice Center ("CJC"). CJC filed a "friend of the court brief" in support of NCAHF’s appeal.

        NCAHF and CJC argued that the trial court was wrong and that existing law should be changed to allow plaintiffs, such as NCAHF, to bring lawsuits with little or no evidence against a targeted company and, thereafter, force the targeted company to defend itself on the basis of an accusation alone. The Court of appeal was not persuaded that such a change in law was appropriate or logical.

        The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete represented Dr. King and King Bio in the appeal and argued that the trial court correctly found in favor of Dr. King and King Bio and that it was not proper under California law or the United States Constitution that a plaintiff, such as NCAHF, could irresponsibly file a lawsuit without any evidence against a product and its manufacturer. Negrete argued that it would be irresponsible and against free enterprise to allow an individual to file a lawsuit without any evidence of wrongdoing with just a couple of hundred dollars in a filing fee, thereby subjecting a victim defendant to spend as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense costs. All because someone could point their finger at what they did not understand or believe in.

        In its Opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed with King and Negrete. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that NCAHF "presented no evidence that King Bio’s products were not safe and effective, relying instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio’s products, and who were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility"

        And, in an more remarkable validation, the Court of Appeals ordered that their Opinion be "published" as a precedent setting case in the official reports of the State of California. This is the first opinion of its kind as to homeopathy and the issues raised during the appeal. It will undoubtedly be discussed by many legal scholars and cited in cases to follow in the future.

        The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete congratulates Dr. Frank King, Jr. for his efforts, dedication and perseverance in defending the advancement homeopathy and alternative therapies and it is proud to have participated in yet another case defending health freedom.

______________________

1.       Stephen Barrett, even though he still uses the professional title "Dr.," surrendered his medical license in the early 1990s. He has not practiced medicine since that time. Barrett operates the web site known as www.quackwatch.com , www.homeowatch.org and www.ncahf.com .

 

        For a full text of the Opinion in Word Format or Adobe format, click below.

        WORD FORMAT                ADOBE PDF FORMAT

SHERRELL JUDGMENT HERE (pdf file)

THUMBNAILS OF JUDGMENT

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES AGAINST BARRETT

HANDS DARLENE SHERRELL A MAJOR VICTORY

ANTI-FLUORIDATION MILESTONE

HEALTH FREEDOM LEGAL DEFENSE COUNCIL

TALLY YET ANOTHER QUACKBUSTER WIN!!!

    In yet another MAJOR VICTORY for the Anti-Fluoride Movement and a setback for Stephen Barrett (self-described "expert" on "quackery"), a Federal Court Judge in Eugene, Oregon, has ruled that Barrett could not prove his case against well known anti-fluoridation advocate, Darlene Sherrell.

    Barrett file his lawsuit against Darlene Sherrell in 1999  demanding $100,000 in "damages" for alleged defamation and sought an injunction against Sherrell for posting information about Barrett on her web site ( http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride).

    Darlene Sherrell is a well known independent researcher and expert on the dangers of excessive daily intake of fluoride in human beings leading to chronic fluoride poisoning.  Barrett is a prominent national activist who advocates the "safety" of fluoridation in drinking water.  Sherrell testified that she believed that Barrett was a "virtual lobbyist" for medical doctors, drug, chemical and food companies.

    Barrett operates a website ( www.quackwatch.com ) that attacks dozens of findings by independent researchers and alternative therapists, including chiropractors, as being "quacks."   Among his attacks are challenges to the anti-fluoridation movement.

    Barrett was a medical doctor who gave up his license to practice medicine in 1991 and has not practiced medicine ever since. 

    The was Barrett's first trial for defamation.  This, even though he has managed to obtain settlements from other individuals that he has targeted in similar lawsuits. 

    The Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete and Health Freedom Legal Defense Council agreed to accept Darlene Sherrell's case in order to give a voice to the anti-fluoridation movement and defend Sherrell. 

Background:

    In the summer of 1998, Darlene Sherrell, challenged Barrett to come forward to name a study demonstrating the safety of current fluoride levels in drinking water and the effect excessive daily intake of fluoride as a possible cause to chronic fluoride poisoning.  At the time, in response to Sherrell's challenge Barrett was "careful to state that he is and was aware of hundreds of studies pertaining to the safety of fluoridation of drinking water..."  However,  "...He did not testify that any study demonstrates the safety of current fluoridation levels..."   Barrett had rebuked Sherrell's continuous challenges and sent a message to her stating that she (Sherrell) was "delusional."

    On November 5, 2002, after a trial in October, 2002, Federal Judge Michael R. Hogan ruled in favor of Sherrell and against Barrett.  He ordered the case dismissed. 

    The full ruling can be read here .

    Before the trial, Barrett's defamation case against Sherrell had been languishing in the court for years awaiting trial.  Trial was finally set for June, 2002. 

    Two weeks before trial, Sherrell engaged the Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete and the Health Freedom Legal Defense Council based upon their experience with defending cases that had been filed by Barrett previously and their commitment to health freedom and environmental issues.

    Darlene Sherrell was convinced of the correctness of her findings and public statements.  She refused to settle with Barrett and pay any money to him or even remove the information about the dangers of Fluoride poisoning on her website.  Instead, she was committed to having her "day in court" on the fluoridation issues and vigorously defend what she believes to have been bullying tactics of Barrett.

    We congratulate Darlene Sherrell for her courage, conviction and commitment to advocating information about the dangers of chronic food poisoning.

    Health Freedom Legal Defense Council and the Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete are dedicated to representing individuals and organizations that share similar beliefs in health freedom and prevention of toxic contamination.

FIGUEROA LAWSUIT AGAINST DR. HULDA CLARK

DISMISSED BY SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

        In yet  ANOTHER MAJOR VICTORY for Dr. Hulda Clark and the health freedom movement, San Francisco Superior Court Judge David A. Garcia DISMISSED a lawsuit filed on September 10, 1999 against Dr. Clark by Esther Figueroa and Jose Figueroa of New York. 

        The dismissal, which has been touted by Quackbuster and Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch web site comes as a MAJOR SETBACK and STUNNING DEFEAT to anti-health freedom forces and marks the culmination of months of Dr. Clark's defense of false charges.

        The case, which languished for months, was vigorously defended by Dr. Clark, who denied all of the charges.  Earlier this year, the same Judge sided with Dr. Clark in finding that the Figueroa case against her had no "no reasonable possibility of prevailing" and ordered the Figueroas to post a $20,000 bond if they wanted to continue the case.  The Figueroas failed to posted the court ordered bond.

        Shortly after the Figueroas were ordered to post a bond, their attorney, Christopher Grell, withdrew from the case leaving the Figueroas representing themselves in the case.  Christopher Grell thereafter filed a personal lawsuit against Dr. Clark in Oakland.  The Court in Oakland has already commented that his (Christopher Grell's) case has little merit.   Attorney Grell has recently been sued, among other things, for Racketeering by New Century Press (publisher of Dr. Clark's books).

        Once again, Dr. Clark has been vindicated.

        Dr. Clark was represented by the LAW OFFICES OF CARLOS F. NEGRETE (HEALTH FREEDOM LAW).

        Dr. Clark thanks all of the people that supported her during these past years and assures all that her vital work will continue.

JUDGE THROWS OUT LAWSUIT AGAINST ILENA ROSENTHAL

ORDERS BARRETT, POLEVOY & GRELL TO PAY HER ATTORNEY'S FEES

      In another MAJOR victory for health freedom and Free Speech, the Court in Oakland tossed out the lawsuit that Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy and attorney Christopher Grell filed against ILENA ROSENTHAL.

    This is a stunning, but not surprising, new development and defeat for the Quackbusters.   Judge Richman also ordered that Barrett, Polevoy and attorney Christopher Grell pay for ILENA ROSENTHAL's attorney's fees and costs in bringing her motion.

    In his ruling Judge Richman found that Grell had no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Rosenthal and that Barrett and Polevoy lacked prerequisite evidence.  The motion brought by Ms. Rosenthal was based on recently enacted California SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute, which seeks to prevent lawsuits that are "brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and petition for redress of grievances."   Judge Richman found that the Barrett/Polevoy/Grell lawsuit was that type of lawsuit.

    Health Freedom Law applauds Ilena Rosenthal for her courage and determination and congratulates Attorney Mark Goldowitz of the CALIFORNIA ANTI-SLAPP PROJECT for his work in this case. We thank the both of you.

    Full text of the ruling can be viewed by clicking Ilena Rosenthal Ruling on left panel or by clicking HERE.

NEW CENTURY PRESS FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST QUACKBUSTERS

Editorial Comment and Opinion by Carlos F. Negrete

    After months of being subjected to Quackbuster predatory and menacing attacks, NEW CENTURY PRESS (the company that publishes the books and materials of Dr. Hulda Clark) filed a lawsuit against Stephen Barrett, M.D., Quackwatch.com, National Council Against Health Fraud and many other self-described "Quackbusters."

    The lawsuit comes within days of the court ordered reopening of the Century Nutrition Clinic in Mexico.

    To view the lawsuit, click Barrett vs. Clark on the left column or click here (ADOBE FORMAT).  To view the lawsuit in HTML format, click here.

    This lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by New Century Press.

Mexican Federal Judge Orders Century Nutrition Clinic Reopened

    In another important development, a Mexican Federal Court in Tijuana, Mexico, has ordered the reopening of the the Century Nutrition Clinic pending a full trial on the charges imposed by  the Health Department in Mexicali, Mexico (almost 100 miles away from Tijuana).

    The Court sided with Century Nutrition's lawsuit asking that it be able to open pending a full trial on disputed charges of violations.  Since the unannounced closure of the clinic last February 16, 2001, Century Nutrition has vigorously denied any charges of impropriety and has filed two lawsuits, in Mexico, against the Health Department and its officials.

    Century Nutrition refused to pay fines to the Health Department that it maintained were unwarranted, excessive and unconstitutional.

    The Court action has been heralded as a milestone in alternative medicine law in Mexico and is the first of its kind in this court.   As with her cutting edge discoveries, Dr. Clark's legal team is providing breakthroughs in health freedom law in this country.

    The clinic will soon be fully functional providing much needed services to Dr. Clark enthusiasts and supporters. 

    Dr. Clark and her legal team deliver another victory for health freedom.

    More news to follow.... This story is developing.

Stephen Barrett, M.D. Dismisses Libel Lawsuit against Dr. Joseph Mercola, D.O.

Editorial Comment and Opinion by Carlos F. Negrete

           Longtime critic and foe of alternative medicine, Stephen Barrett, M.D.,  has asked the Court in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, to dismiss the libel lawsuit that he filed against Dr. Joseph Mercola, D.O.

        The lawsuit stemmed from allegations that Barrett was defamed by internet postings by Tim Bolen.  Barrett alleged that Dr. Mercola was responsible for defamation and "damage to reputation" because he had posted Tim Bolen's editorial and opinion comments on http://www.mercola.com . 

        Soon after the lawsuit was filed, Dr. Mercola engaged the LAW OFFICES OF CARLOS F. NEGRETE along with THE HEALTH FREEDOM LEGAL DEFENSE COUNCIL to act as his lead attorneys in the defense of the case.  Along with local Pennsylvania counsel, Dr. Mercola filed objections to Barrett's lawsuit.

        The hearing on the objections was set for June 26, 2001.   The dismissal was announced only one day prior to the Court hearing.  Barrett's counsel had submitted the request for dismissal a few days prior to the disclosure.

        To view the documents, click on Barrett vs. Mercola on left window or here.

Alternative Medicine & Health Freedom Related Legal Cases

Editorial Comment and Opinion by Carlos F. Negrete

   This web site contains several cases that are being litigated in different parts of the country relating to health freedom issues and alternative medicine.  Several of the cases reported on this site involve Dr. Hulda Clark and Century Nutrition.  However, there are other cases reported that concern lawsuits filed by Dr. Stephen Barrett and other opponents of alternative medicine. 

    Dr. Clark has taken a leading role in the crusade against those who want to challenge an individual's right to make well-reasoned intelligent choices as to whether he/she elects alternative medicine versus traditional medicine as a therapy for their wellness or ailments.  It is our opinion that each individual has the fundamental right to elect the nutrients and therapies that they have determined best meets their own personal research, investigation, beliefs, philosophies, metabolism, religious concerns and well-being.

    The cases reported in this web site involve several disputes between advocates of differing viewpoints on the traditions of alternative medicine and health choice.  You are invited to review the information and documents contained in this site and make you own determinations and conclusions.

    It is the phenomenal growth of alternative therapies that has energized a spirited discussion of the efficacy of alternative medicine.  Unfortunately, there are those traditional medicine advocates that believe that they "know better" and would like to block the growing popularity of natural healing methods.  They seem to want to ridicule alternative medicine and stop the free flow of information spreading through the internet.  These heresyphobics engage in constant tactics to discredit what they do not understand with the same reckless abandonment of a drive-by shooter.  One can only speculate as to their true motives and ask: What are they afraid of?  Is it that perhaps alternative medicine works and people ARE really being cured?

    Quite frankly, if they don't like the natural products that we decide to incorporate in our health regimen, then just leave us alone.  They can keep popping Prozac to alleviate their patronizing anguish over us and turn to radiation when their bodies succumb to cancer.  Cancers that were caused by the toxins that they deny even exist.

    These self-appointed "medical experts" fail to recognize that natural healing, and the methods used by alternative treatment advocates, has a longer and more established history than does mainstream allopathic medicine.

    I am reminded of an HMO case that went to trial several years ago.  In that case, one of the directors of the HMO testified that he followed the "golden rule" when it came to which treatments the HMO would accept and pay for.  When asked what the "golden rule" meant, he testified that "he who owns the gold RULES."   Yes, the opponents of alternative medicine are better funded and equipped to challenge the health freedom movement.  Fortunately, they may have the bucks, but our numbers are growing.  At some point, the big lie will get out and then people will start realizing who is killing whom.

    We, on the other hand, are committed to allowing the public to receive all of the information available in order to allow them to decide for themselves what is best for their bodies. 

    If the battle for health freedom must be fought in a court of law, then so be it.  The alternative therapy community is ready to stand by its knowledge and established modalities against narrow-minded medical militants. 

CLICK ON HEADERS FOR MORE DETAILS

Information Contained in this Site

    Unless otherwise stated, the information and documents contained in this site are actual court proceedings, events and/or the actual court filings or documents that are substantially similar to the originals that have been filed with the respective courts or governmental entities.

        BACK to Home Page

Disclaimer

Please read the Legal Notice & Disclaimer concerning this web page and all other pages on this web site.

Comments

    All feedback or comments are welcome.

Info@healthfreedomlaw.com

© 2001 - Law Offices of Carlos F. Negrete - All Rights Reserved