Re: Occ-Med List-Serv (ACOEM) & Quackwatch spreading misinfo of Dr. Rea

[Guest guest]

Mon, September 13, 2010 12:06:00 PMRe: [occ-env-med-l] FW: Consumer Health

Digest #10-36, September 9, 2010

From: " Albert Donnay, MHS " <adonnay@...>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Barrett calls his website Quackwatch.com but he is quite a

quack himself, as documented in numerous lawsuits filed and won

against him. He also has filed over 30 defamation suits against

others but has not won any of them. Before you give any credence to

anything Barrett has written, I urge to read some of what the judges

in these cases have said about him, his writings, and his testimony.

For a review of the man, his mission and his misdeeds, see

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

--Albert Donnay, MHS

adonnay@...

www.mcsrr.org

P.S. I should disclose that I had the great pleasure of debating with

Dr. Grace Ziem against Dr. Barrett and Dr. Gots (for

three hours!) at the 1998 annual meeting of the American College of

Toxicology on the subject of multiple chemical sensitivity. No

lawsuits were filed, but a videotape of the event is available.

Please email me privately if you'd like to order a copy.

>

>

> Let's see if Barrett corrects his Quackwatch website.

>

> In a message dated 9/13/2010 9:25:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> SNK1955@... writes:

>

> Dear , (Greenberg - moderator of the UNC list-serv for occupational

> physicians)

>

> As you have posted information regarding Dr. Rea from the perspective of

> Barrett, it would be my hope that you post the rest of the

> information. What is currently on your board gives the misrepresentation that

Dr.

> Rea has been deemed a quack who is harmful to patients, by a state medical

> board. This is not the case nor is it the easily substantiated facts of the

> case.

> Info below is taken from the Canary Report: _Texas Medical Board sanctions

> Dr. Rea | The Canary Report_

> (http://www.thecanaryreport.org/2010/09/07/texas/)

> " The report quotes Leigh Hopper, spokeswoman for the Texas Medical Board,

> who says, 'It is definitely a unique order. We struck a balance between

> making sure patients have access to alternative medicine and making sure

it’s

> safe.' Personally, I don’t have too much problem with that given what the

> board could have done if it wanted to, which was completely reject Dr.

Rea’s

> defense arguments and shut him down once and for all. Now people with

> Multiple Chemical Sensitivity still have the option of Dr. Rea’s clinic and

> treatment if they want access to it. "

> The following is an incorrect statement from 's website:

> " Rea, who operates the Environmental Health Center in Dallas, Texas, is

> best known for his promotion of the concept of multiple chemical sensitivity

> (MCS), a diagnosis not recognized as valid by the scientific community. "

> does not have the ability or the authority to speak for the entire

> " scientific community " . As has sued others (and lost) for what

> others have had on their website regarding him - See Barrett vs. Rosenthal -

I

> am of the opinion the above needs to be corrected on his website as he

> obviously knows the impact of misleading info on websites.

> Thank you for assuring information spread throughout the medical community

> via your list-serv is fair,accurate and balanced when it comes to

> treatment protocols for environmental illnesses, God knows, this matter is

already

> confusing and contentious enough. Regardless of one's understanding of

> environmental science, we don't need to add fuel to the fire by presenting

> incomplete and misleading statements on the Internet.

> Sharon Kramer

>

>

[Guest guest]

WOW, I bet that would be quite the vediotape to watch.

probably not good for the stress level.

> >

> >

> > Let's see if Barrett corrects his Quackwatch website.

> >

> > In a message dated 9/13/2010 9:25:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> > SNK1955@ writes:

> >

> > Dear , (Greenberg - moderator of the UNC list-serv for occupational

> > physicians)

> >

> > As you have posted information regarding Dr. Rea from the perspective of

> > Barrett, it would be my hope that you post the rest of the

> > information. What is currently on your board gives the misrepresentation

that Dr.

> > Rea has been deemed a quack who is harmful to patients, by a state medical

> > board. This is not the case nor is it the easily substantiated facts of

the

> > case.

> > Info below is taken from the Canary Report: _Texas Medical Board sanctions

> > Dr. Rea | The Canary Report_

> > (http://www.thecanaryreport.org/2010/09/07/texas/)

> > " The report quotes Leigh Hopper, spokeswoman for the Texas Medical Board,

> > who says, 'It is definitely a unique order. We struck a balance between

> > making sure patients have access to alternative medicine and making sure

it’s

> > safe.' Personally, I don’t have too much problem with that given what the

> > board could have done if it wanted to, which was completely reject Dr.

Rea’s

> > defense arguments and shut him down once and for all. Now people with

> > Multiple Chemical Sensitivity still have the option of Dr. Rea’s clinic

and

> > treatment if they want access to it. "

> > The following is an incorrect statement from 's website:

> > " Rea, who operates the Environmental Health Center in Dallas, Texas, is

> > best known for his promotion of the concept of multiple chemical sensitivity

> > (MCS), a diagnosis not recognized as valid by the scientific community. "

> > does not have the ability or the authority to speak for the entire

> > " scientific community " . As has sued others (and lost) for what

> > others have had on their website regarding him - See Barrett vs. Rosenthal

- I

> > am of the opinion the above needs to be corrected on his website as he

> > obviously knows the impact of misleading info on websites.

> > Thank you for assuring information spread throughout the medical community

> > via your list-serv is fair,accurate and balanced when it comes to

> > treatment protocols for environmental illnesses, God knows, this matter is

already

> > confusing and contentious enough. Regardless of one's understanding of

> > environmental science, we don't need to add fuel to the fire by presenting

> > incomplete and misleading statements on the Internet.

> > Sharon Kramer

> >

> >

>