BARRETT / NCAHF LOSE ALL APPEALS TO HOMEOPATHS ... Barrett called "biased and unworthy of credibility"
Note from Ilena Rosenthal: Barrett's team of terrorists are working
overtime to fill Usenet with lies about targets of the quackbuster
This is extremely relevant to their means of doing business ... they
file lawsuits and then hire themselves as "experts" and pay themselves
big $$$$ ... luckily all Judges saw through them.
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL HANDS DOWN LANDMARK RULING
IN FAVOR OF HOMEOPATHY - BARRETT DEFEATED ONCE AGAIN!
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 [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
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
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
(NCAHF is a defunct corporation, suspended by the State of