Stephen Joel Barrett (/ˈbærɪt/; born 1933) is an American retiredpsychiatrist, author, and consumer advocate best known for his work combattinghealth fraud and promotingevidence-based medicine. He foundedQuackwatch, a network of websites that critiques unproven or questionable medical practices, and co-founded theNational Council Against Health Fraud. A longtime critic ofpseudoscience andalternative medicine, Barrett has written extensively on medical misinformation and served as an advisor to several scientific and health advocacy organizations. His work has earned him both praise from scientific communities and criticism from proponents of alternative health practices.
Quackwatch received the award of Best Physician-Authored Site by MD NetGuide, May 2003.[13] In 1984, he received anFDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery.[14] He was included in the list of outstanding skeptics of the 20th century bySkeptical Inquirer magazine.[15] In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in theAmerican Dietetic Association.[14] Barrett has been profiled inBiography Magazine (1998)[16] and inTime (2001).[17]
The magazineSpiked included Barrett in a survey of 134 persons[18] they termed "key thinkers in science, technology and medicine."[19][20]
In 1996, Barrett launched Quackwatch, a website aimed at investigating health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconceptions.[21] Initially operated under thenonprofit Quackwatch, Inc., the organization was dissolved in 2008.[22] In 2020, the website became part of theCenter for Inquiry, which now maintains its content.[23]
Barrett definesquackery as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health,"[24] reserving the term "fraud" for instances involving deliberate deception.[25] The site includes contributions from scientific, technical, and lay volunteers, with numerous references to published research articles.[26]
Barrett has been a vocal critic ofalternative medicine practices, includingchiropractic,homeopathy, andacupuncture. He has stated that he does not aim to provide balanced coverage on these topics, asserting that "quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects."[27] This stance has led to criticism from proponents of alternative medicine, who argue that his approach lacks objectivity.[28][29]
Despite the criticism, Quackwatch has been cited by various media outlets,[30][31][32][33][34] academic journals,[35][36][37][38][39][40] and professional organizations as a resource for information on questionable health practices. However, some authors have described the site as overly biased in its presentation.[41][42][43]
In 1985, Barrett was the author of the "Commercial hair analysis. Science or scam?" article in theJournal of the American Medical Association that exposed commercial laboratories performing multimineralhair analysis. He commented that in his opinion, "commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal."[44] His report has been cited in later articles, including one which concluded that such testing was "unreliable."[45]
Dubious Cancer Treatment, Barrett SJ & Cassileth BR, editors (2001). Florida Division of theAmerican Cancer Society
Chemical Sensitivity: The Truth About Environmental Illness (Consumer Health Library), Barrett, SJ & Gots, Ronald E. (1998). Prometheus Books.ISBN9781573921954
The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America, Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT, eds. (1993). Prometheus Books,ISBN0-87975-855-4
Health Schemes, Scams, and Frauds, Barrett SJ (1991). Consumer Reports Books,ISBN0-89043-330-5
The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry Is Selling America a Bill of Goods, Barrett SJ, Herbert V (1991). Prometheus Books,ISBN0-87975-909-7
^Hufford, David J. (2003). "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists".The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.31 (2):198–212.doi:10.1111/j.1748-720x.2003.tb00081.x.PMID12964264.S2CID29859505.. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. SeeSchneiderman, Lawrence J. (2003). "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life".The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.31 (2):191–198.doi:10.1111/j.1748-720x.2003.tb00080.x.PMID12964263.S2CID43786245.
^Arabella Dymoke (2004).The Good Web Guide. The Good Web Guide Ltd. p. 35.ISBN978-1-903282-46-5.Quackwatch is without doubt an important and useful information resource and injects a healthy dose of scepticism into reviewing popular health information. Its aim is to investigate questionable claims made in some sectors of what is now a multi-million pound healthcare industry.
^"Diet Channel Award Review Of Quackwatch". RetrievedSeptember 18, 2007.Quackwatch is a very informative site which informs you about health fraud and gives you advice on many decisions.
^Cunningham, Eleese; Marcason, Wendy (2001). "Internet hoaxes: How to spot them and how to debunk them".Journal of the American Dietetic Association.101 (4): 460.doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(01)00117-1.
^Vankevitch, Ned (2002)."Limiting Pluralism". In Ernst, Waltraud (ed.).Plural medicine, tradition and modernity, 1800-2000. New York: Routledge. pp. 219–244.ISBN978-0-415-23122-0.
.png)
