An Interesting Barrett Side Note…  The T. R. Shantha, MD, PhD, FACA  case…

Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen 

There is no question that the attorneys for Doctor’s Data in the Doctor’s Data v Barrett Federal Court case are shredding Stephen Barrett, and the Board Members of both The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF),  and Quackwatch Inc.  As well they should.

Many people send me personal emails about my articles, and most are right on point.  Once in a while, like recently, a gem of information comes out – something that, as in this case, was right there in front of us all this time.  And it is important that we take a look at it.

  1. R. Shantha, MD, from Stone Mountain, Georgia pointed out something VERY interesting – the simple fact that what Barrett did to Doctor’s Data was NOT an isolated incident.  It is part and parcel of a pattern used against a whole class of practitioners.  And it is flat out “malice” against that class.  And, it should be dealt with as “malice.”

“Malice – A desire to harm others or to see others suffer: despitefulness, ill will, malevolence, maliciousness, malignancy, malignity, meanness, nastiness, poisonousness, spite, spitefulness venomousness, viciousness,  See attitude/good attitude/bad attitude/neutral attitude.”

“Malice, to most people, is a nasty feeling of wanting to hurt another person.  What many people do not know is that if malicious action is taken against one party, the other party has the civil right to bring a lawsuit.  This is called legal malice, or one party’s intent to cause harm to another party.  What is important to note here is that malice is the intention of causing harm.  Criminal offenses of causing actual harm to another party is separate from legal malice.  It is important, also, to determine whether the malice is expressed or implied.  In expressed malice, one party gives an outward indication of the intention to cause harm to another party.  This may include an oral statement or printed statement.  Implied then, is the implied intention of harm in a killing or harming of another party. “

The point that T. R. Shantha MD makes is that Stephen Barrett DELIGHTS in writing and posting accusations against cutting-edge practitioners.  But, when the case is over, as in Shantha’s situation, and the original charges are Dismissed,  Barrett WILL NOT get rid of the article, change the article, or do a follow-up.  He leaves it there, pushed to the top of Google by his “skeptics” for all to read – so as to cause as much damage to the practitioners as possible.

And that is called “malice.”

Determining Damages…

There is no doubt that Doctor’s Data is going to be able to prove damages to their business.  Barrett and the individual board members of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) and Quackwatch, Inc have to be getting prepared for that.  They are looking at probably twenty million right there, they are going to have to cough up.

But it’s the “punitive damages” that will have real impact.  To my way of thinking, if Doctor’s Data can show “malice” by pointing out that “Barrett does this all of the time…”  that just might get the “punitive damages” up around two or three hundred million dollars – and that, of course, would be the end of Barrett and Quackwatch.  No more websites.

Wouldn’t that be nice.

What Barrett did to Shantha…

  1. R. Shantha MD was charged by a Federal Grand Jury, in December of 2005, with eighty-seven (87) counts including “Health Care Fraud,” “Introduction of an unapproved drug into interstate commerce,” and Money Laundering.”

The counts were so absurd that eighty-six (86) of them were almost immediately dismissed.  The final count left, one about improper billing of an insurance company, the Federal Judge in the case said :

“The circumstances under which the crime arose, I do think that, obviously, the defendant was looking for a way to charge. I’ve been to enough doctors and I’m old enough that I’ve had enough ailments that I know doctors struggle with billing. I know that they – I’ve had doctors say to me, “I think we can get this through under this code.  I think it fits, but the insurance company may reject it, and if so, we may have to bill you.” 

Within just a few months everything was settled.  Shantha had to pay about $650,000 to the insurance companies – and the Judge fined him $100.But Barrett, and his coterie of angry homosexual “skeptics“, intentionally will not show the end result.  Why?  Shantha is an Alt Med practitioner.  And, most likely, Barrett probably saw what else the Judge had to say about Shantha:

“…. and I trust that your character is such that “You will do great things with it, that you will continue to produce, that you will continue to be productive,  You will continue to use the great mind that you have hopefully to do  things for the good of the people – and I see no reason to stop that.”

Barrett, we all know, is a failed MD.  Someone like Shantha, Barrett would hate instantly.

Shantha wrote to Barrett…

October 9, 2012

Dr. Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Chatham Crossing, Suite 107/208

11312 U.S. 15 501 North

Chapel Hill, NC 27517


Dr. Barrett,

Re: Casewatch – T.R. Shanta M.D., Prosecuted for Fraud

It is only fair and just that you report the conclusion of the case against me. Please note the misspelling of my name in your heading – perhaps that can be corrected at the same time.

I have enclosed both the findings of the court, and the judge’s commentary on the case for you to post on your website. If you list the charges in the case, you must also report the outcome. I was cleared of all but one of the charges.

If you do not post the outcome as I have enclosed (and I am also sending an email so you can easily access the pdf file) then you must take the charges off your website. To leave the charges and not list the conclusion could be seen as an act of defamation. I see from your recent experiences in court that you are familiar with that charge.

My lawyer, Cohen, is receiving a copy of this letter, and will be happy to follow up with any necessary proceedings.


Dr. T.R. Shantha, M.D. Ph.D. F.A.C.A.

Barrett, of course, ignored Shantha.   And, to me, that’s “malice.”

Stay tuned…

Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate