Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
I know. I know.
I’d be the perfect person to go look at Stephen Barrett‘s Tax Returns with Doctor’s Data’s attorneys in the Doctor’s Data v Barrett, Federal Court case. But, I just can’t do it.
It’s not because I’m busy, and I am. It’s because once I had any active role in the case Barrett’s attorneys would use that to try and silence me writing further articles about the situation. They’d simply claim that anything I wrote in the future was related to Barrett’s Tax Returns, blah, blah, blah… And, the judge has ordered that, so far, the information the attorneys find in those Tax Returns from the year 2000 through the present, must stay within the court, and not be publicly revealed.
True – I’d be champing at the bit to reveal what I found in a meeting like that.
Below is the excerpt from the Discovery Demand that is causing all the contention. I’m guessing that Barrett is laying on the floor kicking his feet, enraged at the idea that he “the Czar/God of US health care,” would have to submit to such a thing.
According to the court documents (feel free to laugh here), Barrett insisted that “the inspection would occur in a secure, monitored, room with only counsel present, with no client permitted, with no retained expert permitted, and with no copying permitted.”
It’s the IRS 1099s I’d look at first. As Turbo Tax says “If you are an independent contractor or self-employed you will receive a Form 1099-MISC from each client that pays you at least $600 during the tax year.” Why? Because, knowing what I know about Barrett’s operation and relationships already, I’d be able to make the connections, quickly, that Doctor’s Data would be looking for.
For instance, if there was a 1099 showing a $200,000 payment to Barrett from an organization called the “Homosexual Agenda” we’d know, immediately, that Barrett was taking marching orders from the “skeptics.”
Or, perhaps, there might be a 1099 showing a $250,000 payment to Barrett from the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) indicating the same “skeptics.”
Then too, it wouldn’t surprise me to find a $750,000 payment to Barrett from the Center For Inquiry (CFI) the group who is openly, and actively, trying to destroy the science, and profession, of homeopathy. Again, the “skeptics.”
Take these three groups above together and you have a large part of the mechanism to control health care information on Wikipedia and the search engines. At some point, of course, the question has to be asked “who is funding THESE groups?”
The broader picture…
Once I sifted through the obvious I’d start looking at date ranges, trying to match up 1099s with specific Barrett targets – like the period from 1999 through 2006, when Stephen Barrett, et al, were targeting Author/Humanitarian Hulda Regehr Clark PhD.
Or, the longer period when Barrett, bobbie baratz, and California attorney David Wilzig targeted the Biological Dentists. Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out someone was funding that attack against those Dentists?
Or, during the time in California when Barrett, bobbie baratz, and the now defunct NCAHF (a Defendant in this case) got the crap beat out of them in the NCAHF v King Bio case – and then in the NCAHF v. Botanical laboratories, et al case. Who might have funded that, we should ask?
Why? I would be interested in showing a “Consistent Pattern.” And, of course, I’d want to show other Barrett victims WHO was actually gunning for them, checkbook in hand.
The bottom line…
Yup, my being there would be a monstrous disaster for Stephen Barrett et al. But, I could not, and would not, work under any constraints that stop me from revealing scandalous information. Not today. Not tomorrow.
What if I found, for instance, that a vaccine promoter was funding Barrett? What could we do with that information?
Or, what if we found that Barrett was being funded by the CDC? Or the FDA?
To me there is no question that more is happening here than Barrett, and his paymasters, want to show.
But, I just can’t do it. I can’t be there.
Stay tuned. And smile.
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate