... but keep defending Barrett, anyway, Corinthian. His dedication to his noble, selfless cause to protect us all from our own foolish desires not to make the choices that the pharmaceutical industry wants us to make is certainly worthy of a knighthood or a sainthood or something -- in spite of the fact that it's essentially proven from this single trial that his character is unsavory, to put it mildly.
It isn't just in Barrett v. Clark (Rosenthal) that Barrett shows his true colors. In fact, Barrett hates it when people point out the truth about him and has brought suit over forty times for defamation cases, cases wherein Barrett has attempted to violate the rights of his victims to free speech (because the free speech was about Barrett, of course).
Barrett hasn't won a single one of these cases, by the way, but the purpose of the cases was to harass the people in question. Winning would have been nice, I suppose, but the simple fact that he's gone to court over basically the same issue more than forty times and lost every single one shows that either the man has a learning disability or he isn't there to win but merely to harass his critics.
Where have I heard that before? Harassing critics with frivilous lawsuits... who does that remind me of?... hmmm...
As for Barrett's credentials, Barrett admitted in Barrett v. Koren that he failed the certification exam to become a board certified psychiatrist -- yet he has provided so-called expert testimony as a psychiatrist in court cases! Talk about practicing medicine without a license! Barrett couldn't pass the exam to become a psychiatrist, yet he pretends to be one! Not only that, he also fancies himself an expert in all things health related, psychiatric or otherwise!
Anything you'd care to add, Corinithian? Will you hold your hero Barrett to the same standard you hold Clark to, or will you again look the other way for "your side"?