# Ready for leap - then saw it mentioned in QuackWatch!! Help please!



## ERINSTANDAGE (Dec 11, 2001)

Okay - I was just about ready to do the Leap program, when I was looking at other options for other tests and there exist none that are FDA approved. And to boot Leap is mentioned on a page of QuackWatch as tests that are not proven.I know not everything that works is approved by FDA, but is Leap providing any info to the FDA to get approved?







I was so ready to do this, and now I'm wondering. There is no test that is FDA has approved for doing food intolerances that I could find. If so many people have food intolerance tests that claim to be so great - then why aren't any approved?Don't get defensive everyone!! I'm just thinking out loud! I just don't want to throw my hard earned money away if I don't have to!!Thanks


----------



## Mike NoLomotil (Jun 6, 2000)

Hi Erins.It's no wonder you respond this way...that is the way they want people to respond hence the various lawsuits filed. Now it would be OK if what was posted was factual, or based upon a careful assessment of the disease managment program. This is not the case however.First, you must understand this persons perspective....there was once an online editorial about Dr. Barrett "What's Eating Stephen Barrett?" and the basis for his predjudices vis a vis allopathic medicine vs. integrative medicine. Apparently the link I have to that article is now a dead link. No matter. What was on that link I posted at the end of this response. http://www.alternativemedicine.com/digest/...e24/i24-1.shtml In this case it is immaterial since from his very description of the MRT assay and LEAP he never took the time to even study the technical publications nor even look at the disease managment protocols so he knew not what he was rendering an opinion about. _________________________________ "The LEAP Program, in which the Mediator Release Test (MRT) is used to identify "delayed food allergies" and treatment involves dietary manipulation and possibly supplements and/or herbs. "__________________________________ The LEAP program has nothing to do with supplements and herbs, and someone merely read some words on the website and then posted this little quip. His brief denouncement appeared within (5) days of LEAP initially appearing among the products and services announced in this community about a 18 months ago. Until then he had no awareness of the existence of the method. So someone read about it here, who knows nothing about the field of food sensitivity much less technologic aspects of assessment, and popped the info over to the staff of Q-watch who promptly denounced it without knowing what it is. Res Ipsa Loquitur. Who is the quck here?To publicly post information and make an efficacy judgement on something you do not even know what it is can best be described as foolhardy, and hardly objective. Which of course is anyones privilege. There is no objectivity requirement among practitioners, especially self-promoters. This technology and test upon which it is based is very new. It was developed in an R&D firm between 1993 and 1997 (the method of measurement used to assess white blood cell and platelet response to foreign substances) using private money. From 1997 to 1999 the LEAP treatment protocols (how to use the test results and on whom...when is testing indicated and then how to use the results of reactive foods and additives clinically to get the best outcomes) was developed by a group of doctors and dieticians in medical clinics set up in West Palm Beach and Boca Raton specifically for this purpose prior to "releasing" the method and protocols to physicians and dieticians for their clinical use. The FDA does not regulate laboratories, that is a different agency. Signet has been inspected repeatedly by the designated officials of the agencies which regulate medical laboratories and been found to be in full compliance, and is fully federally approved (CLIA regulations apply to lab procedures and diagnostic offerings&#8230;.FDA would apply if Signet were in the business of selling the machinery used to do the MRT assays, which it is not.).The best way to find out what a disease management program like this can do for IBS is to see what it has done for others under medical supervision, then decide for yeourself. Feel free to contact the patients if you like. http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...=4;t=000286;p=4 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...0286;p=3#000106 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000364 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...=4&DaysPrune=30 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000286 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000285 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...t=000331#000001 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000302 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000287 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000364 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...f=5&t=000313&p= http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...0293;p=2#000069 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000276 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=5;t=000073 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...f=5&t=000356&p= http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...t=000320#000016 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...t=000383#000010 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...f=5&t=000126&p= http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...c;f=17;t=000033 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...t=000363#000002 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...t=028290#000001 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...t=000335#000009 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...f=1&t=028290&p= http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000353 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000389 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...t=000427#000006 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000421 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...t=000427#000015 http://www.ibsgroup.org/cgi-local/ubbcgi/u...t=030178#000003 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000476 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000478 http://www.ibsgroup.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php...ic;f=4;t=000488 ___________________________What's eating Stephen Barrett?by Burton GoldbergJuly 1998Alternative Medicine DigestHe says he's using science to protect the public from expensive fad diagnoses, but if this "quackbuster" has his way, the public will have no recourse but conventional medicine for their health problems. RECENTLY, I set myself the exercise of trying to understand what motivates a self proclaimed "quackbuster" to write a book debunking an entire field of medicine. A "quackbuster," as we've come to know over the years, is someone who is dedicated to casting aspersions on alternative medicine, regardless of whether there is any factual basis. As alternative medicine continues to grow more popular - an estimated 42% of Americans now use it - the "quackbusters" are growing more clamorous in their denunciations of our field. They have to be - they're almost a minority view.Highly visible among these self appointed "quackbusters" is Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, author of numerous books, and spokesman for the "Quackwatch" community. In his latest book, Chemical Sensitivity: The Truth About Environmental Illness, coauthored with Ronald E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D (Prometheus Books, 1998), Barrett goes after all the illness categories for which diet and chemical exposure are "falsely blamed."Multiple chemical sensitivity, sick building syndrome, food related hyperactivity, mercury amalgam toxicity, candidiasis hyperactivity, Gulf War syndrome - these are all costly misbeliefs and fad diagnoses, says Barrett. "Many Americans believe that exposure to common foods and chemicals makes them ill," he says. "This book is about people who hold such beliefs but are wrong."Not only are patients wrong, Barrett says, they are "financially exploited as well as mistreated." They are duped by "farfetched" notions and "dubious claims," by headline-crazed media and "toxic television," and by "physicians who use questionable diagnostic and treatment methods."Patients presume they are being made allergic or toxic or even being poisoned by the mass of modern chemicals, cosmetics, cleaning agents, drugs, and other human-made substances. They are mistaken, says Barrett. Their misbeliefs are especially hard to understand, Barrett says, "at a time when our food supply is the world's safest and our antipollution program is the best we've ever had."Patients' symptoms are mental (psychosomatic) in origin - "they react to stress by developing multiple symptoms." Their symptoms are not caused by chemicals or dietary factors, he says. In fact, Barrett suggests that some patients are "hysterical," others are "paranoid," and the rest have "certain psychological factors" that "predispose" them to "develop symptoms" and to seek out "questionable" doctors (meaning alternative medicine practitioners) who will attach a ("not scientifically recognized") disease label to them.Regarding Gulf War syndrome, for example, Barrett declares: "It provides a feeding trough for serious scientists, since funding is abundant, and for every charlatan with a newsworthy theory." On the matter of the dangers of mercury fillings, he states: "The false diagnosis of mercury amalgam toxicity is potentially very harmful and reflects extremely poor judgment."For the most part, of the illnesses listed above, nearly all are mere "labels" rather than legitimate illness conditions, asserts Barrett; they're not caused by foods or chemicals; there are no "scientific"" studies conclusively proving the association of diet, chemicals, and illness; and we are best advised to dismiss them out of hand, he says.In most cases and for most of the illnesses commonly associated with chemical sensitivity, Barrett says the mass of mistaken patients would be better off seeking "mental help" from a psychiatrist or other "mental health practitioner." Alternative medicine physicians and especially "clinical ecologists" (the old name for practitioners of environmental medicine, which links exposures to toxic substances with health conditions) should be chastised, investigated, put on notice, and if possible, put out of business, says Barrett.Most of what Barrett claims can be refuted, easily and decisively. That's not my intention here. I'm more interested in looking at the bigger picture - what is Barrett really saying amidst his quackbusting bluster, and why?Barrett appears to be saying that the typical American patient is stupid, hysterical or paranoid, easily duped, and generally incapable of making a rational, correct medical decision on their own. The patient is mistaken and wrong in thinking their multiple symptoms have any connection to the foods they eat or the environmental chemicals to which they are exposed. The media is irresponsible and not to be trusted as an information source about medicine, especially about alternatives. Doctors who practice alternative medicine are unscientific, opportunistic frauds or quacks, peddling flawed or junk science So who can you turn to - who is not on Barrett's hit list? Conventional doctors. Barrett doesn't say this outright, but it's the only logical conclusion. His message is the old and familiar one from the l950s: the (conventional) doctor knows best.I next pondered what could be the purpose of this book. What could be the result of debunking the connection between foods, chemicals, cosmetics, and drugs with the varieties of environmental illness (mentioned above) now afflicting millions of patients. Why does Barrett (and his colleagues) so dislike alternative medicine? What's eating him that he must disparage the field at every opportunity?The purpose has to be this: to corral this mass of suffering "confused" patients into the treatment pen of conventional medicine. But here Barrett's rationale collapses. The patients end up with nothing.Surely no person suffering unexplained allergies or general toxicity wants to be told they're stupid, mistaken, and ought to have their head examined. And surely no patient who has abandoned conventional medicine (because the one or two dozen doctors they consulted hadn't a clue as to how to help them) would be interested in Barrett's thesis. It is genuinely hard to imagine how a suffering patient could actually be persuaded by Barrett to dismiss alternative approaches when the conventional ones were not useful, or even worse, were harmful.But let's say, despite these reservations, patients allowed themselves to be herded into Barrett's allopathic corral. There would be nothing there for them. Conventional medicine has no cure or treatment for these illnesses. In fact, as Barrett repeatedly points out, for the most part, conventional medicine does not even validate the existence of these illness categories and regards a diagnosis of such illnesses as bogus medicine. Of course, Barrett does offer patients "mental help."Let's look at this setup carefully. Barrett and his "quackbusting" colleagues say they are working to protect the public against health frauds. They don't want the public to waste its money on "sham" treatments that don't work. The false labels of multiple chemical sensitivity, environmental illness, and the rest, do the public a "disservice," Barrett says, and seeking treatment for these wastes the financial resources of insurance companies, employers, and other third party reimbursers.But since conventional medicine has nothing to offer patients who "believe" they are suffering physical distress from these conditions, the patients, in effect, are left on their own to suffer some more. Barrett's plan seems to be to corral these misguided patients into the conventional medicine pen so he can dissuade them of their mistaken notions regarding their illness and make them "see" that it's all psychosomatic.Clearly the patients do not benefit at all from this scenario, so who does? The makers of drugs, petrochemicals, cosmetics, synthetic food additives, pesticides, prepared foods - in short, the massive food and chemical industry of North America benefits. They are no longer held accountable as causal factors in multiple symptom illnesses. They are let off the hook. They can proceed with business as usual. There are no poisons in their products. (See the cartoon about "quackbusters" by Harley Schwadron in "The Politics of Medicine" section, this issue, p. 106.)In the paradox of "quackbusting," the quackbusters say they're protecting public health, but in fact, they're abandoning the public to their own suffering to protect the financial interests of conventional medicine, which has no interest in or ability to produce benefits for these conditions. The "quackbusters" say they're serving the public, but the truth is they're grossly disserving patients. Thanks to Barrett's remarkable chemical insensitivity, a great many patients will be left to suffer on their own without any diagnosis or treatment, except perhaps another round of Prozac on the house.Alternative Medicine Digest, July 1998 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE ONLINE


----------



## ohnometo (Sep 20, 2001)

My opinion is this Guy is a total nut !!!!







ANNOUNCEMENT!!!Ilena Rosenthal VINDICATED!!! Court throws out Quackbuster lawsuitJUDGE THROWS OUT BARRETT LAWSUIT AGAINST ILENA ROSENTHALIn yet ANOTHER major development and Quackbuster DEFEAT, Oakland Superior Court Judge James A. Richman ordered that the lawsuit filed by Quackbusters STEPHEN J. BARRETT, M.D., TERRY POLEVOY M.D. and attorney CHRISTOPHER E. GRELL be thrown out.This is a stunning, but not surprising, new development and defeat for the Quackbusters. Judge Richman also ordered that Barrett, Polevoy and attorney Christopher Grell pay for ILENA ROSENTHAL's attorney's fees and costs in bringing her motion.In his ruling Judge Richman found that Grell had no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Rosenthal and that Barrett and Polevoy lacked prerequisite evidence. The motion brought by Ms. Rosenthal was based on recently enacted California SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute, which seeks to prevent lawsuits that are "brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and petition for redress of grievances." Judge Richman found that the Barrett/Polevoy/Grell lawsuit was that type of lawsuit.Health Freedom Law applauds Ilena Rosenthal for her courage and determination and congratulates Attorney Mark Goldowitz of the CALIFORNIA ANTI_SLAPP PROJECT for his work in this case.This has been a great week for Health Freedom and a MAJOR blow to those that do not believe in free speech and an individualï¿½s right to have health choice. For FULL TEXT of ruling & more information go to http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com Quackbusters" sued for ten million dollars Email from Tim Bolen of JuriMed July 25, 2001"Doctor No" BUSTED in California.. People magazine called him "Doctor No." Time Magazine called him "The Man Who Loves To Bust Quacks." Biography Magazine says he's here "to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies." Somebody in California didn't agree with that assessment. They called him something else entirely - and they said it with legal documents. In a California Court, Monday afternoon, July 23, 2001, in a ten million dollar lawsuit, Stephen Barrett MD (www.quackwatch.com) was charged with Racketeering (RICO), Violation of Civil Rights, Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Practices, Intentional Interference With Prospective Advantage, Negligent Interference With Business Advantage, Malicious Prosecution, Abuse of Process, Negligence, and Civil Conspiracy. They also asked the judge to issue orders shutting down Barrett's activities. All, for the activities Barrett loves to descibe on his own website. The legal action claims that the Stephen Barrett, and the other parties named, have engaged in Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud, Perjury, Subornation of Perjury, Extortion, Stalking, Terrorist threats, Assault, Filing false police reports, Illegal lobbying, Illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies, Trespass, Invasion of Privacy, Web site tampering, Internet Spam, Investigation without license, Violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech, Interference with Right of Free Speech and Association.--------------------The Last Days of the Quackbusters - Revisited... Opinion by "Consumer Advocate" Tim Bolen November 3, 2001 There was a day when the "quackbusters" were a force to reckon with. But now, they've been beaten so soundly, in so many places, over so many issues, that they have no credibility left. They are, simply, nothing to fear. Their teeth have been pulled. The court case they recently lost in California, "Homeopath Smashes 'Quackpot Menace' in California," was more than just one more victory for the forces of good. It was a MILESTONE in the war against quackbuster evil. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE "HOMEOPATHIC" COURT CASE... In this current assault against health freedom by delicensed MD Stephen Barrett and his minions, the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), had posed as an injured Plaintiff using what's called California's "Private Attorney General" law. Basically, Barrett, et al, were claiming that about fifteen manufacturers of Homeopathic products in the USA were "fraudulently advertising" homeopathic products, asserting that "homeopathy has never been scientifically proven - therefore, it is fraud." This first case, the one decided on Hill Street in Los Angeles, was filed against Frank King, and King Bio Pharmaceuticals (www.kingbio.com) of Asheville, North Carolina. Barrett rushed this one to trial, I believe, thinking he could get an early victory against a small manufacturer of homeopathic products - and use that victory to bludgeon larger producers into cash settlements. It didn't work. Barrett's strategy backfired. He, in his mega-arrogance, didn't count on members of the Health Freedom Movement setting up an ambush, right there on Hill Street. Barrett, and his cronies, walked right into it. Scott Pinsky, Frank Hill's attorney in California, assembled a strong defensive case, based on the simple premise that "The NCAHF presented no evidence that the health discipline called Homeopathy was fraudulent." It worked. Pinsky, during the actual trial, also had the backing of famed California civil litigator Carlos Negrete - a serious veteran of courtroom wars. The combination crushed the NCAHF - easily. The NCAHF really didn't have a case... Barrett had based the whole NCAHF case on HIS OWN opinions, and had used his own writings as his so-called evidence. SO, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CASE, WHY DID THE NCAHF PROCEED AGAINST THE HOMEOPATHS IN THE FIRST PLACE? Good question. The answer is complex, I believe, and centers around two important factors: (1) a desire to counter the growing number of humiliating losses the "quackbusters" have been suffering, around North America, at the hands of Health Freedom activists. (2) Bad leadership. When John Renner was still alive, he held the annual meeting for the NCAHF in his home town in Missouri. All of twenty-five stalwarts showed up for the annual event. The turn-out was so pathetic, Renner had to down-size his meeting plans several times. In contrast, Health Freedom activists can put 100 activists into a coffee-shop meeting on two days notice - and can deliver, literally, thousands of people to just come and "stare" at Medical Board members during quarterly meetings - anywhere in North America. Stephen Barrett took over management of the NCAHF after Renner died - and decided to use it, I think, to bolster his own "testifying business," the one he uses www.quackwatch.com to promote. Barrett runs his business out of his basement in Allentown, PA. In order for Barrett to continue to generate business, he must make it appear to attorneys out there, that he has a good product to offer. His product, he claims, is "anti-quackery testimony" for which he demands a significant fee. But Barrett's problem, and the problem of all of the so called "quackbusters," is that in order to command those "significant fees," he (and the others) have to have a track record of "victories," an attorney can rely on. Of late, Barrett, et al, have been battered in the courtroom - with opposing attorneys simply questioning their credentials. Everybody remembers "quackbuster wanna-be" Robert S. Baratz's submission of false employment claims in the Phillips case in Florida - so he could be paid as an "expert witness." Attorneys all over North America learned a few simple lessons from the Baratz incident - if a "quackbuster" comes to testify, FIRST carefully examine their resume claims, then lead the "testifier" through cross-examination right through those "false resume claims" right into a PERJURY situation. If they want to lie in a courtroom - let them do it - then exact the penalty. But it isn't just about lying, or misrepresenting, in a courtroom. In Barrett's case, and others, attorneys are now carefully examining Barrett's personal qualifications to testify AT ALL. After all, it must be remembered that Barrett, not only couldn't become Board Certified as a Psychiatrist, but he had to give up his medical license for reasons he doesn't satisfactorily explain, in 1993. The obvious premise here is - if he couldn't make it in the SIMPLE world of "drug prescribing" how can he claim to be an expert on COMPLEX "leading edge" health disciplines? Attorneys, all over North America, have been asking just those types of questions of Barrett, et al. And Barrett doesn't have satisfactory answers - ones that would satisfy Judges and juries. Attorneys who previously counted on Barrett, et all, to make their case, have been finding out, the hard way, that Barrett can't stand and deliver. The message now is "If Barrett is your 'expert witness' you are going to lose your case." The bottom line here, is that Barrett needed, what he thought would be, a "slam dunk" to restore his previous reputation as an "expert witness who can win cases." He didn't get it. In fact, on Hill Street, he got the opposite. NOW, BARRETT'S GOT REAL PROBLEMS WITH HIS OWN PEOPLE... Barrett, and others, had touted this attack against the Homeopaths, and others in California, as the quackbuster's return to prominence in the field of Health Policy. His plan fizzled miserably. Now, I think, Barrett has credibility issues with the whole "quackbuster" membership. He simply can't deliver... Tim Bolen


----------



## ohnometo (Sep 20, 2001)

I have it here Mike !!!! What's eating Stephen Barrett?by Burton GoldbergJuly 1998Alternative Medicine DigestHe says he's using science to protect the public from expensive fad diagnoses, but if this "quackbuster" has his way, the public will have no recourse but conventional medicine for their health problems. RECENTLY, I set myself the exercise of trying to understand what motivates a selfï¿½proclaimed "quackbuster" to write a book debunking an entire field of medicine. A "quackbuster," as we've come to know over the years, is someone who is dedicated to casting aspersions on alternative medicine, regardless of whether there is any factual basis. As alternative medicine continues to grow more popular ï¿½ an estimated 42% of Americans now use it ï¿½ the "quackbusters" are growing more clamorous in their denunciations of our field. They have to be ï¿½ they're almost a minority view.Highly visible among these selfï¿½appointed "quackbusters" is Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, author of numerous books, and spokesman for the "Quackwatch" community. In his latest book, Chemical Sensitivity: The Truth About Environmental Illness, coauthored with Ronald E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D (Prometheus Books, 1998), Barrett goes after all the illness categories for which diet and chemical exposure are "falsely blamed."Multiple chemical sensitivity, sick building syndrome, foodï¿½related hyperactivity, mercury amalgam toxicity, candidiasis hyperactivity, Gulf War syndrome ï¿½ these are all costly misbeliefs and fad diagnoses, says Barrett. "Many Americans believe that exposure to common foods and chemicals makes them ill," he says. "This book is about people who hold such beliefs but are wrong."Not only are patients wrong, Barrett says, they are "financially exploited as well as mistreated." They are duped by "farï¿½fetched" notions and "dubious claims," by headline-crazed media and "toxic television," and by "physicians who use questionable diagnostic and treatment methods."Patients presume they are being made allergic or toxic or even being poisoned by the mass of modern chemicals, cosmetics, cleaning agents, drugs, and other human-made substances. They are mistaken, says Barrett. Their misbeliefs are especially hard to understand, Barrett says, "at a time when our food supply is the world's safest and our antipollution program is the best we've ever had."Patients' symptoms are mental (psychosomatic) in origin ï¿½ "they react to stress by developing multiple symptoms." Their symptoms are not caused by chemicals or dietary factors, he says. In fact, Barrett suggests that some patients are "hysterical," others are "paranoid," and the rest have "certain psychological factors" that "predispose" them to "develop symptoms" and to seek out "questionable" doctors (meaning alternative medicine practitioners) who will attach a ("not scientifically recognized") disease label to them.Regarding Gulf War syndrome, for example, Barrett declares: "It provides a feeding trough for serious scientists, since funding is abundant, and for every charlatan with a newsworthy theory." On the matter of the dangers of mercury fillings, he states: "The false diagnosis of mercuryï¿½amalgam toxicity is potentially very harmful and reflects extremely poor judgment."For the most part, of the illnesses listed above, nearly all are mere "labels" rather than legitimate illness conditions, asserts Barrett; they're not caused by foods or chemicals; there are no "scientific"" studies conclusively proving the association of diet, chemicals, and illness; and we are best advised to dismiss them out of hand, he says.In most cases and for most of the illnesses commonly associated with chemical sensitivity, Barrett says the mass of mistaken patients would be better off seeking "mental help" from a psychiatrist or other "mental health practitioner." Alternative medicine physicians and especially "clinical ecologists" (the old name for practitioners of environmental medicine, which links exposures to toxic substances with health conditions) should be chastised, investigated, put on notice, and if possible, put out of business, says Barrett.Most of what Barrett claims can be refuted, easily and decisively. That's not my intention here. I'm more interested in looking at the bigger picture ï¿½ what is Barrett really saying amidst his quackbusting bluster, and why?Barrett appears to be saying that the typical American patient is stupid, hysterical or paranoid, easily duped, and generally incapable of making a rational, correct medical decision on their own. The patient is mistaken and wrong in thinking their multiple symptoms have any connection to the foods they eat or the environmental chemicals to which they are exposed. The media is irresponsible and not to be trusted as an information source about medicine, especially about alternatives. Doctors who practice alternative medicine are unscientific, opportunistic frauds or quacks, peddling flawed or junk scienceSo who can you turn to ï¿½ who is not on Barrett's hit list? Conventional doctors. Barrett doesn't say this outright, but it's the only logical conclusion. His message is the old and familiar one from the l950s: the (conventional) doctor knows best.I next pondered what could be the purpose of this book. What could be the result of debunking the connection between foods, chemicals, cosmetics, and drugs with the varieties of environmental illness (mentioned above) now afflicting millions of patients. Why does Barrett (and his colleagues) so dislike alternative medicine? What's eating him that he must disparage the field at every opportunity?The purpose has to be this: to corral this mass of suffering "confused" patients into the treatment pen of conventional medicine. But here Barrett's rationale collapses. The patients end up with nothing.Surely no person suffering unexplained allergies or general toxicity wants to be told they're stupid, mistaken, and ought to have their head examined. And surely no patient who has abandoned conventional medicine (because the one or two dozen doctors they consulted hadn't a clue as to how to help them) would be interested in Barrett's thesis. It is genuinely hard to imagine how a suffering patient could actually be persuaded by Barrett to dismiss alternative approaches when the conventional ones were not useful, or even worse, were harmful.But let's say, despite these reservations, patients allowed themselves to be herded into Barrett's allopathic corral. There would be nothing there for them. Conventional medicine has no cure or treatment for these illnesses. In fact, as Barrett repeatedly points out, for the most part, conventional medicine does not even validate the existence of these illness categories and regards a diagnosis of such illnesses as bogus medicine. Of course, Barrett does offer patients "mental help."Let's look at this setï¿½up carefully. Barrett and his "quackbusting" colleagues say they are working to protect the public against health frauds. They don't want the public to waste its money on "sham" treatments that don't work. The false labels of multiple chemical sensitivity, environmental illness, and the rest, do the public a "disservice," Barrett says, and seeking treatment for these wastes the financial resources of insurance companies, employers, and other third party reimbursers.But since conventional medicine has nothing to offer patients who "believe" they are suffering physical distress from these conditions, the patients, in effect, are left on their own to suffer some more. Barrett's plan seems to be to corral these misguided patients into the conventional medicine pen so he can dissuade them of their mistaken notions regarding their illness and make them "see" that it's all psychosomatic.Clearly the patients do not benefit at all from this scenario, so who does? The makers of drugs, petrochemicals, cosmetics, synthetic food additives, pesticides, prepared foods ï¿½ in short, the massive food and chemical industry of North America benefits. They are no longer held accountable as causal factors in multiple symptom illnesses. They are let off the hook. They can proceed with business as usual. There are no poisons in their products. (See the cartoon about "quackbusters" by Harley Schwadron in "The Politics of Medicine" section, this issue, p. 106.)In the paradox of "quackbusting," the quackbusters say they're protecting public health, but in fact, they're abandoning the public to their own suffering to protect the financial interests of conventional medicine, which has no interest in or ability to produce benefits for these conditions. The "quackbusters" say they're serving the public, but the truth is they're grossly disserving patients. Thanks to Barrett's remarkable chemical insensitivity, a great many patients will be left to suffer on their own without any diagnosis or treatment, except perhaps another round of Prozac on the house.Reproduced with permissionAlternative Medicine Digest, July 1998


----------



## ERINSTANDAGE (Dec 11, 2001)

Thanks for the info guys. I feel a little better now; didn't realize what quackwatch was all about. I'll call Leap today and discuss what I can do.Thanks!


----------



## Mike NoLomotil (Jun 6, 2000)

ERINS:If you call the lab offices at 1-888-NOW LEAP ask for Ethan DeMitchell. he can answer any questions you have, discuss doctors and dieticisn who use the protocol, and hoe to find out whether it is appropriate for your condition or not...an evaluation which is done by an RD [not a witch doctor







]and is complimentary.If you have any unanswered questions feel free to email Ethan or myself at your convenience. So fr nearly 300 health insurance plans pay for the testing included in the program, so either we are really really elusive frauds, or all these companies case managers and utilization review people are literally medically incompetent (unlikely).MNL


----------



## KLG (Jul 8, 2002)

I think it is best to gather info. from people on here who have tried it rather than Quackwatch. You get a non-biased opinion based on personal experience and the experiences are usually astounding.I feel that if something works for numerous people there is something to it regardless of what the FDA has to say or Stephen Barrett (as long as it is safe however, and there is nothing unsafe about trying to avoid triggers...unless of course your triggers are everything but Arsenic







). I've found significant relief with diet modification and supplements. Somehow having my quality of life back is all the proof I need...makes me see some of Quackwatches articles as ugly ducklings







.Just my two sense...Kari


----------



## KLG (Jul 8, 2002)

ooops...I meant two Cents!


----------



## Mike NoLomotil (Jun 6, 2000)

Thank goodness for IBS victims that not everyone takes QW at its (unsubstantiated) word....one example of what happens when the doctors ecide to find out forthemselves with their own patients under their own supervision using LEAP protocols:90% SUCCESS RATE WITH LEAP REPORTED 12/7/02It has been reported by a large multi-disciplinary physician practice in Kansas which has just completed the first 60 days of a clinical trial of the LEAP Integrative Symptom Reduction/Disease Management Program that the success rate on patients selected based upon the LEAP selection criteria and treated in accordance with the LEAP protocols, via quality of life assessment (using the widely accepted and validated SF-36 QOL form) has been better than 90%.The practice has advised Signet Diagnostic Corporation (laboratory and R&D firm which developed LEAP and the patented MRT test used with LEAP) that commencing January 1, 2003 the LEAP Program will be adopted across the board for all their IBS patients with a diarrheic component top their symptoms (overall this represents about 70% of the population of patient diagnosed with "IBS"). The practice intends to compile the data and prepare a clinical report for publication sometime during 2003.MNL


----------



## KLG (Jul 8, 2002)

Hi Mike,I also found it a bit odd that the article about LEAP and other food sensitivity testing methods states that there is little belief in food intolerences and that the idea that people don't feel right after eating is not caused by sensitivities. But then if you go to the article about IBS on Quackwatch it talks about food intolerences. Go figure.


----------



## Mike NoLomotil (Jun 6, 2000)

yeah...especially: __________________________________Page 1051 of the hard copy of the 17th edition of the Merck Manual, and online Merck Manual at http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/section1...ter148/148b.htm "Recently Food Intolerance was found to be responsible for symptoms of some patients with the IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME, confirmed by double-blind food challenge.An increase in rectal prostaglandin levels was noted when a reaction occurred.Preliminary information suggests the same phenomenon may take place in patients with chronic ulcerative colitis." _____________________________So the Merck Manual Itself is a HOTBED OF QUACKERY!!!!!







MNLThere is an Iranian Proverb which I think applies here:" The mud you throw will surely fall on your own head."


----------



## KLG (Jul 8, 2002)

One must wonder about a site containing info. that contradicts itself. And yes, we all know how unreputable the Merck Manual is (said jokingly)


----------



## Julia37 (May 9, 2001)

> quoterogram will be adopted across the board for all their IBS patients with a diarrheic component


Mike,Could you ask them to include patients with pain or bloating predominant? I rarely had/have D, yet my symptoms were 95% from food sensitivities. I did have frequent BMs before I gave up dairy.Sunday I ate potato perogis with melted butter poured over them - took one bentyl and one gas-aid, but still got a few symptoms. Next time I'll try 2 gas-aids.


----------



## Mike NoLomotil (Jun 6, 2000)

Hey Julia...







Yeah...this is a subject area untio itself as it is a little tougher to clinically assess when trying to isolate the highest-probability of ability to benefit from the protocol from the lower probabilities while speaking in the context of so called IBS.INDEED pain and bloating may be the primary, even the only, symptoms of food intolerance. BUt many patients with pain and bloating and no diarrheic or cgronic constipation do not get diagnosed as having IBS as the doctor uses the ROME criteria, for example, which requires a specific change in bowel paterns....and/or pain relived by defecation.Som patients with food or chemical sensitivitieis have gut pain which is not rleived by defecation as the local inflammatory resposne, which has upregulated sensory nerves, takes more time to subside than that elapsed in emptying the lumen of the GI tract.Indeed some do not get an exagerrated evacuatory response.....You are correct, as in Brostoffs books and the papers from doctors on ALL the symptoms sets which can occur from food or chemical intolerance, the diarrhea is NOT required in an cases.BUT when speaking in the very specific c0ntext of talking to people who have been properly diagnosed with so called IBS, the probability of benefit is HIGHEST, thus the outcomes the best, in that population which does suffer evacuatory responses.Take a look at the symptom survey scoring methods...and you can infer that there is not a "cut score"...this is impossible...rather there are probability levels which rise the higher the overall score, and especially the higher the score in the GI subcategory when evaluating IBS victims.Does that make any sense??? Hope so....it is easier to explain while chatting than it is to epxline with few printed words. Hell what diod Brostoff take...400+ pages in one book and now 1,200 + pages in his new book...







Happy Unbloated New Year!  MNL


----------



## Julia37 (May 9, 2001)

Thanks Mike! It will be


----------



## bobby5832708 (May 30, 2000)

Happy New Year Everybody!This sounds exactly like what I would expect someone from the 'traditional medical' field to say. I've been to many doctors in my 30+ years with IBS and I've heard it all. The one thing the doctors don't do is find out which foods and substances your body reacts adversely to, all they do is tell you to 'avoid greasy foods and eliminate dairy and eat more fiber'. That is a generic response to digestive complaints but they don't actually do any testing to see what your body really reacts to. This is where the LEAP test comes in.Both my 18 year old son and myself have had the LEAP test done in the past year. The results have been phenominal. I have suffered with D-type IBS for over 30 years and can now easily identify the foods that cause my system to 'explode'. I could never have isolated the offending substances by myself (I tried many times over the years) because some of the substances I'm reactive to, like corn (corn, corn syrup, corn oil) and cane sugar (it's in everything) and sesame (on rolls), are in damn near everything I used to eat. Also, my reaction to certain foods is delayed, usually by 18 to 36 hours, after I've eaten them. This made it almost impossible to isolate the offending substance. Now that I know what I can and cannot eat life is much more enjoyable. I am constantly doing 'food experiments' and every now and then have a good 'blast' (nothing like in the past, however) but now I know exactly what causes the problem. I'm also really good now at reading and deciphering ingredient labels. Thanks Jan for the education!My son had gotten to the point where he had to drop a semester of college because he had severe D-attacks and also some pretty bad vomiting. The doctors wanted to put a camera down his throat to look around and also do gall bladder tests. I had him LEAP-tested instead. Here we are 4 months later and he is back in school full-time and working a part-time job. The vomiting has been eliminated and he very rarely has D-attacks, and when he does it's nothing like before. He knows exactly what foods affect him and, just like me, will still occasionally eat a small portion of a reactive food because .... well, just because he wants to. He then pays for it! The LEAP test gave him his life back. If we had followed the 'traditional medical' route he still would have the vomiting and severe D-attacks and who knows what they would have done to him with all of the tests and procedures they wanted to do. In the computer field we have a saying 'garbage in, garbage out'. If you put crappy fuel in your car it runs crappy. If you put bad electical power with all kinds of spikes and surges and brownouts into your television it doesn't operate properly. The same principle goes for your body, you put stuff into it that it doesn't like and it won't perform properly.Doctors have their place. They are great at finding obvious physical problems using cameras and other diagnostic equipment. They are also great at giving out drugs that mask the problem. However, I have never been to a doctor who could give me specific information on what foods to eat and what not to.... I mean specific foods, not the usual 'don't eat greasy foods, eliminate dairy, etc. etc. etc.'. This is where I had to take over and do it myself. I ran across the LEAP program and watched as others had their symptoms greatly reduced or eliminated. I made the decision to get tested and it was the best decision I've made towards improving my life. I have tried to document my progress over the past 9 months on this board. Do a search on my member number to find my previous posts if you have any doubts as to the effectiveness of the LEAP program. It worked wonders for my son and me. No wonder the 'traditional medical' people try to discredit the program, it takes away a source of income for them!


----------



## Mike NoLomotil (Jun 6, 2000)

The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy on page 1051 of the most recent addition. Direct quote:"Recently food intolerance was found to be responsible for symptoms of some patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome, conformed by double-blind food challenge. An increase in rectal prostaglandin levels was noted when a reaction occurred."The Manual goes on to note this same reaction has been found to occur in some Ulcerative Colitis victims as well.(Online: http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/section1...ter148/148b.htm )Even though food intolerance as a causal basis for IBS symptoms is confirmed sufficiently to be set forth in the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, until now NO one has been able to develop a protocol, a program, which provides the physician with the tools to determine quickly and reliably:1. WHO are the patients whose IBS symptoms come from food intolerance?2. HOW do I isolate them from those who do not suffer from this problem?3. ONCE IDENTIFIED HOW do I isolate WHICH FOODS or chemicals in their foods are precipitating their symptoms since it varies from patient to patient?4. WHAT IS the PATIENT SPECIFIC treatment plan which will AVOID this problem and REDUCE OR ELIMINATE their symptoms?5. Even IF I could do this, HOW do I monitor their progress and compliance COST EFFECTIVELY?So the dogma that it is NOT related persists as these questions cannot bne answered by most practitioners. "If I did see it myself then it does not exist."As of January 2001, such a protocol DOES now exist. All these questions CAN be answered. You CAN "take the Irritable out of IBS" for these unfortunate patients and everyone involved. The investigations noted in the Merck Manual, as well as the others noted above, combined with over 20 years of other study (primarily in Europe ) of this phenomenon and how to detect it has led to the availability of the "L.E.A.P. Program" for IBS Disease Management.This Lifestyle, EAting and Performance improvement protocol comprises a complete, integrated, multidisciplinary turnkey "Disease Management" approach to the problem. It is designed specifically for intervention at the primary care level, and allows the physician following it to achieve every one of the objectives listed above.Physicians who use the method already have many happier patients as a result. A fact is a fact regardless of who states their opinion to the contrary&#8230;the distinction between the two is self evident."The LEAP test gave him his life back" ...is not written by a shill about an imaginary son. These are real people with real results living real lives. Too bad that dogma dies such a slow death&#8230;but it will as surely as these fellas lives have been changed.MNL


----------

