Talk:Robert Barefoot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

Since this is a new article, it's probably best to be lenient with sources since we have so few.

Regardless of the quality of Quackwatch as a source, there's no reason to remove the entire sentence with it, given there are many sources provided in the Quackwatch article that might be used to verify the information. I'm restoring the sentence with a verify tag. --Ronz 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you have no reliable sources stating this information about the subject and despite that you're willing to put the info in with a verification tag? Hmm. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT vs WP:BLP

This is going to be a tricky article to write if all (or most of) the best sources are critical of Barefoot. WEIGHT will call for a critical article while there's still the need to watch BLP issues. --Ronz 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Trudeau

Trudeau is an extremely dubious source. His opinions should not be in this article at all. I'm removing "In Trudeau's book Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About, he defends Barefoot and his medical claims" because this treats Trudeau's opinion as if it has some worth which it does not. --Ronz 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

More resources

In the Government Action section here there are more references that could be used regarding his conflicts with the FDA and FTC. -- Fyslee/talk 18:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free pull refereneces that Quackwatch uses, but don't cite Quackwatch itself as it is a dubious source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For those that are interested, you can read Barefoot's response to Barrett and the Quack Watchers here. Nothing really article-space worthy here. Just a good read. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Critical resources on Robert Barefoot

• FTC and FDA Take New Actions in Fight Against Deceptive Marketing [1]

• FTC: Federal Trade Commission v. Kevin Trudeau; Shop America (USA) LLC; Robert Barefoot; and Deonna Enterprises, Inc. (Northern District of Illinois), File No. 032 3064Civil Action No. 03 C 904 [2]

• FTC: Electronic Mail Message to Internet Advertisers of Coral Calcium Products: Notice of Potential Illegal Marketing of Products to Treat or Cure Cancer and/or Other Diseases: Immediate Action Required [3]

• FTC: Marketers of Coral Calcium Product Are Prohibited from Making Disease Treatment and Cure Claims in Advertising [4]

---

• Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff v. Kevin Trudeau, Shop America (USA) LLC, Shop America Marketing Group, LLC, Trustar Global Media, Limited, Robert Barefoot, Deonna Enterprises, Inc., and Karbo Enterprises, Inc., Defendants, and K.T. Corporation, Limited, and Trucom, LLC, Relief Defendants.,

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division And Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff v. Kevin Trudeau, Defendant., United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division Civ. No. 98-C-0168 File No. 032 3064 Civil Action No. 03 C3904 http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0323064.shtm

September 7 , 2004

 a.. Stipulated Final Order for Permanent Injunction and Settlement of Claims for Monetary Relief as to Defendants Kevin Trudeau, Shop America (USA), LLC, Shop America Marketing Group, LLC, Trustar Global Media, Limited and Relief Defendants K.T. Corporation, Limited, and Trucom, LLC 
 b.. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0323064/040907stip0323064.pdf
 c.. News Release
 d..  http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/09/trudeaucoral.shtm

July 8, 2004

 a.. Contempt Order 
 b.. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0323064/040629contempt0323064.pdf

January 22, 2004

 a.. Stipulated Final Order for Permanent Injunction and Settlement of Claims for Monetary Relief as to Defendants Robert Barefoot, Deonna Enterprises, Inc. and Karbo Enterprises, Inc.
 b..  http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/01/040122barefootstipfinalord.pdf
 c.. News Release
 d..  http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/01/barefoot.shtm

November 7, 2003

 a.. Amended Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief [PDF 29K] 
 b.. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/11/coralcalciumamendcmp.pdf
 c.. Exhibit A (Videotape) 
 d.. Exhibit B [PDF49K] 
 e.. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/06/coralcalciumexhb.pdf
 f.. Exhibit C 
 g.. News Release 
 h.. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/11/fyi0364.shtm

June 10, 2003

 a.. Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief [PDF 29K] 
 b.. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/06/coralcalciumcmp.pdf
 c.. Exhibit A (Videotape) 
 d.. Exhibit B (Transcript of Exhibit A Videotape)[PDF49K] 
 e.. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/06/coralcalciumexhb.pdf
 f.. Exhibit C [PDF xxxK] 
 g.. News Release 
 h.. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/06/trudeau.shtm

---

• Search of FTC site: lots(!) of hits [5]

• Testimony Given at a Full Committee Hearing: Dietary Supplements

Tuesday, October 28 2003 - 9:30 AM - SR- 253

The Testimony of Mr. Howard Beales, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission [6]

• CONSUMERLAB.COM FINDS LEAD IN CORAL CALCIUM PRODUCT; PRODUCT ALSO CHARGED WITH FALSE ADVERTISING BY FTC - Calcium Supplement Product Review [7]

• Council for Responsible Nutrition letter to FDA and FTC [8]

• Scathing and well-researched article: Many Experts Don't Swallow Extraordinary Claims for Calcium Supplements Derived From Sea Coral. By Judy Packer-Tursman. Special to The Washington Post. Tuesday, May 20, 2003; Page HE01 [9]

• Article from ABC News about misleading claims made by Robert Barefoot and Kevin Trudeau: "False Hope? Experts Doubt Coral Calcium Infomercial Health Claims" [10]

• Consumer Affairs: "Coral Calcium" Claims Debunked [11]

• Coral Calcium: Is It Better Than Other Calcium Supplements. Yadhu N. Singh, PhD, Professor of Pharmacology [12]

• Iowa State University: Coral calcium [13]

• NPR : Suit Targets Claims Made in Dietary Supplement Ads [14]

• Bill Sardi (on his blog) is scathing in his multiple references to Barefoot: [15]

• Andrew Weil: "Counting on Coral Calcium?" [16]

-- Fyslee/talk 22:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is great research. I think we need to first discuss Barefoot's claims and products in full and then use much of this for the criticism section as counterpoints to his claims and products. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It wouldn't make as much sense to criticize something, without knowing what it was in the first place. The context needs to be established. -- Fyslee/talk 22:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy?

There is certainly controversy surrounding the subject, but is getting denied expert witness status at one trial really controversial? It's noit a criticism either. It's just biographical info. Right? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of a negative nature, and I'm sure Barefoot wouldn't list it in his biography. It would only be presented by his critics. -- Fyslee/talk 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this precedented by any policy on Wikipedia? Characterizing this as controversial or as a criticism seems borderline WP:OR because we (the editors) are making a judgement call about the info. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you're talking. Why is this important, and what weight do we give it? I'm marking it with POVassertion. We've no secondary source to determine it's importance. I'm afraid it could be seen as a side-handed attack on Barefoot's credibility. --Ronz 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see controversy and controversial as being totally identical, but I agree it's a bit fuzzy. The words are obviously related....;-) I know when Barrett's status as a witness in one single trial about one single limited subject has been discussed, it has been presented as a very strong criticism of him applied to every aspect of his life and work. I'm not that hung up on this one. If you think it's simply biographical, then restore the dividing line, but there needs to be more background about his claims, as discussed above. -- Fyslee/talk 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

With Barrett, the information was presented by a critic as criticism. Entirely different. I am in favor of including this info, but as a biograhical fact for the time being - until we have a more appropriate section for this - maybe a litigation section? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! -- Fyslee/talk 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)