Opinion of Jane Jones, NWPA:
Many, many CONGRATULATIONS to Darlene Sherrell for standing up to Dr Stephen Barrett, of "Quackbusters", whose defamatory attacks are legendary. Barrett has brought (and lost) a number of charges against campaigners and alternative practitioners - notably against Dr Hulda Clark.
This self-styled "Quackbuster" (a retired psychiatrist) is a close chum of Dr Michael Easley, director of the so-called "National Center for Fluoride Policy and Research" in the US. (Remember him? He's the one who told listeners to BBC Radio Solent that "Fluoride is a nutrient.").
It's really hard to defame people like that!
Go to: http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/decision.htm for more on Darlene's case. But here are some excerpts:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CV 99-813-HO
. STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D., Plaintiff, vs. DARLENE SHERRELL, PHILIP HEGGEN, Defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
. (EXCERPTS)
. "... defendant testified that plaintiff cannot name a study demonstrating the safety of current fluoridation levels, because there is no scientific method capable of detecting chronic fluoride poisoning in the full spectrum. Defendant stated that she considers any claim by plaintiff to the contrary to constitute "bogus consumer advocacy" and "the big lie," and that plaintiff has abandoned the public in making such a claim."
. "With respect to defendant’s statement that he cannot name a study demonstrating the safety of current fluoridation levels, plaintiff testified that this statement is false. At the same time, however, he was careful to state that he is and was aware of hundreds of studies pertaining to the safety of fluoridation of drinking water. He did not testify that any study demonstrates the safety of current fluoridation levels."
. "In sum, the evidence adduced at trial establishes that plaintiff is a public figure and the defamatory statements involve a matter of public concern, and that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to prove actual malice, and/or actual injury. ... For the reasons stated above, this action is dismissed. Plaintiff’s defamation claim is dismissed."