THE QUACKWATCH SCAM For several years our organization has ignored the antics of Dr. Stephen Barrett, MD, and his Internet-based Quackwatch site. On the positive side, we would like to thank Dr. Barrett, through Quackwatch, for the thousands of suffering individuals he has directed to our Institute for healing using Quantum Health Management®, the new science for stopping cancer and degenerative diseases. Today's educated Americans recognize witch hunts when they see them. Fortunately, the day of never questioning your doctor has ended as Americans realize the fourth leading cause of death in the United States is their medical system. We wish Dr. Barrett success with HIS medical system in the present health struggles he is experiencing. Meanwhile, we are aware of Dr. Barrett's connection with big business (in spite of his denials) that holds special interests in American healthcare profits. When bio-scientist and researcher Robert Dowling began to find answers without the benefit of millions of research dollars and big-business obligations, the witch hunt began. His South Carolina office was raided and his research and equipment were seized. He was never charged with any wrong-doing. Later he earned the distinct honor of being listed on Quackwatch, along with many cutting-edge scientists and medical professionals. For the first time, Dowling publicly responded to Quackwatch's false and misleading allegations in a tell-all 350-page book (45 chapters), written by a veteran North Carolina radio broadcaster and newspaper publisher. In the book, you will not only find the truth about this deception, but also how South Carolina later honored Dowling through special legislation (H. 3565). The book, Am I dead? ... or do I just feel like it. Cancer cured ... the coming storm, is available for $24.95 plus $6.00 shipping and handling (USA) by calling 1-888-9 HEAL ME (1-888-943-2563). Shipping and handling to Canada is $11.00. This is Chapter 34 in its entirety, and it's free for the world to see! Chapter 34 “The Irish Connection” In June 2000, at the request of the government of Northern Ireland, the U.S. Department of Commerce arranged a trip to Belfast for Robert Dowling to discuss his scientific findings on cancer.  Dowling was on to something that would produce a dramatic discovery in less than five years. It took less than two years after his invitation to Ireland, however, for the researcher to be labeled a quack. “Word travels fast when a little-known researcher begins to find answers,” says the bio-scientist.   Shortly after his return to America, the South Carolina office of the North Carolina Institute of Technology, located in Columbia, Dowling’s home town, was raided and equipment was destroyed by armed South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) officers, basically a SWAT team. The raid was carried out at the behest of the South Carolina Medical Board. Dowling has long held that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had some involvement in the search-and-destroy mission, which the researcher contends was conducted solely for the purpose of harassment and to stop his research.   No charges were ever brought against Dowling, but he did make front-page news in The State, the daily newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina, and one of the largest in the state. Northern Ireland has a major FDA drug-testing facility. Dowling says it was the introduction into Ireland of a non-drug approach to curing cancer that could have become an issue with the FDA as well as the drug companies and lobbyists that have so much control over this seemingly government organization. Within a year after the South Carolina raid, and nearly two years after his trip to Ireland, Robert Dowling and the North Carolina Institute of Technology were listed on Quackwatch, an Internet website operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., who is no longer a practicing physician. The former psychiatrist says his Pennsylvania license was “inactivated” in 1993, by his choice, so he could “devote my full energy to investigating and writing about quackery.” The purpose of Quackwatch, says Barrett, “is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct.” Barrett operates nearly 20 other websites and is especially critical of chiropractic medicine. On multiple occasions, Barrett has sued his critics, and has been sued by them. Barrett, who posted this information on the Internet, says Quackwatch, Inc. has no salaried employees and operates with a minimal expense. “The total cost of operating Quackwatch’s many web sites is approximately $7,000 per year,” he says. Barrett’s critics claim he’s funded by, and is a puppet for, the American Medical Association (AMA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Barrett’s emphatic denial of these allegations is also posted on his website. Here’s what he says: “Many people wonder whether Quackwatch is a ‘front’ for the American Medical Association, the pharmaceutical industry, the ‘medical establishment,’ or whomever else they might not like. Nearly every week I get emails accusing me of this -- and worse. Quite frankly, the idea is preposterous.” Barrett goes on to categorically deny: “Neither Quackwatch nor I have any financial ties to any commercial or industrial organization.” There’s no shortage of people who have been branded as quacks by Quackwatch, including Bob Dowling. Barrett’s site would have you believe that Dowling is a huckster who simply cons people with cancer, preying on victims who are searching for one last grasp at survival. Even as Barrett and Quackwatch were maligning Bob Dowling, the researcher’s Institute was producing a video presentation called Take Control, featuring personal testimonies of men and women who were winning the battle against cancer in 2002, thanks to a process known as Biological Terrain Management® (BTM), a science that’s a combination of cell optimization and bio-physics. Given the fact that eight of 10 patients recovered from the “hopeless” diagnosis given to them by their medical doctors, the huckster implication is totally false. Of course, Quackwatch says nothing about Dowling’s massive research project. One really should not expect to read information about the Institute’s discoveries, made between 2003 and 2006, not on Quackwatch anyway. The Quackwatch article about Dowling’s research was last updated in May 2002, more than four and a half years ago. Nothing is said on the Quackwatch site about Dowling’s discovery of the cause of breast cancer, much less the cure and the prevention of the disease, even though the information was published on the Internet in December 2005. This is a monumental discovery, and if Dr. Barrett truly believes it to be quackery, I don’t understand why he doesn’t report it on his website. Quackwatch makes no mention of the thousands of women who have breast cancer and oral pathology. No exceptions! Furthermore, no mention is made that the oral pathology is on the same side of the mouth as the breast cancer. No exceptions! Thousands of case histories with no exceptions are hard to argue against. Smearing the messenger is easy. Was this Dr. Barrett’s intent? Did he just poison the water and abandon the well? This seems to be a real disservice to the Quackwatch site’s loyal readers, and especially to those visitors to the site who were seeking quick and accurate information. Having branded Bob Dowling’s Institute a non-recommended cancer therapy treatment facility – as well as dubious and questionable -- it seems that Dr. Barrett and Quackwatch should have maintained their diligence by reporting Dowling’s continuing research, the heart of which was regularly posted for the world to see. In fact, Dr. Dowling has maintained a formidable Internet presence for more than six years. In the year 2000, he boldly proclaimed to find a cure for cancer within 10 years. He’s four years ahead of schedule. Bob Dowling has discovered that most, if not all, degenerative diseases, starting with cardiovascular, are also triggered by oral pathology. This was also reported on the Institute’s website. Presuming the man is sincere about his feelings and his crusade, I’m at a loss to understand why Dr. Barrett failed to scrutinize Dowling’s activities, and report them on a continuing basis. According to his biographical sketch, Barrett “has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate,” and is a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals, not to mention the 50 books and 2,000 articles he has written, or co-authored, or edited. Quackwatch and Dr. Barrett would have been a formidable opponent in taking on an under-funded independent researcher and putting a halt to his alleged dubious and questionable activities. Barrett’s website states, “During most weeks, Quackwatch is updated several times a week.” Really? In his characterizations of Dowling’s research, including use of the phrase “dubious treatments,” Barrett and Quackwatch made some assumptions about Bob Dowling and the Institute. In 2002 Barrett wrote: “Achieving something like this would require extensive scientific training, access to extensive laboratory equipment, and the ability to conduct large clinical trials to judge the results. There is no credible reason to believe Mr. Dowling has any of these.” Barrett also stated: “There is no credible reason to believe that Dowling has the training or laboratory facilities to develop any such methods.” No credible reason? I suppose that past visitors to the Quackwatch website will never read that Bob Dowling does have extensive scientific training, and that the Institute owns some very expensive laboratory equipment. It would not matter if Quackwatch reported this information tomorrow, because it’s highly unlikely that the millions of visitors to Quackwatch in the last half of 2002, or even in 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006 would have a reason to return to the quackery site related to Bob Dowling. They’ve already seen it, and they’ve already formed their opinion. In an article titled “Questionable Cancer Therapies,” written by Barrett and Victor Herbert, M.D., J.D., Quackwatch reports that the American Cancer Society evaluates cancer methods by asking three questions: Has the method been objectively demonstrated in the peer-reviewed scientific literature to be effective?     Has the method shown potential for benefit that clearly exceeds the potential for harm?      Have objective studies been correctly conducted under appropriate peer review to answer these questions? Herein is the reason that billions of dollars have been spent on cancer research since the 1950s and no one has found a cancer cure, until now. The research that should have discovered this cure years ago involved individual scientists and institutions competing against each other in a closed peer review process. The scientists and institutions scored points (made themselves eligible for more grant money) for basic science research, scored points by avoiding risky or unproven approaches (accommodating the existing monopolistic medical system that doesn’t work), and ultimately lost the game. They failed to find a cause or cure for cancer. Today our understanding of the molecular biology of the cancer cell, thanks to the dedication of these researchers, boggles the human mind, but all that academic learning has not even translated into a workable cancer prevention plan. Yes, the American Cancer Society has a protocol for evaluating cancer research, one that has failed the American people, and one that will continue to fail. A flawed method yields flawed results. Dr. Barrett is a prolific writer, very gifted in the English language and the art of persuasion. Apparently he believes in what he’s doing. I also believe in what I’m doing, and I’m after the truth. At 4 p.m. EST, on Thursday, Dec. 28, 2006, Quackwatch’s Home Page boasted 7,932,830 hits since Jan. 4, 1997. By my rough calculations, there have been over 5 million hits since May 10, 2002, when Dr. Barrett last updated his self-proclaimed judgment on bio-scientist Bob Dowling and the North Carolina Institute of Technology. Barrett’s biased opinions don’t perturb me nearly as much as the fact that he posted an untruthful letter from an alleged victim on April 18, 2002 -- My Husband’s Experience with Robert H. Dowling, by Pam Hysong. Remember, Barrett last revised his “article” about Robert H. Dowling on May 10, 2002. He posted Hysong’s letter 23 days earlier. Both Barrett’s article and Hysong’s letter have been sitting unaltered on the Quackwatch website for more than four and a half years. How many people read Barrett’s article about Bob Dowling? How many people read Hysong’s letter? Did these readers form opinions? Quite likely. Were they positive opinions? Not likely. Barrett says he “gradually evolved into a medical writer and editor.” Under a heading that describe his goals, Barrett stated: “I hope to promote accurate health information and increase consumer protection in the marketplace. I focus on attacking misinformation because very few people are doing that.” I don’t understand how Dr. Barrett can impugn Bob Dowling’s character and research, and, then, publish a false and defamatory letter in the name of promoting “accurate health information,” and, then, never update his article. Being a veteran reporter myself, I’m thoroughly confused about this. If Dr. Barrett seriously questioned Bob Dowling’s credentials or thought the man was distributing “misinformation,” why didn’t he press on, and uncover the truth? That’s what I would have done. Pam Hysong never met Bob Dowling and did not want her dying husband to meet him either. Her husband only met Dowling, she says, because of her “misguided sister-in-law who, along with her two brothers and my husband’s so-called friend, pressured my husband to see Dowling.” Claimed Hysong, “During the initial meeting with Dowling, he told my husband that he has a 100% cure rate for bone cancer.” In her published letter, Hysong says “no one could explain,” or “no one would give” her information. She alleges that her husband “had a severe reaction to something, probably the last pill he took,” a reference to a supplement the man allegedly was given at the Institute. Probably? It’s painful for Bob Dowling to see men and women whose bodies have been destroyed by chemotherapy and radiation. Hysong’s husband was a classic case. Many times, Dowling has considered responding to Hysong’s Internet posting, but never did so, even though the unfounded claim has caused him enormous grief. This is Dowling’s first public response. As the attacks from the mainstream medical establishment increase on the man and his discoveries -- largely due to Quackwatch and Hysong -- the bio-scientist feels he has no other choice. Hysong, on the Quackwatch site, states that Dowling “really wanted to meet me. I found out later that he just wanted me to come and sign paperwork, presumably releases.” Presumably? It was the Institute’s long-standing requirement that spouses be present. “They both had to show up,” Dowling said, and for good reason. “That way, there won’t be any hearsay.” “That I promised a 100% cure for her husband is baloney. She got all this information second-hand from a person on a morphine pump, who was not lucid much of the time he was at the Institute,” added Dowling. Nowhere in her letter does Hysong reveal that her husband was on a morphine pump, a drug that could have interacted with just about anything. Dowling did not put the man on morphine. That was ordered by his medical doctors. Hysong stated, “I am thinking about filing criminal charges, but my husband is reluctant to do so. The oncologist says that he has documentation he will provide if we want to charge Dowling with practicing medicine without a license.” Hysong’s claims are based on “probably” and “presumably,” mixed with a generous portion of assumptions. Only Dr. Barrett and Quackwatch gave them credibility. If Hysong believed so strongly that Bob Dowling and the Institute did something illegal or caused harm to her husband, shame on her for not filing criminal charges. If an oncologist has “documentation” to support a claim that Dowling was practicing medicine without a license, shame on him for not reporting it. Hysong’s husband died months later. Dowling says the husband apparently died of cancer despite being treated with the “miracle chemo” his wife favored. “At least it is presumed he died of cancer because, once you have cancer, your death is presumed to be from cancer, even if the real culprit is not cancer.” The most damaging falsehood in Hysong’s letter is about money. “My sister-in-law paid Dowling $2,000 to start the treatments,” according to Hysong’s letter as posted on Quackwatch. It turns my stomach when I hear of anyone taking advantage of sick people, children, elderly, or the incompetent, and Bob Dowling feels the same way. Most Americans have this reaction. Since most of us react with anger and disgust to stories where less fortunate people are taken advantage of, how many of Quackwatch’s readers believe, because of a letter written by the alleged victim’s wife, that Bob Dowling ripped off this sick man? Could be thousands, even tens of thousands of readers. They’d all be wrong. The sick man paid for nothing. It was his sister’s check, and her check was returned. It was never deposited. Dowling said the check was accepted because of the psychology of the relationship, although it lasted only a few minutes. It’s the way he does business. “It’s the American mentality,” said Dowling, “if you don’t pay for something, it’s not worth anything.” The check was returned because it became clear that the wife was not a willing participant. Dowling’s research extends far beyond the boundaries of cancer, and has involved hundreds of families who couldn’t afford to pay a dime. In the nine months I’ve been writing this book, I lost track of the number of people Dowling has helped with deep discounts, if not for free. Dowling has a heart as big as Texas. Some of these people had nothing left, because the conventional medical establishment had taken everything they owned, and they were still deathly ill. People who can afford to pay are required to pay. Yet, for all these years, Quackwatch has posted Hysong’s letter and linked it to Dr. Barrett’s shaky, erroneous at best, misguided and incomplete assessment of Bob Dowling and his Institute’s research. Was Dr. Barrett ever a victim of quackery? He says not. “I have never been seriously victimized in any way and am a very upbeat person. I grew up in a family atmosphere that placed great value on education, science, and fair play.” The same holds true of Bob Dowling. He’s not a victim of quackery. He’s upbeat. He grew up in a family that placed great value on education and science. But Dowling has a very different definition of “fair play.” There’s an article written by Steven Novella, M.D., and Stephen Barrett, M.D., and published on Quackwatch under the heading, “Is There a Conspiracy to Suppress Cancer Cures?” Two statements caught my eye. They’re obviously Dr. Barrett’s deep personal beliefs.   The medical professionals most likely to know about a new cancer cure would be those in academic medicine and research.  If a natural substance is found useful, drug companies can develop related chemicals that are more effective. These two statements say a mouthful, both about Dr. Barrett and the status of Western medicine as practiced in the United States. The following two statements are my own interpretation of what Dr. Barrett said.     The academics, who have failed to find a cancer cure in 50 years, still know best.  Natural substances are worthless; no match for what pharmaceutical companies can produce. There’s little more for me to add, although I found one other thought-provoking response by Dr. Barrett. On his Quackwatch site, he posted a list of questions frequently asked of him. Here’s the question posed to Dr. Barrett: “If a doctor says that a patient is terminally ill and nothing more can be done, would you recommend rolling over and dying rather than trying an alternative? Is that what you would do for yourself? Here’s Dr. Barrett’s answer: “I recommend taking whatever steps are needed to determine the accuracy of the ‘terminally ill’ prognosis. If it is correct, I would recommend spending the remaining time in the most productive way. In my own case, I would eat pizza (which I gave up many years ago to protect my coronary arteries), place my affairs in order, and continue to write about the topics I believe are most important.” Barrett concluded by saying, “I would not waste 10 cents or 10 minutes looking for something that does not exist.” Being listed on Quackwatch could be seen as a status symbol for those new non-pharmaceutical, non-invasive technologies that are being implemented by hundreds of doctors, dentists, and researchers who are trying to heal those who are sick, and keep the healthy people well. What used to be considered alternative medicine in the United States is actually becoming, “mainstream.” The fact that insurance companies refuse to pay for many of the so-called “alternative” procedures hasn’t stopped thinking Americans from taking advantage of new, effective treatments. There’s also a new undercurrent in so-called “alternative treatment” circles -- call it accountability, if you will -- that adheres to the ancient Chinese philosophy that the best doctor treats patients before they become ill. Under this philosophy, doctors are paid to keep their patients well. If the patients get sick, they get treated for free. How many Americans have this sort of relationship with their doctor? Personally, I never had an occasion when I went to the doctor and didn’t have to pay. It didn’t matter if I was returning the third time with the same complaint. Is it criminal to post false and malicious allegations against others on the Internet? Apparently not. Is it criminal for a dentist to place a new mercury amalgam filling over an old mercury amalgam filling, thereby covering over the decay beneath the old amalgam, and then covering fillings and decay with a bridge? Apparently not. But “apparently not” doesn’t make it right. ■ Apparently, Dr. Barrett and his merry band of quackery ducklins did not expect the South Carolina Legislature to honor Robert Dowling--perhaps the Legislature did not know Dowling's official, certified Barrett quack status!   Robert H. Dowling, founder of the North Carolina Institute of Technology, is honored by the South Carolina legislature in House resolution H.3565. WHEREAS, South Carolinians of Irish descent have been noted as leaders in the fields of architecture and science; most notable among them are James Hoban, an architect who designed the White House, Nobel Prize winning physicist Charles Townes, bio-scientist Robert Dowling, and James M. Baldwin, founder of the American Psychological Association; and. . .