Marty Hinz, MD Retraction

The Fictitious Federal Court Order

The fictitious info about Marty Hinz, MD was created by a self-proclaimed medical fraud expert, Stephen Barrett, who wrote the following misrepresentations on his website Quackwatch, “In 2011, a federal court ordered him (Marty Hinz, MD) to stop claiming that products were effective against diseases. Instead of stopping, however, he transferred ownership of the company to other family members but continued to promote the products through seminars and Web sites. He also generated the 20 papers that he points to as proof that his protocols are valid.”

Bias Journalism Regarding Fictitious Info on Marty Hinz, MD

The above statement contains many inaccuracies. Before writing these fraudulent representations, Barrett never conducted firsthand interviews with the parties involved to ensure accurate and balanced journalistic reporting. Unfortunately, in his zeal to expose medical quacks, he failed to follow the basic steps required for a proper investigation. This skewed approach is in line with Barrett’s long-standing history of bias. Barrett is not interested in facts or truth; instead, he wants to conduct investigations where he has already made up his mind about wrongdoings and search for ways to twist information to conform with his point of view. Barrett’s words reveal that he is not interested in presenting a balanced account but seeks “evidence” that anything outside his limited understanding of medical care is fraudulent.

The Truth Regarding Marty Hinz, MD and the Fictitious Info

In 2011, the FDA reached an agreement regarding promotional claims. There was no court order as fraudulently held out by Stephen Barrett. While we respect the FDA, and both companies are in good standing, the following true facts exist.
  1. There was no federal court order such as fraudulently promoted by Stephen Barrett.
  2. The transfer of ownership occurred in 2008, three years before these fictitious claims of Stephen Barrett would lead you to believe and had nothing to do with the FDA.
  3. The claim of “instead of stopping” is not accurate. We stopped using the claims that raised concern; all materials that are viewed by the public are sent to FDA prior to publishing, which allows FDA a chance to object, this is facilitated by the law firm representing each company. Our attorneys review everything placed in the public realm before publishing. But, Stephen Barrett did not take the time to review our FDA compliance program that started ten years ago with our attorneys, which works to ensure FDA compliance on all public publications.
  4. In his zeal to expose medical quacks, Stephen Barrett has used his websites, including Quackwatch, to produce claims of fraud and wrongdoing independent of the truth. Barrett’s statement, “(In response to 2011 FDA concerns) he also generated the 20 papers that he points to as proof that his protocols are valid,” is another example of misrepresenting the facts. 13 of the 20 papers were published before the FDA expressed concerns in 2011.
Marty Hinz MD Retraction Headline