Marty Hinz, MD Retraction

The Impact of Stephen Barrett

After termination of his medical license under unknown circumstances, Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch still claims to be an MD. Also, Stephen Barrett targets non-mainstream care for his unbalanced writing efforts.

Stephen Barrett is an obsessed zealot who is fanatically devoted to claiming the science of nutrition has no place in medicine. Unfortunately, the source and foundation of his writings are second-hand information that he interprets to fit his pre-determined endpoint. As a result, Stephen Barrett commonly cites internet postings by individuals lacking true expertise in the area of concern as long as their quotes bolster Stephen Barrett’s pre-determined endpoints.

Marty Hinz, MD retraction, Stephen Barrett never interviewed

Stephen Barrett appears to produce unbalanced writings with little regard to the truth. For example, there is no evidence Stephen Barrett interviewed those he attacked with his pre-judged positions. Moreover, we have no evidence that Barrett performs formal journalistic caliber interviews to ensure that his writings represent a balanced journalistic effort. Therefore the man and his writings are not balanced.

Stephen Barrett has written and posted several disparaging articles about Linus Pauling; the only human awarded two unshared Nobel prizes. In 1954 Pauling was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 1962 Pauling was awarded the Nobel peace prize. I found Stephen Barrett’s condescending writing about Linus Pauling, which appears to support the position that Stephen Barrett is of much greater intelligence than Linus Pauling and Pauling’s observations regarding nutrition are not valid, be truly disgusting.

In 2014, Stephen Barrett filed a complaint with Dove Press regarding conflict of interest, as discussed on this website’s conflict of interest page. Unfortunately, the complaint was not well balanced. The finding of Dove Press was that Stephen Barrett’s complaint represented “unwarranted accusations.” Concerning twenty peer-reviewed papers published by Dove Press, the complaints of Stephen Barrett focused only on a Marty Hinz, MD retraction, while ignoring the other elements involved with the
production of the papers, such as

  • Dove Press, Francis Taylor Publishing
  • The University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth
  • Eleven medical doctor authors
  • Over 30 peer-reviewers

Contrary to what Stephen Barrett would lead you to believe, these twenty papers were not the work of only the Marty Hinz, MD, retraction spotlight. This 2014 complaint caused Tim Hill, the owner, and publisher of Dove Press to personally investigate the conflict of interest claims of Stephen Barrett, with the findings of no concerns. Read the final position of Tim Hill regarding the 2014 Stephen Barrett complaint.
Marty Hinz MD Retraction Response

Not satisfied with the Tim Hill investigation of 2014, Stephen Barrett filed another conflict-of-interest claim in 2018 with Dove Press against the same papers. This complaint ended up in the lap of Taylor and Francis after the buyout of Dove Press. Taylor and Francis did not review the results of the 2014 Tim Hill, Dove Press investigation. Taylor and Francis did not contact the authors. Instead, Taylor and Francis retracted the papers when the arbitrary IRB certificate deadline they had unilaterally occurred. We know of no investigation by Taylor and Francis of Stephen Barrett’s 2018 conflict of interest concerns. The 2018 complaint of Stephen Barrett was as invalid as his complaint of 2014. It was composed primarily of fictitious fabrications the truth could not support. Taylor and Francis never presented the authors with specific concerns or allegations relating to the 2018 conflict of interest claims. Instead, they whitewashed the whole thing using a lack of IRB certificate on file to justify retraction. Dove Press’s problem was that it had no IRB certificate on file before publishing. The Stephen Barrett complaint inappropriately triggered the retraction of twenty peer-reviewed papers when the investigation found that Dove Press had published 20 papers without the University of Minnesota Medical School Duluth IRB certificate on file. Dove Press had a problem, and they used the Marty Hinz, MD retraction; to distract from their publishing errors. Taylor and Francis are also complicit. They inherited Dove Press’s corporate liabilities with the buyout of Dove Press.