Posted by ralphrost on March 10, 2007, at 13:26:08
In reply to 'Dr. Breggin's opinions not based on good science', posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 11:54:47
Good science? What about science when you watch yourself suffer the consequences of antidepressants?
Antidepressants are not good science, they don't even know how they work (or don't work)...
> For example, a Maryland judge in a medical malpractice case in 1995 said, "I believe that his bias in this case is blinding. . . he was mistaken in a lot of the factual basis for which he expressed his opinion". In that same year a Virginia judge excluded Breggin's testimony stating, "This court finds that the evidence of Peter Breggin, as a purported expert, fails nearly all particulars under the standard set forth in Daubert and its progeny. . .
>
>
> Simply put, the Court believes that Dr. Breggin's opinions do not rise to the level of an opinion based on 'good science'"."
poster:ralphrost
thread:739762
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070308/msgs/739870.html