California Anti-SLAPP Project

1611 Telegraph Ave., Suite 1200

Oakland, California 94612

Phone: (510) 835-0850 x305 Fax: (510) 465-1985

Special Counsel for Defendant Ilena Rosenthal      





) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )


Date: May 30, 2001 Time: 2 p.m. Dept: 31






  • I, ILENA ROSENTHAL, hereby declare:
  • I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, except as to those facts stated upon information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. If called to testify, I could and would competently testify to the matters contained herein.

  • Plaintiff Barrett proclaims, in ¶ 26 of his declaration, "I cannot recall any instance where I have publicly called anyone a quack." However, he maintains a website called "Quackwatch" and is often described as a "Quackbuster." His websites attack many reputable alternative medicine professionals (see Rosenthal Decl., ¶¶ 20-21). A review of Barrett’s Curriculum Vitae (CV) attached to his declaration indicates that he has written, co-authored, or edited 21 publications with the word Quack or Quackery in the titles. As recently as April 2001, he was featured in a Time Magazine article entitled "The Man Who Loves To Bust Quacks." (See Rosenthal Decl., Exhibit U.)

  • I believe that a review of Barrett’s and Polevoy’s websites also illustrates that they publish their opinions and conclusions on medical issues as "facts" concerning on-going medical controversies such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), an illness that devastates the health of a high number of women with breast implants. As explained in my original declaration, ¶16, Barrett prematurely and, in my opinion, inaccurately, concludes "‘Multiple chemical sensitivity’ is not a legitimate diagnosis." (Rosenthal Decl., Exhibit J, p. 6.)

  • I believe that if Barrett’s position becomes accepted by the mainstream medical community, it would not only hinder women who are impacted by the effects of this debilitating illness from getting the help they need, it would also aid in the defense of the silicone manufacturers in the billion dollar lawsuits against them that continue today.

  • Plaintiffs claim that my statements about them are not related to breast implant issues. (Opposition, 2:2-6). Barrett, in ¶15 of his declaration, also declares, "I do not have a ‘highly publicized viewpoint on the subject of breast implants’" and then states, "Nor have I been involved in any public controversy about them." However, page 21 of the 24-page report on "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" (MCS), edited by Barrett, and widely disseminated by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), states "If the medical community accepts the diagnosis and theory of MCS, a wide range of industries could be seriously affected," and then lists the "silicone breast implant" makers as number 6 of the industries seriously affected. (See Exhibit A hereto for a true copy of excerpts of said report - opens PDF file.)

  • Although according to Barrett’s CV his training is as a psychiatrist, a review of Barrett’s declaration and CV shows that he has been very active in putting his opinions regarding alternative medicine into the public domain. That is his right. I strongly believe that the public should be able to make informed decisions on health issues with as much information available as possible. This is particularly true with controversial issues such as MCS and breast implants, where chemical and silicone manufacturers have hired public relations firms to disseminate their viewpoints in the media. I post other viewpoints to appropriate newsgroups, bulletin boards and list-serves, as well as magazines and other media. At all times, plaintiffs could post their counter opinions on the newsgroups, their websites, or any other medium readily available to them

  • Contrary to Barrett’s assertion in ¶ 22 of his declaration that Ms. McPhee was a "third party," she was the victim. In fact, after my discussions with Ms. McPhee as described in ¶ 39 of my original declaration, I was horrified to learn the extent of Polevoy’s harassment which led to her frustrated bosses canceling her radio program.
  • The plaintiffs’ fanciful "conspiracy theory" links me with Dr. Clark, David Amrein, and others who I have never even met or spoken to, and makes the false conclusion that because I participated in expos where the Bolens were in attendance, I am "in conspiracy" with them and their clients. This is pure fantasy. I met the Bolens years before they were allegedly associated with Dr. Clark, and in fact, until being threatened with libel from Barrett, had never even discussed Dr. Clark with them.

  • On January 8, 2001, just nine days after my wedding, a copy of the complaint and summons in this case was dropped at my post office box. Since then, instead of planning and enjoying my honeymoon and new marriage, as was my intention, I have been engaged in the exhausting and time consuming task of defending myself in this lawsuit. Prior to being sued by them, I had no hatred, malice, or ill will towards the plaintiffs.

  • Barrett’s claims of my "malice" are predicated on posts I made after their complaint was filed and because of the devasting effect this lawsuit has had on my life and my ability to do my work. In ¶¶ 5, 8-9 of Barrett’s declaration, he again inaccurately attributes to me quotes that were actually my re-posts of other’s opinions of him. If Barrett is accurate that I posted "212 messages" about him, the vast majority were after being threatened by him that I would be sued if I did not pay him $2,000 and ultimately being forced into this lawsuit. However, even though the messages of others that I re-posted may well have been unflattering, they represented their opinions and mine and were posted on Usenet, a forum for which Barrett had full access to rebut or reply at any time, and which are well within our First Amendment rights to express.

  • Barrett’s first example of my "malice" is in ¶ 31 of his declaration. He quotes me as stating, "I despise bullies like QuackBarrett & Polevoy." This was two days after I received a copy of the complaint. My whole life had just been put on hold, and instead of being able to enjoy my new husband and son, I felt like I was being bullied by the head of the "Quackbusters" and his team of attorneys and forced to defend myself at great expense in a frivolous lawsuit.

  • Barrett’s second example of my "malice" came after two months of being embroiled in this lawsuit, where, in a discussion of free speech, I defended my right to express my opinions about the plaintiffs. The date was March 16, 2001, and there is no doubt that by then I was clearly "anti-Polevoy" and "anti-Barrett," two men who were suing me for expressing my opinions. Since being named in this lawsuit, I have discovered to what lengths Barrett will go to suppress his critics on his "HealthFraud" listserve, and have learned far more about the "Quackbusting" campaigns he has led for several decades.

  • Interestingly, until reading Barrett’s declaration, ¶ 30, I never knew that respected physician Dr. Julian Whitker had also been sued by Barrett. Barrett’s claim that I posted a document from a website on May 15, 2001, "with full knowledge that [Barrett] had sued the writer for libel" is sheer fantasy. Further, the original letter I posted was also from the Townsend Letter of July, 1997, which had a headline reading "2,500 Doctors Posted on Quack List." The more I have learned about plaintiffs, the more I admit to disliking their activities. However, I have never posted anything I knew to be untrue. What they call "defamatory" or "libelous," I believe are actually unflattering and critical statements about their work.

  • Exhibit E to plaintiff’s opposition, regarding a suit I filed, illustrates the struggles I have endured speaking out against breast implants and criticizing the public relations campaigns funded by their manufacturers. Almost from the moment I entered Usenet in the fall of 1995, I was the target of a vicious harassment campaign headed by the former president of one of the world’s largest silicone manufacturers, Inamed/McGhan. In fact, on August 16, 2000, in San Diego Superior Court, Judge Pate ruled that I had shown a "probability of prevailing" on my claims in my case.

  • Barrett is accurate that I have posted scores of thousands of posts on Usenet sites for nearly 6 years, mainly on the topics of breast implants, related medical issues, and the public relations campaigns funded by the silicone manufacturers. This includes many critical pieces on ACSH and their splinter groups, of which I believe "Quackwatch" and "NCAHF" are but two.

  • In Barrett’s declaration, ¶14, it appears he is trying to negate the fact that nearly every officer and board director of his National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF, founded in 1977) is also a "advisor" for the ACSH (founded in 1978) and most are members of his Quackwatch team. (See Exhibit Q to my original declaration.) Additionally, 9 of the "Peer Reviewers" for ACSH are the same NCAHF members. I believe that these organizations are intricately overlapping onto the other and the bias of the corporate sponsors of ACSH can not be ignored.

  • Barrett, in ¶ 10 of his declaration, again complains about my newsgroup comment regarding "bunches of $$$$ coming to him to run that pro-ama website..." However, I continue to believe that Barrett is well compensated for his writings, and for expressing the views that he holds, which he does not deny, and that he can use those funds for maintaining his website, and that his website is pro-AMA. I further believe that their common organizations are less than forthcoming about their funding and funders. This practice is describe well in "IN INDUSTRY’S HIP POCKET? The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)," published in 3/2000 by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber of the Center for Media and Democracy. They expose the public relations and advertising professionals who are also on the ACHS’s board of directors and explicitly describe their funding sources. "Shortly after its founding, ACHS abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, Whelan explained that she was already being called a ‘paid liar,’ so she figured she might as well go ahead and take industry money without restrictions." Elizabeth Whelan is president of ACHS and is referred to in Barrett’s declaration at ¶ 21.

  • Having to defend myself at great personal expense has diverted my energies from what I consider my very important work and it has substantially chilled my voice. After nearly 6 years and having spent well over $100,000 of my own money to maintain my support group, which now numbers thousands of women harmed by breast implants, I have strong opinions based on personal experiences and express myself colorfully. I have gone to several funerals of women who died from complications from these dangerous medical devices. This alone propels me to continue to post my opinions, especially after the plaintiffs published this case on the Internet and made blatantly false claims about me, such as "Ilena Rosenthal is one of Tim Bolen’s soldiers" (Opposition, 3:17) – which is a total fabrication – and inaccurately describing me on his websites as a "Clark Supporter."

  • My writing style is emotional and passionate and my words illustrate this. Because the ACSH and "Quackwatch" are core disseminators of what I wholeheartedly believe is dangerous mis-information on MCS, breast implants, and alternative medicine, I have repeatedly written of my disagreement and dislike of their publications, their organizations, and viewpoints, which plaintiffs seem to mistake for "malice."

  • I hereby declare that the above statements are true and correct. Signed under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State on California, on the date set forth below, in San Diego, California.
  • Dated: May 25, 2001 (see next page)
  • Ilena Rosenthal

Humantics Foundation
Breast Implants: Recovery & Discovery

Ilena Rosenthal, Director
1380 Garnet E-444
San Diego, CA 92109

858/270-0680 phone

To contribute to The Humantics Foundation thru the Amazon PayPage, click here.

Corporate Propaganda in Action

The Fake Persuaders by George Monbiot, The Guardian

"Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the internet."

Corporate phantoms by George Monbiot, The Guardian

The PR Secret War Against Activists by John Stauber & Sheldon Rampton

This expose carefully details how the corporations (via their vast publicity teams of lobbyists and those paid to do "public outreach" etc. etc. etc. ) embed themselves into their 'marks' (in our case, the breast implant support system) and "educate" a type of activists by brainwashing them into believing it is for the good of the cause. In 1991, Dow Corning's PR Team admitted in a private memo that their "cover-up is going well" and spoke of setting up their "networks." I firmly believe that the Junk Science / ACSH / 'Quackbuster' enormous network is their proud culmination.

Viral Marketing: How to Infect the World by Flack Group Bivins

(Instructions to paid Disinfo Agents by paid Disinfo Agents)


return to top

This website is under construction. Please come back soon & often for updates.

FastCounter by bCentral