Rosenthal denied request for assignment of Dr. Terry Polevoy's Ontario Health Plan Income

California lawyers led by David Shagam, Mark Goldowitz, and Paul Clifford, acting on behalf of Ilena Rosenthal, attempted over many months to force Terry Polevoy to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars that was owed to them in the Barrett v. Clark court case - C-833021.

On July 9, 20087 Stephen Dombrink, a Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda rendered what is most likely a final decision in this case.

Click here to see actual document



Judgment Creditor Ilena Rosenthal's request for an assignment directed to the Ontario Health Plan is DENIED.


DATED: July 9 2008


Stephen Dombrink
Judge of the Superior Court

Libel and defamation can be stopped by clicking on PayPal. Thanks for your kind support.

Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of
Religion and Medicine

by Dr. Richard P. Sloan, PhD
Blockbuster New Book tackling the thorny issues about religion, prayer and medicine. If you've been told that you have an incurable illness, and that prayer will help --- think again.

This book will open your eyes. Dr. Sloan is a professor at the Columbia University School of Medicine and he introduces us to the major players in this new area of Christian evangelism. The studies purporting to show any health benefits from going to church or "being religious" are all so flawed as to render them useless. Using his epidemiological knowledge, Sloan carefully shows the reader how one should analyze claims from the media and claims in journals that purport to show a connection between religious behavior and improved health.

Google Groups Subscribe to Cancer-QuackeryWatch
Browse Archives at


If you would like to support our efforts to combat quackery, health and diet fraud we make it easy for you to donate to the cause.

Canadian Quackery Watch - Hot Topics

Click below to restrict search

Terry Polevoy on TV
  • About us
  • Polevoy pics
  • Contact us

  • Herbal therapies?
  • Unconventional Rx.
  • Science or Snake Oil?
  • Making Treatment Decisions

  • Cancer Trials - Canada
  • Cancer Trials - U.S.
  • Centerwatch Gateway to PDQ Cancer trials
  • Tricare Cancer trials - U.S. Military
  • Cancer Trials - U.K.
  • Pediatric Oncology Group - resources
  • Hospital for Sick Children - Toronto
  • St. Jude's Children's Hosp. - Brain tumors

  • - WANTED -

    Announcing - The Defamation and Libel Blog

    • Terry Polevoy's own Blog - It's your chance to get even with the wackos and scam artists who go about their business every day without conscience. When they attack the messenger with defamatory comments it gets to a point where the more often a lie is repeated, the more believable it gets to those idiots who support cancer quackery and other nonsense. Dr. Polevoy invites all of those reasonable people who have been victimized by cancer quacks to fight back. Tell us how you have been defamed or libeled by these criminals.

    Hulda Clark Lawsuit Reinstated

    Appeals court upholds suit against Hulda Clark and her attorney.

    The California Court of Appeals has reinstated a malicious prosecution suit that Dr. Stephen Barrett filed in December 2002 against Hulda Clark and attorney Carlos J. Negrete.

    Clark is an unlicensed naturopath who claims she can cure cancer, AIDS, and other serious diseases with a low-voltage electrical device and various herbs. [Barrett S. The bizarre claims of Hulda Clark. Quackwatch, Nov 9, 2004] Barrett is suing her for libel because she hired a "publicist" who has been attempting to destroy his reputation by spreading false and defamatory statements about him [Barrett S. A response to Tim Bolen. Quackwatch, March 18, 2005]. In 2001, Clark filed a malicious cross-complaint in which she accused Barrett, his wife, and many other defendants with "racketeering" and a long list of other crimes and civil wrongs they did not commit. [Barrett S. Bogus "anti-quackbuster" suit dismissed: Why I am suing the lawyer who filed it. Quackwatch, March 18, 2005] In 2003, a lower court judge dismissed the malicious prosecution suit on grounds that Barrett not had presented enough information to conclude that Clark and Negrete knew the cross-complaint was groundless.

    In reversing the lower court decision (see below), the Appeals Court used these words to describe their reasons why the original court should go to trial:

    "the scurrilous nature of the defendants' allegations of wrongdoing and their efforts to publicize them widely on the Internet, when coupled with their utter failure to offer any proof of their charges"

    [Appeals court upholds malicious prosecution suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete. Quackwatch, March 22, 2005]

    Fear Defamation & Loathing - Health Freedom Advocates' War on the Quackbusters

    Terry Polevoy, MD and his merry band of Quackbusters

    This is an open invitation for those of you who have been maligned, libeled, or defamed by people in the alternative health movement. Prime examples of those can be seen everywhere on the Net.

    Just do a Google search for any one of us who are active in the so-called Quackbusting industry and I'm sure that you'll be busy for a few dozen years trying to make any sense of it all. There are those of us who are presently involved in lawsuits against our critics, and hopefully we will be seeing the end of one of them very soon in the State of California

    When advocates for alternative medicine attack, they don't do it with facts. They don't have any for the most part. To them, it's either a matter of faith, like a religion, or just a false front or flim-flam. Some do it with gizmos or machines that go zzzaappp in the night, or with lotions, potions and oils that get rubbed on your vital areas to awaken some innate power. The worst do it with vile and vicious attacks on the internet while running what appears to be a reputable clinic that assists your immune system to fight cancer.

    Some do it with a twist of the neck that they claim can cure you of most health problems. While others make you hold vials of dog hairs, or peanut butter and ask you how you feel as they either hook you up to an el-cheapo 9-volt battery operated black box. After all, only they can rid your body of those hidden parasites, which of course are in their opinion responsible for "All Diseases". Some claim to be able to delve into those ancient (but false) memories that hinder your everyday life when there is nothing else left. For some it's just a fluke, for others it's bad karma or whatever.

    Others claim that they can heal your cancer from across the country or around the world. Some request that you fly down to see a self-proclaimed man of God in some malaria infested village in the Amazon to have your nose probed with a seven-inch needle-driver while your cancer grows in your breast, or your ALS tears your brain apart. But, it's all in the hands, isn't it?

    Quacks are really all around you. Just open up any newspaper, supermarket tabloid or health store magazine. Flip on your remote and tune in the evangelicals hawk holy water from a Russian spring, or a piece of blessed cloth, or maybe even a sacred herb from the side of some mountain in South America or Asia.

    But, wait a minute, it's been said that a large minority of use alternative medical practices to stay healthy. What's wrong with this picture you say?

    The main problem is that the scammers and their agents may be part of a bigger picture. They could be part of a religious cult, known for their nasty threats and actions against anyone who raises so much as an eyebrow when one of their flock is ogled in a not too complimentary manner.

    Or, they are plainly and simply greedy people who are into a good thing. Negative publicity may hurt their book sales, or cut into the number of appearances on prime time TV. Their livelihood, or lack of it, is based on their credibility. If they stink, and someone smells it in Podunkville, who cares. But, embarrass them, expose them, or just plainly and simply tell the truth about them on the internet or on talk radio, they whine and cry about how they are being treated by the press, or perhaps even an even-tempered critic like me.

    To defend the indefensible would be impossible, so they hire losers who claim to be experts in public relations to stoke the fires of support. They start by flaming those who exposed their bosses to begin with. That's when things get pretty nasty. One small lie leads to another and before you know it, you or someone you know becomes the victim.

    In the Orwellian way, its something even more advanced than "doublespeak". The folks who bring you nothing but empty promises while they and their mentors fill their coffers with your money don't give a rat's ass about you or your condition. If you die, they blame it on the terrible stuff that the "doctors" did to you before crossing the border down to Tijuana.

    No matter how many CBC, 20/20, PrimeTime or 60 Minutes shows have exposed their sordid underbelly, they could probably just call up Montel or Larry King if they want to continue the charade, totally unopposed in their distorted views.

    The masters of deceit thrive in the limelight, and when a potential shadow looms over their heads, they blast away with lasers and spotlights, blinding the public with accusations that there is some vast conspiracy hiding out in the bowels beneath the Denver International Airport, or maybe even in some retired doctor's basement bunker that is the cause of all evil in the universe.

    Well, I'm one of those whistle blowers who would like to see some of them eventually pay the price for their deeds. And, I'm damn proud of it. Sitting up here in little old Canada has its distinct advantages and disadvantages. For one thing, medical care up here is socialized, and there is no excuse for not having the proper treatment for your condition. It may not always work, and you may have to wait for months to get that care. But at least you don't have to auction off your house, or one of your children to get help.

    So why does quackery thrive on both sides of the border? Are people stupid, or just desperate? Over the years I've battled several fledgling nutraceutical companies. One of them claims to be able to cure all sorts of psychiatric illnesses with a pig pill. Locally, I've exposed a cancer quack who preys on the family of a 3 year-old kid who was dying of a brain tumor.

    I've spent hours and hours of my time trying to help people who have been victimized by quacks. Attacks on my credibility are a dime a dozen, and they aren't worth that much. But, the boldness of these assaults have grown much meaner over the last few months. Why is that? Why have the idiots who run quack cancer centres in Canada, and Mexico so worried about what I have to say?

    In this section of my web site I will try to focus on major attacks that have involved me personally. In addition, those of you who have been privately or publicly attacked will have a chance to pour your heart out and tell your side of the story.

    But, this is not a Blog folks. You will have to tell us who you are and who defamed you. - Libel and Defamation

    There are several notorious Internet organizations that allow anonymous reviews of health professionals and their practices. The web site is run by Earl Thurston, an American who lives in the Hot Springs, Arkansas area.

    We believe that someone in his household runs a video reproduction business called Everlasting Media. The location of these business enterprises and the phone number 501-520-1179 appears to be located at 102 Cliffwood Loop, an upscale neighborhood in an area called Lake Hamilton. The house was built in 2003 and it sits on the largest lot in the subdivision.

    When contacted in July 2008 Thurston refused to remove libelous and defamatory posts that were made over the last few years because he says that he has the right to operate his web site and is protected by a U.S. Federal law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Thurston, like many other Internet weasles hides behind the same Federal legislation that allowed Ilena Rosenthal to defend herself in the infamous California case known as Barrett v. Clark.

    Basically, anyone who hosts an internet web site or who contributes to anything on the Internet can repeat the lunatic rants and lies of anyone as long as they don't originate it themselves. This also protects any ISP (Internet Service Provider) as well.

    The anonymous posters who defamed Dr. Polevoy will never be identified unless someone brings a lawsuit against Thurston, or his ISP, which is located in Texas.

    One of their IP addresses is, and that has been hosted with in Houston, Texas. Their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) is a carefully worded document that would appear to let them off the hook if any of their customers does nasty things, unless of course they are subject to court order, or are clearly breaking the law. Anyone with a beef about any of the users of course are free to file a complaint with them on-line at

    According's AUP some of their Prohibited Activities include:

    • forging, misrepresenting, omitting or deleting message headers, return mailing information, or internet protocol addresses, to conceal or misidentify the origin of a message;

      [In other words, and in my opinion, is concealing the identity of the messages left on their web site from the public! That should be clear ground for to remove them from their servers.]

    Reviews of

    Defamatory Blogs and Groups Blog

    Open letter to Mary Minow, JD,

    Dear Ms. Minow:

    On or about March 3, 2005 defamatory posts about me were placed by anonymous lurkers on your Blog. Since there are no "Terms of Service" or "Acceptable Use Policies" posted anywhere on the Blog, I can assume that you approve of this. As a lawyer, you should have known that this type of defamation was possible. Blogs have to be secure from anonymous posters who intend to defame others.

    I have been attacked mercilessly by the wackos in the alternative medicine community because of my activities on the internet. Many of them are from California, some are from Canada where I live.

    There have been at least two separate attacks against me on your site. Despite the fact that you said you removed them in an e-mail to me on March 6, 2005 they remained in cache for quite a while.

    Your site is still a sitting duck for more anonymous posts. You just don't get it - do you?.

    The people who posted their vile and defamatory comments are probably one and the same person. Their names are of course fictitious. The lack of security on your Blog needs to be addressed immediately. Please provide your readers with a Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy. If you don't, there could be legal action taken against the Blog, and the ISP who allows you to operate the Blog without security.

    Law Librarian Blog

    On January 12, 2005 a Blog owned by an Ohio Corporation known as the Law Professor Blogs, LLC devoted one of their sections to my lawsuit in California against Ilena Rosenthal. That section is called the Law Library Blog, and this was the title of the web page prior to my actions.
    California Libel Case Could Chill Speech of Bloggers & Others Who Post on the Internet

    The Law Professors Blog, LLC is actually owned Paul L. Caron, who is a senior law professor at the University of Cincinnati. The Blog section was edited by Joseph Hodnicki who works for the University of Cincinnati as the Web Services Coordinator for the Law Library.

    I filed a complaint with the University of Cincinnati's Faculty Senate and asked them to examine the evidence and to deliberate whether disciplinary actions could be filed against professor Caron or perhaps even Joe Hodnicki. The questions I asked basically involved a number of areas of concern that are detailed in my letter dated February 23, 2005.

    The Blog that was originally placed on their web site was basically empty for weeks. I routinely do a search for my name several times a day and pay particular attention to Blogs. When I found their nearly empty Blog I posted my comments about the defamation case on January 30, 2005 and waited for someone to respond. I thought that the blog editor would be the first one to kick in his thoughts, but I was dead wrong.

    It took over two weeks when on February 16, 2005, the flames and arrows and vile and vicious attacks began. Of course since the Blog allowed anyone to post, without actually leaving a "real" e-mail address, any wacko and weirdo could put anything that they wanted on the site. There was absolutely no security. There was obviously no screening done by Hodnicki or Caron based on the defamatory posts that followed over the next few days.

    A day or so after my complaints to the head of the University's Faculty Senate the Blog was partially removed, at least the offensive posts were gone. But, the Blog page remained. Then the dirty stuff started all over again. When I fired off another barrage to Hodnicki, I got a wise-ass reply that he would remove the Blog because of the profanity, not because it was defamatory.

    That's when I got the attention of John Cupoletti, PhD. who is the head of the Cabinet for the Faculty Senate. He's also a molecular biologist and physiologist and must understand more than just science. Within a few minutes the Blog was history. But, he made no guarantees that my complaint would even make it to the Cabinet or the Senate for discussion. Now where is his common sense?

    The only problem is that some of the original offensive Blog page was still available in the cache'd version of the page. On February 25, 2005 I asked Hodnicki and the Senate to request that the cache'd version be removed from Google search. I am still waiting for the results.

    The main point in this particularly vicious and vile situation was that it could have, and should have been prevented. Blogs can have security in place. Posts could have been filtered. Unfortunately for Dr. Caron, who is a lawyer, and for Hodnicki who has a position of responsibility at the University Laws Library, they just didn't get it.

    On March 6, 2005 I found another defamatory post on the Blog. Why didn't Hodnicki or Caron realize that jobs by removing the offensive posts that their Blog was still open to attack?

    Late on March 6, 2005 someone who had control of the Blog finally took away the ability to post defamatory statements. It's about time.

    The fallout may eventually reach the courts, too. For if the Ilena Rosenthal decision in California finds for the plaintiff (me), then it will put a chill on all open and unsecured Blogs around the U.S. at least.

    More Unsecured Blogs

    The following Blogs were identified in March 2005. They may or may not still be active. Complaints have been filed with their owners and ISPs.

    One of the worst offenders is owned The door is open to anyone with an axe to grind against anyone. Anonymous posts are allowed.

  • Please send us your confidential stories about how you were defamed.

  • More on Cancer Quackery on

  • Click here to make a donation to help fight defamation on the internet