Biomed Comm and Barbara Brewitt Judged Through Prejudice
Confirmatory bias is a first element of prejudice and injustice referring to a form of selective thinking and perception. Prejudice is apparent when evidence presented supports what the believers already believe and the believer ignores all evidence that refutes those beliefs. The person holding the belief bias is unable to assimilate new contradictory information that might help them arrive at a different conclusion.
In the case of Biomed Comm Inc and Barbara Brewitt, Ph.D bias is obvious. The Presiding Judge omitted from court evidence all US patents on homeopathic protein product innovations and peer-reviewed publications of Brewitt demonstrating safety of products and her credibility. The bias of the WA State Judge was apparent when he ruled after he omitted these documents saying that they were irrelevant to the case issues and later ruled Biomed Comm and Brewitt were ‘not credible’.
The court bias appears to be glaringly evident and capricious. Is this a case of conventional medicine bias against homeopathy and alternative healing modalities? Highly technical, credible and significant information on homeopathy was presented at the Biomed Comm hearing, yet completely overlooked and not mentioned in the WA State courtroom. The State Department of Health and Board of Pharmacy were given 22 hours to present against Brewitt. Expert witness testimony regarding drug defintions was not allowed to Biomed Comm or Brewitt and time for the defense was cut three-fold to only 7 hours. This is not time for a fair defense of a highly significant discussion on biotechnology, innovations and socially responsible activities that impact healthcare and people's individual health choices and access nationally. The evidence in the cases against Biomed Comm and Brewitt were selectively presented for distortion; conditions favorable for bias, prejudice and injustice. A carefully constructed false reality appeared to be produced.
