Dr Peter Breggin - expert witness or high price fraud, you decide?

Wisconsin judge declared in 1997: "Dr. Breggin's observations are totally without credibility. I can almost declare him [to be a] fraud or at least approaching that � I cannot place any credence or credibility in what he has to recommend in this case."


In a 1995 court case against pharmaceutical manufacturer UpJohn Company, the court ruled: "Simply put, the Court believes that Dr. Breggin's opinions do not rise to the level of an opinion based on 'good science.' The motion to exclude his testimony as an expert witness should be granted."



A Maryland court ruled in 1995: "The court believes not only is [Dr. Breggin] unqualified to render the opinions that he did, I believe that his bias in this case is blinding � The court is going to strike the testimony of Dr. Breggin, finding that it has no rational basis �"


Dr. Breggin's observations are totally without credibility. I can almost declare him, I guess from statements that floor me, to say that he's a fraud or at least approaching that. He has made some outrageous statements and written outrageous books and which he says he has now withdrawn and his thinking is different. He's untrained. He's a member of no hospital staff. He has not since medical school participated in any studies to support his conclusions except maybe one. ... I can't place any credence or credibility in what he has to recommend in this case. -Judge James W. Rice in Schellinger v. Schellinger, No. 93-FA-939-763 (Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 1997)


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." The motion to exclude his testimony as an expert witness should be granted. -Magistrate Judge B. Waugh Crigler in Lam v. The Upjohn Company, No. 94-0033-H, W. Dist., of VA (Harrisonburg Division, U.S. District Court, 1995)


The court believes not only is this gentleman unqualified to render the opinions that he did, I believe that his bias in this case is blinding. ... I find that he ... was not only unprepared, he was mistaken in a lot of the factual basis for which he expressed his opinion. ... The court is going to strike the testimony of Dr. Breggin, finding that it has no rational basis. -Judge Hilary J. Caplan in Lightner v. Alessi, No. 94013064/CL174959 (Baltimore City Circuit Court, 1995).