Comments on: The Burzynski Clinic – Another Crank Tries to Intimidate a Blogger

By: Badly Shaved Monkey

Badly Shaved Monkey — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:08:29 +0000

Rick Jaffe’s response makes no sense to me. I thought they might try this tactic but I don’t think it flies.

See here;

http://rhysmorgan.co/2011/11/threats-from-the-burzynski-clinic/#comment-3339

By: lizditz

lizditz — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:14:31 +0000

Martin Robbins (science writer in the UK)

https://plus.google.com/111513818314552647564/posts/U5c2jEmjD5p:

I’ve just received a response from Rick Jaffe, the real attorney for the Burzynski clinic. Here’s a part of it relating to Marc Stephens, the person claiming to represent the clinic who has threatened Rhys Morgan and Andy Lewis, among others:

“On the Marc Stephens thing, that’s what I need to look into and see what happened. What I can tell you now is that I believe that he is not a clinic employee but is an independent contractor doing web marketing, the exact scope of which I’m not sure of right now.” [...] “I can also tell you that based on my limited current information, no one at the clinic approved of or had advance knowledge that he would be sending a google map picture of a high school kid’s house to him.”

Follow Robbins on Google+ for more, or http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist

By: SARA

SARA — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 05:05:22 +0000

I find it odd that people will not use basic logic when considering this kind of treatment. I get that the average person might not realize that 30 years is too long for preliminary tests. That a patient wouldn’t know the difference between preliminary, case or blinded studies. They might not consider that state wouldn’t have put him on trial without some fairly serious concerns about his clinic – because why would someone know that unless they looked it up, and most people don’t look up their doctor before doing to see him.

But anyone who reads his lit sees that he’s the only one doing this treatment. For 30 years, he’s the only one. 30 years of apparent success and YET, No drug companies are knocking on his door to help him further his research. That is incongruity that anyone with basic common sense can ascertain for themselves.

By: Orac

Orac — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:03:19 +0000

One of the bloggers who has been “graced” with a comment from Marc Stephens tells me that the IP address resolves to California, not Texas. Curiouser and curiouser.

By: locutusbrg

locutusbrg — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:49:33 +0000

I have read through the posted letter in response to the “libel” letter, and “Marc Stephens” responses to the response letters. Marc does not respond appropriately as an attorney either in demands or responses. A little research shows that he is not a member of the Texas Bar, nice try PR man. I wonder if there is any penalty in Texas for attempting to impersonate an attorney. Better yet get the Texas attorney Mark Stephens involved for defaming his name.
The problem with this type of tactic is that it works, that’s why they keep trying it.

By: Short and Spiky

Short and Spiky — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:58:11 +0000

Do Burzynski and dodgy behaviour go hand in hand?…

This whole thing just gets more insane by the minute. It’s bad enough supposedly reputable newspapers like The Observer giving uncritical coverage to praiseworthy, if misguided, attempts by beloved celebs to raise money for a little girl dying of…

By: Dawn

Dawn — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:11:14 +0000

@dcsavak: check out the excellent post by Dr David Gorski on Science-Based Medicine

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-bad-medicine-a-bad-movie/

where he discusses the trials.

By: dcsavak

dcsavak — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:35:06 +0000

In several of the emails from Marc Stephens that have been posted by their recipients, he mentions that they have been approved by the FDA for Phase III clinical trials. Can anyone speak to this point, for a skeptic who lacks proper understanding of the clinical trial process? He seems to think that this approval legitimizes their “treatment,” but I’d like to know what this really means.

By: lippard

lippard — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:11:32 +0000

In the case you referenced, Burzynski was charged with 75 charges, 34 of which were mail fraud and most of the rest of which were transporting drugs illegally across state lines. After the hung jury, all of the mail fraud counts were tossed out and he faced trial with a single charge of contempt and was acquitted. This history is reported in an article in the Houston Press: http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-01/news/cancer-doctor-stanislaw-burzynski-sees-himself-as-a-crusading-researcher-not-a-quack/

In an earlier case, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the federal district court in Texas decision that Burzynski had defrauded the Northwest Laundry and Dry Cleaners Health and Welfare Trust Fund by receiving payments for a treatment that was not FDA approved (and failing to disclose that fact): ftp://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/pub/93/93-02071.CV0.wpd.pdf

The Burzynski Research Institute’s Institutional Review Board has also received warnings from the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm192711.htm

The Burzynski Research Institute is a publicly traded over-the-counter stock (BZYR.OB), which means the behavior of Marc Stephens is potentially something that the SEC as well as the FDA would be interested in.