Another frothy threat from Burzynski’s alleged representative. Lot’s of RED ARROWS.

Purely for your pleasure, I do not want to feed trolls. No commentary required.

This came to me this morning cc’ed to the great and the good in the sceptical blogosphere and a few people at the Burzynski Clinic. I have removed one name to preserve one blogger from disclosure until they go public.

Andy Lewis,

 
Just so you know that I am very serious.  I copied Renee Trimble the Director of Public Relations, and Azad Rastegar the spokesperson for the Burzynski Clinic.  You and your supporters can stop asking if I am an attorney.  Again, I represent the Burzynski Clinic, Burzynski Research Institute, and Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski.  If your articles remain online I will pursue you in court to the highest extent of the law.
 
Threats to your family? You mentioned to me that you just had a child.  I advised you to spend more time with your child instead of lying to the public.  I also advised that you will be affected financially once a lawsuit is filed against you. Why would you be so selfish and inconsiderate to your family to go through the stressful and financial burden of multiple court proceedings knowing that you are posting lies and propaganda?
 
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
 
You are apart of a network started by Michael Shermer called “Skeptic Society”–http://www.skeptic.com/, which is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization that examines….alien abductions”.  Your network is linked to other fraudulent websites and individuals, such as, quackwatch.comratbags.com, the21stfloor, Peter Bowditch, [REDACTED] , Stephen BarrettDr. Saul Green, etc.  I also have you guys linked to the Wikipedia page of my client.  You should know that the IP Address is publicly recorded by Wiki.  A subpoena is used to obtain your personal information.  By law, the government does not need to notify you, or disclose when they are pursuing your personal information.  see Wikileak personal information.
 
You define your network as individuals that “prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid…. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence”.  Your evidence comes from Stephen Barrett and Saul Green who are apart of your skeptic network, so how fair and valid are your assessments..?
 
You are fully aware that the quackwatch website is not reliable, valid, fair, or a thorough assessment of available evidence, and that its owner, and your network, were exposed as frauds, not licensed, and maliciously disseminating false information to the public. Your Skeptic network uses the quackwatch.com website as the Bible to your mission of lying to the public.  You are not posting your “opinion” and “concern for public health”, you and your network are posting malicious propaganda against my client which stretches back over 10 years.
 
Your opinion and concern for public health “defense” will not stand up in court.  Your statements are not True, you have no absolute, conditional, legal privileges, or consent to post, and your statements consist of actual malice.  As you already know, Dr. Burzynski is a public figure and the Burzynski Research Institute is a publicly traded organization.  So your libelous statements are now  interfering with business contracts and business relationships. The information you assert in your article is factually incorrect, and posted with either actual knowledge, or reckless disregard for its falsity.
 
Again, I advise you to shut down all libelous articles about my client immediately.  Your network is full of lawyers, and I am sure they know the source of information that you use, such as quackwatch, are considered fraudulent and void, in addition to the conflict of interest between my client and Saul Green.  I am showing that you have no source of information, and you will not be able to show proof of your statements against my client in court.  What is the source of your allegations?  You formulated your opinion based on statements made by other skeptics blogs, and Quackwatch, which consist of false information per court orders.  Opinions must be supported by facts.  You are aware of the fact that my client is involved with FDA approved clinical trials, completed phase II, and has approach Phase III.  Phase II, as you know,— to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.  You have full access to evaluate the data of Antineoplaston phase II results, you and your entire skeptic network refuse to acknowledge the results.
 
Let me quote what’s on your website: “When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe”.  Here is some compelling evidence for you about your network.  I will use this information in my legal complaint filed against you and many of your associates.  You no longer have a right to an opinion when its proved your acts are malicious.

The Main Skeptic website
skeptic website

Andy Lewis – A Skeptic.  Yes, that is you.  Quackometer..Quackwatch no difference.
andy website bri article

Your twitter Andy – Guilty by association?  That is Ratbags Peter Bowditch…
Andy twitters

Peter bowditch – Ratbags owner/A skeptic
rat skeptic

Mr. AUSTRALIAN SKEPTIC – see title below
peter bowditch

Peter Bowditch – You people look up to this guy? 

peter bowditch2

Saul Green – A skeptic
green skeptic

My client Sued AETNA…AETNA hired Emprise, Inc. who went out of business..Saul Green unemployed.

aetna saul

Saul Green’s RESUME: This is public information

green resume

Saul Green the Unemployed Skeptic Retaliates with a LIE.  A few weeks later Shontelle Hiron  is cured by my client and make news worldwide.  Due to my client saving her life, She even carried the Olympic torch in 2000 with my client by her side.
jama

[Redacted]

21st floor – A skeptic
21
21 skep

Genomic Repairman – After my legal complaint
Genomic Repairman

Stephen Barrett – A SKEPTIC.   Quackwatch and Ratbags court documents

barrett sued

Stephen Barret QUACKWATCH the SKEPTIC WEBSITE
barrett suedh

skepps 


This is a very serious matter.  Be smart like [redacted]  and everyone else..including Google when I went after them.  If your articles are still up I will pursue you.  You have no defense, Andy.  Honestly, what do you think the judge and jury are going to think about you when I disclose your connection, propaganda, and false information?  Its not about your message, its about the context of your message. The context of your posting is to create in the public the belief that my clients are disreputable, are engaged in on-going criminal activity, and must be avoided by the public.

 This email proves you and your skeptic network are maliciously attacking my client.  ALL of the negative information on the internet about my client is linked to your skeptic network.  I will prove this in court.  Do me a favor and post this email on your website..that is another pattern of your skeptic network.  I would greatly appreciate it. 

 Please remove all articles Immediately.  Spread the message to your associates.
 
Regards,
Marc

On this theme…

31 Comments on Another frothy threat from Burzynski’s alleged representative. Lot’s of RED ARROWS.

  1. Love the vague ranting legal threats then a claim that being in a phase III trial is proof the neoplastin "therapy" works. You have to produce data from a phase III trial that is accepted by a regulatory body to make be able to make public claims on efficacy of a medicine. By law.What Stephens has done here is confirm his relationship to the clinic and made an illegal claim which could be subject to FDA action.

  2. Wow. Talk about give your whole ‘case precis’ to the person(s) you are allegedly legally threatening. No way is that a competent communication from a legal professional. It’s froth and spit. In my opinion, of course.If Burzinsky is so bloody sure his clinic is not in the business of bogus (again, in my opinion) cancer treatments, then what the hell does he care about what skeptic bloggers are saying. Unless, of course, there is no scientific basis to his treatments and people are unnecessarily suffering.

  3. Almost as barking mad as Tim Bolen. Any lingering doubts I had that Burzynski is a despicable quack have completely evaporated thanks to this clown’s antics.

  4. Marc Stephens said, "You and your supporters can stop asking if I am an attorney."Is Marc Stephens an attorney?Well, it seems I couldn’t stop asking and have done so again.

  5. "Your network is full of lawyers, "ooh, does that mean I get to append LLB to my other qualifications?He definiotely sounds as if he’s off his meds: " This email proves you and your skeptic network are maliciously attacking my client." FPI, dear boy, FPI.

  6. I had wondered at first if people weren’t being a bit harsh. What if this Dr really had discovered a better treatment for cancer? Sure he hasn’t posted peer reviewed results for the trials to date. And perhaps it’s unusual to find people paying significant sums to participate in trials rather than being paid themselves. And sure the trials must follow a very unusual methodology if the amount that a participant must pay is not known ahead of time because all treatments are different – this would be quite reasonable in a cure but methodologically incomprehensible in a trial, which by definition relies on people all being put through the same treatment or the same placebo treatment. All very unusual, but who knows, maybe they are so sure of the efficacy of their treatment that (I only posit this as a possibility), they have seen fit to bend the rules in order to be able to treat people. Someone who cared about people might well feel this was a step wirth taking. But then we see the letters – particularly the second one. These are not the actions of someone who believes in themselves. If I had wondered whether this outfit was a quack outfit, these responses are those of someone who has an irrational faith that is questioned. The original blog (to which we have still not seen a detailed list of objections) simply posed some rational questions, it did not make libellous statements, yet the responses are framed as though these questions were themselves self-evident falsehoods. How is a question a falsehood? Is this question a libel? And by the way Marc, skeptics are no more a network than atheists are a church. You can’t simply take everyone who likes to factually analyse and debunk stuff, and call them a network by virtue of your inclusion of them into a list of folks you don’t like. In so doing of course, you are effectively aligning your clinic against anyone and everyone who prefers to take a scientific view of facts. The skeptics have not bracketed that clinic with quackery, you have.

  7. Haha this is ridiculous. For a minute when he started talking about "compelling evidence" I thought he was going to actually defend the treatment with some science. But then we just got another slurry of random personal attacks and incoherent rage.

  8. I love the way he keeps using "apart" instead of "a part"."You are apart of a network" surely means the opposite of what he means.

  9. As hilarious as a recent rant I heard about ethics, morailty, and COIs of medical associations and advocacy groups from a creature who sells supplements over the internet.I love it when they repeatedly mis-spell, mis-pronounce words, or malpropise !

  10. Another libel fool by the looks of it.They seem to be everywhere at the moment. Still, there are some useful initiatives in the pipeline to shut down their nonsense.

Leave a Reply. Please be civil, on topic, concise and sometimes funny.