Monday, November 28th, 2011
28

Meet Stanislaw Burzynski

If you haven't yet heard of him over the years, Stanislaw Burzynski operates a clinic in Houston where he runs pay-per-entry "clinical trials" for people with cancer for something called antineoplaston therapy. People spent thousands and thousands of dollars to enter these trials. And when the doctor is questioned in print about the efficacy of this treatment, a guy named Marc Stephens writes angry, harassing, legal-esque rants to the writer, as he did to this 17-year-old Welsh blogger and this writer at The Quackometer. It's funny, this Marc Stephens doesn't really act like a lawyer, because he does things like including Google Maps screenshots of the writer's house. Anyway, these are all things that should be wedged up quite high in the permanent Google record.

28 Comments / Post A Comment

JABB (#4,904)

I don't know. The documentary I saw on this guy painted a compelling picture of how the Texas Medical Board and the FDA harrassed him and tried to discredit him so that they could later take out patents on the treatment themselves. I'd employ a pretty aggressive PR team after what he went through.

Flaneur (#998)

@JABB Oh, please. Maybe you should shell out a few thousand to see if antineoplastons can treat your acute gullibility. This quack and his gang of avaricious thugs are monstrous. Sorry–appear by all available evidence to be monstrous, in my opinion (that work for you, Marc Stephens?).

Choire, I look forward to seeing your soon-to-arrive cease-and-desist from Stephens–please post it as soon as you get it!

JABB (#4,904)

@Flaneur I guess you didn't see the documentary then.

xee (#8,831)

@JABB is it the movie discussed here? because that blog post is quite a convincing takedown of the scientific half of the film, and the tenuousness of the 'Texas medical board trying to steal his patents' conspiracy theory (out of interest, does the TMB hold a lot of patents?).

the Loud Coast (#1,362)

@JABB yeah If read a lot of material by cults, pyramid schemes, fraudulent medical practices, etc. and one of the tactics that appears most frequently with these is to trumpet your persecution as evidence for your reputability. Its a pretty effective trick. Another good one is to put your self-produced "documentary" on Netflix so it can adopt a false sheen of legitimacy.

freetzy (#7,018)

@xee "GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY" is an awesome closing for a C&D.

Flaneur (#998)

@JABB I haven't seen it. Who made it? Does it contain a good explanation for conducting decades of lucrative clinical trials while reporting no peer-reviewed results? Does it contain a justification for obfuscation, bullying and threats by a "pretty aggressive PR team" whose leader pretends to be a lawyer? Or does it treat as a reasonable response to all of this the idea that arriving in the U.S. with $15 in your pocket means you get to do whatever you want?

@JABB : Oh, well, with a documentary, who needs peer-reviewed data produced by methodologically rigorous testing with well-defined protocols?

xee (#8,831)

@freetzy it's going to be the closing line on all my emails from now on.

xee (#8,831)

@xee

Dear Aunt Catherine,

Thanks for the sweater! I really appreciate it, it's been getting so cold over here, and it's not even December yet. Hope Uncle Joe's knee is healing up.

GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY,
xee

@the Loud Coast : Another good one is to put your self-produced "documentary" on Netflix so it can adopt a false sheen of legitimacy.

Good God, yes. Cf. "What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?", which is like the granddaddy of that particular genre.

the Loud Coast (#1,362)

@Gef the Talking Mongoose oh yes the quantum pseudo-science scene, like an existential quandry for bulshitters. Is it possible to say nothing but still somehow be lying?

Tulletilsynet (#333)

@xee
Remember to put "without prejudice" in the subject line.

@the Loud Coast : Is it possible to say nothing but still somehow be lying?

Dude, Marlee Matlin jokes are really in poor taste.

JABB (#4,904)

@xee Yeah that's the one. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632703/news. I read some sites debunking the movie after I watched it a few months ago and wasn't entirely sold on either side. As I recall the enties that wanted to discredit Burzynski and antineoplastons were part of the FDA and they applied for patents with Elan pharmaceutical. It was their belief that no single person should hold the patent and they only wanted an organization or corporation to have it. It's been a few months since I watched the movie so all the particulars are hazy, but it was interesting. Though if you watch it, people might have a knee-jerk reaction to call you gulible because they believe the FDA would never do anything wrong.

Flaneur (#998)

@JABB Pal, my knee's not jerking. It's steady as a rock, and you've been taken. Look, just make sure that if, God forbid, you or someone you know is diagnosed with cancer, you stay as far away as possible from this charlatan and his pocket-lining "treatments."

"harrassed him and tried to discredit him so that they could later take out patents on the treatment themselves"

It appears that neither you nor the makers of that documentary have any idea how the patent system actually works.

@major disaster Oops, that was supposed to be a reply to JABB.

boyofdestiny (#1,243)

@major disaster I've been waiting for you to chime in here!

@boyofdestiny Ha! Of course, it's easy for me to snark, but off the top of my head I can think at least five different reasons why that statement is nonsensical and ridiculous, but I am too lazy to elaborate.

JABB (#4,904)

@major disaster It's true. I don't know much about patent law, but the movie said that they kept taking him to court and the juries found him innocent, but they were trying to put him in jail so he couldn't fight the patent infringement. Again, I'm no big proponent of Burzynski – just someone who saw a movie that it seems a lot of people are too indignant to see.

@JABB Infringing a patent and "taking out" a patent (what you said in your original post) are two entirely different things. What you said in your original post really doesn't make any sense. What you're saying here just sounds like a nutty conspiracy theory.

JABB (#4,904)

According to the movie, Burzynski took out patents first. The AMA and the FDA tried to discredit him. Then it was later learned that some of those same parties were involved in filing for patents for the same therapy. The makers of the documentary say that they were attempting to keep Burzinski from suing them for infringement on his original patents by disceditig him as a quack and putting him in jail. It may be conspiracy theory but it does make sense. FYI, I hope you don't have the same pedantic tone in court because juries will see right through you.

Flaneur (#998)

@JABB You say "according to the movie" like it's some independent act of journalism. But didn't Burzynski or someone close to him make the movie? Anyway, the AMA and the FDA don't need to go out of their way to discredit Burzynski as a quack; he does that himself, by being a quack.

JABB (#4,904)

@Flaneur I looked around but didn't see where it says he produced it or paid for it? Where is that exactly?

Tulletilsynet (#333)

I was just infringing some patents on troll feed. Fortunately, the FDA has no jurisdiction.

Post a Comment