Yes, but when the Burzynski clinic was questioned about Stephens' threats, it was Stephens who responded. The clinic can't claim deniability for his actions.

The way the letter was presented it seemed like they were a lawyer representing a client. The recipient acted on that and so they too got the impression that they were corresponding with a lawyer when the person uses words like "represent" and "to serve as notice to you"

There must be a reasonableness test for impersonating a lawyer. I imagine that impersonating a lawyer is illegal in Texas. If so then Marc Stephens of the Burzynski Clinic could be due for some bonus butthurt.

And the fun continues. The Burzynski clinic also offers anti-ageing products: http://www.aminocare.com. More money from gullible people.

Darkchilde wrote:Seems like Mr. Stephens is not a lawyer, but an independent contractor doing web marketing for the Burzinslky clinic. Martin Robbins posted this response from the real lawyer Rick Jaffe of Burzinsky clinic:

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

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

Seems like Mr. Stephens is just doing some scaremongering.

Plausible deniability.

Varangian wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Seems like Mr. Stephens is not a lawyer, but an independent contractor doing web marketing for the Burzinslky clinic. Martin Robbins posted this response from the real lawyer Rick Jaffe of Burzinsky clinic:

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

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

Seems like Mr. Stephens is just doing some scaremongering.

Plausible deniability.

I don't think that excuse will work though, since Rhys emailed the clinic specifically to ask whether Stephens was their lawyer, and to confirm that they knew he was sending him threatening information and attempting to intimidate him by posting google map shots of his house. They responded by forwarding his concern to Marc Stephens.

I'm no lawyer, but I think at that point the clinic would lose the ability to claim they were unaware of what he was doing.

This Marc Stephens guy is off his meds.

Onyx8 wrote:This Marc Stephens guy is off his meds.

Could be he was told,

"SEO bitch, get the Clinic into the news. Anyway, anyhow, we want Burzynski clinic trending up. You hear, UP."

Well they got that. I remember reading about some wise guy who sold sunglasses and stuff online and he discovered that any news will pump the search rankings. So he deliberately was an arsehole when it came to people who complained because if they blogged this and linked to his site then search engines didn't actually care back then if the review said buy or avoid like the plague.

I think google has got wise to that but in the end no news is bad news and people, if they are desperate, and they would be with the big-C, then all they need to hear is 2nd hand information and they'll assume it is good and they have hope. They re going to skip over the bad news and only let through the claims of the clinic.

Oh in fact they have done the plausible deniability thingy:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BzijOpjuex1bMjE4N2JjOGItZGFlOS00NDE0LTk2YzktMThkYjFiOTU2YjNl&hl=en_GB&pli=1

Darkchilde wrote:Oh in fact they have done the plausible deniability thingy:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BzijOpjuex1bMjE4N2JjOGItZGFlOS00NDE0LTk2YzktMThkYjFiOTU2YjNl&hl=en_GB&pli=1

It may just be because I'm not sure how these things work, but is it weird that of all the papers they referenced in support of their treatment, all but one had Burzynski as an author, and most of those were the same three people? Shouldn't there be more variety in the authors if the theory/treatment is going to be considered anything other than quackery?

So they threw Stephens under the bus (I hope some of the people he threatened sue him anyway) and say...exactly what? That the statement made about them using urine is incorrect because they use "chemicals"?

I wouldn't be surprised if these guys go after Stephens themselves, this thing has been so badly mishandled it reminds me of something where inordinate power in a new technology was placed in the hands of a young and eager and ambitious person who kinda fucked up. What was that now...?

trubble76 wrote:So have the lying, fraudulent scumbags threatened anyone here yet?

We'll see, I re-posted the Rhys Morgan link on the FB, and they are here, there, everywhere now ... More power to that kid, he gives the impression of a really tough and intelligent young man.

Agreed.

matt8819 wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Oh in fact they have done the plausible deniability thingy:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BzijOpjuex1bMjE4N2JjOGItZGFlOS00NDE0LTk2YzktMThkYjFiOTU2YjNl&hl=en_GB&pli=1

It may just be because I'm not sure how these things work, but is it weird that of all the papers they referenced in support of their treatment, all but one had Burzynski as an author, and most of those were the same three people? Shouldn't there be more variety in the authors if the theory/treatment is going to be considered anything other than quackery?

Oh, yes, it is. In fact this blogpost looks at those:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2011/11/a-look-at-the-burzynski-clinics-publications/

matt8819 wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Oh in fact they have done the plausible deniability thingy:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BzijOpjuex1bMjE4N2JjOGItZGFlOS00NDE0LTk2YzktMThkYjFiOTU2YjNl&hl=en_GB&pli=1

It may just be because I'm not sure how these things work, but is it weird that of all the papers they referenced in support of their treatment, all but one had Burzynski as an author, and most of those were the same three people? Shouldn't there be more variety in the authors if the theory/treatment is going to be considered anything other than quackery?

Two words: Independent confirmation.

Well, Rhys Morgan made the news: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/schoolboy-blogger-us-clinic. I have been following his tweets for some time, before the Burzynski clinic made him famous, and can say he is a very bright young kid, and we need more people like him.

Orac's dealt with the Burzynski Clinic's advertising shenanigans nicely here...
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/ ... ts_not.php

peter harrisons blog

http://realityismyreligion.me/2011/11/30/petition-the-burzynski-clinic-to-release-their-clinical-data/

leading to this petition.


Petition the Burzynski Clinic to release data.