"This foam-flecked angry rant did not look like the work of a lawyer to me. And indeed it is not. Marc Stephens appears to work for Burzynski in the form of PR, marketing and sponsorship."The 'work' link goes to the clinic website:
"The Burzynski Patient Group welcomes any questions or comments you might have. If you have a question or suggestion that you would like to send to The Burzynski Patient Group by email, please use the form provided below. Your question will be answered as soon as possible. Also, if you would like to speak with a former or current Burzynski Patient please use the form provided below and Mary Jo Siegel will contact you immediately.posted by ericb at 12:21 PM on November 28, 2011
Marketing & Sponsorship
Marc Stephens
"So, when I present to the juror that my client and his cancer treatment has went up against 5 Grand Juries which involved the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Aetna Life Insurance, Emprise, Inc., Texas State Medical Board, and the United States Government, and was found not guilty in all 5 cases, you will wish you never wrote your article."One might argue that he is strongly implying that he is an attorney representing a 'client.' BTW -- such horrible grammar.posted by ericb at 1:35 PM on November 28, 2011
"TRUTH and PROOF are the same thing..it all derives from LOGIC. Its like telling me the united states is a country. BY LAW its not its a corporation. Just read the preamble of the constitution..if youre smart you will see the PROOF."
First, a nice bit of news: Marc Stephens, the lunatic who stirred up the recent blogospheric buzz with his clumsy thuggery, no longer has a "professional relationship" with the Burzynski clinic, that warehouse of quackery. One thing about charlatans is that they have a fine-tuned sense of who might be hurting their bottom line.posted by ericb at 2:06 PM on November 30, 2011 [1 favorite]
But the damage has already been done. The Burzynski clinic is getting scrutinized.
Josephine Jones is tracking all the commentary.
And this is rich: Jen McCreight digs into the Burzynski publications list. Would you believe it's a collection of marginal, low-impact journals and unreviewed conference presentations? Yeah, I knew you would.
Is it so surprising where desperate parents will turn in the search for a cure for their terminally ill child?Is a question that I think anticipates the negative. That isn't surprising at all. However, it's also not the question a readers' editor should necessarily be asking. I think that question would look more like:
What was the level and tone of responses from readers to this article, what concerns did they raise, how justified do we think these concerns are, what criticisms do we reject and why do we reject them, and what, if anything, will we do differently in the future?"Except probably snappier. Looking at the readers' editor's page, one can see that the standfirsts are almost always either making a statement or asking a question about specific journalistic practice at the Observer - stating that details about race and religion should not be added to a story unless they are relevant, for example, or asking whether it is better to refer to a female who acts as an "actress" or an "actor". This standfirst - which asks a question about human nature, and, I think, a strongly rhetorical one - is clearly unusual.
« Older "The thing is, some really good scripts come ... | Reader, I marinated it. [indep... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Shut the article down IMMEDIATELY.
GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.
Admittedly, these are damn fine lines to sign off with.
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 10:20 AM on November 28, 2011 [1 favorite]