Marc Stephens... phoney or fruitcake?

The "big" story towards the end of 2011 was the activities of the Burzynski Clinic in the US and those of the curious Marc Stephens who, rather than engage with the criticisms of the clinic, decided to stalk a 17 year old sceptic called Rhys Morgan by posting a picture of his parent's house in his email correspondence.

Rhys Morgan collecting an award from the sceptic Jedi Master James Randi

(There is a debt collection company I will be 'outing' in the next few weeks who also engage in this practice to intimidate potential debtors or, more often than not, random members of the public.) 

I digress.

I won't go too much into the Burzynski issue, because this rebuttal of his methods here is exemplary, suffice to say that trying to cure people with urine is quite an ancient woo woo and that I believe the actions of the clinic cause serious harm to the public. By that I mean his methods are not credible and people are giving his clinic thousands of pounds (or dollars... all money is the same to that fella it seems) for a therapy which is not efficacious (i.e. not proven to work or, more accurately, is BS). 

Buzynski could be a well meaning doctor desperate for a cure for cancer. I won't say he isn't. But in the face of the evidence that his methods do not work when empirically tested he is doing serious harm to his patients. No question. The evidence shows his methods do not work. How much clearer does that need to be?

But of course he is making money from this. LOTS of money. And he doesn't seem to mind taking money for something which, when peer reviewed, does not work. That, in my mind, makes him a charlatan. A snake oil salesman. But he's a snake oils salesman who won't stop; even in the face of the scientific criticism of his work... he carries on, convinced that his method will work one day or, from the evidence us sceptics have, that more people will be tempted by his very polished sales patter... we need something like this to dismiss nonsense:

Buzynski is either deluded or a crook. There's really no other way to put it. I'm sure he is well meaning on some level but the efficacy of his treatment should have told him long ago that he is on the wrong track. How many more people have to die before he is considered a public health risk?

I am certain about on thing... Marc Stephens is a crooked piece of shit. This is the "internet lawyer" who was employed by Burzynski to respond to the criticisms of his work. Stephens is the guy who has literally been doling out legal threats left, right and centre for the past few weeks. According to the Burzynski clinic, he was sacked after the fallout from the threats directed to Rhys Morgan.

Is he potentially a rogue employee or a defender of Burzynski frothing at the mouth when given some power to enact a damage containment exercise? Is he someone who looked at Britain's libel laws and thought...

Mr. Burzynski, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement.
But, just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement

It's interesting that since being publicly sacked he has continued dishing out the threats since and, in particular, to the blogger Ken White over at Popehat (an excellent blog by the way). 

In fact, it was White who convinced me it was worth writing about this when he wrote:

"Thuggish lawsuit threats calculated to chill dissent only work when people refuse to fight back. Let's fight back."

I agree, we need to fight these churlish threats and treat them for what they are; egotistical stunts designed to close down dissent.

I'm already in the High Court defending libel proceedings and have only wrote a couple of posts on my blog since to keep something of a low profile and, mainly, because the case is incredibly stressful and has taken me away from what I would consider a normal life.

It's taught me you should be careful what you say. And it has had the effect of me having to really think about what I write and how I write it. However, this issue is too important to ignore. For an adult to intimidate a young guy starting out in the world of scepticism (and gaining a positive reputation) by posting details of his address and sending a photo of it is nothing short of criminal as far as I am concerned. It's an act of cowardice. It's the act of a pathetic individual desperately seeking to justify their existence. 

Now I'm sure that Rhys could have withstood a rational a reasoned debate were he wrong about what he was reporting. When you start writing in a adult world you need to be able to handle the responses you get. I'm very confident that Rhys would have been able to engage with Marc on a level playing field or even one slightly tipped against him. However, to intimidate someone using the law and use tactics similar to that of a stalker is where a line should be drawn and I'm happy to defend Rhys and any other blogger using whatever means available.

In any event Marc Stephens has been caught out and shown up for what he is. And with his refusal to supply details of his legal registration which, at the time of writing, does not exist, he is more than likely a wannabe who is too lazy to put the work into law school. Taking the short cut never works. 

He could well be someone on the Burzynski payroll or, quite simply, a lonely keyboard warrior who needs attention. 

Cyber Threats 'R' Us... 

Either way, he needs to be shown that people are not intimidated and they will not be bullied, especially by morons like him.

Ken White has my support with this and as soon as I am able I will ensure that I devote some more time to raising the public's awareness of Burzynski's scientifically flawed, and therefore unethical, clinical method (Antineoplaston therapy) and the perverse actions of the shyster Marc Stephens.

If he wanted a fight, he picked the wrong crowd.

It's just a theory

I'm no biologist. Other than a double award GCSE in Biology and Physics I have only an 'interest' in the sciences. I claim no authority whatsoever in this field. But I do know the difference between a 'theory' and a 'Theory'.

And no, the capital "T" is not it. I shall explain...

John Freshwater is one of those Creationist Biology teachers who claims that he teaches alternative views to Evolution to bring balance to the subject.

He lost a case against his dismissal from Mount Vernon Middle School this week where it was claimed that he not only taught Creationism and refused to remove religious material from his classrooms but also burned a cross into students arms with a Tesla Coil. This is a picture used in the case against him:

Horrific.

A report here said:

"Although it is reported that school officials have not completely absolved Freshwater of the Tesla coil incident, a hearing officer had previously found that it was not a factor in the firing, "because Freshwater stopped using it after he was told to do so."

“I have been completely cleared of that but they continue to bring that up. That should have never been brought to the case,” Freshwater said. “The media reports keep bringing it up. I guess it sells papers.” [emphasis is always mine]

So he is a liar as well as a child abuser then because burning symbol into a child's skin IS child abuse. He should have been sacked on the spot for that alone. The school caught him doing it and told him to stop using the device to inflict his warped sense of morality onto other human beings.

I would have strapped to a chair, put the Tesla coil in his mouth and then retire for lunch... hopefully upon my return he would have a different opinion on whether the Tesla coil is a suitable teaching implement? Maybe he would like it too much and this would defeat the object? I digress...

If that wasn't bad enough his lawyers adds insult to injury:

“He never had a negative performance evaluation in 20-plus years. He is a good teacher,” Rutherfor Institute President John W. Whitehead told CP. “The real issue here is that he has obligedly challenged a sacred object in public education, which is the theory of evolution.

“People forget it is a theory. So, our argument is that he should have the academic freedom to do that. If schools just want an official version they should just show a video or get a robot to do it. It would be easier,” Whitehead said."

Creationists LOVE saying that Evolution is "just a theory"... they think it offers a way for them to intellectually discredit Evolution and offer alternatives on a rational basis. 

Now, if they truly think that Evolution is just a theory based on their understanding of the word "theory", then it is entirely rational for them to believe that an alternative is viable. I always look at how people use rationality and reason to come to their conclusions. And I do think that they are operating on some rational level based on their assumptions.

But in this case it is intellectually dishonest for a teacher to believe that a 'scientific theory' and the word 'theory' mean the same thing. Therefore the assumption is wrong. Horribly wrong.

Scientific Theory: "In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains."

Theory: 

By saying that Evolution is "just a theory" it's clear that Creationists are referring to the 2nd description in this dictionary.com explanation. They think that Evolution is an idea... a flight of fancy without verification.

This book rounds on those who think that evolution is "just a theory" and I recommend it highly (I don't get money for links, advertising or purchases). 

Above all, it is intellectually disgraceful for a science teacher to be misrepresenting, via his lawyers, evolutionary theory. And this shows that he has been either sucked into a propaganda machine intent on "Teaching the Controversy" or is simply a fruitcake of the highest order who needs to go back to school. 

The message is; always watch out for the Creationists who deliberately misrepresent the word "theory" whether by intent or lack of education.

I wish the Liars for Jesus brigade would debate honestly. By moving the goalpost to deliberately misrepresent the science they are committing fraud and trying to fuck up public education. And it's all part of an agenda by organisations determined to promote Intelligent Design based on the Christian principle of a creator. We don't see Hindu creationists penetrating public discourse for example in the same way as the Christian fundamentalists but then the resources of these organisations is vast and influence wide.

Answers in Genesis is one popular creationist resource... check paragraph 6 of their mission statement:

This is the intellectual level at which this organisation and their ilk operate on. Nothing can contradict the bible. If it does, even if the evidence is overwhelming then it must be wrong. Simply because it will have been subjected to "interpretation by fallible people".

Anyone else think that this is a contradictory and hypocritical statement to make considering that:

a) the bible was written by fallible people

b) that the bible is subject to interpretation by fallible people

Nothing will convince the fundamentalists that they are wrong. It's their mission statement. I prefer to subscribe to rigorous scientific enquiry. I don't mind being wrong about things. In fact I consider being wrong to be a part of the learning process. Creationists, and particularly the fundamentalists of all faiths, do not want to learn. And that's backwards thinking...

The right to use a megaphone

Justice Holland in the High Court in 2007 stated that: "Protest is lawful; the use of a megaphone as an adjunct of lawful protest is itself lawful. The starting point is unfettered freedom to engage in so much amplified protest as is neither intimidating or harassing." HLS Group Plc v SHAC 2007 WL 919475 [2007] EWHC 522 (QB) QBD.

(However, if you were to shout insulting and abusive comments through a megaphone or point it deliberately in someone's face, this might amount to an offence).

I'm saving this here so that I never forget that the justice system does work in the favour of people who want to try and make a difference whether with humour or irony.