Two Apple Store employees wearing yellow shirts approach them. They’re instructors! The visit *was* sanctioned! These children are on a school trip to the Apple Store! As much as I approve of teaching children that Apple knows best, do it in private! The last thing I need in my place of worship are rowdy, excitable youngsters!

One of the Apple Store instructors then clips a microphone onto their shirt and says “Good morning!” to the children. The children respond in kind, only much louder. “GOOD MORNING!” The instructor commits the cardinal sin of replying “What was that? I can’t hear you! Good morning everyone!” The children take this opportunity to deafen St. David’s 2 shopping centre and scream back in a volume until now considered impossible for the human voice to reach – “GOOD MORNING!“ Silence falls across the store as the other shoppers look around in disgust, their ears recovering from the assault. A few of us glance at each other, briefly making eye contact – eye contact of solidarity. We just wanted a nice, peaceful morning browse in the Apple Store. What did we do to deserve this?

The children are then shown the various pieces of software that they will be using throughout the day. They laugh at the “hilarious” iMovie trailer. The iMovie trailer is not hilarious. They scream and cheer as they learn they’ll be making something similar soon. They continue shouting at random intervals, leaving people no time to prepare, damaging the hearing of anybody within a 5 mile radius.

Thankfully, my mum arrives just in time, so I have a legitimate reason to abandon my church. We quickly leave to buy some ear plugs.

I returned about an hour later for a Genius Bar appointment. The children were still there. Still shouting, screaming, laughing. Disgusting.

First of all, I am only 18 years old. Therefore, I wouldn’t have the problem of “being too old” for the job for at least 70 years. This would give me a long time to implement positive changes to the world. Also, I don’t have quite the negative background that Pope Benedict has. I have not been a part of the Hitler Youth, for example.

As Pope, my first act would be to set up an inquiry into the paedophilia scandal which has tarnished the Catholic church in recent years. I would employ non-Catholic church members, to ensure independence in the matter. I would be sure to hand all information over to the relevant authorities.

My second act as Pope would be to announce a reversal in policy for the Catholic church. It will no longer be against homosexuality. We will announce full support for gay marriage. I might also decide to rename marriage as “gay marriage”, so all straight people who were married in the Catholic church will now be “gay married”.

I would also reverse the Catholic church’s position on use of condoms and other forms of contraception, encouraging their use. We would also reject the idea that sex before marriage is morally superior – this is an outdated, sex-negative concept. Of course, if people choose to remain celibate, that’s their own business, but we certainly wouldn’t demand people remain so. These policies would hopefully help to reduce the rate of new HIV infections from unsafe sex.

The final policy I am announcing now is complete support for equality in the Church. People will not be denied specific positions in the Church because of their gender identity, sexuality, race etc. They will be judged on merit alone.

If you agree that these measures would be beneficial, help spread my campaign to become Pope by tweeting this blogpost and using the hashtag #RhysForPope

Thank you for your support, everyone.

The Good

I am mere days away from turning 18! From the 22nd October, I will be able to buy alcohol, vote in elections and other things that only adults are allowed to do!

I’m going to be speaking for two Skeptics in the Pub events in the coming weeks as well. First is London Skeptics in the Pub on the 30th October in The Monarch Bar in Camden. Click here for more details!

I’ll also be speaking for Kingston Skeptics in the Pub alongside Suman Biswas on the 1st November! Click here for more details!

Also, I am done with Cardiff High School. After a messy relationship involving far too much censorship for my liking, and some dodgy AS level results, I decided to call it quits. So instead of doing A levels, I’m studying for a BSc (Hons) in Health Sciences with the Open University!

Another really cool thing I’ve been doing recently is building the http://privatehealthscreen.org website for a group of doctors. The website tackles the subject of health screening – something that isn’t as clear cut as you might believe. Go and check it out!

The Bad

However, there are some not so cool things happening too – the main one being that I seem to be going through a mild/moderate Crohn’s flare up. I’ve been having mild-moderate symptoms on and off for months, but assumed it would clear up the next time I had my infliximab. Despite my bloods being normal, a calprotectin test has shown otherwise and yes, I am having a Crohn’s flare up. Hmph.

The Ugly

Yup.

So anyway, that’s basically what’s been happening/what’s going to be happening with me. Fun stuff!

I decided to start video blogging because it seemed like a good way to talk about my life and stuff I wouldn’t necessarily talk about on this here main blog. They’re 3 to 4 minutes long.

I use iMovie to edit them together. It takes me about an hour to two hours to make each video. I usually edit as I go along. It’s surprisingly un-difficult to do the editing. Working out what to say is the more difficult bit. I’m still learning how to do that bit, so I might decide eventually that scripting what I’m going to say is better.

Anyway, without further ado, here are the Diary of a Rhys videos to date!

Diary of a Rhys 1

Diary of a Rhys 2

Diary of a Rhys 3

Diary of a Rhys 4

Update! Rebecca Watson has tweeted this

https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/218099770592464898

https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/218100038356828160

There’s been an awful lot of discussion on Twitter with the skeptical/atheist communities recently, mainly about calls for equality and respect.

Tony Ryan, AKA the CoffeeLovingSkeptic has made it clear in many blogs and tweets that he dislikes Rebecca Watson. He’s one of the people, along with others in his particular group of friends, who seems to disagree with Rebecca Watson because she’s Rebecca Watson. In the past, he’s also written posts on his Facebook page seemingly directed at my friend Hayley Stevens because she’s a rational ghost hunter. He seems to believe that because he’s not particularly interested in a topic of skepticism, e.g. ghosts and psychics, that they’re not important. All in all, I don’t like the fellow because of his opinions and how he comes across. That’s not the main focus of this blog though.

Along with another person called Tom Williamson, The Skeptic Canary, who I held a lot of respect for before I realised he was *also* one of the people who dislikes what Rebecca Watson says because she’s Rebecca Watson.

They’ve both recently become embroiled in an argument with Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers via Twitter. Here’s what happened (as far as I can tell):

Tony realised that PZ Myers had blocked him on Twitter. He tweeted about this. Tom noticed and tweeted to PZ to ask him why. PZ said he didn’t know that he had. This wasn’t good enough for Tom who said “evidence suggests you are blocking” along with a screen capture proving PZ had blocked Tony.

Rebecca Watson then tweeted this to PZ:

@pzmyers That’s the guy I blocked for calling me a cunt. He emailed begging me to unblock, then called me a cunt again when I didn’t. Ha ha

— Rebecca Watson (@rebeccawatson) June 26, 2012

This tweet started a shitstorm about whether Tony had called Rebecca a cunt or not. Whatever the case, at least most of the tweet was true. Rebecca had indeed blocked Tony on Twitter. Tony later wrote a blog about it, which I will come to later.

PZ took a look at Tony’s blog and said it wasn’t a mistake because Tony’s an ass. He quite rightly them pointed out that he shouldn’t be expected to track and remember every asshole on Twitter. I certainly don’t remember most of the people I’ve blocked. That’s part of the reason I’ve blocked them – to block and forget they exist.

Tony and Tom seem to have some weird idea that blocking someone on Twitter is bad and constitutes an invasion to their freedom of speech, and this should only be done in the most extreme circumstances. That’s absolute bullshit. Blocking someone on Twitter only stops you seeing their tweets. It doesn’t stop them composing tweets. You can block someone for any reason you want to as well. There are no wrong reasons for blocking someone.

Someone’s a spambot? Block them!

Someone’s annoying you? Block them!

Someone’s offended you? Block them!

Someone spends a rather large portion of their time criticising things you say, seemingly because you said them? Block them!

The block feature is not just there to use as a ‘last resort’.

I think PZ put it well in these tweets.

.@skepticCanary What a sense of entitlement. I am not obligated to read you or @tpryan007. Bye!

— PZ Myers (@pzmyers) June 26, 2012

For the last time, YOU’RE AN ASS IF YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT WHY I BLOCK SOMEONE. I can block you ’cause my nose itches, if I want.

— PZ Myers (@pzmyers) June 27, 2012

It’s simply astounding what a sense of entitlement some people have. I especially get to block you for that arrogance.

— PZ Myers (@pzmyers) June 27, 2012

Now, back to Rebecca Watson for a minute.

Tony posted his email conversation with Rebecca on his blog. The post has the title “Rebecca Watson (The Skepchick): deluded or intentionally a liar?“

According to the screenshots, he sent an email saying:

Hi. I know this may be a bit odd sounding, but I (don’t know when) have been blocked on twitter by Rebecca Watson. I’d appreciate a second look at this, as I would like to follow her. I’m @tpryan007

I’m sure I must have said something insensitive in the past, but I’m not a troll, a bot, or a spammer!

Thanks.

This suggests to me that he seems to think these are the only real suitable reasons for blocking someone.

Anyway, Rebecca followed up with this bitingly sarcastic email:

I took a second look and you’re right, it was a mistake! I’ll fix that immediately!
Love
Rebecca
PS: OH WAIT A SECOND

http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1246

”I’m glad the skepchicks (ironic name in the circumstances, with an even more ironic calendar) aren’t convincing many to miss out on Dawkins’ brilliance.

I got sucked into the furore and wrote a couple of blogs on the matter (http://tonyryan.org.uk/?p=602 andhttp://tonyryan.org.uk/?p=582 ) , but I shan’t be doing any more! Time to move on to the real issues!”

http://tonyryan.org.uk/?p=602

“Let’s reclaim the elevator! AKA The Skepchick Delusion.”

“The only press Rebecca Watson should be getting right now is how ridiculous she’s become. A parody of a rational thinker.”

http://es.favstar.fm/users/TPRyan007/status/90781893724868608

None of the Skepchicks have shown a single shred of rationality or objective thinking lately. The irony is painful

http://es.favstar.fm/users/TPRyan007/status/90856161074626561

TPRyan007: RT @margotriphagen: RT @pinkearmuffs: RT @margotriphagen However, unlike Rebecca Watson, when I hit on my wife she didn’t call me a misogynist.

https://profiles.google.com/112922044656933946170/buzz/BCUQfq9s5tZ

Note: You can replace the tonyryan.org.uk in the domain names mentioned with coffeelovingskeptic.com and access those blog posts.

Tony’s response in which he sounds surprised that she won’t unblock him follows like this:

I didn’t say I agreed with you on everything, especially on Dawkins, but being blocked by you on twitter and other members of the Skepchicks for disagreeing seemed to go against every facet of critical thought I was an advocate of:

Hence, “None of the Skepchicks have shown a single shred of rationality or objective thinking lately. The irony is painful”

Oh well. I asked. Thank you for at least taking the time to respond.

That’s where the email thread apparently finishes. I don’t know if there was more communication after that, but a search through his Twitter feed didn’t reveal any tweets where he called Rebecca a cunt. I don’t know if he did or didn’t call her a cunt. If he didn’t, to be fair to him, Rebecca should at least acknowledge this. I’m assuming this isn’t where this particular discussion will end, given how obsessive some of Rebecca Watson’s critics are.

He still seems surprised as of the latest email that Rebecca and the other Skepchicks have blocked him.

After reading Rebecca’s email, I’m not.

If you talk and write about someone in a patronising manner, or constantly sneer at them and make snide comments, it’s not surprising they want nothing to do with you and will block you. You have no right to expect someone to pay attention to you – especially when you’d been nothing but an arsehole towards them.

So, something to leave you with – if you don’t want people to block you on Twitter, perhaps try not being a dick to them in the first place.

I have serious concerns about the Welsh Baccalaureate qualification. I also have serious concerns about my school requesting that I don’t criticise the Welsh Baccalaureate. This isn’t the first time they’ve attempted to stifle my freedom of speech – that honour goes to the Jesus and Mo issue. However, I’m going to be talking about the Welsh Baccalaureate in this post, not the freedom of speech problem – that’s a discussion for another day (February 11th, if you didn’t already know!)

One of the main problems with the Welsh Bac is that it is not even a proper baccalaureate. In a proper baccalaureate, you are required to study maths, English, science, and a language. With the Welsh Bac, there is no requirement to include science content. The language component is also weak. The people who developed the first draft of the Welsh Bac called the language component “a waste of time”.

In my experience, the entire course is weak – the maths section is nothing more than some scale drawings and basic calculations, and the ICT component is a watered down ICT course involving tedious activities such as capturing screenshots of every little thing you do, using Microsoft Office, laying out an article correctly, using Microsoft Office (Yes, the reliance on Microsoft Office really grinds my gears. There’s better, cheaper software out there!)

Another massive problem with the Welsh Baccalaureate is that, whilst it may be an additional 120 UCAS points, most universities do not consider it the A grade at A level that you are promised when embarking on the course. Cardiff University will only consider it a B grade at A level (personally, I think they’re being very generous), the University of Glamorgan will reduce the entry requirements from 3 Bs at A level to 2Bs and the Welsh Bac for their nursing course, and Aberystwyth Uni have stated that they will consider the Welsh Bac as a “valuable qualification in its own right … [and] we may be prepared to give a slightly reduced offer to Welsh Baccalaureate candidates, provided any course requirements are met.” They haven’t stated exactly how they’d ‘slightly reduce’ the offers though. Other universities such as Imperial College, for the BSc Medical Sciences course, provide a list of alternative qualifications. This doesn’t even list the Welsh Bac.

Most disturbing of all are the comments from Jeff Jones, chair of the WJEC when they bid for the Welsh Bac. He warned student off taking the Bac, saying “No wonder Russell Group universities who can get students from England with four A stars are not that interested. If I were a student I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole – even though I played a small part when I was chair of the WJEC in its development.” Mr Jones also said it’s “really an A level with a load of nonsense added on. It isn’t a proper Bac where students at 18 would still be required to study maths, English, a science and a language, not meaningless Mickey Mouse additions. What the heck is the use of ‘Wales and the World’ for a start?” He admitted that “Both the then chief executive and I discussed whether to bid for the pilot. We both agreed that it looked like nonsense but I argued that we needed the money and in any case, we had to bid because we were the Welsh exam board.” So there you have it – even the ex-head of the WJEC wouldn’t take the Welsh Baccalaureate qualification.

I don’t think it’s fair that we have no choice in doing the Bac. I’d much rather spend the time doing work towards the qualifications that actually matter and will affect my chances of into uni – my A levels. I hope my school, if they read this, will understand my frustration at being told not to criticise something that is in dire need of people speaking out to criticise it. I’d also like to find out how much money they’re receiving to offer the course and how that money is being spent.

I think this because his treatment is sold for extortionate amounts of money to vulnerable, dying cancer patients in their last months – sometimes bringing them thousands of miles away from the majority of their family – so they can be injected with a drug that’s been in development for more than 30 years, yet has no evidence base to support its use. We also know that he uses large amounts of chemotherapy in his clinic too but charging extortionate amounts of money for it.

Also, I think he is morally reprehensible because if he really has discovered a cure for various cancers, why the hell is he sitting on 30+ years of research when he could publish it and convince the scientific community that antineoplaston therapy is effective? He has a moral duty to do so. Hell, even if the results are negative he has a moral duty given the amount of money he’s charging. If it turns out that his treatment is ineffective, he should put his hands up and state “Look guys, it was a hypothesis that just didn’t work out.” If it turns out that his treatment is ineffective, he’d be wise to donate the large sums of money he’s made to cancer research. Sure, it’d be humiliating to have his life’s work undone, but at the same time it means that cancer patients wouldn’t be misled into believing his treatment is effective.

Another thing I don’t understand is why Burzynski’s patients/relatives of patients don’t demand that he publishes the results. They’re paying for this research to happen. Without their funds, Burzynski wouldn’t have been able to do the research. They funded it, so surely they have influence over whether he writes the trial up. Or am I just being too hopeful? If I were in that situation and something appeared to be working, I’d want it to be written up to further scientific research so that more people could benefit.

I have one thing to ask of you and one thing only. Tweet something along these lines:

RT @rhysmorgan Burzynski has had more than 30 years to publish his data. Why doesn’t he prove antineoplastons work? http://rhysmorgan.co/2012/01/burzynski-morally-reprehensible

or

RT @rhysmorgan Burzynski has a moral duty to publish his data. If it works, it’ll be more widely available. http://rhysmorgan.co/2012/01/burzynski-morally-reprehensible

or of course, phrase it in your own way.

Also, if anyone knows of any way that could force Burzynski to present his data or hand it over to someone capable of writing it up. I’d appreciate your contact! Use the Contact Me link or tweet to me. Thanks.

Just received this in my inbox. Found it rather amusing, so thought I might as well post it.

Name: Russ Moores

Email: [REDACTED]

Comments: I just wanted to let you know i just wasted an hour of my life reading your blog.
You are messed a messed up juvenile with a big mouth. Perhaps maturity will serve you well and help you pass this period of adolescence and wasted energy.
I wish you well in your search for perfect health and suggest you allow others to do the same. Try and let go of your bitterness and stop looking for attention from negativity.
Try and be more positive and less of a drama queen. Your negative opinions serve nobody well, including you.

I first heard of Burzynski when a friend of mine tweeted about something called “Hope for Laura”, a campaign to raise the money to send this young mother from Kent to the Burzynski Clinic in the hope that they could cure her of her inoperable, terminal brain cancer. The campaign became big news after the well-meaning Rufus Hound tweeted about it.

Because of the campaign, I did a little bit more research into the treatment regime that Laura was hoping embark on and I learned about the lack of scientific evidence for the treatment.

There have been quite a few more campaigns similar to “Hope for Laura” to raise money to send more people to the Burzynski Clinic for the antineoplaston treatment. In one such campaign, Radiohead donated a guitar to raise money for one girl’s treatment.

Constantly, it was pointed out that the treatment was “not available on the NHS” – to many people this might have made it seem potentially wonderful and too expensive for the NHS, but my first reaction was that maybe it just didn’t work. Generally speaking, if something doesn’t work, it’s not provided by the NHS. (I say ‘generally speaking’ as disproven treatments such as homeopathy are still provided, unfortunately)

Eventually, I decided to write a rather scathing blog about Burzynski and the treatment, which you can find here. The thought of someone being promised an effective treatment when in fact, it’s at best unproven disgusts me. The blog went up on August 11th, 2011. A few comments were posted but it soon disappeared into obscurity again. Other friends of mine have written
blogs about the same subject – in particular, Keir Liddle of The 21st Floor and Jennifer Keane, a.k.a ZenBuffy. These particular blogs are excellent and go into a lot more detail about the false hope dilemma.

Orac, of Respectful Insolence, has gone into a lot of detail about Burzynski’s background and the antineoplaston therapy – it’s a blog that I strongly recommend you read.

Then, out of the blue, on the 3rd of November, I received an email from a man called Marc Stephens, claiming to represent the Burzynski Clinic. He was threatening to sue me for libel for my previous blog about the Burzynski Clinic.

Hello Rhys Morgan,

I represent Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, Burzynski Clinic, and Burzynski Research Institute.
It has been brought to our attention that you have content on your website http://thewelshboyo.co.uk/2011/08/the-burzynski-clinic/ and on your Twitter account that is in violation of several state and federal laws.

This is a legal complaint regarding the your multiple twitter account posts, and article you posted online titled “The Burzynski Clinic dated August 28, 2011, by Rhys Morgan”. This correspondence constitutes a demand that you immediately cease and desist in your actions defaming and libeling my clients. Please allow this correspondence to serve as notice to you that you published libelous and defamatory information.

Please be advised that my clients consider the content of your postings to be legally actionable under numerous legal causes of action, including but not limited to: libel, defamation, and tortious interference with business contracts and business relationships.
The information you assert in your postings is factually incorrect and posted with either actual knowledge, or reckless disregard for its falsity, and with the actual and specific malice to injure my client’s business relationships in the community.

I am not sure if you are familiar with Defamation (Libel). If not, I will assist you.

What is Defamation (Libel)
Libel is a published or fixed form of defamation of character; a civil wrong that falsely impugns the reputation or character of a person or entity, opening the target up to public scorn or ridicule. Libel might appear in a magazine, book, newspaper, or in a radio or television broadcast. Signs, billboards or posters can also be mediums for libel. Online libel, or cyber libel takes electronic forms such as email, mailing lists, newsgroups, chat rooms, podcasts, vodcasts and Web pages. Although many citizens do not yet realize it, comments made to chat boards, newsgroups and even mailing lists are all forms of publication. Criticisms of companies or their goods can be a basis for libel charges if the poster misrepresents facts, or fails to qualify his or her post as opinion.

Every comment you made in your article is highly incorrect. I suggest you remove ALL references about my client on the internet in its entirety, and any other defamatory statement about my client immediately, or I will file suit against you.

I am not sure where you obtained your incorrect information, but you will be held liable for your statements. REMOVE ARTICLE IMMEDIATELY.

GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

Sincerely,
Marc Stephens
Burzynski Clinic
9432 Katy Freeway
Houston, Texas 77055

As you may guess, this caused me to panic somewhat. The threat of being sued for libel is not an exciting prospect by any stretch of the imagination, even if you know that your piece is not libellous.
I sent him back this reply:

Dear Sir,

I am confirming I have read this email.

I am, however, at high school for the rest of today, but I will deal with this situation as soon as possible with the correct action.

I notice you have stated that some tweets are defamatory. I would appreciate you linking to them please so I can deal with them appropriately.

Sincerely,

Rhys Morgan

Unfortunately, when he found out that I was in school, his attitude changed.

He didn’t respond to my request that he linked to the allegedly defamatory tweets. His response came about half an hour later, clearly trying to silence me about Burzynski:

Hello Rhys,

Please forward the notice to your parents if you are actually in High School. This is a very serious matter. Although you have a right to freedom of speech, it is against the law to post slanderous or libelous statements. Because your statements have been read by third parties you are now also interfering with my clients business, and you are emotionally effecting Dr. Burzynski’s as well as his cancer patients around the world. Please remove all references about my client, as well as all libelous statements immediately. I have already copied your website and twitter account as
proof of the statements.

Once you remove your libelous statements, you will agree, that you immediately cease and desist from making any further unsupported, defamatory, libelous or harmful statements relating to my clients through any medium, including the Internet.
You are to remove existing statements, and are not to post, host, or make available any libelous, false or defamatory statements against my clients via the Internet, television, radio, print or any other forms of media. You shall not create any new alias, nor use any old alias, to post, host, or make available any statement regarding my client via the Internet, television, radio, print or any other forms of media. You will provide a public apology to Dr. Burzynski and his patients and post it on your websites, and social media sites.

Once removed, I can provide you with the correct information from the National Cancer Institute and several doctors who testified to the effectiveness of Antineoplastons. In addition, my client is FDA approved for Phase 3 clinical trials. You are reading lies and misunderstandings on the internet, which you are still liable for re-posting this information. I appreciate you contacting me to resolve this matter.

Regards,

Marc Stephens

I decided at this point to take the post down, not to admit liability or guilt, but so that Mr Stephens and I could hopefully discuss the supposed problems before deciding on an appropriate course of action. In my response, expecting him to know the obligation to follow pre-action protocol, I asked him to tell me the exact words his client,The Burzynski Clinic thought were libellous and why they were libellous.

Dear Sir

I am writing this email to inform you that I have taken the post in question down.
However, I state that this is not a confession of liability or acceptance of guilt. This has been taken down until we can agree on an acceptable course of action.
In response, I would like you to tell me exactly which words you think are defamatory and explain why and how they are defamatory. Similarly, I would like you to tell me exactly which tweets are defamatory and why they are defamatory.
I would like this by 6pm GMT on Monday, 7th November.

Sincerely,

Rhys Morgan

The next email I received from Mr Stephens seemed rather intimidatory, implying I considered myself “bigger than Google” and that if I did, I would spend life in the court room:

Hello Rhys,

I greatly appreciate you removing the articles and comments.

You are responsible for whatever you post online. You need to spend time understanding defamation laws if you want to start a career as a blogger. You can be sued for “Not Knowing”, its called Negligence. You can not interfere with business relationships and contracts. If you do not understand what you are doing I suggest you stop posting articles. Your “Opinion” can also get you sued. Look up the recent Google case in the UK. Google was sued and lost because their algorithm created “SCAM”, “FRAUD”, etc next to a business owner’s name. We also filed a complaint with Google and they had to remove the wording. If you think you are bigger than Google than enjoy life in the court room. There are many stories online that you can find that tell you the truth about Dr. Burzynski. If you are interested in learning I can guide you to the truth. I’ve watch some of your videos and you are a really smart guy. Use that intelligence in a positive way. Be careful online and good luck.

Thanks,

MARC

He seemed to have completely ignored my request to tell me the wording. He also seemed to think he’d managed to silence me, that I’d removed the post forever. However, this was only the 4th of November, one day into the time I’d given him to respond. And so I waited to see if I would receive anything explaining exactly which words he considered libellous and why they were libellous, in the opinion of The Burzynski Clinic. Out of courtesy, I even extended this deadline to the 14th of November. This deadline passed without any response.

Seeing as he’d not bothered to reply to me, I considered reposting the blog as well as an earlier version of this one. First though, I sent an email to the Burzynski Clinic’s corporate email address with a copy of the email thread between Marc Stephens and me, a copy of the original blog and an earlier version of this post. I wanted to know if they considered anything factually incorrect or not.

Dear Sir,

I attach an email (titled Email Thread.pdf) I have received from one Marc Stephens, who claims to represent you. As you can see from the attachment, he states that he represents you, and furthermore threatens me with libel proceedings in respect of material I posted on my blog.

I have carried out some internet research, and I have not been able to establish whether or not Mr. Stephens is a lawyer; certainly he does not appear to be a member of the California Bar nor the Texas Bar in the light of my visit to the California Bar Association’s and the State Bar of Texas’s websites. Please could you confirm for me whether he does in fact represent you and, if he does, on what basis he does represent you.

In the light of Mr. Stephen’s email I attach a copy of an article (titled Burzynski Blog Final.pdf) I propose to post on my blog as well as the original blog post (titled The Burzynski Clinic.pdf) which is currently offline. Please could you tell me within 7 days what, if any, of the blogs you object to, and, in particular, whether you believe any of the blogs to be factually untrue.

Yours faithfully,

Rhys Morgan

This seems to have been then forwarded on to Marc Stephens. He seemed rather irate and replied with this:

Rhys,

This is my THIRD AND FINAL WARNING to you.

Please convey this message to your entire Skeptic Network, which includes but not limited to, Ratbags.com, thetwentyfirstfloor, quackwatch, etc. I represent Dr. Burzynski, the Burzynski Clinic, and the Burzynski Research Institute. I’ve attached Azad Rastegar, and Renee Trimble from the Burzynski Clinic for your confirmation.

In the following weeks I will be giving authorization to local attorneys in multiple countries to pursue every defamation libel case online, including your online libelous statements. I suggest you shut down your entire online defamation campaign about Dr. Burzynski, and remove ALL recent or previous comments off the internet IMMEDIATELY. The minute you post any libelous comments online about my client I will pursue you and your parents/guardians To the Full Extent of the Law. I have no obligation to train you, or teach you, the meaning of defamation. Google it, or go to the library and research it.

This is a very serious matter. Please confirm your mailing address, which I have on record as (my address). If you do not cooperate an official legal complaint requesting punitive damages will be mailed to that address. I will be contacting your school as well to inform them of your illegal acts.

Again, this is my FINAL WARNING TO YOU.

Regards,

Marc Stephens

(Screen capture of Google Maps satellite view of my house)

This is harassment. First of all, he is the only one that thinks I have committed illegal acts. Contacting my school would be wholly inappropriate. Also, repeatedly sending me Google Maps screenshots of my house seems to me like he’s trying to intimidate me.

Of course, I wasn’t going to leave it there. He continues to bring unqualified threats against me. My response?

Dear Mr Stephens

You continue to threaten to bring a claim against me for defamation.

In the event that such a claim is brought in the USA I will rely upon the well-known authority of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254. As you may be aware, this would require your client to show proof of actual malice before they could succeed in any libel claim. My postings are clearly not malicious. I believe in their truth, and I have sought to obtain a comment from your client, or else at least ascertain any objections to specific items within the posting. I am willing to listen. I would certainly reflect your client’s position if asked.

I think I come within the circumstances envisaged by the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Underwager v Salter 22 F.3d 730 at [14]:

“…actual malice” has nothing in common with “ill will.” A person who concludes that a public figure is a knave may shout that conclusion from the mountain tops.”
If the claim is brought in the English courts, you ought to be aware that in the light of the well-known decisions of Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 and Broome v Cassell [1972] AC 1028 you will not be able to bring a claim for punitive damages on these facts. You also ought to follow the procedures set out in the Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation which require you to, amongst other things, set out precisely what your client objects to and why.

This is an issue which you have failed to address. I am not asking for a legal lecture from you. What I am asking for is clear information of what your client objects to, and why. As things stand, I have heard nothing substantive; I have just received threats.
This speaks volumes.

I would remind you and your client of another aspect of the well-known decision of Underwager v Salter, to which I refer above, which was expressly adopted by the Court of Appeal in England in the decision of Lord Chief Justice Judge in British

Chiropractic Association v Singh [2011] 1 WLR 133:
“[Plaintiffs] cannot, simply by filing suit and crying “character assassination!”, silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. … More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models–not larger awards of damages–mark the path toward superior understanding of the world around us.”
I also note that you threaten to mention my “illegal acts” to my school.
Notwithstanding the fact that I have committed no “illegal acts”, the threat to involve my school is wholly inappropriate. If an English solicitor was to make such a threat they would be in breach of their professional obligations and subject to disciplinary proceedings by the SRA. Please inform me which US bar association you are a member of so that I can draw their attention to your threats.

Yours faithfully,

Rhys Morgan

Then, on Wednesday, 23rd September (Edited: Typo!) – November one day before the new deadline was up – I received an email from a law firm called Dozier Internet Law. They informed me they had been hired by the Burzynski Clinic to “investigate and address the issues regarding [my] blog” and respond to my questions in the email sent directly to the Burzynski Clinic.

They’ve not replied within the deadline I gave.

As such, I have reposted the original blog and posted this new blog detailing exactly what has happened to me.

It’s taken nearly a whole month to sort through this legal mess. I’m incredibly lucky that it hasn’t been even longer. I’ve also been very lucky to have help and advice from Alan Henness, Simon Singh and Robert Dougans, associate at Bryan Cave. The legal advice and help I’ve received has been invaluable and has brought me to where I am now – reposting the blog and telling the story of my legal threat.

Since the initial email, I have discovered others have received similar legal threats from Marc Stephens including Peter Bowditch of ratbags.com, who blogged about Burzynski eleven years ago, but is only now receiving this legal threat. Another blog threatened includes Quackometer.net from Andy Lewis, A.K.A Le Canard Noir. You can find a blog about his ordeal with Marc Stephens here:

I posted the blog so that patients, their friends and families would be aware of the whole story about Burzynski and his unproven therapy. I want them to be aware that the treatment seems to be in a constant cycle of trials generating unpublished results. As Dr Howard Ozer, director of the Allegheny Cancer Center in Philadelphia, said – it is scientific nonsense.

So in order to spread the word, I need your help. I would really appreciate it if you could do
the following two things:

Tweet about the Burzynski clinic. You could either write your own tweet or you could retweet my suggested tweet: RT @rhysmorgan Patients need to know the whole truth about Burzynski’s cancer treatment claims: http://rhysmorgan.co/2011/08/the-burzynski-clinic/

OR you could retweet this: RT @rhysmorgan Dr Burzynski does not want you to know the whole truth about his cancer treatments, which is why he tried to sue me http://rhysmorgan.co/2011/11/threats-from-the-burzynski-clinic

Add a link to this blog from your website so that it will increase the PageRank for this blog so that when patients search for Burzynski, they discover this blog as well as Dr Burzynski’s propaganda. This way, they can discover the whole truth and determine for themselves whether it’s worth investing in his treatment.