Comments on: Burzynski Filmmaker Contacts My EMPLOYER?!?!

By: Happy Birthday, Dr Burzynski… and goodbye, antineoplastons | Josephine Jones

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:28:20 +0000

[...] has already proved unpopular with Burzynski supporters. In December 2012, Eric Merola emailed Bob’s employers informing them [...]

By: Science-Based Medicine » Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s antineoplastons versus patients

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 07:53:41 +0000

[...] Movie II: This Time It’s Peer-Reviewed (except that it’s still not, not really, and I can’t take credit for that joke, as much as I wish I could) or Burzynski The Movie II: Even Burzynskier Than The First, or [...]

By: Happy Birthday, Dr. Burzynski! | The Houston Cancer Quack

Happy Birthday, Dr. Burzynski! | The Houston Cancer Quack — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:32:01 +0000

[...] You might be interested that the EMPLOYER of one of our members was recetly contacted by one of Burzynski’s misguided supporters. [...]

By: Burzynski blogs: My Master List | Josephine Jones

Burzynski blogs: My Master List | Josephine Jones — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:31:11 +0000

[...] Eric Merola, who directed the Burzynski Movie, claims to be an independent documentary film maker. In December 2012, as part of his work on a follow up movie, he wrote to the employers of Bob Blaskiewicz, a vocal critic of Burzynski, pointing out Bob’s ‘extra-curricular activities’. This email also made the false assertion that antineoplastons are FDA approved. [...]

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:22:34 +0000

We raised $2000 for children with cancer today, people! Thanks very much!

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:19:24 +0000

Yeah, don’t feed the trolls, people. I’m shutting down comments later tonight, because really a whole lot of awesome people are going to say, “Go, Bob!” and a handful of trouser dumplings are going to say, “DOOOOOOM!” This ends shortly.

By: RogerC

RogerC — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:07:58 +0000

Based on this link I don’t see that email anywhere – Bob is screwed:

http://domainsigma.com/whois/burzynskimovie.com

By: RogerC

RogerC — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:49:49 +0000

Hm, not sure where you found that “public registration address” care to share link?

By: captainobviousfoeofobfuscation

captainobviousfoeofobfuscation — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:12:46 +0000

@Bob – this reminds me of a similar situation here http://charles-carreon.com/2012/09/06/this-is-how-i-thug/ I thought you might enjoy as the invidual in a position similar to yours, prevailed.

I find the actions of Eric Merola unprofessional, censourious, and thugish. All I can say Bob is that you must have them very worried indeed. Keep up the good work.

By: captainobviousfoeofobfuscation

captainobviousfoeofobfuscation — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:05:23 +0000

@scienceLover – Are you sure YOU actually read much less understood the content behind the link you provided? A plaintiff must establish four elements to hold someone liable for publication of private facts:

1. Public Disclosure: The disclosure of facts must be public. Another way of saying this is that the defendant must “give publicity” to the fact or facts in question.
2. Private Fact: The fact or facts disclosed must be private, and not generally known.
3. Offensive to a Reasonable Person: Publication of the private facts in question must be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
4. Not Newsworthy: The facts disclosed must not be newsworthy. Stated differently, the facts disclosed must not be a matter of legitimate public concern.

The re-publication of the aforementioned email fails the last two elements (particularly the 4th) and therefore fails to hold in its entirety. In simple terms, you’re post is nothing but hot air.

@Bob – the IP goes to an address in The Colony – a subdivision of North Dallas that is North of Carrollton TX.