Stanislaw Burzynski’s public record

November 26, 2011

I’m going to put aside the conspiracy theories for a minute to talk about an issue that has suddenly gotten quite big quite on the Internet, though my interest in this topic goes back about 15 years.

Many years ago, the son of a friend was diagnosed with brain cancer.  He held on for about a year and had the best treatment possible at St. Jude’s. His mom had done everything possible, but in the last stages, he was too sick to participate in an experimental trial. My friend began looking for another option. From her perspective, anything that even looked like an option was preferable to what surely awaited her.

One day, near the end, I got a call. It was my friend, and she wanted to bounce an idea off of me. She had heard about a doctor somewhere in the south who had an experimental treatment. The main ingredient? An extract of urine. I listened to her, and then I crushed her. If this guy had a cure for cancer, then he’d have multiple Nobel Prizes right now. Of course, I did not mean or even want to extinguish that last bit of hope, but the doctor forced me to. I don’t know who this doctor was, but I have never forgiven him for putting me in that position, for preying on my friend’s misery, or for trying to take away the last days she had with her son.

Her son died shortly thereafter, at home, which is something, I guess.

Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D. [for now] runs a clinic in Houston, TX. He’s been running “clinical trials” on people with extracts from urine for decades. Is this the same guy? I don’t know. I don’t care.

If you take a look at the public record, Dr. [for now] Burzynski has assembled quite a record of getting people to raise enormous amounts of money for desperate causes which usually end in failure.

  • On Nov. 1, the Irish Times reported that one patient had to raise EUR 50,000. Keith Gibbons’ friends are still trying to raise money, but I’ve seen no update of his progress. [UPDATE 8/10/12: It’s with a heavy heart that I report that Keith Gibbons succumbed to his tumor. My condolences go out to his loved ones.]
  • On 26 June, 2011, The News of the World reported that the parents of Zoe Lehane Levarde were trying to raise 1 million for treatment at the Burzynski Clinic (1 million to get into a drug trial?). Zoe is now dead.
  • On 5 June, The Sunday Express reported that Luna Petagine needed to raise $20,000 to just find out if she was eligible for the unproved treatment. [UPDATE 8/10/12: I am distressed to report that Luna has passed away. The $100,000 raised to take her to Burzynski did not help, as the treatment was suspended after a month.]
  • In January of last year, an 8-year old girl from Australia, who had raised $135,000 for treatment, died, according to the West Australian.
  • The Evening Standard reported on 23 July that Wayne and Zorzia intended to take their son to the Burzynski Clinic.  According to the article: “The clinic says its antineoplaston therapy, which targets cancer cells without destroying normal cells, could give Fabian a 30 to 50 per cent chance of survival. But the treatment will cost £100,000 for the first year and is not eligble for NHS funding. A spokesman for Great Ormond Street Hospital said there was no medical evidence to suggest it would be more effective than chemotherapy.” The poor kid died that September, having only raised $50,000.
  • In March 2005, the Montreal Gazette reported that a five-year old girl, Raphaelle Lanterne, died after her parents went against medical advice and saw Burzynski.
  • In October 2003, The Gazette reported that the parents of Antonio Luk were looking for $200,000. I found that his foundation raised $30,000. Treatment was $10,000/month. Antonio died in 2004. Featured in the same article was teenager, Wesley Stefanik, another patient of Burzynski, who it seems also succumbed to his cancer.
  • On 29 September 2002, the Dallas Morning News reported that Burzynski patient Christian Titera’s costs were $13,000/month. The family raised $61,000. He died in April 2003.
  • On 21 April 2002, the New York Daily News reported that Taylor Mouzakes’ family was paying $10,000/month. Taylor died in 2006.
  • Mirjam Binnendyk, 24, went to Burzynski’s clinic, reports the Montreal Gazette in 2001, and she was happy with the treatment at the time, though the $200,000 price tag was an out-of-pocket expense. She appears to have died in 2008, but I have not been able to pin down the year.
  • Brandon Hamm, reports the Dallas Morning News on Feb 17 2002, was delivered into the care of Burzynski. It cost his family $13,425 to begin treatment. “‘I just hope this treatment at the Burzynski Clinic has him up and running in a year like the other children I read about,’ said Ms. LeJeune [Brandon’s mother], referring to testimonials on the Burzynski Clinic’s website.” He died the next day, and the death was reported in the paper on the 20th.
  • From the Globe and Mail, 9 March 2o00:

“Jean and Tom Walsh also found Dr. Burzynski on the Internet. Their 26-year-old daughter, Andrea, had also been diagnosed with a fast-growing brain tumour. They borrowed $16,000 to start her treatment, then borrowed more. Andrea suffered severe side-effects, including high fevers, disorientation and constant thirst. When Jean complained, the nurses told her these were signs the tumour was breaking up. A few weeks later, she was told that Andrea would soon be back to work. “I can’t tell you how happy we were,” Jean recalled. Her daughter died two days later, on the plane on her way home. That was 2½ years ago. Jean and Tom are still paying off their debts.”

  • In the same article, the Globe and Mail reports that Rosmari Brezak, whose treatment was projected to cost $300,000, after five weeks in treatment at the clinic, had a massive seizure and lapsed into a coma. She died on March 9.
  • The St. Petersburg Times of 3 Feb 2000 said that the husband of 29-year old Tracy Bolton was attempting to raise $10,000 to take his wife to Burzynski. When she died on the 9th, her husband was reported by the Times as saying: “If only we had gotten the money a week sooner, we would have been out there.”
  • Norma Chaimberlain of Cardiff, reported The People on 26 July 1998, was receiving  £4000/month supplies of intravenous antineoplastin, and her family was tasked with raising the projected  £90,000. She did not live through the year.

Need I go on? And this is the public record, people. Of the records I searched, I found one girl who seems to have beaten cancer into a 3rd remission. Almost everyone else I saw who had been touched by this guy is dead.

Now we hear that this guy’s representatives are threatening bloggers who question the unproven treatment? They started with Quackometer, who caught wind of yet another international fundraising event (I think that is how most of these cases ended up in the newspapers I researched–so many fundraisers). Andy came up with some reasonable concerns about Burzynski’s practices, and I quote at length:

  • Burzynski is a ‘lone genius’. Great scientific medical cures rarely stem from single individuals. They are the result of collaboration and teams. Such breakthroughs need to be assessed by peers to ensure that the researcher is not mistaken or overstating their case.
  • Burzynski is claiming he has found the ‘cause of cancer’ and his antineoplaston therapy is its cure. Cancer is a name given to many different diseases. There is not a single cause and treatments need to be targeted as specific forms. It is a common quack claim that they have found the ‘single cause’ and they have a ‘unique cure’.
  • The ‘cure’ – Antineoplastons – which were extracted from urine (yes – its the piss treatment) – has no good independent peer-reviewed RCT evidence suggesting it is effective.
  • Consequently, the treatment is not approved by US regulators. However, it is approved if treatment is part of a trial.
  • The Burzynski clinic charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for people to enroll themselves in a trial.
  • These trials of this ‘new and pioneering treatment’ have been going on for decades – since 1977. No end appears to be in sight.
  • The website Quackwatch has raised concerns about the origin of Burzynski’s claimed PhD.

Someone who apparently represents this unproven piss peddler then released a barrage of positively unhinged rants and threats against not only Andy, but also his family. This bloke doesn’t seem to understand that not only do we have the right to question Burzynski’s “miraculous” treatments, but an obligation to question them.

The threats, then, are unforgivable. And skeptics have noticed, including Orac, before whose mighty word processor the very mountains tremble. (Update: Numerous lists are going up of bloggers writing about this. Here’s LizDitz’s running tally of articles.)

It’s time for Burzynski, after decades of trials, to submit his data to peer-review or to stop treating and charging patients.

RJB

Please donate to St. Jude’s, who don’t turn people away, even if they can’t pay. Unlike Burzynski, who was once found guilty of fraud.

121 Comments | #Burzynksi, #burzynski cures, antineoplastons, Burzynski, Burzynski Clinic, Burzynski cure rate, science, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Bob

This Week in Conspiracy (20 Nov 2011)

November 22, 2011

It was a crazily jam-packed weekend for those of us at Skeptical Humanities, so this is a little late and a little short. On Saturday, Eve and I put on our thinking helmets (sometimes you just need the extra protection) and attended an event by paranormal enthusiasts. One of us will be writing about it soon, I’m sure. We were so tired at the end of the day, I think we missed our first skeptics in the pub event since…ever.

This morning, we were out again. I had been invited by the Alabama Freethought Association to talk about conspiracy theories. About 20 people showed up, and Lake Hypatia seems to be a sort of Mecca for southern atheists.

Speaking of Mecca, when we got there, an hour early (stupid time change), in one of the sitting areas on the lovely campus, we found a Koran under the bench. We pointed it out when our hosts arrived, and they brought it inside because someone might think that leaving it outside would be a desecration. That’s class, people. Learn from them.

Onto the week that was weak!

Conspiracy Theory of the Week:

That’s all for now, m’laddies. I’ve got lots more, but not a lot of time at the moment. So, keep your eyes open for more from this week in next week’s edition.

RJB

8 Comments | 9/11 conspiracy theories, Anonymous the movie, conspiracy theory, critical thinking, history, John Orloff, mass media, politics, psychology, Roland Emmerich, Uncategorized, who was shakespeare | Permalink
Posted by Bob

This Week in Conspiracy (13 Nov 2011)

November 13, 2011

Well, I’ve done it again. I spent another week in the trenches, occasionally poking my head over the parapet, and taunting the forces of conspiracy theory.

Bob

On with the pain!

Twit of the Week:

It was that crazy-haired spray-on tan nutjobby from Ancient Aliens, after the whole premise of the modern History Channel was lampooned on South Park:

Tsoukalos: Good. Let them. Deep down they know (!) we’re on the right track… No worries. RT @kuhnlevel u inspire me but my history profs hate u! lol

Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/Tsoukalos/status/134686039854948352

Conspiracy Theory of the Week

That’s it folks. Keep it crazy. I’m off next week to do some field work on Saturday, and then I’ll be going to Alabama to give a talk about conspiracy theories to a group of freethinkers there. Yay!

(Did you notice that Anonymous completely dropped off the map this week? It’s now known as Ignominious!)

RJB

5 Comments | 9/11 conspiracy theories, conspiracy theory, history, mass media, politics, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Bob

This Week in Conspiracy (7 Nov 2011)

November 7, 2011

We survived CSICon, and the audience survived my epic spiel (which was never certain). I met some pretty fab folks and enjoyed myself mightily. Eve did too. But just because we played hooky for a few days doesn’t mean that I could help but see the crazy stuff that streamed in on my mail, twitter, and reader feeds.

Let get it on.

This Week in I Made More as a Graduate Student than Anonymous Has Pulled In

I’m pretty sure that Anonymous is losing money hand over fist in the American market. This is as it should be.

And the other crazy:

Twit of the week:

This came from the @poopy_poo, who is the soul of the age: “@davidicke I hope all your 13,000 followers will be attending wembley next year mr Icke, very excited to be coming :-)”

RJB

3 Comments | Anonymous the movie, conspiracy theory, critical thinking, humanities, John Orloff, mass media, politics, Roland Emmerich, Shakespeare authorship, Uncategorized, who was shakespeare | Permalink
Posted by Bob

Shakespeare Kitteh

November 2, 2011

ES

 

 

 

 

 

10 Comments | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Eve

The Week in Conspiracy (31 Oct 2011 edition)

October 31, 2011

Hello, hello from the city where pants are optional, New Orleans. I gave my talk about anti-Jesuit and anti-Catholic conspiracy theories yesterday, and then we bopped along Canal Street to the Smarti Gras party.

  • I know that when I need medical advice, I go to a strung-out, obviously intoxicated rapper. I mean, not me, Vigilant Citizen:

This week in straight to DVD:

Here is a compilation of reviews of Anonymous, a film in which Roland Emmerich does to Shakespeare what he does to little models of the White House.

“In London, the Flat Earth Society explains that we live on a giant disk. In Petersburg, Ky., the Creation Museum shows cave men and dinosaurs frolicking together. And in a movie theater near you, “Anonymous,” which opened Friday, reveals how the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare’s plays.”

No week in conspiracy this week, folks! Tomorrow, I’ll be talking to Jon Ronson, who is Skyping into a few classes at Georgia Tech. Pretty exciting!

RJB

4 Comments | 9/11 conspiracy theories, Anonymous the movie, conspiracy theory, CSICon, history, John Orloff, mass media, politics, Roland Emmerich, Shakespeare authorship, Uncategorized, who was shakespeare | Permalink
Posted by Bob

The First Five Reasons Roland Emmerich Is an Idiot

October 23, 2011

Roland Emmerich, as you may know, is coming out with an interpretation of a screenplay that many in academia say was written by John Orloff (but we’re not sure). It will be called Anonymous. And other things. We have already linked to Roland Emmerich’s promotional video “10 reasons  why (Roland Emmerich believes) Shakespeare is a fraud.” Here it is again. Sorry. In previous posts on the subject of Shakespeare denialism, we have answered most of his ten reasons; however, it seems pertinent to go through the arguments point by point.

We should first address the elephant in the room: Shakespeare denialists sometimes claim that Shakespeare scholars have an invested interest in the Official Story. We want to be clear that we receive no monetary benefit from Big Shakespeare: Bob is an Americanist who becomes queasy when he sees the word “color” spelled with a “u;” Eve is a medievalist who considers Shakespeare to be dangerously modern. We do our shilling for free in our spare time.

Emmerich’s ten reasons are punctuated by animation. A memorial statue of Shakespeare is being tended to by a love-struck duck (or possibly a pigeon) in an academic cap and bow tie. After Emmerich makes each specious point, he throws a black quill. The real quill becomes animated and does surprising damage to the monument, causing the increasingly hysterical duck to apply emergency medical assistance. By the end of the video, the duck walks off in high dudgeon, giving the Bronx cheer to a now-animated Emmerich. Emmerich is twirling a quill and looking as smug as he does in real life. He blows on the monument, and it collapses, revealing the poster for Anonymous. This seems to be Emmerich’s opinion of scholars: hysterical ducks in bow ties.

So, let’s look at his devastating arguments against Shakespeare:

1. No manuscript or poem exists in Shakespeare’s own handwriting, not even a letter.

Very few Elizabethan/Jacobean plays exist in authorial manuscripts. As we have mentioned repeatedly, one of the few exceptions is the play-by-committee, Sir Thomas More. Hand D is an authorial hand; it is very possible that that hand is Shakespeare’s.

Emmerich suggests that because Shakespeare lived in London while his wife and children lived in Stratford, he would have produced “a vast amount of correspondence.” Of course, as Emmerich will later point out, Shakespeare’s wife, daughters and parents were all illiterate, and his son died at the age of eleven. The fact that his family members were illiterate doesn’t mean that Shakespeare couldn’t have written letters to them. A literate person could have read the letters to Shakespeare’s wife and family. Similarly, a literate person could have written messages to Shakespeare from his wife. We know, for instance, that actor Edward Alleyn wrote to his illiterate wife. These were included in letters to her father, theatrical entrepreneur Philip Henslowe. But why would we necessarily expect Shakespeare’s letters to survive? Shakespeare’s direct line died out with his granddaughter Elizabeth. His house was sold and eventually demolished.

Emmerich says, “the largest literary hand in history produced not a single handwritten note of William Shakespeare.” Ignoring for the moment the awkwardness of this sentence, the statement is not true, or is, at least, an argument from ignorance. The fact that we haven’t found any letters does not mean that there were no letters. It simply means that we have found no letters.

2. Shakespeare’s daughters Susanna and Judith were illiterate.

Emmerich muses that it seems incredible that Shakespeare wouldn’t want his children to read his works. “Doesn’t work for me,” he says. Whether it works for Emmerich or not is really irrelevant. The illiteracy of Shakespeare’s family has no bearing on the question of Shakespeare’s authorship. Is it disappointing that the creator of some great (literate) female characters didn’t teach his daughters to read? Perhaps, but it was pretty typical. Women of Shakespeare’s class were not routinely given extensive formal education. The school Shakespeare presumably attended would not have been open to his daughters. I assume that a tutor would have been necessary had Shakespeare decided to educate his daughters. I suppose Shakespeare could have afforded a tutor, but he seems not to have employed one–again, this is fairly typical for his class. And again, it has absolutely no bearing on the authorship of the works attributed to Shakespeare.

3. Shakespeare wrote “obsessively” and knowledgeably about the aristocracy.

First of all, not all of Shakespeare’s plays center on royalty and nobility: Merry Wives of Windsor focuses on middle-class characters. The main characters of The  Comedy of Errors and The Merchant of Venice are also non-noble. It is true, however, that a majority of Shakespeare’s plays feature royal and aristocratic characters. It is also true that some of his contemporaries (particularly later contemporaries) did focus more on the middle classes in, for instance, city comedies and satires.

So what does this prove? Exactly nothing. Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Kyd also seem to have focused primarily on the upper classes (although Kyd is usually named as the author of the domestic tragedy, Arden of Faversham. According to some scholars, particularly Arthur Kinney, Shakespeare is responsible for portions of this play).

If Emmerich is suggesting that Shakespeare didn’t have sufficient knowledge to write about the aristocracy and court life, then he is wrong. Shakespeare could have gained the knowledge he needed by study, observation and rumor. But privileged knowledge isn’t what Emmerich is primarily concerned about. Instead, he wants to start some kind of Renaissance class war. He contrasts Shakespeare to Ben Jonson whose works “pretty much reflect the perspective of the working man.” I guess Emmerich forgot all those Jonson masques that were written for and performed by members of the royal court. Shakespeare, says Emmerich, “apparently mocks his peers by giving them silly names, like Bottom, Dull, Mistress Overdone. Was Shakespeare a traitor to his own class? No way.”

I agree: Shakespeare was not a class-traitor. The tradition of giving silly and descriptive names to comic characters, usually (though not always) of lower social rank is a very old one. But surely Ben Jonson, Mr. Middle Class, wouldn’t do something like that. Let’s see, what are some of the character names in Bartholomew Fair? Well, there’s Littlewit, Quarlous, Winwife, Grace Wellborn, Adam Overdo and Dame Purecraft. Oh dear. Well, how about The Alchemist? There’s Lovewit, Subtle, Face, Dapper, Drugger, Sir Epicure Mammon (a nobleman), Surly, Dame Pliant and Dol Common. Feel free to peruse the name in Every Man in His Humour and Volpone for yourselves.

4. “Check this one out:” Shakespeare had bad handwriting and couldn’t spell his name.

We’ve been over this one several times, so briefly: 1. secretary hand 2. non-standardized spellings. Here is a signature of Sir Walter Raleigh:

The spelling is “W. Ralegh.” Here he signed his name “W. Rawley.” Illiterate yobbo swine. Also notice the handwriting of the document: it’s quite neat, but very hard to read. It may also be useful to compare the one letter addressed to William Shakespeare (original here; facsimile here): more hard-to-read secretary hand. And just one more–the handwriting of Sir Thomas Wyatt the Elder.

5. “I believe writing comes from the heart,” and Shakespeare’s writing doesn’t reflect that.

“Call me a romantic, but I believe great artists are inspired by their life” Emmerich says. Well, okay, I can think of other words, but for now I’ll just say, yes, your notions of authorship reflect concepts that arose in the Romantic Era.

Emmerich complains that Shakespeare didn’t write a poem on the death of his son. Jonson wrote about his dead kid, after all. Well, if Ben Jonson jumped off London Bridge….never mind. Of course, it’s possible that Shakespeare did write about his son’s death but that the poem was never published and did not survive. Maybe he decided to keep his personal poems personal. Or maybe he didn’t write about his son at all. We don’t know. And guess what? It has nothing to do with the authorship question.

But, just for the moment, let’s follow Emmerich’s thought-process: the fact that the plays and poems don’t reveal Shakespeare’s innermost feelings proves that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare. Okay. So, what about the guy who did write the works? If the works don’t reveal Shakespeare’s inner life, how is it that they do reveal the inner man if that inner man is someone else? I guess the works do reveal the inner life of the “real” author if we just read them the correct way, which, I presume, is cross-eyed and and hanging upside down.

Here endeth Part the First.

ES/RJB

13 Comments | academia, Anonymous the movie, history, humanities, John Orloff, literature, Roland Emmerich, Shakespeare authorship, Uncategorized, who was shakespeare | Permalink
Posted by Eve

“Anonymous” Screenwriter John Orloff: Name Dropping and Wrong

October 18, 2011

John Orloff, who wrote the screenplay for the badly titled Anonymous (as Eve points out, it should be Pseudonymous) out-stupided the Huffington Post on their own turf, which is no mean feat. He took issue with the phrase “urban legend.” I agree. They should have used the phrase, “unfettered clacking bollocks.” I intend to use his little screed in future classes to teach logical fallacies. His letter went as follows:

I’d like to think current and past US Supreme Court Justices don’t believe in Urban Legends. Namely, Justices Stevens, Blackmun, O’Connor and Scalia all think there is reason to doubt the validity of the actor William Shakespeare having written the plays history ascribes to him.

Wow. Not a Shakespearean scholar among them. Ok, you’re name dropping, but the sad fact is that just because you don’t like to think about it doesn’t mean it’s not true. This is the appeal to personal incredulity. “I can’t believe that these smart people would believe an urban legend, therefore, Shakespeare wasn’t Shakespeare.”

As does historian David McCullough. As do authors such as Mark Twain (whose last book, “Is Shakespeare Dead” is dedicated to the issue), Henry James (who said he was “haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting Public”), and Walt Whitman (to name a few).

This is a classic appeal to false authority. You could fart sonnets like an angel and still not have a rollicking clue about the reams of scholarship backing the mainstream view.

As do Shakespearean actors Sir John Gielgud, Sir Derek Jacobi, and Orson Welles (who directed and starred in several Shakespeare plays).

Yawn. Appeal to false authority. Sorry.

And Mark Rylance, who is not only perhaps the greatest Shakespearean actor of his generation, but a man who was also the Artistic Director of the Globe Theater in London for ten years. Think about that last name; the man who ran the Globe theater for a decade doesn’t think Shakespeare wrote a single word.

Wow. I’m willing to bet if I look in my university databases I’ll find he never had to publish a goddamned thing under peer review:

  • Academic Search Complete ( 0 )
  • Research Library ( 0 )
  • Project Muse ( 0 )
  • MLA International Bibliography ( 1 )
  • Essay & General Literature Index ( 0 )
  • Arts & Humanities Citation Index ( 0 )
  • Humanities Int’l Index ( 0 )

That single entry is in a book about the resurrection of the Globe Theater, and it does not address authorship. And it’s not you like are citing an independent authority, since he’s in the freaking movie. “Well, my friends think so,” is as unconvincing as, “My mom says I’m smart.”

And we can add Sigmund Freud in there as well.

SO!?!

An Urban Myth is something proven to be false. I’m not sure we’re there on this particular issue.

Well, I disagree with your definition of urban myth, but the burden of proof is not on mainstream academia. We don’t default to the position that you know your head from your ham hocks.

And how do you know that someone wasn’t scared by Eddie Murphy in an elevator?

Either way, I am reminded of Winston Churchill’s statement on the subject when he was asked about the Authorship Issue. His response? He replied he wasn’t that interested in Oxford because, in his words: “I don’t like to have my myths tampered with”.

He meant the Shakespeare myth.

He meant, “Get stuffed, bozo. I’m not interested.” It doesn’t matter how many amateurs you say you surround yourself with, you’re still sitting on the short bus. (Yes, the actors and directors have a skill set that is completely unrelated to scholarship.)

Your software is broken, kiddo. Don’t try to contribute to the Great Discussion, because you’ll only embarrass yourself.

RJB

28 Comments | academia, Anonymous the movie, art, conspiracy theory, critical thinking, derp, history, John Orloff, mass media, Roland Emmerich, Shakespeare authorship, Uncategorized, urban legend, who was shakespeare | Permalink
Posted by Bob

This Week in Conspiracy (16 Oct 2011)

October 16, 2011

My every waking moment is consumed by CSICon at this point. Currently, I’m looking into the idea of “human hybrids,” whatever the crap those are supposed to be. I mean, hybrids with what? There are, of course, the innumerable human-alien hybridizations, but the guy I’m talking about doesn’t believe that there are such things as aliens. So, hybridized with what? I think that “hybridization” might be a code word for “I don’t understand genetics.” But he does talk about the hybrids’ sterility. God, muddling through the brains of conspiracy theorists is such a muddle. I think that there is a strain of the “medical experimentation” trope in there, but… yeah, that’s not exactly right, either. Oh well.

But enough of my foolish problems. Onto the foolish problems of others!

Conspiracy theory of the week:

Well, I’m going to hide in a bunker. See you all next week!

RJB

1 Comment | 9/11 conspiracy theories, conspiracy theory, CSICon, history, mass media, politics, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Bob

The Week in Conspiracy (9 Oct 2011)

October 9, 2011

Is it strange that I first typed 2003? I mean, it hasn’t been 2003 for, like, at least 5 years.

Anyway, it was a goofy time this week in the conspiracy theory-o-sphere. Or at least, I think it was. You see, my principle data gathering method, the Twitter Android app, was down this week, and I was not able to collect as much as I normally would.

The UN documents describing Project Blue Beam and how the NWO and UN plan to use the actual projection of “indoctrinating holograms” onto the atmosphere itself to create convincing but fraudulent “second coming” imagery are located on my original Wiki and have been hidden there in plain sight for four years. This is the NWO’s most ludicrous, heinous and preposterous plan yet for trying to install a one world government on the unsuspecting people of the world, by employing the ultimate in faked imagery to try to achieve their goals.

typical jewish online behaviour – very similar to trying to argue with your wife (those of you who have experienced the moving-goal-post nature of such an exercise.

That’s all I have, folks. I would have written about some of the Occupy Wall Street protests, but I honestly have no idea what they are about. I mean, yes, they are mad, but what are you advocating? Oh, well. Sorry. I’ll try to be better next time.
RJB

1 Comment | conspiracy theory, CSICon, mass media, politics, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Bob

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »