I read your article with amusement.
Your suggestion that it’s “unusual for a film critic to be harassed (in my opinion) by a fan-film producer,” made me laugh.
The “alleged” film critic posted a video on YouTube with a number of inaccuracies and suspect material in it, which I have covered on my blog.
Labeling the “documentary” as a “fan-film” and the producer’s request that this “fact-challenged” video be taken down as “harassment,” (in my opinion) is quite a stretch.
The “vloggers” paranoid statement re “force me to give him my home address so that I can be the subject of legal harassment and intimidation by his lawyers and media thugs,” is hilarious.
Your comment that Burzynski is not an oncologist is irrelevant; unless you have evidence that oncologists are more intelligent than biochemists like Burzynski, who has an oncologist as a co-author on his 2003-2006 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports.
I wonder why you refer to Burzynski’s at least 36 cancer publications, as “few.”
Nor am I sure how you came up with one completed trial, unless you are expecting that any source you are using other than the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to be correct.
Burzynski does not receive federal funding, and donations are not tax deductible, so the money for clinical trials has to come from some source.
Some of your vaunted Burzynski critics resort to adolescent name-calling on various social media and block and censor remarks by those who might question their “infallibility.”
That is why I use a pseudonym.
Thank you for making me laugh.