By: Marylyn House posted on: September 19, 2006

Dear All,

I admit that I was wrong in my previous analysis of “The Cure:” an analysis which was based on summaries and reviews I found at In fact, I must say that I was unexpectedly surprised while reading the book. I found Geeta Anand’s portrayal of John Crowley’s venture into Pompe Disease to be not only candid but also well documented.

Before reading the book, I had anticipated an idolized view of John Crowley and his endeavors with Pompe Disease. However, after reading the book, what I perceived was a man that comes across as quite a “snake charmer”……OR is that a charming snake.

I think that all who read this book will be awe struck by the audacious nature of a man whose actions are based on snap judgments – not research and education. It’s chilling to think that this type of personality is perceived by many as a powerhouse figure—an innovator, a motivator, a leader.

John is true to this era—an era where the arrogant “elite” reign in dangerous positions. Their decisions, based only on their own mindset, can have disastrous results for the plebs “beneath” them. Yes, he is a good fit for the Enron Era—lies were told, things were made up, pockets were lined with $. All of this on the pretext of finding “The Cure.”

I remember the chaotic situations that arose during his tenure at Genzyme. There again, John made reckless and ill-informed decisions—decision that could have had disastrous repercussions for the entire Pompe project. Hopefully, this is a lesson learned, rather than one that is to be repeated!

I do commend Genzyme for finally taking the action to reel him in. However, I don’t think that Genzyme should have been so quick to “welcome” the publication of “The Cure.”Certainly, Genzyme’s business acumen, as documented in this book, leaves a lot to be desired!

“Genzyme Commends New Book for Portraying Challenges Faced by Patients with Pompe Disease and Their Families”—Genzyme press release August 31, 2006:

My opinion,
Marylyn House