Sep 28 2017

Health Blogger Gibson Fined

BelleGibsonBelle Gibson is an Australian wellness blogger who made a lot of money selling her cookbooks and apps for healthy eating. What elevated her profile above the sea of competitors, however, was her claim to have cured herself of brain cancer with her diet. The problem with her story, however, is that she never had brain cancer.

Now an Australian court has fined Gibson $410,000 for  fraud.

Gibson doesn’t really tell a coherent story, and it is full of red flags, but here is what she says. She claims she was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer by a German alternative medicine practitioner. She believed the diagnosis, and was just “living her truth.” Therefore, she says, she never lied to her followers, she was lied to herself.

But her story of being a victim does not really hold together. In 2011 she was given a brain scan which found her to be perfectly healthy. So she knew at that time that she never had brain cancer. However, two years later she launched her wellness app in which she claimed her diet cured her of brain cancer. She also claims that she was about to come clean with her readers, but the media got to her first. Right.

Her claim of being a victim also doesn’t explain why the money that was apparently donated to charity via sales of her app never made it to the charity.

Those are a pretty damning set of facts, and her explanations don’t really cover them. I guess the Australian court agreed.

I cases like this, however, I have to point out that to a certain extent it really doesn’t matter if she believed she had brain cancer or not. It does in terms of her guilt, but not in terms of her behavior. When it comes to the public health there is a responsibility for due diligence. It is not enough that you believe what you are doing is correct. You have a responsibility to ensure that what you are doing is the right thing.

Gibson never did any due diligence. She did not have her diagnosis confirmed prior to shouting to the world that she cured brain cancer with diet. She did not seek expert advice or oversight. She apparently never considered the risk she was posing to patients with cancer who might believe her heroic tale, and as a result forgo standard cancer therapy pursuing her diet recommendations.

When confronted about this responsibility, she (like many health gurus) tried to wiggle out, saying, “I was not an expert in anyone else’s health.” That is the nebulous world in which alternative medicine exists. Practitioners are often not doctors or health experts. Gibson was just a “wellness blogger.” They give out what is essentially medical advice, but think they have no responsibility for that information.

This is not incidental – it is core to the alternative medicine movement, which promotes itself by waging war against the standard of care and expertise. They are gurus in every sense of the word – they want to be respected for their insights and knowledge, but be held to no standard of process or competence. When challenged, they typically cite something about freedom. They want their victims to think they are defending their freedom, but in reality they are just promoting their own freedom to sell health care products and services with no oversight or quality control.

Standards exist for a reason, especially when it comes to health. It is not enough that you believe what you are doing is right. And of course, standard require objectivity, which means we need logic and scientific evidence, and that evidence needs to have standards as well.

This, of course, is precisely why the alternative medicine movement is trying to confuse and erode scientific standards.

Gibson is really no different than any health or wellness guru. She just got caught red-handed. The entire industry, however, shares her guilt. This is what happens when standards and science are dismissed as a conspiracy, in favor of sincere charlatans who are just, “living their truth.”

115 responses so far

115 Responses to “Health Blogger Gibson Fined”

  1. Skepticoon 28 Sep 2017 at 9:32 am

    Surely “so-called health blogger”?

  2. carbonUniton 28 Sep 2017 at 9:40 am

    Damn pity the US does not act as strongly against these health frauds as the Aussies do.

  3. Willyon 28 Sep 2017 at 10:38 am

    Glad to see this gal pay a price–needs to happen more.

    Our local paper is full of articles, several per week, from non-pros offering health advice. A weekly column by a chef offers advice on which foods “boost” the immune system, etc. Another weekly article for the farmers market touts the ‘advantages” of raw milk, non-GMO foods and such. Our local food co-op is often mentioned in articles and is praised for having a staff member who has training in nutrition and “holistic” medicine and, yep, they have a huge display of homeopathic junk. The common “wisdom” that eating certain foods has explicit health benefits is deeply ingrained in society. It’s sickening.

  4. bendon 28 Sep 2017 at 11:13 am

    A nice little piece in one of Australia’s satire news sites about Gibson:
    http://www.theshovel.com.au/2017/09/28/belle-gibson-makes-410k-fine-disappear-just-by-following-strict-new-diet/

  5. Willyon 28 Sep 2017 at 4:34 pm

    Yet another one in our paper today. A high school 4H team won first place at the county fair with a display on food sources. Half of the display showed a “farmers market” by having a the table covered with veggies, etc. The “supermarket” half showed what looked like bottles of pop and boxes of prepared foods. The article stated that after “several weeks of study” by the 4H team, they concluded that “organic” was “healthier” but also more expensive.

    Comically, all three of our local supermarkets have a produce section that blows our farmers market-3/4 of which is arts and crafts trinkets, “healing soaps”, emu oil, and the like–out of the water. Whoops, I forgot the raw milk vendor.

  6. hardnoseon 28 Sep 2017 at 4:46 pm

    “Gibson is really no different than any health or wellness guru. She just got caught red-handed. The entire industry, however, shares her guilt.”

    You can always find charlatans. But how can you jump from that to saying all non-mainstream health providers are charlatans?

    Fake cancer cures are of course popular with con artists. That is because mainstream medicine very often cannot help cancer patients, so they resort to unproven alternative methods.

    That does not mean every alternative health idea is wrong.

    It also does not mean all mainstream health providers are ethical. The mainstream cancer industry makes huge profits by offering patients a few extra months of life. Have you seen some of those recent ads?

    You seem to think the mainstream guys are all wearing white hats and the alternative guys are all wearing black hats.

  7. BillyJoe7on 28 Sep 2017 at 5:47 pm

    hardnose,

    “how can you jump from that to saying all non-mainstream health providers are charlatans?”

    Apparently you missed the meaning of the compact phrase “sincere charlatans”.
    How typical.

    “mainstream medicine very often cannot help cancer patients”

    The phrase is “evidence-based medicine” or “science-based medicine”.
    Please provide a single case of a cancer patient who cannot be helped by science based medicine.

    “so they resort to unproven alternative methods”

    In fact, most people who use alternative medicine also use science based medicine. It is not usually a matter of dissatisfaction with real medicine but being lured also by the siren call of the alternatives with their unrealistic hope of a cure (and the sufferer/victim trying to leave no stone unturned, as misguided as that may be).

    “That does not mean every alternative health idea is wrong”

    What matters is the evidence. Every “alternative health idea” lacks evidence, otherwise if would not be “an alternative health idea”. I go for evidence based medicine. You can go for whatever idea someone or other comes up with for no good reason.

    “It also does not mean all mainstream health providers are ethical”

    Nobody said so.

    “The mainstream cancer industry makes huge profits by offering patients a few extra months of life. Have you seen some of those recent ads?”

    My sympathies. I am not in the pay of “Big Pharma”. Nor do I condone some of their practices. In my opinion pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to advertise direct to consumers and doctors should reject their door to surgery door salesmen. That being said, I would not want to be without antibiotics and vaccines and anti-cancer drugs should the need arise. And it is still up to the doctors and their patients as to whether a few extra months is worthwhile considering the cost and side-effects of the proposed treatment.

    “You seem to think the mainstream guys are all wearing white hats and the alternative guys are all wearing black hats”

    You seem to think everyone sees the world in black and white like your ignorant foolish self.
    There, got that out.

  8. RickKon 28 Sep 2017 at 6:28 pm

    Hi said: “That is because mainstream medicine very often cannot help cancer patients, so they resort to unproven alternative methods.”

    There you go again, blaming mainstream medicine and science for the fraudsters. The blame really lies with you and people like you who take an anti-science ideological stand and spend hours each day trying to convince others to do the same. Your abject terror and immediate rejection of anything “mainstream” or agreed by a consensus of “experts” (an epithet in your lexicon) is to be treated with utmost disdain. But anything “alternative” is just fine if the patient feels good about it. Your support of fraud and falsehood is really quite revolting, hardnose.

    Nobody here gives falsehoods a free pass, except you.

  9. RickKon 28 Sep 2017 at 6:31 pm

    Hi = Hn

    God how I hate the combination of autocorrection, old eyes, and no editing feature.

  10. Robneyon 28 Sep 2017 at 7:12 pm

    @ Hardnose,

    “You can always find charlatans. But how can you jump from that to saying all non-mainstream health providers are charlatans?”

    Maybe not all are charlatans in the sense they are intentionally conning people.

    But “non-mainstream treatment” is normally a euphemism for treatments that have not met normal standards of evidence for efficacy, in which case making money from these treatments is unethical regardless of how good the practitioners intentions may be.

  11. Willyon 28 Sep 2017 at 8:28 pm

    The “wellness’ and “alternative medicine” advocates have, and continue to, spread down very fertile soil (read “bullshit”) that allows people to buy into the idea that diet can cure brain cancer. From Dr. Oz to Andrew Weil to The Food Babe to Belle Gibson, the naturalistic twaddle that permeates our lives daily results in millions of busy people, too involved with putting a paycheck in the bank and raising kids to check out every claim), who accept the “common wisdom” that natural and alternative are good and valid, hn especially included.

    My neighbor, diagnosed with what he was told was treatable cancer, decided to go to an herbalist in Mexico instead. He’s dead. My FIL quit taking blood pressure meds and opted for garlic supplements. He died of a ruptured abdominal aneurysm. Being active in gardening circles, I know many folks who worry about things like GMO residues contaminating COMPOST!!!!!!! fer cryin’ in the beer. A friend will only drink milk that is raw. Another has acupuncture weekly. The chef who writes the weekly food column in the local paper gives nutrition advice about boosting immune systems and sings the praises of antioxidants. Every recipe she gives comes complete with the ways in which the ingredients will improve health. Thankfully, the newspaper GM who wrote a weekly column about the dangers of sunscreens and vaccines is no longer writing. Yeah, these are just anecdotes, but anecdotes seem to suffice for the gullible.

  12. hardnoseon 28 Sep 2017 at 9:52 pm

    “Please provide a single case of a cancer patient who cannot be helped by science based medicine.”

    That statement is so bizarre I don’t know how to answer it. It’s silly to provide just a single case when I know so many people who are dead because they couldn’t be helped by “science based” medicine.

  13. hardnoseon 28 Sep 2017 at 10:02 pm

    As for mainstream medicine being “science based:” As we know, most medical studies can’t be replicated. We also know that many are funded by companies hoping to make gigantic profits. We also know it’s easy to misuse statistics to deceive. Even experts can be fooled.

    I don’t advocate alternative medicine, in general. But at least they usually have a more natural approach, and don’t always think medicine has to be poison.

    Many years ago, alternative doctors understood the importance of gut bacteria, for example, and mainstream medicine is only beginning to think about it now. Sometimes waiting for expensive clinical trials, and never trusting clinical experience, can be a mistake.

    Cancer is one area where mainstream medicine is mostly useless, with certain exceptions (childhood leukemia, and very early localized tumors, for example).

    Cancer is still not understood, and even Gorski admits that.

  14. bachfiendon 28 Sep 2017 at 11:23 pm

    Hardnose,

    ‘Many years ago, alternative doctors understood the importance of gut bacteria, for example, and mainstream medicine is only beginning to think about it now. Sometimes waiting for expensive clinical trials, and never trusting clinical expecience, can be a mistake.’

    No and no. When I was a medical student back in the early ’70s there was plenty of teaching about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ gut bacteria. And clinical experience without evidence is just anecdotes. There’s no way of determining whether a good result is due to the purported treatment or chance. Disorders, including cancer, aren’t always fatal. Many, if not most, will get better by themselves.

  15. bachfiendon 28 Sep 2017 at 11:28 pm

    I didn’t express myself clearly in the last sentence. I wasn’t implying that many, if not most, cases of cancer will get better by themselves. That’s completely unknown – it’s entirely possible that many people develop cancers which spontaneously regress before becoming apparent. And many people die with cancer, not due to cancer, particularly breast and prostate (aggressively looking for some cancers may cause more harm than benefit in some people).

  16. BillyJoe7on 29 Sep 2017 at 3:02 am

    hardnose,

    “I know so many people who are dead because they couldn’t be helped by “science based” medicine”

    You are moving the goalposts.

    You said: “mainstream medicine very often cannot help cancer patients”
    I replied: “Please provide a single case of a cancer patient who cannot be helped by science based medicine”.
    So, please, answer the question:

    Please provide a single case of a cancer patient who cannot be helped by science based medicine.

  17. BillyJoe7on 29 Sep 2017 at 4:08 am

    hardnose,

    (Again this is not really for hardnose)

    “As for mainstream medicine being “science based:” As we know, most medical studies can’t be replicated”

    I didn’t say “mainstream medicine” is “science based medicine”.
    I was distinguishing “science based medicine” from “mainstream medicine”.
    “Mainstream medicine” is not always “science based”
    Why has your comprehension ability never improved over ten long years on this educational blog?

    “We also know that many are funded by companies hoping to make gigantic profits”

    Yes, and it has been shown that pharmaceutical company sponsored research is more often positive than independent research, and that pharmaceutical companies often hide negative research. But the conclusion is not the dismiss that research, but to find the methodological errors in that research and decide whether those methodological errors are sufficient to invalidate the research findings. And to do a “funnel plot” in a meta analysis of all the research done on a particular question.

    “We also know it’s easy to misuse statistics to deceive”

    Again, the conclusion is not to dismiss the research, but to assess the research with respect to the statistics used to establish significance of the results.

    “Even experts can be fooled”

    Hence the reason why we pay attention to the consensus of experts in a particular area of expertise rather than individual experts. In every field of science, there are outliers and fringe dwellers. One of them could be right, but how many Copernicus’ are there out there, especially in the modern age when all the low hanging fruit has been picked.
    Sort of goes against your usual narrative doesn’t it, hardnose.

    “I don’t advocate alternative medicine, in general. But at least they usually have a more natural approach”

    Define “natural”.
    The term is meaningless.

    “and don’t always think medicine has to be poison”

    Not “poison” but “side-effects”.
    If a medication is useful it means it has to interfere with processes occuring in the diseased persons body. That almost guarantees there will be side-effects. It’s almost always a trade-off between benefits and risks.
    Except for homoeopathy,but then we’re not talking about medicine anymore.

    “Many years ago, alternative doctors understood the importance of gut bacteria, for example, and mainstream medicine is only beginning to think about it now”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245223171730012X

    “Sometimes waiting for expensive clinical trials, and never trusting clinical experience, can be a mistake”

    On the contrary, trusting “in my experience” is almost never useful, and almost always a mistake, often deleterious, and sometimes fatal. History is littered with the corpses of those who trusted their experience. Homoeopathy is useless, yet, in the experience of many, it is almost a panacea! Blood-letting anyone? Knee arthroscopy? No, we must be patient and await properly conducted clinical trials and then wait again for them to be replicated, before including them in our treatment protocols.

    “Cancer is one area where mainstream medicine is mostly useless, with certain exceptions (childhood leukemia, and very early localized tumors, for example)”

    Usefulness is not defined exclusively in terms of survival.
    But the “alternatives” are less than useless. They are positively harmful.
    Ironically, cancer treatment is the illustrative case of where properly conducted clinical trials sift the successful treatments from the useless and harmful, and far outweigh the strategy of relying “in my experience” which is almost always useless and often positively harmful directly and indirectly by delaying or avoiding treatment that has been shown to work.

    “Cancer is still not understood, even Gorski admits that”

    You would have no idea what David Gorski has said about cancer.
    One thing he has said is that it’s not “cancer” but “cancers”, meaning that each cancer is a different disease, meaning that it is very unlikely that there will be a single cure for every cancer.

  18. Nidwinon 29 Sep 2017 at 5:02 am

    “I don’t advocate alternative medicine, in general. But at least they usually have a more natural approach”

    It’s always a form of biological or chemical warfare. Science based medicine provides the best available biological or chemical tools, containing scientificly proven active elements, so our organisms can be successful or more successful during the warfare. This is actually the natural approach as that’s how life and existance works on our planet, both biological and chemical wise.

    Alternative pratices are actually the non natural ones as they do not provide scientificly proven active elements but rely on placebo bull, magical thinking and pseudo-science.

    Alternative medicine does not but simply can’t work as it’s missing the active elements parts. Those active elements are needed for homo sapiens sapiens bodies to be more successful in the war against diseases when the immune system can’t properly win the war alone.

  19. hardnoseon 29 Sep 2017 at 1:12 pm

    “it’s entirely possible that many people develop cancers which spontaneously regress before becoming apparent. And many people die with cancer, not due to cancer, particularly breast and prostate (aggressively looking for some cancers may cause more harm than benefit in some people).”

    It is known that everyone gets cancer cells, and that most are destroyed by the immune system. And, as you say, it is common to have very slow growing cancer that will never cause harm.

    And these facts have made it possible for the cancer industry to claim all these harmless cancers as having been cured.

  20. hardnoseon 29 Sep 2017 at 1:19 pm

    “Alternative medicine does not but simply can’t work as it’s missing the active elements parts. ”

    Again, I do not advocate alternative medicine and I think most of it is probably scams. However, some of it is valid.

    Mainstream medicine is mostly based on the infectious disease model, where the goal of medicine is to kill the invading pathogen. This works for some things but for many others it is useless.

    Alternative medicine is holistic and is not based on the infectious disease model. The goal is to restore balance and remove toxins. That is the GOAL, and I am not saying the goal is usually accomplished. But sometimes it might be.

    Alternative medicine relies a lot on nutrition, believing that imbalances can sometimes be corrected by supplying needed nutrients. I have no opinion on whether that can work. It might, sometimes.

    Alternative medicine emphasizes the role of environmental toxins in disease, and this is mostly ignored by mainstream medicine. OBVIOUSLY toxins have an important role in some diseases.

    And OBVIOUSLY it makes no sense to give patients toxic drugs if they are already suffering from toxicity.

    I DO NOT advocate alternative medicine, in general, but at least I know something about it. Most of you here know nothing about it. You have no concept of correcting imbalances or removing obstacles to healing. You do NOT consider the body’s natural healing abilities.

  21. MosBenon 29 Sep 2017 at 2:53 pm

    The problem is ultimately a category issue. If someone is studying the role of diet in treating some ailment, and they use robust research methodology, and submit their findings for peer review, and their experiments are replicated which results in either further support for their findings or lack of support for their findings, and the original researchers accept those results and either move on to other hypotheses or retool their original experiment to make it better or look for different aspects of the original idea, then they’re doing science and there’s no need to call it alternative medicine.

    If someone does shoddy research, doesn’t submit their findings for peer review, their findings are not replicated or replications don’t support their findings but the original researcher ignores those findings, and they instead just double down on their original ideas, then they’re not doing science. In that instance they’re just cranks or frauds.

    Many of the more prominent ideas that are clustered into “alternative medicine”, like homeopathy or acupuncture, have been shown to not be effective treatments, and the people who continue to present them as if they were are simply not doing science. There’s nothing alternative about nutrition being an important component of improving a person’s health. It’s a scam to say that diet alone can cure cancer.

  22. BillyJoe7on 01 Oct 2017 at 3:32 am

    MosBen,

    Nice put down of hardnose’s bv||$h!+ claims and misrepresentations.
    I got to ten before giving up.
    This guy is full of it.

  23. bachfiendon 01 Oct 2017 at 4:45 am

    Hardnose,

    ‘Mainstream medicine is mostly based on the infectious disease model, where the goal of medicine is to kill the invading pathogen. This works for some things but for many others it is useless’.

    No. Even with bactericidal antibiotics (which kill bacteria in culture instead of just stopping them reproducing – bacteristatic ones), the aim is to reduce the number of bacteria and keep the person alive long enough for the person’s immune system to deal with the infection.

    Antibiotics very rarely destroy all the invading pathogenic bacteria. There will be some with increased resistance or be in locations where the antibiotics can’t reach.

    Usually by the time a cancer becomes clinically apparent, the immune system has already failed. The problem of lowgrade cancers which are unlikely to cause harm is more of a problem with screening. It’s been argued that that some kinds of cancer screening, such as prostate and breast, in many people cause more harm than benefit.

    It’s well known in mainstream medicine that patients often get better on their own with many disorders. That some cancers are low grade and unlikely to cause harm before the person dies of other disorders, including old age. And that medications do have side effects (toxic effects, if you like), and it’s a matter of weighing benefits versus risks.

    You persist in attempting to make straw man arguments.

    Alternative medicine practitioners never seem to weigh risks versus benefits for their treatments.

  24. RickKon 01 Oct 2017 at 8:32 am

    Hardnose said: “I DO NOT advocate alternative medicine, in general, but at least I know something about it. Most of you here know nothing about it. You have no concept of correcting imbalances or removing obstacles to healing. You do NOT consider the body’s natural healing abilities.”

    There it is again – the self-inflating, ego-defending hardnose narrative. Unsupported opinions, no citations, no concept of science, and still he truly believes he knows more than everyone else here. He must believe it and defend it daily – it’s fundamental to his self-image.

    As for medicine being based on killing the invading pathogen – again that’s the view through hardnose-tinted glasses that apparently can’t see cornerstones of modern medicine including hygiene, nutrition, prevention, vaccination… the list is endless. I’m caring for an 86-year old parent and am dealing with modern medicine daily. Every single treatment is either about correcting imbalances or preventing illness and injury.

    So, there goes another sled-serving hardnose generalization that turns out to be demonstrably and obviously false (to anyone with an average grasp of the topic).

    Hardnose – telling yourself you understand something is not the same as understanding it, no matter what you tell yourself.

  25. Willyon 01 Oct 2017 at 11:38 am

    I’d say hardnose’s ignorance can be summed up in one statement he made:

    “And OBVIOUSLY it makes no sense to give patients toxic drugs if they are already suffering from toxicity.”

  26. hardnoseon 01 Oct 2017 at 11:54 am

    “I’m caring for an 86-year old parent and am dealing with modern medicine daily. Every single treatment is either about correcting imbalances or preventing illness and injury.”

    Then your parent’s doctor must be holistic. When my mother was sick, I had to constantly oppose the mainstream doctors giving her more and more toxic useless drugs. And that is how most old people are treated.

    And she died from C Diff, which is a bacteria imbalance resulting from antibiotics. And none of the nurses or doctors I spoke to understood that. They told me she caught the infection in the hospital — no, everyone has C Diff, but it’s usually controlled by other bacteria.

    The typical mainstream health provided does NOT think in terms of balance. And they do NOT think of the body as naturally self-correcting. And they do NOT think of diseases as resulting primarily from toxins.

    Mainstream MDs often tell patients their heart disease or type 2 diabetes is genetic. The role of lifestyle is minimized. “When diet and exercise aren’t enough, take drugs!”

  27. BurnOuton 01 Oct 2017 at 1:20 pm

    [The typical mainstream health provided does NOT think in terms of balance. And they do NOT think of the body as naturally self-correcting. And they do NOT think of diseases as resulting primarily from toxins.]

    This falls into the “not even wrong” category. Well, some of it is clearly wrong. We definitely think of the body as self-correcting. We think of diseases resulting from toxins when there are in fact real toxins causing them, but not when the toxins are only imaginary. Hardnose, your allegations about mainstream physicians are simply false.

    [Mainstream MDs often tell patients their heart disease or type 2 diabetes is genetic.]

    We do not. We do, however, discuss the family history when it is salient.

    [The role of lifestyle is minimized. “When diet and exercise aren’t enough, take drugs!” ]

    I discuss diet and exercise all day, every day. So what will you have us do, when a patient’s blood pressure remains elevated after I have counseled them three times about their diet and exercise habits? How should we manage the patient whose A1c is 10.4, with microalbuminuria and hypertension, and who continues to smoke, and will not consider diet changes?

    I guess I could make up some fake treatments and sell them from a store in my office, at a nice markup. Then I could claim to be holistic, right?

  28. RickKon 01 Oct 2017 at 3:08 pm

    Hardnose said: “Then your parent’s doctor must be holistic.”

    No, hardnose, his doctor is not “holistic” – he’s a regular, trained, educated, caring, MAINSTREAM doctor who is monitoring my father’s mental condition, blood pressure, digestion, etc., and prescribing treatments like dietary changes, physical therapy and drugs to keep my father as healthy as possible given advanced age and dementia.

    So your narrative is just another example of you lying to yourself to preserve your self-image. It is objectively and demonstrably false, but you’ve made it quite clear that for you, objective truth always takes a back seat to preserving your pre-determined personal narrative.

    And I’m sorry to hear your mother’s story, but I can’t help but wonder if she would have been healthier if you hadn’t inserted your ideology between your mother and her trained health professionals. We’ll never know, will we?

  29. BillyJoe7on 01 Oct 2017 at 4:51 pm

    hardnose,

    My sympathies also but…

    “And she died from C Diff”

    This is your mother you’re talking about and still you show your ignorance, even about the very thing she presumably died of.
    The organism is called C. difficile (or Clostridium difficile, or C. diff if you want to abbreviate it).

    “And she died from C Diff, which is a bacteria imbalance”

    C. difficile is not a bacterial imbalance, it is an actual bacterium.

    “And she died from C Diff, which is a bacteria imbalance resulting from antibiotics”.

    More likely the antibiotics she was given (perhaps for a skin or chest infection) also killed off part of her normal bowel flora. If she was a carrier of C. difficile, these bacteria could have proliferated and resulted in symptomatic infection. More likely, the use of these antibiotics made her more susceptible to infection from others in the nursing home or hospital who were either carriers or were infected with this bacterium.

    “And none of the nurses or doctors I spoke to understood that”

    They didn’t accept the nonsense you were spouting, that is all.

    “They told me she caught the infection in the hospital”

    They were, in all likelihood, correct.

    “no, everyone has C Diff, but it’s usually controlled by other bacteria”

    As I said, they just didn’t accept the nonsense you were spouting.

    “The typical mainstream health provided does NOT think in terms of balance. And they do NOT think of the body as naturally self-correcting. And they do NOT think of diseases as resulting primarily from toxins”

    Ironically, C. difficile does in fact produce toxins which it the reason it is so pathogenic.
    The specific treatment is with certain antibiotics (eg metronidazole, vancomycin).
    Antibiotics are used because C. difficile is a bacterium!

  30. bachfiendon 01 Oct 2017 at 7:35 pm

    BillyJoe,

    ‘No, everyone has C Diff, but it’s usually controlled by other bacteria.’

    You managed to make almost all the points I would have made. Hardnose’ comment is actually very wrong in this case. Only about 2-5% of people are carriers of Clostridium difficile. As you note, it’s almost certain that hardnose’s mother picked up the bacterium from someone else, and antibiotic treatment for something else made it much more likely she’d develop symptoms.

    I wonder how the ‘bacteria are intelligent’ crowd explain explain C. difficile disease? The bacteria ‘want’ to cause harm and they ‘decide’ to produce toxins in order to cause disease? Whereas it’s all a matter of evolution and natural selection. Strains of C. difficile which produce toxins cause diarrhoea, which makes it easier to spread to other people. In hospital and nursing home settings, strains of C. difficile containing toxins tend to spread and multiply (the nontoxic ones tend to disappear as their hosts go home or die). And because people in hospitals and nursing homes tend to be given antibiotics more frequently than outside, they’re much more likely to get sick.

    I suppose I shouldn’t have mentioned ‘natural selection’. Hardnose is certain to misunderstand yet again.

  31. hardnoseon 01 Oct 2017 at 8:15 pm

    Natural selection is a fact. I have said that OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

    But natural selection is not the all-powerful creative god Dawkins says it is.

  32. hardnoseon 01 Oct 2017 at 8:16 pm

    It is WELL KNOWN that C Diff bacteria are usually controlled by other intestinal bacteria. And it usually only becomes a problem when the controlling bacteria are killed off by antibiotics.

  33. hardnoseon 01 Oct 2017 at 8:17 pm

    “And I’m sorry to hear your mother’s story, but I can’t help but wonder if she would have been healthier if you hadn’t inserted your ideology between your mother and her trained health professionals.”

    That statement is insane and evil and I never should have shared anything personal here. Never again.

    But no, I did NOT insert anything, I only wish I had. I trusted the ignorant health professionals, so she died.

  34. bachfiendon 01 Oct 2017 at 9:42 pm

    Hardnose,

    ‘But natural selection is not the all-powerful creative god Dawkins says it is.’

    No one, including Richard Dawkins, thinks that natural selection is a ‘creative god’. It’s a mechanism, it’s a guiding or directing force, which eliminates some variants and favours other variants of a species, depending on how many offspring they leave, regardless of whether the species is a bacterium or an elephant.

    The variants of a species originate as a result of other mechanisms, such as random mutation, not as a result of natural selection. Natural selection just determines which natural variants will dominate.

    Your refusal to understand the basics of evolution is tedious.

    ‘But I did NOT insert anything. I only wish I had. I trusted the ignorant health professionals, so she died.’ I wonder – what would you have done, if you had the chance to rerun the history? What would you have done that ‘the ignorant health professionals’ didn’t do?

  35. RickKon 02 Oct 2017 at 4:49 am

    Hardnose: “When my mother was sick, I had to constantly oppose the mainstream doctors giving her more and more toxic useless drugs.”

    Hardnose: “But no, I did NOT insert anything, I only wish I had. I trusted the ignorant health professionals, so she died.”

    Ok, you opposed them after the fact. Got it.

  36. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 7:36 am

    She had dementia for a long time before she ever got C Diff. The nursing home doctors kept giving her various useless drugs. I asked her primary care physician if she needed them and he said NO.

    That was completely separate from the C Diff infection.

    And you are a horrid @#$%^& so I don’t know why I explain anything for you.

    I NEVER made any decision about my mother without getting approval from MDs.

  37. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 7:40 am

    And she lived to 91 and probably would have lived longer if she didn’t get an infection that required antibiotics, which led to C Diff.

    I did a GREAT job of managing her health so @#$% you I hate your guts. I have NEVER expressed anger at this stupid blog before. But NO ONE here ever accused me of anything like this.

  38. bachfiendon 02 Oct 2017 at 7:59 am

    Hardnose,

    So why the anger? ‘And she lived to 91 and probably would have lived longer if she didn’t get an infection that required antibiotics, which led to C Diff.’

    So, she had an infection requiring antibiotics? What would you have done otherwise? Either she has antibiotics, and runs the risk of Clostridium difficile, or she doesn’t have the antibiotics and risks dying of the infection (whatever it was) which is in a 91 year old with an inherently weaker immune system more likely to be fatal than in a much longer person.

    It seems to me that neither you nor her doctors could have done anything else than what was done. Not giving antibiotics when there was an infection would have just been euthanasia.

  39. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 10:58 am

    bachfiend,

    You misunderstood the conversation. I was angry at RickK, because he said:

    “And I’m sorry to hear your mother’s story, but I can’t help but wonder if she would have been healthier if you hadn’t inserted your ideology between your mother and her trained health professionals.”

    That statement goes way beyond all the nasty anonymous comments I have ever seen here, or on any anonymous blog.

    He didn’t understand what I had said, first of all. I NEVER interfered with any of my mother’s medical treatment. I do NOT believe in alternative medical providers, second of all, and would NEVER deny my mother standard medical treatments.

    What is evil about RickK, though, is that he pretty much accused me of causing my mother’s death, because of my, supposed, faith in holistic medicine. Which I don’t have, but even if I did, his comment would be the depth of evil.

  40. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 11:04 am

    All because of HIS ideological blind faith in whatever mainstream medicine prefers at any moment. Obviously he is one of the many MDs who DO NOT LIKE TO THINK.

    And his mind is so shut down, he sees nothing wrong with accusing someone at a blog of causing their mother’s death.

    She was 91, not in great health, there probably wasn’t any way to save her. But had I known C Diff is CAUSED by antibiotics, I would have spoken with the doctors and nurses about whether it would be possible to replace the needed bacteria that had been destroyed.

    This all happened fast, and I didn’t have a chance to google as much as I normally would have. After she died, I found out some of my friends had similar experiences with their elderly parents, and some had been saved by probiotics, etc.

    In general, it seems like, maybe, hospitals don’t make a big effort to save old people from C Diff.

  41. RickKon 02 Oct 2017 at 11:39 am

    hardnose: “What is evil about RickK, though, is that he pretty much accused me of causing my mother’s death, because of my, supposed, faith in holistic medicine. Which I don’t have, but even if I did, his comment would be the depth of evil.”

    Ok, I apologize for misinterpreting what you said: I thought you were saying MDs were knowingly prescribing your mother useless, toxic drugs. I got that from your comment: “When my mother was sick, I had to constantly oppose the mainstream doctors giving her more and more toxic useless drugs.”

    That’s pretty evil of those doctors, if true, isn’t it?

    But I’m sure your opposition had nothing but positive benefits to her health and I apologize for implying otherwise.

  42. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 12:30 pm

    Shut up RickK you said more than enough. My mother was physically disabled from taking statin drugs, and her GP said there was no reason for her to take them. So I asked the nursing home to stop giving them to her.

    That had NOTHING AT ALL to do with what she died from, years later.

    To the extent that I was able to prevent the nursing home from giving her statin drugs (in accordance with her GP’s recommendation) she was able to walk.

    Again, shut up, you know nothing about what happened. You are a wretched person, so full of hatred I thank God I don’t know you.

  43. Pete Aon 02 Oct 2017 at 3:48 pm

    QUOTES FROM DICTIONARIES
    1. “someone can dish it out but he or she can’t take it” in American English:
    someone easily criticizes other people but does not like it when other people criticize him or her
    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/someone-can-dish-it-out-but-he-or-she-can-t-take-it

    2. Idioms
    dish it out
    (disapproving) to criticize other people
    · He enjoys dishing it out, but he really can’t take it (= cannot accept criticism from other people).
    http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/dish_2

    3. you reap what you sow
    proverb
    You eventually have to face up to the consequences of your actions.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/you_reap_what_you_sow

  44. BillyJoe7on 02 Oct 2017 at 4:26 pm

    hardnose,

    “Shut up RickK you said more than enough”

    He was trying to apologise. More than he needed to in my opinion. You could have simply accepted his apology and moved on.

    “My mother was physically disabled from taking statin drugs”

    Are you certain? Did she improve after stopping the statins? Stains can cause a myopathy which can be disabling, but there is a blood test for this. Did she have one? There are many causes of disability in 80-90 year olds, so it may not have been the statins.

    “and her GP said there was no reason for her to take them”

    Was that because her cholesterol level was not elevated, or not sufficiently elevated to warrant statins? Stains are also given to everyone who has had a heart attack regardless of their cholesterol level because it has been shown to reduce the risk of another heart attack. However, if your mother’s life expectancy was only a few years, it is doubtful that she would benefit in any case. All the studies which show statins are effective (except for those looking at secondary prevention) were done on otherwise healthy people in their middle age, so the benefits may not extrapolate to someone like your mother.

    “So I asked the nursing home to stop giving them to her”

    It doesn’t work that way, at least not here in Australia. Only a registered medical practitioner can start or stop the medication of a person in a nursing home. Did you mean that her doctor who was looking after her in the nursing home stopped it after you discussed this with him?

    “To the extent that I was able to prevent the nursing home from giving her statin drugs (in accordance with her GP’s recommendation) she was able to walk”

    So she did improve, or was that wishful thinking. Did her CK level rise on statins and then fall on withdrawal of statins? If not, all you have is a correlation.

    NOTE: I am happy to be factually corrected on any of the above by someone with expertise in statins.

  45. bachfiendon 02 Oct 2017 at 4:33 pm

    Hardnose,

    ‘This all happened fast, and I didn’t have a chance to Google as much as I normally would have. After she died, I found out some of my friends had similar experiences with their elderly parents, and some had been saved by probiotics, etc.’

    The power of anecdotes. There’s probably nothing that you could have done. Clostridium difficile infection varies widely in severity from asymptomatic carriage to severe necrotising enterocolitis, depending on the strain and the person’s resistance. Your friends’ parents might have had milder disease, and would have survived anyway, probiotics or not.

  46. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 4:58 pm

    bachfiend, the point is that probiotics, etc., should at least be tried. I spoke to a lot of nurses at the nursing home and the hospital, and none even seemed to be aware that C Diff results from antibiotics. The whole concept of intestinal bacteria needing to be in balance seemed to be unknown to them.

  47. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 5:05 pm

    “He was trying to apologise. More than he needed to in my opinion.”

    I have NEVER, in all my 20+ years of wasting time on forums and blogs been told that I caused someone to die. And he was talking about MY MOTHER.

    I doubt any of you can think of anything worse you can say to anyone. RickK is either PROFOUNDLY stupid or INTENSELY hateful, or both.

    And his “apology” was sarcastic and snotty, therefore it was not accepted.

    This is what ideology does to people. The searing hatred most of you feel for any alternative medical views is actually getting scary.

    No, again, I am not an alternative medicine advocate. But I do believe in a holistic approach to health. Alternative practitioners are probably mostly scammers, but — and try to think carefully now — that does not mean holistic approaches to health are not valid.

    Also, it does NOT mean the currently accepted mainstream approaches are necessarily valid.

    Restoring health does not always mean killing pathogens. It can also involve restoring balance.

  48. Pete Aon 02 Oct 2017 at 5:31 pm

    “[hardnose] No, again, I am not an alternative medicine advocate.”

    [hardnose on 19 Mar 2015 at 11:54 am] No, YOU believe homeopathy can’t possibly work, based on your personal beliefs, which has nothing to do with any imagined prior probabilities. The amount of a substance contained in a dilution is irrelevant, although you constantly mention it. Homeopathy depends on the idea that water can contain information. And that idea has NOT been debunked, no matter what Amazing Randi says.
    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/science-journalism-and-homeopathy-for-depression/#comment-97007

    [hardnose on 18 Sep 2015 at 6:08 pm] “Extensive clinical studies show that homeopathy, unsurprisingly, does not work for anything.”

    If they are so extensive, why don’t you provide even one reference?

    Obviously the homeopathy journals are full of the opposite of whatever studies you know about but won’t refer to.

    [hardnose on 19 Sep 2015 at 8:50 am] Searching in pubmed results in studies and reviews showing either positive or negative results for homeopathy, so it really depends on what your ideology prefers.

    And however much materialists hate the idea, there is ongoing research on the ability of liquids to store information.

    [hardnose on 19 Sep 2015 at 10:35 am] It is very hard to define materialism, but I guess I would define a materialist as someone who believes that mainstream science currently has a pretty good understanding of matter and life, etc.

    One thing I believe in, which all of you will hate passionately, is the idea of biological fields. Physical fields organize matter at the level of atoms, subatomic particles, etc., and biological fields operate at higher levels and organize the components of living things.

    You know that every cell in your body has the same DNA, but it works very differently depending on what organ the cell belongs to. What causes certain genes to be switched on or off, for example? No one knows, they just assume there is some kind of materialist explanation, which of course will be discovered any day now.

    [hardnose on 20 Sep 2015 at 9:09 am] Montagnier, for one, has been working on it. Oh I know you will say we can’t believe anyone who has a Nobel prize in science. The success drives them crazy and they start researching things that have not been approved by the materialist mainstream.

  49. RickKon 02 Oct 2017 at 6:05 pm

    hardnose: After years of demeaning comments about “mainstream” and “materialists” (Pete A cites but a taste), I can’t help but be amused by your theatrical moral outrage simply because someone pointed out the obvious cause and effect implied by your own comments.

    Or are you doing a “Donald Trump” maneuver and banging your chest to draw attention away from your silly assertion that mainstream medicine is all about killing pathogens and only “holistic” medicine worries about things like diet, exercise, blood pressure, blood sugar, digestion, pain management, trauma surgery, vaccination, pre-natal care, preventive medicine, etc. etc. etc.?

    Note – your definition of “holistic” is as nebulous as your definition of “materialist” – it’s just another tribal label you’ve cooked up to define “us” and “them”. THAT is what ideology does to people.

    Rant and rave all you want – it doesn’t make your narrative any more viable. Nor does it make the way you flog your narrative while ignoring comments from actual practicing MDs any less dishonorable.

  50. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 6:19 pm

    “simply because someone pointed out the obvious cause and effect implied by your own comments.”

    I said I took her off drugs that were toxic and not needed. YOU said that is what killed her. Because you are a sub-moron.

  51. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 6:31 pm

    I believe in approaching health holistically, which means acknowledging that bacteria are NOT the enemy to be killed. This is slowly being accepted by mainstream medicine, but the health providers I have met did not seem to know.

    The use of statin drugs is another example of your typical reductionist approach. High cholesterol is thought to predict heart disease, because heart attack patients often have high cholesterol. So you assume that artificially lowering cholesterol with drugs will decrease the risk.

    But it’s more likely that high cholesterol is one result of a complex syndrome that leads to heart disease. The (small) benefits of cholesterol lowering drugs may result from their anti-inflammatory effects.

    Reductionist medicine over-simplifies and often fails to understand, or even consider, how complex systems work.

    At least alternative medicine tries to be holistic. That does NOT mean it usually succeeds, and it does NOT mean most of the practitioners are honest or intelligent.

    I have never said that homeopathy or acupuncture work. I have no idea. What I said is the principles they are based on do NOT contradict anything in modern science.

  52. BurnOuton 02 Oct 2017 at 7:18 pm

    [I believe in approaching health holistically, which means acknowledging that bacteria are NOT the enemy to be killed. This is slowly being accepted by mainstream medicine, but the health providers I have met did not seem to know.]

    Wait, what? Sometimes, you must acknowledge, bacteria are the enemy that must be killed/eliminated. Pneumonia? Meningitis? Necrotizing fasciitis? I marvel at your use of the word “holistic,” but I won’t claim to be surprised. This word has been corrupted by alternative medicine to mean whatever they want – and by you to mean that we don’t need to eliminate bacteria in an infection. Your use is more creative than most, though. Usually they just mean they are going to make up some stuff and sell it to you.

    [So you assume that artificially lowering cholesterol with drugs will decrease the risk.]

    Nope. In high risk patients, this has been found using proper RCTs. It’s not an assumption.

    [Reductionist medicine over-simplifies and often fails to understand, or even consider, how complex systems work.]

    Certainly there is simplification, because we are human, and we have limited brain power, time, energy, etc. That is, we all can’t be the world expert in each biochemical pathway. But these complex systems are understood precisely because of what you call reductionist medicine.

    [At least alternative medicine tries to be holistic. ]

    No it doesn’t. It tries to figure out what nonsense each person is vulnerable to, then sell it to them. When the very thing that makes your approach different is that you will ignore relevant science and never ever ever stop using treatments that are shown not to work, that’s not holistic. It’s health fraud.

    [I have never said that homeopathy or acupuncture work. I have no idea. What I said is the principles they are based on do NOT contradict anything in modern science.]

    You are being willfully ignorant, then.

  53. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 7:53 pm

    “Sometimes, you must acknowledge, bacteria are the enemy that must be killed”

    I meant that, in general, bacteria are not the enemy. Obviously, sometimes pathogenic bacteria invade and the immune system can’t fight them off, and antibiotics are needed.

    But MOST bacteria are helpers that we cannot be healthy without.

  54. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 7:55 pm

    [So you assume that artificially lowering cholesterol with drugs will decrease the risk.]

    [Nope. In high risk patients, this has been found using proper RCTs. It’s not an assumption.]

    Yes, the correlation between high cholesterol has been observed. That’s what I said.

    It does NOT logically follow that lowering cholesterol decreases the risk.

  55. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 7:58 pm

    [At least alternative medicine tries to be holistic. ]

    “No it doesn’t. It tries to figure out what nonsense each person is vulnerable to, then sell it to them. When the very thing that makes your approach different is that you will ignore relevant science and never ever ever stop using treatments that are shown not to work, that’s not holistic. It’s health fraud.”

    I said, REPEATEDLY, that I do not recommend alternative health practitioners, and I think they are mostly scammers.

    Having a holistic perspective is one thing, being a money grabbing holistic practitioner is something else.

  56. hardnoseon 02 Oct 2017 at 8:02 pm

    [I have never said that homeopathy or acupuncture work. I have no idea. What I said is the principles they are based on do NOT contradict anything in modern science.]

    “You are being willfully ignorant, then.”

    The big disagreement between mainstream and alternative medicine is that alternative medicine accepts the ancient idea of vital energy, while mainstream does not.

    Mainstream medicine has never tried to find evidence against the existence of vital energy. It just states dogmatically that it can’t exist.

    Meanwhile, alternative scientist has found evidence for it.

  57. Pete Aon 02 Oct 2017 at 8:35 pm

    “[hardnose] Meanwhile, alternative scientist has found evidence for it.”

    I’ll correct that for you: Meanwhile, alternatives to scientists have found alternatives to evidence for it.

  58. RickKon 02 Oct 2017 at 8:45 pm

    BurnOut: “You are being willfully ignorant, then.”

    Yep, so much so that he doesn’t recognize his own bum when you and Pete hand it to him.

    No alt-med practice in history has been discontinued due to lack of efficacy, yet hardnose stands by the alt-med methods.

    If truth doesn’t matter to someone, then they have no interest in filters designed to find the truth. All that matters is narrative and ideology – that’s what keeps hardnose defending methods guaranteed to deceive and attacking methods designed to find and correct for deception. He was ahead of his time – a post-truther before it was fashionable.

    hardnose: “Mainstream medicine has never tried to find evidence against the existence of vital energy. ”

    Another blatant and obvious falsehood, so illustrative in its glaring inanity, demonstrating the extent of his ideological blindness.

    Every non-Chinese clinical trial that seeks to determine whether meridian lines exist and matter has been negative when blinded, and EVERY one of them was an attempt to find vital energy. The grade school girl who tested local reiki practitioners and found them unable to tell living tissue from empty space was trying to find vital energy. Any honest and remotely curious person could find numerous examples.

    Wow

  59. BurnOuton 02 Oct 2017 at 8:49 pm

    [But MOST bacteria are helpers that we cannot be healthy without.]

    Hmm, most or some? Either way, let’s also go back to your original concept, which was that physicians are ignorant of our symbiosis with bacteria. This is false – physicians are aware of this and consider it regularly in cases that merit it. But we also want to see evidence that therapies that manipulate the microbiome actually work. Alternative medicine likes to skip that step (and you maybe?).

    [Yes, the correlation between high cholesterol has been observed. That’s what I said.]

    That’s not what I said. I said certain cholesterol medications have been found to reduce risk of acute coronary syndrome, using RCTs. It is well known that elevated LDL is not the direct cause of coronary plaques, at least not with a simple mechanism. It’s also well known that many medications that lower LDL nicely are quite disappointing at preventing ACS. These ideas come from modern medicine – you are not introducing this to us.

    [The big disagreement between mainstream and alternative medicine is that alternative medicine accepts the ancient idea of vital energy, while mainstream does not.]

    No. It’s that alternative medicine just makes up stuff and sells it. Sometimes they go back later and try to produce some bogus science to justify it. But they’ll never give any of it up…as long as they can keep selling it.

    Science based medicine, being an endeavor of humans, is imperfect. But we try to apply well known principles to the benefit of patients. This will sometimes (often?) require abandoning treatments and principles that earlier seemed to be the best approach.

  60. tb29607on 02 Oct 2017 at 9:17 pm

    Hardnose,

    “It does NOT logically follow that lowering cholesterol decreases the risk.”
    This is not correct. The most obvious examples being people with familial hypercholesterolemia. Those who are homozygous have cholesterol levels in the 5000 range and die from heart attacks in their twenties or earlier. Heterozygotes have levels in the 2000 range and die of heart attacks in their 30’s or early 40’s. Statins reduce cholesterol in the heterozygotes and those who can get to normal levels have more normal life spans (last I checked homozygotes did not have an effective treatment available).

    “But MOST bacteria are helpers that we cannot be healthy without.”
    This statement is unproven at best. The vast majority of bacteria live in the soil and have no known relation to human health.

    “hospitals don’t make a big effort to save old people from C diff.”
    This is incorrect. Hospitals a great deal of time, money, and effort to reduce the spread of C diff. The problem is that it forms spores that are extremely difficult to kill and ridiculously easy to spread. Many people are carriers and the last article I read about C diff reported that if one person in a nursing home is a carrier, then within 6 months everyone else in the home will be a carrier as well. Trying to eliminate carrier status has proven next to impossible.

    Probiotics have been known of, suggested, and given routinely by every medical provider I have worked with since first setting foot in a hospital in 2000. Not sure where your incident occurred but at least my anecdote now counters yours.

    Regarding the level of anger conveyed above I would remind HN of a previous thread where HN was advocating the discontinuation of antipsychotics for schizophrenics. My grandfather was shot and killed by an unmedicated schizophrenic and I asked for the discussion to move on. Needless to say HN did not stop posting his anti-medication beliefs in that or any other thread. Granted, I had no involvement in my GF’s shooting so the two experiences have differences, but as a result I have difficulty having any sympathy for HN in this current thread.

  61. Nidwinon 03 Oct 2017 at 5:47 am

    Holistic medicine is a dead end as it would require to be able to directly influence internal systems (e.g. nervous systems) something that humans Today and till further notice aren’t capable off. We need an external stimuli to influence those internal systems, one way or another.

  62. BillyJoe7on 03 Oct 2017 at 7:32 am

    hardnose,

    It’s long been my opinion that you launched into “the alternatives” before ever familiarising yourself with “the science”. This thread once again bears this out. We are talking about your mother’s terminal illness here and it is very clear that you are not familiar with the the scientifically derived facts of that illness. If you can’t be bothered to do that in this case, what hope is there that you would do so on topics in which have no personal interest. Those who delve into altmed without arming themselves first are ripe for picking by the scam artists. And don’t kid yourself that you have not been scammed. The evidence is all over your comments here and have been for the ten long years you’ve wasted here.

  63. BurnOuton 03 Oct 2017 at 9:19 am

    I find it amazing that the same person that says:

    “I said, REPEATEDLY, that I do not recommend alternative health practitioners, and I think they are mostly scammers”

    also says:

    “The big disagreement between mainstream and alternative medicine is that alternative medicine accepts the ancient idea of vital energy, while mainstream does not.
    Mainstream medicine has never tried to find evidence against the existence of vital energy. It just states dogmatically that it can’t exist.
    Meanwhile, alternative scientist has found evidence for it.”

    This is precisely the scam they are running! But, alas, the allure of having special knowledge (that you didn’t earn by actual study) is just too great for some. I can barely imagine the cognitive dissonance this takes.

  64. BillyJoe7on 03 Oct 2017 at 4:08 pm

    Ten long years reading this blog and he hasn’t gotten the low down on vitalism yet.
    Truly incredible.

  65. hardnoseon 03 Oct 2017 at 4:18 pm

    “The grade school girl who tested local reiki practitioners and found them unable to tell living tissue from empty space was trying to find vital energy.”

    ONE small experiment, and it is the ONLY one cited by materialists.

    Do you really think it is scientific to accept a null result based on one experiment? What if it was inadequately powered? What if the subjects were not a representative sample? Many more what ifs for that one.

  66. hardnoseon 03 Oct 2017 at 4:19 pm

    “It does NOT logically follow that lowering cholesterol decreases the risk.”

    “This is not correct. The most obvious examples being people with familial hypercholesterolemia.”

    Right, it ONLY works for familial hypercholesterolemia. But they use cholesterol lowering drugs for patients with elevated triglycerides resulting from metabolic syndrome or type 2 diabetes. And they are the great majority of patients taking statin drugs.

  67. hardnoseon 03 Oct 2017 at 4:20 pm

    “But MOST bacteria are helpers that we cannot be healthy without.”

    “This statement is unproven at best. The vast majority of bacteria live in the soil and have no known relation to human health.”

    I meant that most bacteria living in our bodies are helpers.

  68. BillyJoe7on 03 Oct 2017 at 4:42 pm

    “I meant that most bacteria living in our bodies are helpers”

    Even that is false.

    Any bacteria that enter our bodies are invaders and will induce an immune response.
    Yeah, I am being a pedant here, but I’ll bet my last dollar that hardnose did not know this:

    http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/blogs/you-and-your-27-foot-hole.htm

    Because he only reads crap. 🙂

  69. bachfiendon 03 Oct 2017 at 4:50 pm

    Hardnose,

    ‘I meant that most bacteria living in our bodies are helpers.’

    This statement is also unproven at best.

    Most bacteria humans contain don’t do much harm. Nor do they do much good. They’re commensals (that means they ‘dine at the same table’). They’re not symbiotic (which means they provide benefits to their hosts, such as helping their hosts to digest cellulose as in ruminants). At best, they just crowd out harmful bacteria, as with Salmonella in the bowels.

    ‘Helper’ bacteria in the wrong sites can be very harmful and cause disease, such as coliforms (bowel bacteria) causing urinary tract infections or septicaemia, which can be fatal.

  70. bachfiendon 03 Oct 2017 at 5:05 pm

    BillyJoe,

    You beat me to it. Your link managed to misspell ‘mucus’ when it’s used as a noun as ‘mucous’, that’s a mistake I regard as bad as confusing ‘gravitational waves’ (discovered by three new Nobel Prize winners) and ‘gravity waves’.

  71. hardnoseon 03 Oct 2017 at 6:02 pm

    Bacteria are an extremely part of an organism’s system. This is now well known. You are just trying to be stupid.

    “Good” bacteria can become “bad” if the system is out of balance. And if you ever read anything about health you know this.

  72. hardnoseon 03 Oct 2017 at 6:10 pm

    More about the Emily Rosa healing touch experiment:

    How many times have “skeptics” ignored the results of a study because it was only one experiment and had not been replicated?

    Answer: many, many times.

    But the Emily Rosa study is accepted without question because you love the result.

    And furthermore, this is a null result, which is even more in need of skepticism than a positive result. Since most of you here are ignorant about experimental science I will explain further:

    An experiment can have a null result even if there is a real effect. If the experiment was poorly designed and had inadequate power that can easily happen.

    Another common problem with experiments is that the lack validity. In other words, they don’t really test what they claim to test.

    And another potential problem is incorrect or misleading use of statistics.

    None of you here, and no one in the NESS, has ever examined this experiment skeptically.

    And it doesn’t even pretend to show that vital energy does not exist. It only pretends to show that the energy healers who happened to be selected for this experiment could not feel life energy under this particular experiment’s conditions.

  73. bachfiendon 03 Oct 2017 at 6:55 pm

    Hardnose,

    ‘Bacteria are an extremely part of an organism’s system. This is now well known. You are just trying to be stupid.’

    This is very incoherent, even by your standards (which is saying something).

    The fact remains that almost all bacteria that humans contain are completely indifferent to the fate of their host. They don’t cause any harm, nor do they cause any good, in most cases, when they’re controlled by the immune system and the person’s natural control systems – such as defaecation with the bowels.

    As a sceptic, what I liked about the Emily Rosa study was it illustrated how simple studies can be. And how easy it is to get studies published in journals (illustrating the 10% rule – only about 10% of everything published is really first rate).

    In comparison to almost all psi studies, it was simple, testing a single hypothesis (unlike the studies Enfant Terrible likes – which test several hypotheses at the same time – that ‘psychics’ can describe or draw concealed pictures and objects at a distance and ‘judges’ can match the descriptions or drawings to the target).

    Steve Novella, when he’s discussing a study, always adds the caveat that it’s a single study, and that the results need to be replicated.

  74. hardnoseon 03 Oct 2017 at 6:57 pm

    “Bacteria are an extremely part of an organism’s system.”

    I left out the word “important.”

  75. hardnoseon 03 Oct 2017 at 6:58 pm

    “Steve Novella, when he’s discussing a study, always adds the caveat that it’s a single study, and that the results need to be replicated.”

    He did NOT say that about the Emily Rosa study. NONE of the organized “Skeptics” said anything like that.

  76. chikoppion 03 Oct 2017 at 7:44 pm

    [hardnose] And it doesn’t even pretend to show that vital energy does not exist. It only pretends to show that the energy healers who happened to be selected for this experiment could not feel life energy under this particular experiment’s conditions.

    I think you’re missing the relevance of the citation, which is that a nine year old possessed sufficient critical thinking skills to invalidate the claims being made. The “practitioners” agreed to the terms of the experiment, which meant that they believed they would be able to demonstrate an effect under those conditions (or that they were confident they could somehow fool the experiment). They couldn’t. The claim was falsified. A fourth grader was sensible enough to do so.

    The burden is on the claimant. If someone wants to claim that “vital energy” exists its up to them to design a sufficiently rigorous experiment to substantiate that claim. There’s no need to “show that vital energy does not exist.” No one can demonstrate that it does.

    If your justification for belief is that a thing hasn’t been disproven then you’re going to end up believing in no end of nonsense, including many things that are contradictory or mutually exclusive.

  77. bachfiendon 03 Oct 2017 at 8:48 pm

    Hardnose,

    ‘He did NOT say that about the Emily Rosa study. NONE of the organised ‘Sceptics’ said anything like that’.

    Steve Novella on http://www.theness/indx.php/therapeutic-touch/ October, 1998.

    ‘The Rosa study was originally designed as a grade school science project. It therefore lacks strict scientific rigor, for example control data was not published along with the study data. The study design, however, as presented, was adequate to detect the practitioners’ ability to sense the HEF’.

    Hardly a ringing endorsement. And by no means does Steve claim that the study disproves the existence of the HEF. He does note that it disproves the ability of the practitioners tested to sense the HEF, if it exists, something completely different.

    His comments were made almost 20 years ago. Since then, there’s been increasing concern regarding the replication problem. The caveat concerning single studies applies more today than previously, particularly since it’s becoming easier to published studies online.

    As an aside, if Emily Rosa had demonstrated that practitioners were capable of sensing the HEF, would you be expressing scepticism? Or would you be citing it repeatedly as proof that your worldview is correct?

    “‘Bacteria are an extremely part of an organism’s system’. I left out the word ‘important'”.

    You also left out the word ‘possibly’ as in ‘bacteria are possibly an extremely important part of an organism’s system’.

  78. bachfiendon 03 Oct 2017 at 8:49 pm

    My link doesn’t work. It’s easy to find using google search though.

  79. Pete Aon 03 Oct 2017 at 9:57 pm

    http://www.theness.com/index.php/therapeutic-touch/

    See also:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa

  80. hardnoseon 04 Oct 2017 at 8:11 am

    “if Emily Rosa had demonstrated that practitioners were capable of sensing the HEF, would you be expressing scepticism? Or would you be citing it repeatedly as proof that your worldview is correct?”

    I would know that it was only one experiment, and that it could not possibly count as “proof.”

    “bacteria are possibly an extremely important part of an organism’s system”

    No, it is already known that they have important and necessary functions.

  81. Nidwinon 04 Oct 2017 at 8:59 am

    hardnose

    Do you have a good reason (personal or not) to believe in vitalism?
    Just currious, no offense or punt meant here.

  82. tb29607on 04 Oct 2017 at 9:21 am

    “Right in ONLY works for familial hypercholesterolemia.”
    This is wrong. Granted, the effects are not impressive, the number needed to treat, for people with no prior heart attack, is about 100 to prevent 1 heart attack every 5 years. For people with coronary artery disease the numbers are more significant.

    And in people taking statins prior to hospitalization, they have also been found to improve survival in sepsis.

    “that they have important and necessary functions.”
    Gut bacteria produce vitamin K which is needed for blood clotting. However it can be replaced by a pill, or given as a shot so the bacteria are convenient, but in no way “necessary”.

    Other than requiring 70% of the immune system to be located in the GI tract to prevent these opportunistic bacteria from killing us, what are these various other functions you reference?

  83. hardnoseon 04 Oct 2017 at 7:23 pm

    Familial hypercholesterolemia is rare. Most people with heart disease got it because of type 2 diabetes or metabolic syndrome.

    Most patients who are given cholesterol-lowering drugs will not benefit from them. And statins can actually raise blood sugar, which is exactly the opposite of what these patients need.

    When genetically-caused high cholesterol is the problem, cholesterol-lowering drugs make sense. But most of the time, they do not make any sense.

  84. hardnoseon 04 Oct 2017 at 7:26 pm

    “Gut bacteria produce vitamin K which is needed for blood clotting.”

    They do MUCH MORE than that!! You have not kept up with the research at all.

  85. hardnoseon 04 Oct 2017 at 7:28 pm

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/gut-bacteria-on-the-brain/395918/

  86. hardnoseon 04 Oct 2017 at 7:42 pm

    And, by the way, I was talking to someone today who had a heart attack 10 years ago. His doctor told him it was caused by high cholesterol and that it’s genetic. However, he did not have high cholesterol, and he does have metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes).

    His doctor told him to follow a low-fat diet. Actually, it is well known that a low-fat diet is WRONG for metabolic syndrome, since carbohydrates are the problem, not dietary fat or cholesterol.

    I tried explaining all this to him but he would not listen, since I am not an MD. No I am not an MD but I have read about health all my life.

    His doctor also has not explained the importance of exercise.

    So it seems like MDs are approaching heart disease from the perspective of familial hypercholesterolemia, even though most heart disease patients do NOT have it.

  87. hardnoseon 04 Oct 2017 at 7:43 pm

    Also, his doctor assured him that he will not die from heart disease, since he had a stent and is taking cholesterol-lowering and blood-thinning drugs.

  88. hardnoseon 04 Oct 2017 at 7:50 pm

    “Do you have a good reason (personal or not) to believe in vitalism?”

    I have good scientific reasons.

    Vitalism is accepted in alternative science and in alternative medicine. There are many valid scientific reasons for accepting it, even though it was rejected by mainstream medicine, mostly for political reasons.

    There is no scientific evidence against vitalism, contrary to what you have been taught.

    There is probably nothing quick and simple I can say to explain how I wound up believing in vitalism.

    I also have personal reasons because I have practiced yoga all my life, so I am conscious of the body’s energy system.

  89. bachfiendon 04 Oct 2017 at 9:34 pm

    Hardnose,

    ‘Vitalism is accepted in alternative science and in alternative medicine. There are many valid scientific reasons for accepting it, even though it was rejected by mainstream medicine, mostly for political reasons’.

    Care to list some of the ‘valid scientific reasons’?

    Vitalism used to be part of mainstream medicine, until it was realised that it didn’t help in devising therapies that actually worked. It was rejected because there’s no evidence that it exists.

  90. chikoppion 04 Oct 2017 at 9:54 pm

    [hardnose] His doctor told him to follow a low-fat diet. Actually, it is well known that a low-fat diet is WRONG for metabolic syndrome, since carbohydrates are the problem, not dietary fat or cholesterol.

    HOW is this known? How was that fact established? Was it perhaps through research? The fact that a doctor isn’t following the consensus of medical science seems an odd thing for you to criticize. Are you now saying that medical practitioners should be accountable to evidence based medicine?

    I have good scientific reasons.

    Vitalism is accepted in alternative science and in alternative medicine. There are many valid scientific reasons for accepting it, even though it was rejected by mainstream medicine, mostly for political reasons.

    Which is it? That there are “good scientific reasons” or that it is “accepted in alternative science?” Because there is only one scientific method. The “alternative” to that method is not science.

    There is no scientific evidence against vitalism, contrary to what you have been taught.

    The hallmark of sham medicine is to shift the goalposts. The only question of relevance is whether there is sufficient evidence to positively substantiate a claim.

    Also, are you sure you are referring to “vitalism,” or is this a misappropriation of terms not unlike your misconception of “materialism?”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

    I also have personal reasons because I have practiced yoga all my life, so I am conscious of the body’s energy system.

    You’re conscious of your feelings. How you interpret that or what you imagine it to indicate is another matter entirely. People used to think heroine had health benefits because it made them “feel” euphoric. Opium was sold as an asthma remedy. What you “feel” does not provide biological insight.

  91. tb29607on 04 Oct 2017 at 9:57 pm

    HN,

    There are many contributing factors to coronary artery disease that do not have anything to do with blood sugar. In descending order of frequency they are age, sex, family history, smoking, hypertension, cholesterol, then diabetes, then obesity.

    You would need to provide significantly more information regarding your anecdote for me to comment.

    I have looked at your gut microbiome article. You should know “The Atlantic” is not a scientific journal. The articles referenced were mostly about mice. Interesting but not much else. As far as those few human studies go, small numbers of subjects with marginal effects do not count for much. Count me among the unimpressed.

    Feel free to eat yogurt and not take statins. I know enough to recognize when further education efforts will be nonproductive.

  92. Willyon 04 Oct 2017 at 10:29 pm

    “Vitalism is accepted in alternative science and in alternative medicine.”

    Nuf said.

  93. bachfiendon 05 Oct 2017 at 12:29 am

    Hardnose,

    ‘Bacteria are an extremely important part of an organism’s system’.

    I was objecting to the ‘extremely’. I wouldn’t have objected to either ‘bacteria are probably an important part of an organism’s system’ or ‘bacteria are almost certainly a significant part of an organism’s system’.

    You’ve gone out on a limb far further than the evidence supports your beliefs. As tb notes, if you want to eat yoghurt, then feel free to do so (I manage to go through a lot of yoghurt each day, I make my own – 1.3 litres of skim milk plus 2 tablespoons of commercial joghurt incubated at around 40 degrees Celsius for 5-6 hours produces a pleasant drinking yoghurt – but I eat it because I like it, not because I think it’s going facilitate my health).

    Using ‘extremely’ encourages ‘magical’ thinking and the belief that diet is the panacea for all illnesses and ‘ill-eazes’, and poor diet (containing ‘toxins’) is the cause of all diseases and ‘ill-eases’.

  94. Nidwinon 05 Oct 2017 at 4:23 am

    “Vitalism is accepted in alternative science and in alternative medicine. There are many valid scientific reasons for accepting it, even though it was rejected by mainstream medicine, mostly for political reasons”

    One of the issues with vitalism is that they can’t even agree about what is what and what is where between the different pratices. It seems that every branch comes with it’s own version of meridians, focus points, chackras, energy forms and patterns,…

    There’s also no corrolation between what vitalism has to say and what willful tinglers (sorry for the weird name but it’ll have to do till further notice) are capable of experiencing. That’s the reason why we, WT’s, have all rejected vitalism explanations of what we’re capable of doing.

    “I also have personal reasons because I have practiced yoga all my life, so I am conscious of the body’s energy system.”

    Yoga is an interresting subject on this matter.
    All the negative side effects of yoga are physical (pains and injuries) caused by the physical aspect of Yoga. It’s clear and already well documented that certain positions aren’t adequate for everyone and often the cause of injuries. But there’s zero information, data about the negative energy effects of Yoga, the true vitalism side of this practice.

    This non-information about the – energy side effects of yoga is also in direct contradiction with us, wt’s. We are well aware and all have our little list of possible negative side effects on our side, nothing on yours hardnose.

    On the subject on negative side effects between vitalism based medicine and scientific based medicine there’s clearly a huge gap of available information and data.

  95. RickKon 05 Oct 2017 at 6:26 am

    Willy – exactly.

    Alternative science, alternative medicine, alternative facts.

    Post-truth – reality is whatever he wants.

    What’s amazing is the ease with which hardnose so easily lies. There is no remorse, no apparent sense of obligation to avoid stating obvious falsehoods.

    He does it again, providing another example above, so glaringly inane and so illustrative of his utter disdain for honesty. In reference to the Emily Rosa study, he says:

    “ONE small experiment, and it is the ONLY one cited by materialists”

    He is, in the words of Mr. Minchin, defending his ideological position by willingly remaining in “the fog of his inability to google”.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21531671
    https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/reiki/
    https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/acupuncture/

    Reality doesn’t suit hardnose, so he’ll just happily drink and share the Kool-Aid of his “alternate” reality.

  96. BillyJoe7on 05 Oct 2017 at 7:06 am

    Rick: “What’s amazing is the ease with which hardnose so easily lies”

    Yes, when his argument fails, as it always does, he simply lies. He has repeated the lie about Sean Carroll so often I’ve lost count. And he knows it’s a lie because I’ve corrected him repeatedly with direct quotes – which he is careful never to acknowledge so that he can lie again the next time the opportunity arises, pretending he has never been smacked down.

    I suppose when you take a daily bath in steaming bullshit it’s only a short stinking step to lying.

  97. hardnoseon 05 Oct 2017 at 7:10 am

    “Feel free to eat yogurt and not take statins. I know enough to recognize when further education efforts will be nonproductive.”

    This implies that everyone should take statins. The extreme view of some MDs, maybe most, is that statins are generally good for health.

  98. hardnoseon 05 Oct 2017 at 7:19 am

    “There are many contributing factors to coronary artery disease that do not have anything to do with blood sugar. In descending order of frequency they are age, sex, family history, smoking, hypertension, cholesterol, then diabetes, then obesity.”

    Age is not a causal factor. Chronic diseases that get worse with time will get worse as you get older.

    Family history, or genetics, is NOT a major factor. Heart disease is rare in non-industrial cultures, where obesity and metabolic syndrome are rare.

    Smoking is a major factor, at least you got one right.

    Type 2 diabetes is usually a result of obesity. Obesity is extremely common now, and is a major cause of heart disease. But you put it last.

    The medical industry wants everyone to think heart disease is mostly genetic, and all you can do about it is take drugs. The FACT is, heart disease is mostly caused by lifestyle.

  99. Nidwinon 05 Oct 2017 at 7:33 am

    hardnose

    No offense meant but it would be best if you checked before writing something down.

    “Heart disease is rare in non-industrial cultures, where obesity and metabolic syndrome are rare.”

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/10/which-countries-have-the-most-deaths-from-heartdisease/

  100. hardnoseon 05 Oct 2017 at 7:36 am

    Also — it is becoming very obvious that regular physical exercise can do a lot to prevent heart disease (and other chronic lifestyle diseases).

    Yet, the person I described, who was told by his MD his heart disease is genetic, was NOT told to exercise.

    He had a heart attack 10 years ago, and his lifestyle involved going to McDonalds twice a day and never exercising.

    The MD’s conclusion is that it was genetic and drugs are the best solution. He also recommended a low fat diet without red meat or eggs (very outdated advice).

  101. BillyJoe7on 05 Oct 2017 at 8:04 am

    ^there is no reason not to think that the above is nothing but a list of lies.

  102. bachfiendon 05 Oct 2017 at 8:14 am

    Hardnose,

    ‘Age is not a causal factor (to coronary artery disease). Chronic diseases that get worse with time will get worse as you get older’.

    Tb was referring to ‘contributing factors’ not ‘causal factors’ to clinically apparent coronary artery disease. They’re not the same thing, despite your trying to make them so.

  103. Steve Crosson 05 Oct 2017 at 8:41 am

    hardnose,

    You claim to do lots of research on your opinions yet your entire world view seems to be based on anecdotes and outlier opinions.

    “the person I described, who was told by his MD his heart disease is genetic, was NOT told to exercise.”

    IF that is true, it is hardly representative of common practice. I have moderately high cholesterol and I don’t believe that any of my doctors has ever FAILED to mention diet and exercise as the recommended first and best approach. Also, the vast bulk of the literature, both professional and lay-oriented, says pretty much the same thing.

    In addition, unless you were in the examining room, you can’t possibly know what his doctor actually said. Everyone has a tendency to hear (and remember) what they want to hear. It is not hard to believe that someone would recall a ‘simple’ solution (i.e. a pill) and completely forget a ‘hard’ solution like exercise and giving up favorite foods.

    Your entire commenting history is a case study in this phenomenon. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of instances where your ‘evidence’ and/or recollections have been countered by mounds of competing evidence, yet you remain cognitively blind to all corrections no matter how ironclad.

    Even the name ‘hardnose’ literally translates to “my mind is made up — don’t confuse me with facts.”

  104. BurnOuton 05 Oct 2017 at 9:53 am

    HN – please answer Nidwin’s comment.

    [Heart disease is rare in non-industrial cultures, where obesity and metabolic syndrome are rare.]

    Like Nidwin, I don’t think this is right.

    From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3819990/

    Regions Age specific death rates from IHD (per 100,000 population)
    0–4 5–14 15–29 30–44 45–59 60–69 70–79 80 +
    Low income countries
    East Asia and Pacific 1 1 3 15 79 304 779 1606
    Europe and Central Asia 0 0 6 89 517 1591 3571 8598
    Latin America and Caribbean 0 0 3 17 126 414 939 1956
    Middle East and North Africa 0 0 5 45 304 956 2156 3758
    South Asia 2 2 5 35 302 1005 2207 3644
    Sub-Saharan Africa 0 0 1 14 139 526 1345 2291

    High income countries
    High income countries 0 0 1 13 91 298 805 2253

    Looks like the formatting is terrible here, you can take a look at Table 2a and 2b in the article. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3819990/table/t0010/)

    BTW I doubt every detail in your anecdote. In any case it’s unimportant, your story in no way reflects evidence-based medical advice and your allegations about the approach of the majority of physicians are false.

  105. hardnoseon 05 Oct 2017 at 11:58 am

    “The global burden of IHD deaths has shifted to low-and-middle income countries as lifestyles approach those of high income countries.”

  106. BillyJoe7on 05 Oct 2017 at 2:33 pm

    “I doubt every detail in your anecdote”

    You can pretty well assume he is lying.

    There have been too many instances of him blatantly lying such as his repeatedly lying about what Sean Carroll said despite being repeatedly corrected by direct quotes. Apart from the fact that he could not possibly know if his anecdotes are true, I think you can assume that they are actual direct lies. And I would even include the anecdote about his mother. In fact, I’m pretty sure I caught him up in his lies about his mother when I asked him some direct questions about his account of her death a few days back which he did not, and, I assume, could not, answer.

    I know what my parents died of to the last detail. I know what tests they had and why and what the results of those tests were. I know the treatments they had and why. Hardnose seems not to have a clue. That’s the thing about lies. It’s pretty hard to remember what your lies are, and even harder to build a case for them. That’s why he refused to engage any further regarding her terminal illness. Faking outrage at Rick’s comment, even after he apologised, was just an excuse to avoid answering some pesky questions that would have exposed his lies.

  107. BillyJoe7on 05 Oct 2017 at 2:35 pm

    “your entire world view seems to be based on anecdotes and outlier opinions”

    Anecdotes, outliers, and lies.

  108. Pete Aon 05 Oct 2017 at 4:48 pm

    BillyJoe7, HN has created a many-years-long indelible record of his lying on this blog. I illustrated above just a tiny fraction of the evidence.

    I totally agree with your remark: “Faking outrage at Rick’s comment, even after he apologised, was just an excuse to avoid answering some pesky questions that would have exposed his lies.”

  109. hardnoseon 05 Oct 2017 at 8:20 pm

    It’s much easier to tell the truth than make up lies. Especially when there is no motive for lying.

  110. Steve Crosson 05 Oct 2017 at 9:30 pm

    It’s much easier to tell the truth than make up lies. Especially when there is no motive for lying.

    BOOM … yet another Irony Meter bites the dust!

  111. bachfiendon 05 Oct 2017 at 11:05 pm

    Hardnose,

    ‘It’s much easier to tell the truth than make up lies. Especially when there is no motive for lying.’

    It’s much easier to tell lies than to remember the truth. Especially when the lies fit the person’s worldview better than the truth.

  112. BillyJoe7on 06 Oct 2017 at 7:23 am

    “It’s much easier to tell the truth than make up lies. Especially when there is no motive for lying”

    We’ve exposed your lies AND your motivation.

  113. hardnoseon 07 Oct 2017 at 8:04 pm

    “We’ve exposed your lies AND your motivation.”

    It makes you feel good to think so.

  114. bachfiendon 07 Oct 2017 at 9:02 pm

    Hardnose,

    We don’t ‘think so’. We ‘know so’.

  115. flieson 10 Oct 2017 at 4:55 pm

    “gurus in every sense of the word”
    Um, Steve, I don’t want to be rude, but I’m pretty angry that you wrote this.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.