Wellness App Author Lied About Cancer Diagnosis

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wellness App Author Lied About Cancer Diagnosis

Posted by timothy on Thursday April 23, 2015 @01:23AM from the but-this-was-my-whole-health-plan dept.

Freshly Exhumed writes: Wellness advocate Belle Gibson, who translated her high profile as a cancer survivor into publishing success, has admitted her cancer diagnosis was not real. Ms Gibson, 23, who claimed to have healed terminal brain cancer by eating wholefoods, made the admission in an interview with the Australian Women's Weekly. The success of Gibson's book, The Whole Pantry, and her smartphone application, which advocates natural therapies, has been largely dependent on her high-profile as a cancer survivor. Sadly, we've seen this sort of behaviour before. It would seem that Belle Gibson has emulated Dr. Andrew Wakefield in knowingly decieving the public in ways that could possibly be dangerous to the health of believers.

170 of 256 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This is not good... by __aabppq7737 · 2015-04-23 01:26 · Score: 1

A nation of "cyberchondria"s probably do bad to themselves, but, more importantly, feed a cyclic loop of social/economic behaviors encouraging self-diagnosis.
1. Re:This is not good... by monkeyzoo · 2015-04-23 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Wait! Eating whole foods *doesn't* cure cancer?!
  I don't know... sad though this is, people who believe this shit may just be Darwin in action.
2. Re:This is not good... by LifesABeach · 2015-04-23 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Premeditated Murder is such an ugly phrase. Knowingly telling a lie that endangers the listeners life is what? Of course, listening and acting on the advice that anyone with common sense would laugh at is what?
3. Re:This is not good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-23 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe not cure cancer, but almost certainly eating right can prevent it.
  Reduce risk, yes. But *prevent*?! Wishful thinking.
4. Re:This is not good... by monkeyzoo · 2015-04-23 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's true. Taking advantage of people who are desperate and fearful is despicable.
5. Re:This is not good... by JosKarith · 2015-04-23 01:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "eating right can HELP MITIGATE THE OCCUENCES OF CANCERS DUE TO WHAT YOU EAT" - Tftfy...
  Eat all the healthy foods you like, it won't do jack for cancers caused by other factors like smoking, drinking, overtanning, etc... And this is just the kind of ignorance that this nasty piece of excrement posing as a human being expolited when peddling her snake oil.
  Personally I hope that she gets tied up in lawsuits based off this for the rest of her miserable life.
  
  --
  'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
6. Re:This is not good... by ranton · 2015-04-23 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Maybe not cure cancer, but almost certainly eating right can prevent it.
  No, eating right almost certainly cannot prevent cancer. It almost certainly can reduce the chances of getting cancer, but it has no hope of actually preventing it. It is a very small but incredibly significant distinction.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
7. Re: This is not good... by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-04-23 02:11 · Score: 2
  
  That's not how cancer works. Cancerous cells are constantly arising and being killed by the immune system. Let's assume that eating healthy food reduces the incidence of metastatic cancer. Then it is preventing cancer in many instances. To claim that it prevents all run-away cancer processes would be a stronger claim with a much higher bar to meet.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
8. Re:This is not good... by BarbaraHudson · 2015-04-23 02:13 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Personally I hope that she gets tied up in lawsuits based off this for the rest of her miserable life.
  Getting brain cancer would be karma.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
9. Re:This is not good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-23 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Even billionaire geniuses believe this shit however.
10. Re:This is not good... by boristdog · 2015-04-23 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  This is nothing new. A friend's mother was diagnosed with cancer back in 1980 and she found a book promoting eating various sprouts as a "cure" for cancer. The family spent the next year growing sprouts in huge trays for her until she died. Didn't help a bit.
11. Re:This is not good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-23 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  *sigh*, I see this crap far too often. Just because Big Pharma publishes its profits for all to see, doesn't mean their the only money grubbers out there. This whole alternative medicine thing is typically one big scam. They want your money as badly as BP does, but they are _more_ willing to lie about their snake oil. Does anyone wonder why the nutraceutical industry strives so hard _not_ to get FDA oversight of their products?
  Now, I'm not giving BP a free pass, but saying that at least there is usually some evidence that what they peddle is safe, and sometimes effective.
12. Re: This is not good... by Immerman · 2015-04-23 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  If doing X will prevent Y, then if I do X, Y will not occur.
  Eating healthily may prevent many individual tumors from forming, but it does not prevent ALL of them, so it can't be said to prevent cancer. It may HELP prevent cancer, much like condoms help prevent pregnancy, but that's a much weaker claim.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
13. Re:This is not good... by __aabppq7737 · 2015-04-23 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Anecdotes make us all feel nice, but, (hoping I'm not starting a flamewar), don't provide *scientific* data.
14. Re:This is not good... by ArmoredDragon · 2015-04-23 02:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Maybe not cure cancer, but almost certainly eating right can prevent it.
  Wrong. Very very incredibly wrong. Substantially more than half of all incidents of cancer are the result of random mutation. No amount of "eating right" will change that.
  http://science.slashdot.org/st...
  Honestly I'm tired of this stupid fucking "eating right means you never get sick" religion that seems to be going around (spread by some stupid celebrities like Bill Maher.) Eating wrong can cause problems (most common of which would be liver and heart disorders caused by eating too many sugars or too many electrolytes, followed by undernourishment from not consuming enough amino acid groups) but eating right isn't going to guarantee you'll never get sick.
  Oh, and by the way, the actual store "Whole Foods" promotes some of these snake oil ideals:
  - They sell very expensive homeopathic medicines which are proven to be worthless
  - They maintain a list of banned foods that aren't harmful (glutamates, such as potassium glutamate) while including some foods that are known to kill some people (i.e. peanuts.)
  - They sell a LOT of junk food that is VERY high in sugar, but claim to be a health food store.
  Honestly the sooner this organic foods/whole foods religion dies, the better.
15. Re:This is not good... by Streetlight · 2015-04-23 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  We had a female administrative assistant where I worked who was diagnosed with breast cancer and found somewhere that going on an orange juice diet would cure her. She died six months after the diagnosis. Orange juice is generally considered good for one in moderation as it does contain some good nutrition but also some sugars, so too much could be bad for some folks. A cure for cancer? Not that I know.
  
  Are folks who write about phoney cures legally liable for the deaths that could be prevented by scientifically proven methods? I'm not sure it's been tested in the courts.
  
  --
  In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
16. Re:This is not good... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-04-23 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  reduce the chances of getting cancer, but it has no hope of actually preventing it
  If you reduce the chance, you do prevent it in at least some cases. So, your statement is in fact not accurate, as there is HOPE. I will repeat it, EATING well does prevent cancer in at least some people. Further, eating well does can reduce the severity of cancer, and that gives you a much better chance of beating it (at least certain forms). But if you insist on eating Bacon Wrapped Pork Chops thinking it doesn't matter to your health by all means keep eating it.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
17. Re: This is not good... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-04-23 03:06 · Score: 2
  
  If eating better reduces the risk of cancer, then by definition it prevents SOME cancer. Remove the "SOME" and the statement still implies "SOME". If you assume "ALL" instead of "SOME", it does break, because "ALL" and "NONE" are rarely true absolutes.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
18. Re:This is not good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-23 03:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You are SO full of shit, I'm surprised you can hear yourself think over all the noise from the flies swarming about.
  Decades of research and trillions of dollars have done A LOT for cancer patients. In the past, cancer survival rates were so discouraging that the 5 year mark was considered terrific. The fact that you posted that comment, suggests that research has come a long in treating cancers. Instead of survival times of 6 months- 2 years, we now have significant numbers of people surviving past the 5 year mark. Hey, maybe we should start talking about things in terms of 10 year survival, but that's a long time for cancer patients to die of heart attacks, accidents, diabetes, etc. Pinning down survival rates would be much more difficult. Cancer research is already complex. We've done such a good job (yes good) of treating cancers (not curing) that jackholes like you ignorantly spill vitriol on the web. Classical Hodgkin's lymphoma was considered a death sentence 50 years ago. Now, the 5 year survival rate for Stage IV Hodgkin's is 65%. It's so treatable that we force teenagers to receive therapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma, because it's idiotic not to. Seminomas, which are cancers of testicles (more or less), have a 70% chance of survival even when it's Stage IV, meaning the cancer is widely metastatic and over the place. Stage II melanoma has survival rates of 90%. Our therapies are also getting better and better, with fewer side effects. Yes, they're expensive as hell, but they literally took decades of research to develop.
  No, we haven't cured every type of cancer out there and we're still doing a terrible job with others (pancreatic carcinomas and glioblastomas come to mind). That said, we've come a long way with so many other types of cancers and even if they aren't cured, they're living longer and without disease/symptoms. You don't think that was worth the decades of research and trillions of dollars? Well, fuck you too then!
19. Re:This is not good... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-04-23 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  Wrong. Very very incredibly wrong.
  
  You are absolutely wrong. Eating right does prevent some cancers, because eating right reduces the risk of cancer, thus can be said to prevent. This is not "all or nothing" claim, which you are making it. Reducing the risk, means you prevent some.
  Just as the opposite is true, increasing risk means "causes at least some" as in Smoking. Does smoking cause cancer if someone smokes their whole life and dies at age 100 of old age? Why yes, yes it does. It doesn't cause it in everyone. Increasing risk means helps cause ... decreases risk means helps prevents.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
20. Re:This is not good... by SimplyGeek · 2015-04-23 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the people who shop at Whole Foods, for example, are middle to upper-middle class working professionals with healthy salaries. These are not stupid people. Even well educated people can and oftentimes do fall for the naturalist fallacy.
21. Re:This is not good... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-04-23 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  And unfortunately for some, once the Cancer has arrived, eating right won't help, as the immune system is already compromised. Eating right helps keep the immune system optimized (helps, not perfect).
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
22. Re:This is not good... by Mr+D+from+63 · 2015-04-23 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  If you reduce the chance, you do prevent it in at least some cases. So, your statement is in fact not accurate, as there is HOPE. I will repeat it, EATING well does prevent cancer in at least some people.
  I suppose its just semantics, but if it is really eating poorly that causes risk to increase, then not eating poorly is not really preventing cancer, just not causing it. So, its really not eating bad food that lowers cancer risk.... and of course that implies eating well. Kind of like saying not riding in a car prevents you from getting a serious injury from an accident...technically true but kind of useless when looking for prevention techniques.
  
  Not eating anything will prevent cancer.
23. Re:This is not good... by ranton · 2015-04-23 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  reduce the chances of getting cancer, but it has no hope of actually preventing it
  If you reduce the chance, you do prevent it in at least some cases. So, your statement is in fact not accurate, as there is HOPE. I will repeat it, EATING well does prevent cancer in at least some people. Further, eating well does can reduce the severity of cancer, and that gives you a much better chance of beating it (at least certain forms). But if you insist on eating Bacon Wrapped Pork Chops thinking it doesn't matter to your health by all means keep eating it.
  Like I said, there is a small but incredibly significant difference between saying something can be prevented and saying something is a prevention technique.
  By saying you can prevent cancer you are saying it is 100% effective. If there is any chance cancer can arise, you are not preventing cancer.
  By saying you hinder the growth or occurance of cancer, you are saying something is beneficial as a prevention technique. But you are not saying that it can prevent cancer.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
24. Re:This is not good... by ceoyoyo · 2015-04-23 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Usually it's called reckless endangerment, or perhaps criminal negligence. If you take an action that you know will cause death, it usually qualifies as murder though, whether it's telling a lie or pulling a trigger.
25. Re: This is not good... by Razed+By+TV · 2015-04-23 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  It might be more appropriate to simply hope that she gets cancer.
26. Re:This is not good... by ksheff · 2015-04-23 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's very sad to read about people who have been duped by these "new age" cancer cures that only reduce the patients' bank account balances, not the tumors. A friend of mine went from the "insulin chemotherapy" method (which sounds credible until one looks into it) provided by a medical clinic to some whacky irradiation device made with PVC pipe and then some shaman in Brazil. But he didn't trust "traditional medicine" and the alternative medicine quacks eagerly took his money (some of which was donated by friends and fans of his music) until he died. :(
  
  --
  the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
27. Re:This is not good... by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-04-23 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly I'm tired of this stupid fucking "eating right means you never get sick" religion that seems to be going around
  All of these insane ideas, end up having at their very core, the concept of your disease is somehow your fault. Get XXX disease? That's because you weren't a vegan, or you ate too much thisorthat.
  It gets really weird, because we end up doing things like avoiding all sun exposure, and people frantically thinking they are going to get melanoma and die because they got a little sun, and their skin turned pink for a day.
  And the results? Vitamin D deficiency. When I was a child, we got a lot of outdoor time. Coupled with Vitamin D milk, we were covered. I remember even admonitions against taking supplements, because you might get too much D. Now? D deficiency is becoming almost universal.
  Folks, we don't live forever, we have a lot of different things that take us out, and problems based on what we eat are our fault much less often than the blamers would have us believe.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
28. Re:This is not good... by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-04-23 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  And unfortunately for some, once the Cancer has arrived, eating right won't help, as the immune system is already compromised. Eating right helps keep the immune system optimized (helps, not perfect).
  And there you have it. No True Scotsman meets cancer blamer.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
29. Re:This is not good... by boristdog · 2015-04-23 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Or, you know the anecdote could be not intended to "prove" anything but show that "this is nothing new". "Cyberchondria" is just a new label, crap like this has been around since even before snake oil salesmen.
  Read before replying.
30. Re:This is not good... by cusco · 2015-04-23 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  The most irritating thing to me is that the people who believe her dreck will continue to believe it even after her and every other huckster selling miracle cures are shown to be charlatans. There is a large overlap between her fans and the anti-vaxxers.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
31. Re:This is not good... by wisnoskij · 2015-04-23 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  No cancer is caused by a single thing, but a bunch of different of genetic and environmental things all working in concert.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
32. Re:This is not good... by ArmoredDragon · 2015-04-23 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  You are absolutely wrong. Eating right does prevent some cancers, because eating right reduces the risk of cancer, thus can be said to prevent.
  You're wrong at the worst, and splitting hairs at the best, and here's why: In order to increase your risk of cancer to begin with, you'd have to otherwise be doing something to put yourself at higher risk to it to begin with. What you said is tantamount to saying that not smoking prevents lung cancer. It's just a silly conclusion to draw.
33. Re:This is not good... by sjames · 2015-04-23 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Kinda like those people taking their statins like clockwork in spite of no proof that they do any good whatsoever. And all those people avoiding salt. And the people eating the trans-fat laden margarine because the fats in butter are harmful. How about those people alternately eating and not eating eggs because they are either good for you or lethal in any amount?
  When "science" and "medicine" give such crappy advice, is it any wonder people start listening to woo from other sources too?
34. Re:This is not good... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-04-23 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately eating right isn't as easy as not smoking. And that is the difference. It is easy to eat nothing but McDonalds and KFC, but that isn't eating well. Eating well is a choice, just like smoking is a choice.
  To eat right, one must search for fresh and natural foods. Trust me, it isn't as simple as "not smoking".
  Eating right means your immune system is able to fend off everyday environmental hazards. It isn't perfect, but it is better than the alternative (Starbucks n Krispie Kreame for every meal)
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
35. Re:This is not good... by dywolf · 2015-04-23 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  the vast majority of lung cancer is people who smoked. the rest are usually found or believed to be caused by long term exposure to cigarette smoke, or other pollutants. only a tiny tiny fraction (2%) is thought to develop a cancer of the lungs without any adverse environmental inputs being the chief factor. it is one of the few cancers that is largely preventable through behavior/avoidance.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
36. Re:This is not good... by ranton · 2015-04-23 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Using your "all or none" approach, then smoking cannot be said to "cause cancer" because some people don't get cancer when they smoke for years.
  Cause and Prevent are two different words. One requires an all or nothing, the other does not.
  You can say that someone caused a car accident even though they were not in control of every aspect of the accident.
  You cannot say you prevented someone from getting beat up if you stop one assailant but his buddy still beats the guy up.
  
  Do Vaccines Prevent Measles? Then why do people with Measles vaccines get Measles (rare, but it happens)? So, using your logic, you cannot say Measles Vaccine prevents measles, because it isn't 100%.
  Of course vaccines don't prevent measles. That is one reason why the herd mentality is important since it is not 100% effective (the other is for people who cannot be vaccinated for medical / age reasons). Vaccines are over 99% effective at preventing measles, but you need to put those stipulations in there if you are going to talk about their effectiveness.
  If you had originally said but almost certainly eating right can prevent 80% of cancer cases then there would be no problem with your statement, except for possibly the validity of whatever percentage you gave. You could have also said but almost certainly eating right can reduce your chance of getting cancer. But instead you said it could prevent cancer, which is not true.
  Small differences between words are important, especially when you are making scientific claims (which all health claims are).
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
37. Re:This is not good... by sjames · 2015-04-23 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  With cancer, even the very expensive and carefully researched drugs can't guarantee a cure. A lot of people die of cancer while recieving the best treatments known to medicine. That doesn't mean they are worthless.
  However, shame on anyone convincing cancer patients to forgo potentially curative medicine in favor of some unproven home remedy.
38. Re:This is not good... by Darinbob · 2015-04-23 06:57 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It makes sense though. You start with a small lie and you get sucked into it and pretty soon it's a lifestyle.
  For example, I once claimed to understand computers in order to get a job and now I'm chief architect of a multinational tech giant. A user once asked where the missing files were and I was so flustered I blurted out "I don't know, maybe they're in a cloud somewhere", and suddenly the whole industry of cloud storage was born. Meanwhile I have a sneaking suspicion that the IT group has given me a Speak-and-Spell as my new laptop. I would complain but I think I'm more productive now.
39. Re:This is not good... by Darinbob · 2015-04-23 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Except that there is real and positive progress! It's not a "cure", but there are now treatments for types of cancer that had none a decade ago. Every cancer is different, and the chemotherapy that works for one may not work for another. And there are better chemotherapies that cause less damage to non-cancer cells.
40. Re:This is not good... by tburkhol · 2015-04-23 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  To eat right, one must search for fresh and natural foods. Trust me, it isn't as simple as "not smoking".
  Spoken like a true cargo cultist.
  And that's the point. There's a massive industry of snake oil salesmen out there proclaiming their concoction to be "eating right." Only foods that can be prepared with stone tools. High protein. High fat. Only plants raised in virgin soil and harvested by prepubescent girls singing Kumbaya. The app author is exactly one of those people, using the (false) claim that her particular diet cured her cancer. It will probably cure yours, too. And clean your colon and your car at the same time. Sure, you can eat "wrong," but you can also drink too much beer, smoke too many cigarettes, and even drink too much water. Not eating wrong isn't that hard; eating right is a snipe hunt.
41. Re:This is not good... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-23 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  He said they were despicable. Nobody said they weren't profitable.
42. Re:This is not good... by Gary · 2015-04-23 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  I could be wrong, but I believe his attempts were in addition to, not in lieu of, whatever traditional medicine had to offer. Unfortunately, for pancreatic cancer, there isn't a whole lot that medical science can currently do, thus another reason Jobs turned to anything that gave him hope. And at least in his case the quacks offering him hope weren't going to bankrupt him.
43. Re:This is not good... by gmhowell · 2015-04-23 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  The 'normal' level of vitamin D has also crept upwards over the years.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
44. Re:This is not good... by ArmoredDragon · 2015-04-23 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately eating right isn't as easy as not smoking.
  Did I say it was?
  
  It is easy to eat nothing but McDonalds and KFC, but that isn't eating well.
  It isn't not eating well either. The mistake most people tend to make at places like these is they consume too many calories (the worst part tends to come from the beverages and oversized burgers) and not enough nourishment. One of the staple menu items at KFC for example is sweet corn on a cob, which isn't at all bad for you. The salads at McDonalds are healthy provided you don't go overboard with the saturated fats found in the dressings. Having a normal sized burger twice a week won't kill you either.
  
  To eat right, one must search for fresh and natural foods. Trust me, it isn't as simple as "not smoking".
  This is purely a religious statement as it has zero basis in empirical evidence. If you had just said "to live right, one must search for Jesus" you'd sound every bit as credible and sane.
  In fact, prior to the existence of agriculture, "natural" meant whatever you could pick up off of the ground that doesn't happen to smell like ass yet, which is exactly what humans have evolved to live with. Fresh might taste better, but unless it's outright rotten, it hasn't lost its nutritional value.
  
  Eating right means your immune system is able to fend off everyday environmental hazards. It isn't perfect, but it is better than the alternative (Starbucks n Krispie Kreame for every meal)
  You could eat starbucks and krispy kreme as part of every meal so long as you included nourishment along with them, and then burned those calories off later with exercise, and it wouldn't negatively impact your immune system. The concern here is that the high quantity of sugar found in those donuts could lead to Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, which can lead to cirrosis, and the sugar could also raise your triglycerides and lower your HDL cholesterol, which can lead to heart disease, while the saturated fats would raise your LDL cholesterol.
  However, your immune system would be fine.
  And everything I said it based on empirical evidence, not superstition and guessing like the supposition you posted above.
45. Re:This is not good... by linuxrocks123 · 2015-04-23 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  ...Bacon Wrapped Pork Chops...
  Cute, but afaict it's not that eating "bad" food causes cancer so much as eating "good" food prevents it. If you eat bacon wrapped pork chops (ewww) frequently, you're probably likely to get a heart attack, but I would doubt it reduces your cancer risk. On the other hand, if you never eat vegetables ever, that's probably going to increase your cancer risk some.
  Not a lot most likely, diet and cancer don't really have much to do with each other, certainly not as much to do with each other as diet and heart disease. But there's some weak statistical evidence it might help a little.
  
  --
  vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
46. Re:This is not good... by thegarbz · 2015-04-23 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly the sooner this organic foods/whole foods religion dies, the better.
  Yes and no. It needs to stop being put on the insane pedestal that it currently sits on, but it definitely shouldn't die. There's stuff to be said about not doing the stupid shit we currently do, such as colour oranges orange to make them look more like oranges instead of the natural oranges that grow on trees. Or coat Apples in wax. Or load everything with ludicrous amounts of preservatives to that they last for 4 years.
  It's like the global warming debate. People who thing that global warming isn't man made are typically caught suddenly off guard when I start giving them other reasons we should stop polluting the world like something as simple as making the city smell nicer.
47. Re:This is not good... by BitterOak · 2015-04-23 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I hope that she gets tied up in lawsuits based off this for the rest of her miserable life.
  Getting brain cancer would be karma.
  Especially if she then went on a whole food diet and it didn't cure her cancer!
  
  --
  If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
48. Re:This is not good... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-04-23 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well, "eating right" meaning balanced menu.
  As opposed to bacon wrapped pork chops in a butter cream sauce.
  Eating fresh fruits and vegetables is proven to contribute to good health. Eating poorly contributes to all sorts of health problems. I know people who get sick regularly, who eat crappy food (if you can even call it "food"). They refuse to believe diet affects health. You're not one of those are you?
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
49. Re:This is not good... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-04-23 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  unless it's outright rotten, it hasn't lost its nutritional value.
  Even rotting food is nutritious ... or so I am told
  http://www.foodrenegade.com/ko...
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
50. Re:This is not good... by Aighearach · 2015-04-23 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Reducing risk is the same as preventing if you're one of the people who would have gotten it. It may not be knowable for an individual person, but that doesn't actually matter to any of the involved decision-making; personal or public-health.
  Risk means that for some people will really happen. If you reduce a risk, then for some people who it would have happened to otherwise, now it won't. So when you have a large population to talk about, even if you don't know who they are, if you're sure the risk was reduced, then you're sure that the thing was prevented too.
  That is true of all risk analysis where the risk is high enough that the bad thing does really sometimes happen.
51. Re:This is not good... by Aighearach · 2015-04-23 09:56 · Score: 2
  
  Not true; diet is known to have lots of effects on cancer treatment. Many of the treatments involve taking lots of toxic medicines, and a healthy diet can make the difference between a successful treatment, or not.
  Learning the wrong thing is just as stupid as believing some book based on an individuals claimed experience.
  The lesson here is just that the specifics she claimed were not true for her; it actually tells us nothing about the relative value of nutrition in cancer treatment; it doesn't support or refute any science at all, and in fact, it has nothing to do with science and it never did.
  Reasonable beliefs about diet and cancer risk/treatment can only be based in medical science. Anything else is wild speculation, and a false speculation is just garbage.
  This is just the kind of ignorance I'd expect to see on slashdot voted up to +5, especially since it is nasty and full of excrement-language and logical fallacy. It even throws out the word "snake oil" while also making unsubstantiated medical claims. But the opposite bullshit is not truth, it is just horseshit.
52. Re:This is not good... by Aighearach · 2015-04-23 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  That is not consistent with the current medical theory of cancer, where all of the different risk factors each could cause cancer, but the actual cancer you get was caused by a single one of those instances of cell damage.
  Very very different than the theory for nearly every other type of disease based on harmful substances, where only past certain thresholds or combinations do things start to cause disease.
53. Re:This is not good... by Aighearach · 2015-04-23 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Of course vaccines don't prevent measles. That is one reason why the herd mentality is important since it is not 100% effective
  But if it was herd immunity instead of herd mentality, then maybe the conclusion would be different too. ;)
  That said, you succeed in introducing probability in one place, then you follow by trying to reject it when working in the other direction. The word "prevent" does not require or imply an absolute, though. If the context is already probabilistic risk of some event (cancer) then you only have to reduce the event in order to have prevented some cases.
  If you're pointing out that "preventing some cases" is not "preventing all cases," you're just correcting the part you misunderstood, not what was being said. And preventing some is still preventing. ;)
  Your attempted correction doesn't prevent any misunderstanding, that much is certain.
54. Re:This is not good... by Aighearach · 2015-04-23 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Eating processed meats is correlated with increased colon cancer, for example.
  Eating "fiddleheads" is known to cause cancer.
  Eating foods rich in anti-oxidants is known to prevent cancer... in people with low anti-oxidant levels. So it is true that a traditional healthy diet of balanced ingredients can appear protective for people currently eating a narrow diet of processed foods. However, additional anti-oxidants beyond the levels achieved by a traditional balanced diet do not appear protective.
  But there are absolutely known foods that increase cancer risks.
  If the bacon is natural bacon, then it is not a risky food for cancer. If it is the processed, reformed lard attached to small pieces of processed pork scraps, then it has not been studied to see if it has the same risks as processed lunch meats and hotdogs.
55. Re:This is not good... by Aighearach · 2015-04-23 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be mistaken in your logic. If you prevent it sometimes, then you do in fact prevent it. Your argument is based on a perceived absolute that is not actually implied by the words used.
  It is well established that in people who eat a non-balanced diet, introducing anti-oxidants reduces their cancer risk. (that means it prevents cancer!) However, people who eat whole foods (e.g., a traditional balanced diet) already have the protective level of nutrients that the human body is evolved to expect, and additional anti-oxidants don't help. Nor does eating only whole foods, or extra whole foods.
  If you're ready to vilify peanuts because a small number of people have allergies, I don't think you're really ready for rational discussion.
  You're conflating the nutters with the real research, unfortunately. Presumably you think you're being very sciencey. But no amount of lame, fraudulent diet books will undo the giant mountain of research that says a traditional diet including substantial amounts and variety of whole fruits and vegetables will reduce the risk of cancer. (and almost all other significant ailments) The risks don't go away, but almost any "grandma diet" is going to be protective when compared to a diet based on processed foods.
56. Re:This is not good... by penguinoid · 2015-04-23 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. Very very incredibly wrong. Substantially more than half of all incidents of cancer are the result of random mutation. No amount of "eating right" will change that.
  Careful, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
  (Almost) all cancers are the result of random mutation (there's a few infectious cancers in dogs and Tasmanian devils which aren't). And eating right can decrease the rate of random mutation, directly (antioxidants) or indirectly (general health, note also that stress increases mutation rate). Most likely the main benefits of eating right are metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease and general health, but those are themselves very good reasons.
  Like with smoking, there are certain things you can eat which will increase your rate of mutation. Not eating those means you're less likely to get cancer than those who do. Agreed with you about the "organic foods" farce; those are sometimes better and sometimes worse, and worse is usually cheaper.
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
57. Re:This is not good... by wisnoskij · 2015-04-23 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Millions of people smoke like chimneys for their entire lives and many never get lung cancer. There is not a point X where you have smoked the exact number of requisite cigarettes and now are guaranteed to get cancer. You can put a different person into the exact same environment with the exact same cigarettes smoked at the exact same time and they will not both develop lung cancer at the same time, in the same place. Different people have lungs more or less able to cope with the smoking, either through their health or genetics. And different people are just more or less likely to develop cancer.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
58. Re:This is not good... by arglebargle_xiv · 2015-04-23 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Wait! Eating whole foods *doesn't* cure cancer?!
  Of course it doesn't, everyone knows that! You cure cancer, and in particular pancreatic cancer, with a strict vegan diet, acupuncture sessions, drinking special fruit juices, hydrotherapy, and visiting spiritualists.
59. Re:This is not good... by ArmoredDragon · 2015-04-23 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  Even rotting food is nutritious ... or so I am told
  That depends on the food and how exactly it rotted. Normal molecular decay can yield certain nutrients in some cases that your body doesn't produce on its own, but in most cases existing nourishments are broken down. Bacterial consumption (i.e. biodegrading) typically results in a reduction in nourishment as well, depending on how (i.e. aerobic vs anaerobic, such as fermentation.)
60. Re:This is not good... by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-04-23 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Eat all the healthy foods you like, it won't do jack for cancers caused by other factors like smoking, drinking, overtanning, etc... And.
  Genetics.
  Seriously, today, we see some 105 year old celebrating a birthday, and we think that if only we do everything right, we will live to be at least that old.
  Or exercise, or whatever. Somehow, some way, all we have to do is hit on the right combination, and it's "sorry death, you lose."
  When in fact its all just wishful thinking. No matter what you do, what you eat, no one gets out of here alive. And genetics has a huge amount more relevance to your lifespan than any organic or vegan delights you pass down your alimentary canal.
  And if we do manage to stave off death for a few years, mother nature has other surprises for us - like dementia. Personally, I would trade off 15 years of life to avoid that fate.
  And grifters like that woman just prey on the poor suckers.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
61. Re:This is not good... by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-04-23 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, beyond getting enough vegetables (and some fruits) for a healthy gut, enough micronutrients, and antioxidants you can eat pretty much any way you want, so long as you get a decent macronutrient balance.
  Yes indeed - and glad you supplied that caveat. A good balance of Fruits, veggies and protein (AKA meat) is what makes for a healty diet. Venture too far in one direction or another, and you are likely to develop problems.
  I know really, massively healthy men that can pick up over 500 pounds that use calorie bombs at McDonalds to replenish carbs (trust me, it's hard to eat your cals when you need 4500 or more, these are athletes remember).
  I remember the days when I played 3-4 Ice hockey games a week. I could eat whatever I liked. Scaling back, and the calorie needs collapse. Sad to say, the appetite does not always follow.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
62. Re:This is not good... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-04-24 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  vast majority of lung cancer is people who smoked
  True
  But also true is not everyone that smokes get lung cancer. Some, die of a ripe old age of other "natural" causes (not normally associated with smoking).
  The language being used in the arguments against diet having any relation to health is typically "all or nothing" logic, where neither extreme is accurate. Which is my whole point. Smoking increases the risk of cancer (causes), while eating well decreases the risk (prevents).
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
63. Re: This is not good... by Immerman · 2015-04-24 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  However, (almost) all is the default assumption.
  Oranges prevent scurvy - eat enough oranges, you won't develop scurvy.
  Condoms help prevent pregnancy - use them regularly and properly, and you greatly reduce (from 80% to around 15%/year), the chances of pregnancy.
  Meanwhile The Pill straddles the edge - while not 100% effective, the fraction of a percent of risk remaining is low enough that it's commonly referred to as preventing pregnancy.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
64. Re:This is not good... by ebvwfbw · 2015-04-24 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and go after the diet industry next. Take this miracle pill and you'll lose 50 Lbs. I hate to think how much money I threw away on worthless diet stuff.
65. Re:This is not good... by Aighearach · 2015-04-26 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  ... that's all consistent with what I said, but you phrase it like a smoker looking for excuses.
  I'm not sure what you thought you were adding to what I said.
Duuuh. by Lunix+Nutcase · 2015-04-23 01:28 · Score: 1

Wait. A person who made dubious claims that had no scientific backing to them was actually lying? What next? Water is wet?!!
I think pretty much everyone but the nutjob, true believers in psuedo-science knew all along that this woman was lying.
1. Re:Duuuh. by LifesABeach · 2015-04-23 01:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm reminded of a world personality that tried a similar therapy, sadly with Darwinian results; god bless Steve Jobs.
2. Re:Duuuh. by Lunix+Nutcase · 2015-04-23 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I do. It's why we have idiotic parents who aren't giving their kids vaccinations so now we have kids dying again of measles, whooping cough, etc. Diseases that a few decades ago were all but eradicated.
3. Re:Duuuh. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-23 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'm reminded of a world personality that tried a similar therapy, sadly with Darwinian results
  Steve Jobs had 4 kids.
4. Re:Duuuh. by LifesABeach · 2015-04-23 02:23 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  4 kids and a wife? Sometimes suicide makes sense.
5. Re:Duuuh. by SimplyGeek · 2015-04-23 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't Dr. Phil more of a counselor? That seems ok. Dr. Oz is the one peddling anti-vaccine thinking and homeopathy. That's a whole 'nother mess.
6. Re:Duuuh. by toadlife · 2015-04-23 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't Dr. Phil more of a counselor?
  Yeah. He's a former practicing psychologist who was reprimanded by the Texas State Board of Psychologists after hiring and *allegedly* sleeping with a 19 year old client.
  
  --
  I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
7. Re:Duuuh. by RageRifter · 2015-04-24 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  I've suspected that he just didn't want to live anymore which is why he did that. Certainly he's not that stupid.
Wrong conclusions by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-23 01:32 · Score: 1

Exercising is good. Religion and cult of personality is bad.
1. Re:Wrong conclusions by gweihir · 2015-04-23 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  "religion" = "large cult"
  "cult" = "small religion"
  I think we can conclude that any "cult" (except those instances not taken seriously) is bad.
  Also: Eat healthy -> minor benefit, eat unhealthy -> massive problem.
  On exercise, you are perfectly right of course, as long as it is not overdone.
  Side note: How uneducated and stupid do you have to be to believe brain cancer can be cured by eating right? Sure, there is the minuscule number of people where a terminal cancer just vanishes, but no obvious cause has ever been identified, possibly because these cases are so extremely rare.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
No, This Is Important for People to See by eldavojohn · 2015-04-23 01:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wait. A person who made dubious claims that had no scientific backing to them was actually lying? What next? Water is wet?!!
I think pretty much everyone but the nutjob, true believers in psuedo-science knew all along that this woman was lying.
So you're saying everyone knew she was lying about her charity donations as well? Or was it only the charities that knew that? From the article:

The 26-year-old's popular recipe app, which costs $3.79, has been downloaded 300,000 times and is being developed as one of the first apps for the soon-to-be-released Apple Watch. Her debut cook book The Whole Pantry, published by Penguin in Australia last year, will soon hit shelves in the United States and Britain.
So you're saying the 300,000 downloads are by people that knew they were downloading the app architected by a liar? And they were paying $3.79 to Apple and this liar for a recipe app that contain recipes that someone lied about helping her cure cancer? And you're saying that everyone at Apple that featured her app on the Apple Watch knew they were showing a snake oil app on their brand new shiny device? And that the people at Penguin did all their fact checking on any additional information this cookbook might contain about Belle Gibson's alleged cancer survival? And that everybody involved in these events know society's been parading around a fucking liar and rewarding her with cash money while she basically capitalizes on a horrendous disease that afflicts millions of people worldwide ... that she never had?

No, this is not the same as "water is wet" and it needs to be shown that holistic medicine is temporarily propped up on a bed of anecdotal lies ... anybody who accepts it as the sole cure for their ailment is putting their health in the hands of such charlatans and quacks.

--
My work here is dung.
1. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by gstoddart · 2015-04-23 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I can't speak for the poster ... but I think you can reasonably conclude (and in fact should) that if someone comes out of the blue and claims to have a miracle cure for cancer, but no scientific evidence you should treat them with a degree of skepticism.
  That absolutely nobody ever confirmed a diagnosis of cancer tells me this was a fraud which was committed with the willing complicity of the media, her publisher, and everybody else who utterly failed to do anything other than take her on face value.
  Maybe everyone didn't "know" ... but people sure as shit should have been saying "OK, how credible is this claim". Because, really, reading the news stories about this ... there was absolutely no basis to deem her claims credible.
  Just a media who wanted to show a story, and a bunch of people who lacked critical thinking skills who wanted to believe in miracles, or something which matched their existing world view.
  When people make big claims about their magic healing cure which has no scientific evidence or study ... they should not be taken at face value.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
2. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by ranton · 2015-04-23 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  I think pretty much everyone but the nutjob, true believers in psuedo-science knew all along that this woman was lying.
  So you're saying the 300,000 downloads are by people that knew they were downloading the app architected by a liar? And they were paying $3.79 to Apple and this liar for a recipe app that contain recipes that someone lied about helping her cure cancer?
  
  No, he was clearly saying any person who downloaded the app based on her cancer story is a nutjob. He is saying that for any non-nutjob finding for sure she was lying is like finding out for sure that water is wet.
  I don't agree with the OP, as I think people can be naive without being a nutjob. I think its a good thing when stories like this get out because it may help people realize that unscientific medical claims should always be disregarded by the public. I make that last stipulation because I think its a good thing when researchers investigate psuedo-science claims because in rare cases there may be something to learn from them.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
3. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by Lunix+Nutcase · 2015-04-23 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying everyone knew she was lying about her charity donations as well [theage.com.au]? Or was it only the charities that knew that? From the article:
  Everyone? No. But anyone who wasn't some doe-eyed true believer? Yes and Yes.
  
  So you're saying the 300,000 downloads are by people that knew they were downloading the app architected by a liar? And they were paying $3.79 to Apple and this liar for a recipe app that contain recipes that someone lied about helping her cure cancer?
  
  Of course not. They are those psuedo-science nutjobs that I referred to. The same idiots who by crap from Kevin Trudeau, etc. Did you even bother to read everything I wrote or did you just read up to the "everyone" part of the sentence and then start foaming at the mouth?
4. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by Lunix+Nutcase · 2015-04-23 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, he was clearly saying any person who downloaded the app based on her cancer story is a nutjob. He is saying that for any non-nutjob finding for sure she was lying is like finding out for sure that water is wet.
  I don't agree with the OP, as I think people can be naive without being a nutjob.
  I was probably being a bit harsh calling them all nutjobs, but yes, there was more to my sentence beyond the "everyone" part that eldavjohn didn't seem to read past.
5. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by Lunix+Nutcase · 2015-04-23 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  It is to anyone with even a half-working brain.
6. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by rmdingler · 2015-04-23 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I can't speak for the poster ... but I think you can reasonably conclude (and in fact should) that if someone comes out of the blue and claims to have a miracle cure for cancer, but no scientific evidence you should treat them with a degree of skepticism.
  That absolutely nobody ever confirmed a diagnosis of cancer tells me this was a fraud which was committed with the willing complicity of the media, her publisher, and everybody else who utterly failed to do anything other than take her on face value.
  Maybe everyone didn't "know" ... but people sure as shit should have been saying "OK, how credible is this claim". Because, really, reading the news stories about this ... there was absolutely no basis to deem her claims credible.
  Just a media who wanted to show a story, and a bunch of people who lacked critical thinking skills who wanted to believe in miracles, or something which matched their existing world view.
  When people make big claims about their magic healing cure which has no scientific evidence or study ... they should not be taken at face value.
  Folks diagnosed with cancer are desperate people. Desperate people, sadly, just want to believe they can make every horrible boogeyman disease go away if they do the right thing, especially when receiving a grim outlook from conventional medical practitioners.
  Fact checking, logic, and realistic thinking are displaced by the grasping of straws.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
7. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by krept · 2015-04-23 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  So on the other end of the conspiracy spectrum, are we to assume wholefood companies had nothing to do with the success of any of Gibson's work?
  
  --
  None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
8. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by BarbaraHudson · 2015-04-23 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone knows that water is wet. You compared this to announcing that water is wet.
  Ice is the solid form of water, and it most certainly isn't wet.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
9. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by nedlohs · 2015-04-23 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  "but the nutjob, true believers in psuedo-science" - those words mean something. Maybe try not just skipping over them?
10. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by dbIII · 2015-04-23 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  And you're saying that everyone at Apple that featured her app on the Apple Watch knew they were showing a snake oil app on their brand new shiny device?
  That's very likely, it's just "business". The bar has been set low by respectable pharma companies selling herbal crap that they know does not work. People want snake oil they would say, so there's no harm in giving them snake oil.
11. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by gstoddart · 2015-04-23 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but all of the people who weren't diagnosed with cancer who were reporting this, enabling her to commit this scale of fraud, and otherwise completely failing to do any degree of fact checking can't claim to be desperate people.
  The idiot journalists and book publishers who utterly failed to confirm a single detail of what she said ... those people are clowns who were just phoning it in by being too fucking lazy to say "can we at least confirm she had cancer?"
  The problem becomes when it becomes an internet meme that you can cure cancer by eating fresh fruit and people stop going fro real treatment.
  I know people who help propagate this bullshit, and almost all of them need to be smacked about the head and told "stop fucking passing this stuff off as fact you ignorant moron".
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
12. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by cheesybagel · 2015-04-23 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  When you're sick with an incurable or hard to cure disease you try every stupid thing you can think about to get better. At worst this "whole foods" scam will have negligible negative health impact so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people tried it out just for the heck of it.
13. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by nedlohs · 2015-04-23 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  The "water is wet" was for a different claim and thus irrelevant. Again words mean things, as does punctuation. You can't just randomly stick things together to build your strawman.
14. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by ceoyoyo · 2015-04-23 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because you're not willing to lie to get what you want. And you're likely not hot.
15. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by quantaman · 2015-04-23 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  And you're saying that everyone at Apple that featured her app on the Apple Watch knew they were showing a snake oil app on their brand new shiny device?
  The extra irony here is that it's quite likely that Steve Jobs is dead because of BS cancer treatments.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
16. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by ksheff · 2015-04-23 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Was it at least a good recipe app or cookbook?
  
  --
  the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
17. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-04-23 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but all of the people who weren't diagnosed with cancer who were reporting this, enabling her to commit this scale of fraud, and otherwise completely failing to do any degree of fact checking can't claim to be desperate people.
  The problem is that we are so indoctrinated with the idea that our diseases are somehow "our fault" makes for a powerful blockage of any skepticism that might be shown. Its a powerful part of human nature, whch spans from Eating "right" to retribution by god for supposed sins.
  Fact checking for this sort of thing? Ain't gonna happen.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
18. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by lmcgeoch · 2015-04-23 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  From the article: ... is being developed as one of the first apps for the soon-to-be-released Apple Watch. who wants to get recipes from a watch? I like looking at the whole recipe not a word at a time....Add 3 {next page} free {next page} range {next page} eggs
19. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-04-23 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  The bar has been set low by respectable pharma companies selling herbal crap that they know does not work. People want snake oil they would say, so there's no harm in giving them snake oil.
  Problem is, a fair amount of that "herbal crap" does actually work. Even some things called holistic actuall work - although it is stuff that isn't actually holistic.
  Take Arnica Montana for instance. It's called "Holistic" but it's actually a rather concentrated medicine that is made by soaking the flowers in alcohol for a week or so, and the results do indeed act as a pain reliever. Monkshood is a rather powerful analgesic which was used until safer alternatives were derived. It's problem is that the theraputic dose isn't all that far from a toxic dose. St Johns wort, and Valerian root are also effective.
  There is a whole list of herbal drugs - and sometimes the mainstream pharmiceuticals are based on them. Now that being said, there are some that are ineffective, and a few frauds that have become incorporated into the herbal pharmacy. But that doesn't change the fact that there are effective drugs that are not made by "big Pharma"
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
20. Re:No, This Is Important for People to See by dbIII · 2015-04-23 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  No, a a small number of things work but they have a vast range of crap that does not to go with it, and they are very aware that it is crap.
She said cancer was a fungus by sandbagger · 2015-04-23 01:37 · Score: 2

That could be 'cured' via a special diet. First off, were that true, bicarbonate would be chemotherapy and secondly, this sounds to me like practicing medicine without a licence. The nutritional version of "crying fire in a movie crowded theatre" shouldn't get special exception simply because it's about nutrition and people wanting to do good things for their children and themselves by not eating crap. She hurt people by broadcasting this nonsense.
Will she refund all of the money she made? Doubt it.

--
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
1. Re:She said cancer was a fungus by jandrese · 2015-04-23 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  A more apt comparison would be to Snake Oil salesmen.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
2. Re:She said cancer was a fungus by thegarbz · 2015-04-23 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  this sounds to me like practicing medicine without a licence
  The problem is that everytime someone does something that would make them guilty of that they are usually legally covered by a size 1 font disclaimer in the cover of the book or at the bottom of their website with the colour code #FEFEFE that says this is not a medical opinion and to seek a doctor.
  Heck you should have seen the backlash against one of the stupid fuckwit paleo chefs in Australia by the medical profession. They had to move mountains to get Pete Evan's book withdrawn as it contains recipes potentially dangerous to newborns and they only did that by directly lobbying the publisher to stop working with him.
More from wiki... by JoeyRox · 2015-04-23 01:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Seems this is just a case of fraud and greed rather than someone lying to promote a cause they truly believe in:

"In early 2015, media scrutiny revealed that Gibson's cancer claims appear to have been fabricated, that she had lied about her age and other details of her personal life and history, and she had used campaign donations to lead a profligate and affluent lifestyle instead of delivering the money to charitable institutions as promised. There are claims she rented an expensive town house, leased an office suite and luxury car, underwent cosmetic dental procedures, and holidayed internationally from the proceeds of money purportedly raised for charity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
1. Re:More from wiki... by JosKarith · 2015-04-23 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  The Page History of her Wiki article makes for interesting reading - seems it's a bit of a work in progress as of right now...
  
  --
  'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
2. Re:More from wiki... by umafuckit · 2015-04-23 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Seems this is just a case of fraud and greed rather than someone lying to promote a cause they truly believe
  Same with Wakefield, who was planning to launch a diagnostic kit based on his MMR bullshit.
  
  --
  soylentnews.org
3. Re:More from wiki... by Holi · 2015-04-23 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like someone should be going to jail.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
4. Re:More from wiki... by xanthines-R-yummy · 2015-04-23 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Got a link/source for that? I'd like to add it to my armament of anti-bullshit weaponry. :)
5. Re:More from wiki... by jabuzz · 2015-04-23 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Here are a couple culled from his Wikipedia page
  http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HE...
  http://briandeer.com/wakefield...
  Frankly I would like to see the psychopathic bastard banged up in jail for the fraud.
6. Re:More from wiki... by hey! · 2015-04-23 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Fraud she certainly is, but the fraud was so transparent that clearly she's not right in her head.
  While the financial aspect of this makes her culpable, building an outrageous fraud around readily disprovable details of your personal biography is a very bad idea in the long run if you're simply a con artist. Doing that suggests that there are short term needs that trump simple financial considerations. Perhaps she felt she deserved more sympathy, nurturance and nurturance than she'd gotten in life. That's common enough that there's name for it: Factitious Disorder.
  Over the years I've read many stories of people who assumed false biographies. Most often this took obvious forms -- passing for white before the Civil Rights Era. But in some cases people chose to assume minority identities, particularly as American Indians in the early 20th C. Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance was (by the terminology of the age) a negro with some Cherokee ancestry. He ran away to join a wild west show where he learned from Cherokee language from other performers, used that to get into Carlisle Indian School and later traded up his "Cherokee" identity for a Plains Indian one. Wenjiganooshiinh -- "Grey Owl" -- was an Englishman who was abandoned by his father in childhood then later adopted an Apache/Ojibwe identity.
  What makes these two men relevant to this case is that they were both advocates of Indian rights. As outsiders, they understood what sympathetic outsiders wanted Indians to be better than an Indian would. And they would't have been able to pull it off if they weren't a little off their nut; if they didn't want to escape who they were for a more glamorous alternative.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I hope she is prosecuted by DrXym · 2015-04-23 01:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Promoting quack cures for cancer is illegal in some countries like the UK. I hope it is in Australia too and that she is prosecuted for it.
Separately, I wish all these self professed wellness "gurus" would jump off the nearest cliff and rid the world of their stupidity.
1. Re:I hope she is prosecuted by DrXym · 2015-04-23 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  More shame on the NHS then.
  As for being sued for calling them quacks, I assume you mean Simon Singh's run-in with chiropractors. He eventually prevailed (they dropped it after an onslaught of complaints against their members) and the case became a driving force for reforming defamation law.
  So the UK should be glad they sued. Libel law in the UK now requires the claimant to demonstrate it caused serious harm and there are defences for honest opinion, academic peer review, and public interest.
2. Re:I hope she is prosecuted by Nemyst · 2015-04-23 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of the few cases where I'll just go with "Yeah, throw her into jail for a solid 5-10 years, see how she likes the opulent lifestyle there."
3. Re:I hope she is prosecuted by gweihir · 2015-04-23 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, the cliff-jumping would do nothing for stupidity, as that is in the side of the believers and they would just find something else of comparable stupidity to believe in. It would rid the world of quite a bit of immoral scum though. Now, if all priests, politicians and CEOs could jump right behind, we might be getting somewhere...
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
4. Re:I hope she is prosecuted by DrXym · 2015-04-25 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Deceit or delusion. Either way these people are a pox on society.
Extraordinary claims ... by gstoddart · 2015-04-23 01:42 · Score: 2

It never ceases to amaze me how people want so badly to believe this crap that they just blindly accept some pretty extraordinary claims without proof.
What utterly boggles the mind is absolutely nobody ever fact checked what she said ... not her cancer diagnosis, not her recovery, not a damned thing ... she basically said "I had cancer and now I don't, I cured it with unicorns and ponies and stuff I read on the interwebs, hey, why not buy my app?"
Hell, she published a damned book, and nobody ever checked a single fact to make sure she wasn't lying.
Sorry folks, but as usual, if someone makes an extraordinary claim, they better provide some evidence. Or you should be treating them like they're full of shit.
From the anti-vaxers to the people who think the can cure cancer with healing crystals ... people should stop being so damned trusting and naive. Because generally the people making these claims are full of shit, stand to gain financially.
Hell, the great quack Atkins never did a scrap of research despite selling tens of millions of books. Which means everything he ever said or the products which sprung up around him were more or less complete bullshit.
i just don't understand why people are so willing to believe in quackery with zero evidence.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Extraordinary claims ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-23 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  It never ceases to amaze me how people want so badly to believe this crap that they just blindly accept some pretty extraordinary claims without proof.
  And the last time you challenged your doctor for "proof" before popping the new-and-improved green pills in your mouth that replaced the old-and-busted red pills last month that the drug rep was pushing?
  Seems people blindly accept what drug reps and doctors sling your direction all day, every day, and those decisions affect your health and well-being directly.
  Perhaps we should be careful about calling the kettle black here. Ignorance is more widespread than you think, and it starts in your traditional doctors office.
2. Re:Extraordinary claims ... by u19925 · 2015-04-23 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  What about millions of people believing that a woman's cancer was cured by locket with Mother Teresa's photo. This is the lie being propagated by Vatican and no one bothered to do fact check. There are far more people on this earth who are "believers" and much fewer people who rely on logical reasoning.
3. Re:Extraordinary claims ... by Heart44 · 2015-04-23 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  If you have cancer your priorities shift. You get less dogmatic and try things you normally wouldn't. You are both more open and more vulnerable. The significant possibility of dying soon makes a difference.
So, when do we prosecute? by argStyopa · 2015-04-23 01:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

If a person claims authority on a subject based on falsified experiences isn't that pretty much the essential definition of FRAUD? (Particularly if money is made in the process.)
If your advice is connected to peoples' actions that could have ramifications for their health and safety, then negligent manslaughter might be included as well.
Look at it this way, if we started this, we'd at least have fewer celebrities talking about health issues, which is ultimately a net good.

--
-Styopa
Stolen valor, anyone? by Runaway1956 · 2015-04-23 01:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

There are men - and women too, I suppose - who hunt down people who claim to be veterans. Watched video just recently, some old Marine chased down some panhandler posing as a veteran, and made him take the Marine Corps jacket off. Told him if he EVER saw him with it on again, he was going to stomp the shit out of him.
This woman deserves as much as any fake veteran has ever received at the hands of real veterans.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
1. Re:Stolen valor, anyone? by Runaway1956 · 2015-04-23 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Go ahead, call the police. They'll draw some chalk lines around your body, before the coroner has the carcass bagged up and transported to the morgue.
  Veterans in general, and Marines in particular, tend to MAKE stuff their business. No one tells us what our business is, or is not.
  Enjoy a nice video - listen carefully to the lyrics.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
2. Re:Stolen valor, anyone? by Runaway1956 · 2015-04-23 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Let me say it again: Stolen valor. If you're wearing our uniform, you are stealing from these guys.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  What does a man deserve from me, if he is willing to steal from my brother's corpse?
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
3. Re:Stolen valor, anyone? by hey! · 2015-04-23 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  If involves breaking the law -- not just some kind of namby-pamby administrative regulation but the basic stuff of civilization like like the prohibitions on assault or murder -- then I'll sure as hell tell what not to do.
  If you're a veteran I'll gladly shake your hand and thank you for your service. I'd be honored to buy you a drink. But I won't hand you a get out of jail free card.
  Have a little perspective. Yes it's wrong to impersonate a veteran, but it doesn't impugn the character of veterans. But claiming that all veterans will and should overreact to a breach of propriety with violence *does* impugn their character. Which is worse?
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
4. Re:Stolen valor, anyone? by SmaryJerry · 2015-04-23 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, it seems that every homeless person is now just out of bus money to get home, out of gas, or is a single parent with a kid under 10. The last one is a give away because no child can be homeless or without free healthcare unless there parent is stupid enough not to take them to a shelter.
5. Re:Stolen valor, anyone? by dywolf · 2015-04-23 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Then you're one of the idiots responsible for the bad images of Marines that a lot folks have.
  You don't get to threaten someone with death cause you used to be a Marine.
  You make us all look bad with your stupid bravado about being above the law.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
6. Re:Stolen valor, anyone? by Runaway1956 · 2015-04-24 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  What if your name is Clinton?
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
What a scumbag by wonkey_monkey · 2015-04-23 01:50 · Score: 1

I don't want forgiveness.
Good! You're not going to get any from me.
I hate it when people say that. By refusing something they're implying that it has been offered to them, which reveals that they think that someone, somewhere, thinks they deserve it.

I just think [speaking out] was the responsible thing.
No, not deliberately lying about having and being cured of cancer was the responsible thing to do.

But she said people needed to "draw a line in the sand where they still treat someone with some level of respect or humility".
Sorry, but you've lost the right to dictate how much respect is due to you.

Above anything, I would like people to say, 'Okay, she's human.
I'd insist on a genetic test before believing even that, from her.

She's obviously had a big life.
Jesus... she's obviously got an ego inflated to bursting point.

She's respectfully come to the table
No, there's nothing respectful about any of this.
I'd never wish cancer on anyone, but in her case, I'll just wish the symptoms (apart from death) on her, temporarily.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:What a scumbag by oodaloop · 2015-04-23 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  She told people to eat things instead of getting proper treatment for cancer. If a relative of mine died from cancer after following her advice, I'd file a class action lawsuit. I hope someone does.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
2. Re:What a scumbag by idontgno · 2015-04-23 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Above anything, I would like people to say, 'Okay, she's human.
  I'd insist on a genetic test before believing even that, from her.
  A genetic test would probably reveal that she is, in fact, a cancer. A walking, talking, lying, murdering, moneymaking malignant tumor.
  I think that qualifies as irony. "I don't have cancer, I AM cancer."
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
A very old trick revised - yet people fall for it by dbIII · 2015-04-23 02:05 · Score: 1

This sort of thing surfaces again and again, but hope or talk radio drivel means those who dare to question it get ignored over and over again.
Capital Offense by flopsquad · 2015-04-23 02:08 · Score: 1

If there's anything worthy of the death penalty, it's putting countless lives at risk by promoting fake medicine for personal gain. Wakefield would be right there on death row, too.

--
Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
Big brave man picking on the weak by dbIII · 2015-04-23 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's nothing valorous about picking on the homeless. Sure, it's fraud, but just treat any panhandling story like a circus act because there's a damned good reason to make it more appealing than accurate.
1. Re:Big brave man picking on the weak by dbIII · 2015-04-23 03:11 · Score: 2
  
  Wow! How did something so out of touch with reality get modded up? Is it because it makes people feel better about ignoring the homeless by pretending they are better off than you?
2. Re:Big brave man picking on the weak by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-23 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Can we start with John Kerry? A self admitted war criminal who bartered a handful of bogus purple hearts into one office after another in Washington D.C.
  Really, you're going to keep up with the Swift Boat bullshit 11 years later, the crap that's been thoroughly debunked? Sure, the Purple Hearts were probably for non-serious wounds... but so were MANY of the Hearts given out during that period in the Vietnam War. Kerry didn't 'barter' those into an office, and if his are bogus... so are hundreds of others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... Frankly, go fuck yourself and your puffed-up patriotism.
3. Re:Big brave man picking on the weak by SecurityGuy · 2015-04-23 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's been proven, probably. I've seen video evidence collected by local news media more than once about this. "Homeless" panhandler finishes up, walks a ways to their car, drives to their nice home. That it happens is beyond question. How often it happens and what percentage of panhandlers are genuinely in need of help vs those who are sponging off the rest of us, I don't know.
  To be fair, though, I've also seen people with signs like "Homeless, living in the woods", then winter comes around, the trees shed their leaves, and lo and behold...there are tents off in the woods.
  It shouldn't surprise anyone that some people are honestly in need of help, and some people are abusing our desire to help people who need it.
4. Re:Big brave man picking on the weak by edawstwin · 2015-04-23 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... http://www.quora.com/Homelessn...
  So maybe not the norm, but it does happen.
  
  --
  I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
5. Re:Big brave man picking on the weak by dywolf · 2015-04-23 05:56 · Score: 3
  
  Personally I hate those videos.
  And I am a Marine.
  Some may be legit, catching a guy getting preferential status fraudulently.
  But far too many are just overzealous-I'm-special-types chasing homeless people.
  its one thing for a guy to commit actual fraud, such as the guy Rep. Duckworth chewed out in front of a congressional committee for claiming "disabled veteran" status to get preferential bidding on government contracts, when he had never served a day in life.
  it's completely another to harass homeless folks (and even not so homeless folks) panhandling on the side of the road in clothes they got from a surplus store or clothing charity.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
6. Re:Big brave man picking on the weak by dywolf · 2015-04-23 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Oh shut up.
  It's not illegal to wear clothing articles normally associated with the military. If appropriate marking (chiefly service tapes if talking about combat utlities) are removed, it is completely legal to wear. And it's not stolen valor to get a few bucks on the side of the road by wearing a utility blouse you picked up in a surplus store.
  Probably half the people in the building I work in, which is on a military base, will periodically wear either the bottoms or the tops of utility uniforms on a regular basis, including the newer digital MARPATs. Heck, at a lot of surplus stores I've been to they have the fabric material available on rollers, to buy as much as you need/want. I can't tell you if it's got the little "hidden" EGA's on it like the official MARPAT uniform items, I never looked that close. But one older gent around wears a pair of trousers he made himself from that fabric (cause I don't recall seeing any with a 50inch waist when I was in). Whatever. Big deal.
  Unless a dude is walking around with a MOH, or other medals/ribbons he didn't earn, bragging about being shot or a hero he never was, or running for office claiming something he wasn't, you aren't going to convince someone stole any valor by panhandling on the road.
  (And your Kerry comments only prove how out of touch with reality you are. )
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
7. Re:Big brave man picking on the weak by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2015-04-23 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well here is just one example from the time I spent in Portland, OR. There was one panhandler who always sat on the bus stop bench in front of McDonalds and had some device that got WiFi signal and would ask everyone if they could spare some change from some food, not looking up from her PDA or early smart phone. Given the size of this woman she could go a few weeks without eating and it would probably have done her some good, as she lacked elbows from the rolls of fat hanging down. One day in the same breath she asked me if I could "Spare some change for food? Can I buy a cigarette?", so it doesn't seem like someone who is starving to me. There are a large number of soup kitchens and food shelves in Portland so if she really was starving she could have gone to them instead. Then there was the day when a new panhandler set up shop at the other end of the block and she was yelling at a cop that he needed to do something about this other panhandler because as she put "He is cutting off my business". There are places that can help these people if they really need or want help, I donate to them, but my impression is that a lot of these people don't want to help themselves as panhandling is just easier.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
almost a stupid as Steve Jobs by slashmydots · 2015-04-23 02:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Steve Jobs had the most treatable, survivable type of pancreatic cancer. He decided to do yoga and change his diet and do acupuncture instead of real treatments. Then he died. That's just how stupid some people are.
1. Re:almost a stupid as Steve Jobs by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-23 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Desperate, sick people jump at any treatment that promises positive results when conventional medical ones fail. Jobs, OTOH, was not desperate, he was arrogant. He was killed by his own ego.
2. Re:almost a stupid as Steve Jobs by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-23 03:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  He also bribed a doctor with a large property to jump the queue when it was too late, preventing someone else from living from the organ transplant. Nice chap that Jobs.
3. Re:almost a stupid as Steve Jobs by tlhIngan · 2015-04-23 04:44 · Score: 2
  
  Steve Jobs had the most treatable, survivable type of pancreatic cancer. He decided to do yoga and change his diet and do acupuncture instead of real treatments. Then he died. That's just how stupid some people are.
  At least Jobs did it to himself. This lady is doing it to others to promote herself and make money.
  Jobs did the quackery based on his own beliefs and in the end, the only people he harmed was his family by his death - he didn't try to promote his lifestyle as good or it would cure cancer. What he did, and his death, were the results of his choices in life.
  This lady's choices are meant to influence others to take up her "cures" over established medical treatment. Her actions influence others to shun potentially lifesaving medical treatments for her quackery.
  In an ironic twist, today Dr. Oz is using his show to defend his use of quackery to promote himself.
Unscrupulous by worf_mo · 2015-04-23 02:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

What an unscrupulous being:

Also in March 2015, the parents of a young child suffering from brain cancer, whom Gibson had befriended, came forward to report that they had been unaware that Gibson had earlier been claiming to be fundraising for their child's treatment on their behalf. The family stated they had not known about Gibson's claim to be charity fundraising on behalf of the child, and the family had never received any funds from her or TheWholePantry. The family suspected Gibson had been using information gleaned from the family's experiences to underpin her own claims to having brain cancer.
source, source 2
they deserve it. by Opie812 · 2015-04-23 02:22 · Score: 1

anybody who believed her, and followed her methods to cure their cancer deserves to die. It strengthens the herd.

--
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
1. Re:they deserve it. by Megol · 2015-04-23 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Then I hope you'll take one for the herd?
Media's role by wired_parrot · 2015-04-23 02:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

That there are people who are willing to lie, even if their lies cause suffering to others, does not surprise me in the list.
What concerns me is the media's role in all this, who for the most part accepted her story without any questions or fact checking. There were so many inconsistencies in her story that even the most basic background check should have exposed her. I'm shocked that no one tried to even talk to her doctors to follow up on her medical claims, for example. Or a quick phone call to the charities she claimed to be supporting would have also exposed her charitable claims.
Her claims should never have been allowed to stand as long they did.
1. Re:Media's role by wired_parrot · 2015-04-23 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Medical records are confidential. It is likely that a journalist could not fact-check this.
  They wouldn't have needed to go through her medical records to expose her claims. As soon as they called the doctors and hospitals she claimed to have been treated at, and had been told that they had no records of such a patient, that should have been their first obvious clue. Had the media that hyped her story bothered to place a single call her story would've been easily exposed as an obvious sham. This wasn't an elaborate lie - it was full of inconsistencies, contradictions, and the most fundamental facts about it were unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
2. Re:Media's role by sherr · 2015-04-23 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  The records at a medical facility - medical records - are generally always confidential. I don't know Australia's laws, but I would strongly suspect that they are not allowed to even verify that someone was or was not a patient.
3. Re:Media's role by wired_parrot · 2015-04-23 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  When faced with incredible claims of medical cure, the Catholic Church has rigorous processes in place to verify that claim, which includes the testimonial of medical experts and independent confirmation.
  When a medieval religious institution can be considered a model of fact-checking and skepticism compared to the media, the state of current journalism is in deep trouble.
4. Re:Media's role by RyoShin · 2015-04-28 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  The death of investigative journalism aside, I think the reason that the "first line" media companies (those that had direct contact with her) did not check up on her story is same reason that Rolling Stone didn't check up on their fraternity rape story: They had a good narrative that would get attention and felt that checking up on the story could be harmful to the victim/claimed cancer patient. Then, all the other media companies just piggy-backed off that as word-of-god to share in the click-throughs.
  Any inconsistencies brought to light are rejected as being nitpicking by "haters", something that also fits the narrative of the story.
This is my shocked face by RogueWarrior65 · 2015-04-23 02:43 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Re:Australian Women's Weekly by OakDragon · 2015-04-23 02:53 · Score: 1

Can't a guy say "feminist rag" without being called a reactionary?

--
Dark Reflection
cincin kawin by cincinsuci · 2015-04-23 03:16 · Score: 1

CINCIN KAWIN mempunyai kualitas baik
cincin kawin by cincinsuci · 2015-04-23 03:18 · Score: 1

CINCIN KAWIN mempunyai kualitas baik
Jenny McCarthyism by Jodka · 2015-04-23 03:18 · Score: 1

And for those who get their medical advice from Playboy's Playmate of the Year there is Jenny McCarthy, of whom Wikipedia reports:

"McCarthy's public presence and vocal activism on the vaccination-autism controversy, led, in 2008, to her being awarded the James Randi Educational Foundation's Pigasus Award, which is a tongue-in-cheek award granted for contributions to pseudoscience..."

"McCarthy's claims that vaccines cause autism are not supported by any medical evidence, and the original paper by Andrew Wakefield that formed the basis for the claims...

"In January 2011, McCarthy defended Wakefield..."
So in honor of Ms. McCarthy, can we henceforth refer to populist medical quackery practiced by uncredentialed public attention seekers as "Jenny McCarthyism?"

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
1. Re:Jenny McCarthyism by Opportunist · 2015-04-23 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Why the fuck did anyone listen to a playmate, of all the people on this planet, when it comes to advice on a medical subject? Do you go to your doctor for make up tips?
  It speaks volumes about the people who fall for that bunk when you consider whose advice they take on what subject.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Jenny McCarthyism by mjwx · 2015-04-23 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why the fuck did anyone listen to a playmate, of all the people on this planet, when it comes to advice on a medical subject? Do you go to your doctor for make up tips?
  It speaks volumes about the people who fall for that bunk when you consider whose advice they take on what subject.
  Because people want to be reassured in the belief they already hold and they dont really care about the source as long as the source says what they want to hear.
  
  There's a reason the phrase "mind your sources" is uttered so often in science and research. Recognising that humans have a natural bias towards what they believe is the first step to mitigating it.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
This is just plain sick by SuseLover · 2015-04-23 03:26 · Score: 1

My wife died on Christmas Day 2014 almost four years to the day of diagnosis and surgery of colon cancer.
I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone, but when I read about people like this it makes me think some people might deserve it.
I hope she is prosecuted and made to pay restitution somehow. Someday in the future when she really does have cancer, she'll see how wrong her behaviour is (or maybe she will become the victim of a horrible scam like this).
1. Re:This is just plain sick by Opportunist · 2015-04-23 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'd think that whatever the verdict, I'd at least slap 200 hours of community work in a hospital for terminally ill cancer patients on top of it.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Food as Medicine by TwoEyedJack · 2015-04-23 03:46 · Score: 1

The whole notion that food is medicine is garbage. Your health is a function of genetics and lifestyle. If your dad keeled over of a heart attack at 40 or your mom had breast cancer, there is a good chance you are going to die young. If you sit all day at work in front of a keyboard and watch re-runs of Seinfeld all night, and never exercise, there is a good chance you will die young. There have been so many fraudulent diet fads, from low-fat to low-sodium, that it is a wonder any of these nutritionists have any credibility whatsoever. Choose the right parents, don't get fat, and get out and ride your bike or push a lawnmower around once in a while and call it good.
Re:Andrew Wakefield is a Saint by 3.5+stripes · 2015-04-23 03:47 · Score: 1

You're dumber than a sack of hair.

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Fails simple test by dbIII · 2015-04-23 04:00 · Score: 1

How much panhandling do you have to do to buy a "nice home"?
Such bullshit is the same sort of reality denial as falling for this cure cancer with diet scam.
1. Re:Fails simple test by Dragonslicer · 2015-04-23 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Purely for the sake of argument, let's say you can get one person per minute to give you one dollar, and you're at an intersection for two hours during the morning commute and two hours during the evening commute. That's $240 per day, $1200 per week, and $60k per year, without paying any income taxes. Certainly not rich, but doing pretty well.
2. Re:Fails simple test by SecurityGuy · 2015-04-23 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's not bullshit, it's just what was reported. Camera footage of panhandler walking to car, then they followed the car to the guy's house. Sounds like it doesn't fit with *your* preconceived notions. I'm not coming at this with preconceived notions, just observations. I've seen evidence that some panhandlers are liars and evidence that some really are living in the woods.
  Saying "Here are my observations." is actually the complete opposite of reality denial. Note I never said the guy owned the house. If memory serves, it was shared by a couple panhandlers. I don't remember if they owned, were renting, or something else.
  Oh, here's another one. Young lady tells me she's stranded and needs money for gas to get home in adjacent state. I tell her meet me at the gas station at the entrance to the shopping center we were in and I'll pay for her gas. She gratefully agrees. I get in my car, drive there...and she doesn't follow. Drive back, and she's gone. Now, maybe she was telling the truth and got lost (impossible given the layout). Maybe she was lying and just wanted the cash for something other than gas. I'll never know, but if someone offered to pay for the gas I desperately needed and all I had to do was go to a safe, well lit area, I think I'd do it.
  One more. Guy comes up to me on the sidewalk telling me how he just got out of jail yesterday and could I help him out with a couple bucks for lunch. Having no cash, I decline. 3 weeks later, guy comes up to me on the sidewalk telling me how he just got out of jail yesterday, and could I help him out with a couple bucks for lunch. Same guy. I reflexively lit into him and called him out for being a liar, and he didn't deny it.
  Believe what you want, but the truth is exactly what I said. "...some people are honestly in need of help, and some people are abusing our desire to help people who need it."
3. Re:Fails simple test by dbIII · 2015-04-23 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  let's say you can get one person per minute to give you one dollar,
  Remember what I said about reality before?
4. Re:Fails simple test by dbIII · 2015-04-23 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't it have been polite to at least read my earlier post that contained the words "Sure, it's fraud, but just treat any panhandling story like a circus act because there's a damned good reason to make it more appealing than accurate".
  That would have saved you a lot of time and made you look a bit less ridiculous if you'd done that wouldn't it? I suppose it's more dramatic to disagree with a strawman and paint a lot of beggars as master criminals, but it makes you look like a far worse person than you probably are.
5. Re:Fails simple test by SecurityGuy · 2015-04-24 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  You're still bringing your own preconceptions, not mine. If you want to assume me a bad person, go ahead, but I have no idea if "a lot of beggars" are "master criminals". Those are your words. All I've said is that some nonzero percentage are lying. I don't know if that percentage is 2% or 98%. It's even possible that some who are lying actually need help. Maybe the jail guy really needed money and was just telling a lie he thought was more likely to get him money.
6. Re:Fails simple test by dbIII · 2015-04-24 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  You seem awfully thin skinned in your denial of the obvious with some pretty fucking extreme edge cases.
  Yes it's nice pretending the people beg because they want to and not because they have fallen through the gaps in society so that nobody gives a shit if they live or die, but it's not a very realistic way of looking at the world is it? If there are a lot of them about it's a symptom that somebody running the place has seriously fucked things up. Is your denial a pretence that your political team has created a perfect society?
Wow! Ok, that IS actually news by Opportunist · 2015-04-23 04:29 · Score: 1

You don't hear a snakeoil peddler admit that their crap is useless any day!
It's almost as rare as a politician admitting being wrong.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Impressive? by g01d4 · 2015-04-23 04:48 · Score: 1

It's somewhat impressive how a young woman was able to successfully fabricate/orchestrate this kind of business empire w/o first dropping out of some ivy league school. Her mea culpa sounds like a contrived effort at exculpation, i.e. a planned follow up since she knew she'd eventually get discovered. Did she have help?
Proven just like the cancer diet by dbIII · 2015-04-23 23:33 · Score: 1

Yep, all of them live in nice houses just like this cancer woman cured it all with her diet. All completely proven.
Now where is that bridge I can sell to you.