Women lie for Profit Recognized as Medical Condition

Women liar

Women liar

Apparently unaware or dismissive of the consequences, there is an epidemic of sorts of people faking serious illness and advertising it on the internet. The Guardian reviews the case of wannabe cancer victim Belle Gibson and beyond:

How would you fake cancer? Shave your head? Pluck your eyebrows? Install a chemo port into your neck? These days you don’t need to. Belle Gibson’s story is a masterclass on faking cancer in the modern age. She fooled Apple, Cosmopolitan, Elle and Penguin. She fooled the hundreds of thousands who bought her app, read her blog and believed that her story could be their story.

Diagnosed with a brain tumour aged 20, Gibson had four months to live. She blogged her journey of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, treatments she shunned after eight weeks. Instead, she cut gluten and dairy and turned to oxygen therapy, craniosacral treatments and colonic irrigation. Against all odds, she made it. Her followers were inspired. If Belle could make it, maybe they could too.

Gibson launched The Whole Pantry app in 2013, filled with healthy living tips and recipes. She promised a third of proceeds from the 300,000 downloads ($3.79 per download) to charity. Elle named her “The Most Inspiring Woman You’ve Met This Year”, Cosmopolitan awarded her a “Fun, Fearless Female award” and Penguin published her cookbook. Apple pre-installed her app on Apple Watch and flew her to its Silicon Valley launch.

Then cancer re-emerged, and Gibson announced on Instagram: “It hurts me to find space tonight to let you all know with love and strength that I’ve been diagnosed with a third and forth [sic] cancer. One is secondary and the other is primary. I have cancer in my blood, spleen, brain, uterus, and liver. I am hurting.”

Last week, Gibson admitted it was all a lie. “No. None of it’s true. I am still jumping between what I think I know and what is reality. I have lived it and I’m not really there yet.”

She is now being investigated over the disappearance of $300,000 of promised charity donations. Months earlier, she spoke of her four-year-old son and the short time they had left together: “[Oliver] sees me on days that I can’t get out of bed. The only thing that breaks me is [the idea of] not being able to see Oli grow. He’s so incredible I just want to squish him all day forever. I don’t want those moments to end. I’m just going to miss him.”

The diagnosis of Münchausen syndrome has dominated analysis of Gibson’s case. It comes under the rubric of a wider term, factitious disorder: the intentional production (feigning) of disease in order to assume the role of a sick person…

 

Source:  disinfo.com

Snopes.com Hoax

Snopes misleads the public, and lies to its readers:

snopes .com lie's to the public

snopes .com lie’s to the public

How can something be a half truth?  Well thanks to snopes.com, you have their personal opinion attached to it.  How is this possible you ask?  I just think it’s great when you research some fact, to find out if a rumor is true, that you get some dude’s personal opinion on top of it.  Maybe they’re cofused on the idea no one is interested in them individually, but just the damn information.  Life is complicated, but I thought this was a yes or no question?  Multiple choice style questions cannot have a half truth. Hasn’t this been ingrained in us at an early age that when we draw cute dinosaur pictures instead of answering a series of true or false question, that you’re going to fail? Oh you might get an additional one point for your prehistoric image, but you fail.

I recently contacted Snopes in response to a attack on one of my articles. The title is “Coca Cola Phosphric Acid”, and it is a brief description of the weird alternative uses you can use with coke in a pinch. Nothing in my article is incorrect, but somehow they managed to reference my article as incorrect. Confused, well me too but let’s carry on.

The article:https://frontview.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/coca-cola-phosphoric-acid-cocaine-2/

I had contacted Snopes.com about their winded article on how Coca Cola is safe to drink, and that it indeed contained many types of acids, including Phosphoric Acid.  This is their response:

“Nothing in the Wikipedia article you reference states that ingesting
Phosphoric acid in the small amounts commonly found in soft drinks
such as Coca-Cola is harmful. In fact, the article notes that
Phosphoric acid is a common food additive, which demonstrates that it
Obviously isn’t harmful to ingest in moderate quantities.”

This was my reference to Wikipedia:

Reference:

Food-grade phosphoric acid (additive E338) is used to acidify foods and beverages such as various colas, but not without controversy regarding its health effects.[6] It provides a tangy or sour taste, and being a mass-produced chemical is available cheaply and in large quantities. The low cost and bulk availability is unlike more expensive seasonings that give comparable flavors, such as citric acid which is obtainable from citrus, but usually fermented by Aspergillus niger mold from scrap molasses, waste starch hydrolysates and phosphoric acid.[7]

(wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphoric_acid

You know its funny, even if the article says, ” Food-grade phosphoric acid (additive E338) is used to acidify foods and beverages such as various colas, but not without controversy regarding its health effects.” My question wasn’t about if it was safe to drink but that it only contained Phosphoric Acid.  If they could add this important rumor to their collection of urban lies. They didn’t even answer my question properly. Well, That just simply doesn’t matter.

snopes is a HOAX

Snopes is a HOAX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That’s it guys, I was totally wrong all these years, time to pack it up.  My doctor, nutritionist, and health professional was all wrong. Its Damn safe, sorry for the confusion. Let alone what my dentist would say about this.  Even with small amounts, these professionals would have a field day. I could go on for hours referencing just about any other profession in the world. Well you see where I am going with this.

Since then, I have attempted to contact them, stick to my guns and ask them to update one little simple fact that Coca Cola does contain these dangerous chemicals. No response! Very typical when you have something to hide. Really suspicious when you do some investigation into their Coke lore section. Very one sided, like they are trying to promote the health benefits of coke, I mean coca cola.  Are you guys being paid to promote cola’s? I mean how can you say Coca Cola used to contain Coke, that it is only a half truth?  Either its true or not, enough with your bullish% opinions!  True or False, or close down your site. No one needs to be more confused after visiting your misleading urban legends. Busted!

SNOPES-GETS-SNOPED

SNOPES-GETS-SNOPED

America and Israel Greatest Threats to Peace

Imagine if Iran — or any other country — did a fraction of what American and Israel do at will. Noam Chomsky:

Why America and Israel Are the Greatest Threats to Peace

Why America and Israel Are the Greatest Threats to Peace

Iran is carrying out a murderous and destructive low-level war against Israel with great-power participation. Its leaders announce that negotiations are going nowhere. Israel refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow inspections, as Iran has done. Israel continues to defy the overwhelming international call for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. Throughout, Iran enjoys the support of its superpower patron.

Iranian leaders are therefore announcing their intention to bomb Israel, and prominent Iranian military analysts report that the attack may happen before the U.S. elections.

Iran can use its powerful air force and new submarines sent by Germany, armed with nuclear missiles and stationed off the coast of Israel. Whatever the timetable, Iran is counting on its superpower backer to join if not lead the assault. U.S. defense secretary Leon Panetta says that while we do not favor such an attack, as a sovereign country Iran will act in its best interests.

All unimaginable, of course, though it is actually happening, with the cast of characters reversed. True, analogies are never exact, and this one is unfair – to Iran.

Like its patron, Israel resorts to violence at will. It persists in illegal settlement in occupied territory, some annexed, all in brazen defiance of international law and the U.N. Security Council. It has repeatedly carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon and the imprisoned people of Gaza, killing tens of thousands without credible pretext.

Thirty years ago Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, an act that has recently been praised, avoiding the strong evidence, even from U.S. intelligence, that the bombing did not end Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program but rather initiated it. Bombing of Iran might have the same effect.

Iran too has carried out aggression – but during the past several hundred years, only under the U.S.-backed regime of the shah, when it conquered Arab islands in the Persian Gulf.

Iran engaged in nuclear development programs under the shah, with the strong support of official Washington. The Iranian government is brutal and repressive, as are Washington’s allies in the region. The most important ally, Saudi Arabia, is the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime, and spends enormous funds spreading its radical Wahhabist doctrines elsewhere. The gulf dictatorships, also favored U.S. allies, have harshly repressed any popular effort to join the Arab Spring.

The Nonaligned Movement – the governments of most of the world’s population – is now meeting in Teheran. The group has vigorously endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and some members – India, for example – adhere to the harsh U.S. sanctions program only partially and reluctantly.

The NAM delegates doubtless recognize the threat that dominates discussion in the West, lucidly articulated by Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command: “It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East,” one nation should arm itself with nuclear weapons, which “inspires other nations to do so.”

Butler is not referring to Iran, but to Israel, which is regarded in the Arab countries and in Europe as posing the greatest threat to peace In the Arab world, the United States is ranked second as a threat, while Iran, though disliked, is far less feared. Indeed in many polls majorities hold that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons to balance the threats they perceive.

If Iran is indeed moving toward nuclear-weapons capability – this is still unknown to U.S. intelligence – that may be because it is “inspired to do so” by the U.S.-Israeli threats, regularly issued in explicit violation of the U.N. Charter.

Why then is Iran the greatest threat to world peace, as seen in official Western discourse? The primary reason is acknowledged by U.S. military and intelligence and their Israeli counterparts: Iran might deter the resort to force by the United States and Israel.

Furthermore Iran must be punished for its “successful defiance,” which was Washington’s charge against Cuba half a century ago, and still the driving force for the U.S. assault against Cuba that continues despite international condemnation.

 

Wall Street Executives Say illegal behavior Is Necessary

Many Wall Street Executives Say Wrongdoing Is Necessary:

Many Wall Street Executives Say Wrongdoing Is Necessary

Many Wall Street Executives Say Wrongdoing Is Necessary

Capitalism-hating radicals claim that our financial sector is awash with unethical and illegal behavior, which is not merely tolerated, but encouraged or even required for success. Many Wall Street leaders concur completely.

A quarter of Wall Street executives see wrongdoing as a key to success, according to a survey by whistle-blower law firm Labaton Sucharow released on Tuesday. In a survey of 500 senior executives in the United States and the UK, 26 percent of respondents said they had observed or had firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace, while 24 percent said they believed financial services professionals may need to engage in unethical or illegal conduct to be successful.

Sixteen percent of respondents said they would commit insider trading if they could get away with it, according to Labaton Sucharow. And 30 percent said their compensation plans created pressure to compromise ethical standards or violate the law.

Comment: It’s not just now or Wall Street, fortunes have been made through unethical, immoral, or illegal means. A lot of early American fortunes came out of profiteering on the American revolution and the subsequent wars.  Similar profiteering, I’m sure, went on in other nations. American Industrialists like Rockefeller and Carnegie made their fortunes through brutal, unethical, and illegal business practices…then later became philanthropists and bought themselves better reputations.  And of course, there are economists that make the similar argument with regards to them – that it was necessary for them to behave illegally and unethically. You’ve got the fortunes made in the financial market today, which are almost exclusively based in fraud, unethical behavior, the revolving door between regulators and industry where everyone has a vested financial interest in ignoring the fraud & unethical behavior, and congress people who are owned outright. 

Upper class society lie and cheat

Members of the upper classes are more likely to lie, cheat and even break the law than people from less privileged backgrounds, a study has found:

rich-poor

rich-poor

In contrast, members of the “lower” classes appeared more likely to display the traditional attributes of a gentleman.  It suggests that the traditional notion of the upper class “cad” or “bounder” could have a scientific basis.  But psychologists at the University of California in Berkeley, who carried out the study, also suggested that the findings could help explain the origins of the banking crisis – with self-confident, wealthy bankers more likely to indulge in reckless behaviour.  The team lead by Dr Paul Piff, asked several groups of people from different social backgrounds to perform a series of tasks designed to identify different traits such as honesty and consideration for others.  Each person was asked a series of questions about their wealth, schooling, social background, religious persuasions and attitudes to money in an attempt to put them into different classes. The tasks included asking participants to pretend to be an employers conducting a job interview to test whether they would lie or sidestep awkward facts in pay negotiation. They were told that the job might become redundant within six months but were encouraged conceal this from the interview candidate.  There was also an online game involving rolling dice in which participants they were asked to report their own score, thinking they would be in line for a cash prize for a higher score – and that no one was checking.  Members of another group were given a series of made-up scenarios in which people spoke about doing something unethical at work to benefit themselves and then questioned to assess how likely they were to do likewise.  The scientists also carried out a series of observations at a traffic junction in San Francisco.  Different drivers’ social status was assessed on the basis of what car they were driving as well as visible details such as their age.  Those deemed to be better off appeared more likely to cut up other drivers and less likely to stop for pedestrians.  Overall the study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that those from richer or powerful backgrounds appeared greedier, more likely to lie in negotiation and more likely to cheat.Being in a higher social class – either by birth or attainment – had a “causal relationship to unethical decision-making and behaviour”, they concluded.Dr Piff concluded that having an elevated social rank were more likely to display “self focused” behaviour patterns than those from more modest backgrounds, were less aware of others, and were less good at identifying the emotions of others.  He said that the findings appeared to bear out the teachings of Aristotle, Plato and Jesus that greed is at the root unethical behaviour.  “On the one hand, lower-class individuals live in environments defined by fewer resources, greater threat and more uncertainty,” he said.  “It stands to reason, therefore, that lower-class individuals may be more motivated to behave unethically to increase their resources or overcome their disadvantage.  “A second line of reasoning, however, suggests the opposite prediction: namely, that the upper class may be more disposed to the unethical.  “Greater resources, freedom, and independence from others among the upper class give rise to self-focused social cognitive tendencies, which we predict will facilitate unethical behaviour.  “Historical observation lends credence to this idea. For example, the recent economic crisis has been attributed in part to the unethical actions of the wealthy.  “Religious teachings extol the poor and admonish the rich with claims like, ‘It will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven’.”