One Sick Mother

Stating this publicly. Hold me to it.

I haven't been blogging seriously in some time. Since early 2010, in fact. There have been a few reasons for this.

The first reason involved some real-life friends. After a brief absence from blogging, a few of them pinged me on Facebook: "What happened?" "Why aren't you blogging?" "Are you OK?..." or words to that effect. 

And I thought. If I don't update, sooner or later one of them will pick up the goddamn phone, like they used to.  No one did. And my passive-aggressiveness turned to butthurt.

Around the same time, I found out that a third party with whom I was in a rather large dispute had the name and URL of this (supposedly (mostly) anonymous) blog, and I felt invaded and a bit violated by that. This was my safe place to update my friends on how I was doing and vent a little. Now, all of a sudden; I felt like my friends barely gave a toss and my place wasn't safe anymore.  What was the point anymore?

So I stopped blogging about my health stuff -which was the main point of the blog in the first place, and I mostly stuck to more general topics.  

I have missed blogging. But it is hard to get back after a long absence. Hard to find which threads to pick up and to know where exactly I left off. I look back at some of my older (but more recent) posts and I have absolutely NO recollection of writing them. This "scammers and vitamins" post? It's definitely by me, but I don't remember writing it at all. That's kinda scary and makes me wonder if my neurological issues are quietly progressing? Because I haven't been seizing with the same kind of regularity of late.

So, how to pick up after a long absence? You draw a line in the sand. Today is New Years Eve, a very good place to draw such a line and say this.

I am making a resolution to blog "properly" again in 2012. My goal is to update every other day, if health and circumstances allow. If they don't, then to update at least once per week, and back to every other day (or more) when things are back to abnormal again.

I also discovered recently that some of my old scamming enemies have new scam products and targets out there, so I really need to get on that. 

So here I am saying this officially, publicly. I am blogging again. If I try to wiggle out of it, you can take me to task, here or on Facebook.

OR...

Call me?

 

Judith Stew

As someone who has been plagiarized in the past, I have been following the whole "Cooks Source" and Judith Griggs saga with keen interest, particuarly on Facebook, where the commentary and web page changes have been way better than the telly. On one of the pages a presumed "Judith" requested some beef recipes, and here is the recipe I created for her, in the form of an open letter. Facebook wont allow wall posts of more than 1,000 characters, so I had to post it piecemeal. Here it is in full for those who are interested:

 

You asked for a beef recipe. I have a beef stew on the stove right now. You see, I like to cook.  It allows me to keep my hands busy while my mind roams. I can concentrate and reflect at the same time, you know?

While I made my stew, I thought of you, Judith. I think we are probably alike in many ways. I'd imagine you take as much care as I do to trim the as much fat and gristle from the beef as possible  and to cut it into bite-sized chunks.

To dredge or not to dredge? That's the first question with stew, isn't it?  Some people don't believe one should dredge the cubes in flour before you brown them. Indeed, some people don't believe you should brown the meat at all. Personally, I always brown, but only sometimes dredge. I decided that this would be a "dredging" stew, as there has been quite a lot of dredging going on around here; -not all of it good. I seasoned the flour with some garlic and onion salt, some regular salt and both black and white pepper (you need both, as the black pepper falls down to the bottom). I mixed it well before dredging the cubes of beef. Then I placed them  to brown in batches in some hot canola oil.

It is a lovely day to cook. The newly denuded maple tree now allows the sun to dream in the kitchen window, warming my right shoulder like the hand of a friend.  The smell of seasoned beef permeates the kitchen and my children emerge, one at a time to ask what's for lunch. "This is dinner." I reply. "There are leftovers for lunch". They accept this and one helps to heat the leftovers. I have great kids. 

As the cubes of beef sizzled and changed colour, I planned ahead. Would  I add tomatoes this time? I normally don't to a dredging stew. In my head I have some "stew rules"; like no tomatoes in a dredged stew, and  no mushrooms, barley or carrots if tomatoes are present. Maybe these are silly rules, but that is how I always made beef stew. I decided that as you are clearly a rulebreaker, I would throw caution to the wind and break some of my own rules. If I want to dredge and add tomatoes, mushrooms AND carrots, then I will; begrudgers be damned.  Thank you, Judith for freeing me from my stew restraints.

Just let me clarify what I mean by "rulebreaker" in this context:  When I say "rulebreaker". I mean ballsy woman who may flaunt conventional norms, as opposed to "lawbreaker", which is a completely different kettle of ... stew.   I don't think you deliberately set out to break the law. In fact, I think you honestly and utterly believed that your business practice of "lifting" content from the internet was ...OK. Maybe not the done thing;  but as you credited the articles (I think), then it was OK. There is no way you could have been so demeaning and high-handed to Monica Gaudio  had you not believed you were at least mostly in the right.   

When all the meat was browned, I rough-chopped two large onions and about five celery stalks. I threw them with the all the browned meat into the pot. I added about two teaspoons of chopped garlic.  I stirred and watched the vegetables start to soften, releasing their juices to make a kind of roux. Then I added  a large can of tomatoes, which I had rough chopped and some store-bought (sorry, it was all I had) beef broth.

 Time for seasoning: A good pour of Worcestershire (did you know it is pronounced "Wooster"?) sauce, some salt, pepper and about two teaspoons of sweet red paprika. I am out of fresh herbs, so I had to use dried;  I poured some sage and thyme into my hand  to measure, a little hill the size of a quarter for sage, two of them for thyme.

My stew is cooking in it's own juices now, Judith

And so are you.  You must be in a frenzy wrapped in a turmoil, feeling misunderstood and put upon. You must have spent many hours on the internet in the past few days, watching this storm brew and trying to deflect and brazen your way out of it. But you can't. You probably don't even understand what all the fuss is about and why so many people are after you (but I bet it is starting to sink in).

You're a strong character, Judith. That much I can tell. However, there is a big difference between being a strong character and having strength of character.  It is strength of character you lack. Had you strength of character you would have owned your mistake and apologized. You would not have become defensive and compounded your error(s).

I realized all this while making beef stew. So here is my advice to you: Get off the internet and if you truly love to cook, go and do so. And while you are cooking: think. Think long and hard about your next moves.

But don't make any until you have eaten the food you cooked. Maybe it will calm you and give you perspective.

And on my stew:  I plan to  add carrots about 30 minutes before serving and to serve it with boiled potatoes and some crusty bread with Irish butter.

I am going to call this recipe Judith Stew and I am hereby making it freely available to be copied and pasted all over the Internet; but only if the original text is kept intact.

Enjoy.

*Note: I left the original text intact but my carrots were too "al dente" this way. If anyone is making Judith Stew, it is best to add the carrots earlier, either at the beginning, or about an hour before serving.

The FTC Has Changed The Rules For Bloggers

We all thought bloggers aren't regulated, right?  That we cold say what we want on-line and -provided we didn't directly slander (or is it libel? I am never sure) someone who gave a shit, we were exempt from liability for speaking our minds about all sorts of stuff. The First Amendment and all that.  Yes there are copyright agreements and all that good stuff, but bloggers were never required to back up any statement they claimed as fact. I could say I ran into Elvis in the Public Library last month and no-one would bat an eye.

Well, as of December 1st, 2009 that has changed. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has introduced new rules surrounding endorsements and testimonials; and it includes bloggers and message boards as well as print, radio and the telly.  There are clauses that cover celebrity and expert endorsements, too. So now Valerie Bertinelli will have to tell you she was paid by Jenny Craig to lose that weight and keep it off. (What?  you didn't know?). Links to more information from the FTC is here; full Federal Register text here, and the FTC-produced videos explaining the new regulations are here.

So I'll have to watch me P's and Qs from now on.  Just kidding! Thankfully, the FTC doesn't care about foul or salty language, or OSM would be fucked entirely.  Not that I will be impacted much by the new regulations, anyway. I very rarely endorse anything. I once wrote favorably about a book, and I do carry links to books I recommend on this site (and there is no direct language that I could see in the FTC guidelines about hosting links -which I will get to later, because I found this point very interesting indeed). Other than books, most of my mission in life seems to be to find the flaws in things and highlight them in bitchy detail. And I am good at it!  So I can never claim to be an endorser of very much at all...

I find it interesting that I found out about this through Wellsphere, where I am a featured blogger -not that you would ever know that, because I never bothered to put the little picture thingy up here on OSM. Am I now in violation of some regulation?  Eek!  Is the FTC going to come and make an example of little old me?... (I digress).  Yeah, Wellsphere e-mailed me about these new rules. (I knew they would come in useful someday). I did search subsequently and the New York Times did have an article about it a few years ago, and there was some discussion about it mostly on marketing  and reviewers blogs and message boards. I think common-or-garden bloggers such as myself didn't have a clue about it. 

And I wonder how many consumers know?

I am going to jump on a lot of points in this post -and I apologize in advance if this piece seems a bit disjointed, but I am trying to cover as much as I can here, and there is a lot to cover.

This particular set of regulations was last revised in 1980; long before Cher was flogging shampoo, Chuck Norris was pushing excercise equipment, and Billy Mays became famous just for selling anything that wasn't nailed down. It was also long before the Internet took off commercially in the 1990s. The FTC had no real regulations for the WWW and it showed and was exploited for most of the past two decades. So the new rules are long overdue and very much welcome -by me, anyway and I think by anyone who strives towards honesty in their transactions with others.  This change will level the advertising and endorsement playing field.  Now, having said that, Please don't expect everything on the Internet to be true from hereon in. Because I think most scammers will just completely ignore these guidelines, like they ignore the FDA, morals and ethics; maybe thinking that their position overseas or hidden behind a series of front companies/sites will protect them. But at least now you know that you can more freely question 'truths' you find on the internet and report questionable practices to our Uncle Sam. 

Hurray!

But how does it all work?

One point I found mentioned  ...somewhere, is that internet reviewers will now be held to a stricter standard than print reviewers. For example The New York Times (let's say)  book, food or movie critics are not required to disclose in writing if they received the book, meal or movie ticket  they are reviewing for free. A blogger, on the other hand, would have to disclose if the book or product was provided for free and if there were any conditions attached to that gift (i.e. it is only free if you say nice things about it. Or you don't get more free stuff from us UNLESS you say nice stuff about this one (although the latter condition is usually implied rather than spoken, so how do you disclose that?)).   And then I wonder about the NYT critics and other gifts: If our print movie critic gets free popcorn to go with his free movie ticket, does he have to disclose the popcorn, even if the ticket is exempt?  And are there ever any conditions;  written, spoken or nudge-nudge-wink-winked between print reviewers and the people behind the products they review?  It all gets very interesting when you start to dissect this stuff.

And Of COURSE there is my particular bugbear: The whole question of scammers and scam advertising on legitimate sites. I have made my thoughts and feelings on this issue very clear in my open letter to the head of WebMD recently. For a laugh, I wandered around some sites today that I KNOW advertise scammers and did a quick search.  Yes, it is after December 1st, 2009, but most of them are still carrying adverts for both direct and indirect scams.  Nice.  But are they breaking the law?

Sites That Carry Scam Advertising

WebMD.com

About.com

Wrongdiagnosis.com

Amazon.com

Google.com

Yahoo.com

People.com

CNN.com (in fairness, I only found direct scammers here, in my very quick search. Is that better?)

ABC.com

CNBC.com (interesting! see below)

Time.com

Newsweek.com

NYtimes.com (almost all of the scams are there!)

Washingtonpost.com

huffingtonpost.com

Timesonline.com

Irishtimes.com

Foxnews.com

I should have just listed the sites that don't advertise scammers (that I recognized as such, anyway). It is much shorter:

Sites that DON'T Carry Scam Advertisements*

NBC.com

MSNBC.com

BBC.com

Fox.com (no public search available)

CBS.com 

WSJ.com

TheCW.com (no public search available)

I could probably go on and on, but I think I have made my point. Lots and lots of legitimate internet names carry links to scams on their sites. They are paid to do this.

Now I wonder if and how these sites are liable under the new FTC regulations?

The FTC guidelines didn't specifically state that carrying product links or advertisements on a website or blog constitutes endorsement of those products. However, that is the public perception.  Read the comments on my Gordon's piece. Many of the people who bought into those products did so because a search on a legitimate site took them to Gordon's Habitual Scamming Center (through that notorious loophole: "sponsored links"). In my opinion, the legitimate sites who carry these advertisements do and should bear some of the liability burden here.  However the regulations seem to skirt around this issue.  (and I wonder how much lobbying went into the wording thereof? Hmmm)

Another thing I wonder about, in light of the the fact that different rules apply to blogs and print media: The Huffington Post (HP) is technically a blog, whereas I figure NYTimes.com is technically part of the newspaper. Does this mean the NYT carries more exemptions, as mentioned above?  Will the HP bear more liability than NYTimes.com, say if both carried the exact same review worded the exact same way?  What about if both carry exactly the same links or endorsements? 

...And what about broadcast media such as CNN and ABC? Will their site content be regulated differently than their broadcast content? 

And do responsible advertisers such as NBC and MSNBC (but not CNBC.  ...why NBC, why???) get any kind fo kudos for acting properly without a government stick as inspiration?

It's all interesting stuff, right?

Another thought that occurred to me is this one: How the fuck do the FTC plan to enforce these new regulations?  Do they have scores of staff reviewing review sites, or are they relying on consumers to report dodgy reviews? (and if so, how will consumers know what is dodgy and who to tell?) You know, although I really really welcome these new regulations and think they are a very good thing: It all seems rather poorly thought out.

However, it's a lot better than nothing, which is what we had before.

*i.e. advertisements that were immediately recognized by me as scams. However, I don't claim to be the all-encompassing authority on this subject...

Two Surprises

My Inbox contained two surprises today:

One was from a man who actually obtained a refund from Gordon's Herbal Research Center!  Hurray!  This is the first time I have heard of someone receiving a refund from ...well, any of the scammers I have listed, actually.

The second e-mail was from an outraged lady who thought I had e-mailed her about a scam (I think it was the Gordon's one again).  I had never heard of her, and I never e-mail people links to my stuff unless they contact me first and ask questions. This makes me wonder if someone is spoofing my e-mail address?

I checked my recent hits and there are an unusual number of hits to the Gordon's piece through Windows Live.  A Microsoft bug, perhaps?

Now, that so wouldn't be a first.  Or a surprise.

Herbal Product Reviews: Scam

Much as I hate doing all the research and the drudgework that is involved in researching and documenting all the scam sites that I have been outing recently, I find it hard NOT to do it. I take a break for a day or to, decide to write about me  (Hello?  The blog is not called One Scam Outer) and then I start to wonder what other scams are out there that I have missed?  How many other people, just looking for relief for themselves or their loved ones are being tricked out of their money, which could doubtless go to better uses?  And these thoughts niggle at me. Unrelentingly. So last night, I sat myself down and decided to go searching for more scams. 

I decided to search for remedies for Peyronie's Disease. Now, I had no idea what Peyronie's disease entails. I just know that it seems to be covered on all of the scam sites and -unlike ...say, "Myasthenia Gravis"- I can spell it consistently without having to look it up.

Imagine my surprise while researching, I was suddenly presented with a picture of three erect penises, all in a row.  You don't usually get that when researching scams. Way-hey! thought I: Porn!  this thought was instantly followed by Shit!  Are the blinds down?  ...because my large-screen monitor directly faces a downstairs window (I don't want the neighbours to think that I surf porn. I mean, even if I do, I don't want them to think that I do. ...it's a suburban thing).  Then I noticed that it wasn't porn, but a medical site showing some pictures of a Peyronie's sufferer;  Before, During and After treatment. And the penny dropped. Apparently Peyronie's effects the penis.

Who knew?  Apart from an actual sufferer, that is.

...and I have to throw in a confession here:  I must say that I was somewhat intrigued by the Before picture of the bent and twisted willy. Because I couldn't help but wonder if that one might reach places that other willies might miss, you know?  And before you other women say "Ewe!!":  Admit it:  Most of you thought the same thing. I am just the one who will actually put it in writing. 

And then publish it on the Internet...

Then I read a bit more and I realized that Peyronie's can be painful for the man, so nix that idea. ...unless he was Very Naughty (evil laugh).

Anyhoo: back to the point (quick! before I lose me PG13 rating!): There was I, surfing porn the net, searching for scams, when I found this page

This site: with no person or company name, no phone number, no qualifications or references, except for a little story, told in the first person singular about being a ex-sufferer, having been a sufferer for years, and  doing all the research, gone through all the message-boards and quacks and now presenting "objectively" these four products.

If you read the blurb on each of the products (and those of you who regularly read OSM may instantly recognize just from the names that ALL the products named are scams), the language changes to the first person plural:  "I" and "my" suddenly becomes "we" and "our".

Hmmm.

And then there is the cute little tortoise (WTF does a tortoise have to do with Peyronie's ?  ...I mean,  positively speaking?), promising to show you the way through this "dessert".  All's I can say to that guy is keep your reptilian little paws off my key lime pie!

Having found that tortoise,  I figured there were probably more where he came from.

I was right.  All with the identical back-story, all with the same text; -except for the disease /product names and most pushing the "ical" first, then "ton" then "fax" and lastly either the "ex" or "tab" with a minor disclaimer pinned on the latter.  I haven't seen the "tin" products mentioned, but I think that is because they have been outed too many times as fraudulent.

Here is the list of dodgy "Product Peview" sites.

 

Condition	Site
Abdominal Adhesions	abdominaladhesionsproducts.com
Achalasia	achalasiaproducts.com
Actinic Keratosis	actinickeratosisproducts.com
Alopecia	alopecia-products.com
Atrial Fibrillation	atrialfibrillationproducts.com
Bell's Palsy	bellspalsyproducts.com
Bronchiectasis	bronchiectasisproducts.com
Cellulitis	cellulitisproducts.com
Delayed Ejaculation	delayedejaculationproducts.com
Emphysema	emphysema-products.com
Eye Bags	eyebagsproducts.com
Folliculitis	folliculitisproducts.com
Gastroparesis	Gastroparesisproduts.com
Granuloma Annulare	garanulomaproducts.com
Grave's Disease	gravesdiseaseproducts.com
Guillain-Barre Syndrome	gbs-products.com
Hand Tremors	handtremorsproducts.com
Hernias	herniasproducts.com
Hidradenitis	hidradenitissuppurativaproducts.com
Hyperhidrosis	hyperhidrosisproducts.com
Keratosis	keratosisproducts.com
Lipoma	lipomaproducts.com
Melasma	melasmaproducts.com
Motor neuron Disease	mndproducts.com
Narcolepsy	narcolepsyproducts.com
Peyronie's Disease	peyroniesproducts.com
Vocal Cord Nodules	vcnproducts.com
Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia	wmg-products.com

 

I checked the registration for some of the sites, and all came back (surprise!) to the same name and address:

   Herbal Reviews
   115 Abercorn Street, M0013
   Paisley, Scotland PA3 4AT
   United Kingdom

I really wish I could find my original notes regarding Syrotab, which were taken in 2006, because I am pretty sure that they were originally run from an address in Paisley (curious to see if it was the same address as noted above), before "moving" to Oslo.  I remember because Himself has a degree in Scottish business law (which I think he used precisely that one time) and I remember grilling him about them at the time.

Of course, I have a strong feeling that the real people behind this site are the same people behind SPAH and I am petty sure behind most of the other "herbal treatment"-themed organized scam sites out there: MAK International, one of whose core product offerings is a comparison shopping engine.

From their site:

Comparison shopping engines is perhaps the most targeted form of advertising possible for a website that intends to sell products. Nearly anyone visiting a comparison shopping engine is looking to purchase something. The way these engines work is by providing a product feed in a standard format as required by the comparison engine. Most engines accept a variety of feed forms like excel sheets, csv files and xml structured information. The standard information required for each product is the product price, a unique product number, product image and a short product description. This information needs to be constantly kept updated and should match exactly what is presented on your website.

 

When a potential customer goes to comaprison shopping site and searches for the product he or she is looking for the products that appear on the top get the highest number of clicks. The way the results are ranked varies from engine to engine. Some engines rank those products higher that pay more for the click, others sort the results by price and some by the relevancy of the product to the search key term. The last approach is particularly applicable to froogle, google's fast growing comparison shopping engine.

So really, their business has little to do with "treatments" and more to do with "clicks".

I sincerely hope that my outing of their scams is not furthering their business...

The Scams Just Don't Stop...

A new reader, Kathryn, who was angered by my post exposing the OHS scams, has done some Internet noodling for herself and uncovered a whole new series of stuff (thank you, Kathryn!).  I am working to get the whole list together. If you are interested in helping, please e-mail me, because there is a LOT of stuff here and I have been extra seizurey of late, therefore my concentration and attention span is particularly poor right now.

You know, when I was initially doing the research on scams, I was saying to myself there had better be nothing in here claiming to cure Autism or Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. Because that, my friends, would have angered me beyond reason. I was quite angry enough at the whole "rat poison and hairballs as a cure for Parkinson's thing. I think had I found an 'AutieTab' or similar, I would probably have started shopping for explosives and booking a flight to Norway.

So I am glad that enough time has passed now since I finished part III,  for me to look this little beastie in the eye and only get mad enough to turn the air a nice dark shade of indigo...

Hey, guess what? Danlotab is a completely guaranteed and clinically proven herbal treatment for Ehlers Danlos Syndrome!  Now where did I hear THAT before?  Oh,  I dunno... Only about 70 other places!

The audacity of these people just floors me.  I mean, it floors me each time. I just don't get immune to this, ever.  And every time I think I have found them all, and reached the end of this story, another thread shows up. I pull on the new thread only to find it is attached to a whole set of other threads and the web just gets bigger and bigger...  I wonder how many people work fulltime to perpetrate these scams?  And I wonder what they would achieve if they used their powers for good? Because this operation, for all it's ignoble, low-lived dispicability, is actually quite clever and probably requires quite a lot of resourcefulness and ingenuity to run.

But instead, they choose to single out the sick and vulnerable, shamelessly lie to them and try to scam them out of their dwindling cash.

Bastards.

Anyhoo... back to Danlotab:

I immediately recognized the ingredient list, of course. It is our old friend formula #2, also marketed as Pileen in Pakistan, for the treatment of piles (hemorrhoids), and apparently re-branded by Oslo Health Solutions (for it is they, of course) as a treatment for -not only EDS, but also as a "guaranteed and clinically proven" treatment for Arachnoid cysts, Ascites, Multiple System Atrophy. Chordoma, Chronkite-Canada Syndrome, Teething (really!), Muscular Fasciculation, Horner's Syndrome, Lenox Gastault Syndrome, Megaloblastic Anemia, Myelodysplastic syndromes, Benign Essential Blepharospasm, Pseudotumor Cerebri, Enlarged Tonsils, Spasmodic Torticollis, Benign Essential Tremor, Kugelberg-Welander Disease (i.e. SMA type III), and Wiskott Aldrich Syndrome.

Its unbelievable, isn't it?

I do ask all my EDS friends NOT to buy this product and to spread the word that this is a scam.

...and keep watching this space. Because there is more to come on this topic.

A lot more, unfortunately.

Joe meets "Joe"

The pitfalls of blogging....

Those of you who know me well, know that my children's real names are not "Grace" and "Joe". I have aliased them herein for their privacy.  My kids know that I write, but they don't know the content or publication media, except for some stories that I have written for them which are published in-house by SickMother press (i.e. me inkjet printer!).

So the other night, at bedtime, Joe says "Mom, I have to ask you a question."  I know from experience that this phrase usually means Something Significant is coming, so I braced myself and told him to go ahead. 

"I saw that you were writing an article about a guy named "Joe" who has synesthesia, and I was wondering if I could meet him, because I wanted to ask him some questions"

..and my heart broke.

"Did you read the full article?"
"No. I just saw some over your shoulder."
"What question did you want to ask"
"well, you said that "Joe" can turn synesthesia on and off..."  I finished his sentence.
...and you want to know how to turn it off?" (because in fact, he can turn it ON at will (sometimes) but he can't disable it)

"Yes. I want to know how to turn it off"

I took a deep breath

"I'm sorry honey, but there is no way for you to meet "Joe". You see, you are "Joe".  I was writing about you. I just didn't use your real name"  His eyes went huge.

"I am "Joe"?!" ...you mean... you were protecting my identity?"
"Yes."
"so you don't know another kid with synesthesia?"
"Apart from that kid in California that has number-->color synesthesia... No."
"Oh"
"You know, part of the reason I wrote that piece was because I was hoping for find other people out there who might have the same type of synesthesia as you have."
"Have you found any ?"
"No. But I did find out about a young woman who has a different form than you have..." And I explained about Yanub's daughter, who has sound--> color synesthesia.  Joe thought this was pretty cool.

We talked for a bit about "Joe" and about himself and how -even if he did meet someone with the same type of synesthesia that he has, the mechanism may be different in each person, so he would probably need to learn about his own synesthesia in order to control it. But I told him I understood that it is always good to meet another person with the same thing, because then you don't feel so alone. I went on to explain that one of the reasons I had wanted to get him hooked up with the university was that maybe those guys might be able to help him understand his synesthesia better and be able to help him to control it. And maybe they might know other kids who have it. Because universities can be a magnet for this sort of stuff.

So Joe said that he wants to have another try with the university. He asked me to set up another appointment with the head of the Autism Department.

Remember at the beginning of my last post, I wrote that maybe writing about Joe's synesthesia might help Joe? Well, It appears that -in an unexpected way- it will!

Blogging can be strangely effective.

PostScript:

...last night, Joe pops out of bed in a state of excitement and stood in the doorway, flapping and bouncing from foot to foot, to tell me this:

"I was trying to see what she sees, but it is too hard!"
"what?...  See what who sees?"
"The woman who can see sounds.  I wanted to to try it."
"(eek!) Did it work?"
"No...  ...well      ...Mom! There are sooo many sounds!  I tried to do it and ...and ...it was just too much!"
"So you are going to stick to emotions, then?"
"Joe: "Yes.  I'm going to stick to emotions."

(Thank Christ for that!)

Consider The Source -Revisited

I wrote a fun post entitled "Consider the Source" before. But this time I want to talk about a more serious topic, which is becoming more important in the blogging world.  I probably should have entitled this piece "Consider the Motive" and it would have worked, but I like to go with my first instinct for a title.

Every now and again, I am approached by someone who wants to talk about a "great new product" or a "great new service"  Usually, when I pull back the covers and investigate a little (because I investigate everything), it will turn out to be a false person endorsing Syrotab or some other scam.

Even if it is a legitimate product or service; e-mail or posts of this nature, -which are essentially solicitations- leave me feeling a bit skeevy. I always wonder at the people who will try to drum up free advertising for their product over the blogosphere.  Especially if they are mining the Autism or disability community to do it.

I got an e-mail yesterday today from someone; -we'll call her "Tiffany"-  who "thought this new Autism website would be of interest to you and your readers" and then included a very professional press release about it.

A press release.  Noooo thankyouverymuch.  OSM does not advertise. So I ignored the e-mail.

Tiffany does not like to be ignored, apparently.

This morning, I get a e-mail from her asking me if I was going to write a post about the "great new website". I told her OSM does not advertise. I thought that was the end of it. But nooo. Tiffany is tenacious  "We are not hoping for an advertisement. I just know that you blog about Autism, and this new service may be of interest to your readers". 

Um. OK. What is that, then if it is not an advertisement? Apart from the 'getting paid' part, of course? Oh wait... It's an endorsement (but still without the 'getting paid' piece). Silly me! It could also be called a mention, a plug or just plain old PR.  It is basically a way to get the fledgling (wannabe) brandname out there to a targeted audience.

Well, as Tiffany the Tenacious wasn't leaving me alone; I got curious. Usually when I say no, people go away. But she kept coming back. I decided to check out the "great new Autism Website", thinking that maybe they were an new, eager non-profit agency running on a tight budget and that Tiffany was perhaps a zealous volunteer or an intern. The site is slick and professional. No telltale 501(c)(3) notice anywhere. They are a for-profit organization. And they want your credit card information. The "great new service" that Tiffany was so gung-ho about is not provided for free, or even on a sliding scale for the needy. It will cost the average Joe (SickMother) $100 per month.  And yet here they are: contacting this Sick Mother in the hope that she will give them free advertising, or maybe spend $100 per month of her disability check on their (untested, unstudied, unproven) "great new service".

Niiiiice

And Tiffany is not a volunteer. She works for a New York City Public Relations agency.

Let me spell it out: This for-profit "Autism" agency is paying a New York PR agency to drum up free endorsements from Autism bloggers.  And that is not the end of it. The data of which bloggers take the bait, and how they 'perform' will be then saved, analyzed, measured and matrixed; and maybe the list of 'high-performing' blogs/bloggers will be re-used and/or sold to other for-profit firms, who wish to break into the Autism vertical.  Because let's face it guys: As I myself have pointed out, Autism is a growing market.

I know I am cynical, but this is how it works, people.

I don't know how many other bloggers have been contact by "Tiffany" and her ilk, but I am sending a warning out there to anyone who has been contacted about a "great new Autism website" to consider the source. And the motive. You may choose to give them a plug if you think the product looks good, (and I don't blame anyone who does), but I personally have a hard time with PR people being paid to trawl  the Internet, looking for bloggers to exploit.

For all bloggers: Here is a one-minute guide on how to spot a professional who may be looking to exploit you:

• Including a press release is a dead giveaway
• So is follow-up: "I was just wondering if..."  or my favorite: "I just wanted to touch base..."
• If the company/site that they are trying to sell is an US company, check their site to see if it says anywhere that is is a 501(c)(3) corporation, which signifies a not-for-profit.  Most NFP corporations state so clearly.
• Check the domain name on the e-mail address of the sender (the part after the @). Go to whateveritis.com and research *that* company. You will know pretty quickly if that company is a marketing or PR agency. If it is, ...well, proceed at your own discretion (but don't say I didn't warn you!).

So there you are, Tiffany.  You got me to write a post in the end. It may not be exactly what you wanted, but all advertising is good advertising, right? 

Or maybe; -as King Midas found out, you should be careful what you wish for.

Oh!  and put me on your "do not call" list.

K? Thx

Buh-bye.

English Is Dead. Long Live The Internet!

Like an alarmingly humongous number of other members of the human race, I have a Facebook account. Because I am home too much and on the computer too much, I spend too much time thereon. I have through this account, and through my blog and a few other Internet sites, "friended" many people from around the globe, who I would never have met otherwise. I can now boast friends in Egypt, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Brazil, Australia and the Philippines, as well as the US and the UK (and only one in Ireland, curiously enough).

My Global friends and I communicate through English, although some of my friends are more successful in this than others. Now I am not knocking anyone's attempts to communicate with a native speaker in a second or third (or fourth!) language. Not at all!  They do way better in English than I would in Arabic, Cantonese or Portuguese.  No. I don't think  global communication or sites like Facebook are responsible for the death of the English Language.

I think texting is responsible.

Honestly, the day I receive a text message from Himself that reads something like "R u going 2 da str 4 milk?"  I will leave him (he is probably texting now, with great hope in his little heart even as I type this!).  Bad enough to send something like that from a phone or (worse) blackberry, but to sit down in front of a full QWERTY keyboard and type something like that is just shameful.  But people do it! Gah!

And here is where I think Facebook comes in: Non-English speakers see the English speakers typing this shit and they think it is acceptable, so they do it too. And before you know it, English has deteriorated into a series of vowel-less utterances no more than three letters long.

Sorry folks, it's not acceptable. Not to me, anyway.

I isn't just the written word, either.  Spoken English is crucified on a regular basis. Some of this is funny and amusing. I like to adopt the American habit of adding "-assed" to my adjectives; like  "freaky-assed"  etc.  I find it amusing (and then I wonder why Joe is obsessed with cursing and foul language...  And no. I dont' do it in front of him. I just think he might share some of my predilections).

But some of the butchering is just uncalled for:  The phone rang on Friday, somebody needing to speak to Himself. I took a message:

"Tell him to call this number and ax for Stella"

"um... You want him to call the number and then hit Stella with a hatchet?"

"What?"

"Isn't that what "ax" means?  To hit with a hatchet?" (I ask in my best Irish accent)

"tell him to ask for Stella."

"Oh!      OK. I'll do that."  (Bitchy, bitchy, bitchy. I know...  But satisfying all the same. OSM 1, the rest of the world about 50 gazillion...

...a day.)

On a completely unrelated note: I am going to change the blog around a bit, because I am bored with it. I am thinking I will maybe put up a "best of OSM" section with some of my most Googled pieces for easier access.  Please let me know if you have any faves you would like me to add to that section. I know some of my own favorite posts, but I am probably not the best judge of my own work.  You can e-mail me (link on the top left of the page) if you don't want to comment.

or u cn fnd me on FB  :P

Dying For A Climax

Everyone has heard the old joke:  Men have both a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to operate one of these at a time.

However not content with this, some men like to have their brain blood-flow further compromised by having a something -usually a scarf, wrapped around the neck by the partner and held tight almost to the point of passing out. It is said to enhance arousal and orgasm.  The practice is called erotic asphyxiation in technical terms. "Scarfing" is the colloquial term. 

Now I can't personally speak to scarfing; -except when confronted with a plate of cheesy fries at Boulder Creek. And in that context, it means something completely different. It was suggested to me as something to try after that Sean Connery movie with references to the subject came out (Rising Sun), but there was no way. It just seems to me that there is way too fine a line between ecstasy and injury/death in this scenario. Even with a partner.  And also frankly (and I am being VERY frank in this post!), the idea of it didn't appeal to me one jot. Sorry. Even this Sick Mother has a line she won't cross.

To attempt the practice of erotic asphyxiation while alone (known as auto-erotic asphyxiation) is utter folly, because there is no-one there to rescue you if you do actually pass out and your dead weight pulls the wrong way on the ligature (or there is no-one around to remove the plastic bag from your head).

David Carradine apparently knows that now -wherever he is.

You know, it breaks my heart to think of David Carradine dead in this fashion, in a wardrobe in Bankok with a rope around his neck and genitals.  It is such an ignominious end to a life. Any life. But particularly his. That story -the sensationalism of it, will be the thing about him that people remember now. Not his career, or what kind of person he was or what he stood for in life. But how he died, exposed in the worst possible way.   I really feel for his family.

Speaking of families: Another high-profile case of auto-erotic asphyxiation was the death of INXS singer Michael Hutchence, which was officially ruled a suicide. Paula Yates, who was Hutchence's partner and the mother of his baby daughter, Tiger Lily,  always disputed the suicide ruling and came right out and said what had caused his death. Then she went into a black depression and died of an accidental heroin overdose, was found by then four-year-old old Tiger ("Mummy won't wake up"). Then she; thus orphaned, ended up being raised by Yate's ex-husband, Bob Geldof. -Not to cast any aspersions on Geldof, but I wonder if Michael Hutchence had any inkling of the chain reaction his little need to get off in a hotel room that night would cause, would he maybe have forgone the belt and settled instead for some less exciting but much safer Oil of Olay? 

I think so too.

Of course, it is not just celebrities who die this way. They are the ones we hear about, but normal people are just as affected. It is hard to find good statistics, because many of the deaths my be ruled as suicide or misadventure out of respect for the families, but it is estimated that up to 1,000 people in the USA die each year from auto-erotic asphyxia.  That is a lot of families impacted by this. It was difficult for me to find any recent literature on the subject, but this paper had some good information.

I just want to say this to anyone who has happened upon this site while researching autoerotic asphyxiation in the hope of applying it to themselves: 

Think about what might happen if you die doing it. I mean really think about it. And don't think you won't die, because that's that they all think. But die they do. Michael Hutchence was a very handsome rock star, well traveled and I'm sure well educated in matters of erotica, who probably got more mileage out of his willy in a month than most people get in a year (or more!). But that didn't save him. 

Just think about how your mother might feel if she found you in a similar situation to the guy in the photos on rotten.com (not posting the link, sorry). I am not going to post or link the pictures here because they are very graphic photographs of a somewhat decomposed man in drag, who died with a plastic bag over his head and his willy out. Scroll down and look for the keyword Crossdressphyxia. 

His mom must be so proud.

As must Stephen Milligan's mum. He was a conservative (Tory) member of the British Parliament, who in (I think) 1994, was found dead on his kitchen table, wearing stockings and suspenders with a trash bag over his head, an electric cord around his neck and an orange in his mouth. My good friend AM has that list memorized. Regardless of whatever good that man may have done in his life, either as a journalist or a politician, the only thing anyone ever remembers about him is his manner of death. 

And when you think about it like that, auto-erotic asphyxiation is not exciting at all. Just sad.

Don't try it at home. Or in a hotel room.

Or anywhere.

Ever.