One Sick Mother

Doctortutes

Doctortutes. I made that word up, in case  you haven't guessed. It is not an amalgamation of  the words "doctor" and  "substitutes".  It is a combination of "Doctor" and  "prostitutes".  Doctortutes:   Doctors who pimp themselves out for money. 

Now it may be argued that pretty much all doctors; -except maybe the ones without borders, charge money for their services, so therefore all doctors could be termed doctortutes. Not so. Charging a fair or market price for a recognized service, and operating out of a regulated environmentt, such as a hospital or private practice,  as most doctors do, is accepted, legitimate business practice, not doctortution. But trawling the streets, classifieds or the Internet soliciting clients IS Doctortution, in my opinion.   And quite a few doctors are engaging in the practice (pun intended):  Some are lone operators with flash, smooth-talking  websites; -the Internet equivalent of acrylic platforms.

But most don't bother with these costly "cheap" tactics.  Most use pimps.

Yes. I said it: Internet doctor pimps.  Who needs science fiction when the real world is right here? 

Here is the story:

Just the other day, I was noodling around the Internet, researching something (probably a scam), minding my own business (sorta), when a pop-up window appeared on my screen (note to self: upgrade pop-up blocker).  The window advised me that there were twenty doctors standing by waiting to answer my medical question, and invited me to type it into the box.  So for laughs, thinking this will stump all 20 of them I typed in  "why do I have a seizure after I eat a meal?"

And then another box popped up, asking me how much I was willing to pay for this answer?  And the term "doctortute" hit me. I started to save screen shots and write this piece...

..and then my feckin computer crashed!  I lost all the screenshots and everything else.  Bummer.

My computer mysteriously came back from the dead a day and a half later after I decided not to finish my cliffhanger story about the beginning of 2010. Apologies to my regular readers, but I took that crash as a sign, even though I know some people may suggest that maybe it was the internet doctor pimps and the doctortutes who might have actually have been sending the "sign", as that is what I was working on at the time of the crash. I don't believe it.  Conspiracy theories  don't impress me any. (while superstition apparently does...  I'm Irish. What can I say?)

So last night I went back on the hunt for the doctortutes. I found some at justanswer.com, which seems to be one of the biggest pimp sites; supporting not only doctortutes, but also plumbertutes, mechanictutes, lawyertutes (OK that's nothing new) and various other "tutes" who will answer questions in exchange for your cold, hard credit card number. 

 
It's actually not a bad gig for a "tute", who I imagine is playing Solitaire or Farm Town in-between answering questions.

I didn't manage to find the popup that had found me the last time (I have no idea what I had been doing to deserve that!),  but on the main site there was a space to input my question, with 24 doctors online, apparently waiting eagerly to answer it. 

 

I couldn't resist. I knew it meant committing funds that I don't have (can you claim blogging expenses on your tax returns? Honestly, legitimate journalists have it so much easier than Sick Mothers), but I really had to see where this would lead. I figured that even if I didn't get a viable medical  answer  out of this (and I didn't expect one), I might at least get a good story for this blog, albeit at rather a high price. And I kind of liked the idea of exploiting a dotortute in order to write about him here -which is probably something I should address in therapy (I'll put it on the list).

 

So I went for it.

I typed in my question:  "Why do I have a seizure after I eat a meal?"  There was a followup question of what I had done about it, and I wrote "tried multiple AEDs, most of which made the problem worse".  And I hit "Enter"

Then we get to the nitty gritty: 

 

I was told "Dr. P "wants to answer my question" and I was asked how much I wanted to pay for this answer? I was given a few price options and  prompted to the middle one, which is  $38.  Would I pay $40 to have that question answered? Hell yes! I would pay a lot more than that.  Of course, I figured their definition of a satisfactory answer might differ from mine. However, the curiousity was killing me, so I continued on.

The site had said that I wasn't going to pay unless I was satisfied with the answer.  It then  advised me that it was going to take a "deposit"  against this answer. OK fair enough. Except the 'deposit' was the entire amount, placed into "my account"  Hmmm.... 

 

Well; in for a penny, in for 38 dollars: I continued on.  I had been  promised that someone called "Dr P" had been standing by to answer my question. Then Dr P was suddenly  gone..

 

...and  Doctor Ozz was looking at it.  I guess he passed it up too. Finally someone called "Mysticdoc" decided to take my question. That was worrying.  I wanted a real doctor, not a mystic!  Then I looked at his profile, and realized that "Mystic" was probably meant in terms of Mystic, Connecticut, as opposed to "Mystic Meg"

 

Thank Christ for that! Because if it was anyone connected to her, that would be downright scary...

 

Mysticdoc actually came back with some intelligent questions.

 

 Do you have any other medical condition?

What medication you are taking currently?

How do you know these are seizures?

Association with any particular food?

Any family history of seizures?

What tests have been done so far?

 

These questions I answered equally intelligently, with the honest facts as best I could remember and summarize  them (what tests have been done? OMG  that's a tall order to remember on the fly!)

There was some back-and-forth. The way the system works is this: the "tute"  doesn't get paid until the client accepts the answer and the client can ask follow-up questions related to the answer (but any questions on a "new" matter would be another chunk of change) . Therefore, the doctortute is incented to give a satisfactory answer. It would be highly unlikely that I would receive the two most popular answers I get from regular doctors, which are

a. "I can't help you"

b. "have you seen a psychiatrist?" (ie. it's all on your head)

Now, although I have argued against this in the past (here and here if you are curious),  these are both considered perfectly legitimate responses in traditional medical practice, where doctors are not actually required to help you and they still get paid for the visit and their time. However in doctortution, the compensation is directly tied to a satisfactory answer. The  "patient" (I have to use this term loosely here. Hey, Let's keep in theme and use the term "john" ) can  refuse to pay if an unsatisfactory answer is given.  Yes, the pimp still has your money, but the john can either go to another doctortute, or can start the process to have the money returned (and I am not sure how easy this process is, but it is there).  It is an interesting change to the dynamic, don't you think?  Much more customer oriented.

"Mysticdoc" gave me two good pieces of information I think I can use:

1. Sodium and calcium (both minerals with which I have had issues  in the past) play a huge role in seizure pathogenesis.

2. A  functional MRI (fMRI) would probably be a good test for me to see what is going on in my brain. I asked him if the MRSpect, the scan that #30 is planning to do as part of his study is the same thing, and he said no. The fMRI would be better. Hmmmm. 

Funny thing is this: #25 had mentioned performing a fMRI a few years ago, them he changed his mind because "nobody would read the paper". Fuck papers! This is about getting my life back, not about papers.

So I figured Mysticdoc had earned his $40 and I paid him (love that they leave space for a tip!) and allowed him to move on.  I declined to leave a deposit against any future questions I might want answered. No free money from me!

 

Then I thought some more: You know,  with the discounts many HMOs and other insurance companies negotiate, a regular visit doctor visit probably pays about the same as one of these internet consultations, but with much higher overhead (offices, staff, insurance). So for the doctors, doctortution is quite a good gig. They can hang out at home in their jammies, with one eye on the telly, picking and choosing which questions to take, getting paid directly for their time.  It's not a bad deal for them. And it answered the question I had when I first saw the site: Expecting people fresh out of med school, I had been surprised to see some of the doctors lurking sported lots of qualifications and years of experience.  I guess if you are a doctor, this  is a handy way to use your qualifications part-time to top up the old income: You know, pay the country club fees, alimony  and your daughter's speeding tickets.

Is doctortution a good thing?

I don't know. I think it is an interesting development in the healthcare system, and it satisfies our need for instant gratification. Of course, an Internet doctortute is no substitute for an actual physical examination or for someone's regular doctor and -needless to say- doctortutes can only advise, not diagnose or prescribe. But I think, as a fresh and unbiased set of eyes  on a case, doctortutes might have their (limited) use. I know my experience has spurred me to go find a new neurologist, a seizure expert this time.

I'm losing count, but I think this will be #31. Maybe that will be the charm?

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...

An Open Letter to Martin J. Wygod, Head of WebMD

Dear Mr. Wygod.

Sorry to take you away from your racehorses, but I tried to go through normal WebMD channels and my e-mails have remained unanswered.  Then I tried to find the CEO of WebMD, but there is none. Nor is there a head of advertising or public relations. Therefore I went to the holding company, HLTH Inc, and I could find no-one there who seemed to have a descriptive title ("member of the board of directors" doesn't really cover it). And so I decided in desperation, to address this to you. You are after all, the acting CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors, so the buck stops with you.

It's a straightforward question:

Why does WebMD allow filthy scammers to advertise on the site?

What do you mean you don't and it's against your advertising policy?   You DO and  -maybe you don't know this, because maybe it happened in the lower management echelons, but your advertising policy is specifically designed to allow it to happen.  There is a humungous loop hole built right in. So I know HOW you have filthy scammers advertising on WebMD  (and I will explain how later for the benefit my other readers who may not have noticed).  But please, Mr Wygood,  tell me WHY it happens?  Do you need the money so badly?  Does WebMD get so much money from Yahoo for each "click" a scammer receives through this loophole in policy, that the company would fold without it?

Do you make so much money from supporting scammers that you are willing to risk the reputation of WebMD? Because -trust me, that is what you are doing.  All those editors and reviewers. All the medical boards and MDs and other people who work so hard to put out good and accurate content are made to look like idiots because the first link in a search will go to a scam site selling "miracle cures" for serious and fatal illnesses such as Multiple Systems Atrophy.  All in total violation of your very excellent advertising policy,  which prohibits such practices and which has as a closing statement, the following line

No Advertising will be allowed on the WebMD Network that could injure the good name or reputation of WebMD or the WebMD Site.

Um. You have this, this, this, this and this company directly advertising on WebMD, tucked right in there under the logo so that lovely sentiment is a FAIL.

You see,  There is a little paragraph higher up in the advertising policy that reads like this (excerpt)

"...As described in the "Ads by Yahoo" hyper link in the Ads by Yahoo section on our Search pages, these "Ads by Yahoo" are listings that have been purchased by companies that want to have links to their sites appear adjacent to search results in response to specific terms. WebMD may receive payment from Yahoo in connection with displaying the sponsored link results..."

Sooo. "Ads by Yahoo" is a separate deal, not covered by the advertising policy that prohibits miracle cures or false claims and a bunch of other stuff the scammers do.  

Here is the "Ads By Yahoo" policy... -actually it's more of a disclaimer:

"Ads by Yahoo!" are paid advertisements. These advertisements have been purchased by companies that want to have links to their sites appear in WebMD’s search results when you search on specific words or phrases on WebMD. These advertisements are administered, sorted, and maintained by Yahoo! and are displayed on the WebMD site. WebMD may receive payment from Yahoo! when you click on any of these advertisement links. The advertisements have not been reviewed for accuracy, objectivity, or balance by the physicians or editorial staff at WebMD and are not endorsed by either WebMD or Yahoo!

So in theory, I could pay to advertise kiddie porn on WebMD (not that I would) using "Ads By Yahoo", and neither WebMD  nor Yahoo would do a darn thing.  -OK maybe Kiddie porn is taking it too far because that is overtly, rather than covertly illegal. But I could claim a bogus herbal remedy for ...say Motor Neuron Disease (hello, ALS) that gives "results within Days" and that would be allowed.  You think not? Well, here is Exhibit A:

   

 The three circled sites are all scams.

The bottom one; that 'results within days' one that I mentioned?  Well, that particular advertisement is from Healing Plants Ltd, a scam operation that was outed before here on OSM.  Healing Plants have both direct and indirect advertisements on WebMD. The direct version is seen as an example above (they have around 60 bogus products for different diseases, and yes. Several more of them are on WebMD). The indirect ones are in the form of bogus comparison sites that point people to Healing Plants or to two or three other -even worse- "'guaranteed treatments";  some of which contain strychnine, mercury, arsenic or ground-up hairballs.

...all available a few short clicks away from WebMD.  Are you proud to see your life's work exploited so?

Another thing I have found -a little flaw in your site design, is that "Ads by Yahoo!" has a smarter matching engine than you. So if you mistype something, you get no WebMD results, but their ads are all there, nicely listed. Most people will probably just click on the nearest ad, cutting out WebMD altogether.

 
(As you can see here: four out of the six "Ads by Yahoo!" results are scams. Man-problems are very popular with the scammers)

Mr. Wygod, I have demonstrated using  your own text and screenshots that WebMD supports scammers and is paid to do so.  I have to ask you out straight:  Is this policy deliberate or an oversight?  I can't help but think it is deliberate, as the policy was so carefully structured to protect the Yahoo stream; -which is the one on which all the scammers enter WebMD- from your rigid advertising policy. And yet there they are, plain as day, looking for all the world to the casual observer (which most are) as if they are legitimate and endorsed by you.

Now I have to ask, did you know about this policy?  I can't believe you did. I can't believe you would allow that to happen. Not because I think you are so wonderful or anything -I don't know you at all (except for what I have read here), but because I think you are a good businessman, and a policy like that on a site like WebMD is simply bad business. It is undermining the entire brand for a series of "clicks" which are probably worth a fraction of a penny apiece.  And I know WebMD doesn't get most of its revenue from advertising, anyway. So to  jeopardize the entire franchise for the sake of  pennies is just dumb.

So this is the situation you have on your hands right now: WebMD is supporting scammers to the following effect:

• It looks like WebMD is endorsing these scam sites and products (and several of my readers who were fooled, actually said it was because the referral site was a legitimate one, such as yours)
• It allows these criminals to make money off of sick and desperate people on the back of (and to the detriment of) WebMD's reputation.
• Some of the products are harmful, so some people may be hurt by them, when they came to WebMD for help. Theoretically, -despite all your disclaimers, WebMD could be open to a lawsuit if this happened.

I am urging you to please put a process in place that performs better due diligence on the type of companies advertising on WebMD through "Ads by Yahoo!" and similar feeds.  I can provide a pretty comprehensive list of the scammers I know about (I am sure there are plenty that I have missed). Actually, the lists are here on this site,  under the "scams" section, but I can provide it in a better format -in any format you like.

I don't expect a direct answer from you. I didn't get one when I went to customer service, despite the friendly little box that said they would get back to me in two business days, so I know you won't respond. But even if you don't respond you will be responding: Your response will show in the WebMD site. I predict that you will do either one of the following

1. Nothing
2.  Remove all the scam ads
3. Leave the "Ads by Yahoo!" feed untouched, but with a more visible disclaimer thereon.

I hope  you  do the right thing and choose Option #2; -but I have to tell you (and you can color me cynical), my money is on #3.

BTW: If you need help identifying the scammers, I was serious in my offer to help.  My e-mail is linked on the top left-hand corner of this site.

Sincerely

One Sick Mother

Gardasil, The First Frankenvaccine

A friend, a young lady of college age,  recently posted a link to this video on her Facebook page.  It is the story of Gabrielle Swank, who has become very ill after receiving her third Gardasil vaccination.  Aside from the obvious impact such a story would have on anyone; two particular aspects of it struck me very hard:

1. Many Of Gabrielle's symptoms are very similar to mine; although hers are  more severe and sudden in onset.  I checked out some other stories and a similar list of symptoms emerges.  Hmmmm.
2. My daughter, Grace is nine years old. Very soon, I will face the Gardasil decision on her behalf. (Ugh)

 

So I decided to investigate Gardasil. Like you do. And to share my findings with you.  Because there is a lot here and it is interesting, while at the same time; kind of scary:

The first thing I found out is this: Gardasil is the very first of a new breed of vaccine, which is manufactured by a completely different process than traditional vaccines have been.  There are two new vaccines in a similar vein racing through the FDA as we speak: Cervarix, by GSK, another HPV vaccine and a direct competitor of Gardasil, and a new H1N1 "swine flu" vaccine by Novavax.

Hello, Big Red flag!

Traditional vaccines are made using a live virus, which you then put into the embryo of a developing hen's egg. You leave it for three days for the embryo to develop  some more, replicating furiously and making new virus as it goes. Then you crack the egg,  extract the virus, kill or disable it so it won't cause the actual disease, clean off the bits of dead chick, and voila!  One single vaccine dose!  So you can't make a vaccine without breaking some eggs. (idle thought: Do vegans get vaccinated?  Hmmmm.)

Here is a video explaining the process.

There are several problems with this method: It is slow, labor intensive, expensive and is very dependent on the supply of chickens/eggs.  Apparently they prefer to use young hens in their first laying season, then they "sacrifice" them before the next virus season, presumably rearing a batch of their offspring as a replacement. ('nother idle thought: You know, reading all this, I wondered how they would make an avian flu vaccine? What if the flock got infected with the bird flu virus? ...Or would that be a good thing, and save the trouble of introducing the virus to the eggs artificially?).

The Gardisil vaccine is made using a brand new process -long overdue-  using something called VLPs, which stands for virus-like particles.   I know, right:   WTF is a virus-like particle?  Well it is a fancy,  state-of-the art piece of genetic engineering.

Best as I can understand; it works like this (this is my over-simplified and somewhat over-dramatized version, but it is not entirely inaccurate):

You take a virus, remove it's brains, and then put it in a little bath of yeast and nutrients. The virus will reconstitute itself into something mute that looks and walks and like a virus, but isn't technically a virus anymore. Therefore the name "Virus-Like particle".  

 

I prefer to think of it as a Frankenvirus.  

 

With the brains removed, the Frankenvirus  cannot cause that specific illness,
but it can still reproduce  (similar to  many man I know, no brains, but ready to reproduce with anybody not fast enough to get away)!  And so it does just that, merrily making more Frankenviruses without the lab needing to use any hen's eggs at all (and I bet all the vegans reading this are heaving a HUGE sigh of relief and queuing up to get Fraknenvirus injections...).

Because VLPs -or Frankenviruses as I now prefer to call them (it is less cold) LOOK very similar on the outside, the human body reacts to them as it would to a regular virus, generating antibodies and therefore immunity to the original virus. Apparently the process can be further tweaked, adding bells and whistles in the form of protein coatings that may trigger different immune responses in the "host" -which is the drug company's preferred term for "person" in this scenario (it is more cold).

Frankenvaccines are believed to be safer than traditional live or killed vaccines because there is no way they can inadvertently cause the illness for which they were designed. This all sounds very well and good.

But what about causing NEW illnesses?  Did anyone think to check that one out?  -Before Gardasil went into mass production on our next generation of mothers, I mean?

Yes, there were clinical trials, but this is brand new technology. There have been NO long-term trials -intended to be run "post-marketing" (i.e. we'll inject it into all of your little girls and let's see what happens!).  I wonder how many parents were informed that the Gardisil vaccine that was being injected into their daughters was the very first product in a brand new generation of vaccine technology? Because that is information I would want to know, and I think I have a right to know it before I am guilted into making a snap decision in the pediatrician's office

 As a former software person, I know that  "version 1" of any product is usually loaded with bugs (pun intended). Every person in my business knows that you have to get to at least version 3 before they get most of the glitches out of the software. So generally, we install our new code on our colleague's computers befire our own (Really. it's mean, but we make an excuse and we do it).

The big th 
ing about new software code (and presumably new vaccines and Frankenviruses), is that they may work just fine in the lab, but you never know what kind of conditions they may encounter out in the real world. W hen you release them into the world, there can be all sorts of actions, reactions and interactions with other entities and other ...stuff that you could not possibly have predicted under lab conditions.

...not to mention the long-term effects, which have not been studied at all.  

 

 

 

Eventually, we iron out all the little glitches and we release a cleaned-up and safe product in version two or three.

 

 

 

 

Did the FDA, the doctors or ANYONE warn patients or parents that Gardasil is a 'version 1.0' -not just of a vaccine, but of a whole new technology and  processing methodology?  If anyone has been offered this vaccine, I would appreciate them letting me know if they were told this (thanks).

 

OK now to completely change the subject back to me for just a second.

I have been told I might have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).  This was based on the fact that my system contains an abnormal number of antibodies against a virus. In my case, it is Epstein-Barr, but other cases of CFS have been linked to the HPV viruses.  I was very struck by the fact -as I mentioned earlier, that many of the people who got sick after the Gardasil shot had very similar symptoms to mine. Scarily similar.

And this got me thinking -funnily enough (in light of earlier descriptions)- of chickens and eggs:  Namely can CFS or a similar illness be caused by an immune response, rather than a viral infection?  In other words, could a Frankenvirus, which cannot cause illness in itself, cause a different kind of illness by triggering an unexpected immune response in some individuals?

Good question, no?  I wonder if anyone with any actual say in these matters has asked it?

..and I also wonder if IVIG or similar might help some of those girls and women who have had their lives destroyed by Gardasil?

Another big question surrounding Gardasil and other FrankenVaccines, -quite apart from the Frankenviruses therein, are the other additives, called  adjuvants, which are  chemicals added to the vaccine, supposedly to make the virus more effective.  The main one used in Gardasil is approximately 225 mcg of aluminum (as Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate adjuvant).  There have been many questions raised in the medical community, asking if this additive is really necessary?  The Frankenvirus has been shown to work perfectly fine without it.

Gardasil is not the only HPV Frankenvaccine out there. Cervarix, which is GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) version, has been approved for use in the UK and parts of Europe. Cervarix only contains two Frankenviruses, (as opposed to Gardasil's four) but  GSK have been bragging hugely about their adjuvant,  known as AS04, saying it provoked an even better (i.e. stronger) immune response than Merck's boring old aluminum salt.

'scuse me, but is that a good thing?  Just how much immune response can a body take before it goes into overdrive or starts to shut down?

The one death which had  initially  been linked to  Cevarix, now turns out not to have been linked at all. The 14yo English girl who died had undiagnosed cancer, which had become quite widespread. OK fair enough, but I still think the shot thing was probably a bit more than a coincidence. What else had changed with her?

I don't want to create mass panic here.  I know millions of girls and women have received the Gardasil shot and been fine.

So far. 

But is their long-term health being monitored?  How many have gone on to have babies?  How ha  v  e those babies been?  Really. Enquiring minds want to know: 

What are the long-term effects of Frankenvaccines?

There have been thousands of serious adverse events reported and several deaths have been attrib  uted to Gardasil. I don't think the FDA is looking at this as anything more than just another vaccine. I don't think the FDA has said to itself (as I would if I were in charge) "This is the very first in a brand new generation of vaccine technology and processes. We think we'll follow it up more closely than if it were a traditional vaccine".  No.  The FDA, the CDC, the AMA and everyone looking at the cost of cervical cancer treatment and are pushing hard for us to have our little girls injected with this stuff -which -let's face it- is to prevent against a sexually transmitted disease (it is NOT a cervical cancer vaccine. It is a HPV vaccine. Yes, HPV can and does cause cervical cancers, but HPV is transmitted sexually. How many NINE YEAR OLD GIRLS -other than the abused- are sexually active?).

Several things need to change : The FDA needs to instigate some kind of process to more actively monitor and follow up on brand new technology such as genetically engineered viruses and proprietary adjuvants. Currently, they only audit every two years. I would be more comfortable with every six months in cases like these.   Sorry if that's a lot of extra work on an already-stretched agency, but the public needs to be protected.

But instead, the FDA is pushing through more and more Frankenvaccines. Cevarix is set to be approved any day now and a new H1N1 Frankenvaccine, developed by Novavax in Maryland, is being watched with interest. They were the first to put a swine flu Frankenvirus together after the CDC released the sequence, taking less than a month to do it. This is impressive and could change the whole face of the industry.

But at what potential human cost?

Frankenvaccines  have only been in production for three years. They have NOT BEEN FULLY TESTED. The pharmacutical industry is forging ahead nonetheless. I did a little search on VLP patents which are in development or approved:

Over 3,800 of them, including at least one for HIV.

None of this is bad in itself. it would be great to have a safe and effective vaccine against HIV.   However,  I am reminded of the whole Thimerosal thing in the 90s, where vaccines were tested and approved individually, with no thought given to the overall load of virus and chemicals injected into tiny babies. This meant that many babies were injected with mercury at many times the adult recommended levels, because most of the vaccines contained it and no-one had done the math on the cumulative levels (It sounds unbelievable, but it is true. This is the kind of shit the FDA routinely overlooks).

Who is studying potential Frankenvaccine cumulative load and interactions with other Frankenvaccines, I wonder...?

I remember the 90s and it seems to me the whole Frankenvaccine issue - as it is currently playing out, has a much greater potential for interactions and adverse long-term effects than anyone in the pharmaceutical companies or the agencies that are supposed to regulate them are letting on.

So I won't be giving my kids a Frankenvaccine anytime soon.  -especially in light of my own health problems. I already have some of the reported side-effects of Gardasil already, possibly due to my immune response to a different (non franken-) virus. 

What if whatever I have is genetic?

Therefore, Grace will be "one less" person getting Gardasil.

 

Scammer Spammer Targets OSM!

Now, you'd think a medical scammer would know better than to target my site -of all places, but apparently not. This is a new twist on an old problem, so I thought I'd mention it.  And if it continues, I may have to implement comment moderation, although I don't want to do that.

I have been getting comments -apparently legitimate ones, from "generic viagra" which then links back to a site,  which I won't mention here (I don't want to give them any business), but it is a scam site for ...well, ...generic Viagra (it looks good, but anything that says "no prescription needed" for Viagra, Cialis or Levitra is a scam. You need a prescription for all of these drugs).

I have bitched a lot about TypePad in the past, but credit where it is due: TypePad does a really good job of thwarting the spambots and if not, of catching spam comments. Most of the generic Viagra and Cialis spams are caught and disposed of instantly.

But a few were getting through. I kept deleting these comments and blocking the IP addresses, but still they came. Like I said: they sound semi-legit. There was a comment to my Rare Disease Day post that sounded like the spammer had actually read the post and they asked a very relevant question.  But the commenter was linked back to the scam site, so I deleted the comment (I wish now that I had at least saved a copy).

Yesterday, I had finally had enough, so in frustration I e-mailed the spammer and asked them to stop.  I got a reply back from someone with a female name.

"I'm sorry!!!!! ...really! is work. so sorry!!"

So I figure some poor woman in impoverished circumstances in some third-world country is being paid to leave comments on the medical blogs. And if there is one, I'm sure there are more.

Mother of God! Are there no depths too low for these people? 

It got me thinking though: There must be huge money in online scamming, if the scammers are setting up shop to pay people to manually spam the sites. Spambots and automatic e-mail scams are much cheaper to implement. A competent programmer could write the code in a few days. But this is a whole 'nother level of comittment that I hadn't anticipated. 

...and how's this for irony: *I* now feel guilty for telling the poor third-world lady off, because I figure she is probably only trying to put food on the table. Or maybe she is a Grade-A liar sitting in her air-conditioned mega-mansion, which was built on the misery of others, and she is THAT good.

You just can't tell online.

Mad, eh?

Something Smells Fishy

I was rummaging through the medicine cupboard (outgrew a 'cabinet' long ago!) and a pack of Zicam nasal swabs fell down and hit me on the head.

 

Oops! thought I to meself. I forgot this was here. I need to throw it out.

But before I did, I decided to check on the current status. Has Zicam actually been recalled yet?  Because the last time I checked (which was some months ago), people were complaining that Zicam had caused them to lose their sense of smell, and the manufacturer of Zicam, Matrixx Initiatives, was pushing back pretty hard, saying it was perfectly safe and the hundreds of complainants were all making it up.

Around that time, I got quite engrossed with the unearthing all the herbal remedy scams I had found and I stopped following the Zicam stuff. I actually forgot about it until one fell on my head.

(Hello, Mr Newton)

So it turns out, I had stopped following the story right before the FDA stepped in. Sometimes the FDA, being big and lumbersome, is a bit slow to respond.  Anyhoo, the FDA set a letter to Matrixx, telling them to cease manufacture of three products, and on the same day, they issued a consumer warning about the same three Zicam products. The following is only an excerpt:

On June 16, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned consumers to stop using and discard three zinc-containing Zicam intranasal products. The products may cause a loss of sense of smell.

Intranasal products are administered through the nose.

What products are affected by this warning?
FDA's action affects Zicam’s three intranasal products that contain zinc. The three Zicam products claim to reduce the duration of the common cold and the severity of cold symptoms.

The products (listed with their size and product numbers) are

• Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel (15mL, NDC 62750-003-10)
• Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs (20 swabs, NDC 67250-003-20)
• Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs, Kids Size (20 swabs, NDC 67250-003-21)...

...Why did FDA take action?
The agency has received more than 130 reports of anosmia—the loss of sense of smell—associated with use of these three Zicam products.

So yes, I should officially throw out that Zicam. And unlike my secret (and dwindling) stash of VIOXX, I actually will.

But I still had some questions about how Matrixx Initiatives have handled this whole incident and continue to handle it. They did not immediately recall the product when the complaints first started. Instead they waited until AFTER the FDA sent them a letter TELLING them to withdraw the product. And even then, they were protesting all the way!  See this story from US News, particularly their response to the writer's e-mail.

And on their website, in the Frequently Asked Questions page, there is this little gem (the question is "what research has Zicam done to show that its Cold Remedy nasal products do not cause loss of smell?")

The safety of Zicam Cold Remedy is substantiated with multiple studies:

(1)    An epidemiological study demonstrates that three of the most common conditions associated with anosmia are the common cold, sinusitis, and nasal injury.  This population study in 3.7 million patients demonstrated statistically significant associations between anosmia and numerous medical conditions and multiple classes of drugs.  These factors confound any attempt to attribute an association of anosmia with Zicam Cold Remedy zinc gluconate nasal gel.

(2)    Anatomic and behavioral data obtained in animal studies showed no detrimental effects on smell associated with single doses of Zicam intranasal zinc gluconate gel equivalent to between three and 6x the recommended dose for humans.  Even at doses up to 15x the recommended dose, little or no effect to detect odors was uncovered.

(3)    Human in vivo and cadaver studies using our dosage form and nasal pump delivery device confirmed that Zicam intranasal zinc gluconate gel does not reach the upper area of the nasal cavity where smell reception occurs.

(4)    Four peer-reviewed clinicals of intranasal zinc gluconate gel products showed no difference in olfactory function between the treated and placebo subsets.

...and another answer to an FAQ (in response to a "frequently" asked question about the "unpecedented" FDA action:

We believe it is unfair for any Federal agency to take the kind of precipitous action it took against the company in a situation like this.  Had it talked with us, we would have shared with this regulatory body the compelling data and information showing that Zicam Nasal Gel and Gel Swabs are not unsafe.

WHAT? 

As I brought it up already, let's look at the VIOXX recall in comparison to this one: Merck noted in their OWN data that there was a small chance that VIOXX caused heart problems, so it voluntarily recalled the product first, then told the FDA and everyone else. Even though this decision probably cost them billions of dollars, they did the right thing. I don't usually have much good to say about Big Pharma, but I have to hand it to Merck here. They realized there was a chance that  people were being hurt by the product, and they did the right thing. They put people and reputation before money. ..and yes, OK: They probably thought it might avert some lawsuits (It probably didn't. This is America, people).

Unfortunately, the FDA needs to rely on manufacturers to do the right thing. They have limited resources, so they can only audit every two years.  If a problem is noted right AFTER an FDA audit, there is two-year window before the FDA will find it (unless complaints direct from the public or medical community start flooding in). Therefore, the FDA needs to rely on the decency of the drug companies to report issues, because most people and doctors who find a problem with the drug will report it to the drug company first, and may not report it to anyone else. As I pointed out before, Many people -particularly consumers- don't know they can report directly to the FDA and many doctors won't bother -particularly as Zicam requires no prescription.

So, this is directly to Matrixx Initiatives about their whining: The FDA took this action because they had no choice. You were not only ignoring the complaints, you were trying to dispute them. The FDA had to step in to protect people (and children -there was a children's version on that list!) because you refused to.

And now you have the nerve to whine about it? 

Grow up!

But I'm not finished. Here is another little gem from Zicam's FAQ page. This in response to a question about consumer complaints being withheld from the FDA:

Matrixx has always cooperated fully with the FDA, willingly shared all information requested by the FDA, and fully complied with its understanding of the FDA’s regulations. Any reports to the contrary are simply not true. As required by FDA regulations, Matrixx has always maintained detailed records of all consumer complaints and followed up with them. In the past four years the FDA has conducted two audits of the company, most recently in May 2009. During each audit, Matrixx made available to the FDA all adverse event complaints received by the company, along with complaint trends. These included all consumer complaints alleging loss or diminishment of the sense of smell.

Let's read between the lines here, and remove some of the spin.

...and fully complied with its understanding of the FDA’s regulations

Translation: we didn't KNOW we had to report adverse reactions to the FDA (yeah, right)

As required by FDA regulations, Matrixx has always maintained detailed records of all consumer complaints and followed up with them.

...but not actually SHARED them with anyone, like other consumers or the FDA.

In the past four years the FDA has conducted two audits of the company, most recently in May 2009. During each audit, Matrixx made available to the FDA all adverse event complaints received by the company

OK that makes sense, the FDA audits biannually. The timing is very interesting here, don't you think? The FDA audits them in May '09, then issues the warning in June '09.  Why?  Because Matrixx didn't report the adverse complaints voluntarily, that's why. Instead, they waited for the FDA to go in there and find them.

Let's just imagine the scene:

FDA Guy:  "hey, Mr. Matrixx Executive, What's in this folder tucked in here at the back of the drawer?"

Matrixx Executive (breezily):  "Oh that's nothing.  Just some positive consumer feedback.  ...er.  Have you any plans for the weekend?"

FDA G.: "Well let's take a look." (starts to remove the folder and open it)

M. E.:  "No!" (starts to move towards the FDA guy, hand outstretched to take the folder, thinks better of it, stops and clasps hands awkwardly) ...it ...it's nothing really..."  (sees the FDA guys face) Oh. You mean THAT folder?  The red one? That's the complaints folder. I was just about to show it to you..."

FDA guy: (scanning the contents) "Some of these are pretty serious. Loss of smell? How come I have no record of these?"

M.E. "but we followed up with all of the customers. We're not supposed to tell you about this stuff, are we?   I thought that.. I mean, well... (claps hands, smiles, attempts lightheartedness; -fails) ...you know about it now!

...Hang on a tick. I need the bathroom..."

(Matrixx executive rushes from the room, looking ill. However, he heads towards the CEO's office, in the opposite direction of the bathroom)

(I should write for (bad) TV. My friend AM always said it.)

And so the FDA action was taken.

One might wonder why Matrixx were so reluctant to report this adverse data and recall the products. Well the answer is very easy: Money. Have a look at their stock price. 

June 15th: $19:24
June 16th: $05.78.

Note that the volume spiked hugely too, in what was obviously an enormous selloff.

If I take into account that MTXX now have about 9.46 million shares out there,  we can estimate that the company was devalued by approximately $127 million dollars in one day in the US alone. (there are at least two other listings on other exchanges, but I didn't check them. I am pretty confident the Matrixx stock price didn't rise anywhere in June).

That's $127,000,000.00.  Just in the US.

Ouch.

So unlike Merck, Matrixx put money before people or reputation.  But you know, I bet if they had done the right thing, they would have lost less money. In fact, as a former Wall Streeter, I can almost guarantee it.  believe it or not, the market does actually take notice of things like corporate responsibility.

Speaking of corporate responsibility: I noticed when researching the stock price stuff that there was a change in principal officer. Great!  I thought They are cleaning house. But no. Instead they are promoting the guy who was acting helmsman at the time of the FDA action, to official helmsman.

Nice.

I have now decided not only to throw out the nasal swabs. But I will also throw out the (not-recalled)  Zicam tablets I got for the kids, too.

I'd rather deal with a cold than use their product

P.S. I had to laugh: When spellchecking this piece, the spellchecker, which did not recognise "Zicam" as a word, kept suggesting "Scam" as the alternative! 

P.P.S. Matrixx have until Sept 15th to respond to a class-action lawsuit (the first?) Let's watch the stock price then, shall we? 

Just for a laugh...

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.

Why I Care

As most people who have read this site for more than three seconds will know, I have directed a lot of my time and energy to tracking down and outing scammers.  My ultimate goal is to shut these guys down, which is proving a lot more difficult than it should.

Why is it so hard?

Multiple reasons. For one, the Internet isn't a place. So who has jurisdiction on the Internet?

No-one.

Different countries have jurisdiction over their own "bit" of the Internet (and their own rules regarding it). There is some international co-operation regarding Internet use for very serious stuff, such as child pornography rings or human / human organ trafficking.  However, something as relatively "minor" as healthcare scams is way down the list of priorities for these guys.

So we look at the local enforcers.  Let's imagine a hypothetical situation:

Say you live in New Jersey and buy a product from a company that claims to be based in Norway. The product never arrives or doesn't work. Who do you contact?  The company. If they don't respond, to whom do you then turn? The FDA?  They won't get you your money back and they don't regulate supplements. Also, the company was based in Norway, right?  So the FDA will probably tell you to contact whoever in Norway regulates these guys.

Buy you don't happen speak or write Norwegian.

Nonetheless, you persevere and contact the Norwegian peeps, who do have English speakers on hand. They do a pretty rudimentary investigation on your missing $90, which is small potatoes to them, tell you that no such company as Oslo Health Solutions is registered in Norway, regardless what the internet says. But a search they did on the domain registration points to a US Domain site. You need to contact the US authorities.

You contact the US authorities with the domain information you got from the Norwegian folks. The US people check and they say the the US domain registration is a holding site, masking the real domain (many registration sites will offer this service). However, because the company who scammed you is based in Norway (or maybe Pakistan, from whence the dodgy product arrived), but not in the US, they have no grounds on which to investigate the real domain information. You need to go back to the Norwegians.

So you contact the Norwegians (again) and they insist that the domain company is a US one, and they have no jurisdiction. You need to contact the US authorities.

And so you are stuck.  You just went in a great big circle to end up precisely nowhere. For someone with a chronic health condition, this is probably familiar territory after dealing with the medical world.  But "familiar" does not mean "good".

So to whom do you turn?  Your credit card company. They are global too, and they will fight to get you back your money.

And so you eventually get back your money and you go on your way. 

However, no complaint has been registered that stuck, so the scammers are free to defraud indefinitely. 

But OSM. I hear you say  The imaginary person got their money back. So why do you care about all of this?

I care because the primary issue here isn't about the money. It's about the exploitation and mistreatment of sick people.

I care because people have their hopes raised (and you know how I feel about hope) and then dashed by callous predatory subhumans.

I care because if I don't care, and don't try to do something, it won't stop. More and more people will have their hopes raised and dashed.

I care because someone is profiting from their pain and desperation.

I care because the longer I do this, the less these medical conditions are lists of unpronounceable words, and the more they are associated with real people with real lives and families. Like:

• My friend, whose son has Muscular Dystrophy
• My stepmother, who has Rheumatoid Arthritis
• Stephen Deal, who also has MD
• Elizabeth, who has MSA
• Blake, who has SMA
• Janice who suffers very badly with Syringomyelia
• My friend Betsy who had Pseudotumor Cerebri
• The woman from whom we bought this house, who had Parkinson's Disease
• My friend's ex, who had Bell's Palsy
• Another friend's child, who was born with severe Cerebral Palsy and requires 24/7 care
• Another friend who has alopcea, which has impacted his self-esteem for years
• My great-aunt Nora, who went blind from Glaucoma

...and then all the people who have contacted me because they were scammed or almost scammed:

• A lady  in England with painful ganglion
• A man whose girlfriend has been blinded by Retinitis Pigmentosa
• A woman in Australia who has Melasma
• A man in Europe whose girlfriend has narcolepsy, and who has bad side effects from the conventional drugs used to treat it
• A man with Myasthenia Gravis in the States
• a very nice person -not sure wherefrom, who e-mailed me to ask me if I had any information on Scleroderma treatment, as the one product which had seemed to show promise had been outed as a scam by me.

There are many, many more.

So to me now, when I see these scams operating, I don't see words on a screen. I see my stepmother's hands, Or Elizabeth's vivid imagery. I see my friend pushing her son in a wheelchair, turning away from the Memorial Day parade because she cannot look at so many able-bodied kids parading down the main drag, while hers is the only one in town in a wheelchair.

I see evil, money-grubbing, bastards preying on and playing with my friends.

Behind these long disease names and behind every one of the links, there are real people with real challenges, who have to face each day and carry on. I care about that. I care about them, which is why I won't rest until the scammers are shut down,

The really sad thing is this: 

I seem to be the only one who cares this much.

Those Little Things We Say....

My sister had five children in as many years. So for several years,  her house was like some kind of cross between a daycare, a zoo, and an asylum. For most of these years, I lived in a different country so my main communication with her was over the phone.

So there we would be on the phone, chatting normally, when suddenly I would be deafened as my sis would break up a fight or something. Here is an example of what our phone conversations were like for several years.

Sis "...well, there he was, standing all alone, so I wen... GET OFF HIS HEAD!!!  YOU'LL HURT HIM(?)  GET OFF HIS HEAD NOW!!!  ...t over to him and sai...  LET GO OF HIS TAIL!!! NOW! HE'LL BITE YOU!!!  LET GO!!  RIGHT NOW!!! ...d "are you lost, luvvy?  Do you need me to help you find your mum?"

Yes. I was lost. And somewhat deaf in one ear.

I thought, after listening to my sis for years, that I was somewhat prepared for the kinds of things you say when you have kids. I also made sure I had a cordless phone and many handsets, which definitely cuts down on the yelling aspect (In fairness: my sis didn't actually yell that much normally, but while on the phone back then, she was tied to one location).

Today, as I found myself calmly telling Grace "don't suck the cat's blood" I realized that yes, there are definitely some phrases that pop out of my mouth; some combinations of words that I NEVER thought I would say in that order, and it makes me shake my head. Or smile. Usually both.  And sometimes the things I say make me wonder if I have been transported into some kind of bizarro world, or am somehow the star of my very own "Truman show"?  The "cat's blood" thing was totally innocuous, BTW. They were playing a vampire game, and poor George had been designated a 'victim'.

Now, I had expected some strange expressions to come out of my mouth. Here are a few I had expected (and got):

• We don't bring worms/ bugs/ snails/ dead birds into the house"
• We don't run out into traffic
• We don't threaten to kill our sister/brother.
• We don't pick the neighbour's flowers, not even as a gift for Mom.
• We don't go visiting the neighbours without permission (Grace)
• No. You may not drive the car
• See! I TOLD you Teddy can't go in the bath!
• This is what happens when you don't put your gum in the trash!

...and then some things I NEVER thought I would ever hear myself say; especially not in the calm, matter-of-fact voice I perfected about a year or so after Joe's special needs became apparent.

• We don't growl at friends/ strangers/ anybody
• We don't attack other kid's moms (/dads) in the zoo  ...Or anywhere, for that matter.
• We keep our clothes and shoes on in the restaurant, please
• We don't sniff the pizza delivery guy
• We don't tunnel behind the boxes on the supermarket shelf  (I distinctly remember wondering where Joe was, and then when looking down the aisle, I watched a progression of cereal boxes fall off the shelf, one after another, away from me, allowing me to track his progress down the back of the shelf. He was pretty fast! There was a long line of boxes by the time I got to him.)
• Do you always pick on disabled four-year olds? Or have you waited your whole life to meet your intellectual equal? (this to a man in K-mart, who was being mean to Joe.  ...and that one wasn't said in a calm voice!)
• Please don't sniff the food you are given in Kyle's house. His mom's feeling might be hurt.
• What show is that from? (this in response to a clearly echolalic utterance) 
• You need to tell people who you are when you call them on the regular phone. it's not like Skype.  They can't see you.
• No sweetheart. Zombies won't get into the house while we are sleeping. The alarm is set.
• I know the guy was fat, but you can't say that to his face.  You have to use other words, like 'big" ... better yet: Don't mention it at all...

...and there are a few non-parenting-related  phrases I never thought I would hear myself utter, either.

• "Don't call 911. It's only been 40 minutes" (since the seizure began) Don't try that one at home, kids.
• "I think we can get it back in. Just pull my arm straight out -don't twist, whatever you do.  On my count..."

I'm sure there are many more, but I can hear the kids start to get wild in the background, and I suspect I will have to go and use some of my phrases in a minute.

What about you?  Are there any particular phrases you never thought you would use that stand out in your mind?

Towards Natural Health: Scam

Do you know where the expression "Let the cat out of the bag" came from? 

Well, it came from the practice in Old England of selling piglets in a bag (i.e. "a pig in a poke") at the market or fair. Sometimes, people would buy a piglet only to find when they got home that the wriggling animal inside the bag was actually a worthless cat. So if you were wise, you would open the bag before you hand over any money and  "let the cat out of the bag". That is, you would reveal the scam.

Many pig sellers would leave the pig's tail sticking out of the bag, so you would know it was a piglet and not a cat. However, in a less well-known variation on the old scam, some unscrupulous bastards would cut off the piglets' tails and tie them onto bags, which each contained a cat.

So there was a 'level II' on the pig scam, if you like.

I see Towards Natural Health as a Level II internet scam.  They went through all the trouble to cut the tails off the poor piggies. But it is still a freaking scam; albeit a much prettier one than some the previous scams uncovered here on OSM.  And  keeping in a porcine vein, the expression "putting lipstick on a pig" very much comes to mind here.

Here is an example of one of their sites:

 

 

Wait a sec: To get the full impact you have to load it. Click here and come right back

It's really gorgeous lipstick,  isn't it?  The zooming graphics, the spinning-around globe thingy, the leaves, the starry things, the slick "shick" sound when you roll over a menu item, the persuasive language (although I am never sure what might "suite" me best.  A bathroom installed on my ass, perhaps...?), all the links that they post... 

But look at those links again. Notice they are all general. There are never specific links to the actual condition for which you seek relief. The links are the pig's tail.

Don't be fooled: It's a scam.  They try to cover their asses  by saying things like "This particular website is aimed at helping Motor Neuron Disease patients..."  I guess if you happen to come across the exact same site for ...say Grave's Disease, or one of the 62 or so other sites that I have found (so far), they think their asses are covered.  

Now, unlike SPAH, or Herbal Product Reviews, which are identical scams to this one; Towards Natural Health even has a main site, that goes on about their humanitarian mission to save the world or some such hogwash.

But it is all bullshit. A total and complete scam.  A con. A fraud. Please don't waste your time and money on these guys or on any of the products that they recommend.

Here's how I know they are a fraud:

First off,  all of the products that they recommend are either by Solutions by Nature, Gordon's  Herbal Research Center or Healing Plants, Ltd.  ALL of which have been outed here on OSM as scams.

Often, Towards Natural Health (TNH) will recommend the Solutions by Nature Product.  Hmmm.  I wonder why? 

Well, Here is TNH's address, taken from their main site. It is also the address to which all their  domains are registered (the ones I checked, anyway). PO Box 2175, Paleagade 7, DK-1231, KBH K, Denmark

Here is Solutions by Nature's Address:

 

PO Box 2175, Paleagade 7, DK-1231, KBH K, Denmark

I included both screen grabs so you can see for yourself that they are exactly the same, with no sleight of hand by this Sick Mother. 

 

Towards Natural solutions does list a different address on some of their sites.

Does that address: 115 Abercorn St, M0013, Paisley, PA3 4AT, Scotland; look familiar to you?  

It should.

It is the exact same one as is listed on the domain registration for Herbal  Product Reviews,  which OSM has previously outed as a scam.

 Don't listen to a word that tortoise says.

He is a lying wee bastard. 

And he wants to trample your ice cream, apparently.

Now some of you; -the more trusting among you- may be thinking "It can't possibly be a scam! Why would people go through all this trouble for a scam? "

For the same reason that people would mutilate baby pigs. Because it might make them money. These guys OWN all of these fake herbal sites. There are hundreds of them because they are carpet-bombing the "sick people" market with fake solutions in the hope that some of us will be sick or desperate enough to fall for the ploy. They  are professional con artists. Scamming people it is what they do, and -judging from the number of e-mails I get from people who were scammed or who narrowly escaped because of this site; -they are pretty good at it.

And maybe there is another reason:

Maybe they like it.

Maybe they have such disdain for people with illness and disabilities, that they get some kind of kick out of messing with our heads and our wallets.

And that is really sick.  

 

Help though creating awareness?  Yes. It's what I plan to do. Thanks for the tagline.  It works far better when applied to One Sick Mother than when applied to Towards Natural Health.

Here is the list of TNH scam sites that I have found (updated Sept 6th 2009):

Abdominal Adhesions	http://www.adhesionshelp.org
Achlasia	http://www.achalasiahelp.org
Actinic Keratosis	http://www.actinickeratosishelp.org
Alopecia	http://www.alopeciahelp.org
Atrial Fibrillatin	http://www.fibrillationhelp.org
Bell's palsy	http://www.palsyhelp.org
Benign essential tremor	http://www.tremorhelp.org
Blepharitis	http://www.blepharitishelp.org
Bronchiectasis	http://www.bronchiectasishelp.org
Bullous pemphigoid	http://www.pemphigoidhelp.org
Burning mouth syndrome	http://www.bmshelp.org
Cellulitis	http://www.cellulitishelp.org
Costochrondritis	http://www.costochondritishelp.org
Delayed Ejaculation	http://www.delayedejaculationhelp.org
Emphysema	http://www.emphysemahelp.org
Epididymitis	http://www.epididymitishelp.org
Eye Bags	http://www.eyebagshelp.org
Flatulence	http://www.flatulence-help.org
Folliculitis	http://www.folliculitishelp.org
Ganglion cyst	http://www.ganglionhelp.org
Gastroparesis	http://www.gastroparesishelp.org
Granuloma annulare	http://www.garanulomahelp.org
Grave's disease	http://www.graveshelp.org
Grover's Disease	http://www.grovershelp.org
Guillain-Barre Syndrome	http://www.gbshelp.org
Hand tremors	http://www.handtremorshelp.org
Hernias	http://www.herniashelp.org
Hidradenitis Suppurativa	http://www.hidradenitishelp.org
Hydrocele	http://www.hydrocelehelp.org
Hyperhidrosis	http://www.hyperhidrosishelp.org
Ichthyosis	http://www.ichthyosishelp.org
Inclusion body myositis (IBM)	http://www.myositishelp.org
Keloids	http://www.keloidshelp.org
Keratosis  Pilaris	http://www.keratosishelp.org
Lichen Planus	http://www.lichenplanushelp.org
Lipoma	http://www.lipomahelp.org
Melasma	http://www.melasmahelp.org
Motor Neuron Disease	http://www.mndhelp.org
Myasthenia Gravis	http://www.myastheniahelp.org
Myelitis	http://www.myelitishelp.org
Narcolepsy	http://www.narcolepsyhelp.org
Osteomyelitis	http://www.osteomyelitishelp.org
Pemphigus	http://www.pemphigushelp.org
Peripheral Neuropathy	http://www.neuropathy-help.org
Peyronie's Disease	http://www.peyronieshelp.org
Polycystic Kidney Disease	http://www.pkdhelp.org
Polycythemia Vera	http://www.polycythemiahelp.org
Polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR)	http://www.polymyalgiahelp.org
Porphyria (All 6 kinds?)	http://www.porphyriahelp.org
Post-Polio Syndrome	http://www.postpoliohelp.org
Premature Gray Hair	http://www.grayhairhelp.org
Prickly heat	http://www.pricklyheathelp.org
Rectal prolapse	http://www.rectalprolapsehelp.org
Retinal Vein Occlusion	http://www.rvohelp.org
Retinitis Pigmentosa	http://www.retinitispigmentosahelp.org
Scleroderma	http://www.sclerodermahelp.org
Sebaceous Cyst	http://www.cysthelp.org
Seborrheic Keratosis	http://www.seborrheickeratosishelp.org
Sjogrens Syndrome	http://www.sjorgenshelp.org
Tinea Versicolor	http://www.tineahelp.org
Trigenimenal Neuralgia	http://www.trigeminalneuralgiahelp.org
Urethritis	http://www.urethritishelp.org
Uveitis	http://www.uveitishelp.org
Vocal Cord Nodules	http://www.vcnhelp.org
Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia	http://www.wmghelp.org

 

NOTE: While compiling this list, I realized that there are many More Solutions By Nature sites than I had  found previously. I will update that page when I get a chance. Really, there is too much out here for a single person to track  (I bet that is a large part of the plan)