The Millenium Project

Home > Hate Mail
Bookmark and Share

Alphabetical ListCategoriesCommentariesArchiveAbout the SiteHate MailBook ShopSite Map/Search

Hate Mail - 2008

This collection of mail to The Millenium Project covers correspondence received during 2008. My replies are in italics.

Mail received in previous years
1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012
Mail received from January 1, 2013


The following comment was posted to YouTube some time in January 2008. It relates to a video I made of the famous Danish cartoons featuring Mahommed. I am suitably alarmed.

fuk your self u fuk face i swer if i ever find ill beak u in 2 suk your mom


Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:02:29 -0500
From: webcompliance@mannatech.com
Subject: Cease and Desist

TO: Peter Bowditch

RE:Impermissible Use of Health Claims Attributed to Mannatech Products 1.5.47
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/mannatech.htm

Dear Peter Bowditch:

We need your immediate assistance with a critical issue related to your website. It has come to our attention that you currently have statements on your website which are or could be construed to be unauthorized health claims which go beyond stating that Mannatech nutritional products promote the maintenance of health and general well-being. The statements made on your website are contrary to Mannatech policy.

Demand is hereby made that you immediately remove from your website any statement or reference which (i) states, suggests or implies that Mannatech nutritional products prevent, treat or cure disease, (ii) states, suggests or implies that Mannatech nutritional products are a substitute for a doctor's standard of care, and/or (iii) is in any manner in contradiction with Mannatech's existing policies and procedures. Demand is further made that you refrain from engaging in this activity in the future.

Please contact the undersigned in writing within five (5) business days from the receipt of this letter advising that you have made the requested modification to your website and confirming that you will refrain from such activity in the future.

Failure to comply with this demand may result in legal and compliance action up to and including litigation in which Mannatech will seek injunctive relief, damages and attorney's fees and costs as allowable under Texas law. Mannatech will undertake all actions necessary to secure your compliance.

Having brought this to your attention, we are confident that you will understand our concerns and act immediately. We will be monitoring your website, and await your response in writing. Please contact the undersigned at webcompliance@mannatech.com if you have any questions regarding Mannatech's position in this matter. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of any rights Mannatech has at law or in equity, all of which are expressly reserved.

Your prompt attention and cooperation in this matter are greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,
Mannatech Legal, Ethics & Compliance Department

What could I say? Here is my reply:

I am rather puzzled by your Cease and Desist demand as I can guarantee that I have never made any claim for the effectiveness of Mannatech products in the treatment or management of any disease or ailment, human, veterinary or agricultural. I would not make such a claim as I would not believe it to be true, and truth is important to me. If you read the web page you objected to you will see that the only claims of effectiveness for anything from Mannatech are made by people extolling (and presumably selling) the products. In fact you might even see where I took someone to task for claiming that sugar pills were an effective treatment for Parkinson's Disease.

I must thank you, however, for your clearly implied admission that Mannatech products are useless in the treatment or management of any disease. I will quote you in future when Mannatech distributors abuse me for not recognising the amazing curative properties of the products.

I will, of course, be removing nothing from my site and will be making no changes to the way I comment about Mannatech in the future. As is my usual policy, your email and this reply will be featured prominently on my site.

Thank you.

See more about Mannatech here.


And the clowns came back:

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:09:12 -0500
From: webcompliance@mannatech.com
Subject: Cease and Desist

TO: Peter Bowditch

RE: Impermissible Use of Health Claims Attributed to Mannatech Products 1.5.47
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/mannatech.htm

Dear Peter Bowditch:

We previously contacted you requesting your assistance on a critical issue concerning your website. We have requested and made formal demand that you immediately remove any statements from your website which are or could be construed to be unauthorized health claims which go beyond stating that Mannatech nutritional products promote the maintenance of health and general well-being. The statements made on your website are contrary to Mannatech policy.

Demand is hereby made that you immediately remove from your website any statement or reference which (i) states, suggests or implies that Mannatech nutritional products prevent, treat or cure disease, (ii) states, suggests or implies that Mannatech nutritional products are a substitute for a doctor's standard of care, and/or (iii) is in any manner in contradiction with Mannatech's existing policies and procedures. Demand is further made that you refrain from engaging in this activity in the future.

We remain confident you understand our concerns and also appreciate that it is imperative that you promptly comply with the demand to cease and desist, and to document your compliance in writing within five (5) business days of the receipt of this letter. If you have already complied with this demand, we thank you and appreciate your cooperation.

Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of any rights Mannatech has at law or in equity, all of which are expressly reserved.

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,
Mannatech Legal, Ethics & Compliance Department

I replied:

I am not sure why you didn't receive my response to your earlier Cease and Desist demand, but as it appears on the page in question and I assume you have checked that page before sending the current email I am at a loss as to why you do not seem to understand my position on this matter. For reference, here is my previous response:

I am rather puzzled by your Cease and Desist demand as I can guarantee that I have never made any claim for the effectiveness of Mannatech products in the treatment or management of any disease or ailment, human, veterinary or agricultural. I would not make such a claim as I would not believe it to be true, and truth is important to me. If you read the web page you objected to you will see that the only claims of effectiveness for anything from Mannatech are made by people extolling (and presumably selling) the products. In fact you might even see where I took someone to task for claiming that sugar pills were an effective treatment for Parkinson's Disease.

I must thank you, however, for your clearly implied admission that Mannatech products are useless in the treatment or management of any disease. I will quote you in future when Mannatech distributors abuse me for not recognising the amazing curative properties of the products.

I will, of course, be removing nothing from my site and will be making no changes to the way I comment about Mannatech in the future. As is my usual policy, your email and this reply will be featured prominently on my site.

Thank you.

To make matters quite clear, the following statements describe my position:

  • I am not a Mannatech distributor, so your rules do not apply to me.
  • At no place on my site do I state, suggest or imply "that Mannatech nutritional products prevent, treat or cure disease".
  • At no place on my site do I state, suggest or imply "that Mannatech nutritional products are a substitute for a doctor's standard of care".
  • I don't do either of these things because I have no reason to believe that "Mannatech nutritional products prevent, treat or cure disease" or "Mannatech nutritional products are a substitute for a doctor's standard of care". I fact, I believe quite the opposite.
  • If you do not want me to publish such claims made by Mannatech distributors then you should instruct Mannatech distributors not to email people with such claims.

Once again I must thank you for your admission that claims for any medical usefulness of Mannatech products are baseless.

As always, your email and this response will be published prominently on my web site.

Thank you.


Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:59:42 -0800
From: Paul Falla
Subject: Allergy elimination

Dear Ratbags (what an appropriate monniker)

I write in reply to your completely misinformed comments on your website in relation to the so called quackery of allergy elimination. In all my living years I have yet to encounter anybody as close-minded as yourself. and trust me, I have met some very close-minded individuals.

I have a number of issues in relation to your inane ramblings on this subject, the greatest being, what credentials or qualifications do you posses which give you the right to pass judgment on these alternative allergy treatments? It would be interesting to see if you actually have something firm to back up your claims. If not, then the term 'charlatan' applies equally to your good self, does it not?

I also find it bizarre that you permit the advertisement of these cures on a page devoted to the rubbishing of others legitimate claims to success.

See what the whine was about here.


From: "Dee Dee"
Subject: I notice...
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:49:26 -0500

You've still got the name Stan Burzynski in a rant about cancer frauds. Given the fact that the AMA and ACS, and even MD Anderson Cancer Institute in Houston (his major haters) have been sucking up to him for a LONG time now, maybe you ought to amend that so people Googling him don't run onto your Y2Kish rant about a man who has been vindicated.

Just a FYI.

So the old fraud has cured someone now, has he, after 8,000+ failed attempts?

There is one and only one mention of the quack on the AMA web site (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13638.html) where, in 1997, they said:

Some methods proposed for study and further dissemination have been associated with proponents using questionable methods and possibly fraudulent research. Several of these are cancer therapies, including "antineoplastons," popularized by a physician named Burzynski who claims he can "normalize" tumor cells by shutting off their undifferentiated growth using peptides extracted from urine. A review of this method in JAMA concludes that no objective evidence exists to support the experimental claims.

That's some "sucking up". And so recent too.

There is one and only one mention of the quack on the ACS web site (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Antineoplaston_Therapy.asp?sitearea=ETO) where they say:

Although some proponents of antineoplaston therapy have suggested that the reviews of this treatment by conventional cancer specialists are biased by mistrust of alternative therapies, even some prominent figures in alternative medicine have reservations about antineoplastons. According to Dr. Andrew Weil, author and physician, founder and director of the Program in Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona ,"Over the years, Dr. Burzynski claims to have treated more than 8,000 patients, but his success rates are unknown. His Web site states only that he has helped "many" people. If antineoplaston therapy works, we should have scientific studies showing what percentage of patients treated have survived and for how long, as well as evidence showing how Dr. Burzynski's method stacks up against conventional cancer treatment. … Until we have credible scientific evidence showing what antineoplastons are, how they act in the body, and what realistic expectations of treatment with them might be, I see no reason for any cancer patient to take this route."

That's some "sucking up" And note how a supporter of quackery is quoted by the ACS. Even quacks think that Burzynski is a fraud.

The only people sucking up to Burzynski and his ilk are those who believe that any lie told to someone with cancer is acceptable as long as it assists the flow of money from patient to charlatan.

And you misspelled "exposed as a fraud". That is not what "vindicated" means.

Just a FYI.

See more about Dr Burzynski here.


From: "Wayne Schermerhorn"
Subject:
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:37:03 -0700

You really should pull your head out of your ass

Do you have a specific complaint or is it all too much for you to take in?

And, surprise, surprise, I find myself in conversation with a Mannatech cretinoid:

From: "Wayne Schermerhorn"
Subject: Re:
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:58:47 -0700

Yeah, you either don't have a clue about glyconutrients or you're getting paid from an outside source to post all this garbage. Take a look at the latest medical texts. I'm sure you know that it's real. How does a person such as you live with himself ? Unfortunately there are plenty of weak minded people out there that actually believe the garbage you write. Perhaps someone should start a web site to directly combat yours. Or maybe the attention you're giving to glyconutrients and Mannatech is actually good even though it's negative. For those who aren't weak minded, maybe they'll research glyconutrients, and Mannatech for themselves, and find out the great benefits. So maybe you're doing some good work. Anyone with minute brain function can see that you have no proof at all about what you're spouting.

But Wayne, Mannatech have now told me twice that the stuff they sell is useless. Why should I believe you and not them?


From: "Michelle"
Subject: Your anti-vaccine emails
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 11:25:26 -0400

I just wanted to say thank you for leaving the emails up that I sent you back in 1999 and 2000, the funny thing is, here we are in 2008 after my initial challenge to you, and you are still unable to provide any proof yet.

Of course your emails are still up there. Why would I want to remove evidence of your stupidity, ignorance of and resistance to facts, and your dislike (perhaps hatred) of children? I particularly like the way you emailed me (using what was obviously my email address) to tell me that I worked for me. A better example of stupidity would be hard to find.

Let me refresh your memory: I challenge you NOW to show me REAL proof that vaccines are totally safe and totally effective. Prove to me my daughter didn't die from vaccines. Prove to me that the thousands of reported reactions to vaccines are from something other than vaccines. Prove to me you know something about vaccines, or the dangers, etc..

I am not surprised that even all these years later, I am still waiting to hear back from you with any evidence or proof.

What would be the point? As I said above, you wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit you on your extensive and ever-widening posterior.

I am conducting research into the motivations of anti-vaccination liars and I wonder if you wouldn't mind answering some questions:

  1. Why do you lie about vaccines?
  2. How many dead children in a pile do you need to trigger a spontaneous orgasm?
  3. When unloading dead children from a truck into a mass grave, do you prefer a mechanical shovel, a pitchfork, or do you like to get personal and use your hands?

Sincerely
Michelle M

You can see Michelle's pathetic attempts to defend the indefensible here, here and (most amusing of all) here.


Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:05:27 -0700
From: JOE HARRIS`
Subject: Peter this is what people think of you that have children like yours

Still your friend, Just don't understand you Remember me mentioning a new way to do multi dose vacc's without presevitives you never got in touch with me if you care so much about the children of africa you have a strange way of showing it.

Your friend in christ

PS. write back soon !

Joe -------------------------- TX

Please remember this guy over sees a 18 million dollar Bill Gates hookworm vaccine grant.

He is totally in bed with Pharma.

One of his PR interviews he talks about how he courted Pharma for checks to develop his vaccine. God bless his daughter, I guess rather than a shot at recovery she will be a (Pharma) trust kid to the likes of Leona Helmsley's dog.

I'll never understand why parents wouldn't at least try for recovery or improvement, but to deny someone else the shot at uncovering core issues HHS concede cause Autism is heinous in my book.

The CDC pulls Hortez out as needed. He was the speaker at the closed door press conference before the DC rally a few years back.

My question is this to the media, if he swears up and down vaccines had nothing to do with his daughter's Autism then prove it. Submit her shot lots, porphyrin levels and metabolic results and measles titers for public review. Before you exploit your own child and mislead thousands of others.

As we are often scrutinized for making assumptions. Peter Hortez should not be trusted on his word alone - bring data.

Right now it is proven that Thimerosal and other toxins do provoke developmental neuro-damage as per the manufacturers safety data sheet. That is a fact.

I am saddened that some people will even exploit their Autistic kids for money.

I hope and pray he will come to his senses and consider his daughter before the almighty Pharma dollar.

 Karen Beauvais
Mom to Joshua, who had 276X the EPA allowable amount of Mercury in his infant vaccines.

No, I don't know what this is about either.


The following comment was posted to my YouTube channel on October 2, 2008. As always, I am deeply impressed by the comments of anonymous people and will immediately change my ways.

So you're the "expert" behind the millenium project? Wow, you look like such a highly successful individual... Seriously mate, making a living from whinging, snivelling and pointing out the negatives everywhere you go... how do you find any joy in life? Were you abused as a little boy? Or are you just bitter about being a balding, aging "management consultant" who never got anywhere with your own abilities and could only become known by moping and bringing others down?

You sap the world of all that's good. Go suck a tail pipe.


Subject: Response to September Issue Cam or Scam
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:44:50 +1100
From: "Mark Smith"

Hi,

I was surprised to find your article on homeopathy, acupuncture and chiropractic. [See this article here. PB] I didn't realize there where people "out there" dedicated to look for anything negative related to "alternative" therapies.

Why not? Did you assume that quackery would be immune from investigation?

In fact, I would have thought that if this were the case that allopathic medicine would have been your first port of call, as the leading cause of death in the USA is from iatrogenic sources

Ah, yes - The Lie That Will Not Die. I don't know why later figures aren't available, but here are the 10 leading causes of deaths in the USA in 2005. If you have any later information you might like to let the CDC know so that they can update their web site.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

  1. Heart disease: 652,091
  2. Cancer: 559,312
  3. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
  4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
  5. Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
  6. Diabetes: 75,119
  7. Alzheimer's disease: 71,599
  8. Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
  9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
  10. Septicemia: 34,136

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

(it is the third leading cause of death in Australia).

Australian numbers are more up to date, but again I encourage you to contact the Australian Bureau of Statistics with your later information so that they can update their web site. Here is the situation in 2006:

  1. Ischaemic heart diseases - angina, heart attacks, and blocked arteries of the heart (I20-I25): 22,983
  2. Strokes ( I60-I69): 11,465
  3. Trachea and lung cancer (C33-C34): 7,348
  4. Dementia and Alzheimer's disease (F01-F03, G30): 6,542
  5. Chronic lower respiratory diseases - asthma, bronchitis and emphysema (J40-J47): 5,443
  6. Colon and rectum cancer (C18-C21): 3,858
  7. Blood and lymph cancer (including leukaemia) (C81-C96): 3,693
  8. Diabetes (E10-E14): 3,662
  9. Diseases of the kidney and urinary system (N00-N39): 3,192
  10. Prostate cancer (C61): 2,952

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3303.0

From what YOU say alternative medicine (I prefer to use the term complementary) has no effect (other than placebo).

I didn't say that at all. What I said was, and I quote, "All of the above treatments work. They work provided that the patient has a self-limiting or mild psychosomatic condition". Real medicines have a placebo effect as well. The objective of clinical trials is to see if the medicines have an effect greater than placebo. If all you can claim is placebo then all you can claim is nothing, so there should be no charge. Why do quacks want to charge money for things that do nothing? Surely that would be fraud.

If this was the case then at least the mortality rate would be a lot less!!!

Are you saying that the mortality rate for alternative medicines is the same as for real medicine and can be reduced? I'm pleased about that and I look forward to reading the research on how that can be achieved. A good start would be a system of reporting adverse effects.

I agree that there are charlatans out there that exploit people who will do anything to relieve their symptoms but that is not due to the professions out there, it is more related to those individuals, and it occurs in medicine also. The biggest charlatans are the pharmaceutical companies who drive the medical machine, their guinea pigs are the general public. If their product kills or maims enough people they take it off the market and repackage it as something else.

So all alternative and complementary medicines undergo extensive safety trials involving millions of test subjects to prove absolute safety before they are sent to market, do they? As an example, the day after Vioxx was withdrawn from the market I was offered a quack substitute that was guaranteed to be safe. How could this be known? (By the way - the people who suffered ill effects from Vioxx were not using it according to the clear instructions on the label, but why should that fact mean anything to the critics?)

Yet, if someone has an allergic reaction to royal jelly, the AMA wants to shut down the whole naturopathic community.

You might like to point me to the safety trials for royal jelly that were undertaken before it was sold to the public. You might also like to consider risk/benefit ratio. As the risk of allergic reaction to bee products is quite high and there are no trials or research indicating any benefit of royal jelly (except to the wealth of those selling it), the ratio is infinite. Here's something else to think about - should royal jelly be "prescribed" for someone who is also taking one of the large number of alternative products which "boost the immune system"?

By the way - the AMA has no say over who practices what in the medical field. They can express an opinion but they can't stop anyone doing anything.

I would have thought that if you were going to make comments such as you have that you would have done a little research (there is a plethora of research articles out there on the benefits of "alternative medicine") beforehand. Having said that I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if you feel the need to spread your opinion to as many people as possible. But I would be interested to find out your opinion based on the same scrutiny of the pharmaceutical and medical industry.

And I would be interested in your explanation of how the mutually exclusive world views of chiropractic (or in your case, osteopathy), homeopathy and acupuncture can be reconciled. Do bacteria and viruses cause disease?

Mark Smith
Osteopath

You can see what this is about here.


Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:17:24 -0800
From: Tam erica
Subject: It takes a fool to fool a fool...

Wow! What a wonderful anti-vaccination site this is!! Now Im even more sure of the choice I made NOT to vaccinate my precious, healthy children that God has blessed me with.

When I was twelve years old, I stood in a line, in the hallway of my school with all 48 of my classmates. I was waiting for my turn to have several needles, all connected in a circle, injected into my arm all at once. I bare the scar from it to this day as a reminder. When I think back about that day now, as a 41 year old, I see it from a ceiling view and it makes me think of the Pink Floyd video where the children are lined up and marched into the meat grinder. "All and all, we're all just bricks in the wall"...... and im nothing to the government. Well, except for maybe a test subject. We'll always be good for that, as long as we accept it. I wish my mom would have stopped it from happening to me. I wish I would have listened to the child voice in me, as I stood waiting in that line, that said, "this is strange.. this is wrong.", and stepped out of that line and said, "I have rights and it will be a cold day in hell before you inject me!". But, I was only a child and didnt know I had rights..... and my parents were out to lunch.

My children attend public school in Indiana and they "tryed" to trick me into thinking that I had to have them vaccinated. Thank the good Lord that I knew better. And I cant believe the amount of people who told me I was wrong because they had believed the lie and were pressured into having their children vaccinated by the schools, until I proved them wrong by sending my unvaccinated child to school by signing a paper saying that I didnt agree with vaccinations for both medical and religious reasons. Unfortunately, it was too late for my best friends little girl, who was developing normally until her first vaccines at age two, now she has slight autism. She didnt want to vaccinate her but didnt believe me that she didnt have to in order to enroll her in pre-school. Now she has guilt that haunts her.

I didnt plan on typing past my first two sentences because I agree on one thing with "what's his name" that runs this site....... no sense in talking to fools.(unless you're after easy prey) Guess I got carried away. Have a great day and God bless us all even though we dont deserve it.


From: Paul Sintra
Subject:
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:51:57 -0800

"This is as much a form of abuse as beating them or having sex with them. Perhaps more, because bashers and sexual predators usually don't publicly boast about the fact and show photographs to strangers in order to progress their perverted agendas"

Were you molested as a child?

Go here to see what this is about.


Mail received in previous years
1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012
Mail received from January 1, 2013


All donations gratefully accepted
Please help out with a donation.

Back to The Millenium Project
Email the
Copyright 1999-
Creative Commons