• April 2005
• June 2012
• July 2013
• April 2015. 

• Joined MLM in February 2005
• Declared bankruptcy in April 2005
• Joined Youngevity sometime prior to 2012 (probably 2009?)
• Million dollar earner in Yougevity in 2012
• Declared bankruptcy in June 2012
• Declared bankruptcy in July 2013
• Senior Vice Chairman, Marketing Directory of Youngevity in 2014
• Declared bankruptcy in April 2015

6 Reasons You Should Eat Organic from mindbodygreen.com

1. Organic food can reduce the amount of chemicals in our bodies
2. Organic food can lead to more nutritious or vitamin-enriched fruits and vegetables
3. Organic dairy and meat can be healthier than non-organic varieties
4. Organic food may have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids
5. Organic food is GMO-free
6. Organic food might be better for the environment

1. Organic food can reduce the amount of chemicals in our bodies
2. Organic food can lead to more nutritious or vitamin-enriched fruits and vegetables  can be more nutritious/healthier
3. Organic dairy and meat can be healthier than non-organic varieties  (see 2)
4. Organic food may have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids  (see 2)
5. Organic food is GMO-free
6. Organic food might be better for the environment

Myth 1) "Organic food can reduce the amount of chemicals in our bodies"

Myth 2) "Organic food can be more nutritious"

Myth 3) "Organic food is GMO-free"

Myth 4) "Organic food may be better for the environment"

In Conclusion

• Count inflation by subdividing reasons
• Ignoring the gray areas
• Cherry-picking evidence
• One-sided statements with no pretense at balance

"The second ingredient in these little bottles is propylene glycol, a preservative, thickening agent, and stabilizer, also used as antifreeze to de-ice airplanes, as a plasticizer to make polyester resins, and found in electronic cigarettes."

While there are still more preservatives in here that we would like, at least it doesn't contain antifreeze and "weighting" agents. it has vegetable juice for color and Stevia Extract and cane sugar for sweetness.

• artificial tears
• drugs in capsule form
• drugs in tablet form
• alcohol-based hand sanitizer
• vaporizers (health use)
• most whipped dairy products (cream to ice cream)
• most canned coffee drinks
• most canned or bottled sodas
• Oh, and beer. 
• Oh, and no paint and no plastic either. Those may be made with propylene glycol. 
• Guess that also precludes flying, since planes are de-iced with propylene glycol, aka anti-freeze! 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified propylene glycol as "generally recognized as safe," which means that it is acceptable for use in flavorings, drugs, and cosmetics, and as a direct food additive. According to the World Health Organization, the acceptable dietary intake of propylene glycol is 25 mg of propylene glycol for every kilogram (kg) of body weight.

 One of the refrains in network marketing is "how to deal with haterz". 

Usually one laments over "why do you hate my dreams". Here is one example of this ranting moan:

These companies are gold mines. Yeah, I said it. Have I personally made thousands from one? Nope. Could I? Dang right I could. If I truly set my mind to it and wanted to be dedicated to it, I could be filthy rich before the age of 35 from one of these Multi Level Marketing (MLM) companies.

Translation: "I could be filthy rich because they say so. Why do you hate me for wanting that?"

In other words, she can't see the difference between hating MLM vs. hating her dreams. To her, they are one and the same. 

The article was at least polite in that it calls for "don't be so mean to people who have a dream!" There's nothing wrong with asking that, but I am NOT going to be polite to people who (samples from /r/antiMLM):

• randomly promote nutritional supplements to a PREGNANT woman
• post before/after photos of fixing a sports bra placement and claimed weight loss success
• using a product for 2 months, but showed 4 years of photos as "hair journey"
• spam Facebook Marketplace with recruitment ads
• pretending to be a medical school news outlet for recruitment

And let's face it... How much of MLM marketing would be left if you filter out all the cringe stuff?  

I'd wager... not too much left. 

If you are a MLMer who doesn't do that, great!  Good for you! But you are a MINORITY... an unicorn, even! 

So blame your UNSCRUPULOUS competitors for CREATING this "haterz" environment, ever since the 1950's, long before MLM came along! 

Frankly, if you have to label who criticize your "industry" as "haterz"... You've already lost the argument. 

Because the 'best' defense, coming out of your mouth (or fingers) is an ad hominem, not a logical argument. If you cannot defend your position with fact or logic, you've lost. 

Tsk, tsk. 

There was a series of wildfires in California in recent weeks, and the air quality around SF Bay Area suffered as a result. The woo peddlers and the oil slick huns decided to use this opportunity to push pseudo-science, such as the idea that "diffusing essential oil will clean the air". 

Here is one example: 

Smoky House? Helpful tip: simmer pot of water on stove w/  cedar, fir, thyme, sage, or rosemary (or any combo of them!) it attaches to smoke particles pulling to the ground to help clean the air and make it more breathable Add drops of peppermint oil every 20 minutes for extra soothing relief

Note the specific claims, and alleged mechanism "attaches to smoke particles pulling to the ground to help clean the air". 

If you google "essential oil clean air", there's no surprise you'll find doTerra on top of the list. 

In 2020, the name "Karen" became a pejorative, meaning a probably white woman acting in an extremely socially inappropriate manner. The name Karen is now the embodiment of "white entitledness" usually a white female in her 40's wearing a particular shorter haircut. (note: the male version is often named "Chad")

But Karen is real. Earlier in 2020, Amy Cooper was dubbed New York's "Central Park Karen" when she called the police and claimed a black man threatened her life. In reality, a bird-watcher (who happens to be black, also surnamed Cooper, no relations) asked her to leash her dog in a leash zone in Central Park. If not for him recording the encounter on his phone, "Karen" false accusations may have resulted in him going to jail. 

Many "Karen" tales appeared on Reddit.com in the various "TalesFrom______" subreddits where "a wild Karen appeared" usually preceded by "ahem!". "Karen" then starts making outrageous demands of another person with words such as, "you were moving inventory, you MUST work here! Why don't you serve me? Get off your lazy *** or I'll get you fired!" The story then diverges, but often involving either Karen physically attack the narrator for ignoring her, or summons a manager to deal with the "rude employee". "Karen" then started to embellish the story in her own retelling, claiming to have been attacked by the narrator. The ending may feature "Karen" getting her comeuppance at the hands of either security guard or police. 

Many of which are obviously fictional, but they are rather popular tales. They SOUND plausible. And in the case of Amy Cooper, they actually do exist.  All because Mr. Cooper asked her to leash her dog (that she was supposed to), Amy Cooper called the police to report that an "African American man" threatened her life. It was documented by her 911 call. When the story went viral, Amy Cooper was fired from her job and surrendered her dog, her life basically ruined.  

But what was she thinking? How could she justify her outrageous behavior, even go as far as making a false report to the police? And if a seemingly normal white person can do that... who else is capable of this? And how many other black people or other minorities have suffered from this sort of false reporting in the past? It is an extremely disturbing thought. 

To figure out what a "Karen" was thinking, we need to dive into the mind of a narcissist. 

First, I have to point out, I am NOT a psychologist or psychiatrist. I am a skeptic, and I try to understand the human mind and its biases. And the inability to see the truth is a bias. 

In psychology, the "dark triad" refers to the traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. 

Specifically, narcissism refers to grandiosity, pride, egotism, and lack of empathy. Machiavellianism is the manipulation and exploitation of others for self-interest without empathy or morality. Psychopathy is anti-social behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, unemotional traits, and remorselessness. (And yes, I did copy most of this from Wikipedia)

"Karen" feels entitled to service (narcissism) and due to either temporary or permanent psychopathy, refused to see her own mistake(s). When confronted by others, instead of self-reflect, her response was to counter-attack by any means available, including doubling down on her mistake, and making false reports to police, because she MUST win, even if she had to engage Machiavellianism by lying. 

Some psychologists have speculated that perhaps "Karen" knew she was a fraud inside, but she dare not let it show, and she must ruthlessly put down anyone that may potentially expose her "fraud" (whether real or lack of self-esteem). Thus anyone who challenged her authority (i.e. ignoring her "demands") must be "made to pay". When someone does challenge her worldview, she through willful blindness, must triumph at all costs and ignore every sign declaring that she had overstepped the law, not just social propriety. 

And in modern business, "squeaky wheel gets the grease". Often, such Karens are simply given some compensation to "go away", which only enables their behavioral problems.

Also keep in mind that narcissists are often vengeful people, who cannot let go and forgive, but would instead, use every means to gain revenge, including "I'll call corporate and get you all fired!" or as petty as leave bad online reviews. 

-----

So what can one do when challenged by a "Karen"? 

Instead of confronting her slanted world view directly, i.e. "I don't work here!"  IMHO, you should engage her in questions that force her to confront her own view and how ridiculous it sounds. I think one of the Reddit stories used "why?" very effectively. The narrator simply answered every one of "Karen's" demands with "why?"  Hypothetically, "Karen" would be forced to "reason" within her own ridiculous logic. And if she wants to make a spectacle herself, all the better. 

The conversation would roughly go like this:

K: "Ahem!"

U: "What?"

K: "I've been waiting for you forever! Are you going to help me?"

U: "Why?"

K: "What do you mean why? You work here!"

U: "Why do you think I work here?"

K: "Because you helped him/her! Get off your lazy butt and help me!"

U: "Why should I help you?"

K: "Because it's your job!"

U: "Why do you think it's my job?"

and so on and so forth. 

Walking away does not help as it will usually lead Karen into escalating (probably physical attack) as Karens do not like to be ignored. 

Direct confrontation on the other hand challenges her worldview so deeply that she must counterattack at all costs, basically going nuclear. 

Should you encounter a "Karen in the wild", try the why responses. Maybe you will get a chance to put Karen in her place. 

BehindMLM just reported that Herbalife, through legal threats against scientific journal's staff and publisher, has forced a study finding heavy metal in Herbalife products into MIA status (no longer linked or even published, completely missing, as even "retracted" studies stay online). 

This is very discouraging as this is basically SLAPP: strategic lawsuit against public participation. They are threatening to sue in order to BURY some inconvenient truth. When it didn't work against the researchers who wrote the study, they went after the journal and publisher as well, and they caved despite their editorial panel recommending "retain" for the study. And this is AFTER Herbalife stooge scientists failed to challenge the science

But you have to remember, this is Herbalife, who wore down the FTC so it was ONLY fined 200 million back in 2016, and got FTC to dance around the words "pyramid scheme" in the settlement. Given that Herbalife annual revenue is almost 5 billion ($4.89 billion as of 2018), 200 million is an ouchy, not a serious wound. 

If you do not want to see this stand, it's time to engage the Streisand Effect: publicize this censorship attempt. What are they trying to hide that they used legal teams on multiple continents and tried to (and failed) rebuttal via their own scientists (in Brazil)? 

I have no problem when antivax folks spread nonsense opinions... they are EASILY debunked with the truth, which they cannot debate. And if they don't want the vaccine, the more for the rest of us. But when they actively start to interfere with vaccines, esp. important vaccines like the Moderna COVID vaccine, they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

You may think, they can't be THAT crazy... Turns out... they can be. A Wisconsin pharmacist who worked for a hospital was caught going into the stocks and removing a box of Modera COVID vaccines and leaving them OUT of required refrigeration, with the intention of destroying their effectiveness, then returning them to refrigeration before he would be discovered. Over 50 people have received shots from the doses he tampered with before he was caught. 

So far, those people are doing okay with their immune response, and it seems the vaccine will work even if not quite refrigerated, but officials are not taking any chances and will be tracking all of them. In the meanwhile, several HUNDRED doses of the vaccine will now have to be junked because one man can't allow his irrational belief to be challenged, the public be ****ed. 

And let's just say, tampering with the pandemic vaccine during a national pandemic will bring the FDA CID, the FBI, AND the police down upon you. 

Beware of the next antivaxxer you see. They may be crazy enough to allow you to die for THEIR beliefs. 

 First of all, there is no denying the wealth gap had been widened between the haves and have-nots during the pandemic. The people who barely got jobs are doing worse than ever. People who had wealth didn't give a **** other than being inconvenienced. 

And currently, the Gamestop Short Squeeze is causing some panic among the most wealthy of investors... such as hedge fund managers, who wield tremendous wealth (of their clients) and can make or break companies. They can't believe a bunch of plebes had caused them to lose a ton of money. 

To make a long story short: a "short-sell" is basically a "bet" that the price of a particular stock would fall. It's also known to "hold a short position". And a lot of hedge funds held a short position on GME (Gamestop) stock, tens of millions worth. On Tuesday, those hedge funds started to panic when GME stock starting moving the OTHER way instead... it's going up, and up. And the hedge fund managers decided to get out and just eat their losses. And when one does, others quickly followed, And their exit from their short position fueled the rise of the prices even higher, cause yet other short sellers to give in. All in all, it was estimated that this one stock caused its short sellers about 5 BILLION dollars net, and 876 million in a single day.  And those who joined the buy-in early reaped tremendous benefits. 

If you want detailed explanations, feel free to Google (tm) "short selling a stock" and "Gamestop short squeeze" and read genuine news sites offering analysis of this event, not just the pundits. 

But what about the wealth gap? 

This is where it becomes interesting. You see, people did engineer the "squeeze", but they have tried to rally the smaller investors for MONTHS, both on Reddit and on wallstreetbets Discord, and probably other venues as well. That they went viral was probably not what they expected. 

But is this "market manipulation"? Or is this within the law, as no untruth was passed around, just a lot of fund managers caught with their pants down, and got... reamed in the process? 

The fund managers are already speaking out... They want the government to stop "meme stocks" from destroying the market... which should probably say "their own portfolio's worth" instead. 

What's even more interesting is some brokerages have suspended the trade of these so-called "meme stocks" or placed severe restrictions on quantity. Though several later rescinded the limit, claiming that their trade clearinghouse had both technical and financial issues and once those are resolved the trading is back to normal. However, Robinhood so far has yet to relax the 1 share restriction, which is interesting in that Robinhood portrayed itself as an advocate for the small investors, thus the name. 

There's a longer explanation here. Basically, the trading firms cannot execute the trade directly, but have to go through a clearinghouse. And because the clearinghouse is the one who has to actually execute the trade, they are the hold holding the most liability and risk, and that is worse for the most volatile stocks, and thus, the trading prices went up by a sharp margin, and somebody have to cover those costs, as they cannot be covered by customer funds, due to regulations. However, Webull and other platforms, but notably, NOT Robinhood, were able to get Apex to find other partners to cover its risks and trading resumed. 

Indeed, other clearinghouses such as TD Ameritrade Clearing and Charles Schwab Clearing did not choose to restrict trading at all, and Apex only did so for limited time. Robinhood chose to restrict trading. It is worth pointing out however, Robinhood uses its own internal clearing, rather than using an external clearinghouse. 

TL;DR -- Robinhood chose to restrict trading and has yet to relax. Other trading houses either never restricted trading, or was only restricted for a short time while some issues were settled. 

Is this merely coincidental timing? It certainly could be, and how Robinhood does business is indeed its own business, but the timing of the decision makes it the fodder of conspiracy theorists, acalling Robinhood a "traitor" and "sellout" to the elite despite its namesake. 

In a related case of "convenient timing", Discord is banning the wallstreetbets Discord server due to repeated inability to observe common netizen decency on profanity and bad language. Keep in mind that wallstreetbets Discord and the subreddit are populated by personalities who basically insult each other for kicks, that it became a style that just doesn't fit on Discord. The fact that Discord chose this particular moment to enforce the ban make wallstreetbets look like martyrs and Discord a stooge for the wealthy elite... which is rather (in)convenient timing indeed. 

But the point is... Be skeptical, make sure what you hear are facts, not merely opinions. Opinions makes sense when they are presented because evidence presented are usually one-sided or out of context. Look up all the facts, both sides of the aisle, before making your decision. 

Aside from Robert "Rich Dad" Kiyosaki (who is not really what you think he is), one of the most frequently mentioned names among MLMers, other than their own upline or company head, is likely to be Napoleon Hill. Without further information, you would probably think of Napoleon Hill as some sort of a self-help guru who managed to interview the most famous, the richest, and the `most influential people of his times and thus gaining secrets of success. He claimed to have advised President Woodrow Wilson and wrote Fireside Chats for FDR. He claimed he met with Andrew Carnegie as a no-name writer. Supposedly Carnegie took a liking to him, helped him write his paper, then challenged him to interview the successful people of his time, introduced him to Henry Ford, who then introduced him to others such as Alexander Graham Bell, Luther Burbank, Theodore Roosevelt, Charles M. Schwab, F.W. Woolworth, Willian Wrigley Jr., John D Rockefeller, Harvey Samuel Firestone, and a few more. 

However, actual historians believe most of this is utter fabrication. Or in modern terms, total BS. Carnegie's biographer stated that he had ZERO evidence that Carnegie ever met with Napoleon Hill, muchless collaborated with him or introduced him to others. Outside of ONE documented short meeting with Thomas Edition in 1923 inpublic, there is NO documented evidence of Hill EVER meeting with the famous people whom he supposedly interviewed. All such evidence was "conveniently" lost in a fire. 

Hill claimed to have advised multiple presidents, including helping President Wilson write the treaty of Germany's surrender at Versailles at WW1, as well as advising FDR on how to write his fireside chats. However, White House has NO record of Hill at all. Hill also claimed to be an attorney though even his own biography notes that he never performed legal services for anyone. 

Frankly, this sounds like a lot of Kiyosaki to me. 

Both claimed to have known incredible people, gotten great advice from them, and wrote about such, but did not become tremendous success themselves, but merely supposedly inspirational people with controversy.  Kiyosaki was quoted at an interview by _SmartMoney "Is Harry Potter real? Why don't you let Rich Dad be a myth, like Harry Potter?"  Please keep in mind that "Rich Dad Poor Dad" is published as "non-fiction", similar to "How to Think and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill.  Only a decade later did Kiyosaki trot out Alan Kimi who claimed his father, Richard Kimi, is Rich Dad.  Frankly, given the decades of silence, and the supposedly "request for privacy" (much like Napoleon Hill's convenient fire destroying much of his rough draft and proof he had met with all those famous people) it's not impossible for Kiyosaki to established enough post-hoc backstops after two decades to cement his "legend". 

But this is about Napoleon Hill. 

Napoleon Hill is not a guru. He's a conman who published fictional interviews with famous people. 

How do we know? Because Carnegie did write "Wealth", later retitled "The Gospel of Wealth", where he stated that rich are mere trustees of their wealth and should dedicate their fortune to the "general good" and the family should live modestly. The advice was quite different from the ones he "supposedly" gave to Napoleon Hill after a supposedly prolonged interview. And it definitely wasn't 300 pages long that Napoleon Hill later expanded the conversation out to be. Even Hill's official biographers admit that it was “a somewhat contrived conversational format featuring Hill and Andrew Carnegie.”

His magnum opus was convincing people that he still is, decades after his death. 

And now you know. 

P.S. For further reference, check this article from Gizmodo. 

 Last November I wrote a post about "Psychology of Karen", but I realized I had left something out... a subtype of Karen that base their actions on their supposed superiority (narcissism) rather than entitledness. I call this subspecies of Karen the "vigilante Karen". 

To recap, I postulated that "regular" Karen do things because she:

["Karen"] feels entitled to service (narcissism) and due to either temporary or permanent psychopathy, refused to see her own mistake(s). When confronted by others, instead of self-reflect, her response was to counter-attack by any means available, including doubling down on her mistake, and making false reports to police, because she MUST win, even if she had to engage Machiavellianism by lying. 

However, this is not quite the case in "vigilante Karen". A vigilante Karen, for one reason or another, decided to take on someone else's problem, even though there is either no problem or is none of her business. A vigilante Karen decided to "right some wrong" with her inappropriate behavior. This is in contrast to most "regular" Karens where her behavior is self-centered: "serve me!""listen to me!" and so on.

Two examples of Vigilante Karens:  

"Vigilante Karen" (a): Karen mom, towing her own child, stalked an unaccompanied minor at an airport because she believed the child's a runaway (she's just waiting for the next flight). 

"Vigilante Karen" (b): picked up a baby from a stroller and was unwrapping the baby despite repeated "no" from the mother, gets accused as a kidnapper and bolted (without the baby). 

The decision-making process is actually quite similar, except the behavior did not stem from entitledness ("I deserved to be served!") but rather, a different aspect of narcissism: a sense of their own importance, that they know better than you. 

If you read through both of the links above, you'll see that both "Karens" believe something and they *must* be right. In (a), Karen believed the child must be a runaway and in (b) the baby should be held, not left in a stroller. And they decided to "right the wrong" by aggressively going after the target, despite multiple indications that their help is neither necessary nor appreciated. 

"Vigilante Karen" feels she knew better than anyone else narcissism) and due to either temporary or permanent psychopathy, refused to see her own mistake(s) and/or why her behavior was inappropriate.  

In case (a), Karen was only stopped by an airport gate employee, who threatened to call security on her, after apparently walking through half of the airport looking for her target. In case (b), Karen apparently realized she really did behave like a kidnapper and bolted. (Though it's possible she really is out to kidnap a child?!)

-----

So how do you deal with the vigilante Karen? 

A vigilante Karen wanted to be "right", and will probably WANT to cooperate with the authorities. She probably would not lie, as she may genuinely be concerned, though her "solution" may be wildly inappropriate. In (a) she wanted to drag the target to a different terminal (where her own flight) and turn her over to the authorities, never mind this is practically kidnapping. And in (b) she decided the baby should be held, and picked the baby up despite objections from the mother. 

Unfortunately, if you are the target, there's nothing you can do to convince Karen she's wrong. Her superiority complex will cause her to ignore all such evidence as happened in (a) "That doesn't prove anything", maybe escalated to "you're lying". 

Generally, you will need to involve the authorities yourself, or shout out and demand attention from everyone nearby, and if the transgression is so egregious, people will react (hopefully). Which should get Karen to back off, and/or authorities be summoned. 

Vigilante Karens do not escalate when people around started paying attention, esp. when summoned by heinous accusations like "kidnapper!", or stopped by someone who actually has authority (like airport gate personnel). They wanted to be "right", and having the crowd or the authorities turn against them is not in their plans. 

This is a marked contrast to the "regular" Karens who can and will exaggerate the problem to authorities. Regular Karens wield authorities (police, manager, etc.) as a "tool" in order to "win", to "punish" people who will not obey her.  Vigilante Karens wanted to be "right" so they will generally want the facts on their side, so they will generally NOT lie and make false reports because that would prove they were wrong to start with. They will usually quit when they realize they can't win. 

VIgilante Karens, being Karens out of "righting some wrong", is less destructive than "regular" Karens who act that way out of entitledness, and therefore inherently less destructive in general. They know when to quit, whereas regular Karens will double- or triple-down, make false reports to police, and so on, and don't know when to quit. 

But they are definitely related.

The #pseudoCrisis started innocently enough... A woman "Julie Van Rosendaal" (cookbook author?) on Twitter asked... why is the butter no longer soft at room temperature? 

Link to Tweet

She also coined an article at The Globe and Mail, but it's behind a paywall, where she opined that farmers are adding supplements to the feed to boost production (according to a BBC article), the implication that inferior milk produced inferior butter is pretty clear. 

Interesting question, but this is not a data point. It's is anecdotal, at best. However, what we *do* know is... unpasteurized butter is perfectly shelf-stable even when stored at room temperature for MONTHS. That means it doesn't melt UNLESS heated. 

However, Wikipedia also pointed out that butter softens to a spreadable consistency at about 15 C or 60 F. But was a stick of butter REALLY supposed to be melting at room temperature? 

Turns out, there are a LOT of different types of fats in butter, and by "tuning" the different percentages of fat types, you can make the butter more or less spreadable.  

But generally speaking, butter REMAINS a solid at room temperature of 70 F. It's merely spreadable. 

So BUTTER IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MELT (AT ROOM TEMPERATURE!)

Merely spreadable. 

Then entered a critic... who latched onto the question and managed to pivot it into a different direction.  

According to BBC "food experts" claimed "palm fat" in cow feed is a likely culprit... that butter made from milk from cows fed with palm oil has a higher melting point, and therefore harder to spread. 

Turns out, the critic was Dr. Sylvain Charlebois of Dalhousie University, and he has his own opinion piece on ctvnews of Canada, and may have been a long-time critic of Canadian agriculture. 

But does this even make sense? As it turns out, not really. 

FACT: You cannot feed a cow straight palm oil. It upsets the bacteria in cow's stomachs

What you do instead is make palmitic (fatty) acid out of palm oil (sometimes, it comes naturally as a by-product), which passes through the stomaches undisturbed, and entered the intestines to be extracted and turned into cow's milk. 

FACT: Feeding palm-oil derivative or not has a negligible effect on palmitic acid content in milk.

I don't reach French, but Google Translate worked well enough... in 2018 Canadian statistics as quoted by La Presse from CEO of Lactanet, Daniel Lefebvre, showed that palm-oil derivative supplemented cows made milk with 33.45% palmitic acid. And the cows that were NOT fed such derivatives? 33.06% palmitic acid. 

FACT: Palmitic (fatty) acid is in cow's milk whether OR NOT you feed it palm-oil-based derivative. 

 A recent Reddit thread on r/entitledpparents has pointed out yet another "subtype" of Karen, which I am dubbing "the punisher Karen", or type III. It shares traits from both type I and type II. 

A type I Karen behaves out of entitlement and views everyone else beneath her, and thus she has no regard for rules, aka "rules are for losers". The "Central Park Karen" story I had used as my first example was one such... when a man (who happens to be black, but shared her surname) asked her to please leash her own dog in the leash-required area of the park, she called the police claiming he had threatened her, even though he was filming the entire encounter and no threat was ever muttered. This type of Karen is also the "serve me!" type and thus often ends up n "I don't work here, lady!" jokes. This type of Karen may use physical attacks but often will summon others to do their bidding, usually by lying about being attacked. 

A type II Karen behaves out of entitlement but wants to ENFORCE the rules that she perceived as important, without regard to social norms of propriety. When an old feeble man using a cane falls, your instinct was probably to approach to help. But to a Karen, the infirmity was a sign of public intoxication, so without checking, she called the police on a disabled old man being helped up by his son. (another reddit topic)

Yet a third type of Karen has characteristics from both prior types, and thus needing a new classification. You'll see why I chose "punisher Karen" while I relay the whole story. 

TL;DR version: A female server at a restaurant was serving Karen and her husband. At first, the encounter was normal. Then Karen complimented the server about her hair, and asked where she had her extensions done. The server did not use any extensions, so she stated so. Karen expressed incredulity, "Nobody's hair is that thick."  Karen decided the server was lying, and when the server turned to leave, grabbed her by her ponytail, apparently trying to "rip it out" to prove the server's lying. After a few seconds Karen's husband intervened, and the server was able to escape. The couple was banned immediately. 

You can see that Karen's attack motivation was "punish a liar", because "she knows a liar when she sees one", which seems to make her type II. Yet the judgment was a very personal reason, not doing the society any good (unless you REALLY generalize about lies), which seems to make her more of a type I. That's why I decided this deserves a new type, though it's possible it exists as a subtype of type II, as the Punisher (comic book character) really is a vigilante.  Yet, most vigilante Karens do not resort to physical attacks, but Type I Karen's do. 

What do you think? 

Previously, we had discussed the three sub-types of Karens;

(NOTE: for consistency, I'll be using the term Karen, and "Ken" if the subject is male. Apologies to actual people named Karen and Ken)

Type I: "Serve me, peon!" Karen -- entitled Karen wanted people around her to serve her, no matter how inappropriate (i.e. "I don't work here, lady!" stories)

Type II: Vigilante Karen -- narcissistic Karen believes she's doing the world right by enforcing some "law" or "standard" in her head, even though it was uncalled for, i.e. "Karen calls the cops on my wobbly disabled father for alleged public intoxication" or "Karen tried to kidnap unaccompanied minor in an airport, chased her across multiple terminals". 

Type III: Punisher Karen -- narcissistic Karen believes her target needs to be punished for whatever transgressions in her head. Example: "Karen tries to rip out server's hair because Karen can't believe they are not extensions". 

Today, I like to propose a 4th sub-type of Karen: the "robber Karen". 

The robber Karen is an entitled parent, usually accompanied by an entitled kid who wanted something the subject has, could be anything, from a pet to a handheld console, to a laptop, to professional items such as musical instruments and cosplay lightsabers. Due to the narcissistic nature of Karen, she considers everyone else's belongings as hers. In this aspect, it is very similar to Type I with the "serve me!" attitude. 

The story usually starts with the entitled kid, who wanders around, saw the subject possessing a certain item. The kid demanded to play with the item, was refused, then went off to find mommy.  Karen will then demand the item usually with verbiage like "it's just _____, you don't need it" or "my kid just wanted to play with ____".  

At this point, the logic she used does not matter, as it probably made no sense anyway. Often, it's "you're too old/too young for _____" when the logic would have also applied to the entitled kid. The reasoning can be simply "you don't deserve ______" (and her entitled kid does) though it may not be verbalized that way. Instead, it's usually phrased as "How DARE you refuse entitled kid?! Hand it over!" 

The subject will, of course, refuse. But Karen is not taking no for an answer, no matter the sheer gall of demanding an item that does not belong to her or her kid. 

If the subject tries to rebut with "but it cost this much ______, so no" she'll express incredulity, like "that is just a toy" and offer a ridiculously low price like "that's just a toy, I'll give you $50" when it's worth $300+, because she does not recognize the item's worth and thus will not believe the answer. 

In fact, any rebuttal reason will be turned around by Karen into a logic pretzel. "The dog's too dangerous for a child? Well, you shouldn't have it then!"  Never mind that it'd be even MORE dangerous to strangers such as Karen and entitled kid. To a Karen, your reasons are irrelevant. Only her entitled kid and her truthiness matter.  

At this point, Karen will often attempt to take the item by force (or help the entitled kid do so) because transgression against her "reasonable" demand or offer was refused, and thus the subject must be "punished", and in this aspect, they resemble type III Karen. 

At this point, the incident turns into strongarm robbery against the subject, often a minor. 

If the subject managed to retain the item, Karen will sometimes call the authorities, claiming to have been robbed, when she was the one doing the robbery. Indeed, in most Reddit stories, this is where they forgot there are surveillance cameras overhead, similar to various type I stories. 

One example would be "Karen tries to steal model train set because EK wanted it, caught red-handed, caused hundreds in damage"

Another example, "Karen pulled my hair so her son can touch it, my mom pressed charges"

Similar to a type I Karen, Type IV Karens will lie to authorities to get their way, but often, they are against owners who *can* prove ownership, and thus, often lose badly. Though it makes you wonder if they ever did it to kids who did not know what to do to fight back. 

------

So how do you deal with a type IV Karen? 

Escape and evade immediately. You don't need the drama. Move away from the area, change your stance. If you were standing up, sit down. If you were sitting down, stand up. Change your clothing and/or your look temporarily (put on or take off a layer of clothing, if possible). Go into a restroom if need be and change. They can't engage you if they can't find you. 

Else, be in a crowd. 

If they managed to engage you, you can try the "why" tactic, but with the child there to remind her of her mission, distracting Karen is far more difficult. On the other hand, her mobility would be limited if she had to drag the child along. It's easier to escape and evade instead. 

If this is in public, you can try public humiliation instead, by proclaiming loudly "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT TO ME!"  You don't have to be specific, just turn away in disgust and walk away. She'll be so confused (for a moment) her mission temporarily forgotten as she had attracted way more attention than she wanted.  

In January 2021, total deaths due to COVID in the US have passed 400000... that's LESS THAN A YEAR after the FIRST confirmed case (January 21st, 2020, in Seattle). Today, April 2021, it's already past 550000. 

Keep in mind that the US death toll is the world's HIGHEST, even worse than China, where it was first discovered and turned the city of Wuhan into an almost ghost city. 

Just to keep the numbers in perspective... 400000 about the same as the TOTAL US MILITARY CASUALTIES IN the entire World War II! (400103 COVID deaths as of Jan 19, 2021, vs 405000 total casualties as quoted from Dept of Veteran Affairs)

The numbers are sobering as the country reached 200000 deaths in September, 300000 deaths in December, and 400000 deaths in January... 

As of this writing (April 3rd, 2021), the total US COVID deaths is at 554000 (thanks, Google, click to get up to date count)

So how can ANYONE who values their life still be vaccine-hesitant? 

And if they don't value their own lives, can they prevent their almost-adult children from getting vaccinated? 

Turns out the answer is quite a bit more complex, with legal, moral, and medical aspects to consider. 

Please note that it is not my attempt to document the anti-vax movement, but rather, show how anti-vaxxers are known to cherry-pick random bits of study results because it's all they see to fit their own frame of mind, instead of looking at things with the proper scientific mindset. 

But let's start with the legal bits. 

Can Antivax Parents Legally Prohibit Their Children from getting COVID vaccine? 

This cannot be answered at the moment because none of the COVID vaccines are approved for children. Pfizer vaccine is approved for age 16 and over. J&J and Moderna vaccines are only approved for 18 and over. 

But legally speaking, vaccines are a medical treatment, and thus, parents of the minor will be notified, and parents do have the right to refuse. 

The school, of course, can require immunization/vaccination before allowing the students back, unless the student has a specific vaccine exemption on medical, and in some states, religious reasons. California, for example, had been tightening the rules and dropped religious exemptions altogether. This made the various anti-vax parents form networks trying to promote the doctors who will certify vaccine exemptions, but the law made the exemptions subject to review, as prior exemption abuse included non-pediatric doctors writing exemptions. 

Some US states recognize the "mature minor doctrine" which basically is where a mature minor knows enough to recognize the risks and rewards and capable of making up his or her own mind about self-health. Generally, they have to be at least 15 years of age and is generally a way for a minor to seek treatment against the will of his or her parents. The court will often have to appoint someone to test the minor and the judge will have to make a final decision. 

This is different from the full "emancipated minor" where the minor is declared legally his/her own person and no longer considered a minor, and can live by him or herself, and/or sign contracts and stuff that a minor normally would not be allowed to do. It is basically a limited version of emancipation.

It gets more complicated as some states have laws on the books that SOME vaccines require parental notification, while some do not.  

In case I lost you completely, yes, anti-vax parents can prevent their children from getting vaccinated. This is complicated as it intersects public health, privacy rights, and parental rights. But there are legal ways around it... both will involve a judge. 

Practically speaking, most mass vaccination sites barely checks your ID. Are they really going to notify your parents if you do want the vaccine? Doubt it. 

What Mental Gymnastics is Antivaxxers Using to Deny COVID and COVID vaccines? 

So What Do We Do About It?

NOTE: This post is also available at randomrantsbykc.blogspot.com as it explains how antivaxxers misuse statistics for propaganda purposes. 

Recently, experts warned that pregnant women are being deliberately targeted with COVID vaccine misinformation. Some claimed that COVID vaccines can affect fertility, while another claimed vaccines cause stillbirths. One even cited a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled "Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons" to claim the vaccine is unsafe for pregnant persons. But the study actually shows the opposite of it. So how do you spot such misinformation? By always looking for the context. If a statistic is presented WITHOUT context, you cannot trust it. 

Feel free to read the abstract of the summary above, but I'll include a relevant highlight from the Pubmed link above:

... 13.9% resulted in a pregnancy loss...

While the 13.9% pregnancy loss sounds alarming in itself, you cannot say whether the vaccine is bad or good without knowing the context of such a number. What you should be asking here is "so what is the normal pregnancy loss, i.e. pregnancy loss rate without COVID vaccine?" Or to use a statistics term, what is the base rate or background rate, so we can have a proper comparison? 

Turns out, the answer is not that simple, because, in the US, there are actually TWO terms for pregnancy loss: miscarriage (for fetus before 20 weeks), and stillbirth (fetus at 20 weeks or older), and separate statistics are kept. 

For miscarriage, the answer is between 10-20%, according to the Mayo Clinic, but that's reported cases. The actual rate is higher due to unrecognized pregnancies. As high as 33% according to some estimates. 

"About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage."

Once past 20 weeks, the fetal death rate falls off significantly, down to 1 in 100 to 160 pregnancies, according to CDC. 

As the study used the term "pregnancy loss", which encompasses BOTH stillbirth and miscarriage, and 10-20% vastly overshadows the 1/160 rate, 10-20% is the right number to use as a base rate. 

Thus, the 13.9% number is actually somewhat BELOW the known rate, if we take the median, which is about 15%. And the difference is so small it is probably within statistical error margins. 

Thus, there is no known risk to pregnancy by the mRNA COVID vaccine, since the rate of vaccinated pregnancy loss is almost indistinguishable from the unvaccinated pregnancy loss rate. 

But you wouldn't know that if you ONLY heard the 13.9% figure. It sounds scary. And that's what the people who presented those statistics WANT you to feel: FEAR through propaganda, manipulating your thoughts through misinformation and disinformation. 

-----

A similar thing happened with the earlier CDC vaccine reaction tracking that there seems to be a few cases of myocarditis among people who got vaccinated, that they temporarily halted the use of one COVID vaccine for a few weeks, out of an abundance of caution, while the study was re-checked and more data was gathered. Myocarditis is the inflammation of the heart muscles. CDC later put the odds of such at about 4.8 per million.  

As expected, anti-vaxxers started touting this as "COVID vaccines are unsafe". They even got a study that supposedly proves that myocarditis increased after COVID vaccines were added. But again, should you check the studies, what is the base rate, and what are the alternatives? 

Turns out, Reuters had published a full fact-check article on this. The study that was touted by the anti-vaxxers made a huge error. The original study was done by The University of Ottawa Heart Institute. It stated that odds are 1 in 1000 of developing a heart problem after COVID vaccination. It was put on preview on September 16th, before it was peer-reviewed. Turns out, they used the wrong figure in "doses administered". They used a figure of 32379 over the study period of 2 months. It should be about 25X larger at 845930. Instead of 1/1000, the figure is more like 3.78/100000. The paper was withdrawn from preview on September 24th, and the Heart Institute itself had issued an apology. 

So the evidence is not there. There are also TWO MORE factors to consider... 

a) What is the base rate of myocarditis? i.e. what is the possibility of catching it without the vaccine?  

According to Wikipedia, it's about 22 per 100K people per year. And 20% will die in the first year. 

However, this is the overall rate. The rate is much lower for younger people, about 5 per 100K people. 

b) What is the possibility of COVID-induced myocarditis, if you caught COVID instead of vaccinating, but recovered? 

Existing myocarditis data from 2019 (pre-COVID) was compared to 2020 data (during COVID) and the signs are having had COVID suggests you are "15.7 times more likely" to have a myocarditis event. 

-----

Another study involving records of 2 million patients from 40 different hospitals specifically looked for incidents in individuals who had received the COVID vaccine. Guess how many cases they found? Twenty, out of Two Million. 1 per 100000. That's lower than the background rate / base rate. It is of no factor. 

But now you have mothers screaming on Twitter that "my teenager caught myocarditis from the vaccine". 

Except, again, there's no proof from temporal association, i.e. correlation is not causation. It's an anecdote, not data. 

CDC has the data, and it's sharing in the full report from June 2021:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-06/05-COVID-Wallace-508.pdf

The results now show more children are getting infected and dying because the vaccine isn't available for them until VERY recently, and the unvaccinated are clogging up the hospital beds so people who need normal hospitalization can't get in, and either transfer to a different state... or die. 

-----

When the antivaxxers tell you "do your own research", what they actually mean is "please read our propaganda (where we scare you into supporting us and distrust the doctors)" 

What you should do instead, is REALLY do your research... by spotting other people's propaganda for what it is... intention to manipulate you. 

And yes, I am trying to manipulate you... into REALLY thinking for yourself, not just looking up stuff to confirm your own beliefs. 

A reader of /r/scam posted this "job offer" and asked if it was a scam. 

There are a couple red flags. 

* While an employer can definitely run a credit report on a candidate, it is generally paid for by the employer. Asking a candidate to pass a credit report THEN come back to the employer is extremely fishy, esp. when there's not even a candidate number, employer profile, or such. 

* The grammar is actually quite bad with several capitalization errors, typos, and just very awkward phrasing. Why would I not "think you are fit for the job" if I applied, and you wrote "we think you are qualified"? 

* "Once your report is verified"? Was the candidate supposed to send a screenshot of the report to the employer? How can that be verified? 

* What the heck is "send me a shot"? Screenshot (of what?)?  Shout?  

What was not shown was the actual email link to clickfreescore.com where I suspect an affiliate link code was included but not shown. 

What will very likely happen is the person who got the credit report will simply never hear back from the job again, and/or likely to be blocked or spam-filed. Because the job ad is fake. The entire purpose is to get the person to sign up for clickfreescore, which is actually a credit monitoring service with a subscription cost, with a 7-day free trial. 

A quick search online with "clickfreescore affiliate link" showed that the website is legitimate, and does have an affiliate program, but the terms also specified that participants MAY NOT perform "job board marketing", and definitely "not run offers on sites that offer fake products or services". 

So please report this fake job to both ClickFreeScore (support@_____) and where you found the ad. Include the LINK (where there should be a link code, so they get credit for misleading you) and the URL of the ad. 

Confirmation bias is a serious problem that everybody suffers from, and it takes conscious effort to avoid it. Whether it played a part in the infamous "Batmobile Debacle", is a bit questionable. 

For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about, feel free to look up "Batmobile Debacle". But here's a summary of it, as simple as I can make it. 

Mark Racop is a Batman fan, and he has obtained official license to make replicas of the 1966 Batmobile that appeared in the classic Batman TV series. His shop, Fiberglass Freaks, is in Indiana. And his shop is making several vehicles at a time, and the process takes many MONTHS. 

Sam Anagnostou, a real estate agent who lives in Atherton, CA, wanted to buy one, in 2017. 

But the cars are "built to order", and costs $210,000. You pay a certain amount by certain milestones, much like you'd pay a contractor who is fixing up your house. 

So Sam paid $40K to start, then met several milestones. He was assigned production vehicle "29" which is a build-queue number, but it's not a vehicle. He paid $170,000 so far, with 40000 remaining. Next milestone was at "first primer" with $20000 due. 

So "first primer" stage was reached in December 2019, and Sam is nowhere to be found... over several MONTHS. So Sam got bumped to the bottom of the queue. Sam eventually got back to Racop in August 2020, inquiring about the progress, and was told progress suspended due to nonpayment. Sam wired Racop 40000 a few days later, completing all payments. 

In August 2021, Sam decided he was a victim of fraud, since he still had not received a car. So Sam reported "fraud" to his local Atherton Police. Atherton Police said this is a civil matter. 

So Sam filed a civil suit in San Mateo county court. The judge threw it out, ruled that this suit should be filed in Indiana. 

Sam then contacted the county sheriff directly, San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos Bolano. Who apparently told his "auto theft task force" commander, Michael Leishman, to look into it. Note that Sam did not go through the regular channels, i.e. call the main number. He went DIRECTLY to the sheriff. Is this inappropriate? We don't know. 

Leishman, after studying the files given to him by Sam's investigator, somehow came to the conclusion the vehicle was "finished", and the vehicle was then sold to someone else, despite the 40000 final payment. He had somehow become aware of a payment by "Danny Glasser" who also paid for a Batmobile at the time and believed Sam's car was "delivered" to Glasser. All of this was done WITHOUT contacting Mark Racop or Fiberglass Freaks to understand the actual situation. 

Leishman then coordinated with the Deputy District Attorney Marie McLaughlin to obtain the necessary paperwork, then spent the next six MONTHS getting warrants for email and financials he believed to be relevant to the case. 

In July 2022, McLaughlin filed felony complaint in San Mateo alleging "obtaining money by false pretenses" and "diversion of construction funds", and warrants are issued, which authorized Leishman to go to Indiana, arrest Racop, freeze his business, recover the vehicle, and extradite him to California to face charges. 

A few days later, Leishman, a sergeant, and 2 deputies boarded a flight for Indiana and coordinated with local law for a local warrant. They arrived at Fiberglass Freaks on July 24th. Mark Racop was NOT interviewed, and the lieutenant (at the time) Leishman will not allow Racop to speak with his own attorney. Racop was nervously trying to explain the situation. Leishman was searching for a "nearly completed car" and after searching the entire workshop concluded there was no such completed car. Despite this revelation, Racop was hauled down to the local police department ANYWAY. Only when Racop disclosed that he has a heart condition did Leishman relent and decided NOT to extradite him immediately, but told him he better go to California when the California court summons him. They returned to California the next day, and Leishman went on vacation a day later. 

The case then blew up when the media gotten hold of it, mostly because it involved "the Batmobile!" When district attorney learned of the case, and conducted more investigation, they decided to drop the charges, unfreeze the bank account, and hired an independent investigator, an ex-judge, to look into the matter. The report has just been made public. The investigator let all parties knew about the investigation and participation is voluntary. Sam did NOT respond to inquiry, and MacLaughlin declined to participate. 

Sorry for the long spiel, but it takes a bit of setup to explain the situation. 

So why confirmation bias? I don't claim to be a mind reader, but I believe Leishman suffered a bit of confirmation bias. I recommend you read the investigator's summary of the interview she did with Leishman, starting on page 20. A couple points to note:

* ..."Leishman is the Commander of the Vehicle Theft and Recovery Task Force." 

* "...Leishman believed the fraud occurred when (Sam) wired $40000 to Racop and the car built for (Sam) was sold to someone else."

* "... He (Leishman) thought he was pursuing a righteous case of fraud. "

It appears that Leishman suffered from confirmation bias. To explain it, I have to use a cliche:

"To a hammer, everything looked like a nail."

To an auto theft and recovery expert, a business dispute looked like auto fraud. 

It doesn't help that he was relying on a very one-sided narrative... the alleged victim's narrative. It was clear that everything he did was looking for evidence to support the narrative, rather than gather all the evidence and see where it leads. 

The fact that Leishman refused to talk directly with either Racop or Glasser before the trip to Indiana on the reasoning of "don't warn them" was further evidence of confirmation bias. He's thinking about police procedures. He's gathering evidence for the prosecution, NOT investigating (whether there is enough to prosecute). 

I believe that is what happened, given the evidence available. I am well aware that I could be falling into the same trap: I want it to be confirmation bias, so I am looking for signs of confirmation bias. 

Which is why I am now asking you, the readers. 

Do you think this is confirmation bias? Did he simply ASSUME there's fraud, because he was TOLD there's fraud? And once he decided it's fraud, he didn't bother looking into anything else? Let me know in the comments. 

Previously, we had discussed the four sub-types of Karens;

(NOTE: for consistency, I'll be using the term Karen, and "Ken" if the subject is male. Apologies to actual people named Karen and Ken)

Type I: "Serve me, peon!" Karen -- entitled Karen wanted people around her to serve her, no matter how inappropriate (i.e. "I don't work here, lady!" stories)

Type II: Vigilante Karen -- narcissistic Karen believes she's doing the world right by enforcing some "law" or "standard" in her head, even though it was uncalled for, i.e. "Karen calls the cops on my wobbly disabled father for alleged public intoxication" or "Karen tried to kidnap unaccompanied minor in an airport, chased her across multiple terminals". 

Type III: Punisher Karen -- narcissistic Karen believes her target needs to be punished for whatever transgressions in her head. Example: "Karen tries to rip out server's hair because Karen can't believe they are not extensions". 

Type IV: Robber Karen -- entitled parent who decided she must obtain whatever her child wanted by harassing the owner, or outright robbery, esp if the owner is a minor. This can range from a game console to musical instrument worth thousands, all for free or for a toy's price, of course. There's no logic in this other than she somehow had determined that her child is more "deserving" (i.e. entitled) to the item than you, and she's going to "correct" that injustice. So there are similarities to both type I and type II. Example: "Karen tries to steal model train set at show caused hundreds in damages."

Today, I like to propose a 5th sub-type of Karen: the "How Dare You Karen", aka the "anti-mom Karen"

The How Dare You Karen is an entitled and negligent parent, usually accompanied by one or more entitled kids. The kids, used to the negligent parenting of Karen, are wild and unmannered, run around and screams in public, with zero decorum, mess with stuff that's not theirs, because Karen believes in "free-ranging" her kids and not setting limits, believing that to be, well, good parenting. Her mommy instincts however, will emerge when anyone else dare to teach her kids decorum or help her kids when they got into trouble or hurt themselves. 

Example: "Kid hits head horsing around, CSM helps, Karen mom calls corporate to complain about CSM attitude" TL;DR version: Mom and 2 kids (5-8?) checking out at a store. Kids wander off, boy started messing with wheel chair, which has a swing basket. The basket got dislodged and bopped him on the head. Boy started crying, so manager walked over to check on him. Kid's okay, manager then told the kid "That's why we don't climb on things we aren't supposed to because you can get hurt doing that" just as mom walked up with the other kid. Mom took both kids out. Ten minutes later, corporate called. Apparently Karen mom complained to corporate that manager told her kid "served him right". 

This type of Karen feel that her kids are flawless, anyone dare to correct her kids had to go through her first. In other words, she's going to discipline everyone BUT her kids with her vigilante attitude, making her related to Type II and Type III. So she's the "anti-mom" or "No Mommy" Karen as well. "How Dare You Do My Job (as Mommy)"?! 

Do you agree with the classification / taxonomy? Do we need more subtypes? Comment below! 

A Type II "Vigilante Karen" was documented on Reddit harassing a father with his disabled child in San Francisco's Lands End, mistaking them as "old man dragging a drugged kid" over the July 4th weekend in 2023, and park police was summoned. 

Father, in his 40s, was with his disabled 7-year old son with severe intellectual disability at Lands End for some nature. 

They were just walking on a trail when a wild Karen appeared... 

This Karen in her 20s (no other description given) ran up to them and kept asking do they need any help which they clearly do not. However, Karen will not let them go, and even blocked their path. Karen kept insisting she only wanted to help them, even though she's scaring the kid. 

They turned back, and was soon confronted by park police. Apparently someone called in "elderly man dragging a drugged child". Police quickly determined nothing's wrong, gave the kid a sticker, and that's that. 

No word on what happened to the Karen when police arrived and cleared the father of any wrongdoing. 

Father speculates that the Karen probably called in the police before confronting them as a delaying tactic, and may have realized her mistake when looking at the child up close. 

Skeptic's Analysis: This is a classic case of Type II Vigilante Karen who summons law enforcements or tries to enforce some laws to "improve the society and right some wrongs" even though there was nothing wrong, merely her perception of such as an entitled Karen. 

Have you spotted any Karens lately? So far, I've identified 5 types:

Type I: "Serve me!" Karen, usually in a store, source of "I don't work here, lady" stories, mistaking some random person as a store employee and demanding service.

Type II: "Vigilante Karen", see above, mis-perceives the situation as unethical or criminal, summons law enforcement for the perceived crime or tries to enforce the law herself, but not physical

Type III: "Punisher Karen", Vigilante Karen that got physical

Type IV: "Robber Karen", indulgent mother who decided to rob others of items for her child. could be pet, toy, model, etc., could be in public or against other children.

Type V: "How Dare You Karen", negligent mother who decided her child's perfect and anyone who dare to correct her child would need to suffer her wrath, similar to Type IV but less physical, similar to Type II and Type III.

Please share reports of "Karens in the wild!" 

When the FBI warns the public about a scam, you know it's serious. And that's the Phantom Hacker scam. 

To make a long story short, the scam has 3 phases. 

1) A random call from a major company (this is fake, BTW), such as Amazon, or a company you deal with) trying to convince you that you've been hacked, and they will convince you to download a remote control software so they can takeover your computer later. After convincing you, they hand off to part 2, a "fraud department of your financial institution". 

2) A second fake contact calls you, claims to work for the fraud department of your bank, where they will help you *scan* for fake transactions, then tell you that your account is vulnerable, and they will "help" you move your money to some "safe place" operated by the Feds. 

3) A third fake contact calls you, falsely claiming to work for the Feds, assures you your money will be fine and returned to you after they trace the hacker. Except there never was a hacker, and your money disappears and never seen again. 

So what can you do? Do NOT believe random pop-ups or calls, no matter how urgent they appear to be. Most companies operate some sort of 24/7 helpline or chat channel online. 

Beware the phantom hacker scam.