• ingesting iodine cures ovarian cancer
• apple cider vinegar cures bursitis and fibromyalgia
• ingesting iodine causes weight loss
• chlorella cures radiation poisoning
• HPV vaccine makes girls more promiscuous
• Spinal adjustment on babies produce smarter kids
• 95% of diabetes can be managed by lifestyle ALONE (not type 1!)
• celiac disease is caused by vaccination
• "natural immunity" is stronger than vaccine immunity
• GMO food is bad for your health
• lots of ADHD "alternative facts" not supported by science
• and lots and lots more

Bob DeMaria's website where he'll sell you plenty of stuff NOT related to chiropractic, the only thing he's certified in

• 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.