While I agree it was not wise for him to be walking along the side of the highway drunk, and I do feel sorry for the driver who may not have been doing anything wrong, the fact remains that the person killed was NOT driving. Maybe he made the conscious decision to walk home instead, in order not to put others at risk?

Lots of people drink responsibly and never get behind a wheel afterwards, so to insinuate that it's great this guy was killed because now he can't drive drunk when he was killed while WALKING seems both insensitive and a leap in logic.

For some reason, when I picture him shaved and wearing a brown wig, what I get in my head is Blagojevich.

I didn't disagree with your statement, I answered your question. "Wouldn't that mean ... ?" with no, it doesn't mean that. Anyone being able to cite one or two people who abuse the system does not mean there are 'quite a few' people gaming the system. In fact, in an extreme case, it could mean there are exactly two people gaming the system.

On a related note, it makes me giggle that I got rated down. This is one of our Nation's many problems. What I said was a factual explanation based on statistics. But the 'masses' disapprove. People don't get to define what the truth is, thank goodness.

As a stastician, I can't leave that one alone. No, it doesn't. Because one person can be known by a lot of other people. So 30 people citing one person who abuses the system may all be thinking about the same person. Out of the many, many people I know, I can think of two who abused the system. My husband would say the same, and would be thinking of the same people. So might my friends, because they've heard of the same people from me, etc.

In addition, if it's a non-disease, why would it ever be diagnosed anyway? The opposite of disease in western medicine is when you don't have anything wrong with you. In candida kills you, it IS a disease, but you've just said it isn't a disease, therefore if you have candida that's perfectly normal and you don't need a diagnosis for it. Doctors DO diagnose people with candida overgrowth every day--vaginitis, thrush, etc.

This is the problem. When you present things the way you have here, you sound like a swindler, you sound like you're trying to manipulate and take advantage of people instead of helping them. If you believe what you say, you need to actually educate yourself in a balanced way instead of relying on rhetoric and false promises and then being outraged when science won't buy it.

That is not what you said, though, what you said was, and I quote "If you get cancer or any major illness, try the anti-candida diet and you will be cured!"

Now you are citing your personal experience, which is actually a valid thing to do. Initially you were extending your personal experience over the entire population of humanity. "Do this one thing that helped me and you will be cured." Which is ridiculous.

Also, according to Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, a disease is: an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions, is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms, and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors. Candida overgrowth in the body is, in fact, a disease.

Additionally, "the largest misdiagnosed non-disease in the world" ... how could that possibly be confirmed? If it's misdiagnosed, it is not properly identified. To know it has been misdiagnosed, it would have to later be PROPERLY diagnosed ... meaning that it's no longer misdiagnosed. Second, if it does what you say it does, it IS a disease, what IS a 'non-disease'? I work in statistics, and if you want to throw out statements like that, they need to 1) make sense, 2) actually have numbers and references.

The problem with alternative cancer treatments is that almost everyone tries them. There is nothing wrong with that, but in cases where someone makes a miraculous recovery, it's always the alternative treatment that did it. It's never the accepted medical treatment. It's never just random chance. It's always the anti-candida, or the all blueberry diet or whatever is in vogue at the moment. And then those cases get picked up by all the people who believed in them in the first place and used like an infomercial of misinformation. And when the majority of those who try the new treatment have NO good effect, when they die anyway, it's the medical method's fault ... it's that they didn't try the 'miracle' method soon enough, or they did too much of the 'bad' medical method.

People don't think in statistics. They like to make the exception the rule, and they like the underdog. They like to go up against the 'big bad medical establishment' and try something new and unsupported by the evidence. If it makes the person feel better, more power to them, but going around touting this methods like they 100% work and like the medical methods are hopeless in the complete absence of any solid and repeatable scientific evidence that shows that they work AND are at least as effective as the standard treatment is both ignorant and dangerous.

I am all for scientific investigation of alternative treatments, but not Shopping Channel Does Snake Oil 'Ra-ra' and propaganda laden BS. It is true that the scientific world is resistant to change. Sometimes someone with a brilliant idea is suppressed, yes. The people who discovered that ulcers are caused by a bacteria are an excellent example. Sometimes the scientific community fails to suppress someone who SHOULD have been suppressed, like Lancet publishing the worst 'scientific' article I've ever read by Wakefield and tipping off the vaccine=autism scare. And sometimes science suppresses someone because they are actually full of crap. That's a lot more common than brilliance or mistakes.

I think that depends on the child. And while I absolutely do think that bullying should be taken seriously, I also think there's a difference between "seriously" as in getting expelled for the FIRST offense, and having it explained that criminal action will be taken if it continues, and "seriously" as in "quick, execute the kid."

As a victim of bullying, I do wish it had been taken seriously. If this picture is just a link in a CHAIN of cruel behavior by students, then yes. Criminal prosecution is reasonable, but prosecution for bullying should look a lot different than prosecution for sexual exploitation. If it comes out that the picture was taken for sexual gratification of any party, OR if anyone is found to be using it for that purpose (particularly an adult) THEN it becomes a sex crime.

I think this mother herself said it best "If this were an adult ..." Well, sorry lady, but it WASN'T an adult. If it was an adult, then she's absolutely right. If it was another kid, then heck, let's start prosecuting two year olds who go through that phase where they don't want to wear clothing for indecent exposure. Was taking the photo inappropriate? Yes. Do the students who took it need to be disciplined? Absolutely. It was not an acceptable or compassionate act, and they DO need to understand that. Do they need jail time? No.

To be honest, I think that the reaction of this mother is actually really hurtful and insensitive to the plights of children who ARE exploited for sexual reasons. Not that any pain the boys in the photo are experiencing should be minimized, because bullying can have long lasting consequences, and make the already uncomfortable experience of being a teenager almost unbearable. But it is NOT the same as the experience of true sexual exploitation.

Now, if they find copies of this photo in the possession of teachers or other adults later? THEN let's haul out the child pornography charges.

As for the 'would it be different if it was the girl's shower room' ... that depends. Was the picture taken by a teenaged boy, or another of the girls? What was the INTENT of the picture? My guess is that if it's taken by a teenage boy, it's a little bit more than just "Ha ha, let's make these guys look dumb." If the picture is used for sexual reasons, then there is an actual crime, but I'm pretty sure that this photo was not taken as and has likely not been used as 'self-gratification' material. If that winds up to be the case? Then sure, prosecute the kids, because then it's become criminal behavior and not just a stupid prank by kids whose brains are not yet formed enough to be held responsible for thinking out the potential repercussions of their actions.

Soooo, if we stopped shooting bears, we could all have pet bears today? I don't see the argument FOR hunting here. :P