Yours Truly

Agreed. Also, Is Club Detox connected with Resveratrol? The one comment was about the Resveratrol being beneficial for whoever Brooks was referring to. The club detox stuff he was doing for whatever health benefits he felt would provide him in his battle with cancer. Vick and Brooks are a fan of Club Detox and publicly say as much. So I don't see how what they are doing is wrong.

When you pick apart every single thing it always turns up more non-issues that seem like relevant discrepancies. I bet if you went through one whole day extra aware of the nuanses within basic communication you can come up with a million examples of how many inaccuracies occur in certain dialogues. We just take them in stride and adjust our thinking or accept corrections at face value, we don't automatically reflect back into a conversation we had a few days before, or a different conversation with someone else all together and start weaving a sweater of deceit that's needs unveiling. Even if we think something is off. It's just so ridiculous to justify these women with their antics.

But didn't you know ALL of that is waived once you're on reality tv. I mean, I get it, can't go on reality tv without opening that door and relinqueshing privacy but honestly? Just because you've chosen to share some of your life you are no longer ALLOWED to still try and keep some of it private? I don't get that part. That you can't be in control of how much of it you share and when you can limit the amount of information you feel like sharing somehow YOU'RE wrong and people are telling you you can't do that? I mean, basically, reality show or not people can share or not share whatever the hell they want. Sure the contract puts certain requirements on them but Jeez Louise, that doesn't mean they aren't allowed to be outraged at DISRESPECT. You start a conversation that goes south and you can't complain that the other party took it to a immature place but oh no, can't react to it or be dismayed by it because you initiated the conversation? I mean seriously. An interaction or conversation goes sour people have the right to be less than pleased with the outcome. Being on a reality show doesn't negate the right to feel put off with unnecesarry bullshit. It just doesn't and I'm sick of that being the explanation to all things inappropriate that occur on reality shows. I like some sort of balance and I'm so annoyed that these shows have one stupid recipe which is Season starts, pick a target, commence witchhunt, reunion, next franchise season starts. Wash, rinse, repeat. To be quite honest it really is an insult to the viewers intellegence however we do lap it up so I guess it is what it is.

This is awesome! LOL

People advocate for hollistic medicines ALL THE TIME to treat all things including life threatening illnesses so I don't get why it's so scandalous that Vicki and Brooks give positive reviews to something that they feel is beneficial to overall health. So far it looks like they are expressing how pleased they were with the product. I would bet that anyone who is doing research for their own health reasons would be able to see what the product claims to help, what the benefits are etc. and make decisions based on what the product is claiming to do vs. what they need in terms of health care. It's all about the advertising. If they are blantanly saying their product officially beats cancer that's one thing but if it's just advocating a way to get your body in it's best state to fight illnesses and health issues that's another. Just like a lot of products out there, it's about claiming that it can help put your best foot forward and be prepared, not that it's the cure all. And I'm not even sure the product even claims more than just clean living for the body, detox and overall wellness.

Just wondering about the admission that the questioning went on for over an hour. Did you hear it in an episode? I thought it was in a blog. Thanks.

I thought it was also verified in other HW blogs?

They only had but so many charters each season and I remember timing being an issue for Ben on at least 3 different occassions. One was the extremely late dinner but it happened a few times in different ways. Like long wait times between courses and the such not just dinner starting late. I recall thinking to myself during one episode, didn't you just get called out on have timing issues with the last guests only for it to be happening AGAIN? I remember being uber annoyed with him cause I couldn't understand how he thought it was ok to just do his thing and fuck the rest. I found it so weird especially when one time he did his own thing to the dismay of the guests not longer after he gave Kate grief for something she did that may have truly jeopardized everyone's tip. I was like is this guy for real?

Agreed. If nothing else Leon seems to get the food to the guests in a timely manner. Ben used to not give a rats ass about schedule that not only kept the guests hungry but threw off the stews because they had other duties to perform between dinner and end of night. Ben used to serve what he wanted a good amount of the time and be really far from guest preferences while Leon may do his own thing WHILE still adhering somewhat to what the guests are requesting or has put on their preference sheets. He works with that information not completely disregards it like Ben used to do regularly.

But didn't they ask questions for over an hour? I mean, if your questioning the answers to initial basic questions and it goes on and on wouldn't it be fair to come to the conclusion that people are stepping over that line into inappropriate doubt? Is there really anything wrong with Vicki and Brooks discomfort about the escalating inappropriateness with regards to their need for in depth clarifications? I mean why would the discussion of Brooks health go on for over an hour unless he had to keep offering up clarifications and explanations to more and more questions. How well does a group of people need to understand someone else's medical history or current health plan? I too would feel like there was a shift in the tone of the conversation if after a few answered questions I was still subjected to continued scrutiny. I mean if it were me and I was asking about his health and plan and some of the stuff didn't jive I'd just smile nod, realize I'm not completely "getting it" and then move on from the topic since, hell, I don't NEED to understand it so I'd mentally be like "this is where I leave you" and shift focus since I've gotten all I can get out of the inquiries. I wouldn't continue to probe until everything made sense to ME. But anyhoo, thanks for the clarification. I was just wondering why it mattered when Brooks and Vicki started feeling like they were being doubting by "everyone" and who started what doubt at whatever time during filming.

Agreed. It's sad that they're these lines that can be crossed just because reality show, blah, blah blah, famewhore blah, blah, blah. I mean, guilty pleasures don't need to be that guilty and this idea that a reality show camera is considered a 100% free pass, to these women, and in part the viewers, to suspend the need to behave with some sort of human decency. I don't approve of the extremes these women allow themselves to go to. Even if <gasp> they've decided to be on a reality show.

Well if it doesn't work make sure you are making note. Nothing is more morally irreprehensible than advertising a product that doesn't work 100% for everyone! :-P P.S. the few times I've used airborne and those cold defense products I never ended up sick. I just started trying it a few months back and I am VERY prone for colds. Me and my son are terrible terrible. If we are around anyone who is sick even for two seconds, BAM. We are both the same if I get sick he gets sick and vice versa. We easily pass it on to each other each and every time but these last 3 times I've felt it and used what I got a few months ago, not once. Which is very unusual so I like to believe the cold defense works for me and in turn spares my son as well. LOL! Is this all to express that Brooks and Vicki had no reason to feel as if the group of ladies were doubting his cancer? I don't understand what this observation is suppossed to counter or clarify?

Oh yeah, I know I was just cluing you in since it was your sentiment I was attempting to "adjust" but you're right nosy is too mild. Personally I think they are all bitches and I would have put them all in their place in two seconds flat cause at the end of the day "FUCK OFF".. It's crazy how people feel they have a right to such nasty, self importance. So Brooks is lying? Who the fuck cares? I get lied to on a regular basis. People try to get over on others on a regular basis. If at the halfway part of your life you still can't figure out how to manuever these details of life without becoming completely unglued at the idea that you're not completely informed about all things that don't really involve you then I will laugh that much harder about you being duped. It's just so ridiculous how invested people get at the idea of not knowing something for sure. Shit life's too damn short.

So the creator of Club Detox has issues. Okay. Not the best thing to be associated with if there are hijinx going on with the Managing Principal of this product and institution

Did Brooks at one point suggest being grilled? I just thought is was a word that one of the posters decided to use and now we are stuck on the semantics but if Brooks actually said grilled at some point why would the term need to come from Vicki for it to be validated? I'm confused. Also if the women admitted to the questioning going on for about an hour or so then I would think the word grilled works in describing the situation. But that's just me. ETA: apparently it's not just me.. LOL

How about this.? The cake was a ploy to be NOSEY about Brooks cancer. Does this work Cherry Slushie? :-)

I was just wondering because I see the build up of the argument that there's recklessness happening regarding Brooks/Vicki sending false hopes and "claiming" this treatment cures cancer but I don't see it. Now if they were on QVC hawking their own product claiming that it's doing something other than what the product is advertised to do to a degree that it's blatanly misleading when it comes to serious illness then I can see the side eye. Now mind you, I get the whole, sussing out the connection between Club Detox, Vicki/Brooks promoting it, the Dr. testimonials and the inclusion of that chick that arranged the meeting I'm just hoping it doesn't digress into it being explained and debated as something it isn't. I just don't want another convoluted conspiracy theory erupting about how wrong it is to claim these juices cured Crooks of cancer when no one has actually made that claim.

So these products aren't this Dr.'s products? I'm just making sure I'm not lumping a business that promotes healthy and natural approaches to cleansing the body with a Dr. that's shilling his own product promising a cure for cancer. I mean if this Dr. was the founder of Club Detox and the creator of these juices, recipes, etc. then yeah, I'd question the ethical side but if he's just acknowledging and reiterating what the site already states about the beneficial results of using these methods I see no real scandal..

I was just wondering if this doctor is also directly involved with Club detox and he includes those products as an official part of his treatment.

Is Club Detox pushing the idea that they cure cancer? I mean I think we are getting a bit carried away. I think, even before Brooks and Vicki they were about providing organic products that do beneficial things to your body naturally. It's nothing different than all the other hollistic approaches and providers and products that are out there that try and market their items also claiming many health benefits. Is Club Detox connected to the whole Reservatrol treatment? If it's Club Detox that's also providing Brooks with that whole alternative course of treatment then yeah, side eye but I thought the Club Detox juicing and stuff was additional "can't hurt" , all natural and organic, build up the body and refresh tactics to go along with the "official" alternative treatment Brooks decided to try.

There are processes out there where "dictated but not reviewed" is an option. It's suppossed to be some sort of disclamer. Not saying it's widely used but I ran into that little detail while looking around the internet getting more familiar with the medical transcribing process. I found it odd to run into something like that because everything I kept coming across kept highlighting how transcribing medical reports takes a lot of effort because errors are high due different factors and corrections are expected to be made by the transcriber. Then I ran into how many different options medical practices have for this process and saw how some medical outfits choose software like the one I mentioned above with the disclamer "dictated but not review".

This seems to be easier to believe but I'm scratching my head with you on this one.

Just pointing out the claims that there's definitely no way Brooks could have legitimately received that report from a medical institution or professional. I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking that a medical document with errors on it is unprofessional. I also don't think it's wrong to believe that a medical report, leaving a medical facility or given to a patient by a medical professional, in a less than accurate state is unacceptable. That makes complete sense to me. I was just questioning the postion that there's no way that Brooks acquired his report through legitimate means or that it's impossible for him to have recieved a document with errors on it from medical personnel. There has been plenty of examples and actual experiences presented that, at the very least, counter the idea that there's no way Brooks would have received a less than par document directly from a medical facility or professional. Apparently it happens as others have explained. There have also been explanations that address other issues with the report such as software/printer/computer capabilities and mismatched compatibilities as well as poor transcribers and trascription software. So there is more than enough out there to also support the theory that the document wasn't a fake but possibly the result of one or more of the explanations offered which utilize reasonable logic and personal experiences.

I'm curious how many mistakes were there? But Freckledbruh, apparently you're experience can't possibly be a plausible explantion for that "mockument" of Brooks. When all is said and done, to me there's more information out there to validate Brooks isn't faking than there is to prove he is.

Well apparantly it's easier to believe that someone presented a doctured document so ridiculously flawed than it is to even consider something that's apparently pretty common as the cause. I'm all about the doubts but the gaps a lot of these theories creates in the attempt to prove Brooks is lying just doesn't jive with me. If I'm to be convinced then at least use plausible explanations besides Brooks is a liar who lies (which I haven't really seen prove of this pathological ailment). That's what the HW's are doing. They pick apart this detail that detail then theorize and present as "truth/justice" but only anchored with "I don't trust, like, Brooks oh and he lies so what I'm claiming has to be right".