quaintirene November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 But if they can't afford chemo then.....? What? Leave room out there for the "legit" holistic, inexpensive treatments? What about the Dr. that claimed his NHL didn't come back after using resevratrol? Did that really happen? If it did what then? Which is precisely my point. If they can't afford chemo what then? R-CHOP has a huge cure rate. I would like to find the scientists who came up with Retuximab--which is the monoclonal antibody that saved my husband's life--and give them a big kiss, a bouquet of out-of-season roses and my eternal gratitude. But if you can't afford it. Well then you become prey to all the 'alternative' medicine purveyors who claim they will cure you for less money--but still significant money. Anyone here remember laetrile? The wonder alternative drug which meant you didn't need to go through chemo etc etc etc. I always wonder what the final body count on that one was. I have no answer for those poor people who have to undergo horrific personal circumstances in order to cure themselves. 'Medical bankruptcy' was a term I only found out when my husband was sick and I was spending night after night on the (very helpful and informative) Leukaemia and Lymphoma Board. But better bankrupt and alive, IMO, than spending $$$$$ on a 'cure' that has about as much validity as mainlining Coca Cola. I'm sorry, but this crap makes me want to vomit. 8 Link to comment
WireWrap November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 And being mad about lies= let's explore more about Brooks medical claims? Shouldn't it have gone more like, Um Vicki I'm pissed you said something that wasn't true about Terry and in a medical situation too?..... and then go on from there. There's no denying that every grievance any of these women had with Vicki someone transitioned into... Now let's talk about Brooks medical claims... Wait, whaaaaa? Even if the TOPIC of Vicki's babbling was about Brooks calling Vicki out on lies should have revolved around what SHE was saying with regards to whether there WAS someone there to give the IV not "Where's Brooks medical records", it didn't seem like anyone was ever prepared to question Vicki on her lies of times and places but instead used those discrepencies to continuously BRING UP does he or doesn't he.. Those details are lost on most but they're not lost on me. Nobody ever stuck with the initial inconsistencies of Vicki's they would use it as a springboard to bring up particulars about Brooks and needing proof and bringing up again what Brooks could do in order to lay to rest to all the uncertainty. Everything always managed to roll back around to what the WOMEN wanted from Vicki and Brooks not so much about the specific grievance they were addressing with Vicki. It would start out with hey Vicki this didn't add up to what you said so ummmmm, then it would jump to, why doesn't Brooks show us something....It pissed me off every time. I know that much. How are the other HWs supposed to know where these lies started? How are they supposed to figure out if the lies begin with Brooks, with Vicki or the 2 together? They were getting conflicting stories about everything from BOTH Vicki and Brooks and BOTH Vicki and Brooks were evasive in their answers when questioned about the differing stories. ONLY Brooks has a known history lying about having cancer, not Vicki, so I think they felt Vicki was being lied to as well and therefore tried to give her the benefit of doubt throughout most of the season. 6 Link to comment
Satchels of gold November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Brooks made the announcement that his Stage 3 NHL was NOT responding to the conventional treatments he was recieving and he was going to QUIT chemo to try resveratrol because he spoke to a Dr that claimed it "CURED" his NHL. He doesn't go into any details after that UNTIL the last few interviews he has given E. He NOW claims his NHL is all but in remission/cured BECAUSE of the nontraditional methods. There will be some % of the population that will try any and all to cure their cancer outside traditional methods, women that develop Breast cancer and refuse to have anything more than a lumpectomy because they don't want to loose their breast(s), refuse chemo because they don't want to loose their hair and some that are more terrified of chemo than the cancer itself. It is these people that Cons, like Brooks, prey on when they promote these as legit "alternative" treatments. You are welcome! I vote B! The guy is a scum bag and, IMO, he is hoping that people buy Club Detox products so that he can make some easy $$$$$ and nothing more. Steve Jobs did alternative therapy for his cancer when his rare pancreatic cancer was the one type that responded to the conventional therapy. There are people who don't want to do chemo because they would rather do natural therapies. I think Brooks was trying to peddle Club Detox and was using his "cancer" as a hook - the earth lady had it on her t-shirt, and it is all over Vicki's website. The reservetrol or whatever is in that juice. I wonder how much juicing Vicki and Brooks had filmed/mentioned during filming before Bravo became uncomfortable. ITA with the poster that Bravo initiated the Tamra psychic bc they got wind of a scam by Brooks. Bravo more than the women don't want to be affiliated with "miracle cures" for cancer. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. I hope the lost footage is an entire hour of Vicki and Brooks talking about Club Detox. I'm in the camp that thinks he did it to make money. He won't be the first nor the last.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/04/22/none-of-its-true-disgraced-wellness-guru-belle-gibson-comes-clean-on-cancer-hoax/ 7 Link to comment
Yours Truly November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 I think your response is really rude. I haven't 'scream[ed] national consipiracy' or anything like it. Please don't quote me in full and then distort what I wrote. The crusade and reference to national security refers to the lengths these women went through and some spin on why it mattered so much to get to the bottom of Brooks claims. Also the idea that the women continued to question/ doubt/ side eye/ discuss/and eventually either ask, suggest or expect proof is because of any public "concern", to me is hogwash and an after thought to give justification for what was plain old gossip, mean and inappropriate behavior. My observations are in reference to the laughable explanations that have been given in hindsight by these women. 3 Link to comment
Yours Truly November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 (edited) Which is precisely my point. If they can't afford chemo what then? R-CHOP has a huge cure rate. I would like to find the scientists who came up with Retuximab--which is the monoclonal antibody that saved my husband's life--and give them a big kiss, a bouquet of out-of-season roses and my eternal gratitude. But if you can't afford it. Well then you become prey to all the 'alternative' medicine purveyors who claim they will cure you for less money--but still significant money. Anyone here remember laetrile? The wonder alternative drug which meant you didn't need to go through chemo etc etc etc. I always wonder what the final body count on that one was. I have no answer for those poor people who have to undergo horrific personal circumstances in order to cure themselves. 'Medical bankruptcy' was a term I only found out when my husband was sick and I was spending night after night on the (very helpful and informative) Leukaemia and Lymphoma Board. But better bankrupt and alive, IMO, than spending $$$$$ on a 'cure' that has about as much validity as mainlining Coca Cola. I'm sorry, but this crap makes me want to vomit. My point is if chemo isn't an option anyway..... then what makes all these holistic options so wrong? This is one of many options out there and again I'm not saying I'm drinking the kool aid but wouldn't there be the slightest substance to the claim if it indeed worked for that one Dr. who claimed he tried the treatment and his NHL didn't resurface? I'm just saying. Can't deny that there have been treatments on record that used unconventional medicine and produced desired results. They're out there. Not saying this is one of them but I'm not in a position to test this particular treatment also not exactly sure what portions of the treatment we were shown Brooks to partaking in was designed to do what. What we saw could have very well been successful in doing whatever it was meant to do. Rehydrate him? Up his whatever count? Put color into his cheeks? Detox? Cleanse his colon? Small things that help make the body stronger to fight the disease? That's usually one part of the process especially holistically. There are just so many leaps to the conclusion "Brooks and Vicki tried to officially claim: Drink the juice, get an IV and viola you cancer is gone". That wasn't the case since I don't even know whether or that Dr.'s claim was legit or not. Is there any word on any scandal revolving around his scans, disease, remission, treatment, validity? Anything? I'm honestly curious. Edited November 10, 2015 by Yours Truly 2 Link to comment
Yours Truly November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 How are the other HWs supposed to know where these lies started? How are they supposed to figure out if the lies begin with Brooks, with Vicki or the 2 together? They were getting conflicting stories about everything from BOTH Vicki and Brooks and BOTH Vicki and Brooks were evasive in their answers when questioned about the differing stories. ONLY Brooks has a known history lying about having cancer, not Vicki, so I think they felt Vicki was being lied to as well and therefore tried to give her the benefit of doubt throughout most of the season. Why do they have to know is my question? Most reasonable people deal with inconsistencies all the time and even with significant issues and close friends but at some point just decide it's not something that's gonna keep them up at night, don't feed it and leave it in the realm of petty and unnecessary. This is where I think it should have been left. Especially considering the subject manner. 4 Link to comment
WireWrap November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Why do they have to know is my question? Most reasonable people deal with inconsistencies all the time and even with significant issues and close friends but at some point just decide it's not something that's gonna keep them up at night, don't feed it and leave it in the realm of petty and unnecessary. This is where I think it should have been left. Especially considering the subject manner. Ummm, because they were worried about Vicki. This is a guy who has a history of lying about cancer to other women, something I have no doubt that Heather, Tamra and Shannon already knew BEFORE his latest cancer/NHL claim. 3 Link to comment
freeradical November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 (edited) Yours Truly - Since you can die from the actual chemo treatment and side effects from it, I'm pretty sure to avoid a lawsuit in case that happens an MD would always err on the side of caution and insist on a documented emergency room treatment. If V and B were telling the truth about how dire his puking/dehydration was, it would be considered an emergency. If someone is hungover or just wants a hydration IV, it's not an emergent situation, actually they should just drink some water! Edited November 10, 2015 by freeradical 4 Link to comment
Pattycake2 November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 That's the thing. They would definitely need to clear up that Terry is not some wild west Doc. Dubrow showing up to people's houses to give IV's to people. That's malpractice type stuff. Even Brooks own doctor would have met him at the emergency room to give the IV. Why would it be a malpractice thing? A doctor can give you an IV at home. So can a nurse. So can your Aunt Matilda. It's all legal. 3 Link to comment
zoeysmom November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Why do they have to know is my question? Most reasonable people deal with inconsistencies all the time and even with significant issues and close friends but at some point just decide it's not something that's gonna keep them up at night, don't feed it and leave it in the realm of petty and unnecessary. This is where I think it should have been left. Especially considering the subject manner. They only were exposed to knowing because Brooks gave interviews, including one that was published the morning before the CUT Fitness meeting. So it falls on them as being part of a candid reality show to at least acknowledge and hopefully support Brooks and is then self-proclaimed battle with cancer. It is not as if this cancer came up because Perez Hilton was digging through Vicki's garbage and found a chemo prescription, or another patient in the infusion room outed Brooks as having cancer. Brooks and Vicki out in on the table, told tales in hopes of sympathy. Brooks talked of getting support from Shannon in the form of an oncology referral. Brooks brought up the alternative treatments. So if they were expected and did give support and then red flags started flying they needed to confirm their support was bona fide. No one has said they stayed up a night ruminating over the cancer question. I for one, do not find cancer petty or unnecessary. Brooks faking cancer was in particularly poor taste when they had another ancillary cast member being filmed and her very real terminal cancer is being discussed. 2 Link to comment
Pattycake2 November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Ummm, because they were worried about Vicki. This is a guy who has a history of lying about cancer to other women, something I have no doubt that Heather, Tamra and Shannon already knew BEFORE his latest cancer/NHL claim. Worried about Vicki? 1 Link to comment
Lucygirl2 November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Brooks & Vicki lied about Brooks having Cancer! The lengths the woman (mostly Meghan) went to to uncover the lie shouldn't hold the same weight as far as outrage goes & honestly I can't believe it does for apparently some people. Yes, Meghan was a bit overly enthusiastic in her "Nancy Drew" act & I don't think she did it out of concern for Vicki but should the outrage be anywhere near the same as it is for Vicki & Brooks who lied about Cancer??? I also have no doubts that if none of these women ever said anything to expose the lies & it came out at some point Brooks faked his cancer, we would all be sitting here thinking everyone of these bitches was in on it. And the outrage over Terry, a doctor, supporting these lies. 9 Link to comment
Lyra Angelica November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 No one here said the two situations hold the same weight. However, the women don't look very good for going through the lengths they did and the situation would never have escalated the way it did (the scans, the interviews, the Cut Fitness episode, etc.) if they had just let it die in the beginning. Brooks lies would have exposed him for what he is. 6 Link to comment
Yours Truly November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Ummm, because they were worried about Vicki. This is a guy who has a history of lying about cancer to other women, something I have no doubt that Heather, Tamra and Shannon already knew BEFORE his latest cancer/NHL claim. Hogwash. Nastiness and selfish famewhoring (minus Shannon) were more their motivation IMO. Where Shannon jumped on afterwards for somewhat relevant reasons but then took a nasty path of my pride, my pride. Again, something that should have been left in the realm of petty and unnecessary. <Shrug> 4 Link to comment
Lyra Angelica November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 These women are not concerned about each other. It's all a big game to see who can come out on top and who can get the most air time. 7 Link to comment
Yours Truly November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Yours Truly - Since you can die from the actual chemo treatment and side effects from it, I'm pretty sure to avoid a lawsuit in case that happens an MD would always err on the side of caution and insist on a documented emergency room treatment. If V and B were telling the truth about how dire his puking/dehydration was, it would be considered an emergency. If someone is hungover or just wants a hydration IV, it's not an emergent situation, actually they should just drink some water! I didn't know the IV story was connected to such a "dire" situation. It was just sticking out to me cause I just saw an IV house call not that long ago on Married to Medicine so it didn't seem like such a pearl clutching claim but if Vicki was claiming Brooks was having some sort of emergency reaction on deaths door and Terry prescribed his IV toting Dr. Friend as a solution then absolutely not just a gatorade, electrolite situation. Worried about Vicki? Yeah I know, I scratch my head at this all the time too... <shrug> 1 Link to comment
Yours Truly November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 (edited) HOW? Really, how? And as someone else here already pointed out, Had his lie been exposed at some later date after filming ended, most here would be questioning why Heather, Shannon, Tamra and Meghan didn't follow through and that the only reason would be that they were also complicit in the lie. Oh so what we the viewers THINK is the really good reason and justification for making the validity of someone else's medical claims their concern to such a degree? Makes sense now. Lying about Cancer is the less deplorable offense?? SMH... I don't even know what to say about this one. Because I can't even NOW claim 100% that he did lie about CANCER. Other things, whatever. That's my point. You don't go around accusing people about lying about their health period. And you definitely don't do it to hold on to an orange. I mean seriously? Edited November 10, 2015 by Yours Truly 3 Link to comment
WireWrap November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Oh so what we the viewers THINK is the really good reason and justification for making the validity of someone else's medical claims their concern to such a degree? Makes sense now. Right...and shooting the messanger makes more sense, not the lying liar that lies. 6 Link to comment
Lyra Angelica November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 How? The last time he was "outed" for a cancer lie was because his ex GF exposed him, not because some blogger dug through his garbage or his twitter/IG accounts. He was exposed by someone that had first hand knowledge and knew Brooks in real life. Could they not dig into his life as well and contact people he knows in "real life"? If he were really going through stage III cancer and his treatments weren't working, or even if he started going through more intensive treatments, either would take a toll on his body eventually. If he looked like the picture of good health all the time, it would look more and more suspcious and maybe those tabloids would latch onto the story. and start investigating. 1 Link to comment
Yours Truly November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Right...and shooting the messanger makes more sense, not the lying liar that lies. I think that saying comes about because getting shot is actually par for the course if you decide to wade in too deep into matters that don't honestly concern you aside from you having some information. Could they not dig into his life as well and contact people he knows in "real life"? If he were really going through stage III cancer and his treatments weren't working, or even if he started going through more intensive treatments, either would take a toll on his body eventually. If he looked like the picture of good health all the time, it would look more and more suspcious and maybe those tabloids would latch onto the story. and start investigating. Or not, either way I honestly don't believe an Orange should be a justifiable defense which is why the housewives come up with the "but we were worried about Vicki" gag.... 1 Link to comment
FanOfTheFans November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Has anyone seen Andy's post on the Bravo website about if he believes Brooms or not? I saw it last night, and it honestly kinda confused me because it didn't really address anything outright and basically if Vicki doesn't believe Brooks anymore then it must not be true, but then it sited that people did take him for chemo... I don't know if it didn't make sense becaus it was late or if it just doesn't make sense. If I can find it again I'll try to post it. I had addressed Andy's ambivalence earlier when it pertains to clarifying muddled topics at the reunion. Every year we are promised answers only to get more controversy. This is his M.O. He loves to do this because I suppose it helps drive the controversies and pull more viewers in. But for me, I can't stand it and it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Crazy like a fox that Andy. 5 Link to comment
jinjer November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 (edited) Has Brooks ever had cancer? Ever? I thought this recent bout of NHL was supposed to be a recurrence. But did he ever have it in the first place? Edited November 10, 2015 by jinjer 3 Link to comment
Lisin November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Hi gang! Your friendly neighborhood mod here dropping by to remind you to please agree to disagree. No one here is going to "win" an argument or change anyone else's minds, so, make your point, reiterate once if needed and them move on. No one needs to "prove" their opinions here and everyone is allowed to have one. Please be respectful of other posters. Part of being respectful is not repeating the same point over and over as well as letting someone else believe what they chose to believe. We get that this is a hot topic for everyone but please, be nice to each other!! Know what your mods hate? Having to repeat ourselves. You all know how this goes. Be nice to each other. Stop trying to "win" every point and learn to let things go. Otherwise posts go poof and forums get locked. Thanks. 9 Link to comment
zoeysmom November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Oh so what we the viewers THINK is the really good reason and justification for making the validity of someone else's medical claims their concern to such a degree? Makes sense now. Because I can't even NOW claim 100% that he did lie about CANCER. Other things, whatever. That's my point. You don't go around accusing people about lying about their health period. And you definitely don't do it to hold on to an orange. I mean seriously? The best way to ensure medical privacy is to keep it between you and your medical providers. Don't take it to the media and make questionable claims regarding treatment and then hide behind some standard. Brooks thought nothing of repeating Heather's medical treatment to others, treatment she had not authorized the release of or discussed with Brooks. So if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. Brooks seems to set the standards and then screams foul when his standards are followed. 5 Link to comment
talula November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 (edited) I am watching a reality show where TV personalities and production companies are paid to produce DRAMA. In addition, there's production manipulation while filming and on top of that filming goes on for 10 months. During those months hundreds of hours of film are shot which is edited down to 20 episodes. Before the episodes are aired there is additional Bravo input which can result in editing and or additional talking head changes. The storyline is constructed to produce a show which the producers' feel is comparable (viewer interest/ratings) to a fictionalized TV series. Did production have their suspicions about Brooks' cancer before filming began? If appears that way between Eddie and the psychic right at the beginning. Vicki and Brooks then began to weave a story of deceit with embellished and conflicting information. In addition to not keeping an appointment with a world renowned expert in the field of NHL. Then Vicki lashing out at Shannon/Briana to control their behavior regarding Brooks further ramped up suspicions. Vicki's attempt to gain sympathy (hugs & caseroles) from her co-workers was a massive failure. Now the cast understandably resents Vicki for manipulating them all season and they don't want to work with her. I wonder if this casting storm is 100% real or another production ploy to keep RHOC in the media till next season?!? I agree with members who clearly place this years tribulations on Vicki 's shoulders. She is the HW cast member, therefore part of the ensemble group. Did production guide castmembers on their quest for truth and justice, maybe? Edited November 10, 2015 by talula 2 Link to comment
Scrambled Fog November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 PET Scan/CT Scan I went and got a Cat Scan from the same place as Brooks...from Hoagie Newfound Imaging....yeah yeah yeah that's the ticket Now how authentic is this...well I'm a Bunny so you draw your own conclusions This is the only PET/CT scan I will accept as fact! ---- Lyra Angelica and Yours Truly - You both have managed to convey exactly what I have been thinking, only much more clearly and articulately than I ever could. Cheers to you both! 4 Link to comment
zoeysmom November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Since much has transpired since the Reunion aired and taped, but the reactions and comments have not I thought it might be of interest to bring a few of Vicki's tweets over. The first is from Heather McDonald to Andy and Vicki: Sad to see a woman so desperate to stay in a relationship they will do anything to keep a man. Vicki response: Wow. Sad to see you write this Heather. Not true! I am not desperate to keep a man. I was doing what anyone would do. Vicki responding to someone regarding her moral compass: Not true my moral compass is completely in check at all times. On Heather Dubrow's Podcast: Random tweeter: I listened to it. Seemed reasonable to me. They don't want to be around someone who lied. Vicki's response: I am not the one being untruthful. I loved a man and believed him just the way they believe their spouses. Another Vicki response: You are wrong!! I never went in with him on a lie. That is his responsibility to tell the truth. I certainly have my thoughts on Vicki's promised progress and redemption since the Reunion. She doesn't get it. Kind of like dumping the glass of water on Shannon, it just doesn't register with Vicki her actions are someimes very wrong. 9 Link to comment
talula November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 IMHO the issue isn't about if a snake acts like a snake, but rather what your co-worker/friend/mother is capable of doing to protect said snake. In addition, is that castmember capable of such a heiness crime to humanity as to promote/benefit financially from a cure for a disease that she knows the snake fabricated. 3 Link to comment
Cherrio November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 http://www.eonline.com/news/714504/the-truth-revealed-brooks-ayers-was-never-treated-for-cancer-at-city-of-hope-hospital-spokesperson-says This just in. City of Hope says they never had a patient named David Brooks Ayers. So, when will Brooks surface again? Will he now claim temporary insanity? Or he was smoking too much pot and got Munchie-Doogie Hausen Syndrome? 16 Link to comment
Scrambled Fog November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Thank you pattycake for verbalizing my same thoughts on meghan. And if only meghan would put as much effort into visiting terminally ill children with cancer as she did playing "truth seeker" and "supersleuth" for Brooks b.s.....it would have been more time spent in a better way. Just MO :) Yes! 1 Link to comment
Scrambled Fog November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Meghan claims Brooks violated California law by doctoring medical documents: http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2015/11/05/meghan-edmonds-could-bring-brooks-ayer I would say that letter of appeal would be enough for a wrist slap. From what I understand, forging a doctor's signature, for any reason, can be a felony depending on the state in which the forgery was committed. Link to comment
Yours Truly November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 (edited) The best way to ensure medical privacy is to keep it between you and your medical providers. Don't take it to the media and make questionable claims regarding treatment and then hide behind some standard. Brooks thought nothing of repeating Heather's medical treatment to others, treatment she had not authorized the release of or discussed with Brooks. So if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. Brooks seems to set the standards and then screams foul when his standards are followed. I do realize that's a philosophy some like to follow. Just not my cup of tea is all. Moral compass and all that.... Edited November 10, 2015 by Yours Truly Link to comment
chenoa333 November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Know what your mods hate? Having to repeat ourselves. You all know how this goes. Be nice to each other. Stop trying to "win" every point and learn to let things go. Otherwise posts go poof and forums get locked. Thanks. Know what your mods hate? Having to repeat ourselves. You all know how this goes. Be nice to each other. Stop trying to "win" every point and learn to let things go. Otherwise posts go poof and forums get locked. Thanks. Thanks Lisin. You are so right! Link to comment
freeradical November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 (edited) Why would it be a malpractice thing? A doctor can give you an IV at home. So can a nurse. So can your Aunt Matilda. It's all legal.Because a doctor has a license that can be taken away if he doesn't follow protocol which always reverts to the emergency room in potentially fatal situations.Also, federal law states you need a prescription for iv bag use at home. Edited November 10, 2015 by freeradical 4 Link to comment
nexxie November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 http://www.eonline.com/news/714504/the-truth-revealed-brooks-ayers-was-never-treated-for-cancer-at-city-of-hope-hospital-spokesperson-says This just in. City of Hope says they never had a patient named David Brooks Ayers. So, when will Brooks surface again? Will he now claim temporary insanity? Or he was smoking too much pot and got Munchie-Doogie Hausen Syndrome? Interesting that City of Hope is commenting. 1 Link to comment
Grneyedldy November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 http://www.eonline.com/news/714504/the-truth-revealed-brooks-ayers-was-never-treated-for-cancer-at-city-of-hope-hospital-spokesperson-says This just in. City of Hope says they never had a patient named David Brooks Ayers. So, when will Brooks surface again? Will he now claim temporary insanity? Or he was smoking too much pot and got Munchie-Doogie Hausen Syndrome? Wow. Ok I'm going to go with he lied. :-) I think that was the nail in the coffin. Oh Brooks, you idiot. I tried to defend you. 2 Link to comment
Scrambled Fog November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 I am extremely skeptical City of Hope would confirm or deny someone is a patient. But, if they did, I wonder if E asked City of Hope to confirm a David B. Ayers as a patient since that is the name on the invoice Brooks provided. The article stated City of Hope confirmed a David Brooks Ayers was not a patient. 1 Link to comment
car54 November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 I guess that settles whether a medical practice can confirm someone is NOT their patient. http://gawker.com/hospital-says-reality-star-claiming-to-have-cancer-was-1741741885 7 Link to comment
quaintirene November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 I'm not sure City of Hope had a choice. If someone is blatantly forging medical records and hijacking their logo to do so, then it's possible that other conmen who wanted to grift other money out of other stupid people might pull the same trick knowing that City's silence would enable them to do so. In fact, given that Brooks has been so honest and open about having NHL and his treatment and all, I'm kind of surprised that he won't share a copy of his diagnosis with us. After all, doctors may not breach confidentiality but patients can if they so wish. It would be really easy to get a copy of the path lab's diagnosis, assessment and staging of the biopsy and show us that. Link to comment
Midnight Cheese November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 I guess that settles whether a medical practice can confirm someone is NOT their patient. http://gawker.com/hospital-says-reality-star-claiming-to-have-cancer-was-1741741885 Whoa! Never thought this kind of confirmation would actually happen. Damn! 7 Link to comment
Scrambled Fog November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 (edited) At the link, there is another link to a PDF for City of Hope's Notice of Privacy Practices. It is worth the read, IMO. http://www.cityofhope.org/privacy-policies-and-code-of-conduct I wonder who the City of Hope representative E contacted is? Why wasn't the representative's name and their position stated in the article, on the record? ---- Edited November 10, 2015 by Scrambled Fog 1 Link to comment
Cherrio November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 I can think of several reasons why City of Hope is not happy about this. Beyond that , they have actual patients, some of whom are dying who WISH they were faking. I wish all the children who had cancer did not and that Brooks would die a thousand painful deaths instead. Scum does not begin to describe him. And what about his own children? Great dad there Brooks. Oh, I forgot. You don't give a shit about your children. 7 Link to comment
Duke2801 November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Damn. So we now have actual legitimate proof that Brooks was LYING his ass off. In my mind, any remaining shards of the "does he or doesn't he have cancer" debate should be laid to rest once and for all. I mean, I started to believe that he was lying from very early on in the season---back when the majority of people thought Megan was the Devil Herself for even implicating such a charge. Oh the times they have a-changed! But to have concrete proof is a pretty rare thing in reality TV land. To me, the only question remaining is WHEN did Vicki find out that he was lying. That mystery, however, may never be solved. 6 Link to comment
Yours Truly November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 I am extremely skeptical City of Hope would confirm or deny someone is a patient. But, if they did, I wonder if E asked City of Hope to confirm a David B. Ayers as a patient since that is the name on the invoice Brooks provided. The article stated City of Hope confirmed a David Brooks Ayers was not a patient. Really? A hospital would really send out a representative to address the claims of a reality show participant? That seems........ odd. 1 Link to comment
Satchels of gold November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 (edited) Brooks was faking cancer?!? Someone fetch me some smelling salts and guide me to the fainting couch. Just kidding, I called it 5 pages back. Edited November 10, 2015 by nc socialworker 8 Link to comment
Pattycake2 November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Because a doctor has a license that can be taken away if he doesn't follow protocol which always reverts to the emergency room in potentially fatal situations. Also, federal law states you need a prescription for iv bag use at home. Vicki said Brooks was throwing up, not dying. I think Terry would have been able to tell the difference and write a prescription if he had actually been called. I Also can't help but think that if Terry was outraged by Vicki's story about the IV, he would have brought it up on camera and not left it to Heather. Not to mention that Heather never mentioned any consequences of such a lie. She just said she asked Terry and it wasn't true. It was just a lie. A dumb lie. 2 Link to comment
leighroda November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Thing is chemo is expensive. Up here in Communist Canada our health care is paid for. So we didn't have to try to find upwards of $500k for my husband's treatment. But what happens if you're not insured? Suppose you're a single mom with young kids and no insurance? It's not just stupid people who might turn to Brooks Ayers Purveyor of Magical Mystery Juice (Snake Oil a speciality!). There are plenty of desperate people out there as well. You are very right. My mom was diagnosed with cancer Jan. 1, 2015, by had been admitted to a hospital 3 times before that for vaginal bleeding (she was 60, so it was unusual) the problem is that she didn't have insurance. She lived in Texas and I live in Florida, what kept happening was she or a friend would call an ambulance and it would take her to the closest hospital, but since she didn't have insurance they would give her fluids to stabilize her and send her home. It just so happens that I was in nursing school at the time, so by the second time it happened I flew home to take care of her (the 3rd hospital trip happened while I was on a plane to get there). After about a day I decided she really needed to be inpatient. We knew since she didn't have insurance we couldn't take her to the local hospital, so there was a county hospital that would treat her, but it was 45 minutes away. I called a private ambulance company (which btw was wayyy cheaper than calling 911 if you ever need it). She was admitted to the county hospital they did a round of radiation but she passed away 2 weeks later. The point of my long drawn out story (sorry!) is that we had to pay off all of her hospital bills for the local hospital before we could start the probate process (it's because of the kind of probate we did since it was out of state... This probate only required 1court appearance, but everything had to be paid off to start the process) but paying off the hospital visits got really expensive really fast and that wasn't even counting radiation treatment, it was more than $12,000 a day for each admission (the county hospital was different, they had a form of Medicaid we were able to qualify for) and each admission was only 1-2 days. Thankfully in our case we knew she was declining and were able to sign over her investment account before she passed so we had access to that money to pay everything off because we wouldn't have been able to do it otherwise, I'm in school and my sister has a good job, but not that good. And this is so not picky but I just wanted to add, there were many reasons to call bs on the whole cancer story, but one of the more obvious to me was The dr coming to place an IV story... I can't speak across the board that this is always absolutely true, but generally speaking, doctors don't usually place IV's, nurses do. Obviously there are cases where it's the doctor, they are trained to do it but in my experience it's a nurse. 5 Link to comment
Yours Truly November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 At the link, there is another link to a PDF for City of Hope's Notice of Privacy Practices. It is worth the read, IMO. http://www.cityofhope.org/privacy-policies-and-code-of-conduct I wonder who the City of Hope representative E contacted is? Why wasn't the representative's name and their position stated in the article, on the record? ---- I'm with you Scrambled fog. Just like every other piece of "proof" there's always something not quite right. Look Brooks has red flags all over the place no doubt about that but I'm just completely unnerved at what seems to be all this sloppy messy staged smoking gun revelations being passed off as legit. The methods are freaking me out more than the basic con man moves being delivered by Brooks. Geez Louise someone do a drive by PET SCAN on the man so we finally have something irrefutable. Uggghhh. 4 Link to comment
quaintirene November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Dear God Leighrhoda I am so sorry. That is an awful story. 9 Link to comment
Cherrio November 10, 2015 Share November 10, 2015 Since Vicki said she went to City of Hope WITH HIM, then that says to me that she has known all along and is just as guilty as he is. Now, Bravo loves the obnoxious, the outrageous , even criminals .......but this has crossed over to the point of no return. I think the show and its sponsors will be boycotted if she returns. 14 Link to comment
Recommended Posts