Barbarians at the Forum Gates Again

From Debunking Dr. Geoffrey Nase
Jump to: navigation, search

Unwelcome Guests

For the full text of posts cited in this article, please refer to these Forum threads: New Dr. Nase Update! and Why is the RLT Trial taking so long?

Since the two "governmental investigators" Nase threatened the Rosacea Forum with appear to have ignored his special orders to close down the board, a change of tactics was required. Undeterred by his failure to convince Forum members that he wasn't the mysterious 'Maria Cappolla', Nase recently tried to force his way back, helped by the new policy allowing non-members to post as "guests". The rosacea section of the ESFB board was largely brought down by allowing "guest" posts and multiple names, so permitting the same combination at the Forum was always likely to prove disastrous.

First a "guest" post from a named member broke the news that Nase was planning a new research and treatment Institute. (see Another Day Another Institute) Then an unnamed "guest" tried to whip up enthusiasm with "fantastic. it's nice to see dr. nase is ACTUALLY doing something to help rosacean's". This met the cynical response we have already reported.

Regular members thought they could detect both Nase's voice and that of his best pal, Jonathan Gamache, who was banned from the board in January after posting false reports that he had been harmed by Red Light Therapy (RLT), and banned again in October after posting as 'dynoMITE'. When one of the two tried to turn it around by posting that "Dr. Nase" had just modified his update, a genuine member issued a direct challenge:

"Hey Guest (or should I say MR NASE) Before you tackle a cure for rosacea I feel most of us on this board would just be happy if you would update your web with your medical records with all your medical claims. This is why you lost you law-suit. We want an explanation of why you would lie about these claims and also wonder why you would do something so fraudulent as lie about a brain tumor and other far out illnesses just to gain sympathy in you goal to be a wealthy rosacea guru. It all back fired on you though. Thank God. You are a disturbed man."

The "guest's" reply included this fascinating insight:

"No one has ever presented one single piece of evidence to refute the surgery or the surgical skull marks. No one. Ever. ... Please have anyone show this group the contrary. ... Please post actual facts disproving the tumor. Any fact. One single fact. You cant."

Again, Nase's style was unmistakeable. The challenger came straight back with:

"Wow, Mr Nase, that really cleared things up. ... If you don't want to give out your records; how about an easy one. The hospital name number and doctor's names where you are and have been perfoming these miracle treatments on some imaginary person named Mary Capolla. Oh I forgot, it's a secret experiment that only you and the secret service who monitor this web site are privledged to know. The brain surgery was truly a success. They definately removed it."
"The problem is that you have been caught lying over and over again and make claims in hopes of winning yourself an emotional ego boost. The medical claims were posted on the internet through your own hand and when you were confronted as to the validity; their is always some legal reason or insurance reason that it can't be disclosed. As an attorney I want to help clear your name. You can release your medical records with the hospital and procedures without any worry from the insurance companies. Why? Because you already admitted to them as a matter of public record when you took out the false law-suit and lost. It doesn't get any more public thasn that; so you can show the records, clear your name, give us the name and hospitals where you have been working these miracle treatments along with the special department that let's you experiment on Maria Capolla with a non-fda approved drug. I bet you validate everything I pointed out with another secret service excuse. You should be ashamed of yourself."

Nase responded: "Maria is real.... If you can wait just a little bit, there will be a publication that I will be part of that will list the 12 case studies." His comment that "There is no need for me to do this again" raised hopes that Nase would at last accept his ban and leave the group alone.

The Offer of a Temporary Truce

Peter Waters, battle-hardened by Nase's relentless attacks on him and painfully aware that the whole controversy over Red Light Therapy was a beat-up triggered by a personal vendetta, took exception to Nase's claim to have voluntarily removed negative material from his web site. Waters revealed that nine days previously, he had spoken with Helen Sher, whose rosacea treatment system Nase now promotes, and had pointed out:

"having her products promoted on a site containing the raving nonsense Nase then had up could only harm the credibility of her firm. She must have contacted Nase, and within hours it appears he had been "encouraged" to remove almost all of the vicious stuff from his web site, including everything the Debunkers had exposed in their October update.
The next day, Nase emailed me (mentions his little talk with Helen), asking for a temporary truce and pretending to seek my advice on red light therapy, which he said fascinated him. He asked, "My question to you is in your experience what is the safest red light system to use?"
Is this guy for real? Apart from asking for a truce after earlier in the week threatening me, he now admits red light therapy fascinates him despite spending the best part of a year attempting to destroy it as a potential rosacea treatment. Is he mad? You make your own mind up."

To further enlighten readers, Waters included in his post the full text of his blistering reply to Nase's truce offer. The group was stunned. Nase had repeatedly claimed that all RLT systems were dangerous for rosacea since "Every single LED and LLT will cause dramatic increases in blood flow. Every one, every wavelength, and every self made system." (Rosacea Forum, 'LLT and LED-induced 1st degree burns and flushing' thread, January 21, 2006) That Nase would contact Waters privately and seek his advice on the best RLT system was at first shockingly unbelievable, then all too believable.

Another Horrible Thread

Two days later, another "guest" thread began, attacking eminent British dermatologist Dr. Tony Chu and demanding to know why his proposed study at a London hospital had not yet begun. Dr. Chu is best known to Forum members as Waters' derm. Since the post began with lengthy details of Waters' rosacea history, it was clear that this was yet another continuation of Nase's attempt to take revenge on Waters for having caught him out last year over the Indiana Medical Licensing Board fiasco (see Indiana Trial), which led on to the absurd claims that RLT was dangerous.

In response to a member's challenge, "Obviously you are Nase or a close friend of his", the board-owner confirmed that all of the early "guest" posts in the new thread had been made by Gamache, who was replying to his own posts as if a different "guest" was agreeing with him. As one member thoughtfully observed: "Nase apologizes to Peter, and asks for a truce and is now interested in RLT one day. Nase's bodyguard attacks Peter & Dr. Chu the next day. Trustworthy? You be the judge."

The thread swiftly deteriorated into the usual brawl over whether or not it was possible to hold a "reasonable discussion" about RLT, given the highly-charged atmosphere surrounding the topic, and whether they should be looking at the science involved, rather than "this discussion of the intrepretation of discussions".

With Nase and Gamache again blocked from posting, it was thought that this acrimonious debate might die down. Before that could happen, another of Nase's supporters, who had left the group a couple of months ago, joined in the thread. After a bit of preliminary skirmishing, he slammed into Waters with four classic, Nase-like phrases about "horrible unfounded and illogical accusations", "really a horrible personality trait", "horrible backhanded and illogical statements", and "such a horrible personality trait".

This was a curious response because "horrible" is not a word this particular poster normally ever uses. In more than 400 Forum posts over 16 months, he had previously only used the word three times, and on one of those occasions he was quoting Nase.

"Horrible" has long been one of Nase's favorite words to describe anything that upsets him, e.g. "horrible allegations", "a horrible dictated lie", "the most horrible thing", "a horrible event", "my horrible experience", and countless others. He used this one word 10 times in a single ESFB thread 'RRF and Dr. Geoffrey Nase' (6th-8th June 2005):

  • "I felt horrible that they were taking money with no chance of going anywhere and also kept quiet with my personal life cancers"
  • "Chuck has a horrible form of rosacea ..."
  • "This now forces me to bring up horrible, jailable offences by the RRF for their collection of money while they were basically dead"
  • "I helped her put the beast into remission after 3 years of horrible disfiguring granulomatous rosacea" (re 'Amanda')
  • "... another long horrible line of posting that does not help a single rosacea suffeer"
  • "Do you see anyone else volunteering to put up their absolute worst horrible face for hundreds of thousands to view."
  • "It gives hope to so many people that they are not doomed to die in this horrble disfiguring state."
  • "Horrible, Horrible, Horrilbe injustice." (re accusations against poor Dr Darm)

It looks as if Forum members will be playing "Spot the Naseisms" for quite a while yet.