Talk:Rhoda Zione Alale

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

I rarely post e-mail from the numerous threats I get but this one is just to amusing to pass up and offers some fabulous quotes:

"To Whom It May Concern:


As it Relates to Whom I am


I am a Board Certified Registered Nurse and a Distinguish Fellow in Environmental Research at The Center For Equity in Health at Teachers College, Columbia University from which I am an Alumni. I have a been a Registered Nurse for 35 years and am named among the 100 Most Extraordinary Nurses in Washington, DC because of my outstanding services to The White House and Congress.


Your Slandereous Remarks

It has been brought to my attention that you have published slanderous remarks about me on your website:


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rhoda_Zione_Alale.


This letter is to DEMAND your CEASE & DESIST and immediate removal of the content as stated below:


1) Rhoda Zione Alale is a crank and/or quack


2) Please also remove your language that Flat Batteries… “cures”.


Neither our website nor the Flat Battery packaging makes any claims of treatment, prevention, cures or diagnosis of disease with the technology. However, our end-users report miracles from wearing the technology everyday.


Flat Batteries are energy mediums and balance the body and reduce harmful effects of EMF radiation. They won the 2011 INPEX Gold Medal for the USA in Environmental Innovations a 44 nation competition. They are also named the 2013 Prominent Technology of the 5th Annual Health Disparities Conference at Teachers College, Columbia University where NanoElectrical Engineers from the Military lectured and demonstrated on their effectiveness in rendering solutions to enhance electrical safety in living spaces. They are now supported by doctors from The Cleveland Clinic, The Ohio State, and Oxford Universities for clinical trials, further research and commercialization.


I claimed that they healed ME of BLACK BREAST SYNDROME which is Black Mastitis because they did… even though I invented them as an electrical safety device for my laptop and cell phone.


Black Breast Sydrome is extremely painful and horrific no matter who has it a woman or an animal. It is not a condition that ANYONE should be mocking or making fun of.


People interview me from all over the world. They translate and mis-quote information all of the time.


I am not sure which Pod Cast you heard, but let me clarify this matter. My Colleagues have formed a committee. They are validating my research and technologies for the purpose of making a Peer Recommendation for me to the Academy for a Nobel Prize in Physics. I am greatly honored to have their devotion and support.


As for my work with The White House and Congress, numerous records at The White House, USA Today, CNN, CBN, The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal document my work and service over the past two decades.



This letter | email is to advise you that I am prepared to contact the District Attorney both here in Ohio and there in New Mexico as well as my private Legal Counsel to proceed with both criminal and civil CHARGES against your organization and members of the Board, if necessary. “SLANDER” is punishable by both Criminal and Civil sanctions in both states.


I INVITE your organization, to send me your EVIDENCE of the existence of a the slanderous remark "crank and/ or quack."


In the interim, I demand that you cease and desist this SLANDER and remove the contents from your website today to avoid swift legal action against your organization and the members of your Board."


Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


Oh and yes this e-mail was sent in comic sans, all caps, giant type size, and purple blue color. For those keeping score. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just checking up on some stuff. She did win that award. Couldn't find out on what basis hough.--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Yup, the link is in the article. Given the quality of the product I can guarantee these organisations and awards will all be shifty at best once a little investigation is conducted. Tielec01 (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm no attorney, but I thought that (since this website was in written format) she could only accuse us of libel? Furthermore, I am 100% certain that, if she wants to pursue a libel case against us, it would be a 100% civil matter and any district attorney would tell her to go away. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
It's only punishable by criminal court in Ohio if we threaten to publish libelous information as a means of coercion. In New Mexico, even if it's tried as a criminal case, it's only a misdemeanor. Even then, if you read through most of these laws, what we wrote is protected by what they allow to constitute a defense. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Libel is written, slander is oral, defamation is the umbrella. There are multiple lines of defense that shield us, most notably "truth is always a defense." Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
She might wish to know that the RWF isn't exactly swimming in dough. Her claim that board members might have any liability just made me laugh - lady, go learn something about the law before you try to intimidate people who actually do know what they're talking about. She'd spend a ton of her own money to get very little from the foundation. Not exactly low hanging fruit. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In her email she says: Neither our website nor the Flat Battery packaging makes any claims of treatment, prevention, cures or diagnosis of disease with the technology. Yet her website front page states: FLAT BATTERIES™ were invented by .... Rhoda Zione Alale ... to heal herself of “Black Breast Syndrome”. Is she trying to deny this therapeutic claim?--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Food and Drug Act doesn't regulate devices. In any event, for purposes of Consumer Fraud law I don't think the fact that she doesn't make any health claims matters when the clear intent is to induce the consumer to believe that the device can solve the health problems her "testimonials" address. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Black Breast Syndrome[edit]

After a quick Google search, it seems that Black Breast Syndrome, or black mastitis, is only found in livestock...--"Shut up, Brx." 10:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've spent a while on it too but the only woman who seems to have suffered from it (and been cured by Flat Batteries) is Rhoda herself. However, in the referenced podcast she claims that it is now an epidemic which has "even spread to animals".--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

CNN[edit]

Trird to find her on CNN, but the most I can find is thus unendorsed video. Warning - Woo woo wooo!--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Duck duck go[edit]

Well this is interesting. As we all (should) know Google filters search results so that webistes or news sources that we habitually use come up first. This even happens if we log out of Google as it remembers our IP's. So saying that "RW is number "N" on any particular Google search is meaningless as, if you visit RW a lot, it will automatically favour RW results.

The "Duck Duck Go" search engine, on the other hand, explicitly eschews this behaviour. Nevertheless RW is number three on Duck Duck Go on this subject. --Weirdstuff (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Two reasons why it's always a bad idea to throw out legal threats against RationalWiki: Reason #1 and Reason #2. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobel prize (physics) nominations?[edit]

Wow! I just checked back here, and to my pleasant surprise, the first RW page I have ever started, has taken a nice life already. The e-mail is amazing - I am sorry, but as a Dane I find it hard sometimes to understand english, there seems to be a distinction between "heal" and "cure" that I wasn't aware of. However, while I was researching back in May, I did get the impression that different Nobel prizes have different policies when it comes to nominations, and the very prestigious prize in physics seems to have rather strict rules, whereby only a select few are able to make nominations. So the addition about getting nominated being easy is quite wrong in my understanding. Unless somebody else can point me to where I am wrong about this, I will take that out eventually. --Urizen (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems you are correct according to this. Tielec01 (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It does seem a bit tougher than others - some 3,000 eligible nominators make some 300 nominations. Still not like the Oscars, but they don't grow on trees either.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The point I am trying to get across is that the only people who should know they have been nominated are those who have actually been awardet the Nobel Prize in Physics. This is not like the Oscars, where many movies and actors routinely brag about having been nominated. This seems to be impossible with the Nobel Prize in Physics. Yet bragging about it it (without any merit) is precisely what Alale does. --Urizen (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war - so if someone else shares my understanding, please revert Weaseloids edit. I can only repeat my understanding of the matter, as it is explained on the Nobel Prize website: people who are nominated for a Nobel Prize in Physics do NOT KNOW ABOUT IT (the organisations and individuals who are chosen to select candidates are bound to silence for 50 years about who they nominate), and can therefore not BRAG about it. --Urizen (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the link you're correct, however there is nothing to stop a person telling you that they nominated you or you have been nominated (except perhaps a privacy disclosure). Weaseloid, if you are around, read the link I included above and see if there is anything objectionable in Urizen's position. If we don't hear back I'll go ahead and wordsmith something up about Rhoda claiming nomination without the ability to know that she has been nominated. Tielec01 (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
(EC) I don't know where you're getting "the organisations and individuals who are chosen to select candidates are bound to silence for 50 years" from. As far as I can tell the 50 year rule relates to the Nobel Committee itself & when it releases records. I'm sure nominators are expected to exercise discretion & not publicise their nominations (though some do) but I should think it's pretty normal for them to give a confidential heads-up to the people they nominate, especially if (as is often the case in the sciences categories) they are colleagues & peers. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I would think that "*Are the nominations made public?* The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions related to the award of a prize." (http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/physics/) is to be interpreted that way. Also, the suggestion of Snowden for the Peace Prize has absolutely no bearing on the rules for the Physics Prize. I don't think I have ever heard about a scientist mentioning that he or she had been nominated for the Physics Prize, and I suspect the scientific commumity would have strong interest in abiding by the rules set out. --Urizen (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the list of potential nominators I am tempted to wonder who on the list allegedly nominated Rhoda. Perhaps the "other scientists as the academy sees fit", which is a bit of a catch-all. Agree with Weasel that she could have been tipped off by her nominator; one wonders...Tielec01 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this person, who might have nominated her or whether anybody did. I just take issue with the assumption that she couldn't possibly know if she'd been nominated. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
We've only got here word for this anyway - and most of the rest of the stuff she says is pretty doubtful. But can anybody supply a link to something which says that these 3,000 nominators are bound to confidentiality?--Weirdstuff (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I just revisited this page and discussion, and then I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physics#Nomination_and_selection which also seems to confirm my view from five years ago. In case anybody cares anymore. --Urizen (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Legal threats against us[edit]

Looks like she tried desperately to hold a fundraiser of some sort to raise money to sue us back in February, 2014. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Could it be the anti-Streisand effect?[edit]

What have we wrought? My favourite bit in the press release is when she reveals the tiny favour she needs from her supporters to get this technology up:

"We do need your help!
Please DONATE FIVE MILLION DOLLARS FOR OUR CLINICAL TRIALS." (Her emphasis).Tielec01 (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I gotta say of all the nutters we've come across that noticed us, she rings special in my eyes. I once came across her Youtube channel where she was talking about her wedding and trying to make it sound (since it was mentioned in a small-town local paper) as if it was akin to a wedding in the British Royal Family. She really is just that full of herself. It's quixotic and interesting to follow at the same time. Gooniepunk (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

This article really needs a short intro that explains who she is and what she sells, in a more specific way than just calling her a crank.--Annanoon (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)