Worth noting..


As I am doing some research for, you know.. reasons..

A comment from buchananrick on a post I made a couple of weeks ago.

I’m gonna try this one more time.

The surgeon, when trying to locate the correct spot for lead placement, is NOT listening for “misfiring neurons”. He is listening for the sound of the subthalamic nucleus, which is different than the surrounding tissue.

Here’s what every source has to say on the matter:

“Different areas in the brain have characteristic firing patterns, which means they sound differently when we listen to them.”


Note that he says nothing about being able to distinguish between the sound of Parkinsonian “misfirng” neurons and the sound of healthy neurons.

That’s because he can’t. Nobody can. Your STN sounds pretty much like mine. Which is unfortunate, because if Bill’s fabrication were true it would represent a definitive test to diagnose PD, other than autopsy.

And that’s what makes this such a weak, easily debunked lie. You don’t even need to drill into the brain to record the different patterns for different locations. If we could distinguish normal from “misfiring” neurons a lot of troublesome diagnosis problems could be solved with a test like a fancy EEG.

But the problems persist.

Cause Bill is a liar.

A clumsy liar.

He adds another comment later in the thread:

It’s been slmost five years since I first encountered Bill. At first I gave him the benefit of the doubt and accepted that he had PD — -a very mild atypical case, despite the fact that he had none of the really nasty symptoms.

The thing about atypical cases is usually the order in which the symptoms show up. The fact that a particular case involves primarily gait disturbance doesn’t mean they’re spared the others. They are just late to the party. If a person does actually have PD, and they live long enough, they can expect the complete package.

So I must confess that as I sat one day exchanging tweets with Bill, I had uncharitable thoughts. As he was actually bragging about how advanced and serious HIS PD was (and as usual, tearing through ten tweets rapid fired for each one I plodded through) I recall thinking “You pathetic pussy! You have no tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, dyskinesia etc. yet you claim your PD is bad. STAGE IV?!? Just wait until your atypical case fills in the blanks, you get the full set of symptoms and you learn what Parkinson’s is really all about. THEN we’ll talk!” I figured a few years should get it started, if he really had PD.

It’s been five years.

Five years in which I’ve gotten progressively worse.

Five years of watching his already mild symptoms disappear entirely(except for when he needed them, weaponized, for pity or to claim some privilege.)

I watched as he got a car and drove cross country. I watched as he got and lost jobs. And so on.

Benefit of doubt: expired.

(Bill – pay attention here…)


I don’t care what he was diagnosed with years ago. Today, there is no way a doctor would say he has PD.

This is my honest and decently informed opinion and I stand by it.

I can understand why someone would believe Rick.

Here is a part of a comment in moderation left by Schmalfeldt:

1. I had more than one doctor who said it could not be possible that I had Parkinson’s because I was too young. When I was on the operating bed for the DBS surgery and Dr. Peter Konrad was marking the fact that it was easy to find the part of my brain that was misfiring, I said, “And to think a year ago, a doctor told me I didn’t have PD.” Dr. Konrad said, “I’ll send him a copy of the study results.”

The first sentence is intriguing.  One could reasonably imply that licensed medical doctors had no reason to believe he had Parkinson’s Disease. And yet, one doctor did.

It’s worth noting that Schmalfeldt combined the first sentence with the next one and often uses this tactic hoping you accept the logical leap that just because he was on an operating table for Deep Brain Stimulation, it proves he has Parkinson’s Disease.

If it was easy enough to just unscrew your skull cap and peak inside, you’d think with him being on the operating table they could see it without the autopsy.  The fact he even had a brain was probably a telling moment. Unfortunately, it’s not possible to prove Parkinson’s Disease unless you’re deceased and the coroner puts a new blade on the saw.

Still, even if you were to give him the benefit of the doubt and say a Parkinson’s Diagnosis is reasonable, the prognosis is the same:  You’re never going to get better.

From the same comment, he writes:

3. Who said I went from Stage IV to Stage I? Other than you and your fellow lickspittles, that is? I am still Stage IV. That means something different to every person with the diagnosis. If you had a clue of what you are talking about, you’d know that.

It has a different meaning to EVERY person who has PD.  Even so, the disease moves from one stage to the next, not backwards. Ironically, he writes in a previous comment in moderation:

Then, explain why the people who treat Parkinson’s advise exercise as part of their long-term treatment of the disease. I admit, I did not do things I could have done for myself when Gail was well. But when I lost her, I had to fend for myself. The more I engaged in the world and did the things I needed to do, the stronger I got.

He admits he got better. He knows this which contradicts earlier statements he made during his feud with John Hoge while living in Maryland about the state of his disability. If he was truly disabled at Stage IV and required a caregiver, obviously not having a caregiver in Wisconsin is a factor in his improved abilities.  Or is it?

He does admit:

5. Why do you assume that I did not have physical therapy? I had three different rounds of physical therapy and speech therapy, all while Gail was alive. See? You made another false assumption,

The above statement supports that contention because while he was with Gail, he didn’t improve despite therapy.  Rick’s comment tells us that no one gets better. Exercise doesn’t get you out of the wheelchair once you’re confined to it.

But here he is:

Winter of 2017 –

Summer of 2017 –

Winter of 2018:


That’s why it’s called “progressive” and I don’t mean “liberal.”  It just gets worse, not better.  For him, though, all he needed to do was to fend for himself and get engaged with the world.

As far as driving, he makes this challenge:

Explain what you believe to be the reasons I gave up driving in 2009. Was it because I could NOT drive? Or was it because I noticed the impairment in reaction time and decided, as long as my wife was able to do the driving, that it was best to allow her to do so?

From 2009 to 2017, he didn’t drive because he couldn’t trust himself so his wife was allowed to drive him around.

June 2018:


In 2010, he was given permission to work from home because his conditioned worsened to where he could not go to work. In 2011, he applied for and was granted retirement for disability and in the report, the reviewing medical doctor agreed with his own self-assessment that his condition worsened to where he could no longer do his job.

Even the government agreed he had ADVANCED stages Idiopathic Parkinson’s Disease.


Here’s what WebMD says about the advanced stages of Parkinson’s Disease:

Advanced stage. Some people never reach this stage (Narrator: Bill claims to have reached it and convinced the government it is true). This is when medication doesn’t help as much and serious disabilities set in.

At this point, you likely:

Are limited to bed or a wheelchair
Can’t live on your own
Have severe posture issues in your neck, back, and hips
Need help with daily tasks

But in late 2016, he is able to get a license, buy a car and drive from Iowa to South Carolina and back. Twice.  Then he makes a video of how he’s going to travel America in 35 days and wants to collect donations for the $15,000 he estimates for the cost.

In an interesting twist, he writes this in another comment.

You are no longer permitted to tell lies about me or my condition. From now on, the rule for you to live by is if you can’t prove it’s true, don’t write it.

Funny.  He was the one that wrote about his condition and shared his life.  All I have done is shared what he, himself, has written.



37 thoughts on “Worth noting..

  1. Stole this from Wikipedia, for no particular reason: 😉

    Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment which attempts to eliminate subjective, unrecognized biases carried by an experiment’s subjects (usually human) and conductors. Double-blind studies were first used in 1907 by W. H. R. Rivers and H. N. Webber in the investigation of the effects of caffeine.[10]

    In most cases, double-blind experiments are regarded to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor than single-blind or non-blind experiments.

    In these double-blind experiments, neither the participants nor the researchers know which participants belong to the control group, nor the test group. Only after all data have been recorded (and, in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which participants were which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion can greatly lessen the power of preconceived notions or physical cues (e.g., placebo effect, observer bias, experimenter’s bias) to distort the results (by making researchers or participants behave differently from in everyday life). Random assignment of test subjects to the experimental and control groups is a critical part of any double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party, and is not revealed to the researchers until the study is over.

    Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation in which there is a possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of researchers, participants, or both. For example, in animal studies, both the carer of the animals and the assessor of the results have to be blinded; otherwise the carer might treat control subjects differently and alter the results.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. When he sues us for libel for stating the logical conclusion (based on his own words and actions) that he doesn’t have parkinson’s, and the case is dismissed with prejudice, he will never be able to threaten people about this again. It will be glorious. He will be risking, and losing, everything on this LOLsuit.

    Liked by 7 people

  3. I like how he glosses over specific examples of him lying about his condition. He couldn’t go to court because the drive was too long and even sitting in court was too strenuous — then travels cross-country multiple times. The

    He couldn’t work because he could tell he was losing “executive function” — then seeks multiple jobs later!

    Liked by 5 people

  4. “You are no longer permitted to tell lies about me or my condition. From now on, the rule for you to live by is if you can’t prove it’s true, don’t write it.”

    Fuck. You. Asshole.

    You don’t get to dictate what anyone is “permitted” to do or not do. Ever.

    Who the fuck do you think you are, shitrolling racist liar?

    Eat a steaming bag of syphilis infected dicks, you stolen valor fat fucking douchetool.

    Liked by 9 people

  5. I personally won’t be satisfied with a dismissal with prejudice (although that certainly will be nice). I would love to see all the official court documentation used to re-open his “disability” claim and, Gd willing, get his payments revoked.

    I won’t go so far as to hope for him to have to repay they money he STOLE from all of us- that’s unrealistic- but for the government to formally acknowledge they screwed up in classifying Fakinsons as disability eligible would be good enough for me.

    Liked by 4 people

    • I, too, wish to see his disability claim revoked. I notice that he has said the OPM had “received his doctor’s report” – no statement either way on whether or not they accepted a 10+ year old document. I am hoping that since they roused themselves out of the typical big government slumber of apathy to question him about this, that they will do due diligence on it.

      I don’t think the government screwed up in giving him disability to begin with. He doctor-shopped until he found one who would diagnose him with Parkinson’s. Hell, Bill may have even believed he had the disease back then. (We all know how very wrong he is about so many things he believes.) And given his routinely crappy performance of his job, with his obese body and poor language skills, it wouldn’t have been difficult to convince a manager, who was probably trying to figure out how to get rid of him anyways, that Bill really did have the disease, especially if he had a doctor’s note. No, I lay the blame completely at the feet of Bill – he has shown that he really doesn’t have any of the terrible effects of the disease (unless he needs them to avoid being embarrassed in court). There comes a time when, if your “disease” is so atypical that you fall completely outside the definition of having the symptoms of the disease, you should admit you don’t have it. But Bill won’t do that, because he has invested too much into his persona of a crippled old widower, being picked on by a bunch of mean old right-wingers.Just like he can ignore his 8 failed LOLsuits and 10+ restraining orders when donning this costume, he ignores that he doesn’t really have the symptoms of someone who claims to have this disease for 15+ years.

      Liked by 5 people

  6. I am still Stage IV. That means something different to every person with the diagnosis. If you had a clue of what you are talking about, you’d know that.

    And if Bill wasn’t such an arrrogant piece of shit, and was actually still seeing a movement disorder specialist regularly, he’d know that the 5-stage H&Y rating scale has been replaced by the UPDRS, which is much more useful and descriptive. The H&Y score puts too much emphasis on the ability (or inability) to walk and neglects the other symptoms, so it only represents one of SIX sections of the UPDRS.

    Bill really needs to check his own clue status before trying to criticize others.

    Liked by 8 people

  7. So Bill heard the old “you’re too young to have Parkinson’s” at, what, forty four years old.

    Imagine what I heard, at THIRTY!

    A few general practitioners (including my sister and brother-in-law) told me I must be imagining my symptoms, cause there was no WAY I had PD at my age.

    So I went to a specialist. He told me later that he knew I had PD within ten seconds of meeting me. The examination was a formality. And there’s been no doubt in the meantime of the accuracy of that diagnosis.

    I kept seeing that specialist. He’s a Big Name in the Parkinson’s community. He told me that he almost always can tell in first ten seconds whether a person has it or not. He also told me what he looks for in those seconds.

    I certainly don’t claim anything in the same league with his experience, but to my layman’s eye, Bill has none of the telltales he looks for. None.. Zero. I counted them. Twice. Still zero.

    I’m gonna pretend that Bill actually believes that he has PD and I’ll try to convince him that he has been misdiagnosed. I’ll present exhibits, and I welcome his responses, either here (if our Gracious Host would continue quoting him from the moderated reply queue) or in twitter, which I will reactivate if Bill wishes.

    Okay? Exhibit One coming up.

    Liked by 5 people

  8. Assume for sake of argument that Witless does have PD. Is it defamatory to say that he is healthy? Does that hold him up to obloquy and contempt? No; it is defamatory to say that someone who does not have a loathsome disease does have it, but I keep waiting for the citation that saying someone does not have a disease is defamatory.

    Now one could reasonably argue that someone who falsely claimed to have a disease in order to get money due to those who are actually diseased has committed fraud and that a false accusation of fraud is defamatory. What might the defenses to such a claim of defamation be? Well truth for one (after raising the so far universally successful procedural defenses against the clown). But for purposes of argument, we have been assuming that the defense of truth will not work. I can think of at least two other substantive defenses.

    One is that the so-called defamatory statements are protected opinion based on “facts” disclosed by Woeful himself. Now personally I do not assume that he is invariably truthful. Thus, some of these disclosures may turn out to be untrue. But I cannot see anyone finding unreasonable an opinion based on public assertions by the plaintiff even if those assertions turn out to be false.

    The other is that Wailing Willie is a public figure (at least for limited purposes). That requires him to show “reckless disregard for the truth.” And I cannot imagine a jury who can climb that particular hill.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Parkinson’s is a progressive neuro-degenerative disorder that slowly degrades the quality of life of the afflicted.

      Let’s say we took all of these statements he’s made as true:

      1, He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s.
      2. He gave up driving over 10 years ago because he could not trust himself or his reflexes.
      3, He had to retire because his affliction had become too great to do his job as a writer even at home.
      4. His wife was his caregiver because he was unable to care for himself.
      5. He is unable to ride for long periods of time because the pain is too great.

      With the stipulation, all of those statements, with the exception of the first one, he has shown to be false – and with pictures. So how does he explain the truthfulness of fact 1 when he says this to me in a moderated comment:

      Marvin, when I produce medical documentation it will not be to you, it will be to a court. I am not upset with you. I want you to stop lying about me.

      Anyone else see the problem here?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Reflexes? I heard his time in the Navy helped him ditch whatever minor bit of a gag reflex his father left him with.

        On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Sonoran Conservative wrote:

        > Sonoran Conservative commented: “Parkinson’s is a progressive > neuro-degenerative disorder that slowly degrades the quality of life of the > afflicted. Let’s say we took all of these statements he’s made as true: 1, > He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s. 2. He gave up driving over 10 yea” >

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ahh SC, my problem is that I really am not interested in Willie’s health. What interests me is his failure to understand anything about the law or even reasoning. He is not going to win any suit on the theory that he was defamed by people saying that he does not have PD. Those who assert that his appeal to sympathy is utterly spurious do not show a reckless disregard for the truth. And even if his appeal is not spurious, he won’t get any sympathy from me.

        Liked by 3 people

  9. Exhibit 1 – What is with that friggin’ comfy chair in the video above?

    There is NO WAY a person with PD would EVER sit in hat chair. At lease not unless he had a couple of strong orderlies on hand to get him the hell out of it.

    The fact that he would own such a thing, and would voluntarily sit in it, with expectations of rising, stands as EVIDENCE that he does not have Parkinson’s.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Exhibit 2 – a circumstantial tidbit.

    As you can tell from exhibit 1, I’m starting off slow. So this one, likè the last, when taken alone, is hardly what you’d call dispositive. But when you pile enough circumstantial evidence up, you get a conclusive result.

    Fact – Bill smokes tobaccci and drinks alcohol.

    Other fact – smokers hardly ever get Parkinson’s. The numbers are significant enough that studies were done to see if nicotine has neuroprotective properties (it doesn’t). The reason remains a mystery. Likewise, the intersection of alcoholics and PD patients approaches zero.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Shit! I hit Post too soon. Continuing…

    There are plenty of exceptions to this, so by itself this factoid is meaningless. But it’s amusing alongside all the other evidence.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Pingback: Oh really? | Sonoran Conservative

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s