Assuming the part about her having a child is accurate, I feel bad for said child.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'The Whole Pantry' App Developer Admits Faking Cancer to Boost Sales
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Assuming the part about her having a child is accurate, I feel bad for said child.
It's not her fault she lied, guys.
It's the governments, or FOX news, or men in general. She had no choice but to make an app and fake cancer. Her back was against the wall, guys.
It takes time to figure out which reality is really your reality when it's real it just almost really real and in the meantime just create an app for that
It's the governments, or FOX news, or men in general. She had no choice but to make an app and fake cancer. Her back was against the wall, guys.
It takes time to figure out which reality is really your reality when it's real it just almost really real and in the meantime just create an app for that
I really can't comment on any illness she may or may not have been diagnosed to have, although I at least have to acknowledge the reality that the condition may mean she is not in control of what she says.
However, I would still hope that the charities can be made whole. Either through remaining proceeds or sales of assets. I fear that if Australia has anything like the British limited company that assets may now be owned by her personally and this just may not be possible.
This is a tough philosophical position. If a person does not have free will (that is, does not have control over what they say), do they have liability for their actions?
I don't know what the law in Australia says on the matter, but again I would hope that whilst the condition might be taken into account in sentencing, she would stand [fair] trial for the appropriate crimes. Being a convicted fraudster might at least give people in the future a heads up that she may not be telling the truth. And whatever the reason she is not telling the truth (medical or intentional) the fact remains she has lied, and is likely (perhaps even more likely if it's medical) to do so again.
It's a sad situation, people who took hope from her "story", and perhaps invested in it by purchasing her products, must be gutted. Charitable organisations have been denied pledged funds. This really is no silver lining to this story from whatever angle.
I must admit, I do find her surprise at people's negative reactions (and I hope that the negative reactions are NOT physically threatening... two wrongs don't make a right) more than a little off. Perhaps that's another symptom.
Anyway, I hope that those who were taken in can find a way forward, that those who were promised things get them, and that she is not able to do this again.
However, I would still hope that the charities can be made whole. Either through remaining proceeds or sales of assets. I fear that if Australia has anything like the British limited company that assets may now be owned by her personally and this just may not be possible.
This is a tough philosophical position. If a person does not have free will (that is, does not have control over what they say), do they have liability for their actions?
I don't know what the law in Australia says on the matter, but again I would hope that whilst the condition might be taken into account in sentencing, she would stand [fair] trial for the appropriate crimes. Being a convicted fraudster might at least give people in the future a heads up that she may not be telling the truth. And whatever the reason she is not telling the truth (medical or intentional) the fact remains she has lied, and is likely (perhaps even more likely if it's medical) to do so again.
It's a sad situation, people who took hope from her "story", and perhaps invested in it by purchasing her products, must be gutted. Charitable organisations have been denied pledged funds. This really is no silver lining to this story from whatever angle.
I must admit, I do find her surprise at people's negative reactions (and I hope that the negative reactions are NOT physically threatening... two wrongs don't make a right) more than a little off. Perhaps that's another symptom.
Anyway, I hope that those who were taken in can find a way forward, that those who were promised things get them, and that she is not able to do this again.
She should get less than none. She should be fined more than she collected and be sent to prison.
Leaving her with none of it at the end does nothing more than restart her to before she lied. She's no worse off for having wronged people.
When someone robs you, they don't just have to give your stuff back. They give your stuff back and they go to prison.
Otherwise there's no reason not to rob people - worst case you're exactly where you're started, and in the best case, you never get caught and you're much better off for having committed fraud.
We can't change the best case for criminals. Some people will always manage to get away with what they've done. But we can make it much more risky to disincentive you.
IMO this has nothing to do with her faking an illness and lying about it. People lie all the time. People prey on your emotions to get your dollars in all industries. The real issue is greed. If she would have just contributed whatever portion she promised to charities this would be a moot issue, but she got greedy and arrogant, feeling like she couldn't be touched. It's always greed.
Last edited:
In the video at the following link, it looks like she's being interviewed on Apple's campus. The nerve, considering the illness that took the company's founder.
http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/exp...triumph-with-apple-watch-20140913-10g0mp.html
http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/exp...triumph-with-apple-watch-20140913-10g0mp.html
Or perhaps... she really does have brain cancer, and the brain damage has caused her to believe she is lying. 
Why is everything that we do wrong now an illness? How about its just wrong?
Stop giving people excuses about their poor actions and let them take on the consequences of those actions by repayment, jail, or something.
We've become a culture in that we do nothing wrong and if we do, we need medication for it.
20 years ago:
I shot someone. Ok. 25 years in jail.
Today:
I shot someone. Ok. Here are some medications and a counselor/therapist.
Stop giving people excuses about their poor actions and let them take on the consequences of those actions by repayment, jail, or something.
We've become a culture in that we do nothing wrong and if we do, we need medication for it.
20 years ago:
I shot someone. Ok. 25 years in jail.
Today:
I shot someone. Ok. Here are some medications and a counselor/therapist.
Yeah. I absolutely understand the outrage. The one thing that I would say is that it is possible to have respectful anger and outrage. I can easily see the response from some people being statements like "you are a pathetic excuse for a human being and someone should put you out of your misery". That kind of negative reaction doesn't help anyone.
Maybe she is sick. Maybe she needs help. Maybe she needs to go to jail. These aren't things that anyone looking at this from the outside can honestly judge. What I think we can all say is that we can hope that the charities in question get at least some of their money and that she gets whatever kind of help she needs to become a contributing member of society.
I wonder what the extent of the law in Australia is regarding Fraud. People and businesses do lie all the time in marketing and advertising. But, is there any legal standing for Fraud when someone claims their product can accomplish something that it can't or hasn't done. She basically made the claim that her app can assist you in living the kind of healthy lifestyle that helped her overcome cancer. She now admits to never having cancer, so we know it's a lie, but does it qualify as Fraud?
I think what she's done is terrible, but is there any legal accountability for it?
What you are describing is the natural result of our world denying the existence of absolute truth. If there is no absolute standard then we lose the ability to identify things as "right" or "wrong".
I think what she's done is terrible, but is there any legal accountability for it?
What you are describing is the natural result of our world denying the existence of absolute truth. If there is no absolute standard then we lose the ability to identify things as "right" or "wrong".
Well, why can't both be true? If there is a problem going on in your brain, get treatment for it. Then also face the consequences of your actions, perhaps mitigated a bit by the presence of a documented problem (not a TV station p!ssing in the wind with a diagnosis based on nothing more than hearsay), but face consequences nonetheless.
Come on... I'm thinking what we all are thinking. As soon as you read the first few lines... What did you wish on her #
and now she wants sympathy. really, come on now.
I don't think she still fully understands the breath of her actions. I bet if you start talking about prison time she's get real pretty quick.
I don't think she still fully understands the breath of her actions. I bet if you start talking about prison time she's get real pretty quick.
The first thing that came to my mind was the damage that she has done to people who do have cancer and are destitute and rely on other people's generosity.
Much like how much damage is done when a false rape accusation happens. The last thing we need is for people to hesitate when they would have donated thinking "is this another The Whole Pantry scam?"
There has to be some legal consequence for this, there just has to be.
Much like how much damage is done when a false rape accusation happens. The last thing we need is for people to hesitate when they would have donated thinking "is this another The Whole Pantry scam?"
There has to be some legal consequence for this, there just has to be.