Another victim of dirty politics speaks out

117 comments on “Another victim of dirty politics speaks out ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   17 September 2014 at 10:28 am

   All the muck will settle to the bottom..

   then it can be dug out and shipped off to Hawaii
   • Naki man 1.1

     17 September 2014 at 11:23 am

     “All the muck will settle to the bottom..

     then it can be dug out and shipped off to Hawaii”

     These scum wont be going to Hawaii, when the FBI get hold of them they will rot in Leavenworth.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1

       17 September 2014 at 12:54 pm

       Oh look, a wannabe ratfucker desperately smearing.
       • North 1.1.1.1

         17 September 2014 at 2:10 pm

         You give me mirth OAB. In these vile troubling times.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1

           17 September 2014 at 2:32 pm

           Yeah, it’s a worry. Have you read Cultural Amnesia? You can be as funny as you like and it doesn’t change a damn thing.
   • Inky 1.2

     17 September 2014 at 6:27 pm

     VTO, let’s hope Hawaii will accept our toxic waste.
2. Enough is Enough 2

   17 September 2014 at 10:34 am

   Katherine Rich has always been a Tory Witch.
   • Tigger 2.1

     17 September 2014 at 12:04 pm

     I’ve sat in meetings with her and met her at fictions – liked and respected her. I knew she ran a pro-corporate organisation – utterly opposite to what I would do but I still liked working across from her.

     Can’t say that now – this is vile stuff. She should resign.
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       17 September 2014 at 2:44 pm

       Even relatively decent people get corrupted on the way through. And often its through the cumulative results of many small (and individually apparently innocuous) decisions and steps taken.
3. Tom Gould 3

   17 September 2014 at 10:44 am

   Think what you like about Hager, he very effectively shut down the Tory attack machine depriving them of their character assassination and smear capabilities. Small mercies, perhaps. But ironically, this campaign could be seen as the cleanest for years because it has been about revealing the nasty truth of the Tories ‘two track’ campaign process.
   • halfcrown 3.1

     17 September 2014 at 11:30 am

     Well said. Now we only need that traitor called Dunn to lose his seat, and if the left doesn’t win at least we have had a few small gains.
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       17 September 2014 at 3:13 pm

       35,000 NATs switching to LAB or GR and Key is screwed. That’s how close this is.
       • Tracey 3.1.1.1

         17 September 2014 at 3:16 pm

         Which is why nats made their billboard stickers look like the electoral commission, cos they are worried
4. 100% Pure NZ 4

   17 September 2014 at 10:48 am

   Bravo!

   Well said – time to think about how to boycott these organisations that continue to actively spew filth into our society, for their own pecuniary gain.
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     17 September 2014 at 3:42 pm

     Boycott them, ensure higher food standards, and give people options to become more independent of industrialised processed food. Local food production, community gardens, etc.
5. Nic the NZer 5

   17 September 2014 at 11:54 am

   Thanks to Wendyl Nissen for having principal and speaking out, but this result is hardly a benefit to society. What we see happening here is bad ethics driving good ethics out (in this case from NewstalkZB). In financial markets this process is called a Gresham dynamic where the financial markets gradually become more an more fraudulent, because fraud is much more profitable. Cameron Slater no doubt is well paid for running his various attacks, while Wendyl is out and looking for other work. Pressure needs to be put on NewstalkZB not to host commentators who get paid for their opinions.
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     17 September 2014 at 3:43 pm

     Good god, someone here just referred to Gresham’s Dynamic. We’re definitely getting a better class of commentator here on The Standard 😯
   • Local Kiwi 5.2

     17 September 2014 at 5:31 pm

     ZB is radios VERSION to news of the world was to papers.

     Duncan Garner is a horrible piece of filth, as bad as Slater.

     We just heard him interview Cunliffe and after told everyone they should consider if they didn’t warm to Cunliffe then he is out of a job.

     He was inferring don’t vote for him essentially.

     What a biased big turkey he is and evil as a bought hack.
   • Rodel 5.3

     17 September 2014 at 6:59 pm

     Big word fpr media person Wendyl Nissen:.. INTEGRITY. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
6. Dont worry. Be happy 6

   17 September 2014 at 12:09 pm

   One victim of Dirty Politics cannot speak out. Judd Hall, mocked in death as a “feral” who “did the World a favour” by being killed in a road smash. Mocked By Cameron Slater….in a post….on his widely read blog, not in his private communications with fellow bloggers or National Party Ministers.

   What followed is history….widespread revulsion, outrage, hactivism, “Dirty Politics” Rawshark….and, in the welter of detail, the Prime Minister admitting that he had rung Cameron but all that he had said was “that I recognised her (Judd Hall’s mother, Joe) ”

   Key denied that he ever said what Slater claimed, “that’s the feral bitch that screams at me when I go to Pike River meetings” although “I recognised her from the photograph” does seem to belong at the end of that claim of Slater’s.

   The problem for Key may be…is there anywhere else in the conversation thatmit belongs?

   Why even talk about Joe Hall? She wasn’t in the post….

   But she had left an angry and distraught message on Slaters phone.

   That’s been played in the media.

   Was this message the cue for them to be discussing Joe Hall in the first place…..which then led to the PM’s admitted claim to know her “from the photograph” ?

   How odd to be in a position of who to believe…Slater or the PM …about just what the PM exactly said about a mother grieving her last son.

   Key has made much of claiming he doesnt use that kind of language. I am old enough to remember the shock many felt when Nixon was revealed on tape, speaking privately to friends, as foul mouthed and hateful.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     17 September 2014 at 3:44 pm

     Thank you for remembering Mr Judd Hall.
7. sable 7

   17 September 2014 at 12:35 pm

   Really hard to take this woman seriously when you consider who her employer is…
   • Rosalind 7.1

     17 September 2014 at 3:18 pm

     Don’t take her seriously, she has no competence whatsoever in food safety and is just promoting her own website and business.
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

       17 September 2014 at 3:46 pm

       Why do you degrade people who take moral and ethical stances to the detriment of their own income and employment positions?

       These people are rare enough in our society as it is, without your thoughtless commentary.
       • Rosalind 7.1.1.1

         17 September 2014 at 6:57 pm

         Because to spread misinformation and untruths about food is neither moral or ethical.
   • Ergo Robertina 7.2

     17 September 2014 at 5:32 pm

     ‘Really hard to take this woman seriously when you consider who her employer is…’

     Writing for a powerful organisation, the reality is it has the size to hold its own against corporate bullies and the advertising dollar.
     Wendyl does a great job of bringing food safety and quality issues to a mainstream readership.
     She has been so effective the industry targeted her, and deserves some credit and support for her work.
8. ianmac 8

   17 September 2014 at 12:52 pm

   Great Wndyl. Courage and integrity are in short supply so well done.
9. Ennui 9

   17 September 2014 at 1:36 pm

   Well done Wendyl taking a stand.

   PS your book on household tips is wonderfully useful……something Slater could never achieve.
10. chrissy 10

    17 September 2014 at 1:39 pm

    Thanks for posting this: agreed, we all need to read this and digest it. The piece had 5,000 shares on the Herald yesterday, and from people who are foodies, etc, rather than political animals. The comments from good folk are heartening, if you think this kind of thing needs exorcising and are wondering whether people have a heart for that.

    Now : a simple, straight question for Katherine Rich: did the Food and Grocery Council pay for a smear campaign by Whale Oil against Nissen?

    An honest answer, I believe, would see the end of Ms Rich’s role at FGC, and the sugar lobby exposed for the kind of operation it is.
11. Craig Glen Eden 11

    17 September 2014 at 2:42 pm

    This piece by Nissen could actually get more people thinking than every thing else that has come out so far in the Dirty politics sager. well certainly reach people who would be otherwise happy to vote National you know cos National are winners and nice conservative folk type voters. People who like to live healthy wont like the link to the Corporate food/sugar lobby which of coarse is right in Nationals camp.
    • Colonial Viper 11.1

      17 September 2014 at 3:46 pm

      Interesting isn’t it. Agree.
12. Rosalind 12

    17 September 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Wendyl Nissen has a lot of nerve to complain about smear campaigns when she is a one-woman smear campaign who has made a career out of making untruthful and misleading statements about safe food additives. In one column she claimed that numerous artificial colours that are permitted in New Zealand are ‘banned in Europe’ when in fact none of them are banned.Although toxicologists, food technologists and other scientists try to get her to correct her frequent misleading statements in her columns, she does not do so.
    She writes her columns for money and to promote her own website, where she sells her products, and is not ‘on the side of the angels’ at all, but purely on the side of her own financial interests. She pretends competence in food safety that she simply does not have. For example her website has a free recipe for ‘Garlic/yeast powder’ as an oral flea treatment for cats. In fact cats are extremely sensitive to the toxic effects of garlic and should not be fed garlic at all. So much for any competence or integrity on Wendyl’s part.
    Cameron Slater’s methods are odious but Wendyl has no grounds for complaint. Furthermore she has not presented any evidence whatsoever that Katherine Rich is behind Cameron Slater’s attacks.
    • McFlock 12.1

      17 September 2014 at 3:24 pm

      lol
      • greywarbler 12.1.1

        17 September 2014 at 4:34 pm

        @ Rosalind 12
        Assertions on Wendyl Nissen’s statements and activities.
        1 In one column she says that artificial colours permitted in NZ are banned in Europe.
        2 None of them are banned.
        (Links for the above?)
        3 Food tech and medical people have tried to correct misleading statements in columns.
        4 She does not correct these.
        (Links for the above?)
        5 An example of pretended competence is that her website has a free recipe for oral
        flea treatment for cats using garlic/yeast.
        6 Garlic has a toxic effect on cats which are sensitive to it.
        (Links for the above? Also is this Wendyl’s recipe or from someone that advertises or has supplied her with a remedy recipe?)

        Wendyl earns money from her activities. She is paid for her columns and for use of her website. She gives the impression that she is full of good and kind intentions in her doings, but she is just in it for the money. Opinion.)
        I am paraphrasing above to try and cut though the verbiage so I can understand it better. Presumably she is allowed to earn money. It may be all, part, or not correct. Links would help from this apparently informed person.
        • McFlock 12.1.1.1

          17 September 2014 at 5:29 pm

          but links could be checked, and that might be a problem for “rosalind”
        • weka 12.1.1.2

          17 September 2014 at 6:26 pm

          Nissen states categorically that she is not paid by vested interests for her column.
        • Rosalind 12.1.1.3

          17 September 2014 at 7:09 pm

          I’ll have to search back on the first one because it was two or three years ago. I do remember that the Herald had to publish a retraction of her assertions, but I’m pretty sure she did not write the retraction herself.
          The second one is in the comments to her article (from a food technologist) and personal communications from my colleagues in toxicology.
          The flea remedy is on Wendyl’s website. Google is your friend. She uses it on her own cats. I have provided a link elsewhere on this thread to the fact that garlic is contraindicated in cats.
          • karol 12.1.1.3.1

            17 September 2014 at 7:23 pm

            The onus is on the person making the claims to provide the supporting links or citations. It’s not the role of other people to run around doing that for you.

            if you can’t be bothered to provide the links, why should we believe your claims?
            • Rosalind 12.1.1.3.1.1

              17 September 2014 at 8:05 pm

              I have provided the link to an article of Wendyl’s that contains at least eight outright untruths, below.
              Wendyl’s powder for cats recipe is here: http://wendyls.co.nz/garlicyeast-powder-for-cat-food/
              I have provided a link to the ASPCA website confirming that garlic powder is toxic to cats elsewhere in this thread.
          • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.3.2

            17 September 2014 at 7:40 pm

            Forget it Karol: this “person” thinks evidence is a comment on the internet.

            Or pretends to.

            One thing I believe: Rosalind is toxic, but only to cretins.
        • Rosalind 12.1.1.4

          17 September 2014 at 7:41 pm

          Consider the text from this article by Wendyl:
          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10842375

          ‘Ponceau 4R (124), a red synthetic colour which has been banned in the US, Norway and Finland. It can cause allergic reactions and there are concerns that it might be carcinogenic.
          Sunset Yellow FCF (110) is banned in Norway and Finland. After the same study mentioned for tartrazine the United Kingdom requested a voluntary withdrawal of this colouring in all its foods.
          Tartrazine (102) is an artificial yellow dye which has been banned in Norway and the United Kingdom due a study which found links to hyperactivity in children. Brilliant Blue (133) is banned in 11 countries and can cause allergic reactions.
          Brown HT (155) is made from coal tar. It is commonly used to give a brown colour but is not approved for use in foods in the United States and many European countries because it causes allergic reactions.
          Amaranth (123) is a dark red or purple dye which is a suspected carcinogen banned in the US in 1976.’

          False claims made by Wendyl in the text above are as follows:
          Norway accepts all the colours that are permitted in the EC, including all the ones which Wendyl asserts Norway has banned. Every time she has written that a colour is banned in Norway, she has made a false statement.
          Ponceau 4R has been banned in the US. In fact it has never been assessed in the USA
          There are concerns that Ponceau 4R is carcinogenic. This is not true. EFSA assessed it and concluded that it is not.
          Sunset Yellow is one of the ‘Southhampton Six’. Although the UKFSA had a voluntary phase-out of these among its own manufacturers, this does not apply to food entering the UK from the rest of the EC, the USA or other countries.
          Tartrazine is not banned in Norway or the UK. Wendyl’s statements are false. The southhampton study alleging links to hyperactivity in children is poorly regarded.
          Brilliant Blue is not banned in ANY country, let alone eleven countries. On the contrary, it is approved by the international food organisation, Codex Alimentarius. EFSA last evaluated Brilliant Blue in 2010 and noted no safety concerns at permitted levels.
          Brown HT is also approved by Codex. No application has ever been made for its use in the USA so it is impossible to say whether or not it would be approved if the FDA assessed it. It is permitted throughout the EC; no EC countries have withheld approval which doesn’t leave many European countries, does it?
          Although the USA does not permit Amaranth, Wendyl neglects to mention that both EFSA and JECFA (WHO) permit Amaranth and have concluded that it is NOT a carcinogen

          So, in that short extract from Wendyl’s article linked above, she has made, by quick count eight completely false statements and several more profoundly misleading ones.
          • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.4.1

            17 September 2014 at 7:50 pm

            Let’s assume for a moment that any of Rosalind’s assertions are true.

            What does it say about toxicologists that they need to employ Cameron Slater to run their lines?

            Don’t toxicologists have codes of ethics ‘n’ shit?
            • Rosalind 12.1.1.4.1.1

              17 September 2014 at 8:03 pm

              I don’t know of any toxicologists who employ Cameron Slater to run their lines. Katherine Rich is not a toxicologist. There is no mention of toxicologists in Dirty Politics. Scientific facts don’t need the likes of Slater.
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                17 September 2014 at 8:23 pm

                So attacking one of his targets, in the middle of a discussion about his attacks, and asserting toxicological dominance is a spectacularly stoopid way to make your case, Perfesser.

                Scientists and their cack-handed approach to meeja.
                • Rosalind …

                  17 September 2014 at 8:32 pm

                  My view is that although many victims of Slater’s attacks, such as the innocent civil servant that Collins sicced him onto, deserve our sympathy and support, Wendyl Nissen does not because she has made a career out of scaremongering, and furthermore she has no evidence that it was Katherine Rich who sicced Cameron Slater onto her.
                  • One Anonymous Bloke …

                    17 September 2014 at 8:39 pm

                    She’s more qualified to assess that than you are: cf: legal approaches to her employers.
          • Rosalind 12.1.1.4.2

            17 September 2014 at 7:52 pm

            I don’t think even John Key is capable of such a Gish Gallop as Wendyl’s text that I have quoted above, although Cameron Slater probably is. Side of the angels indeed!
          • Flynn 12.1.1.4.3

            17 September 2014 at 11:28 pm

            Um, 2 seconds Googling shows that a number of sites claim those additives ARE banned in the places named. (I didn’t check every single one, but enough came up that I consider the whole comment above suspect).

            From a bit more research, it looks like a lot of them *were* banned in places like Norway, until they were later overturned by the European Union, or may not be currently banned, but there haven’t been any releases to update their status in the last few years (e.g. “we will phase out by X date…” being the last update). So while it is true they may not be *currently* banned:

            – they may have been at the time she was writing
            – plenty of reputable sites still claim that information, which she could have relied on when researching (even if a bit more research was needed)
            – ‘was once banned until overturned by wider economic powers’ is a valid point to mention in most cases.
            – in some cases, ‘banned’ appears to be short hand for ‘we require you to declare it, have voluntary codes against it, and generally give health warnings… but it isn’t illegal to use because we have wider economic agreements to uphold/aren’t quite sure’. And while that’s poor reporting, it’s still within the spirit of the sort of articles she was writing, and *exactly* what most of her readers would care about.

            The sheer amount of nitpicking over these specific chemical additives that *a great many people* honestly believe are potentially dangerous is ridiculous and obsessive. She may be wrong. There may be amazingly clear evidence showing that. But there is plenty of evidence showing that she could *genuinely have come to that conclusion* while checking her facts, and considers it to be true. But it is reasonable to ignore pressure from vested interests. It is fair enough to write her articles off as unreliable. It is not reasonable to escalate that pressure to harrassment.
    • Colonial Viper 12.2

      17 September 2014 at 3:49 pm

      Yes it’s sad when you see paid idiots run lines for corporate interest, Rosalind. Whose interests do you serve Btw?
      • Rosalind 12.2.1

        17 September 2014 at 7:00 pm

        I don’t serve any interests except scientific fact.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1.1

          17 September 2014 at 7:54 pm

          Regrettably your science is now associated with Cameron Slater and the National Party. We’ll do our best to set up a committee to explore avenues to help avoid collateral damage when we smash this criminal gang.
          • Rosalind 12.2.1.1.1

            17 September 2014 at 8:01 pm

            Cameron Slater is odious and so is the National Party, but that does not mean their opponents should align with the anti-science faction which includes the scaremongering Wendyl Nissen. The Standard discredits itself by backing her.

            [lprent: The Standard is a machine (see “Meet the Standard”). It doesn’t have opinions. However I do and, as a programmer, one of them is that people trying to tell a dumb machine what it should do are moronic idiots. I usually ban them for stupidity.

            But in this case people appear to be engaged in this debate and apart from this lapse nothing else in this exchange has engaged my moderation attention, so I will let it ride.

            However I suggest that you read the policy so as not to draw my attention again. It is in the section about “Rules”, and the about to find out why we don’t have much of an editorial policy – just rules about behaviour. ]
            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1.1.1.1

              17 September 2014 at 8:18 pm

              The Standard is a machine. It can’t credit or discredit anything.

              The specific assertions Nissen has made relate to ratfucking, not ratpoison. Your attack on her toxicological credibility has no bearing on the article published by The Herald.
              • Rosalind …

                17 September 2014 at 8:30 pm

                Well it does, in that she claims to have integrity and to ‘be on the side of the angels’.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  17 September 2014 at 8:34 pm

                  Well it doesn’t, because the article is about the criminal activities of Slater Rich and Key, of which she seems more qualified to make comment on than you.
    • Nic the NZer 12.3

      17 September 2014 at 3:53 pm

      Just think of all that good Butylated hydroxy-anisole (BHA) your family is missing out on as a result of her *opinion*.
      • halfcrown 12.3.1

        17 September 2014 at 4:28 pm

        Butylated hydroxy-anisole (BHA) Code 320
        A lovely little substance according to our Chemical Maze book by Bill Statham. It is banned in some countries (does not state where)
        Petroleum based used in cosmetics and food as an antioxidant
        Can cause Hay fever headache, fatigue neurotoxiicity just to name a few
        It is carcinogenic.

        Can be found in Milk Powder and Instant mashed potato

        Other uses. Cosmetics and plastic food wrap.

        Chemical Maze book classes this as Hazardous.
        • Nic the NZer 12.3.1.1

          17 September 2014 at 4:39 pm

          Ohh, that sounds yummy.
        • Rosalind 12.3.1.2

          17 September 2014 at 7:10 pm

          Do you understand the concept ‘The dose makes the poison’? I know Wendyl doesn’t, but competent toxicologists do.
          • Nic the NZer 12.3.1.2.1

            17 September 2014 at 8:15 pm

            Are you counting yourself amoung the class of competent toxicologists Rosalind?

            Wendyls recipe suggests feeding your cat about 25% of 1tsp garlic powder per day.
            http://www.nzwomansweekly.co.nz/knowledge-bank/green-news-homemade-flea-treatment

            Approximately 4 tsp per day is suggested to be a dangerous for an average 4kg cat.
            http://drpollen.blogspot.co.nz/2009/10/is-garlic-safe-for-cats-and-dogs.html?m=1

            Your aspca site suggests that garlic in the small doses found in many cat foods and treats is not likely to be dangerous.
            http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/pet-nutrition-service

            Do you understand the concept ‘The dose makes the poison’? Competent toxicologists do.
            • Rosalind 12.3.1.2.1.1

              17 September 2014 at 8:22 pm

              She recommends feeding it daily, so we are talking about chronic intake of 1-2 g per day. Ongoing low-grade haemolysis and increased burden on the spleen rather than an acute haemolytic event, but still toxicity.
              Do you understand the difference between chronic toxicity and acute toxicity?
              • Nic the NZer …

                17 September 2014 at 9:21 pm

                Is that right. Reading further of the drpollen link above suggests Wendyls dose is inside the safe margin for an average cat. But what does the countries most risible toxicologist have to say on the matter? What is the safe dose of garlic for a cat (with evidence please).
        • Rosalind 12.3.1.3

          17 September 2014 at 7:42 pm

          Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), INS 320

          BHA is authorised alone, or in combination with other antioxidants such as gallates, tertiary butylhydroquinone and butylated hydroxytoluene, for a wide range of different food categories in Europe.

          BHA is also permitted for a variety of foods in the United States, as well as by many other food regulators around the world. It is also permitted in a variety of food categories in the Codex General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA).
          • One Anonymous Bloke 12.3.1.3.1

            17 September 2014 at 7:57 pm

            So why do you need ratfucker slime to say so?
            • Rosalind 12.3.1.3.1.1

              17 September 2014 at 8:07 pm

              Who needs ratfucker slime Cameron Slater to say so? Where is Wendyl’s evidence that Katherine Rich or anyone else used Slater to say anything about Wendyl?
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                17 September 2014 at 8:51 pm

                Rich will no doubt demand that The Herald withdraw and apologise…
    • framu 12.4

      17 September 2014 at 4:06 pm

      golly – thats terrible

      could you then explain why the attacks on her arent about this?

      im not saying your wrong – i honestly dont know the truth of that one way or the other – BUT – if what you are saying is correct then surely thats plenty of ammo to fight back with

      why use the dirty tricks machine at all?
      Why run the response through a proxie to hide your identity?
      Why not just say what youve said and provide evidence?
      Who is rosalind and what interest does she have? 🙂

      “Furthermore she has not presented any evidence whatsoever that Katherine Rich is behind Cameron Slater’s attacks.”

      she doesnt need to – theres been a whole book already that outlines KRs links to WO and what they were up to
      • One Anonymous Bloke 12.4.1

        17 September 2014 at 4:37 pm

        Who is rosalind and what interest does she have?

        😆
        • Rosalind 12.4.1.1

          17 September 2014 at 7:05 pm

          I am interested only in science and truth. I am not in the pay of anyone. Wendyl is in her own pay and the pay of the Herald.
      • Rosalind 12.4.2

        17 September 2014 at 7:47 pm

        It is only Wendyl’s assertion that Katherine Rich has used the odious Cameron Slater to attack Wendyl specifically. Where is Wendyl’s evidence for this?
        It makes no sense for Katherine Rich to use Whale Oil to attack Wendyl because the FGC can, and does, directly and openly refute false information of the kind Wendyl distributes. Therefore I don’t believe Wendyl’s assertion that KR has used Whale Oil.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 12.4.2.1

          17 September 2014 at 8:01 pm

          Have you read Dirty Politics? Perhaps not.
          • Rosalind 12.4.2.1.1

            17 September 2014 at 8:16 pm

            I’ve read some of it so far. I don’t recall anything in it about Wendyl Nissen. Give me the page number where she is referred to and I’ll look it up.
            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.4.2.1.1.1

              17 September 2014 at 8:29 pm

              It refers to Katherine Rich. Being cute about it won’t help the fact that you appear to have barged in on a discussion about ratfucking with a bee in your bonnet about the toxicological credentials of a Herald columnist.

              Is she such a threat to toxicology?
    • Ffloyd 12.5

      17 September 2014 at 5:25 pm

      Wow! Someone is prickly! I thought that Wendy gives a lot of her tips and recipesaway for free. Plus she has a huge following of very intelligent discerning people who use her investigative knowledge to make informed choices on product buying and natural ways on cleaning that has a limited harmful effect on the universe.
      • Rosalind 12.5.1

        17 September 2014 at 7:53 pm

        Very intelligent discerning people don’t follow people as chronically inaccurate as Wendyl Nissen.
    • Inky 12.6

      17 September 2014 at 6:18 pm

      Rosalind, you’ve been all over the blogs running this reporter down. You claim to be a toxologist. Tell us who you are so we can check you are legit and have no vested interest in continuing the Slater-esque attacks against her. For all we know, you’re Katherine Rich.

      [lprent: You cannot ask someone to out themselves on this site. Persist and you are likely to be banned. Read the policy. ]
      • Rosalind 12.6.1

        17 September 2014 at 7:49 pm

        I’m not Katherine Rich. She is not a toxicologist.
        • Inky 12.6.1.1

          17 September 2014 at 8:04 pm

          The point is, I could say I’m a toxologist too, or a brain surgeon or taxidermist, couldn’t I? But I’m not. (Although you could say I have an interest in taxidermy because I’d like to see John Key well and truly stuffed on Saturday.)
          • Rosalind 12.6.1.1.1

            17 September 2014 at 8:07 pm

            http://www.toxi.co.nz

            New Zealand’s most highly qualified toxicologist, as it happens.
            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.6.1.1.1.1

              17 September 2014 at 8:31 pm

              Still working on communications and strategy but…
          • halfcrown 12.6.1.1.2

            17 September 2014 at 9:28 pm

            “(Although you could say I have an interest in taxidermy because I’d like to see John Key well and truly stuffed on Saturday.)”

            Ha, I like it.
    • weka 12.7

      17 September 2014 at 6:28 pm

      “‘Garlic/yeast powder’ as an oral flea treatment for cats. In fact cats are extremely sensitive to the toxic effects of garlic and should not be fed garlic at all. ”

      Meanwhile, out in the real world, many people give their cats garlic with no ill effect. There is some evidence that garlic can be a problem for some cats, but it’s by no means universal and it’s not toxic in the sense all cats will get acutely ill kind of way that you imply.
      • Rosalind 12.7.1

        17 September 2014 at 7:04 pm

        http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/cat-behavior/foods-are-hazardous-cats

        Note that although cats don’t voluntarily eat enough garlic to get sick, Wendyl recommends spreading garlic on cats’ feed so they cannot avoid eating it.
        • weka 12.7.1.1

          17 September 2014 at 7:50 pm

          you said “In fact cats are extremely sensitive to the toxic effects of garlic and should not be fed garlic at all.”

          That implies that cats eating any amount of garlic will get sick. Which is bullshit.

          You have obviously never tried feeding garlic to cats. Most cats won’t eat food with garlic in it, or spread on it. Cat’s sense of smell is a big part of them choosing what to eat. They also don’t like the taste. You have to disguise the garlic. I agree that it shouldn’t be given a lot or all the time, but that’s different than your statement about it being highly toxic. Am guessing that Nissen’s recipe is low dose.

          I doubt you understand how to apply science or research results in the real world. You come across as someone with a grudge based on dogma (that’s me being kind and assuming you don’t work for Rich).
          • Rosalind 12.7.1.1.1

            17 September 2014 at 7:58 pm

            ‘That implies that cats eating any amount of garlic will get sick.’ No it doesn’t. That’s a strawman argument.

            Nissen’s recipe is not low dose; it is 30 g of garlic powder, sprinkled on their food so they can’t avoid it.

            Cats most certainly can be, and have been, clinically poisoned by that sort of quanitity of garlic powder, if they can’t avoid eating it.

            I am in fact Board-certified in both Toxicology (i.e. human and environmental) and Veterinary Toxicology. To even sit the exams for Board Certification in Veterinary Toxicology requires both a veterinary degree and a PhD on top of it. I am easily New Zealand’s most highly qualified toxicologist.

            http://www.toxi.co.nz

            You come across as an ignorant person who knows nothing about toxicology.
            • weka 12.7.1.1.1.1

              17 September 2014 at 8:03 pm

              do you still claim that no cats can eat small quantities of garlic without being poisoned?

              Please link to Nissen’s recipe.
              • Rosalind …

                17 September 2014 at 8:12 pm

                http://wendyls.co.nz/garlicyeast-powder-for-cat-food/

                The fundamental rule of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. If a cat is forced to eat 30 g of garlic because it can’t get at its food without eating the garlic, then that is sufficient to cause haemolysis in the average-sized cat.

                I have never claimed that ‘no cats can eat small quanities of garlic without being poisoned’; that is a Straw Man argument. However, 30 g of garlic is not a small quantity to a cat.
                • weka …

                  17 September 2014 at 8:17 pm

                  “I have never claimed that ‘no cats can eat small quanities of garlic without being poisoned'”

                  Yeah, you did:

                  “‘Garlic/yeast powder’ as an oral flea treatment for cats. In fact cats are extremely sensitive to the toxic effects of garlic and should not be fed garlic at all. ”
                  • Rosalind …

                    17 September 2014 at 8:25 pm

                    What I meant is that the prudent, responsible policy is to not feed cats garlic at all. That does mean that a tiny amount would cause clinical toxicity.
                    • weka …

                      17 September 2014 at 8:30 pm

                      right, so you intentionally misled us with your statement, as a way of making a political point. Well done there Science.
                • Rosalind …

                  17 September 2014 at 8:18 pm

                  Correction, I see on further review that it is not 30 g but probably only 1 or 2 when diluted by the Brewer’s Yeast etc. However, fed daily, that is still enough to give a cat haemolysis.
                  • weka …

                    17 September 2014 at 8:32 pm

                    have you done an actual calculation of the amount of garlic in one dose of the recipe?
                    • weka …

                      17 September 2014 at 8:40 pm

                      Am curious for a reference for toxic dose too. Best I can find easily on google is 5gm per kg, but I haven’t looked on science databases yet.

                      Am also curious if the research differentiated between dry and fresh garlic, as some of the compounds change distinctly (not sure if they are the relevant ones).
                  • Inky …

                    17 September 2014 at 8:36 pm

                    Rosalind, re Rich and the New Zealand Food & Grocery Council? Admire their work? I’m curious. Do you know if the council ever hires toxicologists to work for it? (I’m wondering if they use such experts to counter the claims of people such as Wendyl?)
                  • Nic the NZer …

                    17 September 2014 at 9:07 pm

                    Funny that you assertions are not in fact affected by your mistake in the dosage. Pretty sloppy from the countries most qualified toxicologist actually. Still you should probably get onto those cat and dog food treat manufacturers who also put garlic in their product. They appear to have some serious issues with their labelling.

                    Keep up the good service to toxicologists, doing the profession proud so far. Any hints on the toxic dosage front for us amateurs?
                    • Nic the NZer …

                      17 September 2014 at 9:36 pm

                      That would be the dosage mistake which reduces the dosage by a factor of 15 to 30x.
                • weka …

                  17 September 2014 at 8:20 pm

                  “The fundamental rule of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. If a cat is forced to eat 30 g of garlic because it can’t get at its food without eating the garlic, then that is sufficient to cause haemolysis in the average-sized cat.”

                  She says to use 1 tsp of the whole mix per day, not 30gms of garlic powder per meal or day. Have you calculated how much that is per dose?
            • Te Reo Putake 12.7.1.1.1.2

              17 September 2014 at 8:23 pm

              “I am easily New Zealand’s most highly qualified toxicologist.”

              Yep, it appears you are (you’ve kinda outed yourself) and I think you are speaking from a position of strength. I just hope Rich never reads your comment about Slater and the Nats; we know what happens to people they don’t like.

              You say the the Standard should not back Nissen, but the post was about her experience with right wing harassment, not about her favourite recipes. The people who comment here are the Standard community, not the site itself. Not that the site itself has a personality. It’s only a machine or so I’m told.
              • Rosalind …

                17 September 2014 at 8:26 pm

                But where is Wendyl’s evidence that Rich has used Slater to attack her? There is no question that Slater has been used as a tool (in more than one sense) to attack people, but where is the specific evidence that he was used to attack Wendyl by Katherine Rich?
                • Inky …

                  17 September 2014 at 8:42 pm

                  So you think it was mere coincidence that soon after Rich moved against Wendyl, Slater suddenly decided off his own bat to smear the woman? What, because she said the Twisties he loves are no good for him?
        • Inky 12.7.1.2

          17 September 2014 at 7:58 pm

          It depends on the website you go to.

          The safe dose of garlic for healthy cats is a slice of garlic clove 2-3 times a week. Although this safe garlic dose is not enough to deworm a pet or cure a viral disease, it probably stimulates the immune system just enough to be a blessing. In addition, garlic provides “heat” from a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) perspective, and “heat” is beneficial for weak, chilly, or older pets.
          • Rosalind 12.7.1.2.1

            17 September 2014 at 7:59 pm

            That’s all pure quackery. There is no legitimate scientific indication whatsoever for feeding cats garlic ever.
            • Inky 12.7.1.2.1.1

              17 September 2014 at 8:19 pm

              With respect, for all we know you’re a quack. No one’s going to just accept what you say when you’re effectively backing Slater’s attacks on the woman and, in fact, continuing them. You sound like someone with a real axe to grind. You’ve made too many posts about this on this blog and others for it to be otherwise. Chances are you’ll find a far more sympathetic audience for your theories on Whale Oil. They love character assassination there. But of course you already know that, don’t you?
              • Rosalind …

                17 September 2014 at 8:28 pm

                I’ve never read Whale Oil and I would never go near it. However I have read Wendyl’s columns and they are frequently full of scaremongering and misinformation. I am happy to attack Wendyl’s credibility because she is not a reliable source of information on food safety as she pretends to be.
                • weka …

                  17 September 2014 at 8:46 pm

                  “full of scaremongering and misinformation.”

                  Like ‘cats should never be fed garlic because it is highly toxic’

                  Pot meet kettle.
    • AsleepWhileWalking 12.8

      17 September 2014 at 8:02 pm

      @ Rosalind
      What has any of this got to do with Wendyl’s resignation from ZB? It is clear Slater bullied her through his blog. Thankfully Wendyl has enough self love to move herself into a better workspace which is more balls than TPTB in ZB have shown.

      I really admire Wendyl for having the integrity to do this despite any financial or professional cost.

      Who gives a shit about garlic.
      • Rosalind 12.8.1

        17 September 2014 at 8:09 pm

        The point is, Wendyl is in her own way as dishonest as Slater,having made a career out of misleading scaremongering, yet she claims to have integrity and to be on the side of the angels.
      • Rosalind 12.8.2

        17 September 2014 at 8:10 pm

        People do give a shit about their cats you know, and Wendyl’s recipe isn’t good for their cats.
        • Murray Olsen 12.8.2.1

          17 September 2014 at 11:38 pm

          On your webpage you don’t say which institution awarded your PhD. Is this the normal practice for toxicologists?
13. philj 13

    17 September 2014 at 4:51 pm

    Thanks for speaking out, Wendy. You are making a difference! Principles and ethnics are not dead yet, although our MSM wouldn’t agree.
    Although Campbell Live did a shocking story of the folk of Eltham being poisoned by rotting buttermilk waste toxic gas, permitted by the local regional council. Thank you Campbell Live team for your excellent work, puts the rest to shame.
14. Local Kiwi 14

    17 September 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Wendy you have a special place as an assigned angel when we meet on the other side.

    So many good souls we have seen this election come out to save our country.

    We must have good prevail over evil.
    keep your soul free to care and don’t let them win.
15. One Anonymous Bloke 15

    17 September 2014 at 6:18 pm

    Little stones make an avalanche.
    • weka 15.1

      17 September 2014 at 6:29 pm

      Someone else resigned from their media spot so as to not have to share it with Slater or similar. Anyone remember who that was?
      • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.1

        17 September 2014 at 6:35 pm

        Little stones don’t have names, and yet avalanches persist.
        • weka 15.1.1.1

          17 September 2014 at 6:42 pm

          ha ha, this one did, but it was on twitter which renders history invisible shortly after it happens.
16. sabine 16

    17 September 2014 at 8:45 pm

    wow
    so much stuff about cats and garlic
    just wow

Links to post

1. Latest news: Wednesday, 17 September | Dirty Politics: posted on 17 September 2014 at 7:58 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS