What Michael is doing, by mixing data from various sources, is basically scientific fraud. He’s comparing wax apples to plastic bananas. You can’t mix sources to make your point (even if you can mix metaphors). If you’re going to make comparisons, the data have to come with the same fudge factors, the same biases, the same errors—the same source.

I think this is a great explanation that is succinct and easily understandable. As many times as I’ve tried to explain this to various people, I’ve never come up with as good of an explanation, without getting too scientific or wordy, which always seems to leave many people lost. That being said ... I don’t think Moore or the Mooreons will ever understand. They don’t seem to live in the same world as the rest of us mere humans.

I think the comparison is worse than just wax apples to plastic bananas.

I think comparing 2004 WHO data on health care costs to HHS health care cost projections is more like old, rotten, overcooked, puréed, half-digested, regurgitated, discarded remnants of the husk of an experimental, genetically modified, seedless, broccoli/orange hybrid being compared to some kind of single-celled-organism that may or may not be turned up by a future alien president of Franko-Arabia while she/he/it is visiting a hypothetical colonization location on the then-reinstated planet of Pluto after space pirates drag it into Earth’s orbit using magic provided by Merlin (who is discovered to be a real person) and is cloned and brought back to life in the form of a flying pig using technology created by scientists of the one true religion Christianity.

I mean, just look at the letters! WHO/HHS! There’s only 1 letter that’s the same!

Not to mention “cost analysis” and “cost projections”! Those couldn’t be any more different.

OK, sure, they’re both about cost, and health care, and they’re both put out by very reputable sources, and the numbers aren’t that different, but… LOOK AT THE LETTERS! There’s no “W” in “Health and Human Services!”.

You’re right, they couldn’t be any more different!

The less you posted, the smarter I thought you were.

So Hirudin,

You think that it’s honest to take one number from an old source that represents actual cost, and then compare that number to a current source that is nothing more than an educated guess?

That “letter” argument is really irrelevant. It seems to me that you’re trying to distract the discussion away from the real substance of it, which is the manipulation of numbers to bolster a pre-determined point of view. Skewing the data to “prove” that health care is bad does a disservice to everyone. If we have a clear, honest picture of the actual state of American health care, we can preserve the aspects that work and change those that don’t. If we proceed on the basis of a dishonest report, we are setting ourselves up for failure.

Moore wanted to show how bad things were from the outset. The most obvious example of this pre-determined viewpoint is that he asked people for health care horror stories. He didn’t ask the question “What is the state of health care in America?” He asked, “How can I prove that America needs socialized medicine?” Do you believe that finding data to support a pre-determined opinion constitutes good documentary filmmaking?

You think that it’s honest to take one number from an old source that represents actual cost, and then compare that number to a current source that is nothing more than an educated guess?

No, that is not an honest comparison. But, it’s hardly the end-all, killing blow, fatality move against any conclusions based on the comparison.

The “letters” thing was only suppose to be a ridiculously stupid argument. I hope we do not dwell on the subject. Actually, that whole post was poking fun at adding adjectives to “apples and oranges” to make them even more different.

Moore wanted to show how bad things were from the outset. The most obvious example of this pre-determined viewpoint is that he asked people for health care horror stories. He didn’t ask the question “What is the state of health care in America?” He asked, “How can I prove that America needs socialized medicine?”

I think you’re 100% correct. That piece of evidence is… particularly undeniable.

Do you believe that finding data to support a pre-determined opinion constitutes good documentary filmmaking?

No. Definitely not.
I like his movies and all, but I don’t think you’re going to be able to find many people who think Moore is an unbiased documentarian.

The less you posted, the smarter I thought you were.

The more personal insults and personal attacks I receive on this website; the more my suspicions of the typical contributors’ hostile character of this site are confirmed.

No, that is not an honest comparison. But, it’s hardly the end-all, killing blow, fatality move against any conclusions based on the comparison.

Yes it is.  If the comparison is dishonest you cannot accept it as a valid comparison.  It becomes invalid.  It also brings into question every single other piece of information.  If he’s dishonest about this information, why should we believe anything else?

I like his movies and all, but I don’t think you’re going to be able to find many people who think Moore is an unbiased documentarian.

On MooreWatch, I doubt you’ll find many people who think Moore is a documentarian . . . period.  In fact, I think most people here who have studied the guy think Moore is a biased propagandist.

You should also note Buzzion’s take on the matter.  It’s not just this seemingly trival matter that makes Moore dishonest.  The manner in which he defended it is very telling . . . but more importantly, that he defended it at all speaks volumes.  This is just one incident out of many that form the basis of the argument that Moore offers nothing of substance in his films.

I agree that wherever possible Mr. Moore should have used numbers from the same report when comparing statistics, but this does not change the fact that CNN’s declaration that Mr. Moore “fudged the facts” misled their viewers and compromised their journalistic integrity.

According to Miriam-Webster “fudging" equates to “faking or falsifying.” The worst CNN could have legitimately criticized Mr. Moore for was “cherry-picking the data” or “unnecessarily comparing apples to oranges” or “selecting the facts that most supported his bias.” This is distinctly different from faking or falsifying data.  As such, CNN owes both Mr. Moore and their viewers and apology.

Umm, Dr. Gupta specifically accused Moore of “Cherry-Picking” data.  He used that exact term.

Section 1 of Merriam-Webster’s definition of Fudge/Fudging reads as follows:

1 a : to devise as a substitute : FAKE b : FALSIFY <fudged the figures>

It can be argued that Moore devised the usage of the HHS projected data of US health expenditures as a substitute for the WHO’s older, but concrete numbers.  Because that serves his purpose.

CNN (or Dr. Gupta) doesn’t owe Moore anything.

Moore chose facts to fit a pre-determined opinion, rather than allow the facts as he found them to inform his opinion. This kind of behavior is wrong and adds nothing of value to the very necessary discussion about health care, or Bush, or Guns, or the economy, or whatever crusading cause Michael Moore wants to undermine next.

Deliberately misleading people is Moore’s MO, and CNN has nothing to apologize for.

According to Miriam-Webster “fudging” equates to “faking or falsifying...” This is distinctly different from faking or falsifying data.

The definition you gave listed fake and falsify as alternate terms for the definition “to devise as a substitute”.  Moore DID substitute relevant comparative data for other data that supported his pre-conceived analysis, therefore he DID “fake or falsify” the comparative model, even though the raw facts could each be attributed to their respective sources.  All you’re really doing here is splitting hairs, especially given that the rest of your post supports the premise of their argument.

The wonder of it all

Is it important to remember that figures don’t, in them self’s lie?

Or is it more important to remember that liar’s will figure?

Cherry-picking numbers to make a point is tantamount to falsifying data.  It’s unethical . . . period.

You know, if a pharmaceutical company cherry-picked a few numbers to skew the actual results showing the ill effects of a drug in development, who do you think would be all over that one?

"And is it just me, or is there something strange about Moore: a) calling for the impeachment of Bush for lying us into Iraq; b) when it comes to estimating the cost of healthcare, using the same Administration’s BS estimates to make his point? Apparently, Bush only tells the truth about healthcare costs”

For some reason you seem to be under the impression that the government consists of a half dozen people in D.C. running every aspect of the country. I’m pretty sure that there are a lot of agencies and extensions of the government that have thousands of people working for them, might just be that the statistics agency is slightly different from the oval office

For some reason you seem to be under the impression that the government consists of a half dozen people in D.C. running every aspect of the country. I’m pretty sure that there are a lot of agencies and extensions of the government that have thousands of people working for them, might just be that the statistics agency is slightly different from the oval office

Apply that same logic to intelligence-gathering, and we come full circle to a hypocritical Moore.

The Loyal Moore Followers are having a pretty hard time with this one. It’s fairly amusing to watch them splutter and struggle.

You know, if a pharmaceutical company cherry-picked a few numbers to skew the actual results showing the ill effects of a drug in development, who do you think would be all over that one?

Michael Moore! Right?
As a Moore-on, it’s very discouraging that MM (swoon) only used a single source for each number mentioned in his movie. He should have known that the veracity of the numbers would take a backseat to whether or not it’s “right” to have used them.

Who here has ever heard of an ”over under hypothetical”?
Here’s a challenge for y’all…
Moore purports that Health care spending is likely to be $7,498 per person in the United States in 2007.

WHO numbers for 2007
$7,200 per capita
USA

OVER or UNDER
My guess: UNDER. The actual report will contain a number >$7200.

For some reason you seem to be under the impression that the government consists of a half dozen people in D.C. running every aspect of the country. I’m pretty sure that there are a lot of agencies and extensions of the government that have thousands of people working for them, might just be that the statistics agency is slightly different from the oval office

Exactly.
Calling the HHS numbers “Bush’s numbers” was a mistake by Moore. Repeating the mistake is foolish. The implication that Bush had anything to do with the numbers is ludicrous.

The HHS numbers are the numbers of the United States government. They are apparently the newest, and most reliable numbers available right now.
Had Bush been having meetings with the HHS in which he repeatedly attempted to influence the data to fit his agenda (as appears to be the case regarding the Iraq… Democracy and Freedom Spreading Missionary Excursion), then the resulting report would have become “his”.

I think the overall point here is Moore is a liar . . . how’s that for a synopsis.

Try the link below for proof from Reuters:

Somebody’s a Liar

Reuters had best watch their ass . . . Moore just might become their worst nightmare.

Here’s the deal, Hirudin,

Many of the problems that Michael Moore tackles are legitimate problems, and if he chose to, he could make a documentary film that addresses those problems in a straightforward manner. There are enough things wrong with the Bush Administration to make a 80’s style miniseries like “V”, but Moore chose instead to mislead people with F911. He did the same thing with BFC, and now he’s doing it again with Sicko.

His kind of films don’t contribute to the discussion, they distract people from it.

If I may take the liberty of editing Belcatar’s above comment to distill it to it’s essence:

Many of the problems that Michael Moore tackles are legitimate problems, and if he chose to, he could make a documentary film that addresses those problems in a straightforward manner. Moore chose instead to mislead people. His kind of films don’t contribute to the discussion, they distract people from it.

That is precisely and exactly why Moorewatch exists.  I could not have stated it more simply if I tried, and I have tried.

Presidential Candidate Tommy Thompson Responds to Sicko’s Michael Moore

Hampton, Iowa – Tuesday night on Larry King Live, Michael Moore attacked Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s statistics saying they were tainted because they came from Dr. Paul Keckley, a medical statistics researcher who is the executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Moore also said they were tainted because former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson is the independent chairman for the center.

“Paul Keckley is one of the most forthright and capable researchers in America today. His background is second to none and his research methods are impeccable. For Michael Moore to tear down research conducted by this man is shameful,” said Thompson.

Paul Keckley previously served as a Senior Fellow in the Vanderbilt Center for Better Health where he conducted research on market trends in the healthcare industry with a special interest in healthcare consumerism, medical informatics, and evidence-based medicine.
He received a BA from Lipscomb University and his MA and PhD from Ohio State University.
Dr. Keckley is the author of two books The Handbook of Healthcare Market Research and 99 Questions You Should Ask Your Doctor and Why and numerous articles in professional journals. He has been the keynote speaker at major industry meetings including the AMA House of Delegates, National Quality Forum, The Medical group Management Association and American Association of Health Plans and has been featured in ABC’s 20/20, CBS 60 Minutes, The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times.
Thompson’s campaign has put health care reform at the front of its campaign, calling for the eradication of breast cancer by 2015.

“Actually, I thank Michael Moore for bringing health care to the forefront. Having said that, I would gladly debate him on the merits of turning our health care system over to an impersonal federal government. My plan for health care addresses the issues that Michael Moore is concerned about without destroying the delivery system,” said Thompson.

I wonder if Moore is up to taking his debate challenge? Tommy is very good and passionate about health care.

OVER or UNDER
My guess: UNDER. The actual report will contain a number >$7200.

You are crying about the “veracity” of Moore’s “facts”, and yet you say yourself that you can only GUESS as to how accurate the number MIGHT be.  That’s the whole point.

Had Bush been having meetings with the HHS in which he repeatedly attempted to influence the data to fit his agenda

...Because it makes perfect sense that someone can influence data before it even appears on his desk…

It’s only “his” data when people want to blame him for all the ills of the world.  When it’s something innocuous, or worse still, something that would make him look good and/or his detractors look bad, people can’t run away from crediting him fast enough: “oh, well, lots of people are responsible for that, it’s not all him.”

So, it’s been real. But this latest post by w0rf has shown me the error of my ways. I can’t predict the future with 100% certainty, conclusions of a study cannot be influenced until that study is finished, and George Bush Jr. doesn’t get credit where credit is due.

w0rf, you’re truly an asset to this community. Not only because you have the second highest comment count, but also because of your attention to detail.

For instance, when you misquoted me in Deconstructing Obfuscation, you really only got a single word wrong, which isn’t… that bad.

JimK, you’ve been more than fair. All the insults you threw my way were only, personal insults. Never did you once insult any members of my family. You never used more than 1 or 2 curse words per insult, and you never made any of the other people you’ve personally insulted jealous by apologizing.

Buzz, as the top commenter here, it’s really great to see that you can keep your cool, even after a vitriolic Moore-on like myself has the audacity to mutter something “quasi-anti-american [sic]”.

You’re all pillars of the intelligent, thinking people crowd. You “get it”!

I see Hirudin has made his choice.

Hirudin, this is not about you predicting the future.  The point is that Moore’s mixes REAL numbers with PROJECTIONS based on whatever makes his case look the best.  Neither he nor you can talk about “true facts” when using PROJECTIONS.  In your own post, you stated that you were hazarding a GUESS based on how that PROJECTION would turn out.  That only serves to prove that he is substituting possible numbers for real ones as it suits him.  The problem is that he SAYS THEY ARE REAL NUMBERS.

Even if he were to use a study that had the most recent final numbers available, that would be SOMEthing.  Still cherry-picking, but one step better than using projections.  My auto insurance company had a projection about how much they would have to pay out this past year.  Instead they cut me a check for $30 and discounted both our cars by 15% for the next year because they came in UNDER PROJECTION.

But hey, why talk about the issue when you can amaze and astound people with your martyr complex and your less-than-clever sarcastic jabs?

If that’s what you’re going to contribute, I can’t say I’ll miss you if you actually do stay away.  It really is tough to tell from one day or even one hour to the next which Hirudin is going to show up.  Sometimes it’s the reasonable, well-spoken one.  Looks like today it was the wild-eyed victim and master of the art of damning with faint praise.

I don’t see what’s the problem about mixing real number with projection ones.

Real number are generally number from the past. Projection ones, are estimation for the future. Generally they are optimistic, as a government don’t want to look bad and rather want to prove that their plan is going to work.

As an example, the deficit projection of the French Social Security System (which include health care, pensions and some other stuff) for 2007 was of 8 billion of euros. But as the year is passing, now analyst think that it’ll be more like 12 billion euros.

So the 7000 and few $ per person of the projection of the US government is certainly optimistic and so underestimated.

But rather they are optimistic or pesimistic, projection is the only way to have an idea on the evolution of something in the future. Moore didn’t have any other choice than use that numbers to give an idea to the public on how the things are probably going to be in the near future if the system remain the same.

I don’t see what’s the problem about mixing real number with projection ones.

Ask Enron how that works out.

The problem, iFrodo, is that Moore didn’t disclose this information to the viewer. He made an unfair comparison, but failed to let people know what his sources were. By doing so, he denied the viewer the opportunity to make up his (or her) own mind about the validity of the comparison.

He manipulated the audience, and I think that is wrong.

Real number are generally number from the past. Projection ones, are estimation for the future.

Which is exactly why you can’t use the two comparatively.

Moore didn’t have any other choice than use that numbers to give an idea to the public on how the things are probably going to be in the near future if the system remain the same.

That’s ridiculous for two reasons:
1). OF COURSE he had a choice, because he used final numbers for Cuba.  If he had a source with numbers for both, he could have used that same source to generate both numbers, and they would be a valid comparison because they are based on the same criteria and conditions for the same time period.
2). Moore is not “giving an idea about how things are probably going to be”.  That is NOT the way he is couching his argument.  He is saying, “This is Cuba’s number, this is our number” with no reservation or qualification about Cuba’s number being a couple years old and the US number being a PROJECTION and not an actual statistic of anything.  He CONTINUES to refer to projections as “the most recent numbers available”, but they’re NOT available numbers, they’re a GUESS.  To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest, plain and simple.

Here’s another example:

I was born in June 1976.  My wife was born in July 1976.  Based on my age as of April 2005, and her projected age as of August 2008, she is four years older than I.

See why this doesn’t work?

Here’s another example:

I was born in June 1976.  My wife was born in July 1976.  Based on my age as of April 2005, and her projected age as of August 2008, she is four years older than I.

See why this doesn’t work?

And that’s before you’re accounting for inflation.

Are you calling me fat?  :(

Nah, just joking about one of the other issue of dealing with old numbers and new projections.

I haven’t seen the movie, but it seems that Micheal Moore has gotten a lot of people talking about the flaws in the health care system, which is more than anyone else has done.  You might not like his methods, or may just not like Micheal Moore, but you have to admit he has generated a lot of interest in the topic of health care. 

Most people would agree that no one should die because they don’t have health insurance, and certainly no one should die because their insurance company refuses to cover a procedure to help pad their bottom line.  Instead of nit picking the movie maybe a better use of time would involve thinking about the overall message, which is a good one unless you are Sanjaya Gupta.

I haven’t seen the movie, but it seems that Micheal Moore has gotten a lot of people talking about the flaws in the health care system, which is more than anyone else has done. You might not like his methods, or may just not like Micheal Moore, but you have to admit he has generated a lot of interest in the topic of health care.

But that wasn’t his goal. And he’s just flooded the market with a bunch of BS that you have to wade through to get the actual truth. And you’re right no one has ever discussed healthcare before Moore made Sicko. No one had any clue that there are problems with the health insurance industry.

And sounds like you’re preaching “fake but accurate” bullshit too.  Sorry but if he’s lying about things why should we trust anything Moore says?

No one was talking about health care at all, which was why President Clinton appointed his wife to come up with a plan to fix a system that no one seemed to notice was broken. I suppose the sheer mountainous weight of public apathy was what prevented Hillary Clinton from coming up with a fix. 

But then, the Great Crusader showed up, and he courageously made a movie that Got People Talking. Never mind that he’s a liar, and he profits from other people’s misfortunes while cloaking himself in the guise of the People’s Champion. People are Talking now, and Michael Moore is the reason, so we should be grateful.

I don’t think your argument holds water, Bryce.

No one was talking about health care at all, which was why President Clinton appointed his wife to come up with a plan to fix a system that no one seemed to notice was broken. I suppose the sheer mountainous weight of public apathy was what prevented Hillary Clinton from coming up with a fix.

FWIW one of the things that actually came out of Hillary’s health care plans was HIPAA, which has caused a huge increase in the paperwork and costs of health care.

Most people would agree that no one should die because they don’t have health insurance, and certainly no one should die because their insurance company refuses to cover a procedure to help pad their bottom line.

Are you talking about HMOs or our own government progam called Medicare?

Are you talking about experimental treatments being denied by Medicare or by HMOs?

Are you talking about facts or your own personal bias?

I don’t see how a reasonable person can speak of the benefits of “getting people to talk” when that talk consists of deceits, misinformation and lies. 

And do you want us to believe that no one brought up the “problem” of HMO’s before moore did?  That’s laughable at best.  And why didn’t moore bring up facts such as some state medicaid programs that repay doctors at a rate of 74 cents on the dollar? 

Besides that, moore isn’t promoting dialogue, he’s promoting the socialization of healthcare (and he’s doing that with misinformation and lies).  See my post on Norway for further explanation.

The great thing about Moore movies is they move the discussion to places that normally would not be discussing the subject.  I doubt this web site or the people that contribute to it would spend much time discussing health care, or guys like Sanjay Gupta for that matter.  But now that Mr Moore has brought it up everyone here seems very interested.  He has moved the chains in an entertaining and informative manner. 

Since F911 came out public opinion has gone almost 70% against the war and almost everything that Moore said in the movie has been proven true over the past few years.  Health care will probably go the same way, in 3 or 4 years 70% of the country will move in favor of a single payor system and eventually our broken system will get fixxed.  Moore pays the price for being a little more forward thinking than the rest of the country, but not only does he have the satisfaction of always being right, he seems to make a lot of money while doing it.  The other thing you have to admire is the way Micheal Moore helps the cottage industry of Moore bashing, it is nice that he helps out sites like this one, both financially and by mentioning this site in his movie.

Isn’t it wonderful how Bryce knows SO much about us all that he can tell us what we would do and think in his imaginary world?

That’s some serious insight, I tell you what.

Bryce, since you’re so knowledgeable about me, how do I feel about, say, ethanol?  Or better yet, what’s my opinion on Angelina Jolie?

Bryce,

What in F911 has turned out to be true? I dont remember it as a movie of predictions. I remember as a documentary on events that had happened and a very inaccurate one at that.

. . . in 3 or 4 years 70% of the country will move in favor of a single payor system and eventually our broken system will get fixxed.

Well, there you have it, folks.  All single payer systems are perfect . . . none of them have any problems.  None of them deny service to citizens.

How naive can one person be?  Just read the words.

Jimk:

Of course I know about you, you are sort of famous now that Moore talked about you in his movie.  If anyone should appreciate what a single payor system could do, it should be you.  If a single payor system was in place you would not have had to compromise all your beliefs to get insurance.  It is good that you could get Moore to pay your insurance and helping to promote his movie seems like a good gig for you.

Wow.

That was…

...well it was pretty God-awful stupid, Bryce.  To be expected, I suppose.  You know as much about me and what I believe as I tell you.  If you think you know any more than that, then you’re even dumber than I give you credit for.

And thus goes the revolving door -
Exit: Hirudin.
Enter: Bryce.

*sigh* - next, please.

Bryce, what JimK and the others are trying to say is: Welcome to MooreWatch. Crack open a cold one and have a look around - you’ll find plenty of discussion to hold your interest. When you find a topic you can discuss intelligently (try finding some objective data to support your theses, for instance, instead of throwing around opinions as if they are empirical no-brainers), then feel free to jump in and say your piece. Here are some topics to start with (since you brought them up):

Since F911 came out public opinion has gone almost 70% against the war and almost everything that Moore said in the movie has been proven true over the past few years.

Care to provide some specifics on that? Remember: F911 has been discussed plenty on this site, so be sure to look around, as I’ve said, to make sure you don’t make yourself look silly by bringing up something that’s already been effectively nullified. (Edit: I should note that it is preferable to stay on topic in these comments sections - I don’t wish to encourage anyone to derail the discussion of the subject at hand, so it would probably be best to keep any elucidation on F911 brief here.  There are other, more relevant topics to post under [look to the right and find the “By Category” heading], and you can always head to the forums as well.)

...in 3 or 4 years 70% of the country will move in favor of a single payor system and eventually our broken system will get fixxed.

Once again, have a look around the site, and you’ll see that there are plenty of folk here who have very well-articulated and reasonable doubts that a single-payer system will ‘fixx’ [sic] anything. Want to try and articulate and/or reason through your faith that it will?

Most people would agree that no one should die because they don’t have health insurance, and certainly no one should die because their insurance company refuses to cover a procedure to help pad their bottom line.

You’re right - most people would agree, including all of us here. Would you care to cite a few stats as to how often that actually happens here in the USA? And when someone responds by pointing out that some people really do die under single-payer systems due to inordinate wait times for necessary treatment (as has been demonstrated at this site time and again ad absurdum), will you be prepared to concede the point?

Instead of nit picking the movie maybe a better use of time would involve thinking about the overall message

The other thing you have to admire is the way Micheal Moore helps the cottage industry of Moore bashing, it is nice that he helps out sites like this one, both financially and by mentioning this site in his movie.

If anyone should appreciate what a single payor system could do, it should be you. If a single payor system was in place you would not have had to compromise all your beliefs to get insurance. It is good that you could get Moore to pay your insurance and helping to promote his movie seems like a good gig for you.

You’ll find here that if you substitute sarcasm for substance in your posts, you’re liable to receive more of the same back, and then you’ll break down crying over how nobody wants to play nice with you [cf: Hirudin]. You get back what you give out here, so you might try: A) Reading (and please, for the love of God, TRY and comprehend) what other members have contributed thus far, and; B) not being a smug prick. If you have something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion here, now would be the time to prove it. If you just signed up to put a burr up our asses… well, we’ll toy with you until you either go away out of boredom or you melt down and start slinging *real* inane crap around, like all the other trolls invariably do. Then we’ll just make fun of you until you get shown the door.

If a single payor system was in place you would not have had to compromise all your beliefs to get insurance.

You should read about Jim’s situation with Mikey before you comment on it.  Ya know, the part where the truth is the possibility of this site’s closure had absolutely nothing to do with Donna’s health problems.

Or something like that.