Well, well, now ain't that a coincidence?

Some of you CCS readers may recall that back in May this year I posted about the interesting variance of opinions about Vitamin D and its relationship with sunshine and cancer. If you'd like to see a quick refresher, click here. Nice little piece, but not something you'd expect others to plagiarize, was it?

So you can imagine my surprise (or you will when you read it) to be Google Alerted, earlier this month when I was in Canada, to this piece of Neanderthal literature.

For those who haven't time to click through, let me quote you a short passage:

"Shame she doesn’t actualise that for the sunlight to get your wound producing competent quantities of Vitamin D, it should be as bleak as a baby’s behind. And even in relatively tropical climes 20 minutes’ of sunshine is hardly going to inflict third degree burns. One of many, many current, good articles about Vit D crapper be found here. Well worth reading, especially if you have a unification with boob cancer...." etc.

Get the drift?

Well, old Suze lost it. Saw red. Blew her stack.

For two reasons. One, much as we like to share some smiles on here I don't approve of idiots like those folks making a mockery of anything to do with the serious side of cancer. And two, I don't approve of anything attributable to me looking like it has been written by a committee of chimpanzees.

How did the perpetrators shoot themselves in the feet? By forgetting to remove imbedded links in the text redirecting readers to two of my books. Caught bang to rights, as they say in Britain.

I left a scathing comment on the post which needless to say did not get approved by the moderators.

So what is it all about?

Still exhaling flames from both nostrils, I sought advice from various experts on a couple of the online social/business networking sites to which I belong. The general conclusion was that this is one of those sites whereby any old garbage is posted as "content" to attract visits, and when people see what cr*p it is they click on an adjacent Google Ad purely to get away to something more relevant to their needs. Owners of site collect revenue for Google Ad clickthrough. QED.

I have written to Google UK explaining the problem and asking whether Google Ads really need to be associated with such sleazy practice, especially as the topic concerned is cancer - not some frivolous nonsense. Watch this space as if I get a reply, I'll share it here.

Hope everyone has had a good summer despite the monsoon-like rain in many northern hemisphere areas.

Sz ...