They Said What?

Home » Koop Award Invalidity » If Wellsteps and the Koop Committee can show they aren’t lying, they can collect the $1-million reward

If Wellsteps and the Koop Committee can show they aren’t lying, they can collect the $1-million reward

Do you know whether heartburn pills are safe for long-term use?

Those of you with long memories may recall our standing offer of a $1-million reward to anyone who can show that the wellness industry has broken even during this century.  You need a long memory because no one ever claimed the reward. For all the bluster of Ron Goetzel and his cronies, apparently none of them actually believe what they say…or they would be $1-million richer.

Oh, wait, in the case of both Ron Goetzel and his cronies, maybe they haven’t claimed the reward because they do believe what they say.

The offer is legally binding.  There are clear rules. There is an entry fee, but it is refundable to the claimant if they win.

We would now extend that offer specifically to Wellsteps and/or the Koop Award Committee, and we’ll throw in HERO too, since it’s all the same inbred crowd.  All they have to show is what they have already claimed: that Wellsteps made Boise School District employees so much healthier — perhaps by reciting their mantra that “it’s fun to get fat and it’s fun to be lazy” —  that the School District could, as a direct result of this enhanced employee health, reduce their healthcare benefit spending by roughly one-third after three years.

To make it extra easy for the these people, I’ll relax the requirements:

  1. They can submit the existing “This Is How You Win a Koop Award” self-congratulatory paean.  That means both that they don’t have to do any extra work (besides adding to up 20 links at their option, as the rules allow), and that the word limit on the reward application is waived to accommodate the size of that posting.
  2. Any or all Koop Committee members can participate with you in the oral arguments, but I myself am not allowed to bring a second. This means they can gang up on me, by crowdsourcing their IQs.

And of course they already know what arguments I am going to make because I posted them. That’s like having the debate questions in advance.

They would have to file the entry fee, or formally request a month’s extension, by November 1.  The only reason for the deadline is that when they ignore this offer, as they inevitably will,  I can start saying they are admitting they’re lying as early as November 2.

As with the regular award, I am perfectly happy to offer it the other way around, where I pay the entry fee, and I have to prove they’re lying, as opposed to them proving they are telling the truth. That way they can’t say the game is rigged, since I’m willing to play either hand.

Since the Koop Committee members are all such civic-minded citizens, they need not personally collect the windfall if they win.  I am perfectly willing to — indeed, would prefer to — donate a million dollars to the Boise School District, either as an unrestricted gift or to set up a fund to update, enhance, and increase employee (and student) access to their fitness facilities and equipment.

Surely, Mr. Aldana and Mr. Goetzel, if you truly care about the health and well-being of those employees, you will make the small effort required to secure this million-dollar contribution on their behalf.

And, Mr. Aldana, please don’t pretend you aren’t applying for the award because you are unaware of my work. For instance, you view my Linkedin profile with a regularity roughly halfway between obsessive and man-crush.*

*As recently as…






  1. Sam says:

    Wow, Al, you really nailed these idiots. Love the way you even use Aldana’s linkedin profile against him. You should alert the authorities in Boise to this.


    • whynobodybelievesthenumbers says:

      Funny thing. The “authorities” at the Boise School District have gone from bragging about this award to “no comment,” for The STATNews smackdown. I think they now know they got snookered and just hope they can keep this out of the newspaper. Someone there should be losing their job over this.


  2. Gerald Edgar says:

    On the one hand you rightfully criticize the ‘manufactured’ data that was the basis of much of the ACA but then you do not even proofread your own article, to wit: “The claims of money to be save aside” (‘saved’). Yes, that is a picayune criticism but consider your advocating that employees NOT be screened for their physical as well as their emotional & mental ability to safely perform a task. We would never knowingly allow a child to attempt a task that he/she is unfit for so why would we hire someone to perform tasks that will likely cause them to incur muscular/skeletal injuries??? To carry your beliefs to an extreme, why even have job applications and interviews? Just let me people take on any job they feel is ‘good’ for them (otherwise you are screening and that is Orwellian, right?).


    • whynobodybelievesthenumbers says:

      I do advocate screening — but only screening according to clinical guidelines. Not screening the stuffing out of employees. Note that in Sharon Begley’s article Wellsteps’ CEO agrees with me.

      I’ll fix the other one, thanks.


      • Gerald Edgar says:

        I stand corrected. IF the screening meets the criteria of an accurate, objective job analysis, all parties benefit. I assume that’s the basis for which you accept screening.


      • whynobodybelievesthenumbers says:

        Yes, thank you for this comment! Speaking of correcting things, I can’t find that typo. I’ll try again but I didn’t want you to think I wasn’t being responsive.


In the immortal words of the great philosopher Pat Benatar, hit me with your best shot.

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: