More people seem to prefer to believe that her condition was self-induced. My information comes from a reliable source and has been verified by another source close to her.
Although not everyone who believes that has any particular desire to do so; they simply base their opinions on the evidence at hand.
Now, if you actually DO have some hard evidence to the contrary, not just a claim about a claim, feel free to produce it.
For what it's worth, there's any possibility she actually does have RA, but establishing that as causality, to the exclusion of fillers / botox / surgery, etc, is another matter.
There's also a possibility her PR camp would spin that story, too... even if we were to give you the benefit of the doubt that there really is a "reliable source" whom you have cited but not identified.
But you are certainly entitled to your own "beliefs", although I find your signature a bit ironic.
In this case, the "extraordinary proof" lies more with the person making the more difficult (if not quite extraordinary) claim, which would be that her distortions came from illness and in no large part from fillers and chemicals.
Given that nearly all Hollywood women try these things from time to time, and that her earliest modifications looked much like fillers, it's hardly an "extraordinary claim" that she probably imbibed a wee too much in the cosmetic procedures.
______
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
reply
share