It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


12-Year-Old Maryland Girl Has Not Aged In Years

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on May, 15 2005 @ 04:29 PM
Content supplied by Righwing Nuthouse

Yesterday, I sent an email to WBAL in Baltimore asking them if the story was a hoax. I have yet to hear back from them. I’ve gotten about 200 search engine hits all referencing “Brooke Greenberg” so I know that there are a lot of people wondering the same thing.

At the moment, there just aren’t any good answers.

I’m going to stay on top of this all day today. I may even call WBAL and find out what the heck is going on. In the meantime, if you go to WBAL’s website, they have a drop down menu for sending emails. I urge everyone who’s interested to send them an email asking about this story.

If you get any kind of an answer, I’d appreciate it if you shared it with me. Send the info to elvenstar522-at-AOL-dot-com. (Remove hyphens).

Let’s get to the bottom of this.

Sunday, May 15, 2005
Over the past 24 hours I have noticed an increase in people visiting my site looking for info on Brooke Greenberg, the 12yo girl who is not aging. I'm still not sure what the score is with this story and neither is Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nut House who has emailed WBAL who ran the story on Friday but subsequently pulled it along with practically every other site. MSNBC still has the article but has removed the images.
Looking through my referrals I came across an MSN group called Stay at home parents that posted a link to a Turkish article on Brooke from October 30 2002. This indicates that the article surfaces from time to time (the video that accompanied the original WBAL article showed footage from May 2001).
A search for Brooke on Google Groups returns two posts that both refer to an article in People magazine (same issue?). The first post is from Sept 9,2001 and the second is from April 19,2002
Some sites have been asking if this is a hoax. I'm not sure. If it is a hoax it's certainly an elaborate one that has been running for at least four years. But why was it pulled from so many different news sites? Was it pulled at the request of the parents?

Update 14:35: Here's Google's cache of the original story from The Denver Channel.LINK

Update 15:06: Japanese site with a image of Brooke in 2001 (image taken from recent Local6 article) LINK

Source from A Welsh View: Booke Greenberg update

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 04:37 PM
Just copying this from the other thread to here so we have it:

Whether this is a hoax or not. A Dr. Lawrence Pakula is a well-respected pediatrician at John Hopkins. So consider that much a kernel of truth in this.

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 07:27 PM
Weird. Weirder still that the links disappeared. If it was a privacy issue, the family would have to sue to get the stories removed, so I doubt that's it.

This is a sad story, but in a weird sort of way, it's a blessing that she hasn't developed mentally. Imagine having the intellect of a 30 year old and being trapped in a baby's body.

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 07:43 PM
Ive heard of the condition where a child ages rapidly, but i've never heard of something like this. Interesting. I think they deleted the article thinking it might be a hoax to avoid bad publicity.


posted on May, 16 2005 @ 03:48 AM
I was wondering if you know of any genetic or DNA type testing has been done? I'm sure the CIA (or another such organization,) after 4 years of Brooke's incredible story being out in the public, has tried to make contact with her parents. Maybe tests came back positive for a fountain-of-youth type gene that they don't want getting out. It should be easy to find the family, because usually a family with a child that has expensive medical problems will seek out help from their community through fund-raisers and such. No matter what, I hope for the very best for Brooke and her family. Thank you for this amazing story.

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 10:06 AM
Ok, Friday I wrote to tv channel 5 that carried the story originally. I asked for some info about the story and noted that it was removed from the website. I got a response this morning from Larry Flum WBAL 11 NEWS.

Good morning,

Due to certain agreements, we are unable to provide additional information
on this story.

Thanks for writing!

I don't wish to read into this too much, but at least it was a response

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 10:23 AM
Interesting , what's her MENTALITY like ? ugh changing diapers for 12 years and going up . hmm why didn't this happen to me when i was 18 ?
try royal jelly , who knows what'll happen

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 10:27 AM
not necessarily the ideal "fountain of youth"

"Amara reported Brooke's body may not be aging, but her health is deteriorating. She is fed through a tube and she's had strokes, seizures, ulcers, severe respiratory problems and a tumor the size of a lemon."

This really goes to show you what harships can be overcome with family and friends supporting you. If more people had a support network like that I think we'd all have a better world to live in.

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:51 PM
Maybe that's what Dick Clark has...but later in life...?

Seriously though, tragic story....and amazing condition...


posted on May, 16 2005 @ 02:34 PM
Brooke Greenberg Update 2
Rick Moran received a vague email this morning regarding the Brooke Greenberg story that was pulled shortly after being published. The email said...

Good morning,

Due to certain agreements, we are unable to provide additional information on this story. It was not a hoax.

Make what you want from that response. It does seem increasingly likely that the story is true but the reasons for the story being pulled are still not clear.
It could have been a contractual issue with Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc., who are responsible for publishing the story to the news sites that carried it, but why haven't any other news agencies taken up the story. Maybe they have tried. The extra attention may have been a reason but that seems unlikely as they this is not the first time that they have been featured on the news and I can't see how removing a story would reduce the attention that they are getting.

About Brooke Greenberg's Physician
A Welsh View has posted more on this. In going through in my mind what type of "agreement" WBAL has that caused them to remove this story from their website, I can only come up with a few. They all involve a lapse in journalistic ethics or conflict of interest. Maybe I'm missing something and they'll later choose to clarify this.
Brooke Greenberg's pediatrician appears to be Lawrence Pakula, (occasionally spelled/misspelled in the internet as Laurence). He's a real physician and appears to be the pediatrician in the video.
What is interesting is that he's published a number of scholarly articles (7 using the search pakula l[auth] in Pubmed ) in the past but none on this patient. If I was taking care of a patient with a mysterious condition (the only one of her kind) I'd sure write at least a case report or letter to a medical journal.

I've tried to find other articles on her in but haven't been able to so far (it's difficult to think of the right search terms in such a weird case). Maybe someone with more time to stare at pubmed will have better luck?

Very odd conclusions going on.Like someone(s) wants this story to just disappear from the whole news scene.

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 03:37 PM
that kind of a reality wipe is unreal....
it makes you wonder how any conspiracy could live online of they didn't want it to...
they could make it disappear like so many clinton or Karl rove critics...

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 04:28 PM
they can take it of the newssite, but they will not take it out of our brains. let us not forget this case and keep this thread alive untill the truth is found.

if the newssites would now say it is hoax i would not believe it anymore!

any suggestions of what we could do? what about the doctor, does he have e-mail or a fon? i am from europe, is there someone from baltimore that could investigate this? should we contact matt drudge as it was on his site too and vanished?

the last time i was exited like this about a case was when the mexican airforce released the ufo-tape.

[edit on 16-5-2005 by feyd rautha]

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 06:31 PM

(mod edit- please dont post personal details of people,)

[edit on 16-5-2005 by asala]


posted on May, 17 2005 @ 03:27 PM
UPDATE source

Brooke Greenberg Update 3
For those that have been following this story, here's another email that someone received:

"Thanks for writing in. The originating station inadvertently shared the article. It was not meant for syndication. I apologize for the inconvenience. Take care, and thanks for watching and surfing NBC 5."

I don't quite understand, surely that would mean that originating station still has the article on their website. [Thanks Brymj]

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 03:48 PM
This is REALLY strange....

Perhaps the family sued in 2001, won, but then now in 2005, a station airs the story, then gets contacted by the family with a cease and desist?

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 04:10 PM
Interesting, yet scary.

I wonder if this means that the cells wont age and get weaker, or if its just her not developing further.

But for the story itself vanishing everywhere, that truly is scary. It all is playing out just like a massive conspiracy. Did the family just sue to demand privacy, or does the government really have an interested in her.

Perhaps this thread is next to be silenced.

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 04:13 PM
I hope someone informed the family that the surest way to get lots of publicity is to do EXACTLY what they did...

release a story...

YANK the story,

then make any fact of the origin of the story so obtuse and hard to find, that it only leaves huge questions...

yep, they will be left alone... they can go back to being invisible...NOT.
now it will just generate more interest... was it a hoax? was it real?

until we know, they will be hounded


posted on May, 17 2005 @ 04:21 PM
This is what I dont get......
'The originating station inadvertently shared the article. It was not meant for syndication.'
Ok,so then why was it filmed by the news crew in the home of this family?
I dont by this at all.I think someone(s) is hiding information and some higher up are making sure it doesnt get out.

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:51 PM
now that is so strange. i have now heard everthing.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 05:05 AM

Originally posted by SMR
This is what I dont get......
'The originating station inadvertently shared the article. It was not meant for syndication.'
Ok,so then why was it filmed by the news crew in the home of this family?
I dont by this at all.I think someone(s) is hiding information and some higher up are making sure it doesnt get out.

Wait wait wait. "Not intended for syndication" does not mean "not intended to air". The piece was done for a specific, station - whichever one that was. Was it the one you contacted? It was probably a local human-interest piece or such. But it was not intended for mass distribution to other stations, nation-wide, or world-wide. That's the way I read that statement.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in