Cancer Medicine Pseudoscience Quackery

Cancer quack Robert O. Young loses a lawsuit to the tune of $105 million. We need more of this.

Robert O. Young is a cancer quack who claims to be a naturopath who promotes what he calls “pH Miracle Living.” He claims that cancer is caused by excess acid and that the way to prevent and cure cancer is to “alkalinize the blood.” Two and a half years ago, he was convicted of practicing medicine without a license. A week and a half ago, a woman whose breast cancer progressed to incurable while being treated by Young won a $105 million settlement in a lawsuit against him. Maybe civil suits can succeed where state medical boards have failed.

A major focus of my blogging here has been to leverage my understanding of cancer as a cancer clinician and scientist to deconstruct alternative cancer cure testimonials. Whichever quack is behind such testimonials, over the years I’ve made it one of my main goals to demonstrate how seemingly convincing stories are damned near close to never good evidence of an anticancer effect due to the intervention used in the testimonial. Indeed, I refer to these stories as “testimonials” rather than anecdotes or case reports. In medicine, the word “case report” has a specific meaning as an organized, detailed description of a case, something that testimonials almost always lack. In reality, these testimonials are marketing, either to sell a product to make a profit, to sell a story because the patient telling the story has become a true believer in the quackery chosen, or both. Unfortunately, as we learned from a survey released by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recently, belief in alternative cancer cures is prevalent in the US, with 39% of the population agreeing with a statement that alternative medicine “natural treatments” can cure cancer by themselves, without conventional surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy, a percentage that approaches 50% among young adults. From my perspective, a large part of the reason for the prevalence of beliefs like this is that alternative cancer cure testimonials are effective. They’re the reason that cancer quacks like Robert O. Young attracted people with cancer to Rancho del Sol, his 40-acre ranch located in Valley Center, California, for so many years before the law finally caught up with him, promising to cure them with his “pH Miracle Living” program, which involves “alkaline water” and a number of other treatments claiming to “alkalinize the body.”

I’ve written about Young’s quackery rather extensively, particularly in this post and on my not-so-super-secret other blog; so I won’t go into a lot of detail, other than to point out a couple of things. First, this was what Young claimed about cancer:

The following is a summary of understanding cancerous tissues:

Cancer is not a cell but a poisonous acidic liquid.

A cancer cell, is a cell that has been spoiled or poisoned by metabolic or gastrointestinal acids.

A tumor is the body’s protective mechanism to encapsulate spoiled or poisoned cells from excess acid that has not been properly eliminated through urination, perspiration, defecation or respiration.

The tumor is the body’s solution to protect healthy cells and tissues.

Cancer is a systemic acidic condition that settles at the weakest parts of the body – not a localized problem that metastases.

Metastases is localized acids spoiling other cells much like a rotten apple spoiling a bushel of healthy apples.

There is no such thing as a cancer cell. A cancer cell was once a healthy cell that has been spoiled by acid.

The tumor is not the problem but the solution to protect healthy cells and tissues from being spoiled from other rotting cells and tissues.

The only solution to the acidic liquids that poison body cells causing the effects that medical savants call cancer is to alkalize and energize the body.

In conclusion, the human body is alkaline by design and acidic by function! If we desire a healthy body we must maintain that alkaline design.

This is wrong on so many levels, particularly the part about cancer cells being healthy cells “spoiled by acid” but also including his claims that “alkalinizing the body” will cure cancer. I also note that he claimed that viruses are “molecular acids” (he claimed his “pH Miracle Living” could cure HIV/AIDS as well) and that he is basically a germ theory denialist as well, having used the tragic death of a Brazilian model due to sepsis to claim that sepsis is not caused by bacterial infection, but rather by “acidic lifestyle choices, including acidic food, drink, and drugs – especially dextrose and/or antibiotic IV’s given at hospitals around the world.”

However, the case that made Robert O. Young most infamous was that of Kim Tinkham. Tinkham, you might recall, was a woman diagnosed with breast cancer who appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show over 11 years ago. During the interview, Tinkham told Oprah that she was not going to undergo surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation but that, thanks to The Secret, she believed that the universe would bring her healing, which was why she chose to use alternative medicine to treat her cancer. (Often forgotten these days is that Oprah was a big proponent of The Secret back then, which preaches that if you want something badly enough, visualize something clearly enough, the universe will manifest it for you.) Who was the quack that Tinkham chose? You guessed it: Robert O. Young. As a result, Tinkham became a passionate advocate for Young’s quackery, even recording YouTube videos with him to tout his “pH Miracle Living.” Ultimately, Tinkham died of her disease, although it did take over three years to happen. No one knows how many other cancer patients who didn’t talk to Oprah Winfrey chose to trust Young, with the same results.

Oddly enough, none of them ever sued Young; that is, until now. Indeed, this year has been year for Robert O. Young, because in late October he was on the wrong end of a $105 million judgment of a lawsuit brought by one of his victims. First, however, let’s back up a couple of years to see what befell Young.

The further fall of Robert O. Young

As I alluded to above, the law finally did catch up with fake “doctor” Robert O. Young nearly three years ago, when he was arrested for practicing medicine without a license, as well as other charges, including fraud. He was convicted of multiple counts of practicing medicine without a license, but the jury deadlocked on other charges, including the fraud charges. The prosecutor planned to retry him for the charges over which the jury had deadlocked, but ultimately a plea deal was struck in which Young did spend time in prison, had to admit in open court that he was not a microbiologist, hematologist, a medical or naturopathic doctor, or a trained scientist, and could no longer offer any sort of medical treatments at his ranch. (Basically, Young claimed to be a naturopath, but he had actually gotten his degree from a diploma mill.)

Since he got out of prison, I haven’t heard much about Young, and that’s good. It means that he hasn’t been practicing his quackery. Oddly enough, though, I also never heard about the lawsuit brought against him in late 2015 by a former patient of his, Dawn Kali. (Oh, well, I guess I can’t catch everything.) The suit specifically charged Young with holding himself out as a licensed medical doctor, advising Kali (who had been diagnosed with breast cancer) not to have her tumor removed or to undergo chemotherapy, and treating her with his “pH injections” and other alternative medical therapies. Her further claim was that this was all done under the cover of a doctor named Ben Johnson who “did not have a physician-patient relationship with Plaintiff, but negligently allowed Defendants Young and pH Miracle Living to use his name and license as a cover for their negligent, unlicensed, conduct.”

Here’s a news story from a couple of weeks ago, when the case went to trial:

From the story:

He [Young] is now defending his controversial therapies in civil court, where former patient Dawn Kali is suing him for fraud and other wrongdoing.

Kali told the jury she was diagnosed with breast cancer 10 years ago. She explained in detail how she rejected chemotherapy, radiation and other conventional Western cancer treatments and instead followed Young’s advice and alternative treatments.

Kali said her cancer continued to spread, despite Young’s reassurances that his treatments, if followed strictly, would cure her disease.

One of Kali’s attorneys, Bibi Fell, said her client now has stage four invasive breast cancer and has a life expectancy of about four years.

Kali’s lawyers are asking the jury to award their client more than $10 million in general and punitive damages.

To be sure, a ten year course without treatment is considerably longer than average for breast cancer. As I’ve discussed many times before, we know from historical data from Middlesex Hospital in the UK that the median survival for untreated breast cancer in the pre-mammography era was 2.7 years. However, breast cancer is a very heterogeneous disease, and biologically it can behave very differently in many women, and we also know from the same study that there is a “long tail” to the survival curve, with 3.6% of women with untreated breast cancer being alive at ten years. These days, we would expect the number to be larger, given that so many breast cancers are diagnosed by mammography and are thus much earlier in their progression than cancers diagnosed during the period 85-203 years ago covered by the study to which I’m referring. None of this means that Young actually helped her or that any of his methods are effective against cancer. There’s no evidence that they could be or that they are. It just means that Kali likely has a more indolent form of breast cancer.

You might notice that the lawsuit only asked for $10 million (although another site implied that $50 million was being sought). The verdict, however, included an award to the plaintiff much, much larger than that:

I’m not a lawyer, but whenever a jury awards a plaintiff a lot more money in judgment than was being requested, it’s usually to send a message. This can be because the plaintiff was particularly sympathetic and/or the defendant was particularly unsympathetic or clearly lying and/or the offense was particularly egregious.

I only have part of the trial transcript, but it’s Young’s testimony (PDF1 and PDF2). Predictably, he testified that Kali knew he wasn’t a medical doctor and that she was free to seek conventional cancer care any time, but a lot of his other testimony was pretty damning. We learn from him that “retreats” at his ranch were a minimum of seven days and could run up to $2,000 a day. Of course, she likely heard disingenuous responses like this one, which came in response to a question about whether or not Young had ever done “blood analysis” on Kali’s blood:

Well, for the benefit of those who are listening to this testimony, the live blood test is a test where you take a finger prick and you take that one drop of blood and you put that on a slide. Then using a compound microscope you look at those cells. And there are specific ways that those particular cells should look. So it’s not a quantitative test. It doesn’t give you a number, it gives you a view.

And since red blood cells are being changed at 5 million per second, that picture could evolve different ways over a period of 120 days, which is the life of a red blood cell.

So I would take a drop of blood, not for diagnostic purposes, but I would take a drop of blood, I would put that on a slide and allow the client to see the quality of their blood.

And based on millions of samples of blood that I have taken over 40 years, it is obvious to someone who has been trained in live and dry blood cell microscopy by one of the greatest scientists in the world – – Professor Murray Reicher from Essen, Germany — that when you are studying looking at blood, it’s not to diagnose any disease, but to allow that person to see the quality of the blood and to note changes in that blood if someone is doing lifestyle changes or diet changes. It’s been the nature of my research for 40 years.

“Live blood analysis” (as well as “dried blood analysis”) is utter quackery. It’s basically looking at blood and making things up about it. It’s not for nothing that Mark Crislip once referred to it as “the modern auguries.”

Now here’s the disingenuousness:

I looked at Dawn’s blood and what I said, I can’t remember. But I would have commented not quantitatively, but qualitatively. I would show her a picture of what a healthy red blood cell looks like — which is round and symmetrical, even in color, even in shape, even in size — and I would show her a picture of what unhealthy blood looks like, which is uneven in shape, uneven in its color, and its form.

After this he denied telling Kali whether he saw cancer cells in her blood, going on about how you can’t see cancer cells in blood analysis. He also claimed that he was just trying to help, that he never charged Kali anything, and that the pH Miracle Ranch paid for thermography, cancer marker tests, ultrasounds, and more. Then he kept being disingenuous during his questioning by the plaintiff’s attorney:

Q. Did you advise Dawn Kali not to get a biopsy of the lumps in her breast and armpit?

A. That was her decision. I never told her not to get a biopsy. Never.

Q. Did you ever recommend to her not to get a biopsy?

A. Never.

Q. Did you ever recommend to her not to get surgery?

A. Never. That was her decision in 2007, 2009, 2012, even when she went to the doctor in 2013. This is all Dawn Kali.

Q. Did you ever recommend to her not to get radiation?

A. That subject never came up. I never heard that word, “radiation,” coming out of her mouth.

Q. Did you ever recommend to her not to get chemotherapy?

A. Absolutely not. We had clients that were receiving chemotherapy, and we supported any client and their medical doctors.

Q. Did you ever recommend to any of your clients not to get a biopsy?

A. That’s beyond my belief system. You know — yes, you know, Hippocrates says, you know, do no harm, but the bottom line is the patient is in control of their decisions. It’s their decision, not my decision. Absolutely would I — would I not tell somebody not to do something, especially if they are getting advice from their medical doctor. It’s just — I can’t — I can’t oversee that. And that just goes beyond — beyond my belief system.

I wouldn’t believe Young about any of this, given his long history of writing how the treatment for cancer is not chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery, but correcting the patient’s pH, and I’m guessing the jury didn’t believe him either, given that he was led through some of his past quack claims in one of his books by the plaintiff’s attorney and reconfirmed his belief in all of them. For example:

Q. (As read): “Cancer is not a cell but an acidic liquid that spoils ourselves, whatever acids are not properly eliminated through urination, perspiration, respiration or defecation.”

Do you agree with that statement?

A. Yes.

Q. (As read): “Hence, all cancers are the expulsion of acids from the blood and then tissues at different points and are essentially of the same character and evolving from the one cause, namely, systematic acidosis.”

Do you agree with that?

A. Absolutely.

Q. (As read): “Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in women, and these fatty tissues, parenthesis, breast areas, are being used by the body to bind or collect the acids in order to protect the organs that sustain life?” Do you agree with that statement?

A. Yes.

Q. (As read): “If you don’t want cancer, if you want to prevent it, you have to pee or eliminate your acid through urination or perspiration. And if you are a cancer sufferer, you have to pee your way to health because cancer is not a cell but a poisoning acidic liquid.”

Do you agree with that?

A. A poisoning acidic liquid of the cells, yes.

Q. Of the cells? You mean in the cells?

A. No. Can I explain?

Q. You’ll have a chance when your lawyer —

A. I’ll explain later. Okay.

Q. (As read): “So cancer is a systematic acidic condition that settles in the weakest parts of the body, not a local problem that metastasizes. You see, metastases is localized acid that spoil other cells much like a rotten apple spoiling the bushel of other healthy apples.” Do you agree with that statement?

A. I do.

Q. (As read): “The cure, the prevention, the reversal for cancer is not found in the treatment of tissue but rather in maintaining the alkaline design of the human organism. And the most important test that you can do to determine whether you are in a state of over acidity is testing the pH of the fluids.”

Do you agree?

A. I agree.

Q. (As read): “So are tumors bad or good? They are good because they are the expression of the body in preservation mode trying to prevent healthy tissue from spoiling.”

Agree or disagree?

A. I agree.

This goes on for several pages of the transcript, during which Young repeatedly confirms his belief in cancer as reaction to cells “spoiled by acid”, his belief that bacteria don’t cause infections, and a number of other pseudoscientific beliefs. Worst among these is victim blaming, in which he agreed with statements from his book stating that:

  • “All cancerous tissue is curable, not all patients are. I’ll say it one more time. All cancerous tissue is preventable, reversible, curable, but not all patients are because they are not willing to do what it takes to bring their body in balance.”
  • “Cancerous tissue by any name is nothing more than a consequence of choice.”
  • “Someone doesn’t get breast or brain cancer. You have to work on it every day.”

It kept getting worse and worse. Young claimed that over 300 patients had come to his ranch with cancer and left without it, that he had a high success rate with stage IV metastatic cancer.

He also compared himself to Jesus.

The verdict, and why more victims of quacks should sue

Assuming that the plaintiff’s attorney did her job well (and she appears to have), Young’s testimony had to be disastrous, as he blathered on about how cancer is the body’s reaction to cells “spoiled by acid,” how viruses are “molecular acids,” how cancer can be cured with diet and “alkalinization” alone, and tried to evade questions. We also learn that, since he got out of prison has been doing some lectures, although he denies that he’s done any retreats. On the other hand, he sounded as though he planned on doing a retreat in Italy in 2019. I got the impression from his testimony that Young was definitely planning on taking his quackery overseas as soon as he can. I can’t help but wonder if that’s another part of the reason that the jury ruled as it did, for a total of $105 million.

Young and his attorney Conrad Joyner also, predictably, blasted the verdict:

“It’s totally outrageous,” Young said of the verdict when reached by phone Friday afternoon. “It’s one-tenth of a billion.”

He also said it was “appalling” that the jury awarded so much more than the plaintiff had sought.

And Joyner’s reaction:

Joyner said he sees the case as “ripe for appeal”:

“I have never heard of a jury case with that much damages where the jury comes back in about three hours,” Joyner said. “I wonder how much thought they really put into it.”

Young said there was “a tremendous amount of evidence” he was not allowed to present to the jury. He said he would appeal.

Of course he will.

I’ve discussed before how ineffective state medical boards are in reining in even utter quacks. It’s problem that’s frustrated me ever since I started paying attention to cancer quackery and other alternative medicine. Not infrequently, I’ve wondered why victims of cancer quacks (or their families, given that the victims usually die of their cancers before a lawsuit can be concluded) don’t sue the quacks who victimized them more often. I suspect that part of the reason is embarrassment on the part of the patient and family that the patient has been taken advantage of and believed the quack. On the other hand, people who have been financially defrauded for other reasons don’t seem to have this same reluctance to sue.

Whatever the reason, if there’s one thing I can say about this case is that it couldn’t have happened to a more appropriate guy. Robert O. Young was one of the first cancer quacks I took notice of back when I was first discovering how deep the rabbit hole of alternative medicine is. He’s been one of the most egregious, preaching the most blatantly pseudoscientific nonsense and charging huge sums for it. So you’ll pardon me if I’m feeling more than a bit of schadenfreude to see him not only having had to serve time in prison, but to be facing a judgment and selling his ranch, for which he’s asking $3.2 million.

More please. I want to see more victims sue their quacks. Maybe if state medical boards can’t stop them, civil lawsuits can. A guy can dream, can’t he?

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

16 replies on “Cancer quack Robert O. Young loses a lawsuit to the tune of $105 million. We need more of this.”

If Robert O. Young is planning on retreating to Italy, there’s even less likelihood of his former patient collecting money from him. And unless his attorney got his dough up front, good luck there too (did lawyer Richard Jaffe ever collect the quarter-million dollars he claimed he was stiffed by Burzynski?).

For once, justice is served in abundance.

Question is, how do these people market themselves sufficiently to rake in the dough, without also making the authorities aware of their existence? Or do they count on lax enforcement even though what they do is effectively delayed-action murder?

Burzynski has his “research” scam going, but the acid/alkaline stuff is such obvious BS that it should be setting off alarms in District Attorneys’ offices as well as state medical boards.

Why patients don’t sue more often: I would guess it’s because the big “What If?” question (what if they’d seen real oncologists and gotten surgery, chemo, and/or radiation?) raises so much anguish that they can’t deal with it, much less deal with having their noses rubbed in it constantly at a trial. Instead of going through all that, and since a lawsuit won’t get them their health back, they prefer to make their peace with death and spend their remaining time with their loved ones.

IMHO what’s needed here are relentless undercover investigations and criminal prosecutions. And stronger laws including classifying this stuff as homicide when patients die, and putting these deluded and/or evil scammers away for the rest of their lives.

*Question is, how do these people market themselves sufficiently to rake in the dough, without also making the authorities aware of their existence? *

Answer: he paid his taxes.

*the acid/alkaline stuff is such obvious BS that it should be setting off alarms in District Attorneys’ offices as well as state medical boards. *

It should but here’s the thing. Lawyers often don’t know jack about health care or medicine (some do, obviously, as evidenced by some of our lawyer commentators here, but most don’t). I have to spend a lot of time explaining to attorneys the nuances of a case they want to pursue so they can understand what I can and can’t testify to.

Why patients don’t sue more often: I would guess it’s because the big “What If?” question (what if they’d seen real oncologists and gotten surgery, chemo, and/or radiation?) raises so much anguish that they can’t deal with it, much less deal with having their noses rubbed in it constantly at a trial.

This. So this. Most states have a one year limit to sue for wrongful death. You typically have 3-4 years (YMMV) to sue for malpractice. People are grieving during this time. If the victim is still alive, they’re dealing with a deadly disease that is going to kill them. They have bigger fish to fry and so do their families. After the death, time limits may have run out. A lot of my legal cases are handed to me at the eleventh hour, with an attorney trying to beat a deadline. The quacks just may be getting lucky because of those nuances in how you can file, and when.

You’d be surprised at how many people I’ve talked to who don’t know there is a Board of Medicine that investigates doctors accused of malpractice or bad conduct. The BOM doesn’t investigate unless there is a formal complaint about a doctor’s behavior, or someone presenting themselves as a doctor.

IMHO what’s needed here are relentless undercover investigations and criminal prosecutions. And stronger laws including classifying this stuff as homicide when patients die, and putting these deluded and/or evil scammers away for the rest of their lives.

That will require the political will to fund the investigations and prosecutions. But I agree with you wholeheartedly.

No mention of the MMS crap Young was pushing? We do indeed need more lawsuits!

Not infrequently, I’ve wondered why victims of cancer quacks (or their families, given that the victims usually die of their cancers before a lawsuit can be concluded) don’t sue the quacks who victimized them more often. I suspect that part of the reason is embarrassment on the part of the patient and family that the patient has been taken advantage of and believed the quack.

Certainly that must be true. It is my opinion that people too easily come to believe that humans are somehow infallible in their judgment, or should be infallible, and anyone less than that is somehow “lesser.” I think that nobody is infallible and that the only way anyone can be the best they can be is by admitting to this and working with it. Being able to admit to a mistake and making changes to improve upon a failing is how you fundamentally learn; you don’t learn if you can’t admit a mistake! I aim to learn until I die, so I think it’s important to own my mistakes.

In my opinion, everybody is vulnerable to a con job. There is something in everyone that can be played to in some way and people who are unaware that they’re vulnerable are the most vulnerable.

My brother-in-law died yesterday in Arizona, where he had gone (to the tune of $300,000) to be treated by naturopaths who sent him to Mexico for “stem cells”. His large (nine siblings) family have supported all this, not so much because they believed it would help, but because they are a close family who love each other and hold a firm belief that they must take care of each other. The family business (not a large corporation or anything, just a local service provider) put up the money with some real estate as collateral, which may or may not be realized due to legal issues of “access”.

The siblings and their mother (now 85) have all been back and forth to AZ in an effort to get the patient back home to die, but a persistent and ill-informed granddaughter, aged 23, had utter faith in the quacks and interferred to the point of causing considerable friction in what has always been a very cohesive family. So now there’s another $10k to fly the body home for the funeral. The mother’s health has suffered considerably from the strain and travel, and the wife is also a physical and mental wreck.

The elderst brother and founder of the business is angry at the quacks, mostly for their utter invisibility toward the end. It was the real doctors who managed things the last month and finally persuaded the patient and granddaughter to get him to hospice at the end. No ND’s in sight. Will this family sue? I doubt it. Not so much that they are embarrassed as most never thought it was legitimate, but more because they will want to respect their brother’s “battle” and let him rest in peace. They are all devout Catholics and ultimately feel that it was all “God’s will”. To me, the only atheist and therefore black sheep of the family this is as bad as the quacks, but for my husband’s sake (he’s a marginal believer) I am keeping quiet. It is grief and a feeling of decency toward the deceased that leads this family to preferring to simply put it all behind them. Hopefully, the legal mess can be sorted and some of the money will be recovered.

I wouldn’t usually share all this, but it seemed appropriate in light of the topic today. My apologies if it’s TMI.

I’m sorry. I can’t imagine how hard all of this has been for the whole family.

(And why does it cost so much more for a person to fly when they are dead than when they are alive? It really feels like twisting the knife.)

I am very sorry for your loss and for what the ordeal has done to your family. I was going to comment, well more like ask, why aren’t there more lawsuits against these egregious parasites. Your situation is probably one of many explanations.

I think it’s important to own my mistakes

As do I. And my therapist, who thinks it’s one thing I’m sort of getting right.

I’m reminded of wisdom from an unlikely place – the webcomic “Schlock Mercenary”. The characters are always quoting from
“The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries”.
Here’s number 70:
“Failure is not an option – it is mandatory. The option is whether or not to let failure be the last thing you do”.

” 39% of the population” and ” approaches 50% among young adults” (who believe in cancer woo)
is quite frightening. If you believe in cancer woo, you probably also believe in other woo.

I know that there is probably not total overlap** but 40% seems to be an auspicious figure these days when following US political leanings e.g. usually Trumpism, rightist beliefs, maybe less enlightened attitudes about race, sex, immigration.

** therefore more than 40% if you consider altie beliefs AND/ OR political nonsense- some non-righties belief in woo as well

When I want to get depressed, I think about a potentially nonzero number of lefties who voted for Trump simply because he was anti-vax. I realize that it’s a lunatic fringe that would be far more likely to vote Stein – which is bad enough – but I just think, nonzero…

Thank you for your messages of support. I want to emphasize that while this family is somewhat credulous (many of them think chiros are great), no one thought these quacks could help their brother/son, yet out of love and respect, no one tried to stop him or refused to offer support. This is how the quacks keep going, in addition to the true believers, of course.

I have seen this kind of thing close up, and it never fails to sadden me, so I can barely imagine what you and the family must be feeling. I hope you all can find some peace with it, and some acceptance that what’s done is done.
In the end, we all try the best we can for those we love, but all too often, we can’t know what’s best.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading