Categories
Cancer Medicine Quackery

A horrifying breast cancer “testimonial” for “holistic” treatment, finale

(NOTE: The videos of Robert O. Young’s interview with Kim Tinkham have been removed, as I predicted in this post that they would be. Fortunately, I downloaded copies before he managed to do that. Part 6 appears to be still there–for now.)

(NOTE ADDED 12/7/2010: Kim Tinkham has died of what was almost certainly metastatic breast cancer.)

I hate stories like this. I really do. I hate them with a burning passion that makes it hard for me to see straight when I first find out about them. They make me want to grab a shotgun and go looking for the quack responsible. It’s a good thing I’ve never by any means a violent person and don’t think I could ever do such a thing. Besides, against quacks my blog is my shotgun, and words are my buckshot, a particularly apt metaphor given my tendency towards logorrhea.

In fact, you might even say that stories like the one I’m about to discuss are a major part of the reason why I do what I do, both here and elsewhere. They’re a major part of the reason why I’ve recently branched out into public speaking, something that used to terrify me beyond belief but that lately I’ve become at least competent at–sometimes even not bad at all. Sadly, the story I’m about to tell is one I’ve told before, most recently at the Lorne Trottier Science Symposium, where I gave a talk on cancer cure “testimonials,” although at the time I gave the talk the story’s outcome, although predictable, was not yet known.

Now it is.

The woman to whom I refer is named Kim Tinkham, who was diagnosed with breast cancer over three and a half years ago. Regular readers may recall that Kim Tinkham achieved fame not long after that when she was featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show in an episode about The Secret. I don’t want to discuss the utter nonsense that is The Secret in too much detail here. However, for those unfamiliar with this particular bit of New Age woo, it’s important to know that The Secret’s “Law of Attraction” takes the germ of a reasonable idea (namely that one’s attitudes and wishes can influence whether one gets what one wants in life, something that’s been known for millennia and is so obvious that most people know it intuitively) and goes off the deep end of woo by proclaiming that, in essence, you can get anything you want by wanting it badly enough and thinking positive thoughts, thus “attracting” it to you. Basically “The Secret” is that you have the power to “attract” virtually any good to yourself that your heart desires by thinking happy thoughts (hence “the law of attraction,” which, according to Secret adherents always works).

It’s an idea that resonates in so much of “alternative medicine,” such as German New Medicine or Biologie Totale, both ideologies that claim that cancer is due to hidden “inner conflicts” that must be recognized and overcome before cacner can be cured. Of course, the implication of “Secret” thinking is that if bad things happen to you it must be your fault for not wanting it bad enough or thinking happy enough thoughts, an idea that any Holocaust survivor would find incredibly offensive. In much of “alternative medicine,” though, there is indeed an undercurrent, either implied or explicitly stated that, if you don’t get what you want, it’s your fault. Indeed, a frequent excuse for failure in alternative medicine is that the patient either didn’t follow the regimen closely enough or didn’t want it badly enough.

Basically, The Secret is what inspired Kim Tinkham to eschew all conventional therapy for her breast cancer and pursue “alternative” therapies, which is what she has done since 2007. For those of you who want to review it, here I will note that I’ve discussed her case in considerable detail three posts:

This will be part 4, and part 4 almsot certainly be the last part. This weekend, I learned that Kim Tinkham’s cancer has recurred and that she is dying. On Saturday, a reader of my other blog sent me an e-mail that informed me:

Our dear friend, Kim Tinkham, has been diagnosed with cancer. Kim’s friends and family have established a benefit account at Citibank to assist the Tinkhams with expenses during this difficult time.

The accompanying e-mail referred me to a website called Caring for Kim, which led me to related Twitter and Facebook pages. In addition, on the FaceBook page, there was a flyer:

i-c7f2de771255e02193ecd37949a85d66-Tinkham-thumb-480x741-58788.jpg

I can’t tell you how much this depressed me. Granted, neither the website, the Twitter feed, nor the Facebook page confirmed the details of the story told by the person who e-mailed me. However, the nature of the comments on Facebook page did strongly suggest to me that it is true, as there are a number of supportive posts offering prayers of support and urging Tinkham to “keep up the fight” and be hopeful. At the very least, the Facebook page strongly suggested that something is very, very wrong with Tinkham’s health and that it has to do with her cancer coming back. Over the weekend, I have since confirmed, to the best of my ability, that the story related to me by my reader appears to be true. Kim Tinkham is dying of cancer. Most likely what has happened is that, after nearly four years of quack treatments, Tinkham’s breast cancer finally metastasized to what are, let’s face it, the most common sites to which breast cancer metastasizes, bone, liver, and lung. The reports I’ve read suggest that Tinkham is not expected to see 2011.

And so it goes. Another quack claims another victim.

Unfortunately, fleeing conventional therapy after her diagnosis, inspired by The Secret, Tinkham found one Robert O. Young. I’ve discussed this particular “practitioner” here, at TAM7, and at the Trottier Symposium. Young is a proponent of the pseudoscientific idea that essentially all disease is due to “excess acidity” and can therefore be treated with alkalinization. In essence, “Dr.” Young peddles acid-base pseudoscience and the belief that cancer is a “liquid.” One reason that women with breast cancer who decide to opt for “alternative treatment” come to believe that their treatment cured them is because they have had a biopsy that completely excised the tumor. Remember, radiation and chemotherapy only decrease the chance of the tumor recurring after lumpectomy; the lumpectomy itself cures cancer in a significant proportion of cases. However, Tinkham did not undergo an exicisonal biopsy or lumpectomy, only Young’s unscientific and useless treatments. So, after “hyperalkalinizing” her body by changing her diet radically and imbibing all sorts of supplements, did Tinkham’s tumor shrink radically?

No. At no time did I ever hear any claim or evidence that Tinkham’s tumor shrank.

Nonetheless, a testimony to the biological variability of breast cancer in terms of aggressiveness, Tinkham did do well for well over three years. Indeed, as recently as June, which was the last time I wrote about her, Kim Tinkham appeared hale and hearty in an interview on YouTube with the very quack who had been treating her:

I discussed these videos in detail in part 3 of my series on Ms. Tinkham’s testimonial. Part of that post that I consider to be worth repeating, now that we know the outcome of Tinkham’s cancer, is this:

In other words, quacks are all too often always in error, biologically speaking, but never in doubt. In their arrogance of ignorance, they exude the confidence that patients like Kim Tinkham seek and flock to answers that are simple, neat, and completely wrong.

Quacks like Robert O. Young.

In fact, Kim Tinkham made it explicit by saying that Young and his wife had told her what causes cancer by saying “there is no such thing as cancer.” Again, remember that Young thinks that cancer is the body’s reaction to cells “poisoned” by too much acid, and he really does say that there is no such thing as cancer. He even goes on and on about how acid being “deposited into the fatty tissues” and thereby causing cancer. From a scientific standpoint, it’s a load of rubbish, pure pseudoscience without any good scientific evidence to back it up. But Young can assert his nonsense about tissue being due to acid “spoiling” tissues with utter sincerity. He looks completely convincing–if you don’t know anything about cancer biology, and most people don’t know much, if anything, about cancer biology. Give him a woman who is afraid, who wants concrete answers, and who has demonstrated that she is fairly clueless about breast cancer, and he can convince her that he has the answer and can cure her. The reason, it appears to me, is that Tinkham (and women like her) just want to believe that someone knows what’s wrong with them and how to fix it. Knowing how to fix it isn’t enough.

Never underestimate the power of certainty in convincing patients that they can be cured. Practitioners of science-based medicine are constrained by science, what is known, and the level of uncertainty about what is known and what will work. “Practitioners” like Robert O. Young are not. Indeed, Kim Tinkham’s testimonial still figures prominently on Robert O. Young’s website.

Death by “alternative” medicine: Who is to blame?

Every indication I have been able to find indicates that Kim Tinkham has recently developed lung, liver, and bone metastases. Worse, she is apparently in bad enough shape that she will soon die of her breast cancer. Her friends, family, and business associates have banded together to raise funds for her and her family, which makes me wonder if Tinkham has medical insurance. Given that she ran her own business, it is quite possible that she did not. Whatever the case, if she has insurance, chances are that her final treatment, including, if she desired it, hospice would be covered. Based on that suspicion alone, I’m tempted to donate to the fund myself, because I view Tinkham more as a victim of quackery than anything else. That does not mean that she should be completely absolved of all responsibility for her decision. She is, after all, an adult. However, far more blame should go to Robert O. Young, who claimed he could cure cancer when he can’t and offered Tinkham a false hope of a cure for breast cancer without the pain and difficulty of undergoing surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. It’s “practitioners” like Young who see a weakness or a need to believe in someone like Tinkham and then take full advantage of it. I can’t help but wonder if there are family members and friends who, having seen Tinkham’s choice in 2007, feared the arrival of this day. I wonder what they are going through. It must be truly horrible, particularly the guilt from wondering if they could have done something differently to persuade Tinkham not to take the course she took.

Then, let’s not forget Oprah Winfrey. Oprah Winfrey, after all, rewarded Tinkham’s decision to use The Secret as justification for rejecting science-based therapy and choosing quackery. While it is true that during her interview with Tinkham Oprah appeared distinctly uncomfortable that The Secret had lead Tinkham to reject effective therapy for her breast cancer:

This is part of the therapy that Tinkham is following.

Shockingly, Oprah actually sounds almost reasonable here. Almost. Too bad the shock of being confronted by someone who used woo that Oprah promoted instead of effective therapy didn’t keep Oprah from later doing things like promoting faith healers like John of God. More recently, as happened at the Ministry of Truth, all mention of Tinkham on Oprah’s website appears to have been thrown down the memory hole. Search Oprah’s website for Tinkham’s name, and you’ll find nothing other than a couple of mentions in the community forums, such as So, what ever happened to Kim Tinkham? I wonder if Oprah knows what, in fact, has happened to Kim Tinkham. I wonder what she will say when she finds out. If there is time and Tinkham isn’t too ill, perhaps Oprah would send a film crew out to Tinkham’s house to show her audience the result of Tinkham’s choice of eschewing science-based medicine in favor of pseudoscience.

The most depressing thing about this testimonial is that it did not have to be this way. It really didn’t. If Kim Tinkham did indeed have stage III cancer in 2007, she would have had (roughly) a 50-50 chance of beating it if she had only accepted science-based treatment. Not fantastic odds, but way better than the odds she faced by not accepting treatment. By refusing science-based surgical and medical therapy, she reduced her chances to about as close to zero as you can get. Yes, it’s true, even if she had accepted aggressive science-based therapy, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, that Tinkham might still have ultimately found herself in this situation, but refusing therapy guaranteed it. It should also not be forgotten that, as Peter Moran has pointed out for other cancer cure testmonials, it’s very common for the testimonials of people who ultimately died of their cancers to persist long beyond their deaths as “proof” that various cancer quackeries “work.” I expect to see the same thing happening with Kim Tinkham, particularly given that no mention is explicitly made on either Caring for Kim or its associated Facebook page.

Finally, I wonder what we as science-based practitioners can do to reduce the number of Kim Tinkhams being victimized in the future by dubious pratictioners. It’s too late for Tinkham, but it’s not too late for others. Ms. Tinkham has spoken over and over again about how she didn’t like the feeling of “being rushed” and how she wanted to “take control.” Doctors offered her options, but they were not options she liked. So she found others, ignoring that they have no science to support them and no evidence to suggest that they do anything to treat cancer. Even for an intelligent woman, the siren song of quackery can be strong. I’ve written about this question before in a post entitled Death by “alternative” medicine: Who’s to blame?, in which I asked: How much are we as a profession responsible when cancer patients seek out quackery rather than effective medicine? Even now, four years later, I would be lying if I said I knew the answer, but I do believe that we need to do a better job at assuaging the fears of someone like Kim Tinkham.

Kim Tinkham has every appearance of being a lovely and vibrant woman who was only 50 years old when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Potentially, she could have had another 30 or 40 years in front of her, but that’s all gone now. Even in spite of her bad decision, one must note that, after her diagnosis, Tinkham continued to run her own business, edited a local newsletter, and won the First Annual Civility Star Award. She did not have to die, but she is going to die soon. It didn’t have to be this way, but it is.

That is the price of quackery.

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]

217 replies on “A horrifying breast cancer “testimonial” for “holistic” treatment, finale”

It seems that, consistent with “Secret”-type thinking, would be feeling a lack of a need for medical insurance. (Cure everything with mere positive thinking!)

This is such a tragic story. Thank you, Orac, for what you do to put the word out about such deadly crapthink.

I truly feel sorry for her family, who are going to lose a wife, mother, and friend because of quack medicine. I understand the desire to be “in control” but when your body is out of control (i.e. cancer) one should make rational decisions on what will produce the best outcomes – and in this case, I’m sure she felt “empowered” but was she ever actually treating her disease? No, she wasn’t.

Hi Orac,
I share your skepticism about most alternative treatments, but maybe you’re a bit overly confident/secure in your knowledge. You wrote:

“…in other words, quacks are all too often always in error, biologically speaking, but never in doubt.”

But don’t you think conventional oncologists, scientists and others get it wrong sometimes, too? Your language about these stories of alternative medicine is venemous, as if they threaten your position/world view. I think we should welcome new ideas and data. Otherwise we risk becoming quacks by another name.

@Elaine Schattner, M.D
Two things. First, Orac and the rest here have always welcomed new ideas and data. The data portion is key. Pop culture cures have very little data, none of it good.

You mention Orac’s venomous attacks with derision. If you are at all familiar with Orac’s body of work, you’ll recognize the need for that venom. The alties are killers, maimers, liars and cheats. Difficult to face that day after day without some venom.

At the risk of sounding like a total cold-hearted bitch, why do we all have to come up for money for her & her family? How has she made the world a better place? By spreading bad advice & not having any form of medical insurance? I do feel bad for her. I am sure she believed what these people told her to believe and it is terrible… yet I do not feel the least bit compelled to pony up and chip in for someone who didn’t take any personal responsibility. It’s not like she was poor – she had a business and I am sure she made some money spreading her story.Oh well, sorry.

@Elaine – Doctors do accept data and change/tweak procedures accordingly. They don’t just accept new “ideas” however, and for that I am grateful… or we’d all be forced to a juicer diet and weekly colonics.

“But don’t you think conventional oncologists, scientists and others get it wrong sometimes, too? Your language about these stories of alternative medicine is venemous, as if they threaten your position/world view. I think we should welcome new ideas and data. Otherwise we risk becoming quacks by another name.”

If you can’t tell the difference by a scientist with rigorous standards of evidence making a mistake, and a bunch of nutjob loons who market bullshit like “water has a memory” and such (“new ideas” as you’d like to call it, apparently) nonsense with zero scientific basis whatsover, you’re really fucking myopic.

XKCD seems relevant here.

But don’t you think conventional oncologists, scientists and others get it wrong sometimes, too?

To paraphrase Isaac Asimov:

Some people once thought the planet Earth was flat.

Others once thought the planet Earth was a sphere.

Now we know that the planet Earth is slightly lopsided and a little pear-shaped.

The two former beliefs are both wrong, but one is not as wrong as the other.

In fact, the third viewpoint is ‘wrong’, too, since better measurement techniques will let us increase the precision of our knowledge of the precise shape of the Earth in future. But that’s what science (and ‘conventional’ medicine) is: not perfect success, but getting closer and closer to perfection. Saying that conventional oncology fails at times, and therefore ‘alternative’ treatments are just as good, is like saying that, since the world is not a perfect sphere, it is just as right to call it flat. Except that the shape of the world doesn’t, you know, kill people.

“At the risk of sounding like a total cold-hearted bitch, why do we all have to come up for money for her & her family? How has she made the world a better place?”

Unfortunately, I’m inclined to agree. Her cancer would likely have been much more manageable had she sought proper treatment earlier. On the other hand, should we blame people when they act like gullible morons? Probably not, since if we happened to be suckered we wouldn’t want to become total pariahs.

My solution would be to compromise: as long as she’s willing to speak out against (and thus renounce) all of the holistic bullshit up to this point, I’d be more than delighted to support her. However, if it turns out she’s asking for support while still claiming holistic medicine works, she’s simply taking advantage of actual medicine while denouncing it, in which case, she’s on her own.

@ Elaine Schattner, M.D.

You’ve got to be kidding. Seriously. How can you ask that question with a straight face in rebuke to me? Let me just reiterate: Robert O. Young believes that all cancer is in fact a reaction to cells that are “spoilt” due to acid. He believes that the tumor itself is not the disease, but rather the tumor is a reaction those cells “spoilt” cells. His solution to all cancer (and pretty much all disease) is alkalinization with sodium bicarbonate and an “alkalinizing” diet. Indeed, Young also believes that sepsis is not caused by bacteria, but rather–you guessed it!–excess acid.

A woman with breast cancer believed Young and pursued his alkalinization woo instead of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Now she is dying of metastatic breast cancer. How you can equate an idea like that with no scientific basis with science-based medicine is beyond me. Would you say the same thing if Robert O. Young were a homeopath? Alternative practitioners like Robert O. Young don’t “threaten my world view” because they have zero science behind them. What they do do is to infuriate me at the toll in people with cancer they exact.

People like Kim Tinkham.

If there’s anything conventional medicine can do better… The only thing that comes to mind — and everybody already knows this is a problem — is spending more time with patients. Of course, where you get the resources for that, I don’t have answers for… But that seems to be the number one changeable thing that drives people to alternative medicine.

I think that also some work could be done on finding an “ethical placebo”, i.e. something that can exploit the placebo effect’s powerful ability to give patients the feeling they are doing something, but without the informed consent issues raised by prescribing a traditional placebo. I have floated the idea of “therapeutic spa” on this blog before, only to find some other countries already do this.

Those are two of the great “strengths” of alternative medicine — more time on average spent with patients, and offering patients something they can do to feel they are exerting control even when the situation is beyond their control — and mainstream medicine may be able to capture those for itself.

The other two great “strengths” of alternative medicine, the certainty with which cures are presented, and the ability to just Make Shit Up to fit into whatever is most appealing to the cultural zeitgeist — I don’t see any way to fit those into mainstream medicine 🙂 But oh well…

Hell, let’s call these quacks what they are: Murderers.

It kills me that these bastards are still out there, coldly siphoning money from vulnerable and frightened people – silly, credulous people, maybe, but still very ill and frightened, and deserving of some compassion.

@ #4: Saying that some doctors need to work on their bedside manner (I’ve been treated by assholes and absolute darling doctors, and I’ve had many more of the latter than the former) is not the same as saying quacks have anything to bring to the discussion. Criticizing “empathy” issues in the medical community does not mean that we think embracing quackery is a justifiable course of action. Quacks are still wronger.

Elaine, I’d advise you to take a look at this website:

http://whatstheharm.net/

There are countless people who have been taken advantage of financially, and many of them have ended up dead as well as broke. This is why we have a problem with ‘alternative medicine’. It’s not about a threat to a “position/world view”, it ruins people’s lives.

Elaine, I’d advise you to take a look at this website:

http://whatstheharm.net/

There are countless people who have been taken advantage of financially, and many of them have ended up dead as well as broke. This is why we have a problem with ‘alternative medicine’. It’s not about a threat to a “position/world view”, it ruins people’s lives.

Elaine, I’d advise you to take a look at this website:

http://whatstheharm.net/

There are countless people who have been taken advantage of financially, and many of them have ended up dead as well as broke. This is why we have a problem with ‘alternative medicine’. It’s not about a threat to a “position/world view”, it ruins people’s lives.

Elaine, I’d advise you to take a look at this website:

http://whatstheharm.net/

There are countless people who have been taken advantage of financially, and many of them have ended up dead as well as broke. This is why we have a problem with ‘alternative medicine’. It’s not about a threat to a “position/world view”, it ruins people’s lives.

Elaine, I’d advise you to take a look at this website:

http://whatstheharm.net/

There are countless people who have been taken advantage of financially, and many of them have ended up dead as well as broke. This is why we have a problem with ‘alternative medicine’. It’s not about a threat to a “position/world view”, it ruins people’s lives.

Elaine, I’d advise you to take a look at this website:

http://whatstheharm.net/

There are countless people who have been taken advantage of financially, and many of them have ended up dead as well as broke. This is why we have a problem with ‘alternative medicine’. It’s not about a threat to a “position/world view”, it ruins people’s lives.

Elaine, I’d advise you to take a look at this website:

http://whatstheharm.net/

There are countless people who have been taken advantage of financially, and many of them have ended up dead as well as broke. This is why we have a problem with ‘alternative medicine’. It’s not about a threat to a “position/world view”, it ruins people’s lives.

Elaine, I’d advise you to take a look at this website:

http://whatstheharm.net/

There are countless people who have been taken advantage of financially, and many of them have ended up dead as well as broke. This is why we have a problem with ‘alternative medicine’. It’s not about a threat to a “position/world view”, it ruins people’s lives.

@Elaine Schattner, M.D

According to your blog, you’re a “trained oncol­o­gist, edu­ca­tor and jour­nal­ist who writes about med­i­cine.” I don’t see any obvious woo at your site, either.

So maybe you’re just not awake this morning. Or maybe someone else is posting under your name. Because that was a stunningly dumb comment.

Sure, oncologists and scientists get things wrong. Sure, we should give new ideas a fair consideration. But nothing in Orac’s post even hints at anything to the contrary. And for you to make such comments in a post about Robert O. “cancer is a liquid” Young is embarassing. Or should be.

There are no perfect answers. It’s a fine line between assuaging fears and falsely misleading someone into thinking everything’s going to be all right when in fact it’s a 50/50 chance.

I don’t think the situation is as bad as all that in mainstream oncology. I think it mostly works. A significant part of the change needs to come from society; we have very conflicted feelings about the end of life, being handicapped, and hospice care. Perhaps that’s not fixable either; there is a very powerful urge to “rage, rage at the dying of the light”, and the survival of our species to some extent depends on it. There is only so much that better medical care can do; at some level, we are all terrified children howling at the dark, and it can be very hard to think rationally in a situation like that.

Elaine: Orac’s language (and his commentators’) is venemous because PATIENTS ARE DYING. Patients that a surgeon like Orac might have been able to save, and might have still been hearing about a decade or more later at follow-up appointments. If people were dying whose lives I could save whose lives it was my job, career and vocation to save, I’d be pretty angry too.

As I see it, the primary purpose of blogs like Orac’s, Quackwatch,and What’s the Harm?, is in informing the public ( and that also includes battling commenters who disagree) about the inner workings of woo-world pseudo-science to *prevent* more unfortunate cases like this. A few days ago, Orac mentioned Christine Maggiore, who eschewed SBM for HIV/AIDS, and died, preceded by the death of her HIV-infected, also untreated, 3 year old. Right now, there are two other women, also “poster girls” for HIV/AIDS denialism, also in medically dire straits.

I speak from experience**: my uncle’s wife, who was neither stupid nor mentally ill, who did *not* avoid doctors, turned against SBM following a diagnosis of *early* breast cancer; she argued with doctors and family, began prayer and healing services *in her house*( my uncle was an atheist and very upset about this), eventually taking her life savings to N.M., then Mexico, for laetrile. Months later, she had to be flown home by air ambulance, finally consented to surgery, and spent the next *year* in the hospital, where she died, rather horribly, I understand. My uncle never got over it. In those days (late ’60’s/ early ’70’s) there wasn’t an internet to spread medical misinformation, so I’m not exactly sure how she got hers ( possibly bad journalism and TV talk shows?). The internet compounds the danger because of its pervasivness and its ability to concentrate the woo from small, diverse sources into easily-accessible gigantic piles of contagious, toxic bs. And yes, we do have woo-consolidators.

** I don’t give too many details because I was young and not privy to most of what happened, I learned more second and third hand, years later.

[MikeMa: The alties are killers, maimers, liars and cheats. Difficult to face that day after day without some venom.]

America’s Healthcare System is the Third Leading Cause of Death

http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm

In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php

FDA Estimates Vioxx Caused 27,785 Deaths

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/vioxx_estimates.html

Research Ties Diabetes Drug to Heart Woes
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/health/policy/20avandia.html

Hundreds of people taking Avandia, a controversial diabetes medicine, needlessly suffer heart attacks and heart failure each month, according to confidential government reports that recommend the drug be removed from the market.

Deaths from avoidable medical error more than double in past decade, investigation shows

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=deaths-from-avoidable-medical-error-2009-08-10

Must be all that SBM application.

Medical Errors: Are You a Victim or Survivor?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/397702/medical_errors_are_you_a_victim_or_pg3.html?cat=5

OK. Now your turn!

Stripey Cat:

Patients that a surgeon like Orac might have been able to save…

Whatever. Eyes roll.

This is so sad. Thankfully, all the women I’ve known who have been stricken with breast cancer have received conventional treatment. And so far, all of them are still here. They’ve been scared, gone through nasty side effects, but they’re alive and with their families. If I ever end up knowing someone who wants to go the woo route, I’ll show them this series of posts about this poor, misguided woman.

Ms. Tinkham has spoken over and over again about how she didn’t like the feeling of “being rushed” and how she wanted to “take control.” Doctors offered her options, but they were not options she liked. So she found others, ignoring that they have no science to support them and no evidence to suggest that they do anything to treat cancer.

1) This being the US of A, cost was probably a factor, most likely the #1 factor, especially if she didn’t have health insurance (and very likely even if she did — many are the cancer patients who’ve been dropped by insurance companies). She was probably staring at costs starting in the low six figures (that’s $100,000 and up), and so went with something that was almost certainly cheaper in terms of cash outlay if not her life.

2) Intelligent people who are sucky at math and/or lazy (PW points to herself first of all) don’t go into the hard sciences as a rule — they go into fields that allow them to avoid mathematics as much as possible. Unfortunately, the things that most influence our daily lives (from medicine to economics to rocket science) tend to be best understood by people who have considerable (compared to 99% of humanity) mathematical education, so we end up with a non-trivial number of verbally-facile people (like politicians, journalists and celebrities) who couldn’t pass a high school math, physics or biology exam with an open textbook — and thus don’t possess the metacompetence to have a clue as to how much there is that they really don’t know.

“Whatever. Eyes roll.”

In case anyone is curious as to who augustine is, here is a comment of hers from http://respectfulinsolence.com/2010/12/the_age_of_autism_counterattack_begins_a.php (see comment #96)

“Exactly why SBM and Skeptics will stay a marginalized cult.

So, tell us augustine, what would you have recommended, hmm? Surgery’s apparently not good enough for you, despite it being a proven option unlike something like homeopathy or alkalinity nonsense. Pray tell, what treatment would you seek if you had breast cancer?

I had to watch my mom die of totally treatable breast cancer (they treated it successfully once and it recurred from a place they could not radiate). She believed that intercessory prayer would heal her, and when it did not, she believed God had judged her and found her wanting and she was going to Hell when she died miserably and alone in her hospital bed (her husband had run home for a change of clothes, at her insistence, after living in the same T-shirt and jeans at her bedside for a week). That was about 10 years ago.

This year, my best friend went to the doctor and they found a suspicious lump in her breast. She is a Secret-proponent and she refuses to get a biopsy or any treatment because she thinks by doing so she is “validating the cancer”. She won’t let her partner or any of her friends or family even talk to her about it because we are “manifesting disease” in her. How do you like that? We can’t even talk about a lifesaving therapy, or mention a useful strategy, or even tell her we love her and we’ll be there for her even if she becomes ill, because she believes it is morally equivalent of murdering her by cursing her with cancer.

Someone hand me a pillow; I need to scream.

“Someone hand me a pillow; I need to scream.”

The only thing you can do sometimes is try to guide them to the appropriate help, and if they refuse, just be there to make them happy until the end. It’s unfortunate when a close friend is the one who happens to be the victim of such nonsense, but it’s unavoidable sometimes.

And if you she does end up dying of something preventable, you can at least spread her story as another victim on sites like WhatsTheHarm so hopefully someone else in her shoes can avoid the same fate.

In my early days as a physician assistant I was a house officer on a surgical service. One patient I will always remember was a lovely lady of 84 years. I examined her on admission and because of her age I did a quick mental status exam. She had no signs of mental impairment of any kind. She was mentally quick, polite, showed a good sense of humor. She had a small breast cancer of a particularly indolent type. The chief resident (someone I didn’t like, but he was very good at this) sat down and explained the situation to her. He held her hands and looked her in the eye. He spoke in an upbeat manner, using everyday language, as he told her that once removed, the cancer was extremely unlikely to recur within the next ten years, and that being 84, she would most likely outlive the cancer. He took her over everything, point by point, asking her often if she understood each point. At the end, he asked her if she understood everything he told her. Her answer, verbatim, was, “Yes, you told me I have cancer and I’m going to die!” Then she burst into tears.
My point is simple: any patient, even an intelligent, oriented, mature, mentally intact one, can be overwhelmed by fear and other emotions when a cancer diagnosis is made, and we should not rush to blame those who go looking for miracles and wind up in the hands of woo-meisters, con men and fraudsters.

The early detection of cancer: More complicated than you think

http://respectfulinsolence.com/2009/02/the_early_detection_of_cancer_more_compl.php

Unfortunately, as we have been dreading for the last four months or so since her relapse was diagnosed, my mother-in-law passed away from breast cancer in hospice…

Did his mother n law “fall” for alternative cancer treatment? Probably not. Do people who use conventional medicine die in spite of or because of their treatment? Very much so. To assert that medical treatment would have made a difference is just a head game of faith.

she believed God had judged her and found her wanting and she was going to Hell
That’s probably the worst thing about these death-by-quack cases. The patient is consumed with guilt, convinced that dying from a terminal disease is all her fault; she didn’t believe enough, or have enough faith, or pray hard enough, or meditate often enough, or eat the right supplements….. The one thing they never blame is the quack(s) who murdered them.
I refuse to abuse this poor woman. Yes, she should have sought proper medical treatment; yes, she was gullible. But abusive name-calling is pointless now. She’s dying terribly and painfully, her family and friends are suffering with her, she perhaps does realise now how horribly wrong she was.
She’s suffering enough – please don’t insult her now.

sophia8:

She’s suffering enough – please don’t insult her now.

Agreed. But it should be open season on Robert O. Young.

She’s suffering enough – please don’t insult her now.

The problem is that the videos above are not simply an interview, but are being used as advertising and marketing tools by this scam site:

http://www.phmiracleliving.com/

It even lacks a Quack Miranda Warning (which is unusual even by woo site standards), and as long as Kim does not speak out against the people who took advantage of her, there’s the chance that even if she is cured by actual medical science that she will continue to advocate for ‘alternative medicine’ nonsense. I would feel much more inclined to sympathize with her plight if her website & Facebook page made mention of how she has been taken advantage by quackery, but this does not seem to be the case at all.

Orac,
I think there’s a case of confirmational bias on this blog.

Your viewpoint is valuable and informed, but there’s a pattern of intolerance to unconventional approaches in medicine. Of course I agree with you that Robert O. Young’s ideas about cancer are harmful. My point is that conventional physicians shouldn’t be necessarily, knee-jerk dismissive of other perspectives because sometimes they/we are incorrect.

Dr. Schattner:

but there’s a pattern of intolerance to unconventional approaches in medicine.

You noticed?

My point is that conventional physicians shouldn’t be necessarily, knee-jerk dismissive of other perspectives because sometimes they/we are incorrect.

How are Orac’s long long l..o..n..g articles in any sense “knee jerk”?

By the way, do you know what alternative medicine is that has been proven to work? It is “medicine.”

Also, one last item: in what sense would Robert O. Young be correct? Why should he get a free pass from Orac, you, or anyone else?

@speedwell: sometimes there is nothing you can do or say that is the right thing. (((hugs)))
MI Dawn

“Your viewpoint is valuable and informed, but there’s a pattern of intolerance to unconventional approaches in medicine.”

I prefer to describe them as “things that do not fucking work at all and are not supported by science”.

“My point is that conventional physicians shouldn’t be necessarily, knee-jerk dismissive of other perspectives because sometimes they/we are incorrect.”

Yes, because lambasting a con-artist who’s been charged with fraud and denouncing ideas that have no scientific basis whatsoever is so much like being “dismissive of other perspectives”

Oh, Elaine? The equivocation fallacy says “hi”. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation

@Elaine Schattner, M.D

You accuse me of “knee-jerk” intolerance and dismissiveness of “alternative medicine.” That leads me to ask: Do you actually read this blog regularly? Let’s find out. Please provide me with examples of my being “knee-jerk” dismissive or intolerant. Seriously. You just conceded that this post is not such an example, despite its vitriol, a vitriol that is well-justified, given that a relatively young woman who had a treatable cancer is now dying because she rejected conventional therapy in favor of Robert O. Young’s acid-base woo. Perhaps you can produce another example.

“I would be lying if I said I knew the answer, but I do believe that we need to do a better job at assuaging the fears of someone like Kim Tinkham.”

No you don’t Orac, there’s a whole WORLD of social support available for cancer patients, including oncology social workers, and wonderful organizations like Imerman Angels and Planet Cancer.

It’s possible these groups don’t do a good enough job of raising awareness and interacting with docs, and Ms. Tinkham’s SBM doc didn’t know to refer her to any of them. Or she’d already made up her mind to go the woo route before exploring that far.

I’m sad to hear that quackery is claiming another victim.
I’m sad for her family and friends, and I’m wondering whether she has the insight and courage to stand up for a last time and tell the world that she was wrong.
She is complicit in most likely infecting more people with quackery, but she’s also a victim. Therefore I’m a bit torn about the question how much I actually feel for her (in terms of money I’d rather give to an organisation that helps children with cancer or that conducts blood tests to get people to register for the bone marrow data base (sorry if that’s not the correct term, but I hope you get what I mean).

I’m glad to live in a country where we still have universal healthcare (I say still, our politicians want to end that, why let the unemployed live). My Mum in law was diagnosed with breast cancer 2 1/2 years ago. As a part-time jaintor it would have been unlikely for her to have adequate coverage in the USA, I suppose we’d still be bankrupt by now. She underwent conventional treatment, we paid for the little “extra” of having a really good wig because the psyche IS important and she would have died out of shame had people seen her bald or with a recognizable wig. And she’s been fine ever since she finished her treatment. But I learned from her that the patient has to be confident and “believe” in the treatment. If your chances are 50/50 you have to be convinced that you’re in the 50% who make it. That may make the difference.

“Your viewpoint is valuable and informed, but there’s a pattern of intolerance to unconventional approaches in medicine.”

Lets test the unconventional therapy and after evaluating the data then, and only then, advocate it as a useful treatment.

If you do otherwise, you treat a trusting patient as guinea pig. How can you, in light of medical ethics you supposedly operate under, defend any such treatment – untested and based on anecdotal evidence?
I have severe doubts I would choose someone like you as my medical adviser.

Oh my god, I just noticed that this Elaine woman is a breast cancer survivor.

http://www.medicallessons.net/about-2/

I’m having serious doubts that the person posting here is actually Elaine Schattner. Most breast cancer survivors would be rightfully pissed at people who sell scam treatments to other cancer patients and are directly responsible for killing people, and would almost certainly never write something as moronic as “Your language about these stories of alternative medicine is venemous, as if they threaten your position/world view.” in response to something like this.

“Elaine” is either an alt-med trolling deep-cover while pretending to be someone they aren’t, or this actually is Elaine Schattner posting, and she’s unbelievably naive, if not infuriatingly so.

Aaaaaaaaand… she’s confirmed on her own site that it’s her.

Yes, that’s right. An oncologist who has survived breast cancer has felt the need to post ‘gems’ like “there’s a pattern of intolerance to unconventional approaches in medicine” in response to a thread about a woman who is dying as a result of being taken advantage of becuase of one such “unconventional approach”.

Scientific medicine that is backed up with hard data is what matters. And I’m sorry Elaine, but as a breast cancer survivor, you should know that more than anyone. Your nonsense about how we’re simply making a “knee-jerk” response, or how we’re annoyed simply because alt-med is a threat to some perceived “position/world view” is not simply stupid, it’s outright asinine. What matters is science, and we hold that standard to alt-med, anti-vaxxers, and all sorts of other nonsense, and we have not bought into them strictly because of the lack of supporting scientific data (there’s a reason their defenders have consistently failed to provide solid scientific data for their positions), regardless of what you perceive to be “confirmational bias”.

Elaine, to me you are a complete, utter moron, and I have nothing but disdain for someone like you who, especially in your position, should know better than to post such mind-bogglingly absurd comments.

Whatever. Eyes roll.

You stone-cold bastard. You really think a 50% reduction in mortality is only worth an eye-roll?

ht6rjo and stripey_cat, remember that Little Augie is a loathsome troll who should be ingored.

Kill files are wonderful things – seems I get to add a name or two with every one of these topics.

I don’t get this “oh wow – we need to respect alternative treatments,” when those treatments have no science, no testing & no studies to show that they do one bit of good. If they did, they wouldn’t be “alternative” – they would be mainstream (as has been pointed out numerous times).

And to top it all off, these individuals like Kim aren’t even guinea pigs – because that would denote some kind of scientific method was being applied, instead, it is nothing but junk mumbo-jumbo & does nothing but hasten the demise of the recipient.

At the end of the day, we do know that conventional treatments offer the best hope of extending the lives of cancer patients – there are outliers, those that don’t respond or for a variety of reasons, can’t be helped. But, by in large, rates of survival for all types of cancer have risen significantly.

In this type of situation, do you go out & find the world’s expert – someone with a track record of success or do you pick the guy who reads tea leaves for research?

stripy cat:

You stone-cold bastard. You really think a 50% reduction in mortality is only worth an eye-roll?

50% reduction? Under what criteria? compared to what? How do you think lead time bias fits into your stat? Is DCIS included which would skew success rate?

eventually taking her life savings to N.M., then Mexico, for laetrile.

I was an early adopter that laetrile did not work. In 1970 my mother got breast cancer and had two masectomies by 1972. In 1974 we moved about 1000 km to be closer to cutting edge cancer treatment. By 1976 she was taking laetrile because there was no other treatment for her as the cancer had spread. She died in 1977 after taking laetrile for a year (provided by the province and the hospital, although we paid a share).

Since she took laetrile fairly heavily in that final 12 months I came to the conclusion that it was a scam (both a scam and a Crislip SCAM). Since then, I have paid attention to the science behind cancer and developed a certain distaste and disgust at the scam artists behind cancer treatments.

50% reduction? Under what criteria? compared to what? How do you think lead time bias fits into your stat? Is DCIS included which would skew success rate?

Oh, look. Augie is sounding all science-y, as though he even understands the concept of lead time bias.

I would love to see augie take a test in order to evaluate their understanding of the terms they use. It is easy to sound sciency but understanding takes much more effort.

Chris:

ht6rjo and stripey_cat, remember that Little Augie is a loathsome troll who should be ingored.

Coming from someone who believes that humans can be trapped in the wrong body, your contradictory comments don’t mean much.

I understand that you know it all and that anyone who challenges that library morality of yours is just stupid in your eyes.

r43tgb83uw98u, how about picking a vaguely intelligible name and sticking to it, rather than random characters? Have some respect for your fellow readers, ffs.

I started at a family medicine clinic today, and while working with the doctor there, I started to see his (admirable) dedication to ‘patient-centered care’ begin to backfire on him. Several times, he capitulated or didn’t press the issue on health interventions which I felt particularly strong about (using supplements of dubious origin, not taking the flu shot, and, in one instance, not wanting her child to get the pneumococcus vaccine).
My question to Orac/the collected masses: what duty does a physician have to their patient to speak/act out against them pursuing dangerous/ill-informed treatments like the ones I listed above or Kim’s?

Elaine, your arguments that Orac is somehow being unfair with alties are duly noted, and absurd.

I am a young student, and have been taken in by several woos before. I have learned some lessons first-hand.

When I catch someone lying to me, I get angry and dismissive. That is prudent. It makes me less likely to be fooled by them again.

When I catch someone else repeating the same lie or something simiar, I again get angry. Again, it prevents me being fooled twice.

Truth or falsehood is not a political right; it is established by evidence. Woo doesn’t have it. It uses logical fallacies and abuses emotions to survive.

“New ideas” that lack evidence aren’t being unfairly treated when people dismiss them. They already got fair and equal treatment, being judged on evidence. They failed.

The “I’m concerned you’re being too angry/defensive and are your own kind of extremist” trope is a common concern troll trick to manufacture unreasonable doubt so you can hit the snooze button on what the evidence is telling you. Again, I know that from inside experience. It is not good.

You’re stepping in common tricks for extending unreasonable belief in things without evidence. There are good critical thinking/scientific literacy resources online. Go get some mental floss.

“Coming from someone who believes that humans can be trapped in the wrong body, your contradictory comments don’t mean much.”

Uh, do I smell a bit of transgenderphobia?
So somebody believes (along with psychiatrists) that some people are transgendered and that makes them wrong on any other issue? That’s a lot of bias rolled into so small a sentence.

@iamnothouse
I would say it is their duty to inform their patients and speak out. But I think the most important thing happens long before such an event takes place. It happens when a physician, the regular GP, the regular gyn, builds up trust. They should try and use more intelligible language, talk to teh patient and not about them. I know that it’s not easy with the little time left for every patient, but I think that this would maybe help against patients pursuing quack and not listening to their doctor.

ORAC

Oh, look. Augie is sounding all science-y, as though he even understands the concept of lead time bias.

Why? Is it a science secret? It’s not a difficult concept. You’ve probably cut out a few DCIS yourself.

Finding More Cancer Isn’t the Answer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601955_2.html

The problem with over-diagnosis is that it leads to over-treatment. Unfortunately, at the time of diagnosis, we cannot tell who has non-progressive cancer. So we tend to treat everybody — and that’s the real problem. Treatment can only harm people whose cancer is non-progressive — a disease that was never going to bother them.

So while it’s tempting to think that had Elizabeth Edwards had mammograms before she felt her lump in 2004, she would not have metastatic cancer now, that’s wishful thinking. Given what we know from the randomized trials of mammography, it is likely that she would be in the same situation now even if she had had regular mammography. Unfortunately, people who do everything right — that is, get routinely screened — still get bad cancer. Just ask Tony Snow, who was reportedly screened several times a year. ·

Giliell, it is because Little Augie is confused that a person can be both a mother and an engineer. He is little sexist troll who should be ignored.

@Chris
I’m confused. Does that mean the mother engineer has to give birth to little baby engines? 😉
I should go to bed now, it’s getting late here

Why? Is it a science secret? It’s not a difficult concept. You’ve probably cut out a few DCIS yourself.

Amazing how Augie hasn’t bothered to use the search box on this blog (upper left hand corner) and search for the term “lead time bias.” If that had been done, Augie would know that I’ve written extensively on lead time bias, length bias, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and stage migration (a.k.a. the Will Rogers effect). Augie also doesn’t realize that one reason we stage match patients in clinical trials is to try to minimize the effects of lead time bias. No doubt in a few days Augie will repeat that line as though Augie knew it all along.

Oh, look: the videos on pHMiracleCenter’s YouTube channel have been removed. Of course, they’ve still got a few other videos there of women speaking about how they’ve been ‘cured’ of breast cancer.

When reality gets in the way, just sweep it under the rug I guess…

ferp, I had been wondering how long those videos were going to stay up. Does anyone know if there were many comments made on them about her dire situation before that happened?

This sort of makes me want to go write them a couple of strongely worded messages about how dishonest they are…not that they would listen but it would make me feel better and hopefully waste some of their time.

That’s because it is truth, until it isn’t or becomes inconvenient for them – can’t have “Breast Cancer Survivors” die on us, because they were all “cured” through prayer, anti-acidic diets, etc.

Right?

Morons, Loons & Idiots.

“Does anyone know if there were many comments made on them about her dire situation before that happened?”

Nothing except from a few comments on the pro-Young side as far as I remember. I didn’t try posting any comments, but I suspect if they’re smart, they’d do what other woo-pushers do and keep moderation enabled to pick which comments to display (as in only the positive ones).

However, there’s a damning piece of evidence that they can’t remove so easily:

http://cancerangel.com/

According to a WHOIS, it’s owned by Kim herself, and it has a link to the Oprah interview on her own YouTube channel (as well as a blog and such). If they try to deny they ever claimed to have ‘cured’ her, we’ve got this as well as the videos as smoking guns.

50% reduction? Under what criteria? compared to what? How do you think lead time bias fits into your stat? Is DCIS included which would skew success rate?

No, you idiot. The 50% survival rate with current treatment is for Stage 3 cancer – which is an invasive tumor greater than 5.0 centimeters in any dimension. This is an advanced cancer, and lacking effective treatment, is 100% fatal.
DCIS, of course, is not invasive.

You really don’t have a clue. The funniest thing is that you’re completely unaware of how stupid you are.

http://www.wcmessenger.com/holistic/

This site (appears to be a newspaper?) has special article about her ‘cure’ that hasn’t been updated or taken down yet. Has some rather embarrassing quotes (from ‘Part Two’):

“The more this information gets out, we’re going to see better results in the treatments that are being administered. We’re also going to see lasting results. Not only can people reverse their cancer but look at the quality of life,” Young said. “These people are living their life. They’re not in fear or in pain. The quality of life is so much better with this type of approach to health and wellness.”

Quality of life? She’s dying needlessly right now; real quality for her, I bet.

ferp:

Well, ultimately, they’re not in fear or pain.
The “living their life” part, not so much.

@ Giliell

Good points about building trust and trying to develop a proper report with patients. Playing devil’s advocate here, though, what if you’re an ER doctor, or some specialist who only sees the patient once a month/year/lifetime. Does the same duty apply?

(Sorry to hijack the thread; I figure something should try to drown out Augie’s blathering)

The ugh troll’s ability to comprehend words seems to be limited to copy/pasting definitions of them from dictionaries. So I really wouldn’t take his trolling at all seriously.

I would hope that people would develop a good and proper relationship with their MD, so that they understand the costs/benefits of various treatments and are able to make the best decisions based on facts. Doctors who can develop this kind of relationship with their clients do us all a great service.

Unfortunately, in the real world of insurance regulations, fewer general practicioners, etc – many people are forced to use the ER for their general medical needs, which limits the attention paid and relationship that can lead to a better understanding by all parties of the issues that could exist.

What good is the best medical system in the world (up for discussion, I realize) if people can’t afford it?

@ Elaine Schattner, M.D.

I share your skepticism about most alternative treatments, but maybe you’re a bit overly confident/secure in your knowledge.

I’m glad you are skeptical about most alternative treatments; you should be able to identify with the thought processes that lead Orac to write these blog posts. However, it is puzzling that you, being familiar with the dubious and dangerous nature of “most” alternative treatments (and Robert Young’s therapy falls squarely into that category), are not likewise incensed by this man’s luring a gullible woman to her death. Doesn’t this story make your blood boil?

But don’t you think conventional oncologists, scientists and others get it wrong sometimes, too?

I can’t speak for Orac, but judging from previous posts, he seems to think so. For example, he has spent a considerable amount of time talking about the changing views on the appropriate frequency of mammograms.

Your language about these stories of alternative medicine is venemous, as if they threaten your position/world view.

See above. And alternative medicine is threatening and scary. Most people don’t have a great understanding of science, so it is easy to lure people away of evidence and into dangerous quackery. It demands action and vigilance. And zeal, which comes out as vitriol in Orac’s case.

I think we should welcome new ideas and data. Otherwise we risk becoming quacks by another name.

I wholeheartedly agree!

My point is that conventional physicians shouldn’t be necessarily, knee-jerk dismissive of other perspectives because sometimes they/we are incorrect.

Here is a quote from Robert Young’s “About Us” page: “In 1994, Dr. Young discovered the biological transformation of red blood cells into bacteria and bacteria to red blood cells.” Did you have a knee-jerk reaction to that? Did it sound something like, “Mmmmm no. No, you didn’t.”? Me too! And don’t feel guilty about it! That knee had good reason to jerk, and quickly! You’ll find, though, that Orac almost always writes very long, researched, detailed posts about whatever piques his interest. You would be hard-pressed to say, after reading for 15 minutes, that one of his posts is a flash commentary.

From her website, cancerangel.com – she wrote / was writing a book about her success.

CANCER ANGEL is scheduled for release in December 2010

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: