Kim Tinkham has passed away: Another victim of a quack?

The only thing more depressing than seeing another victim of cancer is seeing someone who could have easily beaten her cancer had she not been misled by people out to make a quick buck.

Between this, Obama's tax cut betrayal, and the beginning of the construction of that creationist amusement park, this has been a shitty week.

beginning of the construction of that creationist amusement park

Don't get ahead of yourself, they haven't broken ground yet.

I've seen amusement parks based on fairy tales, movies, and cartoon mice. I've not seen any that were based in something considered real outside of Six Flags Over Texas, which was based on real history sort of.

The real question is whether it will be able to compete with the other two amusement parks within 25 miles.

My apologies for such a frivolous comment on such a somber post.

The only thing more depressing than seeing another victim of cancer is seeing someone who could have easily beaten her cancer had she not been misled by people out to make a quick buck.

So what treatment did Elizabeth Edwards get? Are you sad for her too?

ORAC

And so a quack claims another victim.

So how many did you lose this year? The ones that followed your protocol. How many did your colleagues lose? How many did you fail and how many did the treatment kill?

Today I spent the morning picking up chemo pills and groceries for a friend with metastatic breast cancer. She is 45. I came home to read that Elizabeth Edwards died at age 61. Now I read that this misguided woman Kim Tinkham has also died. My own mother died at 61; she first had breast cancer at 46. I had it myself at 36 (still here after 11 yrs). I'm feeling cancered-out.

But what all this does tell me is that breast cancer is a formidable disease. A nasty, dangerous, powerful disease. And the best we can do is treat it in the ways that have evidence of actually working--at least some of the time. Yes, some women who undergo treatment die, and it's sad and certainly not pretty. But others live, or at least live longer and better than otherwise. And women who do not undergo conventional treatment do NOT live longer and better. If they did, augustine and others should prove it with real numbers and real long-term evidence (not like the premature videos for the pH 'miracle'). The idea that doctors, oncologists, and all those who care for those with cancer somehow would rather see patients die than live is insulting and illogical.

So, as corny as it sounds, thanks Orac for the work you do on this blog and in real life. Even on such a depressing day.

@4,@5

augie, great job of being a complete jerk. Instead of being consoling, you use ad hominems against those that you oppose.

Nice to see your true colors.

As for the family of Kim Tinkham and Elizabeth Edwards, my condolences are with their families.

augustine, I honestly don't know how many times this has been explained to you, but the difference is that mainstream treatment would have offered Kim a 50-50 shot at beating her cancer, whereas Young's treatment offered 0%.

It's really not that difficult is it? I don't mean to be flip about life and death, but it's like those paper towel commercials: Orac's towels can pick up 50% of your spill, the Young brand, however, is about as effective as just using your naked hand. Do you understand? There will still be some spill on the table, it just won't be nearly as much.

But hey, you're disgusting for bringing all of this into a thread about condolences for a dead woman, so why would you give up your stubborn ignorance?

augie, great job of being a complete jerk. Instead of being consoling, you use ad hominems against those that you oppose.

Apparently you haven't read science blogger comments:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/a_horrifying_breast_cancer_te…

JT: "This vulnerability to idiocy just comes with that territory.... Get her out of the gene pool before her insanity can contaminate others and ruin more lives."

But don't mess with him because he's a science blogger. He's a good guy.

augustine the better question would be to consider how many benefited against how many died.

How many have Orac and his colleagues helped: Many, and a rare few recovered spontaneously, and some died.

How many have the alternative health protocols helped: None, and a rare few recovered spontaneously, and many died.

damien

augustine, I honestly don't know how many times this has been explained to you, but the difference is that mainstream treatment would have offered Kim a 50-50 shot at beating her cancer, whereas Young's treatment offered 0%.

Are you taking this on authority or do you have original citations? I'm a skeptic, you know. I doubt everything and demand proof. So let's take a deeper look into these 50% vs. 0% chances. As a skeptic yourself you wouldn't just go on authority would you?

Matty:

augustine the better question would be to consider how many benefited against how many died.

How many benefited can be ambiguous. You'd actually have to know who would have died and who wouldn't have. It takes some faith to believe what might have been. It's not science. That's fine but some on here don't won't to admit it.

You say the alternative health protocols have helped zero. Is this based on evidence or lack of evidence?

augustine the better question would be to consider how many benefited against how many died.

Math hard, probability double hard - make augie's head hurt.

Ignore Litte Augie. He is not worth it. Plus, it must be past his bed time.

to Augie the Jackass:

Why should we bother answering all your stupid questions? You have yet to pay any attention to the answers you have been given so far, and you have demonstrated a complete inability to comprehend anything written on this blog or in the comments.

You are a pathetic waste of time.

I think this cartoon pretty much sums up augustine's raison d'étre on this blog.

Christopher:

Ignore Litte Augie. He is not worth it. Plus, it must be past his bed time.

I'm still confused why you can't answer the question regarding transgender reassignment? Is it personally offensive? Have you had transgender surgery? Is that why you take it personal and avoid the question? Ever since I posed the scenario to you, you have chosen to tell everyone to ignore me hoping to make it go away. You give the pretensions that you are science/objective based. You should be able to rise above the cultural attitudes of political correctness. Yet you can't. This is your weakness. It's your politics.

I hope Orac puts through the comment I submitted ridiculing augustine (or as I prefer to refer to him, the ugh troll); it has a link to a webcomic which fits him to a 'T'.

Militant agnostic

augustine the better question would be to consider how many benefited against how many died.

Math hard, probability double hard - make augie's head hurt.

Atheism easy! Make world peaceful and wonderful. Make man happy and angry free. Make diseases go away and no more starving people. Make homeless find house. Make democrat and republicans vote together. Make wife not cheat. Make no one steal. Make internet go away.

These two women died (what's with "passed"? Sounds like gas) today of the same terrible disease. How many others whose names we don't know? Keep up your research Orac and keep on telling the truth--even if pathetic people like Augustine refuse to understand. Hopefully, Elizabeth Edwards lived longer than Kim Tinkham because of the quality of her treatment. We can't all live to be 100 (or even 80), but we can keep trying to improve the odds and the quality of what life we have.

I haven't watched Oprah for twenty years and I don't know why so many people follow her (charismatic leader?), but I do hope that she will take note of Ms. Tinkham's death and at least wonder if she could have done more to encourage her to seek standard treatment. It seems, though, that Ms. Winfrey is very self-centered, so I won't hold my breath.

J. Camp

Hopefully, Elizabeth Edwards lived longer than Kim Tinkham because of the quality of her treatment.

Seriously? You hope someone lived longer BECAUSE of the treatment they chose? If that's not nonscientific bias, I don't know what is. That shows an allegiance to an ideology. That is not what science or human compassion is about.

So if one of ORAC's patients decides to forgo his expertise and choses another route, do you think he wishes they would die earlier just to prove he is right?( I don't personally think he would do that. I could be wrong.) But this seems to be what you are wishing.

I sincerely hope augie's parents have learned from their mistake and started using birth control devices like condoms or a coathanger.

google eyes

I sincerely hope augie's parents have learned from their mistake and started using birth control devices like condoms or a coathanger.

Another chance for me to act like emotionskepchik elyse.

You're threatening my parent's orifice with a coathanger you sick embicile! Are you also encouraging illegal and medically risky abortions because of your belief system? You science bloggers are sickening to the stomach! You have no compassion. Zero empathy. You baby murderers!

ಠ_ಠ :

I sincerely hope augie's parents have learned from their mistake

Where do you think Little Augie is learning his misogyny and bigotry from?

augistine, this isn't about you. Stop trying to make this comment thread about you. If your "skepticism" is so inadequate that you can't figure out the basics of cancer treatment statistics, you can at least wait and find another thread *not* centered on someone's potentially preventable death.

The comparison between Edwards and Tinkham is instructive. Edwards was diagnosed in Nov 2004 (couldn't find it explicitly, but it seemed to have been Stage III like Tinkham), Tinkham in Feb 2007. I'm no cancer doc, but it sure looks like treatment helped in Edwards' case.

What's 2 years worth to you? For me, it would be the difference between my young son remembering me or just having pictures of me. How do you put a price on that?

Augustine, I wonder what you think about the death of this women? Do you think she would have died earlier if she had followed conventional treatment? What kind of treatment should she have followed, in you're opinion? What would have given her a better chance at survival? Why did she have to die?

As for Kim Tinkham: I hope she me rest in peace.

Please ignore Little Augie the troll.

Augustine; Pharyngula is that-away.

Be told now.

I would love augie to head over the PZ's place. Except I fear augie is just to much the standard troll. After quickly devouring the carcass we would be left hungry.

The comparison between Edwards and Tinkham is instructive. Edwards was diagnosed in Nov 2004 (couldn't find it explicitly, but it seemed to have been Stage III like Tinkham), Tinkham in Feb 2007. I'm no cancer doc, but it sure looks like treatment helped in Edwards' case.

With Edwards, those treating her responded with, "We're sorry, we tried but we have run out of options. We wish we could have done more to help you."

With Tinkham, the doctor treating her says, "It's her fault because she didn't believe strong enough."

No difference there, no sir...

My sympathies to the Edwards family and to the Tinkham family. They have lost a wife, mother, friend, and loved one.

@Little Augie: I want to point out to you that you have been told MULTIPLE times that Chris is a woman. Is it so hard to remember that?

As for the transgender issue: go argue with the physicians who work with and treat those who are transgendered. Tell them they are wrong and when you have had your a** handed to you, come back here to boast how you beat them. We'll certainly believe you as much as we do now on ANY subject.

I was very sad to read about Kim Tinkham and extremely sad to hear about Elizabeth Edwards. I didn't know Kim, but my heart goes out to her family. I admired Elizabeth's grace in the face of illness and dealing with an unfaithful husband while somehow finding the energy to help others.

Nobody should die of breast cancer. Orac is working on finding more effective ways to prevent those deaths; Robert O. Young is trying to profit off of cancer patients as much as possible before they die. Orac is doing research to better understand how to treat breast cancer so fewer affected will die; Robert O. Young says he already has the answers. Orac freely admits that no matter what he does, some of his patients will die; Robert O. Young says he has a miracle that will cure anyone that tries it. Orac is saddened when one of his patients die; Robert O. Young distances himself from a dead patent and says she must not have followed his advice.

The fact that Augie can't tell the difference is an indicator of his character.*

*Sorry for the soapbox rant, Augie pissed me off more than usual this morning.

@Augustine
What are you trying to prove? Kim chose a treatment method that not only had no chance of working, it also was based on a theory of cancer that makes absolutely no sense. Do you think Kim made the right choice? Would you have made the same choice?

The fact that Augie can't tell the difference is an indicator of his character.

What character?

Robert O. Young is trying to profit off of cancer patients as much as possible before they die. Orac is doing research to better understand how to treat breast cancer so fewer affected will die;
The fact that Augie can't tell the difference is an indicator of his character.*

So when ORAC's Patients die he's moving one step closer to a cure? So it's OK.Yet when Young's patient's die he really is going nowhere? So it's not OK. Is that your consolation? They both died.

Young is trying to profit off of cancer patients as much as possible before they die.

Trying to prove this motive would be tough. How much money did Elizabeth Edwards spend on conventional therapy? How much did Kim spend on hers? Who profited the most?

" I'm a skeptic, you know. I doubt everything and demand proof."

No auggie, you're not a skeptic. You are a lying piece of human trash. For some reason you have a porcupine up your butt over orac's (indeed, anyone's) presentation of the facts about medical science vs woo. Repeatedly you've stated "problems" from studies, only to have it demonstrated that your version was completely incorrect. Your response has never been to say "Oh yeah, I didn't catch that, sorry", as any honest person would do: rather, you proceed on and throw out a new lie.

Skeptic? No, you're not a skeptic. I don't know whether you are capable of understanding the explanations provided to you or not - if I had to guess I'd say that you can't understand any of it, and you believe that if you can't understand it, it must be wrong. That would provide one reason for your repeated attacks on science: your lack of intellectual ability makes you realize how inadequate you are.

And, as if on cue, Augie proves my point!

Completely clueless.

Ah, I see that Augie's even more rambunctious than usual. Think of it as like the impassioned writhings of a slug exposed to salt; Augie does that whenever he's confronted with a reality he can't explain away or spin.

I have only just happened on to this story - but just read Young's blog about the diet he prescribed for Kim Tinkham.

"Tinkham also restricted her diet to alkaline foods including lots of green vegetables, tomatoes, avocados,
lemons, limes and grapefruit"

I relaise this is a little off topic but since when have tomatoes, lemons, limes and grapefruit been classified as alkaline?

The pH of a tomato is 4.6 - very acidic
The pH of a lime and lemon is somewhere around 2 - even more acidic
The pH of grapefruit is 3.0 also very acidic

So not only are Young's theories incorrect he doesn't even seem to know the difference between what is alkaline and acidic.

Alos excess grapefruit consumption can cause drug toxicity because it acts on the same pathway in the liver that metabolises many drugs and can potentiate their actions

mochuck, I feel like going there and pointing this out to him. But what blog did he post this on? When I look up his name I find a number of blogs that appear to be his so I am not sure which one you were reading.

@ Travis - the particular blog that I copied an pasted from seems to have gone. He must've taken it down with all the attention

All my mother's side grandmother's sisters died of cancer, as did her mother. All of them died from 30-40ish. All my mother's sisters and my mother herself have had cancer in that age range (some a little later), and all of them are alive.

Something changed in the mean time, and it's oncology.

I realize it's not as obvious for everyone, but come on ... A little bit of statistics should show you the survival rate of cancer has changed dramatically over the past 100 years, and it's not fad diets or prayer or acupuncture or homeopathy or whatever which got added to the human experience in that time. All of that crap already existed in 1900.

Oncology works. Please for the love of your family, friends and especially your children, if you suspect cancer, see an oncologist and do what they tell you to get better.

As i said I couldn't find it but I did find this which has a list of alkaline fruits - including tomatoes, lemon, lime, grapefruit and rhubarb.

http://www.phmiracleliving.com/t-approach.aspx

Reading that page is very interesting. In the section above the list of foods he says:

When we talk about eating alkaline foods or starting an alkaline diet we are referring to consuming those foods and drink which have an alkaline effect on the body. This effect is based upon the ash residue that remains after our foods are consumed. Some foods leave an acid ash, whereas others leave an alkaline ash.

Ash? What ash is left from eating a grapefruit? What the hell does that mean? How do you determine the properties of this ash so that he knows which foods are in which group?

Foolishness.

and given that all food and liquid has to pass through the very acidic environment of the stomach I can't see what relelvance an alkaline diet has.

I was introduced to the "lemons are alkaline" concept in a biology class I took a couple of years ago. When the concept of pH was being introduce a fellow student told the instructor that her naturopathic doctor said lemons were alkaline. The instructor explained the ND was quite wrong, and the class would stick to the definition of pH based on the hydrogen ions, hence the "H" in pH.

She disappeared from the class a couple of weeks later and never returned. The problem was that the instructor never got a notice that she formally withdrew. He said he was obligated to give her a grade of zero.

It kind of illustrates the problem with magical thinking, especially when confronted with different information/evidence. It seems some are just afraid to change their thinking.

@ Travis : the only reference to "ash" ( in foods) I ever heard is " low ash"** in cat foods which, along with lower magnesium, is supposed to reduce the formation of "crystals" in the urinary tract of male cats ( even to New Agers, crystals here are decidedly *not* a good thing). Perhaps Mr. Young got his start in " cat research" before moving on to "bigger game", like a certain chemist/ "researcher" in autism "science" we know.

** low ash food should be also low ph ( acidic) to inhibit crystal formation. If Young stole the idea from cat food ingredients, he got some of the equation wrong.

Actually, it seems there's a different (and even more bizarre) rationale alt-meddies use than simply testing for pH...

http://www.godsdirectcontact.com/vegetarian/ch/aa.htm

"In contract, if it contains more sulphur, phosphate or chloride, it forms an acid food."

Oh for fuck's sake, I have a headache now.

Five of my friends have been diagnosed with breast cancer this year. All have successfully completed treatment, the last lady having "rung the bell" after her final radiation treatment just last week. Each lady is smart, educated, clear-thinking, and not prone to listening to woo. Each chose a different course of treatment based on choices provided by their doctors. I'm so proud of them, and delighted to have them in my life!
When the third lady was diagnosed, I immediately scheduled an overdue mammogram, and was delighted and relieved when the results were "all clear."
My paternal grandmother died as a result of breast cancer when my father was a teenager. Ironically, my father's stepmother also died as a result of breast cancer; she, like Elizabeth Edwards, delayed seeking treatment for some months after finding the lump. My grandfather had been gravely ill and my grandmother chose to put off active treatment until after his death. She had surgery two days before his funeral. Wish she hadn't put her health needs second to his; he never knew how ill she was. I loved her as much as I loved him, and her final 18 months were difficult.

orac, you're an idiot. how many people have died under conventional medicine while shelling out $50,000/year for treatment? why don't you blame conventional meds for their deaths?

anon, a lower percentage than those treated with a pretender who bought a diploma and actually thinks that lemons are not acidic.

and exactly what percentage is that, chris? (link would be nice).

but that's besides the point...for the percentage that don't make it, would orac be calling them "victims?"

LOTS OF PEOPLE DIE FROM CANCER EVEN UNDER CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT SO I THINK IT MEANS IT DOESN'T WORK AND DOCTORS ARE INCOMPETENT TROLLOLOLOLOL

unable to back up your words with a basic reference, chris?

and unable to recognize the difference between:

"LOTS OF PEOPLE DIE FROM CANCER EVEN UNDER CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT"

vs.

"another VICTIM dies from conventional Tx?"

sound objective language for a "science" blog.

@56

Care to provide a reference for your ideas, since you were the one who brought it up?

You know, it would be nice to have a link wouldn't Mr. Caps Lock. But the naturopaths don't really keep track of the patients they kill. The one who made my relative stop taking her real meds and use his homeopathy certainly didn't bother when she quit going to him. He just continued to send bills.

But, hey! Why does it matter to you. Facts get in the way of your hateful delusions. You probably think lemons aren't acidic either.

Chris, remember what augie said: all women are prone to silly hysterics! After all, your relative needed to make her own choice in healthcare; how dare you criticize her?!?!?!111eleventy It's not as if she lost anything by wasting her money on a quack homeopath, so she should be totally free to make her own decisions without criticism!

Except that argument is fucking stupid and the people who keep making it to justify Kim's decision to go to a quack don't seem to understand why. I think this one covers it pretty well:

"The practitioners of these treatments usually promise patients far more than I can, and they offer hope to desperate people. My patients often justify seeking such treatment with, "I have nothing to lose." Regrettably, I am now well informed on how much they have to lose."

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Victims/ksg.html

"sound objective language for a "science" blog"

Aw, come on now anon, don't be so butthurt just because I managed to portray your idiotic 'view' so accurately, TROLLOLOLOLOL~ <3

chris or mr. "Facts get in the way"...funny you should say that. I'm still waiting for the facts via a link to your claim of a lower percentage of deaths in breast cancer via conventional tx? (if you are unable, i understand. you haven't gotten the point thus far.)

novalox, my only idea is that orac is an idiot cuz he's not objective and this is a "science" blog.

Young has deleted all but the abridged testimony by Kim Tinkham, and is still letting comments announcing her death go through. Anon, are you willing to bet that those will still be there in a year? What will Young do? Delete the video and deny he ever saw Ms. Tinkham, or just delete all the comments that she died and hope people don't find this blog and learn what happened?

So, if he keeps the video and comments for a year, anon, will you promise to learn how to open your closed mind?

ferp...another one who doesn't get objectivity. this blog is a bore.

Feel free to fuck right off then, anon. I can guarantee you won't be missed. It's not as if it needs people claiming that quackery somehow has a better than ~0% cure rate than actual medicine does without citing hard data to demonstrate such a thing. Remember: burden of proof is on the claimant, and there are a lot of cancer survivors who will disagree with your disingenuous implication that modern medical science does not work just because not everyone survives a fight with cancer.

anon, the problem is that you cannot compare to the nonexistent data from the naturopaths. Here, how about you show the data that naturopaths have ever successfully cured the type of cancer Ms. Tinkham had. Come on, sure us your data.

By the way, go to this page:
http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?series=age

Put in the following information:
Data Type: US Mortality
Statistic Type: Age Adjusted Rates
Year Range: 1975-2007
Cancer Site: Breast
Race/Ethnicity: All
Sex: Female
Output: Graph

Then unclick all of the ages except 50-64.

What do you see when you "Get Data"? Is the graph going up or down?

Now find me the equivalent for mail order diploma naturopaths who believe lemons are not acidic.

I'm calling this now. It was anon, on Insolence, with the Poe.

anon:

novalox, my only idea is that orac is an idiot cuz he's not objective and this is a "science" blog.

I can definitely believe that that is your only idea.

(To aid those having difficulty with anon, "objective" means "agrees with anon", because to be objective is to let the facts speak for themselves, and anon knows he/she is right, therefore if you're objective, you'll agree with anon. QED.)

And Calli wins the thread for the mocking use of QED.

morons...can't see difference between:

"LOTS OF PEOPLE DIE FROM CANCER EVEN UNDER CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT" (unbiased)

vs.

"another VICTIM dies from conventional Tx?" (biased)

Oooo, oooo, I know!

The first one is intended to mock you because you're such a huge idiot that this is what you believe (as implied by your previous posts), and the second one is also what you actually think because you're a huge idiot who doesn't understand that cancer, much like other diseases, sometimes kills people despite our best medical efforts. Except, y'know, the second one looks even stupider because, well, you're the one saying it.

Do I get a cookie?

I am the wrong one to say this because I am not a doctor (nor do I play one on TV), nor am I a cancer researcher.

Do lots of people who get cancer die ? Yes.
Is there valid and significant data that shows that the percentage of people who die after getting "conventional medical treatment" for cancer is lower than the percentage that would die if they received no treatment? I'm told they do, though I have not looked at the studies myself.
Do lots of people die from cancer even under conventional treatment? Yes. I'm told this number depends on a number of known and unknown factors.
Do lots of people from cancer under "alternative" treatment? Yes.
Is there valid and significant data that shows that the percentage of people who die after getting "alternative treatment" for cancer is lower than the percentage that would die if they received no treatment? Not that I am aware of.
Is there valid and significant data that shows that the percentage of people who die after getting "atlernative treatment" for cancer is lower than the percentage that would die under "conventional" treatment? Not that I am aware of.

Conclusions:
Based on current data (at least, as far as I am aware), "alternative" treatment is no better than no treatment. Since "conventional" treatment has a chance of increasing cancer survival rate while "alternative" treatment has not been shown to do so, any claim of equivalence is spurious.

"How many benefited can be ambiguous. You'd actually have to know who would have died and who wouldn't have."

Ah. A math-phobe. How predictable.

Kim wasn't duped or fooled. She was far too intelligent for that and I wish everyone understood that fact.
The truth is she handled life, including this challenge on her terms.
Traditional treatment is no guarantee and just because it's more acceptable to ppl doesn't necessarily mean it's the right course of action for everyone.
Kim spent the last three years living life to the very fullest, doing what she liked best...helping others.
Losing her has been all but intolerable, but I get comfort from knowing that she understood her challenge. Please don't take that from us by falsely believing that she was ignorant of her situation. She was not at all ignorant.
Brave, courageous and hopeful maybe, but not ignorant.

TC Baker, then why did she follow the advice from someone who bought a mail order diploma, and who had silly claims like lemons are not acidic?

To have fallen for Young's acid nonsense, Kim Tinkham had to be ignorant of at least one of two things.

That Robert Young was a charlatan with a mail order diploma and that he was making batshit insane claims. His claims about the body transmuting elements and about blood cells turning into bacteria should have been a big red flag to anyone who took more than a superficial look at him.

or

Basic chemistry, physics and biology. A high school or even lower level knowledge of any of these fields would have told her that Robert Young was a fraud and/or totally delusional.

Either way, ignorance of crucial and easily available information caused her to throw away the best chance she had.

She didn't simply follow one set approach for treatment and abandon all others with a blind, "Hope springs eternal" attitude. She genuinely researched and took bits from several approaches, that which was logical to her. Also, her belief in positive thinking and the possibility of using thought to alter circumstance pre-existed her cancer and wasn't born out of desperation so, a large part of her "treatment" had little to do with doctors and diets. Kim believed in the right to make her own choices, which she did. To judge as to whether she made the right choices or not is like judging someone for their spiritual beliefs. Kim made the right choices for her and she took responsibility for her choices right or wrong. Please try to understand, I'm not happy with how things worked out either! I'd give up my legs to bring her back and I'm angry that she's not here, but she wasn't a stupid infomercial impulse buyer who fell for a sales pitch.

What kind of research? Google searches? Because with a little bit of effort she would have discovered that Robert Young bought his diploma from the same place as Hulda Clark, a well known loon.

Did she not even question his ideas on what is acid and what is not, something that could have been researched in a basic chemistry book?

@Tc Baker:

You say that you're angry that Kim Tinkham is no longer here. I certainly understand that. I have lost several people close to me through death at a young age and I feel the same way.

Why then are you not furious with the charlatan with a fake degree? He took advantage of Kim's "belief in positive thinking", and deprived her of any chance of a cure.

You claim that Kim's choice was the right one for her. How can a choice based on nonsense packaged as truth ever be considered "right"? Once she accepted Young's bullshit as truth, she was a victim of his spiel. What a tragedy.

Kim made the right choices for her

How the hell was throwing away her best chance for survival to waste money on a blatantly idiotic treatment the best choice for her? By all accounts her life was definitely worth living and she threw it away on a con mans false promises.

There seems to be a belief among the Oprahlites that what you want to be true is what is best for you, not what might actually benefit you.

I don't particularly disagree with anyone here. If you knew Kim though, I think you'd better understand what I meant.
I am indeed angry about this Dr. Young fellow, but it's like losing a limb in a car accident. After the accident I'd of course be angry, but my focus would be on my loss.
This isn't over by any means, but healing, at least to some degree is going to have to come first for everyone who loved Kim. Right now everyone is simply lost in the tragedy and trying their best to survive it.
I'll ask a simple and honest question. If you lost someone you loved more than life itself, how would it make you feel to hear things like, "She threw her life away"?
There's really no need to reply. I just want folks to think about it.
This isn't a competition to me and I subject myself to a lot of pain coming here. I was hoping to create an understanding is all.
I wish each of you every happiness and abundance and I mean that.

I am indeed angry about this Dr. Young fellow

If we are to believe you, then call him by his properly earned title: Young. He is not a doctor, he was never a doctor and does not even possess any knowledge of science, chemistry, biology or even basic cooking.

If you lost someone you loved more than life itself, how would it make you feel to hear things like, "She threw her life away"?

We are not saying that. We are saying that she was hoodwinked by a criminal, and are criticizing the fact that her research failed to come up with the very simple fact that he bought his degree.

Earlier this year our family did lose a family member. This woman, despite us telling her otherwise, wasted money on naturapaths, homeopaths and that kind of ilk. We are particularly angry at the charlatans, and at the broken mental health system in this country.

Now go direct your anger where it belongs: the charlatan that took money from your friend and directed her away from real help, and even made a video of it.

This is not Oprah fault. Leave Oprah alone.