What's even more sickening is that you're using people with cancer to launch a political attack on someone. You're a piece of work.
I asked you if you knew someone with cancer. Most people do.
It's Carson who used his status as an M.D. to endorse a product with no curative properties that he claimed cured his prostate cancer. Based on his description, he doesn't even get the terminology correct:
In the summer of 2002, I had my PSAs checked. I had prostate cancer; a very malignant and aggressive form. The various medical options were laid out; what caught my attention were glycol-proteins. Within a week my symptoms were completely resolved. But urologist [recommended immediate] surgery anyway, [which I did]. It turned out that the cancer was within one millimeter of metastasizing. If we had waited it would have been too late.
Ben Carson on Health Care
Did anyone die because of it? Because if not, the issue is irrelevant. Yet again, you have Hillary Clinton, who's atrocities exceed mere false advertising.
Yet again, I don't "have" Hillary Clinton. She's not "my" candidate.
Carson's issue is twofold: the hucksterism and the lie.
Did anyone abandon conventional cancer treatment and rely solely on Mannatech and die as a result? I have no idea. But don't be surprised if there are lawsuits filed to that effect.
Whether Carson's involvement with Mannatech can legally be considered medical malpractice or not, it is materially different for him to say "this stuff cures cancer" than it is when it's your crazy neighbor.
Then there's the lie. "No, I wasn't involved with them. I just gave a few speeches..." when the evidence is everywhere says two things to me. One, the man does not take responsibility for his mistakes. Two, and even more troubling, is that he does not realize how easy it is to catch someone in a lie that egregious.
That's the behavior of someone who's either a naif or a sociopath. If that's the kind of person you want in the Oval Office, you go right ahead and vote for him.
Naive, yes.
It may seem like a minor point, but public officials should be at least as savvy as their kids about how this Internet thing works, starting with Google 101.
Most if not all of them have staff sending tweets and media updates in their name, but there need to be guidelines (e.g., "Don't post selfies of your junk or anyone else's").
The same people howling about Hillary's emails are now singing "Oh, Dr. Carson didn't know those images with him and the Mannatech logo would show up on the Internet...along with the promotional material quoting him about 'curing cancer' and [all the other evidence that gives the lie to his lie]..."
Of course, there is a third alternative to naivete and sociopathy - early-onset Alzheimer's. He may honestly not have remembered. Confronted with the evidence, he made a choice. Which would be less damaging - saying "Oh, that. Yeah, I forgot" and having the media run with "Does Dr. Carson have some form of dementia? Is that what we want in the Oval Office. Ronald Reagan, as you may recall..." or spinning it? "Oh, that. No, no, no, it's not what it looks like. Pay no attention to that Manatech logo in the frame"?
Leaders have to make the tough choices.
It's PSA...not plural...for prostate specific antigen.
