Just interested in discussing/debating this topic. No worries.

I don't.

The "types of people," and "new age-y stuff" comments cast big nets.

I didn't ask you to shut up, I just don't agree with your basic premise. I think it's a big conjecture that ignores the nuances and complexities that motivate human behavior. Which is very ironic coming from science advocates, who should be advocating for rigorous empirical evidence in all cases.

If it works for them it's not a lie, even if you don't like or believe in it. The therapy (or whatever you want to call it) helped Tracy and she felt it was worth the money. What is wrong with that, really?

I don't agree with the popular argument that people who see energy healers are contributing to some sweeping anti-science backlash. Anti-vaxxers, sure, but we aren't necessarily talking about the same groups here. Too much baseless conflation of these groups on this thread.

I hear you. Mindbogglingly, I still get "have two or have none, will he have to be an only child, etc." from my *childfree by choice friends.* WTF.

Not just you, but there is overall major conflation in this thread of anti-vaxx, climate change denial, and some concern that homepaths will displace doctors/medicine. Again, there is very little to no evidence about "what results," unless we are talking specifically about anti-vaxx and/or climate change denial,…

Last time I checked, the pharmaceutical and medical industries in this country were doing just fine. Do you have any evidence that either or both are under serious threat by energy healing?

Genuinely curious: why all the vitriol? This stuff makes people feel better and isn't hurting anyone else. Their money, their choice.

Totally agree. That whole "but these things hinder critical thinking/hold back science" argument is a completely asinine, utterly unsubstantiated conjecture.

The difference is that these types of responses cause distress to others. Folks who use energy healing and whatnot aren't hurting other people, even if their experiences aren't "real" by your standard.

Do you have a citation for this? I'd love to read it!

Anyone else think she's trying to fill the void that Jenny McCarthy left? This seems like a cheap grab at pseudo-fame/notoriety by a D-list reality television wife. And it's working.

I agree. It's fair of her to not want to be implicated in this issue.

Ah, there's the rub. No, I wasn't. I was simply acknowledging one aspect of their otherwise unhelpful rant that I agreed with.

Wow, you missed my original point so completely that I don't even know where to start. Do you realize that daycare/preschool services(which parents usually pay for out of pocket) and k-12 public education (tax dollars) are two separate systems? I can't even.

I think that this distinction is where the commenter confusion on this tread is coming in. The remarks that these girls and their mother are getting really do seem to veer into axe bludgeoning territory. For example, the "why didn't you get a perfect one?" Yikes.

I thought the same thing. The issue here very specifically relates to trans-racial, trans-national adoption, and microaggression does not adequately describe what this family is dealing with.

I hear you. It is such a delicate issue. I'm part of a mixed-race family living in a smallish, 98% white town in southern Missouri. For the most part things are good, but every now and then we have to endure some awkward questions from the guy at Subway about where we're "from," who is/isn't "Spanish," etc. It doesn't…