This article is praising a man who is very apt at selling lies. Not only is Kombucha (another bullshit health brand) ineffective in curing his mother's "so-called cancer" but even worse, causes serious side effects and occasional deaths which have been linked with drinking Kombucha.* Why would someone believe it is curing them of cancer if the mother who has sold this product was just as good as a snake oil salesman? I agree that the article has identified some faults of his in his industry, but praising him isn't doing any justice.<p>*<a href="http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/dietandnutrition/kombucha-tea" rel="nofollow">http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/com...</a>
As a long-term resident of Japan, this confused the hell out of me. Over here "konbucha" is tea made from dried seaweed, bearing no resemblance to what's described in the article.<p>With that said, I found it hard to tell if the article's author took the guy seriously or was inviting the reader to conclude that he was a charlatan. It almost seemed like both, if that's possible.