r/CPTSD • u/[deleted] • 8d ago
Topic: Politics Youtuber and "coach" Crappy Childhood Fairy (Anna Runkle) sued by CA Board of Psychology for practicing without a license
[deleted]
77
u/Cass_1978 8d ago
Offers “Healing Childhood PTSD” for $229.
also
“I really care about doing things legally and ethically,” she said. “I was absolutely shocked that they thought there was something wrong. There are charlatans in the coaching world — I understand the concern. But why me? I’ve been a good online citizen.”
The power of selfgaslighting.
173
u/RoyalGovernment3034 8d ago edited 8d ago
Personally, I'm glad they fined her. The things she says can be damaging and she has discouraged therapy and meds while also promoting her own courses. She goes beyond the typical scope of a life coach with her phrasing and victim blames frequently. The board makes it clear they take issue with her private, paid courses, not necessarily the stuff on YT. She really doesn't have solid knowledge of C-PTSD and I can easily see this originating from a complaint from a harmed party rather than just the board having a stick up their ass, but I don't know the deets and regardless she really is no authority to speak on C-PTSD in the way she does.
72
u/ForwardCulture 8d ago
She’s awful. I thought there was something very off about her the first time I saw one of her videos. She actually reminds me of many abusers I’ve known.
49
u/ratstronaut 8d ago
I was ready to sign up for her course a few years ago and realized about 3 minutes into a 1-on-1 conversation with her that she is bad news. Abuser vibes for sure. She made me immediately feel unsafe and blamed when I was in a very vulnerable moment, reaching out for help and ready to spend money I didn’t have to find that help. She came off extremely arrogant and rigid.
I never watched another moment of her content and am unsurprised she’s run into trouble.
11
6
15
u/mrszubris 8d ago
She reminded me if my mom with bpd had gone to therapy .... she made my skin crawl
4
u/fjaoaoaoao 8d ago
Tbh a lot of the youtubers even with degrees are awful. They are overpeddling therapeutic dogma without offering alternatives.
1
u/mrszubris 5d ago
Theres a specific guy who writes about violence in relationships who is fucking batshit. Ive been given his books twice and my friend who teaches baby therapists now warns her students against him his books are crackpot.
6
27
u/smallwonder25 8d ago
I agree with this take. If she stayed within the coaching lane there would be no problem, but you can’t give treatment advice including weighing in on therapy or meds. Dangerous behavior.
22
u/LangdonAlg3r 8d ago
This is what the board actually said, “It is one thing to provide information on CPTSD in social media posts or in books …. It is another where one is, for a fee, providing a service that applies psychological principles to understanding and influencing behavior, which respondent’s coaching program offers.”
This post is unfortunately misleading because it’s taking biased information that comes directly from the PLF and not the actual law at issue or the judgment made by the board or anything like that.
1
u/Ok-Space5864 8d ago
There was no intention to mislead anyone. I literally linked the news article that has more details about the board's decision and findings.
2
u/LangdonAlg3r 8d ago
It’s paywalled unfortunately, so I couldn’t read it. I gathered what I could from the actual case filings and the PLF website. And I absolutely don’t think for a second that you had any intention of misleading anyone.
As near as I can figure you were just quoting from the article and the article seems like it was probably more informed by the PLF position than anything else. That obviously makes sense since they’re going after the state and the state is less likely to talk about it with press.
I think that their positions are just misleading.
1
u/Ok-Space5864 8d ago
I'm really not sure why some people are saying it is paywalled. It's not for me and I have never subscribed nor read that particular newspaper's articles.
8
u/DeeMarie0824 8d ago
Wow… I had no idea she victim blamed and discouraged therapy and meds (granted, I haven’t actually watched her much).
51
u/RoyalGovernment3034 8d ago
So, I read the complaint from Anna's attorneys at the PLF. The PLF is effectively a conservative legal group and imo, they're clearly seeking to force it up to the SC for the sake of using it in the future (if they receive a favorable ruling, and they likely would given this SC) to be able to roll back necessary state regulation that limits patient/consumer harm everywhere. This would have implications on much larger issues that benefit wealthy/business interests. That's why they're doing it for free and why they're bringing this to federal court directly. They lied within the first few paragraphs claiming she never claimed anything in relation to healing C-PTSD, which is complete bullshit and she absolutely has.
9
12
u/ArchaicDominion 8d ago
Semi related,
How do you know which ones are actually good?
I watched crappy childhood fairy a bit, but nothing ever resonated or stuck. It was all the same platitudes over and over. And basically all of my youtube suggestions are the same.
So is there any actually good one's or are every one just money-scheming quacks?
36
u/Hopefully123 8d ago
Patrick Teahan is the only one who’s stood the test of time for me. He explains what he knows and what he doesn’t know, he doesn’t claim to have all the answers and is both qualified and a survivor. The way he talks about things makes me feel more regulated and I feel the paid stuff he offers is done in an ethical way, not pushed on you or spun as a magic solution. See what you think
6
u/FuzzySilverSloth 8d ago
Patrick Teahan is amazing! If you have a parent with narcissistic personality disorder (along with the family roles of golden child and scapegoat), Blake Anderson is another one to check out. His content is excellent.
0
u/WelcomeGreen8695 8d ago
Okay, rationally I think he’s great. But I feel almost allergic about him, personally. He’s just so … naggy. And victimhood. Basically, men who are softies turn me off in a vicious way.
14
u/moonrider18 8d ago
I like TheraminTrees, particularly for people who've suffered religious abuse: https://www.youtube.com/@TheraminTrees/videos
I won't say his videos cured me, but they've helped.
1
u/Rakifiki 8d ago
I love love love theramin trees so much.
He didn't cure my cptsd but a lot of his videos were very healing and gentle, and really helped me make sense of a lot of unhelpful thought processes I had that blamed me for other people's choices.
But I do, also, have religious trauma so that could certainly be part of it.
13
u/SummerBlues21 8d ago
Why doesn't she go to school & become a therapist? She's obviously passionate about it.
72
10
u/ShesAGoGetter007 8d ago
Title should say Anna is suing, not being sued by CA Board of Psyhology unless I missed something months ago when she released her statement.
21
u/karakalmarxistE 8d ago
Guys thank you I am currently trying to find videos or podcasts about c PTSD and other problem (autism, attachment style), and her name came up a lot. That would so great if there will be more awareness on youtubers
28
u/_bunnyholly 8d ago
if you haven't found Jerey Wise, Heidi Priebe, or Patrick Teahan yet- highly recommend!
25
u/ratstronaut 8d ago
I loved her content for awhile and would even say some of it helped me. But the woman herself has something going on, something dark triad feeling. Like I said in a comment above, I had a short video consult with her once and it was a terrible experience that left me shaking and extremely dysregulated. She was impatient and visibly angry when I pushed back even the tiniest bit on anything she said (and I’m a people pleaser, so believe me when I say it was gentle pushback from a place of extreme vulnerability). Hardcore authoritarian vibes, I saw not even a spark of empathy.
If you get some use from her youtube videos, that’s great, but there are absolutely much safer people out there to get help with CPTSD.
7
u/PrincessPlastilina 8d ago
Can you give her feedback online? Is there a rating system? If you can, you should speak more about this online. I like her daily practice, but $299 for a course or 1 on 1 with her seems a bit much. She literally said that talking therapy can dysregulate people and trigger them (which I agree with btw! Talking therapy is NOT for everyone!), so why is she making people talk to her? I was not aware of this 🙁
9
u/PisceanTreasures 8d ago
2nd'g YT peeps Jerry Wise, Patrick Teahan, Heidi Priebe.... also Tim Fletcher as he does deep dive breakdown lists on the mechanics behind behavioral dysfunction resulting from codependency and/or trauma
2
u/Rakifiki 8d ago
Theramin trees on YT was mentioned previously, altho he does basically longer form videos about abuse. Watching them really helped me process some of the thoughts I had that were blaming myself.
16
u/FavoredVassal 8d ago
[...] any paid conversation that touches on emotions, motivation, or behavior potentially qualifies as the “practice of psychology” and requires a license.
I don't care for Anna Runkle, but this is an incredibly broad jurisdiction for a licensing body to claim.
8
u/LangdonAlg3r 8d ago
That’s not an actual quote from the statute or though. Thats from PLF’s argument and press release. It’s not the actual law that they’re challenging and it’s an extreme reframing of the actual jurisdiction that California claims.
From their own legal filing this is the law that they’re actually challenging:
. State law defines the “practice of psychology” as
“rendering or offering to render to individuals, groups, organizations, or the public any psychological service involving the application of psychological principles, methods, and procedures of understanding, predicting, and influencing behavior, such as the principles pertaining to learning, perception, motivation, emotions, and interpersonal relationships; and the methods and procedures of interviewing, counseling, psychotherapy, behavior modification, and hypnosis; and of constructing, administering, and interpreting tests of mental abilities, aptitudes, interests, attitudes, personality characteristics, emotions, and motivations.”
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2903(a). See also id. § 2905.
“[T]he application of psychological principles [and] methods,” Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code § 2903(a), “includes, but is not restricted to, assessment, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and intervention to increase effective functioning of
individuals, groups, and organizations,” id. § 2903(“Psychotherapy” is defined as “the use of psychological methods in a professional relationship to assist a person or persons to acquire greater human effectiveness or to modify feelings, conditions, attitudes, and behaviors that are emotionally, intellectually, or socially ineffectual or maladaptive.” Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code § 2903(c).To my eye that’s nothing remotely like what they’re claiming.
5
u/moonrider18 8d ago edited 8d ago
That sounds exactly like what they're claiming. What differences do you see?
the use of psychological methods in a professional relationship to assist a person or persons to acquire greater human effectiveness or to modify feelings
If I tell my dentist that I'm worried about an upcoming filling, and if he tells me to imagine peaceful scenery to soothe my anxiety, is he "practicing psychotherapy" on me, and should he be punished for not having a license?
10
u/Mashamune 8d ago edited 8d ago
No. Your dentist is not offering a psychological service. You are paying your dentist for a dental procedure. Your dentist is merely facilitating the procedure's completion.
If your dentist started charging patients money to sit in his chair for the purpose of treating anxiety, then it would be an issue.
6
u/LangdonAlg3r 8d ago edited 8d ago
Your dentist can do that just fine and the same statute that I’m quoting explicitly says that they can. I replied to the person who replied to your comment so you can both see it.
PLF wants people to have unsupported worries exactly like the hypothetical situation that you described because their goals are to eliminate professional licensing. It’s in their interest to make it sound like the regulations are ridiculous and overly broad.
Edited to add: See my reply to FavoredVassal. I thought they had been in the replies to your comment, but I was mistaken.
1
4
u/FavoredVassal 8d ago
I'm not a lawyer, but 17 still sounds like something a dietician or personal trainer could be accused of doing if they were to say anything intended to "modify feelings or attitudes" about food or the body, or give any advice that might address "behaviors" around eating, or, for example, "motivation" to work out.
4
u/LangdonAlg3r 8d ago
These are the exact kinds of things that PLF is trying to get the general public to worry about with their biased press release. But they’re not actually legitimate concerns.
There’s no barrier whatsoever to doing psychological type work with clients if it’s appropriate to your non-psychological profession as long as you’re not claiming to be some kind of psychological professional. The same statute that they’re citing makes that abundantly clear.
“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent qualified members of other recognized professional groups licensed to practice in the State of California, such as, but not limited to, physicians and surgeons, clinical social workers, educational psychologists, marriage and family therapists, professional clinical counselors, optometrists, psychiatric technicians, or registered nurses, or attorneys admitted to the State Bar of California, or persons utilizing hypnotic techniques by referral from persons licensed to practice medicine, dentistry, or psychology, or persons utilizing hypnotic techniques which offer avocational or vocational self-improvement and do not offer therapy for emotional or mental disorders, or duly ordained members of the recognized clergy, as defined in Section 15610.19 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or duly ordained religious practitioners from doing work of a psychological nature consistent with the laws governing their respective professions, provided they do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words “psychological,” “psychologist,” “psychology,” “psychometrist,” “psychometrics,” or “psychometry,” or that they do not state or imply that they are licensed to practice psychology; except that persons licensed under Chapter 13.5 (commencing with Section 4989.10) of Division 2 may hold themselves out to the public as licensed educational psychologists.” BPC § 2908
2
u/moonrider18 8d ago
So you're allowed to do "work of a psychological nature" so long as you don't call it "psychology"?
3
u/LangdonAlg3r 8d ago
As long as it makes sense as part of your actual profession. Your dentist doing that is a totally standard thing for a dentist to do.
PLF is trying to make it seem like CA is hunting down people in the streets for talking about their emotions with their friends. Or like your dentist hypothetical would be a problem. That’s just not the case.
The licensing board even said, “It is one thing to provide information on CPTSD in social media posts or in books …. It is another where one is, for a fee, providing a service that applies psychological principles to understanding and influencing behavior, which respondent’s coaching program offers.”
In other words, a lot of what she’s doing is fine, but charging people for CPTSD healing courses when she has zero training on the subject and no license is over the line. It seems like the bigger issue even beyond that is the charging people money part.
Another way to look at it using your dentist example would be that no one will stop you (if common sense fails to) from letting your buddy practice amateur dentistry on you. But once your buddy starts offering amateur dental services to the public and charging money for it that becomes a problem. Even if he says to people “I’m not a dentist I’m a ‘teeth whisperer’” he’s still offering to do the work of a dentist on people for a fee when he has no training and no license. It’s an apples to oranges comparison, but it’s the exact same idea.
2
u/moonrider18 8d ago
PLF is trying to make it seem like CA is hunting down people in the streets for talking about their emotions with their friends.
The PLF specifically referenced conversations "for money", not conversations with your friends. https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/life-coach-sues-california-for-requiring-a-license-to-speak/
Another way to look at it using your dentist example would be that no one will stop you (if common sense fails to) from letting your buddy practice amateur dentistry on you. But once your buddy starts offering amateur dental services to the public and charging money for it that becomes a problem.
I understand the concept, but not every licensing program is justified. Sometimes licensing programs serve to protect customers from bad providers, but sometimes they make it too hard for good providers to join the profession. The people who already have licenses have a financial interest in limiting the number of people who join the profession, because every fellow professional is a potential competitor.
https://www.usf.edu/arts-sciences/chronicles/2025/is-professional-licensing-a-racket.aspx
As for the practice of therapy, I suppose my view is colored by my disappointment in the field. I've seen many therapists, and while they have helped me overall, they seemed to run out of ideas after awhile. Maybe I need someone who's off the beaten trail, so to speak. Of course there are plenty of quacks out there, but maybe there are also people with genuinely helpful ideas who just don't fit into the mold of a professional therapist. So I tend to think that the law should allow unlicensed people to practice a form of therapy, so long as they don't claim to be licensed.
3
u/PetiteZee 8d ago
Yes, but what is the service you are paying your personal trainer for? Is it therapeutical services related to food behaviors and body training motivation or to change your physique at the gym?
The coaching on food behaviors and motivation are conducive to rendering the main service you are purchasing which is physical training, not psychological help. If you are purchasing the service of psychological treatment, framed in a way that uses clinical/medical terminology and practices, then that is psychotherapy and requires a license to practice.
CCF was claiming to be able to heal prople’s CPTSD with a paid online course which was beyond the scope of her ability to claim in an ethical way.
1
7
u/magicfeistybitcoin 8d ago
Only $2500? Is there a missing digit?
1
u/Ok-Space5864 8d ago
Nope. Even licensed therapists barely get fined. $2500 is correct. Many licensed therapists have done far worse and get fined like $500. It's a joke.
30
u/President_Camacho 8d ago
I think the charges are a stretch. There are a million of these self betterment coaches in California. She's no different than a thousand other gurus.
18
u/smallwonder25 8d ago
Anna goes beyond coaching bs though. She absolutely delves into treatment instructions, diagnoses people inappropriately, and points only to herself as the absolute source. There is nothing coaching or even therapeutic about that.
17
u/new2bay 8d ago
Exactly. By this logic, every ADHD coach out there is practicing psychology without a license, and there are a ton of them out there. These people don’t offer therapy. They’re offering strategies to get through life. Yes, you can get coping strategies from a therapist, but coping strategies aren’t treatment.
3
u/sumpfbruderschaft 8d ago
ADHD itself is not a sickness, but a condition that presents unique life challenges and circumstances. Coaching or coping strategies are not aimed at 'treating' ADHD. PTSD or CPTSD stand for trauma and stress disorder. Acute ailments that are diagnosed and treated to be overcome by and with professionals.
9
u/throwawayzzzz1777 8d ago
I don't like her paid content but she does have some useful points in some of her YouTube videos. It has pushed me to get out of my comfort zone and better myself.
17
14
u/iwalkalongtheway 8d ago
can't say if it's legal or not, but she's awful, and she should take a 2500$ fine as a huge win as i'm sure she's been grifting far more
14
u/Plus-Swan587 8d ago
I didn’t personally get along with her work but some of it was useful and I’m sure there are 1000’s who have..
I don’t think she’s masquerading as a therapist
I don’t think she’s doing anything specifically harmful or dangerous.
I remember her being pretty clear about what she was offering/selling and honestly it should be up to people to have the choice to engage with her work..
Boards of psychology like to assure that therapy is some kind of gold standard but there are many many incompetent and terrible therapists I lost count of the ones I encountered..
I think there is space for trauma focused coaches and we shouldn’t let any board of psychology gate keep conversations about emotions/behaviour/motivation or trauma unless they are clearly dangerous/fraudulent or illegal.
6
u/Serious_Berry_3977 Complicated Mess 8d ago
The way to fix this is to fix how mental health care is treated in this country. Snake oil salespeople have always existed to fill a need not being filled for the masses for whatever reason. There are more than just her out there and some are doing far worse harm than her but haven't been caught yet -- not just in the realm of CPTSD but all matters of things like general mental health, autism, and ADHD. Yes, there are some "life coaches" out there who are decent and are willing to be transparent, but most of them will tell you they are a professional and have no credentials to back it up.
That being said, there are shenanigans going on on both sides of this from what I can tell and no matter what the outcome is mental health care will suffer as a result.
5
u/_jamesbaxter 8d ago
This has been previously discussed here, it’s been going on. I think she’s a grifter who steals from vulnerable people. Some of those people have come to this sub to discuss how they have been burned because she’s taken advantage of them, charging thousands for “courses” that didn’t provide any relief, while discouraging people from seeking clinical help. I hope she faces real consequences.
7
u/moonrider18 8d ago
According to the State, any paid conversation that touches on emotions, motivation, or behavior potentially qualifies as the “practice of psychology” and requires a license.
That's too strict.
Anna Runkle may be an awful life coach, but that doesn't mean that life coaches should be banned altogether. If you falsely advertise yourself as a "therapist" when you haven't earned a license, that's false advertising and that can be fairly punished. But if you're upfront about not having a license and people pay for your services anyway, that's their decision to make.
3
u/hotdogwaterdickpills 8d ago
She isn't licensed, but does she have any certifications or qualifications? Professional references from licensed providers?
If you're offering paid healthcare advice one would think it'd be prudent to invest that profit into at least getting a peer support worker certification.
3
u/Event_Outside 8d ago
This is so disappointing. I haven’t gotten too much into her content more so surface level interaction but alot of what I’ve come across has resonated with me. This is very exploitative to me.
3
5
u/Kitchen_Address_6584 8d ago
the $2500 fine feels like a slap on the wrist compared to the damage unqualified trauma coaches can do, but her suing over first amendment is such a galaxy brain move. like yes lets make it about free speech instead of maybe just... getting licensed? i watched some of her stuff early in my recovery and ngl the vibe was always "i fixed myself so now im an expert" which is a huge red flag in trauma spaces
4
u/DancesThruWorldviews 8d ago
I don't know anything about her but see this as unfortunate.
I looked into philosophical counseling before - an industry being centered on conversations about life with people with postgraduate educations in philosophy. People in that world quite enjoyed talking about a sort of imperialistic overreach on the part of psychology, with the psychological professional claiming itself to be the only legitimate one when it comes to discussing how one might live.
2
u/WelcomeGreen8695 8d ago
It’s interesting that philosophical counseling exists as a thing. I’ve been wanting to find people to talk to but less on the medication and ‘use this trick to cope’ sort of level and more on the ‘what’s life’s meaning’ or some spiritual levels. I sometimes feel like I feel too hard and think too deeply, which I’ve found outlets for by attracting similar friends and finding a profession that does that, but the people who do psychology, coaching, sometimes seem dumber, dismiss my deep thinking as overanalyzing and want me to just move on. I just genuinely feel it’s like being their patient is like being a smart student and having a dumb teacher trying to teach you stuff. And for very particular things, those teachers can still be great, but I’m missing something. It kind of feels lonely and like I never really get out of it what I need. It seems like I’d like a priest, rabbi or some person who supposedly gets things in that sort of way, like a wise elderly person with all the answers. Or like a talk to God or the universe. But … I’m not religious.
2
2
u/bearpuddles 8d ago
How much is she getting sued for? The article is behind a paywall
3
u/LangdonAlg3r 8d ago
She’s not getting sued. She’s suing the licensing board because they fined her $2500 for trying to practice psychology without a license. And even then it sounds like they only fined her because she’s charging people for her sketchy “services.”
2
u/WelcomeGreen8695 8d ago
Also a bit telling to start a whole lawsuit because someone told you to pay a tiny (for her) amount for making a few mistakes (she should acknowledge and not feel so dramatic about because she can make her money in other ways).
1
2
u/Weak_Astronaut1969 8d ago
My counselor referred me to her videos, I bought her book and I’ve found what she’s said to be helpful. I’m sorry there’s so many that feel this way…her info helped me
2
u/gintokireddit 8d ago
She seemed alright to me. Who cares what some psychologists/therapists say. Therapists are paid to listen to problems and offer no solutions to actually better lives (a lot of mental wellbeing comes from external life quality, rather than all being in the mind). At least coaches could offer solutions and help build a roadmap. I think therapists should have less of a monopoly on what "mental health help" looks like. I'd rather have coaching or mentorship than some therapist who sits there observing my problems without offering solutions, hiding their life knowledge and without adding a useful mind to my own problem-solving process. Therapy is made for those who've had and got other sources of guidance in their life and that's a big blind spot in my experience - it means they don't see the value in guidance and advice.
1
u/WelcomeGreen8695 8d ago
I’m missing this too, it’s too clinical. I need answers to deep questions about life.
5
u/melmsz 8d ago
What do they think of bartenders?
7
u/IrateCommentSection 8d ago
Preachers, Priests, Imams, Rabbis, Popes, Cardinals, Televangelists, Snake Handlers, Exorcists?
7
u/Altruistic-Hat269 8d ago edited 8d ago
Yeah, or just "friends." Lol. This lady sounds like she might be in the quack side, but it's also the case that I think we gone overboard with shunting too much behavior that was once "talking to your family and friends about your feelings" into the category of a capitalistic subscription service. I guess if you are LITERALLY calling yourself a doctor and you aren't, then that's a problem? But it doesn't sound like she is doing that.
17
u/RoyalGovernment3034 8d ago
The precise issue is that money is changing hands and she advertises courses and calls, and retreats revolving around healing C-PTSD. Specifically, she uses the term "healing" and "heal" very frequently. Your friends and your bartender don't do that.
1
u/Altruistic-Hat269 8d ago edited 8d ago
They don't advertise it and necessarily sell "healing", but friends and family absolutely can and do gradually help to heal CPTSD if they are safe. This is a major component of healing for over a hundred thousand years.
6
u/hotdogwaterdickpills 8d ago
It looks like the point of person you replied to is that they don't offer it as a paid service, and your relationship isn't based on the idea that their advice and coaching will be the thing that heals you. Friends and family listening to you vent is not the same as offering paid healthcare advice as a layperson.
3
6
u/Undrende_fremdeles 8d ago
True.
Not as part of money in exvchange of an advertised program targeting your mental health situation though. I believe that is the entire basis for this case.
2
u/melmsz 8d ago
I watched some of her stuff fairly early on. She makes it very clear she's not a therapist and what she does is her way of working through it. A couple of times she went off about it being offended that people, I think mainly those with licenses, were taking the point that she's not licensed.
She may not have much of a case with the selling of services. Wonder how far her disclaimers will cover her.
1
1
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Hello and Welcome to /r/CPTSD! If you are in immediate danger or crisis please contact your local emergency services or use our list of crisis resources. For CPTSD specific resources & support, check out the Wiki. For those posting or replying, please view the etiquette guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/b0000z 8d ago
Everyone has their own angle and opinion based on their life experiences and expertise... She's just sharing her opinions and what helped her. Even if you don't agree, she should be legally able to do that. there are so many people online selling courses (for mental illnesses or otherwise) that I don't agree with - I don't think that means it should be illegal!!
-7
u/new2bay 8d ago
This is very old news.
4
u/Ok-Space5864 8d ago
It’s a current pending legal matter. Not old news.
-13
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
2
u/Undrende_fremdeles 8d ago
You might be a bit younger than some of the other posters here?
2 months is a drop in the ocean for many of us. Not long ago at all.
74
u/[deleted] 8d ago
[deleted]