I imagine that Wolfrum will weigh in here, but you should never read his stuff too literally. Obviously, Oprah has no legal liability in the case, and of course, talk show hosts are not responsible for the behavior of their guests. But Oprah is responsible for promoting homeopathic medicine. One of the ways that she does that is to offer a platform for its practioners. It's comparable to Beck and O'Reilly inviting rabid conspiracists onto their shows; in giving them favorable platforms, they are themselves promoting the conspiracies.

So Oprah did not "kill" those people, but insofar as she influences people to adopt quack remedies with adverse effects on their health, then she bears some responsibility for those consequences, the kind responsibility that falls under the rubric of "dangerous advice."

PS I confirm that dagblog is not a fansite for the Onion.

There are different types of responsibility: criminal, civil, and ethical. Oprah is clearly not criminally responsible, and I'm fairly certain it'd be hard to show she's civilly responsible (i.e., that a civil suit against her would be successfull, even if she weren't able to hire the best lawyers out there). However, I think one could argue that she has an ethical responsibility not to promote treatments that cause harm. If we look at an extreme case (where she probably would be open to a civil suit), if she had advocated drinking anti-freeze as a cure to autism, then that would clearly be a breach of her responsibility. This would hold true even if she thought that it would cure autism, but had failed to do due diligence. A similar, but less obvious, case holds here. However, in this case it's even muddier, because there's at least a remote possibility that these treatments have helped people as well*. To look at an extreme on the other side, seatbelts can (very rarely) result in the death of a person. That does not make them a bad idea. So, I don't see it as being quite as clear as Wolfrum paints it, but neither do I think Wolfrum is completely off-base.

*Note: As I do not expect anyone to value my medical opinions whatsoever, absolutely no diligance, due, past-due, or otherwise, has been partaken prior to me making this statement.

I could not have said it better myself.

Frank already tried the inverse-Poe, and he was far more succinct about it.

On the off chance that you're being serious, it has nothing to do with her blackness and everything to do with her following (the majority of whom are white, I believe, if we're keeping score of that kind of thing). They respect her opinion, and often times with good reason. I think she gives often gives good advice. However, because she comes across as endorsing her guests, unless she specifically says otherwise, she has slightly more responsibility than Larry King and the Today Show to do her research. That said, Larry King and the Today Show should also do their research.