Wellness

[dooBdoo]

---

sidsmom wrote:

---

dooBdoo wrote:   

          Hi, dear @butterfly123!❤️    I'm glad you're looking for credible sources for information about your health.   I advocate holistic treatment of the body, mind, spirit, and also integrative medicine, with careful research and also association with people who are there to work with me in person, face-to-face.   They know me, my history, my personal, individual needs.

          Please remember many websites are attractive and appear to be reliable but primarily are click-bait (they make money from site visits), self-promoting, money-making, and at times dangerous.    What appears to be sound information is there to make money from convincing us to first come to the site and then to purchase their, or their associates', products (books, supplements, etc.).   In my experience in the health care field among the more questionable sites are those associated with the so-called "natural news" or "mercola."   For any site you decide to frequent, please do some internet searches for things like "[site name/person name] quack" or "[site name/person name] hoaxes" and read carefully.    And remember a site may be "popular" simply as a result of savvy commercial promotion...  but not because of any actual safety or reliability.

          Just judge for yourself and, also, see if you can find reputable individuals in your community -- they can get to know you, as an individual, they can share info with your medical professionals and your trusted pharmacist(s) who know you.   And they will be there to be your support system.    The benefit of the internet is that we can better inform ourselves, the tragic failure of the internet is that far too many charlatans with professional-looking websites serve as modern-day snake-oil salespeople with clever marketing...  sometimes spreading dangerous info...  and who will not be there for you if their advice, God forbid, lands you in emergency care.   Be well and be safe.❤️

---

Books: E.v.e.r.y.o.n.e. will write a book whether it's online (ebook) or in a book store.  I would never, ever judge someone just because they wrote a book.  

DVDS/conferences:  E.v.e.r.y.o.n.e. will extend their knowledge through group events or digital/actual dvds. 

Social media:  E.v.e.r.y.o.n.e. will have a website, be on all forms of social media like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube etc., well...because we live in 2017.  

Supplements/sponsors for products-to-purchase:  that's where it gets iffy.  I don't believe in supplements...so my online doctors/opinions will be supplement-free (Dr. John McDougall).  Also my online doctors won't be suggesting me to buy one-off products to fulfill my nutritional success.

Funny how the argument against 'click-bait' is resolved by suggesting to search for '(name) quack/hoax'.  Seriously?  That's' the DEFINITION of click bait! These websites are people, more than likely NOT a doctor, giving an uneducated opinion....from the basement of their Mom's house (JK..had to had the troll visual).   And their list is f.i.l.l.e.d. with popular names who are in the news likely to drive the traffic to their site when someone Googles.  If the owners of these sites can't be a better Wordsmith to come up with a better word than a "boogeyman-scary" word like 'quack' & 'hoax' (charlatan, shyster & snake oil saleman are also favs), well, that should speak ill of the author of the website, not the doctors. 

I dunno.....the Produce section of my local grocery store is all I need....and it's a pretty safe and HEALTHY place.  Don't need flashy advertisements for carrots, potatoes, lettuce & lentils. 

---

             You'll see that I didn't suggest we judge sources solely because they have books, sites, etc.    It's simply one of the reasons the charlatans exist -- they pretend to offer helpful, safe information but truly their existence is based on their profit margin and the push for us to buy.    The click-bait reference again is only part of the equation, but it's valuable information...   not all sites benefit the same from visits, but it takes more investigation to know the details, for sure.   I hope everyone will also look into "like-farming" and other ways we're enticed to visit questionable websites.

              Quack, hoax, charlatan, snake-oil sales, etc., are a perfectly acceptable part of the lexicon for discussion, and using them has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability or acceptability of the author or the source.   When a good researcher writes about any topic, they of necessity use the terms involved in the area of interest and it doesn't discredit them at all. 

              I'd be extemely wary of anyone reacting too defensively to this kind of research and investigation presented by reliable sites...  those who are peddling questionable wares certainly would want to warn us away from any sites exposing them, and they would want to mock and ridicule anyone hoping to offer ways to assure credibility.   I can understand that.   It's part of their attempt to keep their dubious businesses active and profitable and they don't like to be held to account.  

             On the other hand, anyone with a credible, safe, reliable organization has no problem with this kind of well-intentioned research and scrutiny and, in fact, welcomes it.    As I said, each person needs to judge for themself, take specific name or site recommendations by us anonymous folks with funny nicknames (including me!) with a huge grain of salt, and remember the people on websites will never be there in person to aid them if and when medical emergencies arise.  (eta:  I included my entire post in the quote, rather than take part of it out of the complete context.)