Wellness

[violann]

OP, do you mean that there are ONLY two schools of thought? I can think of several. When I went to your link, I immediately saw something that I do and something I would not do or believe. That has nothing whatever to do with my respect for anyone here. I don't find it necessary to be rude, unless someone else is rude first. There are some people here who flame me because I don't eat grain. What works for me doesn't work for everyone else, and vice versa.

[AnotherView2]

javala,

First off, are you sure it's us (people who use mainstream medicine) that have an "our way or the highway" attitude? I believe you should take a long look in the mirror...

There are many of us that use mostly well established medicine practices and we occasionally also tend to medical skepticism at times. We are also part of God's faithful, do NOT necessarily rush out and use medicines as soon as they are OKed by the FDA, use discernment and research and have a little wait and see attitude, and we are not brain washed as you stated above.

We use some natural products for our healthcare (and personal care) and some made in a factory and most often, we are rather healthy using a mix of both. It's not an all or none ideology in our minds. I also like to read both sides of the fence on religion, politics , etc.

After getting your position hammered on that measles thread, I understand you wanting to start this "separation" thread but, it takes a thick skin to post on public message boards and I think separating might not necessarily be a good thing.

ETA: My post about the hucksters and charlatans I named got removed. Was that you? If so, you just reinforced what I said about it being your way or the highway around here.

[jessa]

On 1/28/2015 javala said:

URY

You can if you like to sign up for email they are always updating information.

http://www.worldhealth.net/newsletter/20150115_NEWS/

http://www.worldhealth.net/newsletter/20150108_NEWS/

I love how so many like to say in general thereare so many charlatans out there, as though they don't have the same issues among their flock.

It is like watching a cycle first this great new drug is touted FDA approved like the best thing since slice bread, with an disclaimer of what might happen, several years later you read or hear in the media the FDA medical approved drug causing all kinds of mayhem, damage to organs or even death.

Just like that NY Snow job that just took place a few days ago, you will read a lot of things about the natural nutrition as though it has already happen to hundreds, when it never did, it is very, very rare anyone ever died from nutritional supplements.

Than after the investigation there were other factors which is in most cases never given the light of day to clear up any misunderstandings...

Yet it is those of us who use our discernment also do our homework but that does not stop others...

...many do not see they self appointed themselves, to judge others and deemed the rest of us out of synch with the rest of the world.

Maybe it is they who are out of synch with mother nature, when they treat their bodies as a synthetic machine...

No one here owns absolute truth, people are so locked into establishment brain washing they can no longer see the errors in the situation, even when it is pointed out to them, or the good when they could have the best of both medical fields.

One should never let the fear of man get in the way of the love of truth or of ones faith.

In defense of remark on Post #12 BTW the reason like anyone is here is to share with others!

Some said the A4M is non profit well so is the AMA non profit...

Now to the know it all's this site is taboo but I only use it as to tell the rest of the story...

Some readers would like to hear the whole story not just pretty parts....

What the American Medical Association hopes you never learn about its true history

To most Americans, the concept of "nonprofit" goes hand-in-hand with trust. If a person or an agency isn't driven by money, they seem more likely to be trustworthy and unbiased. They should have the public's best interests at heart, right?

The American Medical Association (AMA) is a nonprofit agency whose mission is "to be an essential part of the professional life of every physician and an essential force for progress in improving the nation's health," according to the AMA's website. It makes you wonder, then, why the AMA gladly accepted huge sums of advertising fees from tobacco companies who advertised heavily in its flagship journal, JAMA, throughout the 20th century.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/008845_American_Medical_Association_the_AMA.html#ixzz3Q8UvSNnN

Why does it in these discussion it has to be my way or no way, this is something I don't understand when the bottom line should be maintaining good health

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget) is an anti-science conspiracy website founded by Mike "the Health Ranger" Adams.

The site promotes almost every sort of medical woo known to human history, though it specializes in vaccine denialism,[1] AIDS/HIV denial,[2] quack cancer medicine[3] and conspiracy theories about modern medicine.[4]

Even other quacks think it's a quack site.[5]

The site has recently broadened to include extreme environmentalism and conspiracy theorizing about O---- and gun control.

If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.

[jessa]

"Natural News is one of the most dangerous and conspiracy theory filled sites there is. They are big in the anti-vaccine movement.

Surgical oncologist David Gorski called the site "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," and the most "blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet".

[16] Peter Bowditch of the website Ratbags,[17] and Jeff McMahon writing for Forbes commented about the site.[18] Steven Novella of NeuroLogica Blog called NaturalNews "a crank alt med site that promotes every sort of medical nonsense imaginable.

If it is unscientific, antiscientific, conspiracy-mongering, or downright silly, Mike Adams appears to be all for it – whatever sells the "natural" products he hawks on his site."[4]

Individuals who commented about Adams' website include astronomer and blogger Phil Plait,[19] PZ Myers,[20] and Mark Hoofnagle.[9]

Brian Dunninglisted it as #1 on his "Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites" list.[21]

Adams is listed as a "promoter of questionable methods" by Quackwatch.[22] Robert T. Carroll at The Skeptic's Dictionary said, "Natural News is not a very good source for information.

If you don't trust me on this, go to Respectful Insolence or any of the other bloggers on ScienceBlogs and do a search for "Natural News" or "Mike Adams" (who is NaturalNews). Hundreds of entries will be found and not one of them will have a good word to say about Mike Adams as a source."[23]

After Patrick Swayze's death in 2009, Adams posted an article in which he remarked that Swayze, in dying, "joins many other celebrities who have been recently killed by pharmaceuticals or chemotherapy."[24] Commentators of Adams' article on Patrick Swayze included bloggers such as David Gorski[25]and Phil Plait, the latter of whom called Adams' commentary "obnoxious and loathsome."[26]

When Angelina Jolie underwent a double mastectomy in May 2013 because she had the BRCA1 gene, Adams stated that "Countless millions of women carry the BRCA1 gene and never express breast cancer because they lead healthy, anti-cancer lifestyles based on smart nutrition, exercise, sensible sunlight exposure and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals."[27] Gorski called the article "vile" and noted that Adams had written similarly themed articles about the death of Michael Jackson, Tony Snow, and Tim Russert.[28]

In 2014, Brian Palmer, writing in the Daily Herald of Arlington Heights, Illinois, criticized the site's promotion of alternative medicine treatments, such as bathing in Himalayan salt and eating Hijiki seaweed, and referred to the claims NaturalNews made about their efficacy as "preposterous."[29]

Shawn Lawrence Otto mentions the site, specifically its discussion of the Vioxxcontroversy, in his list of references in his book Fool Me Twice, and New York Times reporter Christopher Kelly has mentioned Adams' endorsement of Jim Marrs' books.[30]

This site is dangerous and to believe one single thing they have to say is even more dangerous!"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaturalNews

[ValuSkr]

How in the world did this thread become controversial?

[jessa]

On 1/28/2015 ValuSkr said:

How in the world did this thread become controversial?

When the OP started her usual MO of promoting her quack website (like naturalnews) theories for one thing.

[goodstuff]

I don't think most users would understand this subdivided forum, or that posters would necessarily post on the forum you think they should. I also think this would invite starting a whole range of health forums by people who are enthusiasts of one health approach or expert or another! I think it's best to keep one Health and Fitness Forum covering all related topics. You can read and post regarding your preferred health approach.

[jessa]

On 1/28/2015 GoodStuff said:

I don't think most users would understand this subdivided forum, or that posters would necessarily post on the forum you think they should. I think it's best to keep one Health and Fitness Forum covering all related topics. You can read and post regarding your preferred health approach.

If my memory serves me you have a medical background & ITA with you GoodStuff.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I don't believe that a home shopping website is the right place to discuss serious medical opinions.

If someone ask for medical advice, they shouldn't do what a total stranger thinks they should do for their problem.

I see many times where someone is asking about a medical condition that needs to seen by a Dr. but some fly-by-night expert tells them what will cure their ailment. This in itself is wrong because I doubt these people have a medical degree.

[violann]

For clarification, if the consumer seeks answers to health issues in natural, complementary, AND traditional medical approaches, that's wrong?