Scam posts

[Darryl]

We’ve had several enlightened discussions about scams and scam websites. Please....let’s take a break from dissecting and debunking each one . Let’s not draw attention to those more likely to hurt us then help.

[Tall_Allen]

Amen! When we dignify them by commenting on them, the subtext message we put out is "hey - there may be something to this." Sometimes I comment when I think the website or media source is influential, but most such websites fade away more quickly if we don't feed them.

[Magnus1964]

I take each sighting as an opportunity for research. Consider the source and who is funding both the product and who is funding the any opposition. Let everyone decide for themselves. Please do the research.

[Darryl Partner]

Itcandy, Your response is inaccurate. Complimentary interactions are welcome. Obvious BS and scams and scam-spam is not.

[FCoffey in reply to Darryl]

I'm not so sure. Perhaps if you strictly limit the topic to "complementary" medicine that would be true. But truly competitive treatments, those decreed off limits by the medical industry, are not welcome and invite name calling and abuse.

I moderate other forums, and actual spam is a constant problem. It's not that hard to spot, even if it eludes the automated tools. Humans make short work of detecting and deleting it.

"Obvious BS" is a judgement call. Especially if the posters isn't financially rewarded, directly selling something, one man's BS is another's life saving treatment.

Two of my oncologists have strongly encouraged me to use prayer. They are not particularly devout people. There's not a lot of medical evidence for the efficacy of prayer, but it clearly helps some people. There is a substantial industry of tel-evangelists heading megachurches and flying in private jets bought with donations from the congregation. Does that make advocating prayer a scam?

There's also not a lot of compelling evidence for the benefits of healing crystals, mistletoe extract, hyperthermia, IPT, Rigvir, chelation, Raiki, spirit journeys, dendritic cell vaccines (not FDA approved), Laetrile, Celebrex, mushroom extracts, curcumin, herbal therapies, IV-vitamin C, enemas, lymphatic drainage, a huge range of supplements, or various diets. Yet every one of those therapies has helped some people. I know; I wrote that list from my notes of conversations with prostate cancer thrivers. That doesn't constitute proof that any particular item worked, but when they tell me about their experience it is most certainly is not spam.

A dispassionate review of the posts in this forum will discover many instances where curiosity or discussion of competitive treatments was emphatically not welcomed.

Spam is a pretty bright line, BS is in the eye of the beholder. Declaring that BS is not welcome invites incivility and other behaviors that are not supportive, to put it mildly. I'm still seeking a support group that emphasizes support over reflexive submission to orthodoxy.

[Darryl Partner in reply to FCoffey]

I think the over two year history of this community with nearly 4800 posts, 74,000 replies and 5000 members should put your mind at rest. Feel encouraged to “search” for topics you think may not have been covered.

[FCoffey in reply to Darryl]

The point of my response was not to bemoan the breadth of topics discussed. This forum is a fantastic asset and I am grateful for your efforts in constructing and maintaining it.

My point was about the difference between fairly bright lines separating spam from genuine content, and the slippery slope of declaring BS unwelcome.

Censoring speech chills speech from others. The THREAT of censorship does the same. Absent a very clear definition of what constitutes BS, warning that it is not welcome here could reasonably be viewed as warning people not to bring up controversial and non-mainstream topics.

My bigger concern is that this is a support group and not a scientific review panel or debating society. I'll support the choices of any man here, even if I find those decisions nonsensical, on the grounds that it is his life and his right to choose as he sees fit. I can support the man without endorsing his choices. He deserves support even if, especially if most would agree that his choices and his reasoning are clearly BS.

[Darryl Partner in reply to FCoffey]

Thank you for your comments, which I respect and keep as foundational.

[TommyTV]

It’s those ‘has anyone tried....’ posts from first time posters, who then turn out to be ‘experts’ on whatever idiotic voodoo medicine they’re promoting that wind me up. We’re all on a quest to understand our condition, and ways to survive. Posting a discredited 20 year old discourse on something we ‘old timers’ know is garbage really doesn’t help the newly diagnosed looking for help and answers.

[Darryl Partner]

ALSO please use the search bar to find and or reference past discussions. Eg A few weeks ago, we had a sober discussion on vitamin d. If a new person asks, a simple Search will help that person a lot

[Hidden]

Are we supposed to not criticize recommendations for Gerson type quackery?

[Darryl Partner in reply to Hidden]

We’ve already had two discussions on gerson. Please feel encouraged to add your thoughts to those existing threads, which many people are reading every day. healthunlocked.com/search/p...

[FCoffey in reply to Hidden]

Using pejorative terms like quackery is the antithesis of support. You can express concern about something without name calling.

In breast cancer support groups, I often heard responses similar to "I've heard of Gerson therapy, it sounds pretty demanding. Good for you for fighting so hard! Have you considered combining it with more conventional approaches for even better results?"