 |
 |
Not to beat this issue to death, but I do have a couple more points to make. Just like everyone jumped on Kathie Tollifson's case about the miracle evangelical healing story that she posted, there seems to be a growing trend to pre-judge and condemn anyone new who mentions some alternative treatment. They may be right in their negative assessments, but I would personally like to have the opportunity to be exposed to any and all possibilities, with all relevant facts available to me, and decide for myself which I may pursue further and which I won't. I don't appreciate someone else filtering info for me. I appreciate their efforts in doing the research, cuz I don't always have the time nor the inclination to do so, but I don't think they should also decide for the rest of us what's defined as snake-oil, etc. I will of course factor in all views into my assessment of the validity of some treatment or of the person's intentions, but I do not want to have my access to any and all possibilities limited by anyone else's biases. That's one of the main reasons we all subscribe to this list, so that we can become informed. Inform me by providing the evidence for/against something, but don't deny me the chance to judge its merits myself. One last thing. It was mentioned that generally when 'snake-oil" salesmen are confronted as they have been recently, the fact that they usually then withdraw from the list or otherwise remain silent is further proof of their guilt. In some cases this may be so, but I doubt all. Even if some of these people were innocent of all these charges, I'm sure they would still unsubscribe, from having been so insulted and not wanting to belong to such an intolerant group. Who wants to be part of a group which gives new members that sort of welcome? As none of us know them already, I should think they are innocent until proven guilty. In this most recent case, the existence of this web site, while damning evidence, does not mean that he intended to sell his products on this list necessarily and does not unequivocably confer guilt upon him. I detected no hidden sales pitch in his post. In fact, he stated that the sandalwood incense is generally expensive and can be found at local natural food groceries. One time I posted a message to this other Holistic Health list to which I used to belong. The message was about trying to get people to write/call their local groceries about carrying more organic foods. One guy from the list then sent me some very insulting and personal attacks on my position. He didn't really dispute my claims as such, but tried to say that I was ignorant and stupid, pesticides were necessary, I had no basis for my concerns, etc. Well, as it turned out, he worked in some area related to pest control for farmers. So, of course, he disputed my claims and attacked me personally, because I had inadvertently condemned his business, in his eyes. I told him that a) most people on a holistic list would by nature agree with my views concerning organic foods, and some would be even more extreme; b) just as people who desired low fat foods had the right to request them of their grocer, so did I for organic foods; c) I was not attacking him personally; and d) I did have alot of research, within the western medical establishment, to back up my health concerns, especially as it related to pd. I was not being ignorant in arguing as I did. Well, in the end, after going back and forth (off the list, mind you) it also came out that his daughter had recently been diagnosed with MS. So, in the light of this new info, the reasons his personal attacks became more clear. I'm sure he was both upset at her diagnosis and possibly also, if he did any research, at the likelihood of toxins, such as he worked with, playing a role in it. I brought this up because sometimes what one first encounters is not always the whole truth. Neither is the evidence always indicative of what's going on in someone's mind or in their he art. I was insulted by this man's personal attacks, rather than simply discussing my points as such. Once we got deeper into it tho', the real motivation behind his aggression became clear. In the end I wished him luck with his research endeavors on behalf of his daughter, but also warned him that the more he got into it, the more angry he might become, as the research would serve to support my arguments, rather than refute them, as that's where I had also reached my differing conclusions. Hence, I keep emphasizing that we not judge the intentions and integrity of others before we know the whole story. Janet says she wants to be proven wrong, but somehow I don't get the feeling that she does. The way these interrogations are worded and the overall tone of them gives me the distinct impression that the person's guilt has already been concluded, no matter what response they may give. All of us, no matter our positions or motivations, are entitled to be given a fair chance. And no one else has the right to speak as if they know what's in our hearts and minds when they don't. Wendy Tebay