Rippers first post on that matter, #87, was in response to a link to that forum, not a specific source or study. I dont really see anything wrong with his objection. Everyone can make up his own mind about that place.
Also, not everyone knows how to seperate actual information from all the chaff that floats around on the web. Similarly, not all people seem able to spot a ponzi scheme or other types of (seemingly) obvious frauds.
Another point I disagree to is the idea that no harm could possibly come from this. Even dietary advice may be dangerous, e.g., if there is some unknown precondition, or if the advice is sufficiently extreme. But that's not the only thing. I strongly disagree with the idea that some pseudo-science is OK, if no physical harm is done. Spreading pseudo-science decreases people's ability to distinguish it from research that is actually going through reasonable scientific processes. It's not so much of a physical harm as a harm to society. Next thing you know, everyone is a "climate sceptic" and no one is vaccinating against the measles anymore.
Though I understand your concerns I think the net just reflects how people are and have always operated.
To refer everyone who is asking for advice to an expert (#113) is over the top.
If your neighbour asks you something about lice in the garden, do you refer him to a professional gardener or do you just give him some tips you have picked up that you have applied yourself? If your brother asks you about the annual tax declaration, do you point him to Deloitte or Ernst & Young? People like to help. They do it and have been doing just that all the time off line.
To have to take into account someone has an unknown precondition when giving dietary advice… that means you also can not exchange recipes? Someone might have an unknown allergy problem. Whose responsibility is it?
And what’s “sufficiently extreme”? Vurts remark that he himself does not drink too much tea? Or when asked about it, his remark he does not know that much about it but that he got it from a forum and advises to do a search there? Or his remark that the particular forum is Longecity?
To oppose every pseudo-scientific forum or advice given with no scientific claims explained by an expert that meets your own standards, makes your audience only less receptive for your well meant warnings. You might even increase any suspicion already present in the critics towards science: ‘o, here we go again, here is another one telling us what to do and what to think, trying to manipulate us, to make us the way THEY prefer’.
That patriarchal desire that seems to be present in certain parts of society nowadays, to keep everybody away from danger and on the ‘right’ path might turn out to be rather damaging. People need room to make their own choices, and their own mistakes.
I say pick your battles.
Just because there is ISIS and Scientology and there is no proof of the existence of God, you are not going to point out to every believer in God who speaks of the benefits s/he experiences, that it can be quite dangerous to set a foot on that path of believing in God?
Indeed, and if I was a bit more aggressive in my approach in my earlier posts, it's because I came in and saw that Sakichop was concerned about a specific claim, in relation to a real kidney condition, and he was pointed to the life eternal forum, to which my reaction was, "Oh, you have got to be fucking kidding!"
Vurt was answering to Sakichops concern. Sakichop already did a research, could not find anything apart from stuff dealing with China, and wanted to know specifics. Vurt acknowledged he did not know much about it, he told Sakichop where he had read it, and advised to do a search himself looking for postings and studies overthere.
You apparently assumed that Sakichop can not decide for himself whether it is a good or a bad thing to follow that advice, or to follow the advice of people on Longecity, or to try and interpret the studies mentioned there.
If you do not think highly of peoples ability to think for themselves about what’s good for them, then why do you think they’ll listen to your warnings?
———-
@sakichop; ‘tea’ and ‘contamination’ might get you somewhere as well. In the past I have been in contact with a producer of organic supplements. I know they stopped producing a green tea supplement because they simply could not get their hands on a green tea that met their requirements. Apparently even the unsprayed tea plant takes up unwanted stuff: from the soil.
