Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly- Janice

[Guest guest]

> The whole POINT of discussions on all these therapies, is what may

> cause harm, and what may be beneficial.

> You can't get there with a one sided diaolgue.

Thanks for the message Barb. I made my last post on that web page. I

was planning on not posting for a while, but I was doing some browsing

there for some information, and saw a topic regarding Huntington's

Disease (HD). Knowing that that disease is a genetic disease (my wife

is a big fan of Arlo Guthrie), I was curious why someone was asking

about it. Apparently the poster was wondering if the

www.marshallprotocol.com protocol could help HD. Someone on the board

of that web page replied that perhaps it could, because minocycline

was being used experimentally for treating HD. Holy cow, how could

anyone make such a inference, simply based on that one fact! I had

known from prior readings, that minocycline has been found to have

many different effects, that could be neuroprotective or

anti-inflammatory in brain cells, and that's the reason why it was

being used for HD in the first place. Plus, of course, this was a

genetic disease, not one caused by infections. So I mentioned all of

this in a posting, and referenced a link to PUBMED to all the many

articles regarding this issue. Well, not surprisingly, I again got

scolded by the owner of the web page for making " medical conjectures " ,

and was banished for posting for a week.

So basically, the only people who are allowed to post about medical

topics on that web page, are those that agree with the protocol there,

even if they post total misinformation and conjectures themselves.

I've seen this exact behavior on other protocol-specific closed

groups. So I guess I should not be surprised when I see it happen

again, but it still troubles me.

Mark