I won't quibble "cure" or indefinite "remission". At some point is it semantics. I have posted before on how it can be a matter of semantics. The word "cure" seems to bother some here much more than it bothers me.
I have no problem with various opinions, or folks who feel a particular modality (e.g., gut bacteria, allergens, stem cells ... etc) because that's where they think the main issue is. I have noted the direct and indirect benefits of diet in the etiology and maintence of UC. This also includes the limitations of diet and the interplay of genetic and epigenetic and non-diet environmental factors. Any intelligent person that has read my postings knows I have a very broad and open view regarding the causes and treatment of UC - but I do hold the feet to the fire so to say and look for the logic and I weight the evidence and I see to see how one bit of knowledge or speculation fits (or contradicts) other pieces of information.
My objection is to someone trolling for trouble. Someone making choices that provoke confrontation, and self-defeat the ideas they want to share. My very strong objection is some zealot who declares that something worked for them and it will work for everybody. That is plain wrong and it make me angry.
@Stereo, I think it is hostile to selectively twist someone's words. You have no basis to say I was putting down faith. But logic has never been important to you, and you biases were very clear from you 1st posting. I feel sorry for you - not because you have UC, but because it is sad to see someone going through life without the ability to think critically. In context it is clear that in the example I gave about "Jesus", that is was not faith or optimism or positive thinking that I was opposed to - but the subsequent insistence that "it" WOULD work for ANYONE else. This zealous insistence that something not only works but will work for everybody is not only unscientific and unsupported, but it is a violent act that then makes anyone still sick somehow responsible for still being sick. When you find this kind of charlatan, this kind of monster doing violence to sick and sometimes vulnerable people, you need to name it and denounce it.
Anyone who looks at this thread and concludes that I'm against "opinions", or against "optimism", or fails to see that it was the evangelical element I was denouncing ... well such people need to get a another brain cell and rub it vigorously against the few they are currently using.
I have not twisted your words. You did just say that ImCured's testimony was as worthless as someone sharing their success story on healing through faith. You're basically insisting that those who find better quality of life through faith and other touchy subjects, like ImCured, should be more 'hush hush' about
it, to try and not offend vulnerable people, like yourself. And, that because ImCured suggested he can treat everyone to a better quality of life (med free), this makes you angry? What you're denouncing here is freedom of speech, and that anyone who shares a story that contains content that doesn't agree with scientific facts, is false and apparently offensive. Not everyone can be aware of your vulnerable state and what subjects agree or do not agree with you.
I'm not blind. I wasn't sitting here going "Imcured says he has a plan to cure everyone, med free!"
I chose to react differently. Instead, praising a fellow IBD'er for finding something that has worked for them, and asking
open ended questions. You have a choice every day regarding your attitude and how you react to such topics like faith, that won't always have a research paper filled with mere facts to back up evidence. Some things are unexplained, and unless ImCured specifically pointed a finger at you, there really should be no concern on whether his ideas are fact worthy or offensive in any way.