A question for mods

So a post that talks about how to spot quack science gets locked, but posts with quack science are allowed to stay? Why is that? Seriously ... how much more can be said about that topic?

For the record ... again ... I am not opposed to alternative treatments. But it IS quack science to state repeatedly that an alternative treats the "root cause" or is a cure for a disease we all know currently is of unknown origin and the best all of us can hope for is to find a treatment that works for each of us individually -- whether traditional or alternative medicine. I don't know why this has to be controversial.

Or is no one allowed to point out flaws in the quackery being promoted? If it was just being discussed as an alternative treatment that would be one thing. But it’s not … it is being promoted as the answer for every case of UC and could very well be dangerous for some people.

P.S. -- this is not intended to be a pile on post for everyone ... hoping that only moderators respond

Click on ipoop's username...his email addie is listed.
q

I haven't locked/edited/deleted anything posted recently so cannot comment on the those in question above. Perhaps Michele or another mod from a different forum did and can better answer it. I check in occasionally but am not on here multiple times a day as I used to be.

I'd wager mods don't read every single comment in every post in-depth to catch every potential falsehood given or when bad advice is given. Certainly mods are here to delete spam, stop flaming and other blatant disregards for forum rules of hw, to be supportive and promote healthy debate and discussion and answer everyone's posts whenever we can.

There's nothing specific in the current rules against giving harmful advice. It's kind of a grey area, as such we might step in if it's really bad or causing infighting ( like the COVID stuff). There's been some crazy advice over the years, like drinking your own pee (alternative ayurvedic medicine) to cure UC, the poop shake guy (oral FMT), ingesting parasites (like whip worms) and I don't believe all were consistently edited, locked, deleted etc. More handled on a case by case basis, and how the community here responded to those posts (is it a healthy, respectful debate on a an early stage research article? or is it just a brawl?).

We definitely hope 1st and foremost that people use a healthy skepticism and defer to their doctors over 100 percent trusting random internet posters here saying things that sound kinda sus. I know there's some desperate posters, flaring and struggling that I do worry might be harmed at times, so I hear ya. My 2-cents at least.

I can definitely understand why threads where someone keeps saying "root cause of UC has been discovered" gets locked. This is a 100% false statement and has not been tested or investigated. If gives a false pretence to others.

Again, I didn't lock the aforementioned post.

It's a judgement call on whether to edit/delete or to lock. Rarely editing works. More often than not editing doesn't stop the problem. If a thread is at the point of needing a mod to edit/delete offending comments, then infighting continues even afterwards and others pile on. And those who were edited are furious, why them and not user XYZ (who apparently was much, much worse and us blind mods didn't see). That's my experience in many years moderating at least, trying both approaches and saying which works best in practice.

Regardless of what we do or don't do, there's always a few angry at the mods.

Anyone who decides they don't like topic can walk in, disrupt the thread, and know that the response will be that the whole thread gets locked.

There is a lot of interest and people with many questions about the topic of hydrogen peroxide. I wonder if participants can continue to share their ideas and ignore those who want to disrupt the thread and force it to become locked. Maybe we should just not respond to them.

They can call it quack science all they want but we should ignore their opinion and let participants decide for ourselves. We shouldn't judge those who rely on pharmaceuticals and they shouldn't judge those who believe in alternatives.

If i post on a thread about alternatives I am not there to be "disruptive". I will often question things that are questionable, or point out things which I know are factually incorrect or logically inconsistent - because I think it's important that people can make informed choices. Sometimes someone says one thing in 2020 and then contradicts themselves in 2022... that doesn't go unnoticed.

Threads get locked both when they're based around meds and when they're based around alternatives... so accusing only those who rely on meds of being disruptive is just not very logical.

If it was my forum (haha) in this day and age I would include a disclaimer along the lines of "we reserve the right to remove content deemed to be factually incorrect ".

Simon1729 said...
IN agreement with CC and others here. I have not posted recently as I'm fed up that everything must revolve around the "root cause of UC being found" and if you do not believe VanJ on this you are open to ridicule. There are ppl on the crohns and colitis forums who have gone thru hell because of the diseases and for which these supplements make no difference. Its unbecoming to have to put up with this so much on the board from VanJ's side. Making claims of cures is not something that should be allowed on here; both in VanJ having respect for others and in the mods not allowing this falseness to persist. If it was nipped in the bud much earlier than it would not have gotten to the this. VanJ is now out of control writing posts tell others what they can and cannot say.

The only one I’ve noticed being ridiculed is VJ.. I guess people see thing how they want to see them. VJ thread has helped me a lot.

I've seen posts get edited in the past. I've also seen members get banned for repeatedly violating forum rules and attacking mods.

I'm not sure how labelling other users as curmudgoens, sociopaths, bad apples, "the usual suspects", trolls, etc is either constructive to the discussion or within the forum rules?

I've only been on HW a few years but one thing I've seen that always upsets the majority of users is people claiming to have found a cure. Best just to not go there.

CCinPA said...
Thanks, ipoop ... and everyone else. Next time I want to contact mods I will look for an email address. I had seen people before make a post for the mods which is why I did it this way.

VJ -- you have not been saying it's just your "belief" ... you have been stating it as fact and even stated that it applies to "every patient who has UC". I have not called you any names (unless you count "close minded" or in this thread talking about quack science as name calling) -- yet you have continually called me, and others, names when we say things that disagree with you -- curmudgeons, the usual suspects, sociopaths are among the most recent. Not cool, man. Healthy debate is when you can receive objective criticism without lashing out, but can address the criticisms in a productive manner. No one has attacked free speech -- proof is in that other 13 page long thread that was vastly dominated by you and my first comment isn't until page 8 and wasn't even directed to you. Don't know what you mean by I need to stay in my lane but anyone can comment on any thread ... just look at you commenting on a thread that was for the mods lol. Before you lash out at me again ... could you at least try to take a step back and consider what people say and not take every disagreement as a personal attack? I am happy that you found a treatment that works for you -- really.

The 13 page thread that was vastly dominated by VJ was addressed to VJ

CCinPA said...
Thanks, ipoop ... and everyone else. Next time I want to contact mods I will look for an email address. I had seen people before make a post for the mods which is why I did it this way.

VJ -- you have not been saying it's just your "belief" ... you have been stating it as fact and even stated that it applies to "every patient who has UC". I have not called you any names (unless you count "close minded" or in this thread talking about quack science as name calling) -- yet you have continually called me, and others, names when we say things that disagree with you -- curmudgeons, the usual suspects, sociopaths are among the most recent. Not cool, man. Healthy debate is when you can receive objective criticism without lashing out, but can address the criticisms in a productive manner. No one has attacked free speech -- proof is in that other 13 page long thread that was vastly dominated by you and my first comment isn't until page 8 and wasn't even directed to you. Don't know what you mean by I need to stay in my lane but anyone can comment on any thread ... just look at you commenting on a thread that was for the mods lol. Before you lash out at me again ... could you at least try to take a step back and consider what people say and not take every disagreement as a personal attack? I am happy that you found a treatment that works for you -- really.

Sorry to use the whole long quote. Just want to say I agree completely. Tired of being labeled names just for trying to sometimes post some rationale about no need of being scared of modern medicine and biologics. And to realize that a healthy dose of skepticism can be a good thing. I ran after way too many false leads in my UC journey. Desperation can be a dangerous thing sometimes.

lol Nostsosicklygirl

Wow... comparing the thread about a peer reviewed study with testimonials being compared to people who drink piss.

You guys have lost all credibility. We're done here.