Carol Lopez23 said:Sophia Ramos5 As stated by:
It appears to me that Carol Lopez23 is exhibiting a significant amount of bias in their role as moderator. I recall seeing a post where Ryan Gomez4 mentioned being a medical professional by trade, arguing that someone in that position should not be overseeing an alternative health discussion. Given our current focus on raw food, and considering how certain trolls are permitted to incessantly pollute this thread with their irrational outbursts without facing any repercussions, it seems quite clear that they ought to be barred from moderating any discussions regarding alternative medicine.
If a physician were to actually admit that an alternative approach holds any merit, they would essentially be spitting in their own face.
It seems as though absolutely no one is putting in any effort at all.
The discussion regarding raw food has become quite cluttered, and I believe it is high time we implement a formal poll to decide which specific posts should be removed to restore the integrity of the topic. It would be most prudent to prohibit trolls from accessing the thread entirely. Furthermore, to prevent bad actors from simply creating multiple accounts to skew the results, we should restrict voting privileges to those members who have been part of our community for at least a few months and have contributed a meaningful number of posts.
The individuals who consistently engage in polluting this discussion thread are:
It appears that Biljka112 and briskbison55 have entered the conversation, much like two seasoned observers stepping onto the stage of a grand theater to offer their unique perspectives on the unfolding drama.
I would be most grateful if the rest of you could kindly offer some suggestions...
It appears you have completely missed the mark on this one.
Is the act of derailing a discussion merely an attempt to undermine the core idea that we are all being treated like mindless sheep? Inferior, dull-witted, and nothing more than obedient little sheep.?
Elizabeth Cruz As stated by:
I find myself wondering exactly how much longer posts like these from moderators will be tolerated on the alternative boards without any disciplinary action being taken.
What exactly constitutes a valid reason for dismissal in this particular situation?
Gary Cox2 As stated by:
If someone chooses to live on a strict diet of raw food and spends their time sharing recipes with like-minded individuals in their own little community, then I truly don't see why anyone should care.
It seems to me that those who embrace the alternative lifestyle shouldn't be categorized under the umbrella of PDF health; rather, I believe we ought to provide those who have adopted this way of life as their daily standard a more comfortable corner within our community to call home.
If someone truly believes that those white streaks stretching across the sky are Chemtrails, I have to say, it’s quite laughable. One might wonder, what actual harm could such a phenomenon possibly be inflicting upon us? It seems to me that there are certain groups of people who would just as easily believe in Bigfoot or maintain that they possess the mental fortitude to move entire mountain ranges through sheer willpower alone.
It seems that no one is actually criticizing the lifestyle or the specific philosophy that such a choice is the most beneficial path for an individual—and I am speaking exclusively regarding the topic of raw food.
Gary Cox2 As stated by:
Allowing alternative viewpoints to be belittled or mocked on an alternative platform simply because their reasoning doesn't align with mainstream medicine is something I cannot support. After all, this is an alternative site; one should naturally expect perspectives that diverge from standard medical consensus..
However, presenting these views as universal truths—and positioning them as being contra to established science and medicine—is no longer merely a matter of ideology or personal choice; it carries implications for society as a whole. Rejecting proven facts, logic, and fundamental biology in favor of promoting paranoid ideas, which leads to the spread of disease and ultimately the proliferation of falsehoods, is something that cannot and must not be allowed to fly "under the radar."
So, what you're saying is it’s best if there is no opposing side at all, right?
No problem. Direct insults haven't been tolerated before either, but let's define exactly what we mean so everyone can see.
In other words, should I censor terms like nonsense, stupidity, or foolishness...? Or various insinuations regarding someone's health, competence, or intellect? I ask, purely so that the anti-vax, raw food, PROchemtrails, and similar crowds don't go wild clicking those report buttons.
Buddy, you've been missing the point your entire life.
Stop pivoting away from the topic. You tolerate a sea of trolls just so the actual truthful posts get buried. If you think people getting cured of cancer through raw food is just some delayed effect of modern medicine, you're delusional.
We all know what your real purpose is here. If you aren't contributing anything useful anymore, just be cool and step down from the forum. At least then you wouldn't have to deal with the guilt.
I’m actually going to ask the supermoderators to install a plugin so I can add mods like you to my ignore list. Don't take it personally—this is a conflict between Alternative approaches and mainstream medicine, and you're clearly biased.