Posted by HollyC on October 24, 2009, 11:36 am, in reply to "an example" Link: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGsk8HldTZc5s-iF50VTpZktrkHwD9BGBGJG1
Message modified by user post October 24, 2009, 11:42 am
I'm sorry you couldn't use the link-it worked when I previewed but it isn't working right now.
The U of Md is not selling anything and the letter which was sent is regarding selling products which relate to H1N1 treatment. In the U of Md Med Ctr statement there are a lot of "may help", "inconclusive results", "may offer", "it does interact with a number of other herbs & prescription meds". Since the topic of this thread was as relating to H1N1 I don't see that they are "speaking with the authority of their medical center" to say that this relates to H1N1. Did I miss something? There is a danger in drawing a conclusion to apply to an illness that the Med Ctr hasn't conducted the research on.
Peg is right in a time like this it is an all or nothing approach to web sites which are selling products with the idea that they are good for helping/avoiding/lessening the symptoms, etc--regarding the product not shutting down Dr Weil. They are looking at all products which make claims to be the same or work as well.
I have used Dr Weil's products for years but I get my flu shot & I took chemo & radiation. (Hmmmmm, he supports that approach.)
There are too many people who are sucked in without doing any research on their own. That's the glory/bane of the internet.
Informed relevant information is always good.
This is a news report of some of the things which have been "targeted" And comment from Dr Weil.
Responses: