I don't consider this a political issue, I consider this a health information issue.
Now:
Rule No. 1, never trust Wikipedia on any matter that can be considered political by others.
Do you know how much a threat any alternative to conventional medicine is to the pharmaceutical companies, and how easily people with much time and an agenda can break Wikipedia? If you have people who can repeatedly edit pages on Wikipedia, and they have enough time to repeatedly do it, they can make Wikipedia say anything they want, until the people who legimately edit it are worn down and give up.
Now, have you actually had a read of the web-site, and made up your own mind if the sources are credible? Because that's all I'm asking. Or are you going to base your entire belief system on something that can be so easily manipulated, and thus be manipulated yourself? There happens to be many credible studies quoted and sourced on the site I mentioned that prove there are alternatives, but then, you would not know that because you already know exactly what's on the site I mentioned.
Tell me this before you write off something you don't know about personally without reading some credible information (and I had thought you were a person who would carefully evaluate evidence on both sides before making a conclusion) just
what is stopping ANYONE with an agenda and enough people time repeatedly writing false information and opinions until the people who actually know and have credible information give up because they don't have enough time and energy and have their own jobs still to do?
I don't consider this a political issue, I consider this a health information issue. Shouldn't people be able to make up their own mind, and be able to read credible sources and not be censored? Other people consider it political. People with money, and wanting more, and not being able to bear not continually raking it in.
See this video. Apparently cows lie too.
