Why did the thread on supliments get locked?

142 said...
I can't find any record of a user ID of Selmer, but that could be because of several adverse situations.

Yes, I've left this thread open, although it grates me, as it is, as Purgatory noted, a re-opening of a closed thread, which is effectively a violation. Why? I've just been too effing sick to care if you guys want to tear each other apart. Amazingly, you have not done that this time.

I hope you are feeling better, 142!

re: that last sentence: It is amazing(though I sense some negative stuff is starting to creep in) but the mystery to me is why would it ever happen(i.e. the "tearing apart")? It does of course happen on other subjects, but there is something about this subject that seems to inevitably leads to accusations or insults, or at least it gets very close to that. Why am I qualifying that, when the evidence for my last sentence is the obvious fact that so many of these threads get locked?

I could probably understand it if one of us was on here aggressively advocating for or making claims for a given supplement or even food or diet, without the gold standard proof of large, expensive RCTs. Or if someone was saying "hey, this is what I do, and you should definitely do this". Just like if they said that about a certain treatment, I can see how that would not go over well. And for sure, if some one was saying "you don't need treatment, you just need this vitamin or food". But IMO, that rarely if ever happens. Unless providing a link to a study(though probably not a large RCT), and/or copying text from a reputable institution, a university or medical center, and reputable researchers, that provides evidence(not proof, but evidence) in favor of whatever it is, is considered advocating? Why would it be? Any evidence presented against said non-prescription approaches does not seem to be considered a problem for most.

So I remain baffled at any of us who "want to tear each other apart.". Now in case some one is saying: " But BB, look at how many links you provided just in this thread alone that seem to be favorable towards vitamin D, hence you are obviously advocating for every one to buy and take this supplement". Well, I always admit that there is no gold standard proof, and that there are conflicting studies, and caution that folks just take my stuff as food for thought and that they consult with their docs on these subjects, particularly as any given antioxidant, for example, might work against certain treatments. Still, even though I will occasionally start a new thread with a link to a study to what seems interesting new information on some food or supplement, exercise or sunshine, etc, very often when I supply a barrage of links to studies, it is in response to a few statements along the line of "there is absolutely no evidence, not even any studies providing any evidence that any of this stuff might be helpful". I just don't think such a claim is true and thus provide a sampling of the evidence. As always, I could be wrong. And as always, I suggest that you do not just blindly follow any advice you think I might be giving you. Asl your doctors and research it for yourself, look at all of the pros and cons, just as though you are trying to decide between AS and RP or RT.

But any anger arising because of a simple discussion of any possible evidence in favor of anything that does not come via a prescription pad just baffles me, I just don't understand it. And I am really hoping that my little rant here is not too far OT causing the thread to be closed. If so, my apologies in advance.

Bill in MS

I've been holding off waiting for the other moderators to answer the question the OP of this thread asked. Now that they have I will mention a few reasons that I will sometimes lock a thread.

There are a number of topics that always seem to generate more heat than light on this forum. Oddly enough, the relative merits of nutritional supplements is one such. There is another topic that comes to mind but I won't mention it here since just mentioning the topic seems to have something of a Niagra Falls effect on some of our members.

Your tireless moderators watch threads on these subjects closely. When it is clear that everyone has had his say, that the discussion is diverging, no agreement being likely, and that people are starting to become cross, we will sometimes lock the thread for minor infractions we might overlook in a different context.

So I, at least, ask you not to take it personally if I someday lock a thread you have started. It is often not your fault that your thread has become divisive. It is often somebody else -- someone who has made a provocative comment -- and sometimes it is everybody on the thread -- which is to say nobody. Often is is difficult to say exactly why or when a thread has degenerated or who is at fault. And it is especially hard to sort things out without appearing to take sides.

logoslidat
you...r...a..wise..1..sir. If..nothing...else...from...this...thread...glad...I..got..to...know..you

I found this, on the website of a seller of CBD, in the FAQ section, under "is hemp legal"...

"The legality of Cannabidio) from hemp is based on a 2004 unanimous ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that the DEA “cannot regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana, i.e., non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I. The DEA has no authority to regulate drugs that are not scheduled..”

I don't even know if hemp and CBD are the same thing so correct me if I'm wrong

tommyc:

we are all guests here, the forum and its rules belong to the owner. I have been here for nearly 9 year (no, doesn't make me special), and have seen a lot things come and go, rules changed as needed, and people come and go.

no one has asked you to leave, if you do, its your choice of course

in the "old days" here, if one re-started a thread that was closed by the moderator(s) it was immediately closed. fair or not fair? not the question, its simply respecting the rules.

the fact that this 2nd attempt of a thread being still opened after 3 pages actually amazes me, so consider yourself lucky, IMO

HW PC is a great place, and has helped hundreds if not thousands of people, both men and women.

just something to think about.

I don't even know if hemp and CBD are the same thing so correct me if I'm wrong
---

No its not, I have hemp oil here at the house. I cant get CBD from anywhere, and I've tried.

142,
Then why did you also lock the thread "The is a great forum, but…"
Which ironically was requesting that we be more open to discussing natural treatments and right after someone said "This was a very.....interesting thread".

What did I do this time that was worse than discussing an illegal substance? Yes I mentioned I cut my PSA 1/2 and implied NOTHING other than just that, and that supplements are not "all fake".

Tell me why free speech does not exist here, seemingly especially for me. And preferably before you lock this one please.

tommy, I'll offer this thought for your consideration....

One of the issues I have with the whole supplement discussion is that there is a false bit of background that is common...and you fall into the trap: Using PSA as a cancer marker in men who have a prostate is not legitimate. PSA reduction in men who have a prostate does not mean their cancer risk is reduced.

It's well known that some commercial drugs (such as Proscar) reduce PSA, as well as supplements like Saw Palmetto. The problem is, low PSA values while using these products can mask the appearance of prostate cancer if that affect is not taken into account. I look at my case as an example. A PSA of 3.0 in a 56 year old is not considered to be a problem. And yet, I had diagnosed PC--and after surgery, my surgical pathology indicated a higher risk level than the biopsy indicated.

Now, PSA stability or reduction AFTER TREATMENT is a whole different thing.

We discuss in here frequently that PSA is not a cancer test. It is a test of generalized prostate activity or irritation. Lots of things cause high PSA, from transient events like riding a bicycle or having sex, to infections, to BPH, and finally to cancer. Just because a person is maintaining a low PSA does not mean they aren't developing prostate cancer. In fact, that low PSA may mask the appearance of cancer if the affects of the medications or supplements they are taking are not taken into account.

Tommy:

GOOD GRIEF.
Yes, we know your thread got locked here but not on the more rowdy Cubs board.

It happens. Threads get locked and we walk away.
You've beaten this to death.
Enough whining about it.

Mel

It may be genuinely that this site is not for you

You are correct there. Treating others with respect is something I take EXTREMELY seriously. I don't like when that's questioned.

ok bye