Be-Kind-300x215

Rules to keep this site a happy place

On this page I told you what you can expect from me to preserve the integrity of this site. Here is what I expect from you:

Be kind.

I have a zero-tolerance policy for negativity, bullying, drama, gossip, or toxic energy.

Thou shalt be respectful

As Marie Forleo says about her B-School community, “We don’t put anyone down, be it other programs, teachers or people.”

You can disagree with my opinions or those I source. You cannot be abusive. Name-calling is right out.

Some words are banned from this site

1. I ban the words “quack” and “quackery“. If I find a technical way to do it, I will have those words automatically change to something like “potato” and “potatory”. (Example: “I don't believe what this person says. It doesn't sound like anything I can imagine experiencing. Therefore he must be a potato, practicing potatory”.)

Dictionary.com1 defines quack” in this context as,

“a fraudulent or igno”rant pretender to medical skill.” and “a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan”.

Except, I often see people make “quack” accusations toward people who do have skill, knowledge and qualifications.

Quackwatch2 says,

“Quackery is not a label automatically applied to methods that are labeled “natural,” or alternative,” or nonstandard. Judgments about individual methods should be based on whether or not there is scientific evidence of effectiveness.”

Except that far too often people do automatically apply the label this way. If they didn't, Quackwatch wouldn't need to state that.

What's interesting is that people often make the judgment not knowing that there is indeed scientific evidence. They make the assumption that there is not because it doesn't sound like there would be. Furthermore, scientific evidence doesn't automatically mean that something is right, while absence of such evidence doesn't always mean “wrong”. There are several examples of there being accusations of quackery about claims later proven to be “valid”. So, did the science turn something from false to true? I don't think so. Also consider all the conflicting scientific studies.

2. Related to that, don't use the phrase “snake oil“. *shudder* Perhaps it didn't get the double-blind, peer-reviewed study done in the right lab with scientists wearing white lab coats, but it doesn't mean it's snake oil. Human beings don't live in labs. We are all individuals with many elements that contribute to our health. Epigenetics. Food. Environment. Stress levels. Relationships. We're unique. And just because it didn't work for you, doesn't mean it doesn't work for anyone else.

On that note, I don't believe that the placebo effect is bad. The mind is a very powerful tool. It can heal you. Yes, this is proven.

My rules can be summarized by Wheaton's Law

Wheaton'sLaw

My rules come down to “Don't be a dick”, aka  Wheaton's Law”. I don't want to have to moderate comments.

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quack

2. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html

I want to share this course with you

Learn what superfoods are and aren't with this 7-part series.
Go beyond the powders & into your pantry.

Powered by ConvertKit
If you've received my 5 Superfoods e-course, why not get the full ebook, for only $9?