Aa
Why We Removed the Dr. Berkson Thread
Hi,
We took down the thread about Dr. Berkson until we have a chance to check into his background, credentials and treatments. Given this is a holiday weekend, we won't be able to do that until next week.
We appreciate your patience and wish each of you a very Happy Thanksgiving!!
Cindy Thompson
MedHelp
We took down the thread about Dr. Berkson until we have a chance to check into his background, credentials and treatments. Given this is a holiday weekend, we won't be able to do that until next week.
We appreciate your patience and wish each of you a very Happy Thanksgiving!!
Cindy Thompson
MedHelp
FlGuy: "Who has decided anything for you? It's not like Cindy said that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Form your own opinion. She has hers. If you base your opinions and decisions based on what you read in this forum you deserve to be easily manipulated."
I think you have me mistaken for others here. nygirl and others certainly think MedHelp has decided for us and that we agreed to let MedHelp do our thinking for us and then turn around and THANK them for doing our thinking for us.
They certainly haven't decided for me and that's precisely the point you miss. The whole vetting process in the first place is completely unnecessary and useless since the point IS that we prefer to think and decipher for ourselves and do NOT base opinions on what we read on the forum, so why bother doing the vetting process in the first place, particularly when the result is so vague as to be utterly useless, when all along we've been saying we're quite capable of discussing it through and thinking it through for ourselves.
The RESPONSES to it, thanking them for doing it would indicate that OTHERS are allowing MedHelp to do their thinking for them by accepting this - we agreed to this process? Are you kidding me? We AGREED to let MedHelp think for us? This whole thread has been an utter protest trying to make the point that we don't NEED or WANT MedHelp to think for us. The whole exercise of them doing this, while well-intentioned, was misguided at best and was insulting and pointless at worst. The point was that this didn't need to be vetted by MedHelp at all and I'm surprised at the people that made such a big noise about censorship on this forum who actually now support MedHelp deciding what we can and cannot talk about and deciding for us what is worth talking about as if we are incapable of deciphering things for ourselves. Interesting also to see people who were raging against censorship suggesting that some discussions should be held in private when some members don't like the subject matter, which is a censorship of it's own. I skim past a number of threads that are of no interest to me but plenty of interest to other people. Should they take them offline because it's not interesting or relevant to ME?
This thread wasn't about Berkson - the other one was. This one is primarily about the right of people to discuss whatever is relevant to THEM without having others dictate to them what they can discuss. Frankly, I really don't get what anyone is threatened about, one way or another. God help the person who's late stage liver damage, has relapsed and is looking for alternatives and they unsuspectingly stumble across this forum and end up asking a question about something and get branded a troll, a disciple, a shill .. and they're simply on their own journey in their own way to find answers.
With regards to Berkson, I was going over in my head all the things I've learned by virtue of the discussion happening. I would hazard to say that ALL of us know more about him than we did before - what his stand is on cure, how many papers he's published, what his protocol is, what the cost of his treatments are, WHAT his treatments are, whether he was a keynote speaker at the NIH or not ... yadda, yadda, yadda.
As for his protocol....I've learned that other people on this forum take ALA - not even something I had ever HEARD of before a discussion on Berkson came up. I have been reading that it's found to be beneficial for auto-immune diseases, have started reading up on LDN, ALA and have been bookmarking various studies on non-pharmaceuticals, have discovered that there are a group of Hep C patients who go to this doctor who have noticed improvements in their situation -
In the middle of all the discussion on whether we should have a discussion, we've been discussing it anyway and for me personally, if someone asked me about Berkson I'd say that I disagree very strongly with his view on cure and that it's almost downright dangerous depending on how he presents it but his protocol seems to be worth some investigation at least. That's where I'm at on that and I for one would like to continue discussing the PROTOCOL in much the same way I engage in discussions on other non-Hep C forum to pull in the collective wisdom of all to assist in forming an opinion of my own.
I find it kind of funny that it's been suggested to me that I'm expected to provide definitive proof that his protocol works before I should even talk about it. I bought that for awhile. However the whole point in discussing it or anything else on a forum is to have everybody throw in their collective knowledge, insights and opinions and it helps to form the big picture.
So here's a novel thought. All those that would seek to censor the topic by suggesting that this is unpalatable to them and that they don't want to discuss it anymore and would like to impose censorship on those who feel differently - simply move along to other things and leave it to those who want to discuss. Or go visit other threads and tell them that they should take it offline because a small group of people on the forum have decided that they should be able to dictate what is relevant and what people should be allowed to discuss.
On a side note, I sat down with a fellow from my Hep C support group this evening. Stage 4, he just relapsed 2nd time around. He started out double-dosing for the first 12 weeks. He was UND at 12 weeks. Now he's relapsed. We talked about all kinds of things - upcoming drug trials and all the supplements he's taking and we talked about other supplements and alternatives. He doesn't have many at this point. He didn't seem too comforted by the fact that there are new drugs coming onstream soon. Whatever he wanted to talk about, we talked about. Whatever he needed to talk about pertaining to his own situation, we talked about. And that's precisely the point.
This seems to be a pi$$ing contest now more than anything.
I think you have me mistaken for others here. nygirl and others certainly think MedHelp has decided for us and that we agreed to let MedHelp do our thinking for us and then turn around and THANK them for doing our thinking for us.
They certainly haven't decided for me and that's precisely the point you miss. The whole vetting process in the first place is completely unnecessary and useless since the point IS that we prefer to think and decipher for ourselves and do NOT base opinions on what we read on the forum, so why bother doing the vetting process in the first place, particularly when the result is so vague as to be utterly useless, when all along we've been saying we're quite capable of discussing it through and thinking it through for ourselves.
The RESPONSES to it, thanking them for doing it would indicate that OTHERS are allowing MedHelp to do their thinking for them by accepting this - we agreed to this process? Are you kidding me? We AGREED to let MedHelp think for us? This whole thread has been an utter protest trying to make the point that we don't NEED or WANT MedHelp to think for us. The whole exercise of them doing this, while well-intentioned, was misguided at best and was insulting and pointless at worst. The point was that this didn't need to be vetted by MedHelp at all and I'm surprised at the people that made such a big noise about censorship on this forum who actually now support MedHelp deciding what we can and cannot talk about and deciding for us what is worth talking about as if we are incapable of deciphering things for ourselves. Interesting also to see people who were raging against censorship suggesting that some discussions should be held in private when some members don't like the subject matter, which is a censorship of it's own. I skim past a number of threads that are of no interest to me but plenty of interest to other people. Should they take them offline because it's not interesting or relevant to ME?
This thread wasn't about Berkson - the other one was. This one is primarily about the right of people to discuss whatever is relevant to THEM without having others dictate to them what they can discuss. Frankly, I really don't get what anyone is threatened about, one way or another. God help the person who's late stage liver damage, has relapsed and is looking for alternatives and they unsuspectingly stumble across this forum and end up asking a question about something and get branded a troll, a disciple, a shill .. and they're simply on their own journey in their own way to find answers.
With regards to Berkson, I was going over in my head all the things I've learned by virtue of the discussion happening. I would hazard to say that ALL of us know more about him than we did before - what his stand is on cure, how many papers he's published, what his protocol is, what the cost of his treatments are, WHAT his treatments are, whether he was a keynote speaker at the NIH or not ... yadda, yadda, yadda.
As for his protocol....I've learned that other people on this forum take ALA - not even something I had ever HEARD of before a discussion on Berkson came up. I have been reading that it's found to be beneficial for auto-immune diseases, have started reading up on LDN, ALA and have been bookmarking various studies on non-pharmaceuticals, have discovered that there are a group of Hep C patients who go to this doctor who have noticed improvements in their situation -
In the middle of all the discussion on whether we should have a discussion, we've been discussing it anyway and for me personally, if someone asked me about Berkson I'd say that I disagree very strongly with his view on cure and that it's almost downright dangerous depending on how he presents it but his protocol seems to be worth some investigation at least. That's where I'm at on that and I for one would like to continue discussing the PROTOCOL in much the same way I engage in discussions on other non-Hep C forum to pull in the collective wisdom of all to assist in forming an opinion of my own.
I find it kind of funny that it's been suggested to me that I'm expected to provide definitive proof that his protocol works before I should even talk about it. I bought that for awhile. However the whole point in discussing it or anything else on a forum is to have everybody throw in their collective knowledge, insights and opinions and it helps to form the big picture.
So here's a novel thought. All those that would seek to censor the topic by suggesting that this is unpalatable to them and that they don't want to discuss it anymore and would like to impose censorship on those who feel differently - simply move along to other things and leave it to those who want to discuss. Or go visit other threads and tell them that they should take it offline because a small group of people on the forum have decided that they should be able to dictate what is relevant and what people should be allowed to discuss.
On a side note, I sat down with a fellow from my Hep C support group this evening. Stage 4, he just relapsed 2nd time around. He started out double-dosing for the first 12 weeks. He was UND at 12 weeks. Now he's relapsed. We talked about all kinds of things - upcoming drug trials and all the supplements he's taking and we talked about other supplements and alternatives. He doesn't have many at this point. He didn't seem too comforted by the fact that there are new drugs coming onstream soon. Whatever he wanted to talk about, we talked about. Whatever he needed to talk about pertaining to his own situation, we talked about. And that's precisely the point.
This seems to be a pi$$ing contest now more than anything.
"I have .... a special enema treatment which gets every trace of HCV right out of you - and in less than 6 bags"
Uh-oh! Now we're moving in to the "Married and Flirting" forum....
Uh-oh! Now we're moving in to the "Married and Flirting" forum....
I was also told by you that removal of this thread had nothing to do with prohibition of alternative therapies on this forum.
You state that "Dr Berkson offers nothing new" (whatever this means) and "there is no peer reviewed study". Let me ask you again-what about threads concerning Dr Znang, Lloyd Wright, colloidal silver, homeopathic treatment? Are you going to remove them also? Or you made an exception for Dr Berkson thread?
I understand that things got a little out of hand during discussion. You are absolutely right to remove abusive posts-this is what moderation is for. But otherwise, there was no breach of terms of use. And your explanation of this action is very strange.
You state that "Dr Berkson offers nothing new" (whatever this means) and "there is no peer reviewed study". Let me ask you again-what about threads concerning Dr Znang, Lloyd Wright, colloidal silver, homeopathic treatment? Are you going to remove them also? Or you made an exception for Dr Berkson thread?
I understand that things got a little out of hand during discussion. You are absolutely right to remove abusive posts-this is what moderation is for. But otherwise, there was no breach of terms of use. And your explanation of this action is very strange.
God, I wish I had a 7 million viral count again!
300 thousand is so un-"ample evidence"!
LOL
300 thousand is so un-"ample evidence"!
LOL
Hey Upbeat,
Just sitting here in Town Suites typing away.
The comprehensive metabolic panel when ordered thru Dr. Berkson (you pay the office)
costs only $20 ! That`s what most copays are.
Even better you can draw blood end of day get results next morning.
Much more of a hassle for me in back home.
I have other abdominal issues that are not liver related and to be sure I did a whole
bunch of tests CT scan,Ultrasound and now bloodwork.
By the way great weather 60s dry , no wind lots of sun
Bali05
Las Cruces, NM
Just sitting here in Town Suites typing away.
The comprehensive metabolic panel when ordered thru Dr. Berkson (you pay the office)
costs only $20 ! That`s what most copays are.
Even better you can draw blood end of day get results next morning.
Much more of a hassle for me in back home.
I have other abdominal issues that are not liver related and to be sure I did a whole
bunch of tests CT scan,Ultrasound and now bloodwork.
By the way great weather 60s dry , no wind lots of sun
Bali05
Las Cruces, NM
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis C Community
Learn about this treatable virus.
Getting tested for this viral infection.
3 key steps to getting on treatment.
4 steps to getting on therapy.
What you need to know about Hep C drugs.
How the drugs might affect you.
These tips may up your chances of a cure.
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
