Controlling Spam - Definition

Ray Sheldon sheldonht2ht at sprynet.com
Tue Jul 8 06:35:42 EST 1997


I am curious as to how one defines "Spam." 

It seems that as long as a drug therapy, or test has been accepted by
the scientific communinty at large, it can be recommended on any
newsgroup without any mention of the word "Spam." Yet, is it not true
that someone, somewhere is going to profit from the use of that
recommended therapy? 

Is it because the source of the suggested therapy has credentials and is
not directly paid by the providers of the medicine or the test? Is there
not an indirect benefit by "promoting" the use of traditional therapies
and tests? Isn't that why studies have found misconduct by Health Care
Providers/Institutions who have ordered unnecessary
tests/procedures/surgeries? But a doctor is not a "Spammer."

I'm tired of the blanket classification of Doctors/Hospitals as being
legitimate and all Network Marketers as being liars, snake oil peddlars,
and charlatains. There are legitimate Companies with accredited
scientists who are doing the research and developement necessary to
prove the efficacy of their products. 

No drug has ever had a 100% effectiveness across the board and not had
any negatives. Why must a Nutraceutical be proven effective without
exception before it is considered a legitimate therapy. Anyone promoting
a "miracle in a pill" is doing a great disservice the field of health
care as a whole. 

The public should be allowed the ability to choose a natural, non-toxic
alternative over a traditional or surgery, or, in addition to an
accepted practice. Providing the means to acquire the information to
make in informed decision should not be illegal but encouraged. I pray
the legislation now being drafted in congress will address these issues
and more under the new labeling laws.

Respectfully,

Ray Sheldon
Mannatech, Inc. Independent Associate



More information about the Bioforum mailing list