health-science-spirit.com é seguro?

Technical information about using natural minerals for various health conditions, extensively footnoted with original mainstream and non-mainstream medical studies. This information is highly suppressed by pharmaceutical industry backed medical establishments in several countries, including the USA.

As a number of people have already mentioned, this website mentions treatments that many/most doctors won't use or recommend. However, I think by now most people are aware that treatments using modern allopathic medicine is a leading cause of death - doctor's competence also follows a Gaussian distribution, and woe to those treated by those on the poor half of the curve! People should have access to all of this information and then take control of and have an opinion about their own health - and how to keep it. A bit of common sense is needed when evaluating both alternative and MD-approved treatments!

The WOT rating makes this site look unsafe. Just because a person does not agree with their opinion does not make it unsafe. Yes, it has unconventional medical statements. But the site lets you know that it is not conventional medicine that your doctor would use. Sites should only be marked poor when they are stealing your information, potential to hurt your computer, or use profanity or show x-rated pictures. The WOT rating for this site makes it look unsafe. Controversial opinions are not a reason to mark a site as unsafe. And it is not controversial to clean up one's diet and eat natural foods. To label this site as unethical is misleading. Documenting his experience with alternative medicine is not unethical. Those that gave this site a bad rating are the ones that are misleading and unethical. To all of you, go get a life. Are you being paid by the pharmaceuticals to bash alternative medicine sites?

I have no love lost for quack medicine, and this site is certainly a mixed bag, but I don't have WOT running on this browser to alert me to junk science. I am forced to rate this site as 'good', since, in WOT's terms of reference, a site is good by default if it isn't bad: there are no spam engines, email compromises, dangerous links, etc. So, it's a 'good' site. WOT is supposed to alert me to threats to my privacy and security. I like to glance at the WOT marker beside web hits, and I don't actually have to glance at it because the yellow and red signals stick out like a sore thumb. It's an abuse of my efficiency to force me to look into a site's rating simply because someone is ticked off at ideas they don't like, good or bad.

There is nothing at all wrong with this site. If some folks have a prejudice against the info it presents, that is their problem. It is not ethical to downgrade a site because you disagree with the info it presents. This does WOT no good to allow such unreasonable activity. We don't need AMA trolls censoring our info. Sad to see WOT being used this way.

Why does WOT even have the category "Alternative or controversial medicine" as a BAD thing? A BAD thing to ask questions, to not just trust what groups with obvious financial agendas tell us poor stupid peons? A BAD thing to seek alternatives when conventional western medicine keeps us sick and treats the symptoms for profit rather than curing disease? That's copious portions of bovine excrement - let people decide for themselves. I have decided for myself that this site may have value; of course, one must perform one's due diligence...

I don't know if I would agree with everything on this website, but it's definitely unfair to warn people, because so far, everything I read on this website was quite insightful and scientific (the author is a chemist himself). So for me, all the downvoters seem to just act on reflexes and don't even know what they are criticizing. Even if I disagree with some aspects, there is no reason to completely censor a website, which isn't harmful in any way (no spam, no pop-ups, no malware). We have freedom of speech (in most countries, at least) and so the warnings are completely unjustified - and reflect a very poor understanding of democratic opinion making. Okay, I found an article about MMS and I would clearly disagree with the claim that it's a cure for Malaria etc. But that doesn't invalidate all the other well-written and helpful articles (eg. on Borax or MSM).

Awesome information from this site and should not be rated poorly. I have tried many of the suggestions from this site and have nothing but positive results from it all. Anything that is natural and cannot be patented is a threat to the pharmaceutical companies profit margin. They don't want you to be well and only want to treat your symptoms with their dangerous drugs that will cost a fortune and that will cause other side effects that will require more drugs. It's about time that we woke up and saw the truth about natural healing.

There is absolutely no reason for this site to be poorly rated. There is nothing malicious, there are no viruses and this has nothing to do with scam! This is an excellent site with lots of well documented information on natural therapies and nutrition and I recommend reading : "Heal yourself the natural way". Then make up your mind.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON that this site receive a bad rating!! That is abusing the privilege of this site! You should be excluded from any participation!! Dr. Tullio Simoncini is very respected in his field. Check out ***** for more info on cancer prevention. There is no scam or malicious content on this site! The malicious scam seems to be those who give these sites a bad rating by TROLLS!! Please scroll down the comment section and give bad ratings to those a-holes who mislabel this and other fine sites negatively! Maybe I'LL become a troll and go to medical, religious and Republican/neo-con/conservative sites and give THEM ALL malicious content ratings! ... Actually, that's an EXCELLENT IDEA!! :P