3 ms·

I'm curious if you don't mind sharing, how long was your longest water fast?

by aviv 9y ago

DoreenMichele 9y ago
I do mind sharing. You clearly have an agenda. You are desperate for validation. You found a thing that works for you, you want to think it will work for everyone and ... Sigh. I have barely engaged you and I feel tired. Think on this: I am a potential ally, doing similar things. You are actively picking a fight with me and driving me away. Ask yourself: Why is that?
- aviv 9y ago
  No one is picking a fight with you. You come across as very paranoid. Again, you are very biased towards conventional medicine. If someone on an online forum spoke highly in favor of a new radiation therapy they underwent for some cancer, everyone would be cheering them and thanking them for the insight. No one would shut them down saying - "oh, that is anecdotal" -- "this worked for you, don't preach it as an end all be all" -- "so radiation is the new cult??". Classic.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Again, you are very biased towards conventional medicine. No, I am not. This statement is evidence you haven't listened to anything I have said.
  - tomhoward 9y ago
    As somebody who has been commenting about non-conventional health practices on HN for at least 6 years, and who has often paid close attention to Michele's comments on health topics, I can assure you that you're very wrong about her alleged bias toward conventional medicine, wrong to dismiss her suggestions on how to improve your style of communication, and wrong to display such an attitude about this or any other topic on HN. I understand the inclination to see big-pharma profiteering as an all-purpose explanation for the state of mainstream health beliefs and practices, and to be exasperated that more people don't open their minds and embrace the natural remedies that you and I might have found effective. I've felt the same way for much of 10+ years I've been on my own journey. But I've learned that there are very valid, important reasons for people to be cautious about fringe health practices and wary of the motives of those evangelizing them, so the onus is on us to respectful, patient, modest and prudent in the recommendations we make and the way we go about attempting to convince people of their merits. I've also come to learn that the need to evangelize on such practices is often more closely linked to a need to convince one's self of their efficacy, than to a sincere intent to do good by others. I've found that the more effective my own healing practices have actually turned out to be, and the more content I've become with my own health and life progress, the less I need to evangelize them to others. I think the same trend is evident in Michele's comments here on HN. None of this means we shouldn't try to help people where appropriate. But the way we go about trying to help people makes every bit of difference.
    - aviv 9y ago
      I appreciate your response. > None of this means we shouldn't try to help people where appropriate. But the way we go about trying to help people makes every bit of difference. Agree that it makes a difference, which is why my style has evolved to what it is now. As I mentioned, it has been my experience that a more even-tempered, "civil" reply about water fasting simply gets downvoted instantly and rarely generates any discussion. Yet on the flip side, here we are 40 or so comments deep, and trust me, this has already been food for thought for several HNers. They're not going to necessarily start fasting tomorrow (nor should they without doing their own research) but it planted a seed, and that's all I'm trying to do. What gets me going on these threads is not a need to "convince one's self of their efficacy" as you put it. Based on my experience in this sort of parallel universe of the alternative medicine world, there is already no doubt in my mind that water fasting is what many people suffering from many of these diseases need. Its benefits are already well documented. I understand that we are all taught that we should wait for government agencies and pharmaceutical companies to study and approve every step we take in life. But any logical person can agree that we are not likely to get the FDA/CDC/XYZ to endorse water fasting any time soon. They're not in the business of telling people not to eat. I don't have any vested interest in getting people to fast. There's no "system" being sold. There's no kit to buy. No series of e-books to purchase. All the information is already out there, free for anyone to consume. And that's actually the point here - BECAUSE there is no industry around water fasting, it is highly unlikely to reach the mainstream any time soon. That's how messed up things are. You will see this in the CNN/NYTimes health section when someone figures out how they can productize not eating for 10-30 days. I'm passionate about something I know will help people. I don't comment as often as I would like on health threads here and elsewhere because it often frustrates me how much ignorance is displayed online regarding alternative treatment options and how many people miss out on getting better when only conventional medicine that treats symptoms and rarely actually heals people gets praise and bubbles to the top.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      But I've learned that there are very valid, important reasons for people to be cautious about fringe health practices and wary of the motives of those evangelizing them, so the onus is on us to respectful, patient, modest and prudent in the recommendations we make and the way we go about attempting to convince people of their merits. I think an important detail is that if you have no idea how and why it works, then you really have no means to ascertain when it is likely to work and also no means to fix the problem if things go wrong. Without that, conventional medicine is a safer bet because it has processes and controls in place. I've found that the more effective my own healing practices have actually turned out to be, and the more content I've become with my own health and life progress, the less I need to evangelize them to others. I think the same trend is evident in Michele's comments here on HN. Quite. The more my life works, the less I care what other people think of my story. I don't need the validation. But I still need a conversation space where I can talk about it, if only because I'm a talker and it is a big part of my life. Some people can do a thing and feel no need to discuss it. I'm not one of them. That would make me insane. So HN serves as a place for me to engage people in meaningful discussion on a thing that is a big part of my life and that requires a fair amount of background to really discuss. Learning to engage constructively was a very long journey. I spent a lot of time probably sounding like the GP and then a lot of time trying to err on the side of caution. I do blog and I am currently trying to find my voice on a new health blog. It's an ongoing learning experience. Thank you for chiming in.

I'm curious if you don't mind sharing, how long was your longest water fast?

by aviv 9y ago

I'm curious if you don't mind sharing, how long was your longest water fast?

I do mind sharing. You clearly have an agenda. You are desperate for validation. You found a thing that works for you, you want to think it will work for everyone and ... Sigh. I have barely engaged you and I feel tired. Think on this: I am a potential ally, doing similar things. You are actively picking a fight with me and driving me away. Ask yourself: Why is that?

aviv 9y ago
No one is picking a fight with you. You come across as very paranoid. Again, you are very biased towards conventional medicine. If someone on an online forum spoke highly in favor of a new radiation therapy they underwent for some cancer, everyone would be cheering them and thanking them for the insight. No one would shut them down saying - "oh, that is anecdotal" -- "this worked for you, don't preach it as an end all be all" -- "so radiation is the new cult??". Classic.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Again, you are very biased towards conventional medicine. No, I am not. This statement is evidence you haven't listened to anything I have said.
- tomhoward 9y ago
  As somebody who has been commenting about non-conventional health practices on HN for at least 6 years, and who has often paid close attention to Michele's comments on health topics, I can assure you that you're very wrong about her alleged bias toward conventional medicine, wrong to dismiss her suggestions on how to improve your style of communication, and wrong to display such an attitude about this or any other topic on HN. I understand the inclination to see big-pharma profiteering as an all-purpose explanation for the state of mainstream health beliefs and practices, and to be exasperated that more people don't open their minds and embrace the natural remedies that you and I might have found effective. I've felt the same way for much of 10+ years I've been on my own journey. But I've learned that there are very valid, important reasons for people to be cautious about fringe health practices and wary of the motives of those evangelizing them, so the onus is on us to respectful, patient, modest and prudent in the recommendations we make and the way we go about attempting to convince people of their merits. I've also come to learn that the need to evangelize on such practices is often more closely linked to a need to convince one's self of their efficacy, than to a sincere intent to do good by others. I've found that the more effective my own healing practices have actually turned out to be, and the more content I've become with my own health and life progress, the less I need to evangelize them to others. I think the same trend is evident in Michele's comments here on HN. None of this means we shouldn't try to help people where appropriate. But the way we go about trying to help people makes every bit of difference.
  - aviv 9y ago
    I appreciate your response. > None of this means we shouldn't try to help people where appropriate. But the way we go about trying to help people makes every bit of difference. Agree that it makes a difference, which is why my style has evolved to what it is now. As I mentioned, it has been my experience that a more even-tempered, "civil" reply about water fasting simply gets downvoted instantly and rarely generates any discussion. Yet on the flip side, here we are 40 or so comments deep, and trust me, this has already been food for thought for several HNers. They're not going to necessarily start fasting tomorrow (nor should they without doing their own research) but it planted a seed, and that's all I'm trying to do. What gets me going on these threads is not a need to "convince one's self of their efficacy" as you put it. Based on my experience in this sort of parallel universe of the alternative medicine world, there is already no doubt in my mind that water fasting is what many people suffering from many of these diseases need. Its benefits are already well documented. I understand that we are all taught that we should wait for government agencies and pharmaceutical companies to study and approve every step we take in life. But any logical person can agree that we are not likely to get the FDA/CDC/XYZ to endorse water fasting any time soon. They're not in the business of telling people not to eat. I don't have any vested interest in getting people to fast. There's no "system" being sold. There's no kit to buy. No series of e-books to purchase. All the information is already out there, free for anyone to consume. And that's actually the point here - BECAUSE there is no industry around water fasting, it is highly unlikely to reach the mainstream any time soon. That's how messed up things are. You will see this in the CNN/NYTimes health section when someone figures out how they can productize not eating for 10-30 days. I'm passionate about something I know will help people. I don't comment as often as I would like on health threads here and elsewhere because it often frustrates me how much ignorance is displayed online regarding alternative treatment options and how many people miss out on getting better when only conventional medicine that treats symptoms and rarely actually heals people gets praise and bubbles to the top.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    But I've learned that there are very valid, important reasons for people to be cautious about fringe health practices and wary of the motives of those evangelizing them, so the onus is on us to respectful, patient, modest and prudent in the recommendations we make and the way we go about attempting to convince people of their merits. I think an important detail is that if you have no idea how and why it works, then you really have no means to ascertain when it is likely to work and also no means to fix the problem if things go wrong. Without that, conventional medicine is a safer bet because it has processes and controls in place. I've found that the more effective my own healing practices have actually turned out to be, and the more content I've become with my own health and life progress, the less I need to evangelize them to others. I think the same trend is evident in Michele's comments here on HN. Quite. The more my life works, the less I care what other people think of my story. I don't need the validation. But I still need a conversation space where I can talk about it, if only because I'm a talker and it is a big part of my life. Some people can do a thing and feel no need to discuss it. I'm not one of them. That would make me insane. So HN serves as a place for me to engage people in meaningful discussion on a thing that is a big part of my life and that requires a fair amount of background to really discuss. Learning to engage constructively was a very long journey. I spent a lot of time probably sounding like the GP and then a lot of time trying to err on the side of caution. I do blog and I am currently trying to find my voice on a new health blog. It's an ongoing learning experience. Thank you for chiming in.