Understanding our editorial choices

Natural health care is a topic that arouses great passions in people with deeply held convictions. We get messages daily from people who think we have taken the wrong editorial stance on some specific news item or review that has been included.

For example, on the subject of supplements alone, we'll get responses from:

• people who think all supplements are anti-science and an utterly unnecessary expense (some to the point of calling them a hoax),
• those who think that we should only be recommending people get nutrients from organic food sources avoiding supplementation altogether, and
• people who get annoyed if we post any study that warns people to be careful of the type, brand, and/or intake levels of supplements.

We do understand why: people tend to be protective of their sacred cows and want to control the message on the subject - which invariably conflicts with someone else' taboo about the same cow.

We take the longer view: one study is not enough to make a decision. And so, we collect as many relevant news items about the issues as we can find. And then we recommend people to go find others we may have missed in addition to speaking to their health practitioners.

We believe in giving people the information they require to make an informed decision. We have links to other sources (including skeptic sites!) where people can see all sides of an issue before deciding to take action.

When you look at a listing of studies we have collected internally - such as this set on vitamin D - you can get a better understanding of why we include it all.

There will be studies that contradict each other - sometimes within days of each other. Sometimes we have debates regarding posting specific items. Usually, unless they are utterly irrelevant to the overall subject matter, we'll post it. Sometimes we add a preface if there is something specific about the news item that we want to call attention to - but mostly we resist the urge, leaving the critical thinking up to the reader.

The Internet is vast. You have lots of choices. There are sites that will only publish one side of an issue. and if that is what you are seeking, you are in the wrong place. Find a place with an editorial policy that matches your own outlook - or create your own.

Our role is to be a portal - a jumping-off point to Canadian information about complementary and alternative health care. We do not diagnose and we do not prescribe. (You can use the directories to find a practitioner who does.) Our Terms and Conditions of use are here for your perusal.

Yours in health,
The NHC team.

Posted by: gisela on 2011-10-12 10:53:24

Subscribe to the feed   Direct Link to this post

Next post: Just because. (Kitties) 2012-04-03 10:35:07

Recent Posts: