I have reviewed my regimen of 1982 with current doctors and it has been well received. I have modified it in the past 30 years. Vit D3 was not a part of it nor was Fish Oil.

I am not dissing examine.com. I just suggest that it has a lack of information that is widely available in other online sources. It also has a tendency to repeat what I would call 'mainstream misinformation.'

I don't think NT is the place to promote or discuss examine.com in its current state. Just my opinion.

I am surprised that Sol came onto NT so fast to defend the site.

To be specific, the diet soda comments are incomplete and inaccurate. The HFCS also sounds like it is right from the Archer Daniels Midland propaganda. Why is there even a comment on Cannabis if so little is going to be said? It does not even differentiate between THC and Canabinoid. It does not require rocket science to understand the THC is the hallucinogenic compound and Canabinoid has shown to have the health values. Again, incomplete information.

An informational web site should be able to start with basic undisputed information and add to it as further information becomes known. There are a number of concussion web sites that are just as incomplete and misleading.

They state directly that examine.com is about fitness nutrition. The goals of fitness nutrition are quite different than PCS/brain nutrition.

btw, I have not looked at the FB side of examine.com.

Your original quote:

I still await one example of inaccuracy. Or us repeating "mainstream misinformation"

Okay so:

Diet soda - incomplete and inaccurate how? You can't just say that without any evidence. If there is any peer-reviewed study we have omitted, please point them out.

HFCS - likewise.

Marijuana - the page clearly says "This page on Marijuana is currently marked as in-progress. We are still compiling research."

Just because our findings don't agree with your gut feeling does not make them incorrect or propaganda

I am just going to step in here before things escalate into something that violates our guidelines.

Sol, we understand you wanting to defend your site, but please do note that this is a patient to patient discussion forum and so members can freely discuss the pros and cons of anything, including your site, and they do not have to provide any "peer reviewed scientific evidence" to back up their views.

When you have large groups of patients in a community like this, you learn quickly that sometimes the anecdotal evidence is way ahead of the "scientific" and often the science lags, and then follows the anecdotal reports.

Some who have neurological problems dont need a scientific study to tell them that the artificial sweeteners found in diet sodas and other foods mess with their system, just as many have found with HFCS, food dyes and a lot of other things.
For example, if someone with Tourette Syndrome suddenly experiences a massive flare of their tics every time they consume aspartame....well they don't really require a study to tell them this...they know it!

So, we don't need to have an argument here as to why a member feels your info on diet soda and HFCS is inaccurate. You want science.....some members just deal with their own body as the "lab" and they don't have to prove anything to anyone.

Asking for specific examples of "inaccuracies" is fine, but not then to negate when the other person states it is their opinion that finds your info inaccurate. Here on this patient forum, opinion matters. A "gut feeling" has often saved a life!

And as was pointed out, members who deal with a specific health issue frequently may have reactions to things that might not have any negative effect on someone else.

Anyway, I am just intervening here as we do have guidelines that need to be upheld and I don't want to see the discussion get derailed by any directly personal comments.

And again, the primary focus here is patients and their discussions with one another.

Thanking everyone in advance for their co-operation.

Oops, sorry i didn't knew that this discussion was going to blow up the way it did. Also i didn't knew that the website had already been discussed in the past. I just used it to search more info on ALCAR and fish oil which by the way have done wonders for me but i guess it's still to early to tell. I'll try to update on the near future.

No problemo Rob... don't feel that way. We are here for discussions.

The discussion of that site was done on the Peripheral Neuropathy forum, not this one.

No one is ever going to be 100% pleased with any informational source on the net. The idea is to be able to access information and decide for yourself what to keep and what to discard.

For example and new study just reported in the news this week suggests carnitine contributes to heart attacks!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-...heart-disease/

This will be bandied about for quite a while, I suspect.

There is a whole forum here devoted to supplements:
http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/forum49.html

Sometimes people posting on their home forum become rather provincial and don't look around our NeuroTalk platform at other boards and subjects.

We also discuss supplements every day on the Peripheral Neuropathy forum.
http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/forum20.html

We covered the carnitine=cvd study on our blog post. Completely overblown by the media.

I think this thread has run it's course now, so I will be closing it.

Rob, you did nothing wrong in providing the info We just don't really want to see this thread used as a promotion by that site's owners, rather than just an informational resource for members here.

As mrsD pointed out, members should always carefully check out anything they read on any site, including here on NT ....to be sure it is accurate info. There are a number of other websites that also provide detailed info on supplements, so always cross reference. And of course, as we always suggest, check things with your physician as well.