Comment: I find that one

(See in situ)

I find that one

approach doesn't work for everyone. The key thing is to present it in a humble way bit by bit, while acknowledging that even in "alternative health" circles there are people that are just out to make a buck. I find that it's often best to gently show them the fraud that's in the current medical system. The Burzynski movie in the introduction is good for that. Plant the seed and let it sit a while. Don't overload them with information unless they want it. After watching the movie, they may not be ready to accept alternative therapies, but it's placed them in a position that it's their responsibility to research things for themselves and not blindly trust someone because they wear white coats and stethoscopes and work in pristine looking hospitals. Not that the latter is necessarily bad, they just have to be able to evaluate things without getting distracted by outward appearance.

Back to the humility part. Present it in such a way so that they don't feel that if they finally agree with you they will have to deal with an "I told you so" attitude. It will make things a lot easier. Give them respect.

Some people won't look at something until they are sick, or a friend or loved one are sick. Once they do look into alternative health, you have some other issues. Some people need scientific material to be convinced. Others need testimonials or science explained in a plain way. All are valuable but not everyone will be drawn in with the same approach.

Regarding alternative therapies: A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself this question when presented with a therapy. "Under what conditions will this therapy work, and under what conditions will it not work?"; "Is this therapy appropriate or strong enough for this particular type of cancer or health challenge?"; "Is this therapy complete or incomplete?" That way when you come across things that are said to be scams, you can break the situation apart and evaluate what made it work or not work for a person. Some therapies are hyped as a cure alls and when they fail they are labelled as scams. When in actuality there could have been any number of reasons it didn't work. It could have been incomplete or inappropriate for a particular patient. The patient's immune system could have been too damaged after having gone through chemo or radiation. The patient didn't follow the program or the program wasn't strong enough for the type of cancer they had. My whole point of this ramble is to say that we need to be objective when evaluating all therapies and acknowledge the bad with the good. In this way it will help you to be seen as honest and impartial when discussing things with them.

I hope I didn't overload your boat with too much info. I tend to ramble sometimes. I hope this helps you though.