"D." wrote:
>
> This kind of sensational headline is a trademark of this spammer.
> I can see by the responses that no one loves this guy here
> either -- he's all over the net with his sensationalism.

I'm not a spammer. I have no commercial interest
in any website, nor in driving traffic to any website
for commercial purposes.

You do. You maintain a commercial advertising
website, and every post you make is touting
your blogspot commercial website.

You are advertising for your commercial blogspot
website in violation of the charters of the Usenet
discussion groups where you post. That makes you
a spammer by any definition.

Your articles are usually based on a single journal
article which you then summarize. This isn't a good
approach, because it misses the context from which
the journal article is drawn. The writers of journal
articles assume the reader is familiar with that
context, so it isn't necessary to provide every detail.

You don't have the breadth of knowledge to fill in
details that should be provided in any article
presented to the general public, so if an important
risk isn't mentioned in the original journal article,
it won't be mentioned in your derivative article.

In one of your recent articles, you advocated
taking curcumin as a supplement without
disclosing the risk. As I said before,
anyone taking a drug with a low therapeutic
index could be harmed by taking curcumin at
the same time, because curcumin retards the
clearance of many drugs from the body.
That could cause an overdose. But of course,
you don't care about that. All you care about
is driving traffic to your commercial website.

Your articles could actually hurt people,
either through your own ignorance of the risks
or the spin to favor your commercial interests.

You are not an accurate or reliable source of
information. You're just a spammer touting your
commercial website. You don't care that your
spamming activities could have terrible
consequences.