>full range of information, both therapeutic and pharmaceutical I don't disagree, but the "poor information" is where it gets dangerous (e.g. horse de-wormers.) Especially for the desperate among us. >why forbid discussion on a major part of the equation that could make a substantial difference? In a word, Responsibility. You've probably seen the same excitement in the sub that I have over drugs that are in early clinical trials, and will likely never make it any further (most drugs don't.) And yet if you offered it to 10 members here, at *least* two would be game to try (Just making up numbers at this point :p, but I'd wager I'm not far off.) Hell, I'm a little cagey at times when people ask about techniques for fluency, as the techniques I use don't just work on their own. I always make a point of saying they are part of a program that I worked under the supervision of a leader in the field. I feel if members want to discuss supplements and pharmaceuticals, they can do so outside of this sub. They can discord or whatever. Better to get a feel for who you're talking to. Maybe a moderated/invite-request discussion would be beneficial. I appreciate the debate. You make excellent points.