I enjoy the posts made by everyone, because that is what a discussion is all about - exchanging ideas.

I think that the human element helps put things into perspective, too often the clinical perspective can be a dry perspective. Tossing it about makes it appealing.

Why not choose what to read and what not to read? I do this here and there on the internet and when reading in real life.

I am not sure why the protruding nail gets hammered down, or the unorthadox seems to be less tolerated. I don't agree with everyones perspective here, but I too believe that they have the right to express it.

A life alterning event, is always "earth-shaking", and I had one last year myself when I had a terrible reaction to sulfa-based antibiotics that pretty much changes the way I lived life for the next six months. So I guess I can empathize with Petra and her recent scare. I am ok now too!

Its been my experience that perceived attacks usually are a diversionary tactic to offset a weakness in the opposing viewpoint. While I don't know what set this off, it seems like an attack and that is unfortunate.

Sometimes a person get get an idea from sharing their views. I appluad Petra for putting herself out the way she has, knowing that people will always try to knock her down. She has made amazing progress on her theories and for me, it has been an exciting read.

Is censorship really the right course of action?