Let's face it the world is full of skeptics – since the beginning of time the world has been full of doubters and nay-sayers. In most of these cases the nay-sayers had a financial interest in maintaining the status quo of the day. So should we be surprised when a buggy whip manufacturer isn’t exactly enthusiastic about the invention of the automobile.
In the same vein should we be very surprised when someone who makes a living with the current health system status quo is critical or refuses to recognize that alternative nutrition products may be of value.
So how can we learn to identify when skepticism has a basis in fact and when it’s unwarranted due to natural prejudice. Here are some revealing answers.
First someone will often either intentionally or not will use what I call the classic magicians trick. They will divert the attention of the reader by focusing in only one specific area. Questioning whether the health product or nutritional supplement would be of benefit in that specific area while ignoring evidence that the product has been very beneficial in other areas.
First let me say any individual is certainly within his rights to say or write what he wants about any nutritional supplement or health product. I have no problem with that.
So how can we discern whether someone is being skeptical of a nutritional supplement or health product because the product really is no good or because the writer is simply prejudiced?
Here are 3 ways you can discern this.
1. Does the skeptic market a competing nutrition product? This is certainly a clue that person could be prejudiced.
2. I’ve also seen this tactic used before – a skeptic publishes an article being negative about a product that is hot in the news in order to obtain search engine ranking. Thus gaining intenet traffic to their site where they can now sell their competing nutrition or health supplement or whatever product they are selling.
3. Have the skeptics conducted their own tests showing that the particular health product doesn’t provide the stated benefits, or are they just being skeptical of the results of other health nutrition studies. Anyone can be skeptical of anything, being skeptical doesn’t make their skepticism valid. Being skeptical also doesn’t require a whole lot of talent.
I tend to ignore the type of skeptics above. My thinking is this – why not have 20 or more people take the product for 3 months on a daily basis – record the amount they take on a daily basis and track their results over 90 days and report the results back..
Then if the majority of these people don’t report any results after 90 days then you have good reason to be skeptical. Otherwise I don’t give skeptics of health and nutrition products too much credence.
