Re:

 Point taken, but if we all decided to 'protect' each other from whatever these forums would end up in a complete mess.

Again I do not see it that way.  The mess only comes when people want to argue that there is no potential danger to something.  For example, with the so-called "liver flushes" there is a risk of lodging a real stone in the bile ducts if real stones are present to begin with.  But there are people that will argue up and down that doing these "flushes" are perfectly safe.

I believe that most people can determine themselves those discrepancies you speak about and in the final analysis it is down to each individual not to stick their head in an oven if it is suggested that they do so.

And again, how many people will research the dangers of something if not presented?  As I pointed doubt before shortly after I came to CZ I saw someone telling people to take oleander soup for cancer with no mention of that it has to be prepared a certain way to render it non-deadly.  If someone not aware of oleander came to CZ and read that they could easily assume that all they have to do is go pick some oleander leaves and boil them up in to soup.  Problem is that they would not likely survive long enough to get the spoon back to their mouth a second time.  Being that I have had so many people contact me after being injured by certain protocols I know for a fact that a lot of people will not take the time to research the protocol, especially if being presented by someone that appears to them as an "expert" on the subject.

As one example I had once talked to a lady who told me that she did not believe in alternative medicines because she had gone to Mexico and spent $10.000 on a "quack therapy".  So I asked her for more details and she said that she bought this stuff and she drank it then started throwing up a black tar.  Well, it was pretty clear what happened .  They gave her concentrated, injectable laetrile (amygdalin) to drink.  Laetrile reacts with stomach acid releasing cyanide.  But she was just as at fault as the people that gave it to her since she could not take at least 30 minutes to go to the library and research a treatment that she was going to plunk down $10,000 on.

Perhaps you underestimate people a little, remember, you give advice and the same goes for you unless you think differently?

See my last statement.  It is not underestimating people to know that some will not take the time to research the safety and effectiveness of a protocol, especially when the person presenting that protocol presents themselves as an "expert".  This is why the dangers of any protocols need to be presented right bedside the other details of the protocol so people can make rational decisions.  If they are warned and they still proceed and they get hurt then it is on them, nobody else.  Just like a smoker who is aware of the risks and gets hurt.  They only have themselves to blame.  If those dangers are hidden from the public though then the blame extends to those who block the dangers from being exposed.