"I view the case of MH rather differently. This was a person who had extremely "odd" views; for example, "humans dont need food" and "water is a poison". Such views are at total odds with the majority of other "experts" views and against every scientifically proven fact we know. Despite that, this person was selected to be a CZ expert. Do you not find that bizarre?"
Yes they are absolutely odd views but he usually does explain them. My example was fairly absurd and so are the suggestions that humans dont need food and water is a poison if they dont have solid explainations as to why. I dont think anyone would need a censor protecting them from someone who states without reason that gasoline cures cancer when taken daily if that was all they said. Anyone willing to stop eating altogether simply because a curezone "expert" said so is unlikely to even have the intelligence to turn their computer on.
At any rate I dont take anything anyone says here as gospel. I prefer to research things fairly thoroughly unless its something that wouldnt adversly affect my health in any significant manner if I tried it out. For example cutting coke out for a week to see if I started to sleep better. Ya I got headaches from the caffeine withdrawl but they were expected and not a significant side affect. Turns out it was something else causing me to not sleep well but that experiment was worth trying.
I think most people are intelligent enough to decide for themselves what to follow. Those who are not shouldnt prevent me from learning about different methods.