Thomas CorriherNeither I, nor Sarah get personal on this site, as a general rule.  Sure, we rant and rave at times, but we try to keep our writing on-topic and as factual as possible.  That's not to insinuate that we are not very opinionated concerning the life and death health issues that we so boldly catalog.  We clearly do have strong opinions about the issues.  However, our concentration has been upon creating a one-stop site for critical health issues, and a resource where people can actually read the whole truth -- not just the information that is politically expedient.  We are very proud of this site, and we know for a fact that we have saved lives, and we have injured no one in the process.  Few people are fortunate enough to be able to honestly make that claim.

We have enraged plenty of people along the way too, including the iodine drinkers, the Reiki practitioners, the witches/Wiccans, and several lawyers for the other side who have worked to bait us into 'practicing medicine without a license'.  It's been a wild ride, and fortunately, our opponents have not been terribly bright.  Remarkably, we have taken virtually no flack from practicing doctors or nurses -- many of whom know that we are speaking the truth, but are too afraid themselves to say it.  They have good reason to fear, and many of their bolder peers have lost their medical licenses for speaking out.  Censorship is not necessary when the establishment already has monopoly control of licensing, education, and the 'official' publications.  The group that seems to hate us the most is pharmacists, and there were several who stalked us when we were the administrators of the alternative health section of WikiAnswers.  Eventually they did get us shut down, and the site's political pandering to the complainers eventually caused us to resign our positions at WikiAnswers.  Something eerily similar happened when we tried to give away our magazines on Craig's List.  Having been the repeated victims of such people tells us that we are doing something right, and that they are afraid of us.  Science, after all, does not fear criticism, debate, and discussion.

Believe it or not, Sarah and I are human beings.  Seriously.  Some of the private comments that we have received indicate that many of our readers feel too intimidated by us to write to us, or to post comments here, and some of them suspect that we are probably like the egotistical and indifferent people who run other health sites.  We're not like that guy at that other site (whose name we won't mention) which covers natural news topics, where his handlers have told us that we would need to write a paragraph begging him to respond, while being assured that we will definitely get ignored if we write more than a small paragraph.  He's "important" and "busy", after all.  You know the type, and unfortunately, we do too.  We are not like that.  We literally are here for you.  We do this because we really care about people, and about the truth.  It is nothing more, and nothing less.  There is no show here, and no B.S..  We are the real deal.

What we do is really tough.  While other sites are covering stories about aromatherapy (I'm not even going there) and meditation, we have stories about shielding oneself from radiation, curing cancer, venomous spiders, and curing allergies, among a very long list.  We are about to reach 400 articles (not counting the magazine or audio shows).  Through it all, many people have helped us in various ways, and their messages of moral support are priceless.  These people have kept us going through the dark times, and inspired us.  Saving lives is the absolute pinnacle of our work, and we hold those people close to our hearts like badges of honor.

To put things into perspective.  For every paragraph that is written in one of our average articles, we do about 30 minutes of research.  Sometimes a story takes days of research, and that is before we even begin the writing process.  When we did the magazine, we spent a week (or more) for each article just researching, at a bear minimum.  Our readers often assume it has been easy.  It's just writing, after all, and everybody can do that!  Producing high-quality, easily read, accurate, and credible journalistic material is not easy.  It's a tap-dance routine on a high-wire.  It is so easy to misstep.  In fact, we have concluded that the English language is evil by nature, and it really ought to be scrapped in favor of something less prone to causing embarrassing errors -- like when we wrote 'flower' to mean 'flour'.  People assume it is easy, and some of the article submissions that we have received from 'professional' writers made us almost cry.  You just wouldn't believe it, and practically none of them followed our writer's guidelines.

So, what is my point?  I really had no singular point to make here.  I did want to make the point that we are human, and easily accessible.  I also wanted to drop a not-so-subtle hint that we need more help from our good readers.  There are so many ways you can help us, for instance: suggest story ideas, write for us, make comments, draw more users to our site, make donations, or just tell your friends and family about us.  Of course, the overall moral support helps greatly too.  Thank you.  We are doing the best that we can with our limited resources, and we are providing a unique resource to everyone who is fortunate enough to find it.  Finally, I wanted all of you to know what life is like on the other side, when you are the writer, instead of the reader.




Related Articles

A Letter from the Editor: The Alternative Media Is Even Less Trustworthy Than Big Media

The Legend of Mike Adams and the Reality

A New Method of Poisoning Us With Radiation: 'High Efficiency' Light Bulbs

An Explanation About The Problems At WikiAnswers (

Earth Fare Bans and Shreds Our Magazines

The Health Wyze Report audio edition: Episode 17

The Shaky Moral Foundation that AE911Truth is Built Upon

Health Wyze Dental Cleanser


Robin Cochran
# Regarding: Letter from the Editor Robin Cochran 2013-06-30 11:18
As per this statement, "I also wanted to drop a not-so-subtle hint that we need more help from our good readers. There are so many ways you can help us, for instance: suggest story ideas, write for us, make comments, draw more users to our site, make donations, or just tell your friends and family about us."

I realize this article is several years old, but I would like to suggest an article I feel would benefit many of us in the 45 & older category. I am not a computer power-user. I get by okay. However, I would like to know HOW you find 'credible' information that is not tainted or skewed in order to answer many of my own questions without having to ask questions that may seem silly or redundant to those already more educated on homeopathic issues. As a for instance, up until I found this site I never even thought to consider that the vitamins in my supplements could be deemed useless or worse (i.e. cobalamin vs. methycobalamin). So now that I know I need to be aware of that the next thing I need to learn is how to distinguish what "Other Ingredients"/binding agents need to be avoided. Most sublingual tablets contain artificial sweetening agents. It's hard to know WHAT to lookout for when you are a beginner. I'm tired of throwing good money away. Money I could instead be donating to good causes instead.

I know Google is not the only search engine out there. There's Lycos, Excite, Webcrawler, Ask....etc. How does one effectively find credible research? Also, many of us are not chemists or scientists or have college level courses in anatomy so we need to know how to find [understandable] information. Obviously Wikipedia may not be the answer if the information is tainted. So how does one search?

On another note, I am trying to spread the word about your site, but find that the more I talk about the things I've "learned" here the more my friend's eyes tend to glaze over. It is overwhelming to learn so many disturbing facts, i.e. fluorescent light bulbs are dangerous, Diet soda is slowly killing you, Dr.'s are not working for YOU, etc. Some don't want to know the truth because it would mean changing their lifestyles. So until something tragic happens to them, or someone they love, they do not want to believe our government could be allowing (much less perpetuating) these things. In other words ignorance is bliss. But I try :-)

And thank you for your work.
Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher)
# Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher) 2013-07-02 14:03
As far as finding credible information, it is largely a judgment call. We use multiple criteria in our research to try to weed out false information, such as looking for conflicts of interest, ensuring that the person is well-versed in his subject matter, making sure he writes well, and assuring that his methods of testing are not obviously flawed. Positive peer-review is also helpful in judging research papers. We cannot hope to describe our full criteria in a comment form, and we really would have to write a book to describe the process that we go through. Our first phase however, is weeding out those who have conflicts of interest. So, the company that produces a product should be ignored in its review of its own products. In some cases, it is also prudent to investigate the history of a researcher, to ensure that he does not have a record of employment followed by 'independent reviews' in favor of the companies that he has allegedly left. This chicanery is especially prominent throughout pharmaceutical research.

The bottom line, however, is that regardless of how scientific a person is, everyone has to eventually make their own judgment call, and place their faith in someone. We do the best that we can to verify information, but when that criteria is fulfilled, we have to make the final decision to trust the research or not. It is similar to the case of journalists who claim that they have no agenda, when everyone has an agenda. All of us have our own leanings and opinions. To deny them is to be patently dishonest. This exemplifies one of the biggest differences between us and most media organizations. We are very candid with our opinions, and we are forthcoming about our agendas. Anytime a reporter pretends to be completely objective, he is a reporter who is patently dishonest, but who may be manipulative enough to convince his audience that he has no biases. In a sense, they are the most bias journalists of all, because it is most important for them to manipulate their audiences at the expense of honest reporting. The pretense of objectivity is just a ruse to get people to lower their guards upon being told that they are listening to facts. Factual unopinionated reporting is an extremely rare thing, and it is generally unpopular, because it tends to be boring. On a side note, we are willing to train volunteers to research and write. Aside from me and Thomas, we only have one volunteer, and we are currently working with him to teach him the process. He is learning the hard way just how tough this job is. Frankly, only a small fraction of people could do it.

In reference to additives in supplements, the ingredients are always changing, which makes it difficult for us to provide updated information. You asked about the sweeteners that are present in vitamin B12 supplements. Saccharin, aspartame, and sucralose should always be avoided. Mannitol and sorbitol are sugar alcohols that are not as bad, but should only be consumed in small amounts. If this is the only problem with a B12 supplement, then the help to harm ratio would demonstrate benefit. The companies that claim that these products are "sugar-free" should be avoided, because they are dishonest. Sugar alcohols provide no health benefit over real sugar, and they raise the glycemic index like regular sugar. Evaporated cane juice and honey are ideal sweeteners, but it is rare to find them in products. Other additives that should be avoided are titanium dioxide, soy ingredients, and anything that contains aluminum or "alum". Non-harmful common additives include silicon dioxide and magnesium stearate. If at all possible, spend the extra money on organic foods, instead of supplements. We try to remind people that supplements can only supplement the diet, they cannot replace it.

It is true that most people are afraid of knowing how bad things are, because it is easier to maintain ignorance. That said, increasing numbers of people are waking up, and the pressure that the health conscious community can put upon manufacturers and retail stores is ever-increasing. In other words, we are making progress. We have noticed changes from a surprising number of misbehaving corporations that we have chronicled, but Whole Foods Market seems completely incorrigible.
Thomas Corriher (Managing Editor)
# Thomas Corriher (Managing Editor) 2013-07-02 14:40
Somehow Sarah managed to forget our most useful research tools, which are prayers for guidance and wisdom.
Robin Cochran
# Robin Cochran 2013-07-02 16:39
Sarah Cain, Thank you VERY MUCH for taking time away from your busy schedule to give me such a lengthy and informative reply [for free!]. I do sincerely appreciate it, and will take all this information to heart.

P.S. You didn't have to convince me about journalists. I was already a believer! :-)
Ingrid Wickes
# Ingrid Wickes 2013-09-21 16:47
I was delighted when I found Wyze. Do not want to make this sound about me, yet it might. I am 60 years old. Only read non-fiction. Have a great interest in nutrition and food. I had strong reservations about flu shots, immunization for my son, depletion of foods due to our North American farming. And other than just books, came the web. Then I found you two. Honest, caring and hard working.
I have sent your web page to so many people. I have learned so much. Everything I think is new knowledge to me, I research. Most often, what I have gained from here was backed.
Only wish to remind you that you are now international and that speaking about politics in the US will not serve you at all.
Keep up the GREAT work.



You must log in or register to post comments.

The Claimer: The information provided herein is intended to be a truthful and corrective alternative to the advice that is provided by physicians and other medical professionals. It is intended to diagnose, treat, cure, and prevent disease.