Helpful and meaningful website or "It's a Trap!"

When we are surfing the net for health advice and assistance, I can always say,in my opinion, that there will always be 3 types of websites dedicated towards this genre.

1.)-Dedicated websites that are actually devoted to enlightening those who are willing to attain knowledge, by providing statistical data, facts based on experiments etc.

2.)-Blogs and websites that aim to aid and provide basic knowledge just to make the public aware.

3.)-Blog and websites which are entirely biased, which provide bias information and or have a hidden intention to their site.

Now reverting to my topic of cardiovascular disease, what makes a site creditable towards this topic? Is it due to a website listing factual evidence, providing data or even just having ".org" part of the URL? Hence this post will be analyzing and differentiating websites dedicated towards cardiovascular disease.


The following website (Neuroaid) is a great example of point number 3.)

1. At the home page of the website, immediately you can notice how this site lacks description of this health problem (cerebroavscular acciendet), while mainly elaborating on a oral product which enhances recovery and rehabilitation.

2. If you were to watch the video on the homepage you will notice at 1:20 into it, it mentions how taking this oral product is "the first treatment for stroke recovery", implying that this product is a necessity prior to a stroke.

3. In the "why take" tab, this website provides percentages and statistics of people recovering and motor improvements. Yet where is the physical records or experimental documents that show these percentages or statistics are factual. For all I know, they could have just wrote down a few words to make this product look legitimate.

4. Another eyebrow raiser is the link to their "information for medical professionals", if you were to hit this link, it immediately and subtly ask if you are a medical professional. Upon hitting no, you would be redirected back to the homepage. If one were to hit yes, then this site  provides information and data to help promote this product for retail.

5. This site encourages to take this product as prevention of this health disorder, "in fact  both vitro and animal testing indicated a prolongation of the lifespan of neurons against natural aging and further protections against external event aggressions. It has also shown that the surviving neurons are stronger and healthier."



Now when observing a renown Canadian website, The Heart and Stroke Foundation, we notice that, this website counters some of the information given by the bias site. For example the bias site opens with a brief description of the disorder and mainly advertise the product. However, in the Heart and Stroke Foundation, not only do they describe what a "stroke" is by definition, but they provide the different types, each having their own category, and subcategories for further comprehension.

Another contradictory fact that I noticed is, in the biased site, as mentioned, how taking the oral pill is the primary step to recovery, yet when referring to The Heart and Stroke Foundation, the utmost first step is to "partake in tests to determine your ability thus allowing a healthcare team help develop a proper recovery plan" So, which is more reasonable, to take a pill for the sake of assumption or to asses the situation and develop a strategy?


With this in mind, I hope that I have open peoples eyes to see past words and be wary for any "traps"
.
-C.W.