Depends on the definition of harm.
A woman with a bellyfull of parasites or a tapeworm
or a cancerous tumor in the colon
or a gallbladder full of stones
or metals lodged in the brain or mouth
or a fungi or a yeast infestation
to name a few,
may experience relief from slippery elm
(I like it and use it myself),
but may not necessarily be served (in my opinion)
by a dose of slippery elm gruel.
I have never seen MH recommend it although
I am somewhat sure he is not against it either.
Is a person served when they are suggested
something that may or may not help them
at the same time prolong and potentially worsen
a condition that may require accurate diagnosis
and competent treatment? In my opinion I think not.
Should I apologize for responding to
an anonymous question in a forum
led by Barefoot when I suggest that they
read the forum past posts, follow the
principles held by MH, and use a natural
common sense approach to self-healing?
Maybe the response was not not sensitive
enough to their needs. This forum is about
taking action on the path trod by MH, harnessing
the principles that he has expounded, and running
with them. That is what this forum is about.
Seems many think the forum should be about living up
to the expectations of others.
When we can submit to the expectations we have
for ourselves first
then we can start to project them
on the rest of the world.