Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Before assuming that this is a good book because it got so many five star reviews, please read the comments that I and the other one-star reviews have received. We are bullied and attacked because we request some justification for believing this author's claims. I considered removing my review because I am not in the business of fighting with zealots, but allowed it to stand because such a review would have been helpful to me. Other reviewers may not want to deal with a bunch of name-calling because they expressed their opinions, hence the preponderance of five-star reviews. I honestly thought that this was just a terrible book. It resembles nothing quite so much as the long-winded ranting of a person with a mild case of paranoid schizophrenia. The author never provided any objective evidence supporting his claims. Period. Apparently, that doesn't matter so much for some people. It matters to me. I very politely asked for some sort of evidence in support of the claims the author made, receiving a virtual assault and battery for my trouble. Please read the comments, and if you are disturbed by this sort of bullying and abuse on Amazon, please mark my review helpful. Here are a few of the responses I received: "At this point, I believe you are simply a troll. This is a waste of time. Ive heard all this before and would prefer to help others in this regard--I will NOT argue about scientific evidence." "I don't care if someone doesn't believe, most do not. It's when they (disingenuously) use the "argument" that demands physical proof; then I know they're basically trolls. Same as people who don't believe in God without physical proof, then they say God couldn't exist without such proof ." "Unfortunately for morons like audiophile, they think science always means something they can directly touch or see (as if that would always even be proof in itself)." "It's actually funny that we made a troll go away so fast. a testament to our skills. D. Keene and wanners defeat the troll. yeah!" According to those who attacked me in the comments section of my own review, I am a troll. They make incorrect assumptions about my character and view of science, then conclude that I can be dismissed on the basis of their own inventions. Ultimately, I found the behaviour of the commenters to be quite revealing, and supportive of my claim that this philosophy is complete bunk. Advocates of this book seemed to cling to their dogma with an almost psychotic fervor, reacting aggressively against any presentation of doubt, as if questioning the premise they hold dear would somehow cause their belief system to crumble. It is a weak philosophy that cannot tolerate scrutiny. And this is a very weak philosophy. Don't waste your time or money on this book. Here is my original review: I was excited to read this book because of my strong belief that alternative treatments such as proper diet, sufficient exercise and emotional well-being are critical to good physical health. I'm a vegetarian, I have a supportive social network, and I believe that it's important to walk in a natural environment every day. I am in the choir, and even I got tired of the whining. Further, I read a lot of made-up stuff about psychosomatic illness that seemed to be just plain hokum in the 150 or so pages I choked down in combination with how the author feels that everybody in "the medical community" is out to get him for his "revolutionary ideas." About the fifth or sixth time the author said something like: 'I know that "the medical community" is going to jump all over me for saying this, but...' and then say something completely banal like people in pain are in emotional pain, too, I had enough. Sarno's assertion that physiological problems can be influenced by emotional issues is not a breakthrough. Caroline Myss' 1996 "Anatomy of the Spirit" explores fully what Sarno only swirls around, toilet-water-like, but never manages to actually say. Perhaps Sarno is a great guy and has really helped people feel better, but that doesn't mean he can write worth a whit. A well-written non-fiction book states clearly what it plans to say, the points it will address, and then elaborates these in detail in its later chapters. This author starts out by describing his trials and tribulations in getting "the medical community" to accept his trivial and throwaway epiphanies, and the book never really seems to go beyond that. This is a book for people who want to have a big jeer at "the medical community" that has failed them (hey, it happens), or people who enjoy believing in conspiracy theories so that they can sit alone in their apartments watching TV without feeling bad about it. If you are not in one of those two categories, there is nothing for you in this book. Read capably by Paul Hecht.