I would like to find out the following about Norton Internet Security:
I downloaded a webside about Lupron, a drug which my doctor injected
for prostate cancer, after which I had severe backache and hot
flashes. The webside title is "Be careful of lupron for Endometiosis,
It could be the kiss of death" by Dr. Mercola at
http:/www.mercola.com/feb/9/lupron.htm. The information sounds
questionable. Attempting to access one of the links about lupron and
prostate cancer caused Norton internet security to appear with the
message that they stopped somebody from invading my computer and
giving me the choice if I want more information and "no", "no" being
the recommended option. I chose to request more information whereupon
a screen came up with the requested information on the link of lupron.
My questions are:
1. On what basis did Norton block this informations. Obviously they
are not the medical expert to decide what treatment is appropriate and
what not. That should be left to me and my doctor.
2. by requesting more information do I interfere with Norton's ability
to protect against viruses. If no, why is "no" (not asking for more
information) the recommended option?
3 I could not get the computer to save the display as an *.mht file
but it could printed and it could be highlighted, transferred to
notepad and saved as a text file. This is in spite of the fact that
displays before and after were saved as *.mht files. Does Norton
prevent suspicious files from being saved?

I don't think Norton had anything to do with this. The URL
http://www.mercola.com/feb/9/lupron.htm is simply pointing to a page
whose address has been changed. Try this link instead:

http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/9/lupron.htm

Vaac-

I would always be leary of information on a site that sells
supplements such as coconut oil, organic cheese and algae. The
disclaimer at the bottom of the site in question states:

"The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of
Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted."

and

"Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions
based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health
care professional."

This blog calls "Dr. Mercols" a "Coconut Oil Salesman"
http://www.coconut.com/blog/archives/cat_coconut_industry.html

Also, quackwatch.com lists Mercola's site on it's "Non-recommended
sites" as providing " a huge amount of information, most or all of
which promotes unsubstntiated theories and/or methods. They may be
useful to researchers seeking descriptions of these theories and
methods from their proponents. However, they should be avoided by
persons seeking high-quality information on which to base a
health-related decision." Scroll down to the middle of the page)
http://www.quackwatch.org/12Web/webindex.html

How to spot a quacky site:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackweb.html

Thak you, crabcakes-ga, for your informative and useful comments.

I visited quackwatch. Their unfavorable "information" on
chiropractice, describing it as quackery, casts doubt in my mind about
the reliability of qucakwatch. Not only does chiropractic theory and
treatment make sense, but my experience, as well of that of my boss,
has been always successful, always untill recently when I suffered a
compression fracture of one of the vertebra, something that
chiropractic treatment cannot be expected to cure. I am a patient, not
a chiropractor who might be suspected to have an axe to grind. I wish
I coud find reliable information about acupuncture, which does not
make sense to me.