Talk:Joseph Mercola

Article monitoring staff

Mmmsnouts, how's it going? It seems it's just us monitoring the wiki at the moment :) So, what made you interested? I'm a subscriber to the newsletter actually, and like a lot of the stuff on it, but I think some of the stuff might be a bit... questionable, I guess. I'm not going to throw baby out with the bathwater either way. So far I respect a lot of the changes you've made, you're covering both sides very well. I think I'm coming up a bit heavy on the criticism so it would be good to add some of the positive qualities I guess. I suppose the problem is that they are less material/factual qualities you can talk about, and it's better to be reserved about praise when there are problems... -Tyciol 09:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks like just us. Wish there were a few more to help. I was surprised there was no article on Mercola given the popularity of the web site and the high ranking of some of his articles in health related google searches. Here are some of the things I would like to do.

• improve wording and content of criticism section. For example I don't understand the religious criticism part.
• add a section on non nutritional healing, like eft and prayer.
• maybe instead of a flu shot section a general section on being anti immunization.

what do you think? --Mmmsnouts 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is surprising, considering how much you find on very vague unpopulated topics. I guess certain things appeal to different people, some groups more prone to wikiing. Honestly, I think any person who wants to remain credible and accountable should link to their own wiki for people to comment on. As it is, there's still no forum for Mercola, I've had issue with a lot of articles he's posted and have sent many mails, and have not received a reply to any. That kind of thing annoys me.

Dividing his health advice into nutrition+exercise, living habits (sleep, meditation), and controversial disputed things like prayer/eft is a great idea, sections tend to add a lot of clarity to articles. In regard to the religion thing, while I have nothing against a doctor being religious, he has a section on it and is part of an organization of religious doctors and is constantly stating the benefits of prayer, implying perhaps that people would receive health benefits from joining a religion. Just as church and state should be divided, church and science should as well. Stating benefits for spirituality is fine, but it's worded in ways that seem to promote becoming faithful without just cause. Finding spirituality is one thing, but you should never believe something solely out of the idea that believing in it will make you healthy, as that is not the same sort of belief that the people receiving such benefits would receive them from believing. It's hard to express what I mean, sorry for the vagueness. I may be able to work on incorporating this into the article, just need to shorten it... in fact, there's probably a section in Wikipedia on it already somewhere if I could just find it.

Yes, if I labelled it flu shot changing it to immunization is a good idea, since it fits under those parameters. Flu shot is just the most prominent one he criticizes -Tyciol 09:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As someone just browsing for info on Mercola, I found the wording "Fortunately, the masses are waking up" to be rather one-sided and opinionated by Wikipedia standards - not to mention a teensy bit offensive to a newbie just starting to research nutrition and alternative medicine ("I'm just one of 'the masses', now?"). So I rephrased, keeping the article's idea of "awareness is growing" without breaking neutrality. Peace! -renoncule

Sorry, I didn't notice this, what statement are you referring to? Tyciol 04:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work and Dental Fillings

I think this article is very balanced, considering Mercola's controversial beliefs. Good work. You might want to add something about how he opposes dental fillings, and recommends that people have their old amalgam fillings removed. Rhobite 04:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That does ring a bell, but I'm not certain (altmed guys tend to blend in my mind after a while). Do you remember where it's from? You could probably add it along with his practises section. Tyciol 06:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Foods he recommends avoiding ..., fish" is not ture. He recommends eating fish high in Hg, which are usually long-lived predatory fish. See Bioaccumulation.208.114.132.151 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Affiliate disagreement

144.124.16.33, I am changing back your edits and explaining why here due to lack of room in the edit summary section.

• Anyone can claim the nutritionist title, it should be made clear that there is nothing special about calling someone a nutritionist, it is just Mercola's opinion.
• Homeopathy, laser-assisted detox, EFT/acupressure and energy medicine have not been accepted by the scientific community, and conflict with accepted practises.

To be clear, ths is not exactly true. Many treatments have been tested and found effective or not. If not, little is different between that and most treatment you get in a GP office - only 15% of standard medical treatment has been proven safe and effective (no reference). This should be a reference on Dr. Mercola with full treatment of facts, not a discussion on the benefits - or lack thereof - of holistic medicine.208.114.132.151 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note on the inaccurate "15%" number. Check this out: "The evidence for evidence-based medicine", Complementary Therapies in Medicine (2000), 8, 123–126 -- Fyslee 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Mercola does sell tapes and co-host seminars on EFT, he stands to make a profit from promoting it.
• The list of his affiliates are indeed growing, or even if not, is potentiall incomplete due to my lack of ability to find them all as of yet.

Hopefully you understand, and we can discuss your feelings here, rather than your turning this into an edit war. Tyciol 20:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV violations

This article is rife with unbelievably subjective edits. In the criticism section, there's a rant against allopathic (M.D.'s) physicians that includes accusations such as:

"Most health care systems worldwide are now completely controlled by the multinational pharmaceutical cartel. Natural medicine is not taught in medical schools so doctors emerge from their medical training as brain washed drug pushers."

It's probably been edited by Dr. Mercola himself, or an assistant. --Geekish 04:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look into this. I've been off Wiki for a couple weeks. Tyciol 16:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Done editing, hopefully most of this has been resolved. I do expect that there will be attempts to reintroduce these concepts, but they will be done from this new template which has included all of the positive changes, restored positive deleted text, and removed the addition of irrelevant or biased statements. Tyciol 17:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed subject header "Bad dietary advice" to "Controversial dietary advice" as the former header reflected bias. -Unknown

I may change that back. Remember, that category is classed under accusations. No one accuses him of being controversial, it's a plain fact, the accusation is that it is bad. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Extortion from Barrett?

I noticed that in the 'Critics' section, the first item was a statement that Stephen Barrett had threatened to sue Mercola "unless he gave him $10,000". There are no links nor citations to back up this claim. Extortion is a pretty serious claim to make about a person, and since I could not find any proof that Barrett made this demand for money, I removed the passage entirely. Nortelrye 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuit dismissal link?

I've noticed that in the links portion of the article, there was a link to 'healthfreedomlaw', Tim Bolen's lawyer's website, providing information about "Stephen Barrett's lawsuit against Mercola and resulting dismissal". The only problem with this link is that it provides no such information about the "resulting dismissal". The site has what appears to be scanned legal documents related to the case, but only has a motion for dismissal filed by Mister Negrete, and shows nothing to indicate that the motion was granted by the presiding judge. Furthermore, if the case were dismissed, then why does the article claim that Barrett attempted to extort $10,000 from Mercola before "settling out of court"? I've removed the link, as well as the $10,000 passage, in an attempt to improve the accuracy of the article. Nortelrye 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up on that, I avoided scrutinizing those because I don't understand much about law and documents. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sales promotions

"newsletters he writes constantly promote food, mechanical and information products sold from the site" is likely hyperbole. As a former big fan of Mercola, I think it's true, but 'constantly' could be a slushier 'seems often to'. I might just do it myself.208.114.132.151 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Every single issue of the newsletter he always has a link to something you can buy on his site. Furthermore, he takes the initiative of selling many things which are probably provided by many unmentioned competitors. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mercola is encouraging vandlism?

His latest E-news advertisment links to this article and encourages people to make changes. 18 July 2006 -Unknown

I semi-protected the article due to the wave of vandalism. Rhobite 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I guess I was wrong to let my vigil regarding this go slack. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The newsletter, which is spammed, indicates Wikipedia is a bad source of information. Mercola suggests this is a bad format and anyone can edit the page. Tried to turn everyone away from the page and the information contained in it. statsone 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say the newsletter is spammed. You do sign in for it, and he won't send it if you opt out. Nevertheless, it is excessively frequent (you could just make a slightly bigger one sent once a month, there is never any breaking information), repetetive, full of common sense things with his marketing and propoganda spin on it, but does have some good things. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mercola web site directed me here to see that Wikipedia could not be trusted as it is possible to edit this page. And so it is. But the page is a discussion page and not an supposedly factual article about Mercola or anyone else. I like Wikipedia, but I will take in to consideration that I don't know who the editors are. Interesting, there are so many sources with theories and information. I tend to enjoy Mercolas newsletters and share concerns about the Allopathic Medical system. We should all be open to ideas, considering both sides is not agreeing to it. It is good to question things as they are. Believer beware, YES? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.193.117.4 (talk • contribs) .

One might argue that the availability of anyone to edit a page makes it extremely trustworthy. Consider that there is no way to discuss with other readers of Mercola's site what he is saying, and therefore, no way to share the responses you receive regarding questions and criticism you may send in. The discussion page is a discussion page, yes, but the main article is indeed a very accurate article. The discussion is so we can discuss how to make the main article as neutral and factual as possible. Feel free to throw your hat in.

You should also not use the term 'allopathy', it's standard medicine, allopathy was created by the creator of the pseudoscience homeopathy and taken up by alternative practitioners and osteopathic doctors, as you'll find explained in the article on the term allopathy. I agree we should definately be open to new ideas, but we should also scrutinize ALL ideas, old and new. Standard medicine is science, it has been scrutinized, so guys speaking against it will be more heavily scrutinized. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to object to the term vandalism being used here. Encouraging people to edit on Wikipedia is a GOOD thing. The main problem is when people only use Wikipedia to edit a specific article, without first learning about Wikipedia, and how to make responsible edits. I do suspect Mercola was aware this would happen, which is certainly underhanded, but he did not overtly encourage vandalism, at most he subtly directed it. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrections

A few minor changes and corrections were made. Including the title of the book, and removal of books which do not appear to be listed on a book selling site.

The rank has been removed and changed to a general rank as alexa now shows11th overall in the health category. There is no way to verify the 35 million page views. statsone 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Article needs improvement

I have slightly improved the detail and references here. This article is still transitioning from the bipolar stage where supporters and critics slug it out in less than accurate generalities. It needs great improvement on details, terminology and inline references. The article is not a sympathetic treatment in overall tone. I changed "pseudoscience" to "controversial" because pseudoscience should be strictly applied to specific subjects that are unprovable or in direct scientific conflict. For the record, my opinion is that the "controversial practises" paragraph refers to or contains subjects in scientific debate, protoscience and some pseudoscience. Indiscriminate, broad condemnation of the whole is inappropriate.

"Conventional medical community" is more accurate phrasing than "scientific community". Although many in the "scientific community" may not agree with many parts of alternative medicine, "conventional medicine" is definitely closer to some group agreement than scientists generally. Scientists frequently disagree with the medical community in their own areas of research or other personal opinions. It often doesn't take much scratching to hear choice words and phrases from many in the scientific community about the medical community's beliefs or technical currency, much less over-reaching claims to scientific pronouncement. In medicine there are issues of scientific institutionalization, regulatory capture, and overformalism that do not fully represent science's methodology or a generalized SPOV.

Vitalism often seems to translate as a less technical form of complex biological, enzymatic, bioelectric, psychoimmunoneurological phenomena claims that may contain substantial elements of protoscience. I notice some name brand name US medical schools recently spending a lot of money and instituting new program options in related areas. A corrupt few? Last year had more than a few destruct in the world press; a former editor-in-chief of NEJM has criticized at least hundreds. Let's try to keep the "mainstream" claims to a dull roar, please.--I'clast 03:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Reviewed the article, the subject, and made more adjustments.--I'clast 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the main problems here is that protoscience is something that requires further research, and modification to be falsifiable, and is not something to be promoted. Technically, you might call all religions a protoscience, because they're not falsifiable either and can answer a lot of questions, but that doesn't make them scientific.

Regarding vitalism, considering some of the things promoted on his site, it's more likely Mercola is using the spiritual interpretation. Judging as how he seems to think all diseases can be prevented and cured by healthy living, this is vitalism, founded in his own opinions. Influenced by religion, alternative medicines, positive thinking, emotional freedom therapies (acupressure), he believes pretty much nothing can go wrong using his methods.

I would like to change it back to 'unsupported'. Critics would claim theories are unsupported, it is under the criticism section, so that is the title of the collected criticisms. 'Controversial' means absolutely nothing at all. Anything in Wikipedia can be called controversial, it's a meaningless statement. I would like to change it back again. Tyciol 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree that controversial is meaningless to the average reader, it is just not precise. I think the average reader tends to see it as implying loud factions or substantial hub-bub to near "out there". Certainly it is a heads up that there is disagreement. Although I think that Mercola may be zealous wrt to his religion, I also think that he does think scientifically & rationally on nutrition to develop his hypotheses & recommendations, based on broad evidence, not just the FDA or dbRCT kind. Unsupported would be very POV - "less than rock hard" or "substantial disagreement" (very awkward) would be closer, which also applies to exclusionary views that insist on "ironclad proof" when other less observed or less certain facts are ignored (also very common with obtuse or obstructive (not necessarily obtuse) naysayers).--I'clast 07:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not Soy(lent)

...seldom critical makes a better article. I would say Mercola sounds a little critical of alternative soy promotions:

• Soy May Cause Cancer and Brain Damage
• High Soy Diet During Pregnancy And Nursing May Cause Developmental Changes In Children
• Soy Can Cause Severe Allergic Reactions
• Soy Supplements Fail to Help Menopause Symptoms
• Pregnant Women Should Not Eat Soy Products
• Soy Baby Formula Linked to Behavioral Problems
• Soy Formula Exposes Infants To High Hormone Levels
• Soy Weakens Your Immune System--I'clast 03:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not including soy in my thoughts about 'alternative medicine' when I said he was not critical. Soy is hardly alternative medicine, it's rather common in the dietary industry these days. I might say corn has healthy properties, if he started bashing corn it wouldn't be bashing alternative medicine, it would be bashing unbacked claims about common foods. Tyciol 18:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Soy is still controversial in some quarters, even or perhaps especially alt med. I think that soy estrogen replacement is still alternative, despite the premarin disaster, but maybe the pharmas could use a new dead horse... Scientific alternative medicine e.g. orthomolecular medicine, maybe naturopathy, on estrogen replacement seeks closer to home. e.g. "Dr. Wright pioneered the use of bioidentical estrogens and DHEA in the 1980s."[1] Wright was also a pioneer criticizing premarin.--I'clast 07:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mercola article as a proxy battlefield & advertisement space

Per the WP:BLP note above (top), I am removing the poorly supported retraction & 50k part, accompanied by a highly partisan reference. The reference is replaced by linking (thru 1st google link) the available documents reproduced w/o commentary. I don't think that the Bolen and QW legal controversy should be played here at all unless it directly concerns Mercola or Mercola chooses to (re)enter it directly again. There are several parties who have swapped lawsuits including two previous legal contestants - one who has recently, publicly complained about this very Wiki article, and that the other is his outspoken (ahem)& litigatious public critic. I think that the retraction & 50k part would be best supported by simple reproductions of the legal paperwork, publice notices or retraction, 50k check(s) etc with as little editorial advertising as possible by either Bolen or QW, rather than even both sides' extraneous POV (ugh & BLP). If this can be accomplished, I think we can be encyclopedic and well meet WP:BLP. Thanks.--I'clast 05:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"anti-govt"

"This stance is also anti-government since the campaigns were supported by the Government and international health industries, as well as many reputable immunologists such as those at Cambridge University." Who is anti-government? the former CDC Director (Sencer) who pushed initiating the swine flu vaccination program and later acknowledgesd its disasterous failure? Trying to say JM is a Taliban sympathizer? Or that hurried measures of dubious constitutionality may be in conflict with the US or world governments? That the other states & world governments that failed to verify any other cases of swine flu outide Ft Dix in 1976 *in the whole world* after some gung-ho trooper collapsed & died shortly after a forced march after refusing to follow medical advice to remain in camp, rest & recover? 1976 set much of the current US anti-vax/critics sentiment loose (25-52 deaths depending on source, 500-4000 recorded Guillian Barre cases again depending on source/definition). Let's slow down, write carefully, & get some more references.--I'clast 10:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mercola/religion/product promotion

I have subscribed to Mercola's newsletters for several years, but I recently cancelled because I don't like the idea of religion being mixed in with science and BS about Angels looking out for me alongside advice for medical conditions. I also have a problem with his product recommendations. He used to recommend Costco's brand of fish oil, so I bought some and became ill with diarrhea. He then started recommending Carlson Brand fish oils because he discovered that Costco's were "contaminated". I don't think he puts time and effort into research and he doesn't seem to have a reliable staff to check out all the things he recommends. I prefer Dr. Michael Murray and other alternative practioners recommendations and feel more confident in the products they endorse. -Unknown, probably User:66.91.234.211

I share the disapproval of mixing religion with medicine/science. Nevertheless, religious doctors can still be a source of information if we ignore those parts (though it would be nice if we could customize our newsletter to exclude them so we don't have to) and there is some value in some of the questions Mercola asks. Did you try Carlson brand fish oils, and were they okay? I have to admit, giving bad recommendations sucks, but admitting them is responsible. Taking accountability and refunding the money or giving free Carlsons to those people would be far more responsible on the other hand... Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it was good of Mercola to admit that Costco fish oil might not be so good, that happened right about the same time he "discovered" that he could sell Carlson's fish oil on his site. I haven't tried Carlson's, but I think they are probably ok. I use Natural Factors OmegaRX pharmaceutical grade fish oil now and have had excellent results. I ordered products once from Mercola's website, and it took almost a month for the products to arrive. I received no response from their customer service and there was no phone number to call. I won't use their products again. I like Newstarget. He references Mercola occasionally, but his website is more interesting and has more information. User:66.91.234.211

Thanks, I'll check out that site. I have to admit, yeah, waiting to change your opinion on something's safety only when you find something more profitable is a bit shady. Tyciol 18:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography and edits

There seems to be multiple edits and reverts with no discussion whatsoever. When making such and edit, please provide commentary and discuss here. statsone 01:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the action was apparently on the Stephen Barret talk page[2] with regard to the rules there (different?). More NATTO & Fyslee discussion[3]. I have requested[4] an admin with some BLP experience to take a fresh look and help all of us out on how BLP applies here.--I'clast 11:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done. statsone 12:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Statsone and I'clast. I apologize for not posting an explanation on the talk page, but I did explain the reasons for my edits on the history page. I'clast is correct that the problem started with Fyslee making a unilateral addition to the Legal section of the Barrett article. I tried to discuss the situation with him to no avail. I then realized that he had made the same edits to the Mercola page so I reverted then. On the Barrett article we have agreed a while ago that we would adopt a high standard of verifiability for legal case in BLP. Thus our legal section is very well referenced and that work well until Fyslee, a self professed quackbuster that did not like that the court decisions were not favorable to Barrett, decided to post the item about a settlement with Mercola without proper verifiability. On the Barrett page we try to have the article well referenced, especially when legal and negative issues are concerned. I, for one, think that should be the standard of verifiability for all article citing living persons.

Fyslee and I had finally apparently settled the issue, when Guy swooped in and drew what I think were premature conclusions. Yielding his rule book and serving warning. NATTO 09:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

FDA criticism

Obviously Mercola has engaged in a battle with the FDA and perhaps the FDA with Mercola. In referencing this saga, the context of claims needs to be kept in mind. I moved a reference relating to Mercola's criticism of the FDA with Vioxx away from an inference that Mercola had previously criticised the FDA over Vioxx, for which there is no evidence, to the more general statement that Mercola criticises the introduction of new drugs. The article claims that "his early drug warnings have sometimes been confirmed by drugs later withdrawn from the market after substantial adverse experience". No references have been supplied supporting this and so I have added the need for citations.

The other oil crisis

I have moved the Todays Dietitian refMeals High In Saturated Fat Impair "good" Cholesterol's Ability To Protect Against Clogged Arteries to Talk because it is greatly overstated in authority and does show some partisan sponsorship (ADM, 1st ad) on the cover story page. This is a small, 6hr lab experiment that produced some interesting results that deserve followup on a lot of questions, but were then overinterpreted by the authors, *and then greatly ballyhooed* in the media. For another view of the interpretation of the data and the paper's significance, pls read this. AHA has always been changing its position on diet, which is considered to deficient by a number of groups for different reasons. "increasingly" on saturated fats, no way. In the 1980s before almost anyone had heard of transfat, saturated fats were THE great evil, now trans fats win that spot, hands down. Let's be a little careful about that sweeping, unqualified "saturated fats" phrase please. Strictly speaking there are saturated fats that without which, there a slight problem, you cease to function, and others that *are* therapeutically useful.--66.58.130.56 10:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)