Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mercola / Natural News as sources

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Torakx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Jh79, I think you are partly correct. He does promote products unneccesarily for profits. And I would agree that it is a rather large claim regarding the cancer one! He might be going with the fungus route to make that claim. Which is something I still consider to be possible.

    He also gives good information on curing issues that doctors cannot cure...
    I know this because the same "quackery" I spout about natural health and the origin of diseases, also sometimes comes from him(iirc, I rarely see his site etc, it doesn't come up in scientific research, like lab results on micro organisims), and the proof is in the pudding, for me. I have experienced my theories working where trained experts have been completely and utterly clueless. It was shocking when I first healed nearly completely. I felt like I had been screwed royallly, by those who are supposed to help us.

    You are possibly coming from the perspective that trained doctors know what they are doing, so a snake oil salesman can only do harm. In reality most of Mercolas site is creating awareness of various issues and natural remedies that do not often have crazy side effects, especially compared to the drugs an "expert" would give you. He is informing and alsobeing a sneaky business man.
    The other side of the coin are a massive majority of health practitioners, who prescribe artificial and often damaging drugs to manage symptoms instead of dealing with or finding the root issues(at least in some important areas, especially relating to the gut and that whole immune system).

    What I'm saying is that I am not sure any side is NOT a snake oil salesman.
    Which one does more damage in the long run? I have to say the most popular of tools must do the job the best.
    People need to stoprelying on both and start learnign how their own bodies function. It's easy for me tosay, I got extremely ill for like..10+ years of my life. Which forced me to learn and I like that.
    Others might not suffer enough to do this and die early due to bad diet and immune systems compromised.


  • Options
    #33
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Here is an article about fluoride and GAF from his website. While I'm not saying that a Doctor can't be anti-fluoridation , the section titled

    "The  Low-Down About Fluoride: It's Toxic and It Doesn't Work"

    Statements made it that section nobody with a 3rd level qualification in science would make.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/04/ireland-mandatory-water-fluoridation.aspx

    But it does help increase traffic to his website.


  • Options
    #34
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Here is a link on Mercola that includes quackery about cancer being a fungus! A Doctor that thinks cancer is a fungus?

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/03/15-years-of-promoting-quackery/


  • Options
    #35
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    You still fail to point out what the conspiracy is here


  • Options
    #36
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    You still fail to point out what the conspiracy is here

    No way a doctor could believe in any of the stuff he peddles but a gullible person may feel that there must be something to his claims considering he is a real doctor.

    He also supports many other conspiracy theories to generate business. No way he believes in these theories and is just exploiting vulnerable people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Just thought I'll put a CT here ... Because the OP keeps failing to put forward a proper CT.
    Traditional, natural and alternative medicines
    Many proponents of traditional, natural and alternative medicines claim that pharmaceutical companies and various governments and government agencies conspire to maintain profits by ensuring that the general public uses only modern medicines. For example, many countries have laws that prevent unproven medicinal claims from being printed on packaging, advertisements, etc., for medicines. Any substance for which medicinal claims are made are deemed "drugs". (See Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.) Proponents of traditional, natural and alternative medicines often claim that since herbs, etc., are of natural origin, they are not drugs and that such laws fallaciously define them as drugs in order to control and ultimately limit or prevent their distribution thus ensuring profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

    A variation on this conspiracy is claimed by Kevin Trudeau, author of Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About. He claims that in the USA, "they" (pharmaceutical companies, the FDA and FTC) conspire to withhold natural cures because "they" can make more profit selling long-term treatments, that do not cure, in perpetuity.


  • Options
    #38
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Just thought I'll put a CT here ... Because the OP keeps failing to put forward a proper CT.

    I don't think you like the idea of something you believe in being challenged. If you believe in the nonsense found on Mercola and Natural News then support their claims with evidence. How can you consider websites that say cancer is a fungus or that there is an homeopathic cure for Ebola as credible sources? How could any person be that gullible.

    "Many proponents of traditional, natural and alternative medicines claim that pharmaceutical companies and various governments and government agencies conspire to maintain profits by ensuring that the general public uses only modern medicines"

    Completely delusional, people who believe this are exactly the gullible types the likes of Mercola love.

    Majority of alternative medicines have absolutely no clinical effect. Those that show some minor effects just provide a starting point for the development of actual medicine.

    If alt medicine works where is the evidence. It is a big business they can afford to do trials.


  • Options
    #39
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    I don't think you like the idea of something you believe in being challenged. If you believe in the nonsense found on Mercola and Natural News then support their claims with evidence.

    Just to stop you right there ..... I don't mind a challenge but I get a bit tired of your ramblings about mercola etc without even providing a viable conspiracy regarding them

    So far you gave your opinion about them but did NOT present a CT

    Get a feeling you want your soapbox but I'm not entertaining that


  • Options
    #40
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Just to stop you right there ..... I don't mind a challenge but I get a bit tired of your ramblings about mercola etc without even providing a viable conspiracy regarding them

    So far you gave your opinion about them but did NOT present a CT

    Get a feeling you want your soapbox but I'm not entertaining that

    The CT is that he promotes ridiculous conspiracy theories around medicine to generate business for his webshop.

    Do you honestly think Doctor would believe cancer is a fungus or that some old wives tales are enough to eliminate virtually all risk of cancer?

    So why does he makes such ridiculous claims? Because unfortunately there are plenty of gullible people out there , the fact he is an MD might sway them into buying his snake oil.

    He also appears on Natural News, a mind boggling crazy site, to fish for customers. He supports people like GAF in Ireland because he knows the type of people that get taken in by her are the same type that will buy his snake oil. He knows it is all nonsense but is clever enough to know he can take advantage of those who believe.


  • Options
    #41
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    The CT is that he promotes ridiculous conspiracy theories around medicine to generate business for his webshop.

    How is that a CT ?

    Definition of a CT
    conspiracy theory noun
    : a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups

    So what is his secret plan regarding sales via his webshop ?

    And maybe instead of posting only your opinion maybe you could post some relevant information regarding the CT angle you are trying to make


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    How is that a CT ?

    Definition of a CT



    So what is his secret plan regarding sales via his webshop ?

    And maybe instead of posting only your opinion maybe you could post some relevant information regarding the CT angle you are trying to make

    One more time (I did ok this with a Mod by the way),

    He is a doctor who helps promote conspiracy theories regarding health matters (eg anti-vaccines, cancer cures , anti-fluoride etc) not because he believes them to be true (he wouldn't of got through medical school if he did) but because he knows the type of person who would believe these outrageous theories would more than likely be gullible enough to buy his snake oil. He has made quite a successful business from promoting alt medicine nonsense on his own and other websites.

    Would you not question the integrity of a doctor who contributes to Natural News or supports theories that cancer is a fungus? What would you think is his true motivation?


  • Options
    #43
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    One more time (I did ok this with a Mod by the way),

    I know but it doesnt mean you automaticly present a valid CT
    jh79 wrote: »
    He is a doctor who helps promote conspiracy theories regarding health matters (eg anti-vaccines, cancer cures , anti-fluoride etc) not because he believes them to be true (he wouldn't of got through medical school if he did) but because he knows the type of person who would believe these outrageous theories would more than likely be gullible enough to buy his snake oil. He has made quite a successful business from promoting alt medicine nonsense on his own and other websites.

    Any source backing that up and to me that is not even a Conspiracy theory ... maybe a mod can shed some more light on this


  • Options
    #44
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I know but it doesnt mean you automaticly present a valid CT



    Any source backing that up and to me that is not even a Conspiracy theory ... maybe a mod can shed some more light on this


    I gave links earlier to some of his strange views.


  • Options
    #45
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/08/27/impossible-cure-part-two.aspx

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/11/extraordinary-creative-and-psychic-powers-of-animals.aspx

    http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/neurological_damage.htm

    Coupled with his numerous FDA warning letter s and strange notion of cancer being a fungus, can a medical professional unintentionally make this many poor errors of judgement?

    Or does he like to use his position as an MD to try and make these CT's seem somewhat legitimate and at the same time traffic to his webstore for his magic beans?


  • Options
    #46
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/08/27/impossible-cure-part-two.aspx

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/11/extraordinary-creative-and-psychic-powers-of-animals.aspx

    http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/neurological_damage.htm

    Coupled with his numerous FDA warning letter s and strange notion of cancer being a fungus, can a medical professional unintentionally make this many poor errors of judgement?

    Or does he like to use his position as an MD to try and make these CT's seem somewhat legitimate and at the same time traffic to his webstore for his magic beans?

    What is the CT regarding the Three links you provided ? I can't see it sorry

    Making money or generating traffic on your website is a CT how ?


  • Options
    #47
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    What is the CT regarding the Three links you provided ? I can't see it sorry

    Making money or generating traffic on your website is a CT how ?

    If you believe him to be genuine then there is no CT.

    I don't believe he is genuine as a doctor there is no way he is taken in by any of these crazy theories.

    He promotes GAF and contributes to Natural'News etc because he knows the people who do genuinely believe in these sites /people would be gullible enough to believe some seaweed will " virtually eliminate the risk of cancer" and he exploits this for his personal gain.

    Are you saying you think he genuinely believes that cancer is a fungus ? Can you give an alternative explanation for why he would support such a theory?


  • Options
    #48
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    If you believe him to be genuine then there is no CT.

    Not being genuine does not mean automatically that there is a CT ... I gave you a definition of the meaning of the phrase conspiracy theory.

    And secondly I asked you to point out the CT in your 3 links ... Can you point out the CT in any of the examples you gave ?


  • Options
    #49
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Not being genuine does not mean automatically that there is a CT ... I gave you a definition of the meaning of the phrase conspiracy theory.

    And secondly I asked you to point out the CT in your 3 links ... Can you point out the CT in any of the examples you gave ?

    The links give a general feeling for the type of nonsense he is willing to put his name to. Don't focus on any one in particular just ask is it possible for a Doctor to genuinely believe in so much woo.

    The conspisrcy involves promoting and legitimising conspiracy theories with his Dr title to identify and exploit irrational people for whom evidence of clinical effect is not as important as adhering to a world view that "big pharmacy" suppresses natural cures and similar flawed ideas.

    How can he support 'cancer as fungus" and also Dr burzynski? Unless of course maintaining a healthy alt med / snske oil community to exploit is his true aim.


  • Options
    #50
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    The links give a general feeling for the type of nonsense he is willing to put his name to. Don't focus on any one in particular just ask is it possible for a Doctor to genuinely believe in so much woo.

    The conspisrcy involves promoting and legitimising conspiracy theories with his Dr title to identify and exploit irrational people for whom evidence of clinical effect is not as important as adhering to a world view that "big pharmacy" suppresses natural cures and similar flawed ideas.

    How can he support 'cancer as fungus" and also Dr burzynski? Unless of course maintaining a healthy alt med / snske oil community to exploit is his true aim.

    But again ...what you are saying above is your opinion. I have seen nothing in your postings that hints to a conspiracy ... I truly believe you are using the wrong forum to vent your outrage ... Maybe the skeptics forum would be more suited ??


  • Options
    #51
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    But again ...what you are saying above is your opinion. I have seen nothing in your postings that hints to a conspiracy ... I truly believe you are using the wrong forum to vent your outrage ... Maybe the skeptics forum would be more suited ??

    Again I cleared it with a Mod first.

    The fluoride thread didn't adhere to your definition of a CT either. It was just a discussion on whether you believed it to be harmful or not based on the publicly available research papers. A matter of opinion also. You had no problem with the fluoride thread.

    The skeptics forum isn't suitable because there is no real evidence to back up the claims on Mercola or Natural News, there is nothing to be skeptical about.
    For example what is there to be skeptical about concerning the theory that cancer is a fungus? It is a fact that it is not.

    The conspiracy is based on why people like Mercola encourage such nonsense who gains etc how they manage to get these woo based theories into the public sphere, do they collaborate together , does Mercola take advantage of the ignorant people behind Natural News or someone like GAF?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    The conspiracy is based on why people like Mercola encourage such nonsense who gains etc how they manage to get these woo based theories into the public sphere, do they collaborate together , does Mercola take advantage of the ignorant people behind Natural News or someone like GAF?

    Then present something that collaborates with your personal theory mentioned above

    You put out a hypothesis ... Not a conspiracy theory

    You should answer these questions you ask in your post above yourself and with these answers you might be able to construct a CT which can be discussed here, what you are doing now is post some random links and claim it to be part of a CT ...

    And the CT in the fluoride thread was discussed many times ... The thread evolved in a much wider discussion later. ( I posted several links as to why it's political suicide to label fluoride as being dangerous) and the conspiracy to keep the status quo


  • Options
    #53
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    jh79 wrote: »
    The conspiracy is based on why people like Mercola encourage such nonsense who gains etc how they manage to get these woo based theories into the public sphere, do they collaborate together , does Mercola take advantage of the ignorant people behind Natural News or someone like GAF?

    I think it's porbable that some of the people who post to Natural News and the like are just innocently fooled by bad information.
    I even think it's possible that Mercola himself is a true believer, just one who enjoys a very good income from his believes.

    Even if he is a doctor, it's not like that grants him an immunity to believing in bad science or arguments. And if he was scientifically minded enough to realise some of the stuff on his site is abject crap, he could genuinely believe in putting the information out so that people can make up their own minds.

    Personally I think it's a little of both. I think he really buys into some of the stuff but is perfectly aware of what he is doing to promote it.
    I feel that the conspiracy theory angles he, and fellow crap peddler Mike Adams have been taking lately have been solely just to draw clicks to their sites and get attention from a wider audience.


  • Options
    #54
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Then present something that collaborates with your personal theory mentioned above

    You put out a hypothesis ... Not a conspiracy theory

    You should answer these questions you ask in your post above yourself and with these answers you might be able to construct a CT which can be discussed here, what you are doing now is post some random links and claim it to be part of a CT ...

    And the CT in the fluoride thread was discussed many times ... The thread evolved in a much wider discussion later. ( I posted several links as to why it's political suicide to label fluoride as being dangerous) and the conspiracy to keep the status quo

    Sorry but the fluoride thread did not present a CT based on your earlier criteria, for that matter does the Bill Gates one?,

    The fluoride thread went on for months about various reports and paper virtually nothing else. No powerful people or groups mentioned.

    "a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups"

    The Nazi / Docile thing which fits the above criteria was dismissed pretty much by both sides.

    "I posted several links as to why it's political suicide to label fluoride as being dangerous"

    How is that a conspiracy? It wouldn't be true in the first place.

    It would only be a conspiracy if there was evidence being suppressed etc which there is not. Misrepresentation of scientific data by the anti fluoride side doesn't make the correct interpretation a conspiracy. Toxicity being dose dependent is a fact not a matter of opinion.

    Remember only 3 papers from China dealt with sub 1ppm levels of fluoride. Only two are available online, One paper , based on the equation provided shows no effect on IQ between 0.3 ppm and 0.7 ppm and the other had Iodine as a confounding factor. Therefore there is no conspiracy.


  • Options
    #55
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    King Mob wrote: »
    I think it's porbable that some of the people who post to Natural News and the like are just innocently fooled by bad information.
    I even think it's possible that Mercola himself is a true believer, just one who enjoys a very good income from his believes.

    Even if he is a doctor, it's not like that grants him an immunity to believing in bad science or arguments. And if he was scientifically minded enough to realise some of the stuff on his site is abject crap, he could genuinely believe in putting the information out so that people can make up their own minds.

    Personally I think it's a little of both. I think he really buys into some of the stuff but is perfectly aware of what he is doing to promote it.
    I feel that the conspiracy theory angles he, and fellow crap peddler Mike Adams have been taking lately have been solely just to draw clicks to their sites and get attention from a wider audience.

    I would agree but the cancer is a fungus thing makes make think it is all a ruse to fish for clients by latching on to various CT websites and theories.

    He supports two conflicting quack cancer treatments. If he genuinely believes cancer to be a fungus then the how can he support ' Dr burzynski quack treatment?

    Unless of course maintaining a healthy alt med / snake oil / CT community to exploit is his true aim.


  • Options
    #56
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Sorry but the fluoride thread did not present a CT based on your earlier criteria, for that matter does the Bill Gates one?,

    The fluoride thread went on for months about various reports and paper virtually nothing else. No powerful people or groups mentioned.

    "a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups"

    The Nazi / Docile thing which fits the above criteria was dismissed pretty much by both sides.

    "I posted several links as to why it's political suicide to label fluoride as being dangerous"

    How is that a conspiracy? It wouldn't be true in the first place.

    It would only be a conspiracy if there was evidence being suppressed etc which there is not. Misrepresentation of scientific data by the anti fluoride side doesn't make the correct interpretation a conspiracy. Toxicity being dose dependent is a fact not a matter of opinion.

    Remember only 3 papers from China dealt with sub 1ppm levels of fluoride. Only two are available online, One paper , based on the equation provided shows no effect on IQ between 0.3 ppm and 0.7 ppm and the other had Iodine as a confounding factor. Therefore there is no conspiracy.


    I suggest you focus on presenting a valid CT in the thread you created ... You seem to know what is wrong in other threads but somehow cannot present one in your own created thread.


  • Options
    #57
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I suggest you focus on presenting a valid CT in the thread you created ... You seem to know what is wrong in other threads but somehow cannot present one in your own created thread.

    You questioned the validity of the CT I just pointed out it is as valid as previously posted CT's. It is as much a CT as fluoridation and Bill Gates.

    I think the issue here isn't the quality of the CT, (fluoridation wasn't a problem for you) but that you are a fan of these sites but know you won't be able to defend them.


  • Options
    #58
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    You questioned the validity of the CT I just pointed out it is as valid as previously posted CT's. It is as much a CT as fluoridation and Bill Gates..

    This is one of my many posts explaining the CT in the Fluoride thread

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86632475&postcount=1128
    jh79 wrote: »
    I think the issue here isn't the quality of the CT, (fluoridation wasn't a problem for you) but that you are a fan of these sites but know you won't be able to defend them.

    To be honest I think you spend more time on these sites then I have ever done

    And the bolded part speaks for itself, of someone running out of arguments


  • Options
    #59
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    As far fetched it seems ... It is a properly explained CT



  • Options
    #60
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    jh79 wrote: »
    I would agree but the cancer is a fungus thing makes make think it is all a ruse to fish for clients by latching on to various CT websites and theories.

    He supports two conflicting quack cancer treatments. If he genuinely believes cancer to be a fungus then the how can he support ' Dr burzynski quack treatment?

    Unless of course maintaining a healthy alt med / snake oil / CT community to exploit is his true aim.
    Well if I remember rightly, Burzynski's cure relies on something call anti-plastrons (or something like that) and I'm not sure if there's anything that would exclude that working on a fungus. (Going by a uninformed, non scientific assumption that I suggest that Mercola would be working going by as well.)

    It could also be that his "support" of the cancer=fungus is a case of him just trying to "put the information out there."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    This is one of my many posts explaining the CT in the Fluoride thread

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86632475&postcount=1128

    Can't watch the video now but from memory some UK councils don't agree with it and that some biochemist also based on some in vitro work. So what. Toxicity on a cellular level doesn't mean toxicity in a clinical sense. Drug discovery would be a lot easier if this was the case. Hence animal studies , clinical trials etc.

    What were the doses of fluoride used etc. You still have no evidence of toxicity. So no politics at play cause there is nothing to hide therefore no valid CT.


Advertisement