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
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes i read that

    Where is the conspiracy other then they counter Mercola's claims ?

    If I want to sell you a bottle of holy water that I believe can cure you from any illness what Am i conspiring to then ?

    Be specific ... not some lazy copy paste of whole articles and then expect others to find the possible conspiracy.

    Claims is being generous he is not some angel reader homeopath, he is an actual doctor while some will have difference s of opinion, the anti vacc / pyschic dogs / homeopathy views go beyond anything that could be passed off as genuine errors of judgements.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/joe-mercola-quackery-pays/


  • Options
    #153
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Claims is being generous he is not some angel reader homeopath, he is an actual doctor while some will have difference s of opinion, the anti vacc / pyschic dogs / homeopathy views go beyond anything that could be passed off as genuine errors of judgements.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/joe-mercola-quackery-pays/

    I will keep repeating myself

    What is the conspiracy??

    There is not even one hint towards a CT in your last link

    If you think there is then please quote that specific part

    Quackery and selling snake oil does not equal CT by default

    There are more CT angles regarding big pharma and the FDA ...As i showed you


  • Options
    #154
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I will keep repeating myself

    What is the conspiracy??

    There is not even one hint towards a CT in your last link

    If you think there is then please quote that specific part

    Quackery and selling snake oil does not equal CT by default

    There are more CT angles regarding big pharma and the FDA ...As i showed you

    Can you explain why big pharmacy is a conspiracy but big snake oil isn't?


  • Options
    #155
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Can you explain why big pharmacy is a conspiracy but big snake oil isn't?

    Can i suggest you focus on my last post regarding presenting a viable CT?

    One we can actually identify and discuss?


  • Options
    #156
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Can i suggest you focus on my last post regarding presenting a viable CT?

    One we can actually identify and discuss?

    I,m saying it is as valid as previous big pharma CT's so I don't need to justify it to you , if you don't see a CT than fair enough. I,
    've it explained as much as I can.

    Anyways plenty of articles of woo, sheer volume suggests a cynical attempt to appeal to the gullible alternative types who tend to believe in a lot of this stuff.

    Admittedly he could be just as gullible as the anti-vaccers/colloidal silver / big pharmacy suppression of natural cures types but I can't see it, he is too successful to be that flaky.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    I,m saying it is as valid as previous big pharma CT's so I don't need to justify it to you , if you don't see a CT than fair enough. I,
    've it explained as much as I can.

    Lazy copy pasting of a whole article without even being able to point out the conspiracy in that article or the part containing the CT in said article is not how you have a discussion sorry.
    jh79 wrote: »
    Anyways plenty of articles of woo, sheer volume suggests a cynical attempt to appeal to the gullible alternative types who tend to believe in a lot of this stuff.

    That in itself is not a Conspiracy
    jh79 wrote: »
    Admittedly he could be just as gullible as the anti-vaccers/colloidal silver / big pharmacy suppression of natural cures types but I can't see it, he is too successful to be that flaky.

    So being successful equals CT in your book ?


  • Options
    #158
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Lazy copy pasting of a whole article without even being able to point out the conspiracy in that article or the part containing the CT in said article is not how you have a discussion sorry.



    That in itself is not a Conspiracy



    So being successful equals CT in your book ?

    Not saying it is a good conspiracy theory just that it is as good as other posted here eg fluoridation.

    To believe in most of these Natural News / Mercola theories requires a certain type of mindset. His business acumen shows he isn't on the same level as those he supports.

    For example GAF thinks she can talk to Angels and that a bone broth enema can cure autism while Declan Waugh has a science degree yet supports her campaigns without ever correcting her basic errors eg natural fluoride , I think these facts can give us an indication of their respective integrities.


  • Options
    #159
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Not saying it is a good conspiracy theory just that it is as good as other posted here eg fluoridation.

    Then i suggest you do a re-read of that thread .... there were many CT's presented .... well documented ones with plenty of backing by reputable people


  • Options
    #160
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Then i suggest you do a re-read of that thread .... there were many CT's presented .... well documented ones with plenty of backing by reputable people

    Give an example without youtube on anything that isn't an incorrect interpretation of a paper or plain misrepresentation?? Has to be some truth to it to be a conspiracy wouldn't you agree?


  • Options
    #161
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Give an example without youtube on anything that isn't an incorrect interpretation of a paper or plain misrepresentation?? Has to be some truth to it to be a conspiracy wouldn't you agree?

    Trouble with the truth part is that while the truth can be there it is only accepted in due time when the theory is confirmed .... And why can a CT not be presented on Youtube ? I think its handy ... you can look back and verify or debunk what was said


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Trouble with the truth part is that while the truth can be there it is only accepted in due time when the theory is confirmed .... And why can a CT not be presented on Youtube ? I think its handy ... you can look back and verify or debunk what was said

    Nothing to debunk, toxicity at high levels is not evidence that there is a conspiracy around fluoridation. You would need to show that different standards were applied to fluoride compared to other chemicals for there to be a conspiracy.

    All research is freely available on fluoride it is not a conspiracy if people don;t understand the maxim that toxicity is dose dependent.


  • Options
    #163
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Regarding youtube , just put up the research papers why waste time with long winded videos?


  • Options
    #164
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Regarding youtube , just put up the research papers why waste time with long winded videos?

    since when is a conspiracy theory presented in Research papers ??


  • Options
    #165
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Do you want to move this to a new fluoride thread (if ok with the mods)?


  • Options
    #166
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Do you want to move this to a new fluoride thread (if ok with the mods)?

    There is one open at the moment ... you started it (regarding IQ)

    One thing I wont do is repeating what was posted in the one that is closed


  • Options
    #167
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Regarding your question in the Feedback thread,

    He is claiming that his product "virtually removes all risk of developing cancer" despite it never been tested in humans for such use. He is marketing it as a preventative medicine without any evidence.

    It is just a vitamin supplement no different than a Centrium. Inhibiting some molecules that are involved in cancer growth in animal trials and cell cultures doesn't make it preventative medicine. How does he even know what an effective dose would be?

    Surely you can see how suspicious it is for a Doctor to make such basic errors?


  • Options
    #168
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Regarding your question in the Feedback thread,

    He is claiming that his product "virtually removes all risk of developing cancer" despite it never been tested in humans for such use. He is marketing it as a preventative medicine without any evidence.

    It is just a vitamin supplement no different than a Centrium. Inhibiting some molecules that are involved in cancer growth in animal trials and cell cultures doesn't make it preventative medicine. How does he even know what an effective dose would be?

    Surely you can see how suspicious it is for a Doctor to make such basic errors?

    Look I see your points about the science not being behind his claims but imho you need to take it to the next level as to look into why ... If you are able to find that, then that piece of information can be used in a CT .. All we have now is people who believe all these natural remedies are working. (for a part Im one of these persons) and you have people who say its quackery and snake oil etc .. and that is what is discussed largely in this thread.

    I googled claims made against Mercola regarding a conspiracy to get the ball rolling but could not find any angle. Only conspiracy's claimed by Mercola himself regarding big pharma etc.

    So I am not going forward in this discussion because this will only lead to mod action later on and its not worth that... I will keep looking for a possible CT implicating mercola and will post any relevant info then


  • Options
    #169
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Look I see your points about the science not being behind his claims but imho you need to take it to the next level as to look into why ... If you are able to find that, then that piece of information can be used in a CT .. All we have now is people who believe all these natural remedies are working. (for a part Im one of these persons) and you have people who say its quackery and snake oil etc .. and that is what is discussed largely in this thread.

    I googled claims made against Mercola regarding a conspiracy to get the ball rolling but could not find any angle. Only conspiracy's claimed by Mercola himself regarding big pharma etc.

    So I am not going forward in this discussion because this will only lead to mod action later on and its not worth that... I will keep looking for a possible CT implicating mercola and will post any relevant info then

    As I said earlier in the thread the CT only works if you believe that it is impossible for a medical professional to believe and support the sheer volume of CT's that he does.

    I do see that there is not much to discuss regarding the conspiracy as it just involves highlighting his willingness to support and promote various medically flawed theories.

    If it was a single CT say fluoride for example then maybe I might find it believable that he is genuine but it is just the share volume and his willingness to give a platform to the like of Mike Adams (homeopathy for ebola ffs) that I find unbelievable. For example Grandjean at Harvard, disagree with what he says but believe he is genuine . The why is financial gain.


Advertisement