This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I removed a ref [1](and am looking at the others), to ensure they are related to the article.
I've reverted a series of changes which I think are problematic. I'll elaborate my concerns here.
I'm open to feedback on these concerns. MastCell Talk 20:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to check if I can get other sources. By the way, I'm still a newbie editing here at wikipedia, with regards to the infobox of Joseph Mercola, some of the info are already obsolete, how do I change them? do I need to cite sources as well? Thank you for your patience. -- Nuikotan ( talk) 03:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to completely rewrite this piece which is totally biased and more like propaganda than an objective account which gives both sides of the issue. You can't rely on one-sided sources with profit-making agendas, which totally pervert truth, to provide an objective account.
This article has more than 30 links to mercola.com. It should have one (or at most a handful). There is an excessive reliance on primary sources directly associated with the article subject, when this article should instead be based on independent, reliable third-party sources. The overreliance on primary sources makes the article less encyclopedic. I would propose trimming material sourced from mercola.com, as the goal is to briefly summarize this material rather than present a combination autobiography/rehash of mercola.com. The meat of the article needs to be based on independent, reliable sources if the article is to be worthy of an encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/huffpost-game-changers-wh_n_347227.html MaxPont ( talk) 08:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Who decided to use this as a source/argument backing up thimerosal containing vaccines?
"Extensive evidence has accumulated since 1999 showing that this preservative is safe,[31] with the World Health Organization stating in 2006 that "there is no evidence of toxicity in infants, children or adults exposed to thiomersal in vaccines"."
Extensive evidence has also accumulated to prove the exact opposite. Several physicians and researchers have discovered the same thing as Dr. Andrew Wakefield on the bowel disease caused by the MMR vaccine as well as a link to autism. The main stream media, WHO, CDC, our Federal Government, and Pharmaceutical industries are trying to cover it up. Why is that you can sue Pharmaceutical companies for a drug that damaged you, a.k.a. Celebrex and several others but Pharmaceutical companies are protected from vaccine lawsuits by law?
The World Health Organization is a joke and is not a reliable resource. There was a news report on them just today stating "The swine flu vaccine is causing narcolepsy in children, but continue to give it to them because the odds of them getting it are low and the benefits outweigh the risk." I guess if you believe that you should keep giving it to your kids, I have a bridge for you to buy. Several countries have had deaths from the flu vaccine and the swine flu vaccine and China and Australia both stopped giving it to them. Don't blatantly state that WITHOUT A DOUBT thimerosal (which was also spelled wrong in the article) has been proven to be safe when there are several cases of vaccines injuring children with febrile seizures, narcolepsy, gion-beret syndrome, and other issues. Why is it that the swine flu vaccine was offered with and without Thimerosal? If it was so good for you, wouldn't it only be offered with it? Why won't a vaccine study be done on vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated children to put an end to the autism debate? I think someone is scared of the outcome. Moral of the story, your evidence is only as good as your resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 ( talk) 21:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess you know more than all of the doctors and scientists who say the opposite. I guess you know more than all of the countries who have banned certain vaccines containing thimerosal, but yet the U.S. continues to use it because, as you say, it's 'pretty safe'. Maybe you should listen to your own advice since it appears you are fully concentrated with ignorance. If you have to use the word 'pretty' before the safe, then it's questionable. Try looking at the swine flu vaccine insert, then continue to write your ignorant comments. The moral of the story here is, one source from the WHO does not deem it a scientific fact and not should be used in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 ( talk) 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure who decided that Joseph Mercola's claim that his books made it to the New York Times bestsellers list was false. A quick search of the NY Times archives brought up this page:
Showing his book "the no grain diet" on the best seller list. I haven't even looked for the other book yet, or checked how long this one was on the best seller list for. I'm just surprised that the statement that his books do not appear on the list is made when it's so easy to corroborate that his books did indeed make the best seller list. Evelyn miles ( talk) 08:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone discuss the accuracies of his claim on unferemented soy products like soy milk being harfmul? Is there any double blind test to prove the validity of that claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.16.102 ( talk) 16:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Article is tagged with "alumni of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign" but article text says he attended the University of Illinois at Chicago, a different institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.39.43 ( talk) 20:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the article cited at 14 is a comparison of whole-grain foods versus "white" bread. Its basic point is that a diet which includes whole grains is healthier than a diet which includes white flour products in their place. The idea of excluding grains from the diet altogether receives no mention at all. I hardly think it justifies the blanket statement that grains = good, particularly in this context.
You may read the whole article (or even just the abstract) here: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v58/n11/full/1601995a.html
146.96.34.107 ( talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Information in lead should be included in the body of the article. Lambanog ( talk) 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
If the adjective "controversial" is going to be included as the first to describe Mercola, it should probably come from better sources and be more explicitly stated. Many notable people can be called controversial but putting that in the first description with relatively poor sourcing seems inappropriate. Please find better more explicit source for the description or drop it altogether and let the presentation of facts speak for itself. Lambanog ( talk) 16:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There seem to be many slanted claims made in the article supported by references that fail to verify them properly. Half the lead is devoted to what appear to be criminal allegations but do not appear in the body with as much detail. Reads like an attack article that does not reflect Mercola's notability. Lambanog ( talk) 09:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The article suffers from an extreme case of bloat - most of it basically rehashes claims made on Mercola's website, in clear violation of this site's sourcing policies which prioritize independent, reliable sources. Again, if you think the article fails to reflect Mercola's notability, then the solution is to bring forward independent, reliable sources demonstrating his notability. MastCell Talk 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that there is repetition in the article regarding the 2005, 2006 and 2011 warnings from the USFDA:
I tried to remove the second of these but my changes were reverted, as I had removed sourced material. Jimjamjak ( talk) 10:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/azt.aspx unreliable fringe source? This article], from 2008, is clearly listed as authored by "Dr. Mercola". It runs through the standard AIDS-denialist talking points, disparaging the entire medical literature on antiretrovirals and claiming that Peter Duesberg has offered a "thorough and devastating critique" of antiretroviral therapy. The article asserts, in the author's voice, that HIV "does not destroy T-cells in test tubes and has never been shown to destroy them in humans, either" (which is both a falsehood and a common AIDS-denialist claim). Mercola states his belief that HIV "does not affect T-cells, at all." He goes on to argue that AIDS is actually caused not by HIV, but by "the severe, acute psychological stress of being diagnosed 'HIV Positive'". He then tries to explain away the fact that people with HIV/AIDS obviously improve on antiretroviral therapy. All of this clearly supports our language in the article, which was removed by EmperorCaligula ( talk · contribs) and which I have now restored with minor alterations. MastCell Talk 19:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Mercola's views have changed. His advice has changed. So his pages need to change. I once read how he explained he had tried every diet under the sun and decided the early advice he had been giving was wrong. He learns. Please keep up with his current advice and help with that.
People also bend the old stuff. http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2012/Dr-Joseph-Mercola-Visionary-or-Quack/ is fabricating: “For example, his site includes an article by a California doctor titled “HIV Does Not Cause AIDS.” Mercola posted a comment at the end of the article: “Exposure to steroids and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress, and poor nutrition are possibly the real causes.””
I cannot find it on Mercola’s site, but read it here:
http://aids-science.blogspot.co.nz/ “Comment by Dr. Joseph Mercola:
‘For many this will be new information, although Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Horowitz have been taking similar positions for many years. Dr. Al-Bayati provides a solid piece of scientific support for the position that HIV does not cause AIDS. Exposure to steroids and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress and poor nutrition are the real causes.'”
He is not saying it is conclusive. He says it is a position, and he is reporting what Dr Al-Bayati forwards. It is not his theory which chigomag makes out it is.
(And the chicagomag has much other troublesome stuff not really relevant here in this paragraph, but such as labelling Mercola's UVB sunbed of the time as just a sunbed, which are usually UVA only and destroy vitamin D - not help create it.)
If the Al-Bayati article still exists the title on Mercola's site has a question after it. It poses the same problem as the New Zealand Medsafe about AIDS drugs side effects being hard to distinguish from AIDS itself. It says a patient may be HIV positive still, but recover from AIDS when attention is given to the T cells. Mercola has put the question up, now here may be one recent reply from some researchers for his courage, who may or may not have seen his work: http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/rccm.201501-0011ED?journalCode=ajrccm#.VPQ1duErIoE
Mercola has been active against HIV AIDS for a long time. He may be one of the early workers to help prevent the spread of the disease. There may be some over-estimation in this letter on the future of pediatrics to JAMA in 1987: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=369482 but sometimes overestimation is needed to avoid trouble. (Note the case with the worry about year 2000 causing computer programs not to work, which got people to work against it.) From his website on Dec 9, 2013. “In the US, more than one million people are living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).1 The virus causes serious damage to your immune system, which leaves you vulnerable to disease-causing organisms, and may progress into AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome).”
Soundhill (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Brian Sandle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundhill ( talk • contribs)
An image used in this article, File:Drmercolabackstage.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
Given the large number and quality of sources with criticisms, to follow NPOV we should have a substantial summary of those criticisms in the lede, per NPOV and LEDE. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would respectfully like to ask why the entire details regarding the FDA and Quackwatch need to be included in the lede when there is a section dedicated to controversy. A summary of the criticisms should be just that, a summary (which was briefly edited today in the lede in a way that was fair) while the details should be put in the section dedicated to controversy. -- EmperorCaligula —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC).
"Dr. Mercola: Visionary or Quack?" Perhaps should be incorporated? MastCell Talk 22:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to be purposefully crafted to present criticism of Dr. Mercola's views by neglecting to include important information. For instance, the thimerosal part neglects to mention that thimerosal is a mercury compound. Mercury is toxic, so the statement that "Dr. Mercola alleges that thimerosal is toxic" followed by information saying it's safe is misleading. Thimerosal is toxic. The question is not whether or not it's toxic. The question is to what degree does its toxicity affect vaccination.
One-sided articles are so typical for Wikipedia. It's why I haven't contributed in recent years. I got tired of trying to bring balance only to see the changes reverted, no matter how many citations I included. Personally, I think some of what Mercola says is correct and some of it is utter rubbish. But, this article has the responsibility to not just pile on him without taking into account factors that support his side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.99.216 ( talk) 00:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
One-sided is an understatement in describing this article about Mercola. It is actually an attack and sounds like something written by an official from the FDA or one of its mercenaries they hire to slander those in the alternative health field. I know he markets heavily but he also does his homework and all of his writing and commentary is thoroughly researched. He is not alone in many of the criticisms he has of established medical care, and very few doctors are as well-informed about the issues that he comments upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcalwriter ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
He describes himself throughout his website as Dr Mercola. What is he a doctor of, and what kind of doctorate does he hold? The article mentions that he graduated from an Osteopathy college, but is he a general practitioner, a doctor of science, or something else? How much would a typical osteopath learn about (for example) skin cancer during his training? 31.185.191.117 ( talk) 18:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The above comment is laughable. A doctor's training does not end after medical school, nor does any professional's training. It is only the beginning, a time when you are exposed to the tools that will enable you to begin to learn the truths about your subject matter. The problem with medical schools today is that their philosophy is so saturated with the bias of Big Pharma that many doctors have become legalized drug dealers and know little more about how to treat illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcalwriter ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This link is broken, I am new to editing on Wikipedia so I am not sure how to repair it. Armstrong3j ( talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under biography please change:
"Mercola is a 1976 graduate of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"
to
"Mercola is a 1976 graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago"
This change will bring his education in line with the reference cited within the current document. Thanks. 66.66.231.41 ( talk) 20:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just would like to know the author of said page, in order to find out his/hers credential as well. In a world where the most important thing is to follow the money trail, the same way that is important to know the credential of people that the author of this page claims is a charlatan, why not have the name of the author of the page in order to verify if he is not a charlatan also?
205.250.41.30 ( talk) 13:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone, as I was reading through this article, I noticed some things that may or may not violate the rules WP:LEAD, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. I have some suggestions on how to fix them!
I feel as though this lead is one sided, particularly in the second paragraph. While I understand that it is important to include controversies, I think it’s imperative to include Mercola’s responses to these claims. This would make the lead a bit too long though, so could we possibly make the criticisms in the second paragraph more concise in order to fit in both sides of the controversy, and then delve more in depth later on in the article.
This article, which was used as source [11] in the page, has a number of statements from Mercola himself that could be included. Many of the other sources are from websites that clearly are editorialized against him; this is one of the few articles that quote him. If we included some of his responses to the negative claims, it would balance out this page and make it much more credible, I think. 206.144.187.169 Adamh4 ( talk) 22:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Are we not violating WP:BLP by leaving out that type of information though? It states “We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” And under the “tone” section of WP:BLP, states “BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.”
This article is certainly not following these guidelines. The entirety of the second paragraph is listing criticisms against him. Yes, I am aware that controversy is meant to be put in the leads, but the extent of how much has been included, and the level of one sidedness is anything but responsible, cautious, or in a dispassionate tone. It needs to be reduced, and then the detains can be placed in the other sections of the articles.
It seems like Quackwatch is being used purely to support negative viewpoints, which I think should be considered a problem. As far as WP:FRINGE, a balanced article is not an article that is favoring a fringe idea; its merely listing facts from both perspectives. Adamh4 ( talk) 18:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the clarification, I'm a new user and still learning. I'll definitely keep all these things in mind when editing future articles. I appreciate all the help! Adamh4 ( talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
This article appears very biased. It reads as if the goal was to present this man as a complete quack, and with that goal in mind, only sources which supported that viewpoint were sought out. More concerning are the instances of improperly referenced content. Only had time to look at refs from opening paragraph, but already found multiple examples of content not supported by the refs attached to it. It was claimed Mercola is an “alternative medicine proponent”, but reference only briefly mentions that Mercola was involved in a lawsuit with someone who apparently happens to be a critic of alternative medicine. This doesn’t exactly make Mercola an “alternative medicine proponent”. The alternative medicine WP says alt medicine is not based on evidence or scientific method. Mercola is an osteopathic physician which is research based field requiring training similar to that of MD’s. In the first paragraph, it was also claimed he was a member of several alternative medicine organizations, with no reference supporting this claim. Deleted because BLP says unsourced or improperly sourced content should be removed immediately especially if potentially libelous. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
we already do this in the View and controversies section. Jytdog ( talk) 13:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat, this is a forum discuss matters related to improving this article. Any other use of this page is inappropriate.
I've added additional sources regarding your concerns. Do they suffice? Is there other information in the article that needs additional sources? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Added proper citation going to actual site of Dr. Mercola's Natural Health Center indicating that it closed on 2013. Also removed previous citation going to Businessweek since confirmation that Mercola operated the "Dr. Mercola Natural Health Center" in Schaumburg, Illinois can already be seen on actual Natural Health Center website, which is a better reference. -- Charhenderton ( talk) 11:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Inserted "and to draw attention away from the real public health and safety issues they perpetuate." to add more information about Dr. Mercola's stance on bird flu. Charhenderton Charhenderton ( talk) 10:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Joseph Mercola has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following sentence appears to be inaccurate and prejudicial.
"who markets a variety of controversial dietary supplements and medical devices through his website, mercola.com."
I would like the person who wrote this sentence to acknowledge that most of the "controversial" dietary supplements are available at Rite Aid, Kroeger, etc. If a person comparison shops, she finds that generally Mercola's site offers documentation on product quality that is not available elsewhere at a competitive price. Also, the term "medical devices" is ambiguous. He sells products such as a juicer or an air purifier. A "medical device" could include oxygen delivery systems, respirators, blood pressure monitoring devices, blood sugar meters, etc., the kind of things one finds at a medical supply company. The sentence needs to provide evidence that there are controversial "medical devices" on the site as per the usual use of "medical devices." I don't know the site exhaustively, but I've never seen anything listed that would be in the inventory of a medical supply company.
Here are some alternatives:
"who markets a variety of common dietary supplements and health related devices such as juicers and air purifiers."
Then, the writer could note some specific controversial supplements that people can't buy at major outlets.
"Some of the supplements on the site are controversial according to (either AMA or FDA) and not available through major retail outlets. For example, the (either AMA or FDA) say about supplement x that . . . . "
"In addition, Dr. Mercola's website offers medical devices that do not meet the standards set by the AMA (or other relevant source), such as device X." A statement from the AMA (or other relevant source) about this item says that . . . .
Fair is fair. Wikipedia should have a higher standard of accuracy for this sentence.
7meta7 ( talk) 18:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Joseph Mercola has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A bit more concern about Mercola. I am puzzled by the opening of the article.
Two points: First, we need to look at the FDA page for medical devices. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/default.htm. Then we need to go to Mercola's site and see what FDA referenced "medical devices": A) are on Mercola's site and B) are controversial by reasonable and documented standards. The Mercola site doesn't have a category for "medical devices" but perhaps there are some under other categories. I've only ever seen one item that might be a medical device, a test kit for Vitamin D deficiency as part of a national project, a rather mainline topic these days. Unless the kit was defective, I cannot see it as controversial.
Second, Dr. Mercola has full credentials to practice medicine, as noted below. If anything he did was seriously below acceptable licensed medical standards then he would have had his license suspended or revoked. A biographical piece needs to show respect for a subject's professional credentials.
Suggestions
"Dr. Mercola is a graduate of the Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, a licensed physician and surgeon in Illinois, who was chief resident at the Chicago Osteopathic Hospital and Board Certified by the American College Osteopathic General Practitioners. He also runs a website, Mercola.com, that offers free researched health information, as well as selling common supplements and health-related products and devices such as fermented vegetables starter kits, juicers and air purifiers. Dr. Mercola, along with other licensed doctors, health care providers and researchers, is part the many on-going controversies about current medical issues such as nutrition, supplementation, water quality, environmental toxicity, vaccines etc.
Then the article could introduce and substantiate some of the controversies about supplements and "medical devices." "His website has provoked some medical controversies about its supplements. For example (list the supplement and a medical problem with it using medically-based research). Also, although his website does not advertise medical devices, it does offer a medical device (or devices) __________________ that according to ____________ is/are medically controversial or unsound.
Then the article could introduce problems with business practices. "Also, ____________ (reliable business source) has called into questions certain business and marketing practices on the website, such as _____________________. On he other hand, _____________________(reliable source with positive comments about Mercola.com).
Wikipedia :) No doubt there is a great deal of controversy these days about health/medical issues. Raise the biographical standards here and play fair. P.S. We can check the original sources for his medical certification, but however people might disagree with Mercola about his positions, as I do with some myself, he would not fabricate his public professional credentials.
• University of Illinois at Chicago – (UIC) 1972-1976
• Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine 1978-1982 • Chicago Osteopathic Hospital 1982-1985 Family Practice Residency. Chief resident 1984-1985 • Board Certified American College Osteopathic General Practitioners July 1985 • State of Illinois Licensed Physician and Surgeon
Affiliations: • Chairman, Department of Family Practice at St. Alexius Medical Center, Hoffman Estates, IL 1988-1993
7meta7 ( talk) 19:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A suggestion for a reliable source about the current discussion of vaccinations from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/the-not-so-crackpot-autism-theory.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7meta7 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks like many of the HIV/AIDS links to his site have been redirected to a different article. Are their alternate sources of documentation for his beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.61.200 ( talk) 05:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you remove the text that says that Thimerosal is safe, because the wiki page for Thimerosal shows that its health code is 3, It's reactivity is 1, and flammability is 1. -- Young Naturopath 01 ( talk) 14:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned Paracelsus because you don't seem to be familiar with his axiom "the dose makes the poison." In small enough doses, many otherwise poisonous substances are of no concern to humans. Our bodies can handle them quite well. Since the doses of Thimerosal used in vaccines pose no proven danger, we don't consider Thimerosal unsafe in those doses. That's what the statement means. Without reliable sources to the contrary, that content is proper. BTW, Thimerosal has been removed from most vaccines (but autism rates continued to rise), but since that increases the cost of vaccines considerably, plans are in the works to reintroduce Thimerosal to vaccines. It's an excellent product and was never removed because of any proven danger, so its removal was never a good idea.
"Libellous content"? Properly sourced negative content and criticism is proper (and required by NPOV) content at Wikipedia. Do you have evidence of a policy violation? Please specify which content is problematic.
When you talk about "wrecking...NPOV", you again reveal that you do not understand our NPOV policy. You're a newbie here and must learn from more experienced editors. When we say you're wrong, you need to learn and accept that you are wrong, and we shouldn't have to keep telling you. You need to show a positive learning curve. If you're not learning our ways here, then you should disengage and find another hobby. You need to stop making complaints about a policy you don't understand. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
hat per WP:NOTFORUM Jytdog ( talk) 20:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth, no matter what the majority says.
Oh, and by the way, usually the smartest parents are the biggest anti-vaccination activists in the parenting community. -- Young Naturopath 01 ( talk) 20:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
dr. MERCOLA I WANT TO KNOW IF OZONE THERAPY IS SAFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.32.56 ( talk) 19:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect and in all seriousness, this article should be retitled "Criticisms of Joseph Mercola". petrarchan47 คุ ก 02:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I watchlist the talk pages of some of the editors involved in the talk sections just above, and that is how I became aware of this page. I've read the most recent talk here, and I read the page, and I would like to make a suggestion. I think that it's very clear that the page must, indeed, present the subject's views as WP:FRINGE, per the discretionary sanctions imposed by the Pseudoscience ArbCom case, and that doing so does not, in itself, violate WP:BLP. On the other hand, when I read the page, it does indeed come across like a sort of jeremiad against Mercola.
I think that a big part of the problem lies in the length of the "Views and controversy" section. It's like each subsection says something like: "Mercola says this, and lots of other people say he's wrong." And it goes like that over and over again. It sound to me like this arose from Mercola-sympathetic editors adding every subsection to present every view that he has, and then other editors trying to balance the POV. But I think you could shorten that section by something like 75%. Do away with the subsections, and cover the information in a single, shorter section. Do that, and maybe soften the language in the lead a bit too, and I think that concerns over BLP would no longer be valid. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I've made a stab at this, purely as an aid to people who actually have some writing talent, as Kingsofaces and Tryptofish seem to be onto something, imho. I have kept the intro to the "Views and Controversies" section, and replacing the rest, as follows ...
Other areas where Dr. Mercola expresses views, and gives advice at odds with the mainstream scientific view include -
Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I pulled the bold edit apart so we can see all that was done. I think it an improvement. Nice work. I disagree the deletion of the information on the FDA letters, so I've left that paragraph in. Maybe trim it down and combine with the FDA Warning Letters section? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I removed a ref [1](and am looking at the others), to ensure they are related to the article.
I've reverted a series of changes which I think are problematic. I'll elaborate my concerns here.
I'm open to feedback on these concerns. MastCell Talk 20:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to check if I can get other sources. By the way, I'm still a newbie editing here at wikipedia, with regards to the infobox of Joseph Mercola, some of the info are already obsolete, how do I change them? do I need to cite sources as well? Thank you for your patience. -- Nuikotan ( talk) 03:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to completely rewrite this piece which is totally biased and more like propaganda than an objective account which gives both sides of the issue. You can't rely on one-sided sources with profit-making agendas, which totally pervert truth, to provide an objective account.
This article has more than 30 links to mercola.com. It should have one (or at most a handful). There is an excessive reliance on primary sources directly associated with the article subject, when this article should instead be based on independent, reliable third-party sources. The overreliance on primary sources makes the article less encyclopedic. I would propose trimming material sourced from mercola.com, as the goal is to briefly summarize this material rather than present a combination autobiography/rehash of mercola.com. The meat of the article needs to be based on independent, reliable sources if the article is to be worthy of an encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/huffpost-game-changers-wh_n_347227.html MaxPont ( talk) 08:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Who decided to use this as a source/argument backing up thimerosal containing vaccines?
"Extensive evidence has accumulated since 1999 showing that this preservative is safe,[31] with the World Health Organization stating in 2006 that "there is no evidence of toxicity in infants, children or adults exposed to thiomersal in vaccines"."
Extensive evidence has also accumulated to prove the exact opposite. Several physicians and researchers have discovered the same thing as Dr. Andrew Wakefield on the bowel disease caused by the MMR vaccine as well as a link to autism. The main stream media, WHO, CDC, our Federal Government, and Pharmaceutical industries are trying to cover it up. Why is that you can sue Pharmaceutical companies for a drug that damaged you, a.k.a. Celebrex and several others but Pharmaceutical companies are protected from vaccine lawsuits by law?
The World Health Organization is a joke and is not a reliable resource. There was a news report on them just today stating "The swine flu vaccine is causing narcolepsy in children, but continue to give it to them because the odds of them getting it are low and the benefits outweigh the risk." I guess if you believe that you should keep giving it to your kids, I have a bridge for you to buy. Several countries have had deaths from the flu vaccine and the swine flu vaccine and China and Australia both stopped giving it to them. Don't blatantly state that WITHOUT A DOUBT thimerosal (which was also spelled wrong in the article) has been proven to be safe when there are several cases of vaccines injuring children with febrile seizures, narcolepsy, gion-beret syndrome, and other issues. Why is it that the swine flu vaccine was offered with and without Thimerosal? If it was so good for you, wouldn't it only be offered with it? Why won't a vaccine study be done on vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated children to put an end to the autism debate? I think someone is scared of the outcome. Moral of the story, your evidence is only as good as your resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 ( talk) 21:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess you know more than all of the doctors and scientists who say the opposite. I guess you know more than all of the countries who have banned certain vaccines containing thimerosal, but yet the U.S. continues to use it because, as you say, it's 'pretty safe'. Maybe you should listen to your own advice since it appears you are fully concentrated with ignorance. If you have to use the word 'pretty' before the safe, then it's questionable. Try looking at the swine flu vaccine insert, then continue to write your ignorant comments. The moral of the story here is, one source from the WHO does not deem it a scientific fact and not should be used in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 ( talk) 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure who decided that Joseph Mercola's claim that his books made it to the New York Times bestsellers list was false. A quick search of the NY Times archives brought up this page:
Showing his book "the no grain diet" on the best seller list. I haven't even looked for the other book yet, or checked how long this one was on the best seller list for. I'm just surprised that the statement that his books do not appear on the list is made when it's so easy to corroborate that his books did indeed make the best seller list. Evelyn miles ( talk) 08:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone discuss the accuracies of his claim on unferemented soy products like soy milk being harfmul? Is there any double blind test to prove the validity of that claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.16.102 ( talk) 16:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Article is tagged with "alumni of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign" but article text says he attended the University of Illinois at Chicago, a different institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.39.43 ( talk) 20:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the article cited at 14 is a comparison of whole-grain foods versus "white" bread. Its basic point is that a diet which includes whole grains is healthier than a diet which includes white flour products in their place. The idea of excluding grains from the diet altogether receives no mention at all. I hardly think it justifies the blanket statement that grains = good, particularly in this context.
You may read the whole article (or even just the abstract) here: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v58/n11/full/1601995a.html
146.96.34.107 ( talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Information in lead should be included in the body of the article. Lambanog ( talk) 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
If the adjective "controversial" is going to be included as the first to describe Mercola, it should probably come from better sources and be more explicitly stated. Many notable people can be called controversial but putting that in the first description with relatively poor sourcing seems inappropriate. Please find better more explicit source for the description or drop it altogether and let the presentation of facts speak for itself. Lambanog ( talk) 16:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There seem to be many slanted claims made in the article supported by references that fail to verify them properly. Half the lead is devoted to what appear to be criminal allegations but do not appear in the body with as much detail. Reads like an attack article that does not reflect Mercola's notability. Lambanog ( talk) 09:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The article suffers from an extreme case of bloat - most of it basically rehashes claims made on Mercola's website, in clear violation of this site's sourcing policies which prioritize independent, reliable sources. Again, if you think the article fails to reflect Mercola's notability, then the solution is to bring forward independent, reliable sources demonstrating his notability. MastCell Talk 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that there is repetition in the article regarding the 2005, 2006 and 2011 warnings from the USFDA:
I tried to remove the second of these but my changes were reverted, as I had removed sourced material. Jimjamjak ( talk) 10:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/azt.aspx unreliable fringe source? This article], from 2008, is clearly listed as authored by "Dr. Mercola". It runs through the standard AIDS-denialist talking points, disparaging the entire medical literature on antiretrovirals and claiming that Peter Duesberg has offered a "thorough and devastating critique" of antiretroviral therapy. The article asserts, in the author's voice, that HIV "does not destroy T-cells in test tubes and has never been shown to destroy them in humans, either" (which is both a falsehood and a common AIDS-denialist claim). Mercola states his belief that HIV "does not affect T-cells, at all." He goes on to argue that AIDS is actually caused not by HIV, but by "the severe, acute psychological stress of being diagnosed 'HIV Positive'". He then tries to explain away the fact that people with HIV/AIDS obviously improve on antiretroviral therapy. All of this clearly supports our language in the article, which was removed by EmperorCaligula ( talk · contribs) and which I have now restored with minor alterations. MastCell Talk 19:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Mercola's views have changed. His advice has changed. So his pages need to change. I once read how he explained he had tried every diet under the sun and decided the early advice he had been giving was wrong. He learns. Please keep up with his current advice and help with that.
People also bend the old stuff. http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2012/Dr-Joseph-Mercola-Visionary-or-Quack/ is fabricating: “For example, his site includes an article by a California doctor titled “HIV Does Not Cause AIDS.” Mercola posted a comment at the end of the article: “Exposure to steroids and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress, and poor nutrition are possibly the real causes.””
I cannot find it on Mercola’s site, but read it here:
http://aids-science.blogspot.co.nz/ “Comment by Dr. Joseph Mercola:
‘For many this will be new information, although Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Horowitz have been taking similar positions for many years. Dr. Al-Bayati provides a solid piece of scientific support for the position that HIV does not cause AIDS. Exposure to steroids and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress and poor nutrition are the real causes.'”
He is not saying it is conclusive. He says it is a position, and he is reporting what Dr Al-Bayati forwards. It is not his theory which chigomag makes out it is.
(And the chicagomag has much other troublesome stuff not really relevant here in this paragraph, but such as labelling Mercola's UVB sunbed of the time as just a sunbed, which are usually UVA only and destroy vitamin D - not help create it.)
If the Al-Bayati article still exists the title on Mercola's site has a question after it. It poses the same problem as the New Zealand Medsafe about AIDS drugs side effects being hard to distinguish from AIDS itself. It says a patient may be HIV positive still, but recover from AIDS when attention is given to the T cells. Mercola has put the question up, now here may be one recent reply from some researchers for his courage, who may or may not have seen his work: http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/rccm.201501-0011ED?journalCode=ajrccm#.VPQ1duErIoE
Mercola has been active against HIV AIDS for a long time. He may be one of the early workers to help prevent the spread of the disease. There may be some over-estimation in this letter on the future of pediatrics to JAMA in 1987: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=369482 but sometimes overestimation is needed to avoid trouble. (Note the case with the worry about year 2000 causing computer programs not to work, which got people to work against it.) From his website on Dec 9, 2013. “In the US, more than one million people are living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).1 The virus causes serious damage to your immune system, which leaves you vulnerable to disease-causing organisms, and may progress into AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome).”
Soundhill (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Brian Sandle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundhill ( talk • contribs)
An image used in this article, File:Drmercolabackstage.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
Given the large number and quality of sources with criticisms, to follow NPOV we should have a substantial summary of those criticisms in the lede, per NPOV and LEDE. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would respectfully like to ask why the entire details regarding the FDA and Quackwatch need to be included in the lede when there is a section dedicated to controversy. A summary of the criticisms should be just that, a summary (which was briefly edited today in the lede in a way that was fair) while the details should be put in the section dedicated to controversy. -- EmperorCaligula —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC).
"Dr. Mercola: Visionary or Quack?" Perhaps should be incorporated? MastCell Talk 22:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to be purposefully crafted to present criticism of Dr. Mercola's views by neglecting to include important information. For instance, the thimerosal part neglects to mention that thimerosal is a mercury compound. Mercury is toxic, so the statement that "Dr. Mercola alleges that thimerosal is toxic" followed by information saying it's safe is misleading. Thimerosal is toxic. The question is not whether or not it's toxic. The question is to what degree does its toxicity affect vaccination.
One-sided articles are so typical for Wikipedia. It's why I haven't contributed in recent years. I got tired of trying to bring balance only to see the changes reverted, no matter how many citations I included. Personally, I think some of what Mercola says is correct and some of it is utter rubbish. But, this article has the responsibility to not just pile on him without taking into account factors that support his side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.99.216 ( talk) 00:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
One-sided is an understatement in describing this article about Mercola. It is actually an attack and sounds like something written by an official from the FDA or one of its mercenaries they hire to slander those in the alternative health field. I know he markets heavily but he also does his homework and all of his writing and commentary is thoroughly researched. He is not alone in many of the criticisms he has of established medical care, and very few doctors are as well-informed about the issues that he comments upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcalwriter ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
He describes himself throughout his website as Dr Mercola. What is he a doctor of, and what kind of doctorate does he hold? The article mentions that he graduated from an Osteopathy college, but is he a general practitioner, a doctor of science, or something else? How much would a typical osteopath learn about (for example) skin cancer during his training? 31.185.191.117 ( talk) 18:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The above comment is laughable. A doctor's training does not end after medical school, nor does any professional's training. It is only the beginning, a time when you are exposed to the tools that will enable you to begin to learn the truths about your subject matter. The problem with medical schools today is that their philosophy is so saturated with the bias of Big Pharma that many doctors have become legalized drug dealers and know little more about how to treat illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcalwriter ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This link is broken, I am new to editing on Wikipedia so I am not sure how to repair it. Armstrong3j ( talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under biography please change:
"Mercola is a 1976 graduate of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"
to
"Mercola is a 1976 graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago"
This change will bring his education in line with the reference cited within the current document. Thanks. 66.66.231.41 ( talk) 20:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just would like to know the author of said page, in order to find out his/hers credential as well. In a world where the most important thing is to follow the money trail, the same way that is important to know the credential of people that the author of this page claims is a charlatan, why not have the name of the author of the page in order to verify if he is not a charlatan also?
205.250.41.30 ( talk) 13:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone, as I was reading through this article, I noticed some things that may or may not violate the rules WP:LEAD, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. I have some suggestions on how to fix them!
I feel as though this lead is one sided, particularly in the second paragraph. While I understand that it is important to include controversies, I think it’s imperative to include Mercola’s responses to these claims. This would make the lead a bit too long though, so could we possibly make the criticisms in the second paragraph more concise in order to fit in both sides of the controversy, and then delve more in depth later on in the article.
This article, which was used as source [11] in the page, has a number of statements from Mercola himself that could be included. Many of the other sources are from websites that clearly are editorialized against him; this is one of the few articles that quote him. If we included some of his responses to the negative claims, it would balance out this page and make it much more credible, I think. 206.144.187.169 Adamh4 ( talk) 22:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Are we not violating WP:BLP by leaving out that type of information though? It states “We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” And under the “tone” section of WP:BLP, states “BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.”
This article is certainly not following these guidelines. The entirety of the second paragraph is listing criticisms against him. Yes, I am aware that controversy is meant to be put in the leads, but the extent of how much has been included, and the level of one sidedness is anything but responsible, cautious, or in a dispassionate tone. It needs to be reduced, and then the detains can be placed in the other sections of the articles.
It seems like Quackwatch is being used purely to support negative viewpoints, which I think should be considered a problem. As far as WP:FRINGE, a balanced article is not an article that is favoring a fringe idea; its merely listing facts from both perspectives. Adamh4 ( talk) 18:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the clarification, I'm a new user and still learning. I'll definitely keep all these things in mind when editing future articles. I appreciate all the help! Adamh4 ( talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
This article appears very biased. It reads as if the goal was to present this man as a complete quack, and with that goal in mind, only sources which supported that viewpoint were sought out. More concerning are the instances of improperly referenced content. Only had time to look at refs from opening paragraph, but already found multiple examples of content not supported by the refs attached to it. It was claimed Mercola is an “alternative medicine proponent”, but reference only briefly mentions that Mercola was involved in a lawsuit with someone who apparently happens to be a critic of alternative medicine. This doesn’t exactly make Mercola an “alternative medicine proponent”. The alternative medicine WP says alt medicine is not based on evidence or scientific method. Mercola is an osteopathic physician which is research based field requiring training similar to that of MD’s. In the first paragraph, it was also claimed he was a member of several alternative medicine organizations, with no reference supporting this claim. Deleted because BLP says unsourced or improperly sourced content should be removed immediately especially if potentially libelous. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
we already do this in the View and controversies section. Jytdog ( talk) 13:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat, this is a forum discuss matters related to improving this article. Any other use of this page is inappropriate.
I've added additional sources regarding your concerns. Do they suffice? Is there other information in the article that needs additional sources? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Added proper citation going to actual site of Dr. Mercola's Natural Health Center indicating that it closed on 2013. Also removed previous citation going to Businessweek since confirmation that Mercola operated the "Dr. Mercola Natural Health Center" in Schaumburg, Illinois can already be seen on actual Natural Health Center website, which is a better reference. -- Charhenderton ( talk) 11:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Inserted "and to draw attention away from the real public health and safety issues they perpetuate." to add more information about Dr. Mercola's stance on bird flu. Charhenderton Charhenderton ( talk) 10:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Joseph Mercola has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following sentence appears to be inaccurate and prejudicial.
"who markets a variety of controversial dietary supplements and medical devices through his website, mercola.com."
I would like the person who wrote this sentence to acknowledge that most of the "controversial" dietary supplements are available at Rite Aid, Kroeger, etc. If a person comparison shops, she finds that generally Mercola's site offers documentation on product quality that is not available elsewhere at a competitive price. Also, the term "medical devices" is ambiguous. He sells products such as a juicer or an air purifier. A "medical device" could include oxygen delivery systems, respirators, blood pressure monitoring devices, blood sugar meters, etc., the kind of things one finds at a medical supply company. The sentence needs to provide evidence that there are controversial "medical devices" on the site as per the usual use of "medical devices." I don't know the site exhaustively, but I've never seen anything listed that would be in the inventory of a medical supply company.
Here are some alternatives:
"who markets a variety of common dietary supplements and health related devices such as juicers and air purifiers."
Then, the writer could note some specific controversial supplements that people can't buy at major outlets.
"Some of the supplements on the site are controversial according to (either AMA or FDA) and not available through major retail outlets. For example, the (either AMA or FDA) say about supplement x that . . . . "
"In addition, Dr. Mercola's website offers medical devices that do not meet the standards set by the AMA (or other relevant source), such as device X." A statement from the AMA (or other relevant source) about this item says that . . . .
Fair is fair. Wikipedia should have a higher standard of accuracy for this sentence.
7meta7 ( talk) 18:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Joseph Mercola has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A bit more concern about Mercola. I am puzzled by the opening of the article.
Two points: First, we need to look at the FDA page for medical devices. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/default.htm. Then we need to go to Mercola's site and see what FDA referenced "medical devices": A) are on Mercola's site and B) are controversial by reasonable and documented standards. The Mercola site doesn't have a category for "medical devices" but perhaps there are some under other categories. I've only ever seen one item that might be a medical device, a test kit for Vitamin D deficiency as part of a national project, a rather mainline topic these days. Unless the kit was defective, I cannot see it as controversial.
Second, Dr. Mercola has full credentials to practice medicine, as noted below. If anything he did was seriously below acceptable licensed medical standards then he would have had his license suspended or revoked. A biographical piece needs to show respect for a subject's professional credentials.
Suggestions
"Dr. Mercola is a graduate of the Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, a licensed physician and surgeon in Illinois, who was chief resident at the Chicago Osteopathic Hospital and Board Certified by the American College Osteopathic General Practitioners. He also runs a website, Mercola.com, that offers free researched health information, as well as selling common supplements and health-related products and devices such as fermented vegetables starter kits, juicers and air purifiers. Dr. Mercola, along with other licensed doctors, health care providers and researchers, is part the many on-going controversies about current medical issues such as nutrition, supplementation, water quality, environmental toxicity, vaccines etc.
Then the article could introduce and substantiate some of the controversies about supplements and "medical devices." "His website has provoked some medical controversies about its supplements. For example (list the supplement and a medical problem with it using medically-based research). Also, although his website does not advertise medical devices, it does offer a medical device (or devices) __________________ that according to ____________ is/are medically controversial or unsound.
Then the article could introduce problems with business practices. "Also, ____________ (reliable business source) has called into questions certain business and marketing practices on the website, such as _____________________. On he other hand, _____________________(reliable source with positive comments about Mercola.com).
Wikipedia :) No doubt there is a great deal of controversy these days about health/medical issues. Raise the biographical standards here and play fair. P.S. We can check the original sources for his medical certification, but however people might disagree with Mercola about his positions, as I do with some myself, he would not fabricate his public professional credentials.
• University of Illinois at Chicago – (UIC) 1972-1976
• Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine 1978-1982 • Chicago Osteopathic Hospital 1982-1985 Family Practice Residency. Chief resident 1984-1985 • Board Certified American College Osteopathic General Practitioners July 1985 • State of Illinois Licensed Physician and Surgeon
Affiliations: • Chairman, Department of Family Practice at St. Alexius Medical Center, Hoffman Estates, IL 1988-1993
7meta7 ( talk) 19:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A suggestion for a reliable source about the current discussion of vaccinations from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/the-not-so-crackpot-autism-theory.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7meta7 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks like many of the HIV/AIDS links to his site have been redirected to a different article. Are their alternate sources of documentation for his beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.61.200 ( talk) 05:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you remove the text that says that Thimerosal is safe, because the wiki page for Thimerosal shows that its health code is 3, It's reactivity is 1, and flammability is 1. -- Young Naturopath 01 ( talk) 14:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned Paracelsus because you don't seem to be familiar with his axiom "the dose makes the poison." In small enough doses, many otherwise poisonous substances are of no concern to humans. Our bodies can handle them quite well. Since the doses of Thimerosal used in vaccines pose no proven danger, we don't consider Thimerosal unsafe in those doses. That's what the statement means. Without reliable sources to the contrary, that content is proper. BTW, Thimerosal has been removed from most vaccines (but autism rates continued to rise), but since that increases the cost of vaccines considerably, plans are in the works to reintroduce Thimerosal to vaccines. It's an excellent product and was never removed because of any proven danger, so its removal was never a good idea.
"Libellous content"? Properly sourced negative content and criticism is proper (and required by NPOV) content at Wikipedia. Do you have evidence of a policy violation? Please specify which content is problematic.
When you talk about "wrecking...NPOV", you again reveal that you do not understand our NPOV policy. You're a newbie here and must learn from more experienced editors. When we say you're wrong, you need to learn and accept that you are wrong, and we shouldn't have to keep telling you. You need to show a positive learning curve. If you're not learning our ways here, then you should disengage and find another hobby. You need to stop making complaints about a policy you don't understand. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
hat per WP:NOTFORUM Jytdog ( talk) 20:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth, no matter what the majority says.
Oh, and by the way, usually the smartest parents are the biggest anti-vaccination activists in the parenting community. -- Young Naturopath 01 ( talk) 20:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
dr. MERCOLA I WANT TO KNOW IF OZONE THERAPY IS SAFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.32.56 ( talk) 19:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect and in all seriousness, this article should be retitled "Criticisms of Joseph Mercola". petrarchan47 คุ ก 02:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I watchlist the talk pages of some of the editors involved in the talk sections just above, and that is how I became aware of this page. I've read the most recent talk here, and I read the page, and I would like to make a suggestion. I think that it's very clear that the page must, indeed, present the subject's views as WP:FRINGE, per the discretionary sanctions imposed by the Pseudoscience ArbCom case, and that doing so does not, in itself, violate WP:BLP. On the other hand, when I read the page, it does indeed come across like a sort of jeremiad against Mercola.
I think that a big part of the problem lies in the length of the "Views and controversy" section. It's like each subsection says something like: "Mercola says this, and lots of other people say he's wrong." And it goes like that over and over again. It sound to me like this arose from Mercola-sympathetic editors adding every subsection to present every view that he has, and then other editors trying to balance the POV. But I think you could shorten that section by something like 75%. Do away with the subsections, and cover the information in a single, shorter section. Do that, and maybe soften the language in the lead a bit too, and I think that concerns over BLP would no longer be valid. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I've made a stab at this, purely as an aid to people who actually have some writing talent, as Kingsofaces and Tryptofish seem to be onto something, imho. I have kept the intro to the "Views and Controversies" section, and replacing the rest, as follows ...
Other areas where Dr. Mercola expresses views, and gives advice at odds with the mainstream scientific view include -
Roxy the dog™ ( Resonate) 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I pulled the bold edit apart so we can see all that was done. I think it an improvement. Nice work. I disagree the deletion of the information on the FDA letters, so I've left that paragraph in. Maybe trim it down and combine with the FDA Warning Letters section? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)