Dr Mercola??

[ProudGrandma]

Opinions on his thoughts and opinions...to be trusted or not? Not trying to cause a problem....but REALLY just want to know what others think of him. thanks!

[deacongirl]

Quack. See blog Science Based Medicine for more.

[Ria]

Total whacko. Crazy man. Not to be listened to, much less trusted.

[ProudGrandma]

I was afraid of that. I have been following a blog done by a lady who uses him as one of her sources for information. She is VERY health conscience and I think she has a lot to offer...but now I am nervous...UGH!!!

[DianeW88]

Complete quack. As a peds nurse, I shudder when I read things he's said. Especially about kids.

[mommaduck]

When you have even crunchy mamas calling him a non-credible source, then I would steer clear (he's on the far edge of the issue...I prefer middle ground, even if it's on one side or the other...this guy is extreme).

[Lisa in Jax]

I view his articles as a source of things to research for myself -- from sources other than Dr. Mercola. ;-)

 

He's often on-target about the kinds of topics to be learning more about, but I do not trust his recommendations/information.

 

Lisa

[Haiku]

Quack. Trying to make a buck.

 

Tara

[LittleIzumi]

I view his articles as a source of things to research for myself -- from sources other than Dr. Mercola. ;-)

 

He's often on-target about the kinds of topics to be learning more about, but I do not trust his recommendations/information.

 

Lisa

:iagree: It's thought-provoking, but then I research it on my own from other sources. I don't take his word for it. Some of his stuff I've seen has been WAY on the fringe.

[Slartibartfast]

I think many of his recommendations are irresponsible.

 

I do think it is good to question, I do think it is good to use some natural remedies but "natural or die" is too extreme.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Sis

[LidiyaDawn]

Quackwatch

FDA letter

FDA letter 2

9 Reasons to Completely Ignore Joseph Mercola

another warning letter - this one regarding a "telethermographic camera"

 

there's a few links for ya.

[JFSinIL]

Sadly, what all the other posters have said is true. I know families whose kids were like mine, seeing the same pediatric neurologist, with the same diagnosis and improving on the same meds. We would meet in local support groups for parents of kids on the autism spectrum. One mom decided that meds were not natural enough and against the recommendation of our pediatric neuro she stopped the meds (anti-seizure meds) and took her son to Mercola. His improvements stopped.

 

Why any "doctor" would tell a parent of a kid with seizure activity to stop anti-seizure meds and use his non-medically peer-reviewed "protocol" is beyond me. Why any parent would listen is beyond me. As another parent of one of our special kids pointed out, if your child had cancer you would treat it with chemo. Yes, there would be side-effects, but you need the chemo to kill the cancer! You wouldn't say "oh, chemo is not natural enough, I will treat the cancer with vitamins, etc.instead " (well, some folks might say that... :confused: ).

 

JFS in IL

AutismNews (our local on-line support group for parents of kids on the spectrum in Illinois - it is a yahoogroup and only I can add people, so you have to ask me).

http://www.autismnews.net/index.html is hubby's wesbite.

Edited September 18, 2011 by JFSinIL

[Momling]

Quack

[Slartibartfast]

Sadly, what all the other posters have said is true. I know families whose kids were like mine, seeing the same pediatric neurologist, with the same diagnosis and improving on the same meds. We would meet in local support groups for parents of kids on the autism spectrum. One mom decided that meds were not natural enough and against the recommendation of our pediatric neuro she stopped the meds (anti-seizure meds) and took her son to Mercola. His improvements stopped.

 

That is sad. :(

 

 

 

As another parent of one of our special kids pointed out, if your child had cancer you would treat it with chemo. Yes, there would be side-effects, but you need the chemo to kill the cancer! You wouldn't say "oh, chemo is not natural enough, I will treat the cancer with vitamins, etc.instead " (well, some folks might say that... :confused: ).

 

 

A lot of folks do say that, I know Mercola has information regarding that on his website. I am just stating that because people are going to think you are being hyperbolic and you are not.

 

That is one of the many reasons why I think he is irresponsible.

[Spy Car]

Snake-oil salesman, quack, charlatan.

 

Bill

[mommaduck]

Snake-oil salesman, quack, charlatan.

 

Bill

Come on, Bill, you know more words than those :D ;)

[ThatCyndiGirl]

quack

[nmoira]

Quack

[nmoira]

 

Come on, Bill, you know more words than those :D ;)

:lol:

[Gailmegan]

I don't trust him. I think he's in it for the money. But he does raise some good questions that are worth looking into from credible sources.

[amey311]

I think he can be incredibly deceitful. I've read some of the peer-reviewed articles he has posted to support some position of his and thought "How did he get from A to B via THIS article?"

 

He can be a very artful Spin Doctor.

[TracyR]

I guess he's in it for the money like the FDA. I trust NOTHING the FDA has to say. They too are people who like to keep people sick.

 

I don't think he's a total quack. Many things he has written about are credible. Such as the lack of Vitamin D. If you took your levels right now most people are deficient in vitamin D.

I wouldn't go as far as not vaccinating my children but I do question what is put into these vaccines to being with. I do believe what he writes has some merit. Most people who say Quack are believers of allopathic medicine anyways.

Something I used to be until I got sick myself. I never questioned what has been used or what doctors did. That was until I myself got sick and had a child that has her own health problems.

Do I take everything Dr. Mercola says with gold? No. But he does lead you in the right direction to begin research into more natural remedies. If allopathic was all that great we wouldn't have lots of sick people walking around and antibiotic resistant bacteria either.

[Mommyof4ks]

As another parent of one of our special kids pointed out, if your child had cancer you would treat it with chemo. Yes, there would be side-effects, but you need the chemo to kill the cancer! You wouldn't say "oh, chemo is not natural enough, I will treat the cancer with vitamins, etc.instead " (well, some folks might say that... :confused: ).

 

As the mom of a cancer survivor I know there are people who do believe that. Scary really. If docs could treat it with vits. they would. They don't want people to suffer anymore than the people going through treatment want to suffer. Funny thing is that many chemo drugs are 'natural' substances, and that proves not all natural things are good for us given the side effects of those meds.

 

As for Mercola, he does mention topics of interest to research, but his ideas are often not correct. He is irresponsible.

[ProudGrandma]

I don't trust him. I think he's in it for the money. But he does raise some good questions that are worth looking into from credible sources.

 

what/who would you all consider "credible"....I would like to read information from credible sources.

[Jamauk]

I view his articles as a source of things to research for myself -- from sources other than Dr. Mercola. ;-)

 

He's often on-target about the kinds of topics to be learning more about, but I do not trust his recommendations/information.

 

Lisa

 

:iagree: I get his emails and I often find myself rolling my eyes at him, but there are times when he does hit on a nugget of truth (which is sadly often blown off because of his quackery reputation), and I use that as a spring board to launch my own research.

[Jamauk]

what/who would you all consider "credible"....I would like to read information from credible sources.

 

 

Unfortunately this is a loaded question. Many people will tell you the FDA is a "credible" source. They scare me more than Dr. Mercola. In my experience, I read everything I could get my hands on and then made up my own mind about what is credible and what is not.

 

I tend to lean towards using nutrition as preventative medicine and when possible, I rely on nutrtion for healing as well, with a little modern medicine thrown in (after I've researched it ad nauseum). I don't trust the FDA or Big Pharma.

[Gailmegan]

Unfortunately this is a loaded question. Many people will tell you the FDA is a "credible" source. They scare me more than Dr. Mercola. In my experience, I read everything I could get my hands on and then made up my own mind about what is credible and what is not.

 

I tend to lean towards using nutrition as preventative medicine and when possible, I rely on nutrtion for healing as well, with a little modern medicine thrown in (after I've researched it ad nauseum). I don't trust the FDA or Big Pharma.

 

:iagree:

 

I read everything I can get my hands on. Who do I trust? The ones who stand nothing to gain from what they are promoting.

[ProudGrandma]

:iagree:

 

I read everything I can get my hands on. Who do I trust? The ones who stand nothing to gain from what they are promoting.

 

like who??? I am sorry,, I am not trying to cause problems or act dumb...or start a contrevarsay....I am seriously wanting to know.....PLEASE tell me who you trust.

[AngelBee]

:iagree:

 

I read everything I can get my hands on. Who do I trust? The ones who stand nothing to gain from what they are promoting.

 

Most everyone has a hand in the cookie jar.

[Momof3littles]

I think Mercola is a quack, but does raise the occasional good point (vitamin D).

 

I hate that he seems to always be trying to sell something.

 

I agree that finding good, credible information is more challenging that it may seem. When pharma engages in medical ghostwriting, it can make it extremely challenging to trust even the "good" journals.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/health/25ghost.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/11/us-forensics-ghostwriting-idUSTRE58A3BC20090911

 

I like groups like Cochrane for certain topics.

 

http://www.cochrane.org/

 

eta: I like that they will include comments like this (bolded emphasis mine) at times (from a review article on influenza vaccination for healthy adults)

http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001269.html

WARNING:

This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.

 

Review studies like the above have their limitations, etc. but it is important to remember lots of studies that make it into "good" journals may not be totally objective. I like to be reminded of that. Often.

 

I think it is important to be skeptical at times even when looking at the very mainstream and "well-respected" peer reviewed journals.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Momof3littles

[TranquilMind]

I guess he's in it for the money like the FDA. I trust NOTHING the FDA has to say. They too are people who like to keep people sick.

 

I don't think he's a total quack. Many things he has written about are credible. Such as the lack of Vitamin D. If you took your levels right now most people are deficient in vitamin D.

I wouldn't go as far as not vaccinating my children but I do question what is put into these vaccines to being with. I do believe what he writes has some merit. Most people who say Quack are believers of allopathic medicine anyways.

Something I used to be until I got sick myself. I never questioned what has been used or what doctors did. That was until I myself got sick and had a child that has her own health problems.

Do I take everything Dr. Mercola says with gold? No. But he does lead you in the right direction to begin research into more natural remedies. If allopathic was all that great we wouldn't have lots of sick people walking around and antibiotic resistant bacteria either.

Yeah, no kidding. Allopathic medicine is fine in its place. I'm all for stitching that leg up or transplanting that heart or taking that antibiotic when needed.

 

But no, allopathic medicine falls far short when it comes to maintaining or regaining actual health, and I don't mean health as in "Take this medicine to stop that symptiom which will require 3 more medicines for the side effects" rather than eliminate the root problem.

 

Mercola does a great job in helping people to think about how to find answers to their chronic health problems and begin researching themselves. Mercola was talking about Vitamin D when mainstream medicine was still mocking it.

 

So, look at your source. If sick, medicated people are telling you to do something for your health, take it with a grain of salt. If vibrant, healthy people tell you how they maintain vibrant health and energy, I"m listening.

 

The FDA is not a good source, especially alone, with all of its ties to Big Pharmaceutical companies. Mainstream doctors told expectant mothers that thalidomide was a fine drug for them to take.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Yeah, no kidding. Allopathic medicine is fine in its place. I'm all for stitching that leg up or transplanting that heart or taking that antibiotic when needed.

 

But no, allopathic medicine falls far short when it comes to maintaining or regaining actual health, and I don't mean health as in "Take this medicine to stop that symptiom which will require 3 more medicines for the side effects" rather than eliminate the root problem.

 

Mercola does a great job in helping people to think about how to find answers to their chronic health problems and begin researching themselves. Mercola was talking about Vitamin D when mainstream medicine was still mocking it.

 

So, look at your source. If sick, medicated people are telling you to do something for your health, take it with a grain of salt. If vibrant, healthy people tell you how they maintain vibrant health and energy, I"m listening.

 

The FDA is not a good source, especially alone, with all of its ties to Big Pharmaceutical companies. Mainstream doctors told expectant mothers that thalidomide was a fine drug for them to take.

This is a great answer, though I'd add "absolutely" between "antibiotic when" and "needed." Too many conventional doctors are too quick to prescribe antibiotics, which ultimately leads to more health problems.

 

I often use Mercola as a starting point for research. In general, I don't trust organizations, but I research for studies. I'm not even saying that studies are perfect because they are often funded by people who stand to benefit from the "right" results, but that's about the best we have. I have also found that talking to people who have "been there, done that" regardless of the "medical proof" available (for example, gluten-free diets for autism) are often more worthwhile than the claims made by conventional medicine.

 

Someone earlier posted a link to "Quackwatch" as proof that Mercola is a quack. In my opinion, the makers of that site are far scummier than Mercola could ever be. If something isn't absolutely accepted by conventional medicine, Quackwatch considers it to be quackery. A lot of people can be hurt by dismissing helpful things because of that site.

[LittleIzumi]

Unfortunately this is a loaded question. Many people will tell you the FDA is a "credible" source. They scare me more than Dr. Mercola. In my experience, I read everything I could get my hands on and then made up my own mind about what is credible and what is not.

 

I tend to lean towards using nutrition as preventative medicine and when possible, I rely on nutrtion for healing as well, with a little modern medicine thrown in (after I've researched it ad nauseum). I don't trust the FDA or Big Pharma.

:iagree::iagree::iagree: If you read things from both sides & the middle, you usually come with a picture fairly close to the truth. The FDA is horrid (as I learned from more research). I try to read the studies themselves as often as possible, once I find them cited. It is amazing what articles can quote from studies that are extremely different from what the studies themselves said.

 

I do really like Dr. Sears but he only comments on certain topics, and I usually do still look up other sides/sources to confirm or clarify.

[Orthodox6]

I'm going to post, then not return to this thread to read how people savage my reply.

 

For background, I support both allopathic and alternative medicine approaches to health. I never automatically trust anybody about medical and health issues, no matter what the "credentials". The best from both worlds is what I consider "the best world."

 

Having established that, I shall state that I consider Dr. Mercola a self-serving quack.

[Quiver0f10]

Quack.

[Negin]

I guess he's in it for the money like the FDA. I trust NOTHING the FDA has to say. They too are people who like to keep people sick.

 

I don't think he's a total quack. Many things he has written about are credible. Such as the lack of Vitamin D. If you took your levels right now most people are deficient in vitamin D.

I wouldn't go as far as not vaccinating my children I do believe what he writes has some merit. Most people who say Quack are believers of allopathic medicine anyways.

Do I take everything Dr. Mercola says with gold? No. But he does lead you in the right direction to begin research into more natural remedies. If allopathic was all that great we wouldn't have lots of sick people walking around and antibiotic resistant bacteria either.

:iagree:

I don't subscribe to Mercola's emails. I read the occasional article by him. Sometimes I learn a lot or it leads me into a great new direction. An open mind is helpful. I'm not impressed with most doctors these days. In all my 43 years, I can probably count on one hand the number doctors I've been happy with.

 

I don't trust the FDA or Big Pharma.

Me neither. Last resort for me.

 

Allopathic medicine is fine in its place. I'm all for stitching that leg up or transplanting that heart or taking that antibiotic when needed.

 

But no, allopathic medicine falls far short when it comes to maintaining or regaining actual health, and I don't mean health as in "Take this medicine to stop that symptiom which will require 3 more medicines for the side effects" rather than eliminate the root problem.

 

Mercola does a great job in helping people to think about how to find answers to their chronic health problems and begin researching themselves. Mercola was talking about Vitamin D when mainstream medicine was still mocking it.

 

So, look at your source. If sick, medicated people are telling you to do something for your health, take it with a grain of salt. If vibrant, healthy people tell you how they maintain vibrant health and energy, I"m listening.

 

The FDA is not a good source, especially alone, with all of its ties to Big Pharmaceutical companies. Mainstream doctors told expectant mothers that thalidomide was a fine drug for them to take.

:iagree:

 

Someone earlier posted a link to "Quackwatch" as proof that Mercola is a quack. In my opinion, the makers of that site are far scummier than Mercola could ever be. If something isn't absolutely accepted by conventional medicine, Quackwatch considers it to be quackery. A lot of people can be hurt by dismissing helpful things because of that site.

I cannot stand Quackwatch. :glare: