Dr Joseph Mercola - Quack or visionary?

[debrasue]

His marketing methods and own-brand products aside, does anyone have any feelings on whether the nutritional theories posed by Mercola are valid or pure quackery?
I'd be interested in hearing members' views...

 

[Indy51]

I think his dietary advice is pretty much in keeping with LCHF - he's a proponent of lower carbs and ketogenic diets. His views on exercise are also pretty current - he's a huge fan of HIIT. The guy seems pretty fit for his age if you see his fitness videos.

Where he kind of loses me is with the more far out stuff like grounding. Still, maybe he'll turn out to be right about that ... time will tell I guess.

He also interviews some pretty interesting people on his Youtube channel. I've seen some great interviews there.

 

[debrasue]

I think his dietary advice is pretty much in keeping with LCHF - he's a proponent of lower carbs and ketogenic diets. His views on exercise are also pretty current - he's a huge fan of HIIT. The guy seems pretty fit for his age if you see his fitness videos.

Where he kind of loses me is with the more far out stuff like grounding. Still, maybe he'll turn out to be right about that ... time will tell I guess.

He also interviews some pretty interesting people on his Youtube channel. I've seen some great interviews there.

Thanks, @Indy51 - I'll check out those interviews!

 

[Dark Horse]

You might find these interesting reading:-
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html
http://www.alternet.org/personal-he...aguing-america-their-bad-claims-about-science

As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day - the problem is you don't know when it's right and when it's wrong. Even if he's right sometimes, I would look to a more reliable source for nutritional information.

 

[Indy51]

a more reliable source for nutritional information

Like who for example?

Mercola is basically saying the same thing on diet that people like Prof Noakes, Steve Phinney, Jeff Volek etc are saying. I trust them.

I'm not so sure how much trust I put in Quackwatch either.

 

[Pinkorchid]

I personally never read anything that has comes from the US...so many quacks out there all claiming miracles if we follow their regimes and diets. The only right thing for us to do is what suits us personally

 

[Dark Horse]

Like who for example?

Mercola is basically saying the same thing on diet that people like Prof Noakes, Steve Phinney, Jeff Volek etc are saying. I trust them.

I'm not so sure how much trust I put in Quackwatch either.

I think you've answered your own question - all of the people you've mentioned are far more reliable. They are appropriately qualified, stick to their own areas of expertise and, apart from a few educational books, are not selling products promoted in their articles. Although Mercola may agree broadly with agree with them, he also includes a lot of dubious "information" as well. It can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff so I don't consider him a reliable source of information.

I can't vouch for everything Quackwatch say, but when I look at topics they cover that I am knowledgeable about, they seem to be doing a pretty good job. They are a useful resource when I don't have time to fact-check everything myself or the topic in question is outside my particular areas of expertise.

 

[Indy51]

I think you've answered your own question - all of the people you've mentioned are far more reliable. They are appropriately qualified, stick to their own areas of expertise and, apart from a few educational books, are not selling products promoted in their articles. Although Mercola may agree broadly with agree with them, he also includes a lot of dubious "information" as well. It can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff so I don't consider him a reliable source of information.

I can't vouch for everything Quackwatch say, but when I look at topics they cover that I am knowledgeable about, they seem to be doing a pretty good job. They are a useful resource when I don't have time to fact-check everything myself or the topic in question is outside my particular areas of expertise.

Admittedly, I don't visit Mercola's site or follow him in depth. I mostly watch his Youtube interview and exercise videos.

After checking out the Quackwatch link you gave above, I found the tracking down and posting pictures of the guy's home stalkerish to say the least and wonder what his real estate assets have to do with anything. I also wonder if the dude who runs Quackwatch would like someone to do the same to him? Reeks of "axe to grind" to me and did nothing for his own credibility, JMO.

 

[debrasue]

Like who for example?

Mercola is basically saying the same thing on diet that people like Prof Noakes, Steve Phinney, Jeff Volek etc are saying. I trust them.

I'm not so sure how much trust I put in Quackwatch either.

I read the Quackwatch item, which was what prompted my original post...

 

[debrasue]

I think you've answered your own question - all of the people you've mentioned are far more reliable. They are appropriately qualified, stick to their own areas of expertise and, apart from a few educational books, are not selling products promoted in their articles. Although Mercola may agree broadly with agree with them, he also includes a lot of dubious "information" as well. It can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff so I don't consider him a reliable source of information.

I can't vouch for everything Quackwatch say, but when I look at topics they cover that I am knowledgeable about, they seem to be doing a pretty good job. They are a useful resource when I don't have time to fact-check everything myself or the topic in question is outside my particular areas of expertise.

As mentioned at the start of this thread, I'm not taking his marketing and own-brand products into account.

 

[Indy51]

As mentioned at the start of this thread, I'm not taking his marketing and own-brand products into account.

Likewise - I've never bought any of his products so can't comment on them.

A general feeling I have from sites like Quackwatch and people who get hot under the collar about people selling supplements, books, etc. is that they seem to think everybody (but themselves who see through such things of course) are morons without any kind of discernment or intelligence, unable to make up their own minds about anything without some "annointed expert" to show them the stupidity of their ways. I mean, nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head saying "you will believe Mercola, you will buy his products" etc. I find the condenscension behind such annointed ones incredibly offensive. I always find Tom Naughton's rants about "the Annointed" very funny ... and very true

 

[Brunneria]

The reason I occasionally find Mercola useful is because he makes the subjects easy to understand.
- an intro to a non-orthodox viewpoint.
I can pick up new terms and ideas and then check them elsewhere.
Sometimes they check out.
Sometimes they don't.
I get to make up my own mind - just like with everything.

There were a couple of subjects that i've found him VERY helpful - Explaining the vital relationship between D3 and K2 and emphasising that hypertension is a symptom, not a cause. From there, i was able to use the right terminology to actually root out good info from deeper in Google.

The things I dislike about Mercola is that he is always coming up with new and different health 'revelations' (gotta keep the readers coming back for more) and you need to check the dates of his articles. He will happily change view with the wind, if new evidence is 'revealed' but he leaves the old articles on the site. Leaving contradictory views still available side by side.

I'm also skeptical of anyone who advises massive dietary supplementation and then just happens to sell the best quality version of exactly those supplements...

But we all need to make up our own minds, don't we? I totally agree with you @Indy51
The only Annointed one in my life, is ME. And I get to read and weigh and decide.

Someone rocks up telling me they are The One True Disciple of Science, or Anti-Quackery, or Spaghetti Monsters, then first I guffaw, then I dismiss them, then I dig deeper and read more widely.

Seems to work very well for me.

 

[Dark Horse]

Admittedly, I don't visit Mercola's site or follow him in depth. I mostly watch his Youtube interview and exercise videos.

After checking out the Quackwatch link you gave above, I found the tracking down and posting pictures of the guy's home stalkerish to say the least and wonder what his real estate assets have to do with anything. I also wonder if the dude who runs Quackwatch would like someone to do the same to him? Reeks of "axe to grind" to me and did nothing for his own credibility, JMO.

As I read it, the author quoted Mercola as claiming that all profits from his sales go back into making the website better for readers and he (the author) was casting doubt on that. I thought it was a bit clumsy myself.

 

[Dark Horse]

Likewise - I've never bought any of his products so can't comment on them.

A general feeling I have from sites like Quackwatch and people who get hot under the collar about people selling supplements, books, etc. is that they seem to think everybody (but themselves who see through such things of course) are morons without any kind of discernment or intelligence, unable to make up their own minds about anything without some "annointed expert" to show them the stupidity of their ways. I mean, nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head saying "you will believe Mercola, you will buy his products" etc. I find the condenscension behind such annointed ones incredibly offensive. I always find Tom Naughton's rants about "the Annointed" very funny ... and very true

I agree that there are some people who seem more interested in maintaining their 'superior' role and looking down on people that they perceive as 'idiots' than they are in helping people evaluate information. I sometimes get the feeling that they would be quite disappointed if someone changed their mind and agreed with them. Personally, I think that we can't be experts in everything and if somebody believes something I consider completely erroneous in a field that I am knowledgeable about, I don't think it makes them stupid. Probably, while I was studying that subject in depth they were learning about another subject area in which I lack knowledge. If I show ignorance in a particular area, I would like people who are knowledgeable about it to educate me, not denigrate me, so I expect to return the courtesy.

I would say that the problem with health information websites selling supplements etc. it that it makes it very difficult for the website to give unbiased information. If that information relates to an area someone is not an expert in, it's very difficult to evaluate it and spot the bias, no matter how intelligent and educated the reader.

 

[debrasue]

The reason I occasionally find Mercola useful is because he makes the subjects easy to understand.
- an intro to a non-orthodox viewpoint.
I can pick up new terms and ideas and then check them elsewhere.
Sometimes they check out.
Sometimes they don't.
I get to make up my own mind - just like with everything.

There were a couple of subjects that i've found him VERY helpful - Explaining the vital relationship between D3 and K2 and emphasising that hypertension is a symptom, not a cause. From there, i was able to use the right terminology to actually root out good info from deeper in Google.

The things I dislike about Mercola is that he is always coming up with new and different health 'revelations' (gotta keep the readers coming back for more) and you need to check the dates of his articles. He will happily change view with the wind, if new evidence is 'revealed' but he leaves the old articles on the site. Leaving contradictory views still available side by side.

I'm also skeptical of anyone who advises massive dietary supplementation and then just happens to sell the best quality version of exactly those supplements...

But we all need to make up our own minds, don't we? I totally agree with you @Indy51
The only Annointed one in my life, is ME. And I get to read and weigh and decide.

Someone rocks up telling me they are The One True Disciple of Science, or Anti-Quackery, or Spaghetti Monsters, then first I guffaw, then I dismiss them, then I dig deeper and read more widely.

Seems to work very well for me.

In a nutshell, Brunneria!

 

[debrasue]

I agree that there are some people who seem more interested in maintaining their 'superior' role and looking down on people that they perceive as 'idiots' than they are in helping people evaluate information. I sometimes get the feeling that they would be quite disappointed if someone changed their mind and agreed with them. Personally, I think that we can't be experts in everything and if somebody believes something I consider completely erroneous in a field that I am knowledgeable about, I don't think it makes them stupid. Probably, while I was studying that subject in depth they were learning about another subject area in which I lack knowledge. If I show ignorance in a particular area, I would like people who are knowledgeable about it to educate me, not denigrate me, so I expect to return the courtesy.

I would say that the problem with health information websites selling supplements etc. it that it makes it very difficult for the website to give unbiased information. If that information relates to an area someone is not an expert in, it's very difficult to evaluate it and spot the bias, no matter how intelligent and educated the reader.

Yes, I'd agree with this viewpoint completely. And you're right - we're all here to be educated in one way or another.

 

[Indy51]

Probably the classic example of "the Annointed" is Sir Rory Collins - the man is supposed to be a scientist, but he carries on more like a two year old throwing a tantrum because not everyone falls into line and accepts his word as gospel when it comes to statins. Demanding retractions, accusing people of "killing thousands" etc., etc.

The line that makes me snort is usually "evidence based medicine" - when what we've really got is "consensus based medicine" - and the methods used to stamp out contrarian views are like a form of intellectual fascism. Legitimate scientists can't get funding for their research because it goes against the prevailing consensus. And let's conveniently forget the principle of the half life of "facts"...