An alternative health website!

indigo girl · Apr 7, 2006

I visit http://www.mercola.com a couple time per week and he sends out weekly updates which are pretty good. He is a M.D. and has a lot of information on his site. Although, I do not agree with everything he says I do find it very helpful. Check it out!

An interesting site, I like it. Thank you. There are quite a few members of the American College of Advanced Medicine that put out newsletters in print that you can subscribe to for cost. These docs keep up with new research in many areas of medicine. They don't, however, just prescribe whatever a visiting pharmaceutical rep happens to be pushing that month. This is not to say that they don't prescribe medications, but rather that they take a more thoughtful approach, and if something other than a drug might work better or have less risk of side effects, they might recommend it.

suzy253, RN · Apr 7, 2006

Another great website:

www.quackwatch.com

especially interesting is the FDA warning letter to Dr. Mercola:

http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2005/mercola.shtml

indigo girl · Apr 7, 2006

Another great website:
www.quackwatch.com
especially interesting is the FDA warning letter to Dr. Mercola:
http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2005/mercola.shtml

Well, I kind of like to make up my own mind about this sort of thing. An interesting observation which has been commented on by many about the FDA, is that so often its members end up working for pharmaceutical companies, and vice versa! It's like the fox being hired to guard the chicken coop. I just don't believe everything they say. I know that isn't what we were taught, but they do seem to have a vested interest in keeping us buying pharmaceuticals, and they've made some REALLY big mistakes, like Vioxx. The next one to watch out for, is all the possible lawsuits from selling doctors and their patients on statin drugs. I'm not saying that they are wrong about every judgment that they make, just that, I would not dismiss what any alternative practioner had to say automatically, just because the FDA doesn't like them. I really believe that they have supressed many favorable and far safer therapies for conditions such as cancer, and that they will continue to do so. It's similar to how I would view what passes for "News" nowadays. It's really spin. When I hear the words "authorities say" or "officials say", I realize that I'm not necessarily hearing the truth. I then have to ask, who benefits from me believing what is being said? I just suggest doing your own thinking, and investigating. It's a good habit to get into. Automatically assuming that any official agency has your best interests at heart could be very bad for you. It's not what you are taught sometimes, but rather what you learn by being a conscious, thoughful human being...

suzy253, RN · Apr 7, 2006

I just suggest doing your own thinking, and investigating. It's a good habit to get into.

Been there, done that. Working for many many years for a chairman of a prestige pharmacological sciences department, helping him investigate the dangers of ephedra (to name just one) and who was beneficial for getting it off the market. Call me skeptical....whatever. Stay safe.

Question · Apr 8, 2006

I believe that thinking is not high on some people's lists. I for one love to think and engage in philosophy. I do not need someone to tell me how to think or what to do. I study, read and discuss topics with doctors and philosophers almost daily. I am surrounded by a large diverse group of health care professionals.

I agree that there needs to be a level of safety in herbs, vitamins, and minerals etc. That is why I go with organic products that the companies have allowed their products to be independently tested for consistent quality and safety.

If you go on http://www.mercola.com and look what he reports you find that he reports the good and bad about vitamins, herbs, and minerals etc. I find his site very helpful and you can research what he has to say even further before making a health choice. Like I said before, I do not agree with everything he says but then again I have never met a person that I always agree with.

About ephedra, I could not find one place that mercola supported it. He did say that there was evidence that it could be linked to many negative health conditions. The only other thing I found was that it was banned from unpatentable products but not from patented products like Sudafed and OTC cold medicine.

Look up the research on OTC cold medicine and see for yourself how there is pretty much no supporting evidence. I heard that a recent BMJ journal article siad said if a toxic drug has a 1% higher success rate than placebo that they have good chance to get it passed by the FDA. Just a 1% better success than a water pill, lol. Is that Scientific?

I want read the book Overdosed America : The Broken Promise of American Medicine

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BHA3MC/sr=8-1/qid=1144453904/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6424522-8591167?%5Fencoding=UTF8

That guy barret that runs quack watch is laughable. He credentials are pretty much non-existent.

EricJRN, MSN, RN · Apr 8, 2006

I think the main problem that a lot of people have with Dr Mercola is that it's exceedingly difficult to determine where his information comes from. For example, the majority of the articles on his website have no cited references. I think it's pretty common knowledge that this is a requirement for any researcher who expects to be taken seriously. But there's not even the illusion that some scientific research effort is going on there.

Even in the articles where he reveals his work on metabolic types, he doesn't say where the theory comes from, or cite any supportive evidence. Now, if it were true that all humans would better respond to a diet based on a specific metabolic type, this would be revolutionary information and Dr Mercola would have an incredible opportunity to undo so much of the damage done by our 'broken' traditional healthcare system. However, he doesn't even cite one study or give us any scientific background at all. Essentially, he's telling people how to think, without telling them why they should think accordingly.

He's quick to point out that a lot of people die in the hospital, but there's no concrete evidence listed that his methods are better. Maybe it's in the book that he's selling though.

indigo girl · Apr 8, 2006

I think the main problem that a lot of people have with Dr Mercola is that it's exceedingly difficult to determine where his information comes from. For example, the majority of the articles on his website have no cited references. I think it's pretty common knowledge that this is a requirement for any researcher who expects to be taken seriously. But there's not even the illusion that some scientific research effort is going on there.
Even in the articles where he reveals his work on metabolic types, he doesn't say where the theory comes from, or cite any supportive evidence. Now, if it were true that all humans would better respond to a diet based on a specific metabolic type, this would be revolutionary information and Dr Mercola would have an incredible opportunity to undo so much of the damage done by our 'broken' traditional healthcare system. However, he doesn't even cite one study or give us any scientific background at all. Essentially, he's telling people how to think, without telling them why they should think accordingly.
He's quick to point out that a lot of people die in the hospital, but there's no concrete evidence listed that his methods are better. Maybe it's in the book that he's selling though.

He may not be a researcher. Many alternative practioners make recommendations based on a body of knowledge that they are familiar with. It's not any different than if you were to go to your own physician. Do you ask your physicians to give you the source of their information? Would you not hold them to the same standards if they wanted you to try a new therapy? That would be wise.

If you were his client, and you asked a specific question about metabolic typing, or a supplement, you would probably get several references from him. In his book, I would suspect though I haven't read it, that he would be siting the work of many of the nutritional pioneers that metabolic typing grew out of such as Dr. Weston Price DDS, Dr. Melvin Page, DDS, Dr Henry Bieler, etc.

I would, of course, do my own research before trying any new diet, or product. That's the point, I would take responsibility for any of my health decisions. I consider any and all doctors, and health professionals that I'm paying for, as consultants only. The buck stops here.

EricJRN, MSN, RN · Apr 9, 2006

He may not be a researcher. Many alternative practioners make recommendations based on a body of knowledge that they are familiar with. It's not any different than if you were to go to your own physician. Do you ask your physicians to give you the source of their information? Would you not hold them to the same standards if they wanted you to try a new therapy? That would be wise.

He refers to his 'research' numerous times including in the disclaimer at the bottom of almost every page on the site. There's just no evidence of any research that can be verified. He certainly doesn't have to provide it, but that would be one reason why so few people take him seriously.

And I agree that it is wise to require sources from my personal physician, and I do just that. In fact, I just received a lab results report the other day which included my results, the reference ranges, and the plan associated with my results. ALL of this information was tied to specific research showing that this would be the best plan, and the citations were included at the end of the report.

indigo girl · Apr 9, 2006

So ask him what he bases his research on. It would be hard to believe that it came out of nowhere. Are you referring to metabolic typing specifically? I'm guessing not since he's not the first to advocate that approach although he might have made some further discoveries. Why do you say that so few people take him seriously? I don't know if they do or not, I'm just wondering why you think this.

EricJRN, MSN, RN · Apr 9, 2006

What I'm saying is that if he's got groundbreaking information, he's doing a great disservice to the public by making it appear that this info came out of nowhere. If he's not the first to advocate something, that's all the more reason why we should see a little background cited.

The comment about taking him seriously: If the guy has come up with a revolutionary way to diet and new methods of healing and preventing diseases, he should be a household name. Although he seems to have a following, I think it would be a serious stretch to say that this guy is a household name.

indigo girl · Apr 9, 2006

I guess it just doesn't bother me that he doesn't cite his "research". If I want the info, I'll ask for it. But, it does bother you clearly, and you're not asking for it. Hmmm....

Anyone can self publish a book, and promote themselves on the web. It's up to the consumer to do due diligence. I don't expect any government organization to do this for me. In fact, I don't want them to.

I'm not going to make a value judgment on this guy's body of work because I'm not that familiar with it. If I wanted to know more, I'd engage him in debate like we're doing here. He is just one of many MD's that are taking a different path. I'm OK with that as I actually pay for subscriptions to several newsletters from different members of ACAM. I feel perfectly comfortable with what they are saying, and would have no problem asking them where the information is coming from if it was something I was interested in. I expect to ask questions.