Is Mercola a quack?

Roger Zoul <[email hidden]> wrote:
|| Just wondering, is all....

Does a duck quack? Quack Quack Quack.....

--
Read: http://home.swbell.net/bjtexas/SS/

"If you remember the 60's, it is likely you weren't there." --
Old Hippie

Roger Zoul said:

Just wondering, is all....

I remember someone saying years ago that if Mercola was forecasting a
sunny day in the desert, bring your umbrella.

Vicki

Roger Zoul said:

Just wondering, is all....

I think he is. He presents some good and useful information.
Interspersed with a lot of junk science. The main problem with him, to
me, is that he presents opinions that are based on his own biases and
are not backed up by any kind of reasonable science.

Often he cherry picks studies to support his position on something,
totally ignoring valid, abundant evidence that contradicts his
position. Similar to the tactics of the Weston Price Foundation folks.

Just not reliable.

HG

I've been reading from both sites mentioned for the last month. Very
interesting stuff. Now as for not being reliable. It seems both Mercola
and the Price foundation espouse a low carb lifestyle. Albeit stricter
in regards to the source and purity of food. They both seem to hammer
against manmade foods, too much grains, fake fats, modern agricorp
farming practices, the runaway pharmaceutical industry, corrupt fda
practices, etc...to me the basic message is that we should return to
the way that we evolved to eat, which should correct a lot of our
health problems and keep us functioning optimally. What doesn't sound
"reliable" about their basic ideas? Would you prefer the food pyramid,
or hydrogenated oils, or how about a nice dose of vioxx. All and more
attrocities that I can list that have at one time or another enjoyed
being "approved" or "GCAS" and considered healthy for use by
"reliable" sources, backed up by "reliable" studies that surely would
never be cherry picked over or misinterpeted.

Hannah Gruen wrote:
:: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:05:58 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: Just wondering, is all....
:::
::
:: I think he is. He presents some good and useful information.
:: Interspersed with a lot of junk science. The main problem with him,
:: to me, is that he presents opinions that are based on his own biases
:: and are not backed up by any kind of reasonable science.
::
:: Often he cherry picks studies to support his position on something,
:: totally ignoring valid, abundant evidence that contradicts his
:: position. Similar to the tactics of the Weston Price Foundation
:: folks.
::
:: Just not reliable.
::
:: HG

Thanks, that's kinda what I was thinking. There's just enough 'good &
useful' stuff there to lull one in, though.

JoeyL wrote:
:: I've been reading from both sites mentioned for the last month. Very
:: interesting stuff. Now as for not being reliable. It seems both
:: Mercola and the Price foundation espouse a low carb lifestyle.
:: Albeit stricter in regards to the source and purity of food. They
:: both seem to hammer against manmade foods, too much grains, fake
:: fats, modern agricorp farming practices, the runaway pharmaceutical
:: industry, corrupt fda practices, etc...to me the basic message is
:: that we should return to the way that we evolved to eat, which
:: should correct a lot of our health problems and keep us functioning
:: optimally. What doesn't sound "reliable" about their basic ideas?
:: Would you prefer the food pyramid, or hydrogenated oils, or how
:: about a nice dose of vioxx. All and more attrocities that I can list
:: that have at one time or another enjoyed being "approved" or "GCAS"
:: and considered healthy for use by "reliable" sources, backed up by
:: "reliable" studies that surely would never be cherry picked over or
:: misinterpeted.

How about "tapping" for pain relief?

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:30:56 -0500, Hannah Gruen
<[email hidden]> wrote:

|On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:05:58 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
|<[email hidden]> wrote:
|
|>Just wondering, is all....
|>
|
|I think he is. He presents some good and useful information.
|Interspersed with a lot of junk science. The main problem with him, to
|me, is that he presents opinions that are based on his own biases and
|are not backed up by any kind of reasonable science.
|
|Often he cherry picks studies to support his position on something,
|totally ignoring valid, abundant evidence that contradicts his
|position. Similar to the tactics of the Weston Price Foundation folks.
|
|Just not reliable.
|
|HG

That's exactly how I view him. I've read some interesting things he's
written that make me think; and he also says some things that are
really off the wall.

Peter

I don't know much at all about what he calls eft, but I have
experienced accupressure and accupuncture and have had good results
with both for what I was being treated for. Eft sounds similar. Perhaps
it also works psychologically, by helping you retrain learned patterns.

JoeyL wrote:
:: I don't know much at all about what he calls eft, but I have
:: experienced accupressure and accupuncture and have had good results
:: with both for what I was being treated for. Eft sounds similar.
:: Perhaps it also works psychologically, by helping you retrain
:: learned patterns.

I don't recall reading any kind of convincing explanations for why it works,
but I do recall seeing him peddling DVDs and tapes for this technique.
Hence, I'm distrustful of him.

Yeah I know it sounds a little seedy but I checked, there is quite a
bit of info on the web about eft by a lot of other doctors counsellors
etc.. not just Mercola. I'm not defending the guy by any means. But you
go to the average M.D.'s office with some of the symptoms he says can
be helped, and you're liable to walk out with a handful of scripts that
may or may not work and many of which have really bad side effects, and
are expensive, and are "sold" to you in the same manner by Doc's of
whom the majority's only training and knowledge of new meds are from
the pharmaceutical reps that sell the stuff. Me I'd try the natural
easy stuff first. (this is in no way a rant against necessary meds, as
opposed to conditions which can be treated or partially treated by
other methods.) as an example how many have posted here about being
able to control diabetes or hypertension through low-carb and are able
to reduce or eliminate their scripts.