Originally Posted by Lovemy3girls
I am curious to know why you are focusing so much on polio and AIDS when I never even linked to that information? I linked to info about the MMR, which was in step with the OP, not AIDS or polio. Just wondering why you never even said anything about the MMR information on the site, which is what my focus was, along with the issue of vaccine contamination. What was it exactly that you found so frightening? Personally, I feel that the media, the Pharm, the CDC, and WHO do a much more superlative job of frightening people than this site. Did you read the links specifically on:
I have for the most part posted scientific links on MDC and now find myself being judged rather harshly for this one link, even when I said I didn't necessarily endorse all the information on the website. It wasn't really my intention to get so fringe, but I do want to put the contamination issue in the light so we can talk about it. I do have more "acceptable" links to post on the matter and will do so. Why the flame war on polio and AIDS and not the matter at hand?
The site does a poor job of citing sources. At best, it offers a few links to large sites at the bottom of the page, and for most, it doesn't even do that. This makes it difficult to verify information presented or to check to see what the original context of some things are to see if they are being presented fairly. The obvious misinformation and twisting of the truth, to put it gently, about AIDS/HIV speaks to the credibility of the site and just how far we can trust it to present information accurately.
One easy to verify bit is on the autism page though, despite once again no citations or reference on the page. The article is from 2008 but completely ignores that thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines several years before that and presents information as if we were back in 1999 or so... but still greatly exaggerates the amount of mercury a child would get from vaccines even back then. It also speaks of the EPA safe limits with no mention that they are for methyl mercury or the differences between methyl mercury, which is not in vaccines, and the ethyl mercury in thimerosal.
Please note since I am now well aware which section this thread is in, I am not arguing in favor of vaccination here, and I am aware that most people do not make their choice not to vaccinate out of fear of autism. Just pointing out some specific inaccuracies of this specific site.
Originally Posted by peainthepod
This was mentioned above so I hope it's not too off-topic, but I find the argument that people like Mercola are untrustworthy because they sell products on their sites completely ridiculous.
Usually the person objecting to this gross commercialism, when asked to cite sources, is linking to pages that have double sidebars of ads for pharmaceutical products from the same companies that sell and market vaccines. Most websites have ads these days so accusing an alternative practitioner of fraud because they happen to sell proprietary products on their own business page is some weak sauce. Really it's just another hypocritical way of trying to discredit someone with unpopular opinions.
I think the point is generally not so much don't trust anyone who is making money ever but pointing out how strange it is that so many people who refuse to trust anything from the CDC etc. based on accusations that they are supposed to be in the drug companies pocket are so willing to completely ignore that Mercola makes a lot of money from his business.
Mercola is far, far better than the other site I was referring to since he at least doesn't display rampant racism or insane theories about alien lizards, though several of his articles are rather homophobic (and yet, he speaks of homophobia a bad thing in accusing groups he doesn't like of being it). The reasons I don't trust him have less to do with his shilling his products though his site and more to do with stuff like:
Posting articles on his site that claim HIV is harmless and AIDS is actually the result of gay men being heavy drug users:
Duesberg stated that HIV is harmless virus and AIDS in homosexual men and drug users in the industrial countries is caused by the heavy use of illicit drugs. He also stated that AIDS in hemophiliacs is caused by foreign-protein contaminating commercial clotting factor VIII and not by the HIV.
The correct approach for investigating AIDS causes or pathogenesis of any other complicated chronic medical problem is by evaluating all medical evidence concerning each risk group. Namely, a differential diagnosis that considers both infectious and noninfectious causes of diseased should be performed.
I used differential diagnosis in this case and it indicated that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. It also indicated that the use of illicit drugs alone or the use of antihemophilic factors does not cause AIDS.
AIDS is caused by the heavy use of corticosteroids and/or cytotoxic drugs to treat many health problems resulted from the use of illicit drugs by drug users and homosexuals.
The appearance of AIDS cases in the USA in 1978 coincided with approval of corticosteroids aerosol by the US FDA in 1976. In addition, homosexual men are usually heavy user of rectal glucocorticoids.
AIDS in hemophiliacs is caused by the use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive drugs to prevent the formation of antibodies for factors VIII and IX and to treat other health problems.
Note the bit at the bottom about hemophiliacs. This article is from 2001. HIV/AIDS infections among hemophiliacs was a big problem in the 80s, but thanks screening and testing of blood donations keeping the blood supply free of HIV rates of new infections dropped back into line with the general population long before Mercola put this on his site.
Later the same article explains away AIDS in infants and children as being because their mothers were heavy drug users, causing them to be born prematurely and given steroids to develop their lungs.
Mercola has many articles on his site denying the connection between HIV/AIDS.
Also when he posts articles claiming that the main cause of cancer is a fungus, and it can easily be cured by baking soda: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/05/fungus-causing-cancer-a-novel-approach-to-the-most-common-form-of-death.aspx
No, wait, "100 percent of your current health status is due to your mental and emotional reactions to events that take place during your lifetime" and this includes diseases such as cancer. Thankfully, you can cure or prevent health problems with Mecola's emotional freedom technique helpfully sold on his site. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/17/scientific-proof-that-your-childhood-traumas-are-a-major-factor-in-your-all-your-illnesses.aspx
One of my favorite bits is where Mercola re-posts an article about dangerous cancer information found on the internet, and then in his discussion part below it, he doesn't bother to defend his site or alternative medicine but instead advertises a cancer convention where he will be speaking. It's almost as if he is using the article as support, saying "yes, yes, it's right we must be wary of all the horrible cancer advice those quacks put on the internet, here is a place to get good information," all the while completely ignoring that his website is exactly the sort they are warning about. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/08/21/cancer-part-four.aspx
That Mercola is anti-vegetarian is old news, and I'm not surprised when he maligns any study that ever dares suggest a vegetarian diet is not devastating to human health (much less one that shows it to be at all beneficial) or presents studies on negative effects of extreme macrobiotic diets as if they apply to the run-of-the-mill vegetarian. But as a life long vegetarian, I do find it rather offensive when he not only brings up the tired old tripe about Hitler being vegetarian, but also claims that any crowd protesting against civil rights or gay rights is sure to be made up primarily of vegetarians! I mean, he probably has a point about those protesting for animal rights for obvious reasons, and there are a fair amount of vegetarians in the environmental movement. But the human rights stuff? I'm sure there are some racist and/or homophobic vegetarians, as sadly there will at least a few of both in pretty much any large group. But I'd be willing to bet that you'd be hard pressed to find a single vegetarian at most demonstrations against gay marriage or civil rights or whatever. The concepts just don't go together. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/02/13/vegetarian3.aspx
Seeing him present buying a tanning bed from his website as a reasonable measure to take to ensure you are getting enough vitamin D is just the icing on the cake.
So yeah, while Mercola is infinitely preferable to the site with the marine mammal in the URL, and while I don't cringe at links to him the way I do to links to it, I still do take anything on his site with a grain of salt based on the other views and anti-science he promotes. Make that a huge helping of salt.