Where does Dr. Mercola give bad info on breastfeeding?

Hiya! Sorry, I unsub'd from the other thread, so sorry if I never got back to you, I wasn't ignoring .
I was on his list for a long while, and there was something in his newsletter a while back (can't remember when!) that I truly disagree with in regards to breastfeeding mothers needed to supplement babies with fish oil or something. Also, he is really supportive of the DHA additives which I am not, and says they are from microalgae where I have read otherwise. That was it, sorry it warranted another thread. I don't care for his heroic stance on nutrition, and do not agree with his supplementation thoughts. And since it is just something that personally bugged, I can't point you to it because I don't surf over there, nor did I bookmark it. Just a difference of information and something I considered bad info.

Thank you for your reply and clarification.

I must say, I'm extremely surprised and dismayed that misinformation is going on about Dr. Mercola. You say that you're 'picky about that sort of thing' (breastfeeding information) but then you erroneously posted that he had bad info on his website when in fact, it was his newsletter. And you it was something you 'truly disagree(d)' with but you're not sure if it was supplementary fish oil 'or something'?

I respect your right to disagree with Dr. Mercola but if you cannot support accusations such as there is 'bad information about breastfeeding on his site', then maybe just saying 'he personally bugs me' is fair. Spreading misinformation about him and his site doesn't help anyone. If it is 'bad info' for you, it doesn't mean it is categorically bad breastfeeding information which is what you stated.

Since you say you can't find what it is that bugged you, and it isn't on the Mercola website as you originally claimed, I have to be fair and assume it doesn't exist.

Let's make sure not to assign false information to any HCP, author, et al on this board, if we can help it. It doesn't do anyone any good to post things that are false or cannot be backed with supporting info from a book, website, etc. We all have our opinions on what is best and can state that without putting words into an author's mouth to back our opinions.

wow, I thought I was clear the first time ...accusations? no, opinion! *I* found some info to be bad- IMO. I don't agree about the DHA and cod liver oil supp for all bf women and babies...it was in his newsletter, but it is on his site too. I don't care for him or his information ( in part) and certainly don't have to defend it , but since you are obviously upset by my opinion...
link (one, there are many related articles on his site...)
I apologize for saying anything in the first place, because I did not realize he had such a loyal fan base...I think it is great that anyone reads his stuff and is moved to improve diet, etc...I just don't happen to follow his path.

Not upset in the least! Nor am I a fan(atic) of Dr. Mercola. At all.

But we all need to be careful that we don't spread misinformation. Keep questioning (I never stated I was anti inquiry) but let's make it intelligent, fact based and steer clear of personal 'bugging' when making assertions about what this or that person advocates.

As far as that link, I do agree with the WHO that formula fed infants should be supplemented with a safe version of DHA. Breastfed infants? No. But that link tells me:

Quote:
and

Quote:
So we're not talking about breastfed babies. We're talking about babies who are receiving the 5th best food option and as history shows, formula manufacturing continues to be an imperfect science, sorely in need of documented (and WHO approved) research toward improvement. Safe DHA supplementation fulfills that improvement need at this time.

Quote:
ITA! ITA! My version of this is minus the "I'm no fan of Mercola..." part.

But let's just say that my questioning of my previous vegan diet has made others quite uncomfortable and accuse me of spreading "baloney" and "misinformation". And pointing out flaws in other people's logic has suddenly made me a Mercola groupie.

Not everything is so clear cut, unfortunately.

Quote:

Now I'm getting "quoted" out of context, here. I absolutely agree that we all ought to question anything & everything that we want to. I did not say that your questioning of a vegan diet was baloney. I said that the conclusions that you drew were - and I admit that I could have used a better word.

What I was getting at is much the same as what Playdoh stated

Quote:
I am only bothered by statements that a vegan diet is not healthy long term or will cause _______ health problems without supporting information other than anecdotes or someone's observations. If it can't be backed up with science, I am very sceptical. That absolutely does not mean, "do not question." It merely means, if you are going to state that something is bad for you, give me some good science to back it up.

Quote:
Won't argue with this. I think if a baby isn't getting the normal (from mom or another mom), he/she deserves the best that can be provided by way of the substitute. It's not baby's fault.

Tangent: I must go on to say though that the substitute shouldn't be marketed as being just as good in any way shape or form. That's like saying that needing heart medications to stay alive is just as good as having a fully functional healthy heart. No one would accept that from the pharmaceutical companies, yet the equivalent marketing of AIM is.

ot- i was curious about his circ position & looked it up

'I met a doctor once who wrote an entire book on the subject of the biblical and medical evidence supporting this procedure. I read the book and was quite impressed with the evidence supporting circumcision. Unfortunately, the book is unavailable to me now.
Additional information can be reviewed at www.circumcision.org.'

well, that is certainly enough info for me... i mean, he vaguely recalls reading it somewhere, isn't that good enough? talk about bad science & lack of credibility. that makes anything he says suspect to me (just like i take sally fallon's info on bfing with a grain of salt.)

suse

whats his opinion on circ????

im nosey... :LOL

I do not believe in assisinating (cant sp tonight) anyone's character... his viewpoints or opinions are a different story.... some ppl believe him some dont.. but no matter what no person should be held up sooo high that his way is the only way... and ppl stop questioning....

jus my .02

Can't we all jus get along... im not feeling the love on this thread

so turn that upside down

(yes ive lost it)

Quote:
I copied the wrong link, yes I gave you the formula/dha link ( which I also am skeptical of, but that is neither here nor there)
This is one that bothered me.link Not that it is inaccurate, after all, he just posts others studies and extrapolates . But this study, which in an of itself is flawed, gave him the info he wanted to justify selling his brand of fish oil. Just doesn't sit right. What was the dha to begin with ? were the women deficient? no, doesn't say. It was simply a test to see if flaxseed elevated dha or ala levels.
So, after reading his newsleter and articles for a while, the only thing I was left to wonder is " is fish oil the new snake oil?" I dunno His disclaimer is that the info is "his opinion" and since I was called out on not providing data to back up my opinion that he has "info on breastfeeding I considered bad", then perhaps I should be calling him out on his "research".... because he ( and I agree) are wary of eating fish because of pollution/contamination...but yet he insists he has studied his brand of fish oil and knows it to be "pure" and free of toxins. I searched for a while today and can't find any studies to back that up. But his site is full, and perhaps I overlooked it. It would definitely help me out this semester in maternal-child health nutrition II !
My bottom line, I guess, if someone sells products and parades research that supports the selling of the product and is in the medical field, it leaves me VERY skeptical...

Quote:
KeysMama, I have that same skepticism. I don't trust anyone who has something to gain from my purchase. ITA that the flax study may be flawed, just because there were only 7 women that were studied. That seems like a really small number to draw conclusions from. But what it does indicate to me is that this issue needs to be studied in greater detail.

ChristaN, I must admit that the "baloney" and "misinformation" bit was quite hurtful to me, which is why I brought it up here. I have a lot of issues about why the vegan diet did not work for me, and for other people that I know. I felt that because I spoke up about it not working for me, that automatically I was considered "vegi-bashing" when if you read my posts with an objective eye, it is not the case at all.

My scientific evidence of the failure of the vegan diet to be healthy in the long term? This, as I have stated multiple times, is my personal bias. I do not believe in vitamin supplementation, as I am a strict proponent of whole foods. So this ideal does not mesh with veganism/vegetarianism, which absolutely needs vitamin b12 supplementation with plenty of scientific data to back that up. I thought I could get away with only supplementing b12 on a vegan diet, but that did not work for me. I apparently need more nutrients than my vegan diet supplied. Which, I have also stated multiple times before, does not always hold true for other people. So then this, coupled with new research about EFA's, shaped my personal opinion that the vegan diet is not optimal for the long term. Does that make sense?

And, as that crude saying goes, "Opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one (and they all stink)". Can we finally shake hands and move on?

Mercola's position on circ definitely surprised me, though to be fair, the link he posted went to what appeared to be an anti-circ site.

Quote:

Quote:
Since Dr. Mercola can't remember the name of the doctor or the name of the book, I have to be fair and assume it doesn't exist.

I'm glad he links to Ron Goldman's site, though.

My bottom line, I guess, if someone sells products and parades research that supports the selling of the product and is in the medical field, it leaves me VERY skeptical...

It's my understanding that Mercola does not profit from the selling of products from his website--All profits are supposed to go toward maintaining his website. The profits from his book sales go toward the non-profit association to reform the health care industry. Do you still think that's fishy? It seems okay to me since I get alot of use out of his website and the products are the same price as they are in natural foods stores (I've only gotten a couple things from his site).

I just read Mercola's stance on circumcision and I'm not all that surprised, since I know Mercola is Christian. At the start of my journey away from Christianity, I was trying to figure out the importance of the "laws" in the OT. Not eating Pork, shellfish, etc was easy as they are scavenger animals. Not having sex during a woman's period made sense for the health of the man. THe laws of cleanliness, etc. Most of the laws make sense to this day, so being available in ancient times to the Isrealites was very beneficial. So if one assumes the Bible to be 100% accurate and inspired, then you would look for the truth behind the command of circumcision. So often when you are looking for something, you find it. Hence, a whole book of evidence that supposedly supports the act. Unfortunately, when coming from this angle (Biblical) you may not look at it from the opposite perspective, such as the psychological damage from the trauma to an infant. Cause if you believe you are doing God's law, than He would protect them. YKWIM?

So while I'm not defending his position on circumcision, I still respect what Mercola has to say about nutrition, which is his specialty and where he has had alot of success helping people with their illnesses.

About the omega 3s--I'm convinced that most people who do not eat a healthy diet ARE deficient in omega 3s. Our meat, fish, eggs are all being produced on unnatural diets, but of man-made replacement diets of soy, grain, and other junk. So unless you go out of your way to get Atlantic Salmon, grass-fed beef, organic free range eggs, a nursing/pregnant mother may very well be deficient in the omega 3s. Any that she has will probably go to the baby, so I personally don't think it's out of line suggesting a EFA supplement.

I think this thread is a little silly, however, since I can't imagine any vegans agreeing with Mercola.

Quote:
: pagan vegetarian
well I was called to defend my dislike and disagreement...perhaps if I fished, I would realize what bait looked like