Talk:Joseph Mercola

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Article monitoring staff

Mmmsnouts, how's it going? It seems it's just us monitoring the wiki at the moment :) So, what made you interested? I'm a subscriber to the newsletter actually, and like a lot of the stuff on it, but I think some of the stuff might be a bit... questionable, I guess. I'm not going to throw baby out with the bathwater either way. So far I respect a lot of the changes you've made, you're covering both sides very well. I think I'm coming up a bit heavy on the criticism so it would be good to add some of the positive qualities I guess. I suppose the problem is that they are less material/factual qualities you can talk about, and it's better to be reserved about praise when there are problems... -Tyciol 09:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks like just us. Wish there were a few more to help. I was surprised there was no article on Mercola given the popularity of the web site and the high ranking of some of his articles in health related google searches. Here are some of the things I would like to do.
  • improve wording and content of criticism section. For example I don't understand the religious criticism part.
  • add a section on non nutritional healing, like eft and prayer.
  • maybe instead of a flu shot section a general section on being anti immunization.
what do you think? --Mmmsnouts 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is surprising, considering how much you find on very vague unpopulated topics. I guess certain things appeal to different people, some groups more prone to wikiing. Honestly, I think any person who wants to remain credible and accountable should link to their own wiki for people to comment on. As it is, there's still no forum for Mercola, I've had issue with a lot of articles he's posted and have sent many mails, and have not received a reply to any. That kind of thing annoys me.
Dividing his health advice into nutrition+exercise, living habits (sleep, meditation), and controversial disputed things like prayer/eft is a great idea, sections tend to add a lot of clarity to articles. In regard to the religion thing, while I have nothing against a doctor being religious, he has a section on it and is part of an organization of religious doctors and is constantly stating the benefits of prayer, implying perhaps that people would receive health benefits from joining a religion. Just as church and state should be divided, church and science should as well. Stating benefits for spirituality is fine, but it's worded in ways that seem to promote becoming faithful without just cause. Finding spirituality is one thing, but you should never believe something solely out of the idea that believing in it will make you healthy, as that is not the same sort of belief that the people receiving such benefits would receive them from believing. It's hard to express what I mean, sorry for the vagueness. I may be able to work on incorporating this into the article, just need to shorten it... in fact, there's probably a section in Wikipedia on it already somewhere if I could just find it.
Yes, if I labelled it flu shot changing it to immunization is a good idea, since it fits under those parameters. Flu shot is just the most prominent one he criticizes -Tyciol 09:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As someone just browsing for info on Mercola, I found the wording "Fortunately, the masses are waking up" to be rather one-sided and opinionated by Wikipedia standards - not to mention a teensy bit offensive to a newbie just starting to research nutrition and alternative medicine ("I'm just one of 'the masses', now?"). So I rephrased, keeping the article's idea of "awareness is growing" without breaking neutrality. Peace! -renoncule
Sorry, I didn't notice this, what statement are you referring to? Tyciol 04:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work and Dental Fillings

I think this article is very balanced, considering Mercola's controversial beliefs. Good work. You might want to add something about how he opposes dental fillings, and recommends that people have their old amalgam fillings removed. Rhobite 04:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That does ring a bell, but I'm not certain (altmed guys tend to blend in my mind after a while). Do you remember where it's from? You could probably add it along with his practises section. Tyciol 06:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Foods he recommends avoiding ..., fish" is not ture. He recommends eating fish high in Hg, which are usually long-lived predatory fish. See Bioaccumulation.208.114.132.151 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Affiliate disagreement

144.124.16.33, I am changing back your edits and explaining why here due to lack of room in the edit summary section.

  • Anyone can claim the nutritionist title, it should be made clear that there is nothing special about calling someone a nutritionist, it is just Mercola's opinion.
  • Homeopathy, laser-assisted detox, EFT/acupressure and energy medicine have not been accepted by the scientific community, and conflict with accepted practises.
To be clear, ths is not exactly true. Many treatments have been tested and found effective or not. If not, little is different between that and most treatment you get in a GP office - only 15% of standard medical treatment has been proven safe and effective (no reference). This should be a reference on Dr. Mercola with full treatment of facts, not a discussion on the benefits - or lack thereof - of holistic medicine.208.114.132.151 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note on the inaccurate "15%" number. Check this out: "The evidence for evidence-based medicine", Complementary Therapies in Medicine (2000), 8, 123–126 -- Fyslee 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Mercola does sell tapes and co-host seminars on EFT, he stands to make a profit from promoting it.
  • The list of his affiliates are indeed growing, or even if not, is potentiall incomplete due to my lack of ability to find them all as of yet.

Hopefully you understand, and we can discuss your feelings here, rather than your turning this into an edit war. Tyciol 20:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV violations

This article is rife with unbelievably subjective edits. In the criticism section, there's a rant against allopathic (M.D.'s) physicians that includes accusations such as:

"Most health care systems worldwide are now completely controlled by the multinational pharmaceutical cartel. Natural medicine is not taught in medical schools so doctors emerge from their medical training as brain washed drug pushers."

It's probably been edited by Dr. Mercola himself, or an assistant. --Geekish 04:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look into this. I've been off Wiki for a couple weeks. Tyciol 16:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Done editing, hopefully most of this has been resolved. I do expect that there will be attempts to reintroduce these concepts, but they will be done from this new template which has included all of the positive changes, restored positive deleted text, and removed the addition of irrelevant or biased statements. Tyciol 17:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Changed subject header "Bad dietary advice" to "Controversial dietary advice" as the former header reflected bias. -Unknown
I may change that back. Remember, that category is classed under accusations. No one accuses him of being controversial, it's a plain fact, the accusation is that it is bad. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extortion from Barrett?

I noticed that in the 'Critics' section, the first item was a statement that Stephen Barrett had threatened to sue Mercola "unless he gave him $10,000". There are no links nor citations to back up this claim. Extortion is a pretty serious claim to make about a person, and since I could not find any proof that Barrett made this demand for money, I removed the passage entirely. Nortelrye 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuit dismissal link?

I've noticed that in the links portion of the article, there was a link to 'healthfreedomlaw', Tim Bolen's lawyer's website, providing information about "Stephen Barrett's lawsuit against Mercola and resulting dismissal". The only problem with this link is that it provides no such information about the "resulting dismissal". The site has what appears to be scanned legal documents related to the case, but only has a motion for dismissal filed by Mister Negrete, and shows nothing to indicate that the motion was granted by the presiding judge. Furthermore, if the case were dismissed, then why does the article claim that Barrett attempted to extort $10,000 from Mercola before "settling out of court"? I've removed the link, as well as the $10,000 passage, in an attempt to improve the accuracy of the article. Nortelrye 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up on that, I avoided scrutinizing those because I don't understand much about law and documents. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sales promotions

"newsletters he writes constantly promote food, mechanical and information products sold from the site" is likely hyperbole. As a former big fan of Mercola, I think it's true, but 'constantly' could be a slushier 'seems often to'. I might just do it myself.208.114.132.151 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Every single issue of the newsletter he always has a link to something you can buy on his site. Furthermore, he takes the initiative of selling many things which are probably provided by many unmentioned competitors. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mercola is encouraging vandlism?

His latest E-news advertisment links to this article and encourages people to make changes. 18 July 2006 -Unknown (I wrote this before I registered at WP. --Pbmax 03:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

I semi-protected the article due to the wave of vandalism. Rhobite 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I guess I was wrong to let my vigil regarding this go slack. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The newsletter, which is spammed, indicates Wikipedia is a bad source of information. Mercola suggests this is a bad format and anyone can edit the page. Tried to turn everyone away from the page and the information contained in it. statsone 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily say the newsletter is spammed. You do sign in for it, and he won't send it if you opt out. Nevertheless, it is excessively frequent (you could just make a slightly bigger one sent once a month, there is never any breaking information), repetetive, full of common sense things with his marketing and propoganda spin on it, but does have some good things. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The Mercola web site directed me here to see that Wikipedia could not be trusted as it is possible to edit this page. And so it is. But the page is a discussion page and not an supposedly factual article about Mercola or anyone else. I like Wikipedia, but I will take in to consideration that I don't know who the editors are. Interesting, there are so many sources with theories and information. I tend to enjoy Mercolas newsletters and share concerns about the Allopathic Medical system. We should all be open to ideas, considering both sides is not agreeing to it. It is good to question things as they are. Believer beware, YES? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.193.117.4 (talk • contribs) .
One might argue that the availability of anyone to edit a page makes it extremely trustworthy. Consider that there is no way to discuss with other readers of Mercola's site what he is saying, and therefore, no way to share the responses you receive regarding questions and criticism you may send in. The discussion page is a discussion page, yes, but the main article is indeed a very accurate article. The discussion is so we can discuss how to make the main article as neutral and factual as possible. Feel free to throw your hat in.
You should also not use the term 'allopathy', it's standard medicine, allopathy was created by the creator of the pseudoscience homeopathy and taken up by alternative practitioners and osteopathic doctors, as you'll find explained in the article on the term allopathy. I agree we should definately be open to new ideas, but we should also scrutinize ALL ideas, old and new. Standard medicine is science, it has been scrutinized, so guys speaking against it will be more heavily scrutinized. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to object to the term vandalism being used here. Encouraging people to edit on Wikipedia is a GOOD thing. The main problem is when people only use Wikipedia to edit a specific article, without first learning about Wikipedia, and how to make responsible edits. I do suspect Mercola was aware this would happen, which is certainly underhanded, but he did not overtly encourage vandalism, at most he subtly directed it. Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing subtle about the directions given on his site [1] linked from his newsletter.

To see how easy it is to "rewrite history" on Wikipedia, take a look at the page devoted to my career, and hit the tab at the top that allows you to edit this page easily, without registering.

This strikes me as a little more than "underhanded" and is why I unsubscribed from his newsletter. --Pbmax 04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
In July 2006, I observed some WP treatments of Mercola to be pretty shabby and POV after Mercola's newsletter comments fueled the ca July 2006 edit war here. After looking at edits for the month or two before Mercola's newsletter, I wondered if some WP editors thought they were playing Double Jeopardy! with "Words n' Phrases" like "Greedy", "commercialist", "Religious zeal", "Pseudoscientific" in section titles and lead words, as well as other statements with bald innuendo. I thought that it was more fair minded that Mercola chose the sunlight of mild criticism for WP in response rather than the legal threats and unfair polemics that some other medical commentators are so well known for.
My thought was to try to constructively develop an accurate, coherent article with a more NPOV presentation of the man and his notable positions to head off both legally minded criticism and inflamed partisans from offsite getting into unnecessary edit wars.--I'clast 13:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

A few minor changes and corrections were made. Including the title of the book, and removal of books which do not appear to be listed on a book selling site.

The rank has been removed and changed to a general rank as alexa now shows11th overall in the health category. There is no way to verify the 35 million page views. statsone 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs improvement

I have slightly improved the detail and references here. This article is still transitioning from the bipolar stage where supporters and critics slug it out in less than accurate generalities. It needs great improvement on details, terminology and inline references. The article is not a sympathetic treatment in overall tone. I changed "pseudoscience" to "controversial" because pseudoscience should be strictly applied to specific subjects that are unprovable or in direct scientific conflict. For the record, my opinion is that the "controversial practises" paragraph refers to or contains subjects in scientific debate, protoscience and some pseudoscience. Indiscriminate, broad condemnation of the whole is inappropriate.

"Conventional medical community" is more accurate phrasing than "scientific community". Although many in the "scientific community" may not agree with many parts of alternative medicine, "conventional medicine" is definitely closer to some group agreement than scientists generally. Scientists frequently disagree with the medical community in their own areas of research or other personal opinions. It often doesn't take much scratching to hear choice words and phrases from many in the scientific community about the medical community's beliefs or technical currency, much less over-reaching claims to scientific pronouncement. In medicine there are issues of scientific institutionalization, regulatory capture, and overformalism that do not fully represent science's methodology or a generalized SPOV.

Vitalism often seems to translate as a less technical form of complex biological, enzymatic, bioelectric, psychoimmunoneurological phenomena claims that may contain substantial elements of protoscience. I notice some name brand name US medical schools recently spending a lot of money and instituting new program options in related areas. A corrupt few? Last year had more than a few destruct in the world press; a former editor-in-chief of NEJM has criticized at least hundreds. Let's try to keep the "mainstream" claims to a dull roar, please.--I'clast 03:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Reviewed the article, the subject, and made more adjustments.--I'clast 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the main problems here is that protoscience is something that requires further research, and modification to be falsifiable, and is not something to be promoted. Technically, you might call all religions a protoscience, because they're not falsifiable either and can answer a lot of questions, but that doesn't make them scientific.
Regarding vitalism, considering some of the things promoted on his site, it's more likely Mercola is using the spiritual interpretation. Judging as how he seems to think all diseases can be prevented and cured by healthy living, this is vitalism, founded in his own opinions. Influenced by religion, alternative medicines, positive thinking, emotional freedom therapies (acupressure), he believes pretty much nothing can go wrong using his methods.
I would like to change it back to 'unsupported'. Critics would claim theories are unsupported, it is under the criticism section, so that is the title of the collected criticisms. 'Controversial' means absolutely nothing at all. Anything in Wikipedia can be called controversial, it's a meaningless statement. I would like to change it back again. Tyciol 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree that controversial is meaningless to the average reader, it is just not precise. I think the average reader tends to see it as implying loud factions or substantial hub-bub to near "out there". Certainly it is a heads up that there is disagreement. Although I think that Mercola may be zealous wrt to his religion, I also think that he does think scientifically & rationally on nutrition to develop his hypotheses & recommendations, based on broad evidence, not just the FDA or dbRCT kind. Unsupported would be very POV - "less than rock hard" or "substantial disagreement" (very awkward) would be closer, which also applies to exclusionary views that insist on "ironclad proof" when other less observed or less certain facts are ignored (also very common with obtuse or obstructive (not necessarily obtuse) naysayers).--I'clast 07:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Soy(lent)

...seldom critical makes a better article. I would say Mercola sounds a little critical of alternative soy promotions:

  • Soy May Cause Cancer and Brain Damage
  • High Soy Diet During Pregnancy And Nursing May Cause Developmental Changes In Children
  • Soy Can Cause Severe Allergic Reactions
  • Soy Supplements Fail to Help Menopause Symptoms
  • Pregnant Women Should Not Eat Soy Products
  • Soy Baby Formula Linked to Behavioral Problems
  • Soy Formula Exposes Infants To High Hormone Levels
  • Soy Weakens Your Immune System--I'clast 03:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I was not including soy in my thoughts about 'alternative medicine' when I said he was not critical. Soy is hardly alternative medicine, it's rather common in the dietary industry these days. I might say corn has healthy properties, if he started bashing corn it wouldn't be bashing alternative medicine, it would be bashing unbacked claims about common foods. Tyciol 18:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Soy is still controversial in some quarters, even or perhaps especially alt med. I think that soy estrogen replacement is still alternative, despite the premarin disaster, but maybe the pharmas could use a new dead horse... Scientific alternative medicine e.g. orthomolecular medicine, maybe naturopathy, on estrogen replacement seeks closer to home. e.g. "Dr. Wright pioneered the use of bioidentical estrogens and DHEA in the 1980s."[2] Wright was also a pioneer criticizing premarin.--I'clast 07:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mercola article as a proxy battlefield & advertisement space

Per the WP:BLP note above (top), I am removing the poorly supported retraction & 50k part, accompanied by a highly partisan reference. The reference is replaced by linking (thru 1st google link) the available documents reproduced w/o commentary. I don't think that the Bolen and QW legal controversy should be played here at all unless it directly concerns Mercola or Mercola chooses to (re)enter it directly again. There are several parties who have swapped lawsuits including two previous legal contestants - one who has recently, publicly complained about this very Wiki article, and that the other is his outspoken (ahem)& litigatious public critic. I think that the retraction & 50k part would be best supported by simple reproductions of the legal paperwork, publice notices or retraction, 50k check(s) etc with as little editorial advertising as possible by either Bolen or QW, rather than even both sides' extraneous POV (ugh & BLP). If this can be accomplished, I think we can be encyclopedic and well meet WP:BLP. Thanks.--I'clast 05:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "anti-govt"

"This stance is also anti-government since the campaigns were supported by the Government and international health industries, as well as many reputable immunologists such as those at Cambridge University." Who is anti-government? the former CDC Director (Sencer) who pushed initiating the swine flu vaccination program and later acknowledgesd its disasterous failure? Trying to say JM is a Taliban sympathizer? Or that hurried measures of dubious constitutionality may be in conflict with the US or world governments? That the other states & world governments that failed to verify any other cases of swine flu outide Ft Dix in 1976 *in the whole world* after some gung-ho trooper collapsed & died shortly after a forced march after refusing to follow medical advice to remain in camp, rest & recover? 1976 set much of the current US anti-vax/critics sentiment loose (25-52 deaths depending on source, 500-4000 recorded Guillian Barre cases again depending on source/definition). Let's slow down, write carefully, & get some more references.--I'clast 10:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mercola/religion/product promotion

I have subscribed to Mercola's newsletters for several years, but I recently cancelled because I don't like the idea of religion being mixed in with science and BS about Angels looking out for me alongside advice for medical conditions. I also have a problem with his product recommendations. He used to recommend Costco's brand of fish oil, so I bought some and became ill with diarrhea. He then started recommending Carlson Brand fish oils because he discovered that Costco's were "contaminated". I don't think he puts time and effort into research and he doesn't seem to have a reliable staff to check out all the things he recommends. I prefer Dr. Michael Murray and other alternative practioners recommendations and feel more confident in the products they endorse. -Unknown, probably User:66.91.234.211

I share the disapproval of mixing religion with medicine/science. Nevertheless, religious doctors can still be a source of information if we ignore those parts (though it would be nice if we could customize our newsletter to exclude them so we don't have to) and there is some value in some of the questions Mercola asks. Did you try Carlson brand fish oils, and were they okay? I have to admit, giving bad recommendations sucks, but admitting them is responsible. Taking accountability and refunding the money or giving free Carlsons to those people would be far more responsible on the other hand... Tyciol 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that it was good of Mercola to admit that Costco fish oil might not be so good, that happened right about the same time he "discovered" that he could sell Carlson's fish oil on his site. I haven't tried Carlson's, but I think they are probably ok. I use Natural Factors OmegaRX pharmaceutical grade fish oil now and have had excellent results. I ordered products once from Mercola's website, and it took almost a month for the products to arrive. I received no response from their customer service and there was no phone number to call. I won't use their products again. I like Newstarget. He references Mercola occasionally, but his website is more interesting and has more information. User:66.91.234.211
Thanks, I'll check out that site. I have to admit, yeah, waiting to change your opinion on something's safety only when you find something more profitable is a bit shady. Tyciol 18:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography and edits

There seems to be multiple edits and reverts with no discussion whatsoever. When making such and edit, please provide commentary and discuss here. statsone 01:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the action was apparently on the Stephen Barret talk page[3] with regard to the rules there (different?). More NATTO & Fyslee discussion[4]. I have requested[5] an admin with some BLP experience to take a fresh look and help all of us out on how BLP applies here.--I'clast 11:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Well done. statsone 12:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Statsone and I'clast. I apologize for not posting an explanation on the talk page, but I did explain the reasons for my edits on the history page. I'clast is correct that the problem started with Fyslee making a unilateral addition to the Legal section of the Barrett article. I tried to discuss the situation with him to no avail. I then realized that he had made the same edits to the Mercola page so I reverted then. On the Barrett article we have agreed a while ago that we would adopt a high standard of verifiability for legal case in BLP. Thus our legal section is very well referenced and that work well until Fyslee, a self professed quackbuster that did not like that the court decisions were not favorable to Barrett, decided to post the item about a settlement with Mercola without proper verifiability. On the Barrett page we try to have the article well referenced, especially when legal and negative issues are concerned. I, for one, think that should be the standard of verifiability for all article citing living persons.

Fyslee and I had finally apparently settled the issue, when Guy swooped in and drew what I think were premature conclusions. Yielding his rule book and serving warning. NATTO 09:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] FDA criticism

Obviously Mercola has engaged in a battle with the FDA and perhaps the FDA with Mercola. In referencing this saga, the context of claims needs to be kept in mind. I moved a reference relating to Mercola's criticism of the FDA with Vioxx away from an inference that Mercola had previously criticised the FDA over Vioxx, for which there is no evidence, to the more general statement that Mercola criticises the introduction of new drugs. The article claims that "his early drug warnings have sometimes been confirmed by drugs later withdrawn from the market after substantial adverse experience". No references have been supplied supporting this and so I have added the need for citations. -Unknown

[edit] The other oil crisis

I have moved the Todays Dietitian refMeals High In Saturated Fat Impair "good" Cholesterol's Ability To Protect Against Clogged Arteries to Talk because it is greatly overstated in authority and does show some partisan sponsorship (ADM, 1st ad) on the cover story page. This is a small, 6hr lab experiment that produced some interesting results that deserve followup on a lot of questions, but were then overinterpreted by the authors, *and then greatly ballyhooed* in the media. For another view of the interpretation of the data and the paper's significance, pls read this. AHA has always been changing its position on diet, which is considered to deficient by a number of groups for different reasons. "increasingly" on saturated fats, no way. In the 1980s before almost anyone had heard of transfat, saturated fats were THE great evil, now trans fats win that spot, hands down. Let's be a little careful about that sweeping, unqualified "saturated fats" phrase please. Strictly speaking there are saturated fats that without which, there a slight problem, you cease to function, and others that *are* therapeutically useful.--66.58.130.56 10:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This tag has been here since July [6] put up by Daveydweeb. I'd like to know if it is still needed, and suggestions on how it could be cleaned up. Otherwise, going to take it down, looks clean to me. Tyciol 15:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have agreed that it wasn't needed if someone had not gone & taken a POV dump on it.--I'clast 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
In that case we can put up a POV tag. This is independant of content, I want to know how to reorganize it so it looks clean. Tyciol 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Took a shot at reorganization & first pass clean up. If the polish goes well, we should remove the cleanup sign.--I'clast 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TRIVIAL musing

  • One curious oddity is that Mercola's name can be a portmanteau of the pharmaceutical company Merck (or mercury), and cola products, both/all of which he is highly focused at criticizing before other things.

[edit] Potential criticism - FORUMS

I'm thinking of adding this to the article, but it may not fit wiki guidelines so here's a good spot for now. Why doesn't Mercola have a forum? Many articles these days at least have sections for readers to put up comments. A forum would allow users to discuss the articles. Their messages can be clarified, and more importantly, criticized. With all the resources he has, he could afford a message board, and even if he couldn't there are lots of free ones. The lack of it for over 10 years says to me he's afraid of open feedback. Comments sent to him not product-related are commonly cast aside without addressing inconsistancies, though the only way to prove that would be for people to personally test it I suppose. Tyciol 16:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What next, encyclopedic CureZone links?--I'clast 00:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gross violation of Wikipedia Policy

All editors of this article should go back and reread the Wikipedia Policy: Biographies of living persons. In particular, look at the quotes from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

More texts from the Wikpedia policy article:

Jimmy Wales considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity.
"Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information."
"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one."

Wikipedia articles are not battlegrounds for heated controversies. This article is neither an outlet for Mercola's activism, nor for his enemies who tries every trick in the book to defame him. It IS possible to write reasonably NPOV articles about controversial figures, for example; Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, Sun Myung Moon, and Al Franken.

If anything, the Wikipedia policy for Biographies of living persons leans towards a slight bias in favor of the subject in the article. The article should give the reader a chance to understand the line of thinking, perspective and world-view of the person in the article. His arguments and WHY he arrives at his conclusion. Critique has its place in properly labeled sections, but not by inserting malicious weasle words in every sentence and headline where possible or by tilting facts in the most negative way. MaxPont 12:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Full agreement.--I'clast 00:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree too, I don't believe this has been done though. Identifying negative reality does not mean a negative bias or intent to defame. If the truth sheds a negative light, then it simply does. I am not familiar with what Mercola's world-view or perspective actually is. He may have certain statements regarding what he presents that to be, but that's not what I want to add to the article. If others do, I certainly won't delete it. Hm, think we should archive some of the upper threads here? Tyciol 17:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problem is lack of understanding about both conventional and unconventional approaches, for which reading, research, experimentation and prediction can be recommended.--I'clast 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crap

I was just finishing up giving references titles (don't worry, didn't change your change-backs back Iclast) but for some reason when I compared changes it stretched out to hell and I can't read it, how do I fix that? Tyciol 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

??--I'clast 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: POV dispute

{{POV}} "Please see the discussion on the talk page." Where? I do not see any discussion or complaint from the sign hanger here at Talk. I do tend a lot of erstwhile speculation & BLP violations from one of the younger editors periodically but I try to clean the article up as soon as possible. Despite the simple fact checking and verification trim of these 'tudinal edits, these "not NPOV" additions even trimmed, criticized & referenced above, are starting to bloat the article.--I'clast 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other links

For links that may not be suitable for main article page but are good for reference and research purposes for amending article:

[edit] Criticism installation

[edit] Homeopathy

I'll put potential additions here first instead of modifying for review and discussionto avoid excess editing teeter-totter. Plus then I can paraphrase em:

  • Mercola uses the term 'allopathy' a lot, like in the lengthly cartoon 'town of allopathy' video he made. That's a term invented by the founder of homeopathy, and a term used to negatively refer to mainstream medicine by alternative medicine practitioners. Often used by osteopaths who want to refer to MDs as something other than 'medicine'.
  • He has a homeopath working on his staff, here's a quote:
    • Elsa Turnbull is an expert in nutrition, homeopathy and laser assisted detoxification
  • As mentioned in the present quote, he thinks it's an effective tool for treatment. Also 'not use much' means he DOES still use it, either alone or with Turnbull's help.
  • He posted an article by Colleen Hubor a naturopath who loves homeopathy. People like this aren't always listed on his staff list, you have to dig for when he posts their articles.
  • Just doing a google search on his site turns up all sorts of pages where he talks about how great homeopathy is, heh, even that whole 'water memory' stuff.

Need more? He states he's trying to provide a balanced view, and yet he has endless amounts of articles, every single one pro-homeopathy-everything. Never one negative. Never one pro-standard medicine. Ever. I don't think it's libel to say he has a bias, and as he does mention, it's simply one he has NOT contemplated. He just 'knows'. Testimonial-based 'evidence' if anything at all. Also, trying to read but not sure what BLT STMT stand for... Tyciol 20:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

- In the US, allopath is the standard, self selected educational category of most MD premed students that costs several hundred dollars to start to exercise (MCAT).
- hydrogen peroxide doesn't sound very homeopathic, those hydrogen bond pattern theories are pale next to hydroxyl radicals and Fenton reactions, much less for anaerobic or microaerophilic bacteria.
- You should read up on the (Guilt by) Association fallacy policy.
- You see to assume that some disagreeable/funky beliefs, advertising or statements as a basis to totally discredit and excoriate the individual is legitimate. You might find such an examination policy uncomfortable. Better to observe his statements and let the reader decide the magnitude of any errors.
- your edits often go far beyond observing a bias
-homeopathy is better claims seem to rest on several bases (AFAIK): (1) whatever the physical reality (better nursing and ventilation?), homeopathic hospitals in the 19th century claimed much better survival rates in some epidemics; (2) in both the 19th & 20th centuries, there were medicines that pure water would definitely have been an improvement; (3) hope, and patience to not do anything stupid, despite an often overwhelming urge to just do "something" are a discussion item (elsewhere pls) - this is a problem with viral infections and (mis)administration of common antibiotics, never mind some of the hell-on-wheels organ rotting drugs.
- proportion is always an editorial concern, especially on negative items
And finally, NPOV is *not* Negative POV.--I'clast 19:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've not heard standard medicine use the term allopathy or pay for it. MCAT does not mention allopath so I'm not sure where to look for this association.
I'm fine with advocating hydrogen peroxide on scientific basis, but not homeopathic basis, which is what Mercola seems to be saying.
I'm not sure what you mean with guilt by association? I'm simply showing he's a strong advocate of homeopathy, and those who view it negatively might view that as something about his judgement which might be transferred to instigating skeptic analysis on his other advocations.
Quoting every statement would take more room than summarizing that he advertises, and has funky beliefs. These are things that can make people lose credibility, and should not be hidden simply to make them appear credible. Mercola has many beliefs that do not discredit him, and increasing emphasis on them in the article is fine. He has many articles about exercise, nutrition, etc. I just don't think they're important to put up since they're not innovative or exceptional, so I don't spend time on it. I won't delete them though. Proportion is surely a concern, but for the collective, not for individual submissions.
My view is neutral, in that when discussing the various issues which question credibility, I do not infer it is negative, simply questionable. Identifying questionable traits is not negative. Embellishing a sole focus on how great he is would be, I avoid doing that with every biography and subject. Tyciol 20:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
AAMC used "allopath" at least 7 times in this 3 page document workforce. You would need to register to see "allopathic" in the MCAT registration at AAMC. Here's Princeton Review using it.
Hmmm, hydrogen peroxide as homeopathy, sounds like Mercola is struggling to classify a remedy, perhaps now considered unconventional here(I've known military of another country to pour peroxide on a lot of things) that doesn't really fit comfortably in homeopathy or naturopathy per se, AFAIK. I simply fail to recognize H2O2 as homeopathy. Hey, homeopathy with real bite, build credibility.--I'clast 12:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water fluoridation

The only degree we're certain Mercola has is a DO. Unless he provides proof he has a degree in biochem, dentistry, dietetics, or toxicology, it's correct to say that he can't draw upon any expertise in these fields to make judgements about fluoride. As for the organizations he must invariably be drawing his opinions from (where else? cite?) they're listed on the articles, I guess I can go dig up the names of some. Hard since there's so many fluoride-hate articles. BLP? Tyciol 20:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Fluoride *is* now controversial even amongst some previous supporters, hence my previous comment about Chemical & Engineering News. Presuming his lack of qualifications is OR or just a lack of R (no WP:RS).
It surely is controversial, and I'm fine with chemists arguing for or against it. It is not OR to presume someone is not qualified when they have not stated qualifications. By default, all humans lack education. All we know is that he got a Doctorate in Osteopathy. If someone would like to show that that degree requires courses in the required fields, then they can state them. I inquired and was never responded to as to what his undergrad was, if he completed it, or if his DO required chemistry/dietetics/dentistry work. So it should be assumed it did? People commenting without publicized credentials can be said to not have them. You can't really prove a lack of something anyway. Tyciol 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One argument against fluoride is that it cumulatively damages mitochondrial enzyme activity at low levels, relevant to medical biochemistry which many medical students endure. So in principle, Mercola has b/g if not exactly being a PhD researcher.--I'clast 11:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
BLP - Biography of a Living Person, rules to keep Wikipedia out of lawsuits & court with a strong, repreated request from Jimbo Wales for instant deletion of violations. Mercola has already publicly complained about this article.--I'clast 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Where? I'd like to read what the specifics of his complaints are, if it's online. I'm curious as to why he doesn't post on this talk page either. Making complaints about a page is hard to address because if he complained about it a month ago, it's already a different page by now. Only by knowing specifics of complaints, what he thinks might be libelous, can such things be remedied to be more factual. Tyciol 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Mercola's direct statements about his bio are relatively mild[7], instead he unloads on wikipedia & its reliability more generally. There's a message there. Much of the reaction was here, above, ("vandalism"?) right before I rode in. In any case a concise, accurate article w/o negative overtones on his business, medical politics and beliefs should be the goal.--I'clast 11:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimers and conspiracies

Why is it uncyclopedic to note the fact that despite offering medical advice, Mercola doesn't want to be held accountable for what he says so he puts up a disclaimer? Also, he definately incites mistrust in organizations like World Health Organization who produced warnings for the swine flu. Calling them purposefully misleading is pretty bad, when it was more likely just lucky that it didn't hit. Mistaken predictions don't mean mistaken prediction methods. Even if there's an 80% chance something will happen, you can still get off on the 20%, but unless you prove the 80% was calculated wrong it should stand, rather than calling it a lie as he does. Tyciol 22:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Most health newsletters have this or similar boilerplate disclaimers. The Swine flu fiasco was so bad, CDC is still in ass covering mode. Some international "health" campaigns have had tragic results, from (fatal) vaccinations to the tube (well) water fiasco (arsenic delight for the 3rd world) - WHO indeed?--I'clast 19:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with saying 'like other health newsletters' as long as the statement is included. The difference being, many health newsletters just post news, or links to science articles, or links to medical associations which ARE giving out health advice, but the letter isn't doing it specifically. Mercola on the other hand just seems to give it, and do the escape clause much like Kevin Trudeau so he can't get sued for it. As for failed epidemics, Mercola attacks them on the basis that the outbreaks were never large as predicted and many injections unnecessary. That doesn't really attack the science behind the vaccine, or in the epediomological prediction methods. It's too easy to just attack a prediction when it's off, even if it's based on sound principle. Even the best methods fail, and then critics get lucky. If he's going to criticize, it should be on the prediction statistics, or in the drug's pharmacological antiviral strategy. Tyciol 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There wasn't even a real outbreak, a few cases occurred at the fort, end of transmission - an answer in several weeks; a gung ho trooper went on a strenuous forced march against medical advice, collapsed and died (bad move with any flu). The big CDC decision by conventional lights was vaccine production and prepositioned stockpiles vs pre-emptive mass innoculation of a largely untested vaccine, pretty risky. You should aware that Mercola advocates the Klennerian approach to major viremia[8] which is experimentally uncontested by conventional medicine and oral vitamins including megavitamin C to reduce initial likelihood of illness as the antiviral strategy. No study that you will attempt to find or quote directly rebuts Klenner, Levy, Cathcart and others on this vitamin C point after 57 years by an order of magnitude or more, despite the media/medical scourging of Pauling.--I'clast 12:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? With all the Linus-bashing I guess I thought modern medicine was against anything above the 250mg per day recommended, that's pretty cool. I should study some virology/immunology. Tyciol 14:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Conventional doctors tend to wary of vitamin C in doses above 500mg to UL 2000mg / day (the so called "Upper Limit" - lest a few % of the population stain their britches or not purchase Ex-Lax). Physiologically many animals produce & use vitamin C in the human equivalent range of 3,000-10,000 mg/day from glucose. Conventional medicine avoids testing oral and IV vitamin C in the maintenance range of 3-20 grams/day orally (variably bowel tolerance limited), and in the treatment ranges of 30-300grams/day, orally and IV. Conventional medicine has refused to test or acknowledge vitamin C in these higher range, hence no human *experimentally* based rebuttals, just scare tactics, despite decades of documented clinical experience. see also Fred R. Klenner, Robert Cathcart, C. Alan B. Clemetson Common Cold, Megavitamin therapy and Orthomolecular medicine. This partly why Mercola is not so overly excited about colds, flus and other viremias.--I'clast 14:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any lack of studies. What about [9], [10], [11], [12], etc? That's just from a quick look. As for the recommended maximum consumption of supplements, I trust the National Academy of Sciences over Mercola ([13]). --S. Ugarte 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Alexius

Barnes & Noble site:

"he has served as the chairman of the family medicine department at St. Alexius Medical Center for five years."

Can this be included? Seems notable, though knowing the start/end would be better before putting in, so it could be chronological. Tyciol 20:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Medical Association

I guess I shouldn't have assumed he was still a member. I guess the 4 'professional organizations' he lists [14] are just those considered notable, perhaps due to past membership. I wish he'd clarify it on this page so further detail could be posted here. Tyciol 06:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV versus cleanup

I don't expect POV to ever be removed from an article about a controversial figure like this, but I think we can collectively work on cleanup. Iclast did some good work, I realize in some notable sections in the midst of writing more may have been written than required (like vitalism) when plenty is available on the topic, and only a slight note on it's controversiality is needed. What other sections could use this. Should some be merged? Divided into different ones? Different order? My thanks to User:66.92.253.10 for getting CMA date, alphabetizing affiliates (I like 'dubious' but I guess it isn't needed), and other stuff, you need a name! Iclast you did a bunch of reorg stuff too, still trying to follow a lot of the moving but it looks really good, cutting down on sections while still keeping mention. For a second I'd thought they were gone :p Tyciol 06:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Ministry Services

This was taken out, but I'm curious, can we note why this would be mistaken, did NMS update it or something? Tyciol 06:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Host versus Support

In cases like Carol, he does adamently support her. Moreso than just hosting articles, he has written comments supporting everything she says on his site. Simply saying 'hosts' detracts from how that reflects on his beliefs regarding the role of expecting supernatural intervention in medical treatments. Tyciol 06:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of ideas, and Carol Tuttle

I feel criticism of Mercola's theories does need to be present on Wikipedia, but the criticisms are being removed as it is, I assume, seen as some sort of personal attack on him, or some kind of libel. It isn't, but I'm willing to go along. What is the best way of revealing the holes in some of these arguments, if I can't post them in the article? There are articles on things like homogenization, so presenting theories like his there (just without his name) and showing what is wrong with them, would be one method of having neutral criticism. The reason I posted it here initially is that people might not find that, since the articles can tend to be large.

As for Carol Tuttle, I realize that the section on her shouldn't be too big. Perhaps it could be abbreviated even more if a Carol Tuttle article were created? That way I could put videos like this on there to demonstrate what kind of thing she's advocating, and anyone curious about the people Mercola supports could learn about it without it crowding his article. The only thing is, even though she does have her own website, I'm not sure she'd really be considered notable enough to deserve an article, any input on that? Tyciol 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The categorization "controversial advice" says a lot, warns the newbie. Also the article is "longish". Most readers will realize Mercola is lots different. One needs to be careful about interjecting arguments to avoid distracting. destroying or poisoning the devlopment of the subject's positions & ideas. Often these are well handled by Wiki linked articles (e.g. pasteurization). One or two short phrases, 2-4 words, or *very* short sentences with 1-3 superscripted references can highlight and answer/warn quite a bit in an especially controversial section. Longer discussions suggest treatment of specific issues/subjects in other articles. I would suggest to you to resist the urge to be dismissive and work technical b/g extra hard when you criticize his position(s). Carol who? we may have given her enough due space for Wikipedia already, but I leave that to other editors.--I'clast 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heat, protein, hydrolysis

" heat causes all sorts of things like denatured & -ose crosslinked proteins that increase hydrolysis requirements;"

I agree that it causes denatured and crosslinked proteins, and I suppose that would cause slight alterations in what would digest the proteins. Still, Mercola makes it sound a lot worse than it is, implying that's poison or something, that somehow the protein enters the bloodstream and negatively affects your health. If he simply mentioned they took longer to digest, that would be different. If it couldn't be broken down into amino acids (and thus being just as healthy as any other protein source), then it would just get expelled, right? Tyciol 14:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should this not be "Joseph Mercola's Opinions"?

I was interested to find out where Mr Mercola grew up, family, school, training, work record, etc - as one finds in decent biographies - but this article did not help. It seems more about the man's business and wide ranging opinions than about himself. Wish I could help, but I am here precisely because I know next to nothing about this person:-) --Seejyb 22:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the information you've requested is somewhat limited, he doesn't publicize it. Much of it is though, what could be found. Anyway, what makes Mercola notable is his web site and his stances on controversial issues, which is why they take up a sizable section. Biographies often state backgrounds when they are notable, or relevant to their future notable events, but unfortunately too little is known to draw any conclusions about those things. They don't seem to be, but they'd be great to add if you could actually find info. So scarse. Tyciol 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor?

What kind of doctor is Joseph Mercola? A PhD? A MD? Where did he receive his qualifications? Aussie Alchemist 12:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, section started. He is a DO.--I'clast 10:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Sweet, I honestly could find VERY little information about that. Never mailed me back when I asked where he got his DO and info about the program qualifications and renewal and stuff. Tyciol 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture selection?

The picture was changed from the old colour one someone captured from one of his Google Videos (public domain) and replaced with an obviously airbrushed black and white one. While I wouldn't be adverse to including both, I think including a colour photograph of him in the midst of doing his job in an important lecture better reflects his character and represents him. Tyciol 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Affiliates and friends"

I have no problem with this section; however, the list of names is problematic. A request was made to the Wikipedia OTRS e-mail system from one of the names that was listed there, that his/her name be removed. Without sourcing that the people in question are affiliated with Mercola, it's inappropriate to simply list people who may or may not actually be affiliated with him. Ral315 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I might know why that would be. A lot of people share names, and likely a person affiliated with him shares the name of someone more notable with the name. If that is the case we can direct away from that coincidental person's page. It would be better if we knew who this was, though eventually we should check through all this. My main reason for avoiding making articles is they'd likely be deleted due to lack of notability. If we do end up making a Mercola.com site then all the contributers' names who may not deserve an article themselves, could have the name directed to that wikipage with a snippet describing them, what they do, and how they contibute to the site. Then the links to the names could be removed from this one too. If the person in question was known it would be easier to figure out which link is directing to the wrong page. Or, if it is the right person, why they are listed. Tyciol 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial dietary advice

How is this section impartial? This has been written quite subjectively by someone who is obviously quite anti-Mercola. I think this needs changing. 195.153.172.242 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you point with historical quote diffs, like this [15], or quote a sentence to show us what you think needs improvement?--I'clast 07:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a little bit of balance (I hope) to the end of the 2nd paragraph. Also, in same section, where is the evidence for this???: "While he states that raw milk is one of the finest source of protein and calcium available,[17] neither pasteurization or homogenization lower the content of protein or calcium

What gets me about this section is certain Mercola theory points have been left out, and other non-Mercola ones reinforced. It's basically a series of half-truths. Like the above, the protein levels are the same, but the tertiary structure is changed and therefore broken down, which fundamentally alters its use. But this is sneakily skimmed over.

How do we know that the an FDA member isn't editing Wikipedia here anyway? It is a popular internet resource, and therefore probably a worthy target of industry related propaganda.leopheard 21:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess the same way we know that someone from Mercola.com isn't editing here... we insist on verifiable content referenced from reliable sources, and exclude original research or claims which cannot be clearly referenced to a source outside Wikipedia. In that spirit, there are quite a few portions of the article that are unsourced, which I've tagged. Also, the near-total reliance on mercola.com as a source is counterproductive to a good, neutral encyclopedia article, especially as many of the references now cited require you to subscribe to Mercola's promotional newsletter in order to view them. MastCell 22:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thinking that the FDA is editing the article is excessively paranoid, the FDA doesn't do that kind of thing, they have more direct ways of spreading their conclusions. If one were, it would be in their spare time :) If you have a change you think is attributable to one, why don't you look to the author, and see whether or not they say they're in the FDA? I certainly would brag about if it I were. As for the protein structure, that doesn't matter in the slightest. Proteins are all broken down into their base amino acids by proteases before digestion, structure is immaterial unless it makes proteases unworkable. Tyciol 20:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "More sources" tag

Please don't remove the "sources" tag without actually addressing the issue of supplying more sources. Almost all of this article is sourced from mercola.com, a website with a heavy promotional component (in fact, it's quite difficult to actually verify some of the claims without being deluged with popups asking you to sign up for Mercola's newsletter). If Mercola is really notable, then we should be able to find other reliable sources for this article. Hence the tag. MastCell 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, assume the article is about a book. Wouldn’t most references then be from one source? I don’t see the problem that an article about about a high-traffic web site has most refs to that web site. Most Mercola articles being linked are actually referencing other very relibable sources. Though I can agree that more editors should use refs from his books. MaxPont 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if the article were about a book, multiple independent reliable sources referring to the book would be required to establish notability and to write a good article. The relevant guidelines are WP:Notability ("A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other."), as well as Wikipedia:Independent sources, an essay describing the importance of such sources to a quality article. I would guess such sources exist, but they're not in evidence in this article, which is why I added the tag. The fact that the primary source has such a commerical aspect is unfortunate, but either way more independent sources are needed. MastCell 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My argument from the posting above still holds. This is an article about a notable and very popular web site, and it is natural that most refs are to that web site. However, Mercola has authored New York Times bestsellers and the high traffic on his web site is verified by independent sources. The "more sources" tag is rarely used on WP and there are a large number of articles with this similar small problems without the tag. With the strict interpretation used by MastCell, a third of all WP articles should be tagged. The various tags should be used for blatant cases, or users will lose confidence in them. The tag should be removed. MaxPont 17:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of Mercola's Website

I simply added a mention that Mercola's website, while free of charge, requires divulging and verifying an email address to access. Since the website is really the main focus of this article, I thought that such a major part of the site's nature should be addressed. Kitarra 08:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely... see my comments in the above thread. MastCell 17:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Another fact of Mercola's site is that it removes less than perfect reviews on his products. If you give a good review (such as 4/5), pointing out both the positives and some minor negatives your review will be removed (no negatives points allowed unless it's a 5/5 review). Not right away, it will usually stay up for awhile (giving the impression of being impartial), but soon enough it will be removed. Leaving all nearly perfect reviews (except more recent reviews). I have seen this happen on a consistent basis.
Also, if you post evidence that show conclusively that something on his blog was mistaken. It will be deleted also. Only if your counterpoint is unprovable and/or controversal will it be left intact (so others may use likewise unprovable/controversal opinions to invalidate it and support mercola). That's to be expected for a commercial site (serving it's best interest), but this info should be known to those who think mercola.com is unbiased in what visitor input is allowed.
For the record, I actually like Mercola's site alot and the few products I've tried of his. Just be sure to stay critical of everything and do your own research (before taking Mercola's word as gold). Mercola likes to come up with a lot of things on whim for his blogs which are usually helpful but ocassionally misleading.4.159.169.45 10:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a Biography

The newbies are welcome to start a new article on Mercola.com should they want to. However, I think I should point out that this article is a 'biography' (which happens to mention Mercola's website for completeness). Please keep in mind: that it is not his web site which is the subject; and guard against going off on tangents. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons--Aspro 18:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But over half the references in the article (at a glance) are to Mercola's website, making it an appropriate topic here. A Wikipedia article should be based on independent and reliable sources - which was what I was getting at above. It's fine to use mercola.com as a source, but basing the article heavily on it is not really encyclopedic - it's more a rehash of mercola.com. Also, drawing a distinction between veteran editors of an article and "newbies" is generally discouraged. MastCell 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is a biography about a person who is an opinion leader, notable for running a web site and writing books. The tag should be removed. MaxPont 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If he's notable and an opinion leader, it should be straightforward to demonstrate that by citing outside, independent sources. Most of the references to his website and rehashing of its content should be replaced with these. That's all I'm suggesting. MastCell 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is much in what your saying MastCell. With controversial bio's like this, there is a tendency for his/her web site to take too much predominance because that is the easiest source of information to find...
Yet, if half the platoon has wandered off the track marked out on the map, are you going to say “Hay, let's all the rest of us go into the crocodile infested swamp -because that's were the boot prints lead!”
It is important to keep the main objective in view and not let those who have gone before, lead you off on a tangent (which is all I wanted to point out in my first post).
Bio's needs not to be longer than there is good material for. From watching it over the months it looks as if his business and detailed descriptions of his business modus operandi need splitting off from his bio completely. It is just confusing the issue. Stephen Barrett and his Quackwatch has become separate articles. --Aspro 23:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The separate QW and Barrett articles reflect the wishes of a strongly pro-QW faction of editors, defended on legalistic grounds, despite the sentiments of other editors who considered having the separate articles spammy and somewhat promotional. The QW related article cluster may yet be part of a cluster RfC. Much less biographical material appears available on Mercola as well as his views being the most notable part (as indicated by skeptical editorial interest in him), so one article is a natural structural arrangement.--I'clast 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
My first post was in response to the apparent view that seemed to be forming that the article should be about the web site. It would be like having an article on Jeff Bezos only to have it file up with views and comments about nearly every product that Amazon sells and every cock-up they suffered. However, I can at the moment, partly agree with I'clast: that as Mercola keeps himself as the visible figure-head, then the individual and the business model is less practical to separate; but beware: I am saying that this - in itself - is a 'business model' and so can lead the unwary away from a biographical structure. Then, just like having an argument from different premises, such an article will court much disagreement as different aspects drift apart. Then there is a danger from another phenomena: where people (knowingly or otherwise) make the individual famous for being famous by quoting gossip rather than substance (something that some here are already aware of). Although this is very abridged, hopefully by now that is so obvious that your wondering why I saw the need to point this out. So simply put: I' am asking people to keep in mind this is a biography. If it would be better off the other way around, then have it as a article on his web site, but a category is a category and should not mean what you want it to mean (remember what happened to Humpty Dumpty in Through the looking glass), so disagree with I'clast on this. --Aspro 12:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercola.com

Should there be a separate article for both the biography of Joseph Mercola and his websites? Since it is growing and there are many contributors it might be necessary, and it would help lean out this page since it does include a lot of generic Mercola-related things. It is important for people to know the kind of things the web site advocates, but many of the things are not kept here since it may not be explicitly Mercola who is saying something, but rather one of the people he works with, and he might just do a comment agreeing with them or something. It makes it hard to quote and stuff. This would help represent the alignment of the site, and also detract from what people might feel is a negative portrayment or slander, as it would be about what is on the site, and not the person. Though obviously these would interlink. Tyciol 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources tag

This article could really use some independent secondary sources to make it a little more encylopedic. Most of the references are to Mercola's website or closely allied sites. The only sections which are referenced to independent, reliable secondary sources are those on the FDA warnings he's received for marketing products in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Can we improve the sourcing? MastCell Talk 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead and FDA warnings

Considering the FDA's track record in court (and Congress) on some of these type actions concerning vitamin and nutritional products where seriously contested (Mercola's relatively minor rearguard action with some risk mgmt, positioning, and cash management is different than pitched legal battles, as say with LEF or JV Wright), perhaps we should better differentiate between possible violations as interpretations and warnings by an allegedly hostile FDA (with sometimes unfavorable publicity, political and legal outcomes for the FDA in the general area) vs actual court determined violations of the Act. Also "his product" could be construed as his manufacture or branding rather than promotion and distribution, whereas "nutritional" at least more specifically identifies the category of products and sounds more NPOV to me.--I'clast 11:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your edit ("his" -> "nutritional") is a good one. As to the FDA warnings, I think we can make it clear (hopefully it's already clear) that Mercola received two warning letters only - to my knowledge, there has been no court case/determination or legal proceedings with the FDA. If that's not clear, we can make it more explicit. MastCell Talk 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I see nothing implying it was a more serious case than that. As to I'clast's whole 'possible' thing, that's unnecessary. All allegations no matter what the entity (even the FDA) are 'possible' anyway, that's the thing about warnings versus actual convictions. As for the FDA's motivations for going after him, there's no reason to speculate that it's because he is critical of them, when it is clear that Mercola does make a lot of claims of things with drug-like effects of things where whether or not the have been conclusively proven is questionable. Tyciol (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)