Dr Mercola

Discussion in 'People Debunked' started by Cairenn, Jun 9, 2013.

  1. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    He keeps showing up on many of the anti Monsanto sites and others. He is on naturalnews a lot also.

    I would like more info on him.

    From Wikipedia


  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 1
  3. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    anyone got a longer pole? my 10 footer aint enough to touch this guy..
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I can't find anything credible that doesn't include the Q word with his name. I would like to know why Dr Oz had him on his show, of course I am not convinced that Dr Oz doesn't lean toward that Q word either.
  5. Rafterman

    Rafterman Member

    I was attacked by a "friend" on Facebook the other day after she had posted something from Mercola linking breast cancer to the active ingredient in Round Up weed killer (conveniently made by Monsanto). As I do in these cases with folks I know, I simply suggested that she take anything from Mercola with a grain of salt and do her own research. She didn't like that suggestion at all.
  6. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    The Rational Wiki article on him ha a summary of his activities and beliefs.
  7. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I am on liberal FB page and they posted a silly anti GMO meme yesterday and me and others kept posting facts. Someone linked to that breast cancer 'study' there.
  8. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    The RW article unfortunately includes a number of dead links to Respectful Insolence on Scienceblogs due to a formatting change, but interested readers can of course search for the article titles. David Gorski (Orac) has done a wonderful job tackling Mercola's woo, and there's a similar treasure trove over at Science-Based Medicine.
  9. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Mercola is similar to Janet Hull and they spur on the whole anti-aspartame nonsense. You know the one aspartame causes cancer, MS, Parkinsons, teenage pregnancy, homelessness, autism, premature baldness, sterility and it tastes shit. I have real life friends that believe in this nonsense (well except it tasting shit). I made the mistake of telling someone I get bad migraines if I drink to much pop with aspartame in, at the wrong time of the month. I was in undated with Mercola links and advised to get a detox. Detox? I asked. No thanks I have a liver.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. JohnJones

    JohnJones New Member

    (Bumping this old thread because I just came across an article by Dr Mercola which nicely illustrates the quality of his research.)

    In this Mercola article:


    Dr Mercola says:

    "CDC data[3] shows there are about 412 confirmed cases of people getting ill from pasteurized milk each year, while only about 116 illnesses a year are linked to raw milk."

    Dr Mercola quotes this statistic to support his argument that raw milk is more healthful than pasteurized milk. However, one caveat that occurs to us is, his statistic is meaningless until we know how many people drink pasteurized milk versus how many drink raw milk. The footnote [3] leads to this URL at the Centre for Disease Control:



    On this CDC site we read:

    "Raw milk was much more likely to cause outbreaks than pasteurized milk."

    Unlike Dr Mercola, the CDC has compared the percentage of raw-milk-drinkers who get sick with the percentage of pasteurized-milk-drinkers who get sick, and this comparison leads them to their conclusion.

    So Dr. Mercola is claiming that raw milk is safer, and wants us to believe that the CDC, a reputable authority, backs up his claim. But when we go to the CDC, we find that it says the exact opposite of what Dr. Mercola is telling us. In order to make the data fit his hypothesis, Dr. Mercola is inviting us to make an elementary statistical error, comparing absolute figures from populations of very different sizes.
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    His numbers might be right - however, that's because not a lot of people drink raw milk, while millions of people drink pasteurized milk. Comparing the number of cases between groups of immensely different size is like looking at the number of people killed by sheep vs. the number killed by sharks, and believing that means an encounter with a single sheep is more dangerous than an encounter with a large shark.

    What you need to do is look at rates, how many sheep encounters there are a year vs. shark encounters, and use the number of incidents to determine the probability that any encounter will prove lethal. Shark deaths are rare, but shark encounters are also rare, and every one carries a real (if overestimated) risk of death. Sheep deaths are slightly less rare, but sheep encounters are innumerable - if you take a job on a large ranch you'll have tens of thousands of encounters per year, and it's highly unlikely you'll figure out how to get yourself killed in any of them.

    With raw milk, perhaps more people get sick from pasteurized milk, but when you account for the disparate frequency of drinks, you're left with raw milk drinkers being a staggering 840 times more likely to get sick from their beverage.