Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Debunking Mercola, et al - please help

ConnieT1030
ConnieT1030 Posts: 894 Member
edited May 2020 in Debate Club
I haven't been around these forums for quite a while, but I know when I was, there was a bunch of very solid science folks here that had info on those quack pseudo-nutritionists (for lack of a better term.)
I was hoping some of you had some links to the specific info/studies, etc that would back that up.
My story is that I was into all that woo (yeah I know! dumb!) about 10 years back but found my way back out in a slow journey over a couple years, and I really dont know where to start to find that stuff again, but when I mentioned to a (non-local) friend on facebook* that Mercola = Fake News, they started persistently pressing me for the science that backs that claim up, and it's not something I saved or have handy!

Im not sure if our "science stars" (aka woo-busters) still post here or not, but if anyone has the links or some useful info for that purpose handy, I'd appreciate it.

I tried searching the forums here, but all I could find is mentions that Mercola, et al, have been debunked, but nothing to point to where/how/when/who.

Hopefully this post is acceptable here, I figured this debate forum was the most likely spot it would be accepted.

*Yes I know facebook arguments convince no one, but one, it isnt really an argument, she just wants some specific info to back up what I said, and two, she won't leave me alone about it!

Appreciate all the helpful folks here. MFP changed my life <3

[edit for grammar typo]

Replies

  • ConnieT1030
    ConnieT1030 Posts: 894 Member
    What that may be true, it's not really helpful. But thanks for your response anyway, have a good night.
  • harper16
    harper16 Posts: 2,564 Member
    What that may be true, it's not really helpful. But thanks for your response anyway, have a good night.

    Why don't you try answering my question. I'm not sure if who I found and what you are talking about is even the same thing.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,443 Member
    I don’t have anything, @ConnieT1030. I’m trying to think of who to tag. @PAV8888 maybe?
  • MurphmomSparkles
    MurphmomSparkles Posts: 203 Member
    He's a quack who is happy to take your money.

    "If one wanted to engineer a lucrative sham, the model of the supplement industry is a promising one: Create a product that's outwardly countercultural, but actually undergirded by powerful interests that keep it exempt from meaningful regulation. Tell people it will make them live longer, happier lives, with less anxiety and better sex organs. Position the product as a "natural" alternative to what's being sold by pharmaceutical companies (which must undergo safety testing and demonstrate at least a modicum of effectiveness)."

    https://quackwatch.org/11ind/mercola/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2019/10/15/fdc01078-c29c-11e9-b5e4-54aa56d5b7ce_story.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/opinion/the-politics-of-fraudulent-dietary-supplements.html

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/how-supplements-work/385119/?utm_source=atlfb
  • ConnieT1030
    ConnieT1030 Posts: 894 Member
    harper16 wrote: »
    What that may be true, it's not really helpful. But thanks for your response anyway, have a good night.

    Why don't you try answering my question. I'm not sure if who I found and what you are talking about is even the same thing.

    Because your question sounds sarcastic, seeing how he's a well know celebrity quack doctor, and everyone else had no problem. I apologize for being too unspecific for you. Yes, it's Joseph Mercola.
  • ConnieT1030
    ConnieT1030 Posts: 894 Member
    I don’t have anything, @ConnieT1030. I’m trying to think of who to tag. @PAV8888 maybe?

    Thanks hun, glad to see you're still out here! :)
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,394 Member
    edited May 2020
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    (snippySnipperSnip)
    (MoreSnip)
    (AndAFinalSnip)

    You're SnipHappy!

    <carry on!>
  • ConnieT1030
    ConnieT1030 Posts: 894 Member
    He's a quack who is happy to take your money.

    "If one wanted to engineer a lucrative sham, the model of the supplement industry is a promising one: Create a product that's outwardly countercultural, but actually undergirded by powerful interests that keep it exempt from meaningful regulation. Tell people it will make them live longer, happier lives, with less anxiety and better sex organs. Position the product as a "natural" alternative to what's being sold by pharmaceutical companies (which must undergo safety testing and demonstrate at least a modicum of effectiveness)."

    https://quackwatch.org/11ind/mercola/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2019/10/15/fdc01078-c29c-11e9-b5e4-54aa56d5b7ce_story.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/opinion/the-politics-of-fraudulent-dietary-supplements.html

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/how-supplements-work/385119/?utm_source=atlfb

    Great links, thank you so much for your assist!
  • harper16
    harper16 Posts: 2,564 Member
    harper16 wrote: »
    What that may be true, it's not really helpful. But thanks for your response anyway, have a good night.

    Why don't you try answering my question. I'm not sure if who I found and what you are talking about is even the same thing.

    Because your question sounds sarcastic, seeing how he's a well know celebrity quack doctor, and everyone else had no problem. I apologize for being too unspecific for you. Yes, it's Joseph Mercola.

    Well I had never heard of him, but glad others were able to provide some info.
  • ConnieT1030
    ConnieT1030 Posts: 894 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    (snippySnipperSnip)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

    (MoreSnip)

    @AnnPT77 may want to comment on Mercola's marketing strategies as mentioned in the wikipedia link above:
    "A 2006 BusinessWeek editorial stated his marketing practices relied on "slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics" (emphasis mine)

    (AndAFinalSnip)

    Nope. ;)

    But I think the Wikipedia article and Quackwatch, not to mention the other background info linked, ought to be enough to do the job, if it can be done.

    If someone is seriously inclined to believe this kind of thing - the hook that someone has powerful information that Big Pharma is trying to hide, but the guru will selflessly share - it's pretty hard to talk them out of it, IME.

    It's one thing, if someone read it and believed it, but didn't really swallow the "you now know what the others are trying to hide" nonsense. But for people who did believe that conspiracy-based "hidden secret" idea, and think they now have the revealed insider truth, any attempt to dissuade them is just a part of the Big Pharma conspiracy to herd the sheeple. Attempts to talk someone out of a conspiracy theory are evidence that there really is a conspiracy, in their minds.

    Sorry, OP - and good luck, sincerely.

    Ah sorry, I cant seem to edit very well on the phone app but in regards to the "nope".. 🤣🤣🤣!

    You are so right, once people have bought into something like that its really hard to just talk them out out of it. They have to want to see their own way out, which is why I tried to avoid answering her with specifics, but since she insists she is "open" I figured if I had a few good sources to point to, she could either dismiss them (not sure if she goes as far as the "big pharma" conspiracy or not) or else start her own search/research.
    I was just pretty sure some folks here had that kind of info a whole lot more handy than I would, knowing the sorts of things that come up (over & over!)
    So much thanks for coming through for me! As always, MFP is the best, and consistently entertaining as well 😉
  • MikePfirrman
    MikePfirrman Posts: 3,307 Member
    edited May 2020
    People are gonna believe what they believe. Traditional or Holistic. Perhaps a bit of both if proven.

    Someone mentioned Quackwatch above -- that publication claimed for years that Chiropractic is Quackery. Not just one Chiropractor, but the entire industry! There are some Chiropractors that I've seen that are quacks, for sure, but some have helped me immensely when my family (traditional doc) didn't do squat for me. And "Sciencebasedmedicine.com" is a about as biased as it comes -- they hate anything Holistic yet never ever rip prescription drugs that fail or have recalls or lawsuits (not one word about those). So you have to really consider the source of any information.

    I tend to agree with what mmapags said -- why bother? If they believe crazy views from the extreme, they are gonna believe that.

    I don't believe most of what Mercola says, but I'm also skeptical when a conventional doc wants to give me a pill or prescription as well. As we all should be skeptical.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,443 Member
    edited May 2020
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    @PAV8888 was never into debunking Mercola because of... headache. :smile:

    See, tagging you provided lots of good info, @PAV8888. ;)

    I'd never heard of QuackWatch, so I learned something, too!
  • MikePfirrman
    MikePfirrman Posts: 3,307 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    @PAV8888 was never into debunking Mercola because of... headache. :smile:

    See, tagging you provided lots of good info, @PAV8888. ;)

    I'd never heard of QuackWatch, so I learned something, too!

    Not missing much. The irony is he was a Psychiatrist! Also a guy that once claimed all Gulf War Syndrome was in their heads. Nothing like telling vets that they are candy arses. Just my two cents (and a Psych Major -- hardly "hard" science!!).
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,394 Member
    Maybe quackwatch should be vetted by examine.com????