Can anything be done about the appalling Joe Mercola?

[Asolepius]

It's not good for my blood pressure, but I subscribe to Mercola's newsletter just to keep up to date on the latest pop health crap. Most of the time I just sigh or even gasp, and move on, but this article drove me to do something. But what? Mercola is a master not only of highly selective reporting, but of forming links between completely unrelated subjects, that purport to support his lethal opinions. He has built a very big business selling products based on misleading information. The latest seems to be coconut oil, which he says is very healthy. In fact it's the most atherogenic fat known.

He has been hauled up by the FDA many times for false claims for his products, but he just regards the FDA as an arm of the drug industry. If you search the FDA site for Mercola you get 84 hits! But he just carries on. From over here in the UK it's hard to understand how things work in the US. At least the FDA does something - the MHRA over here does absolutely nothing about dangerous health advice on websites. The web of course knows no boundaries. Any thoughts from our US friends?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Mercola's site does prove my point that by making vaccination mandatory you hand ammunition to the anti-vaccination crowd. E.g.,

Many of the vaccines that are now “required” for children are not even medically necessary. At the top of my list of vaccinations that are highly questionable are the:

Hepatitis B vaccine
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil
Chicken pox vaccine
Flu vaccine

Reading the comments at the bottom of the page is a fascinating study in paranoia.

 

[fls]

Dr. Mercola acts as a sort of touchstone for me. If I want to know whether an idea has merit, I have only to visit his website and the answer is clear - it is the opposite of whatever he says. And if I enter into a discussion with someone, it tells me right away whether or not they should be taken seriously if they use Dr. Mercola for reference material (I'll leave it up to you to figure out the answer).

Linda

 

[Deetee]

I can't view the video of how "Merck's vaccines spread AIDS, leukaemia and other horrible plagues around the world".
Just as well really, I don't want to have a stroke while eating lunch at my desk.

 

[Jekyll]

Mercola's site does prove my point that by making vaccination mandatory you hand ammunition to the anti-vaccination crowd. E.g.,

And by flying planes overhead you give ammunition to the chem-trails crowd.

We should still keep doing both of them while it remains a net win for society.

 

[rissablue]

I know the anti-vaccine crowd has been around for while, but I feel like I have been running into them more and more lately. We've had 3 clients in the last 3 weeks that refuse to vaccinate and it makes me so incredibly angry. These people will not even listen to what anyone else says. Are they getting more vocal and influential to the average person or is it just me noticing more???

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

And by flying planes overhead you give ammunition to the chem-trails crowd.

We should still keep doing both of them while it remains a net win for society.

I don't think the two are equivalent situations.

Coercion and misinformation always raises the question:

"If it's so good, why is it being forced and/or being promoted with misinformation?"

Mercola et al. will give them an answer.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I know the anti-vaccine crowd has been around for while, but I feel like I have been running into them more and more lately. We've had 3 clients in the last 3 weeks that refuse to vaccinate and it makes me so incredibly angry. These people will not even listen to what anyone else says. Are they getting more vocal and influential to the average person or is it just me noticing more???

Why does it make you angry?

 

[rissablue]

Why does it make you angry?

The people that I have encountered that are anti-vaccine can never give any good reason other than the standard evil money making pharmaceuticals and vaccines cause autism in people or shorten their animal's life (I've heard both), etc....

No matter how much I try to talk to them about it, they become accusatory of us being part of the problem by promoting harmful substances to make money for the clinic. For instance, we require Rabies, DHLPP, Bordetella to board dogs. Well that is just a scheme to keep making money instead of preventing spread of disease. I've tried over and over to have reasoned discussions to explain the dangers of Parvo and just been called greedy and evil. That makes me angry.

Wow, didn't mean to run on and on....

 

[Jekyll]

I don't think the two are equivalent situations.

Coercion and misinformation always raises the question:

"If it's so good, why is it being forced and/or being promoted with misinformation?"

Mercola et al. will give them an answer.

I don't know what misinformation you're talking about, but the coercion is because people are too often lazy or misinformed and don't act in their best interests.

For the same reasons drunk driving is illegal, and wearing seatbelts is compulsory. This is despite them both being obviously bad/good thing to do.

 

[krelnik]

Hey, here's an idea:

Robert Lancaster of "Stop Sylvia Browne" has announced that he is going to create a "Stop..." umbrella site with sub-sites addressing a number of other people. He's not limiting it to psychics, he already has Kevin Trudeau on the list. He's soliciting help with it, where other people will write articles and he'll edit the site for tone and maintain it.

Why don't you suggest to him that he add "Stop Joe Mercola" to the list, and volunteer to write a couple of articles?

This is being discussed over in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105593

I think it would be a great idea!

 

[Asolepius]

Hey, here's an idea:

Robert Lancaster of "Stop Sylvia Browne" has announced that he is going to create a "Stop..." umbrella site with sub-sites addressing a number of other people. He's not limiting it to psychics, he already has Kevin Trudeau on the list. He's soliciting help with it, where other people will write articles and he'll edit the site for tone and maintain it.

Why don't you suggest to him that he add "Stop Joe Mercola" to the list, and volunteer to write a couple of articles?

This is being discussed over in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105593

I think it would be a great idea!

It's attractive at first sight, but has it actually stopped Sylvia Browne? Has her lucrative business been affected at all? Convince me!

 

[H3LL]

It's attractive at first sight, but has it actually stopped Sylvia Browne? Has her lucrative business been affected at all? Convince me!

I cannot understand why you bothered with the OP if this is how you feel.

.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't know what misinformation you're talking about, but the coercion is because people are too often lazy or misinformed and don't act in their best interests.

The misinformation is the over-estimation of the absolute risk of the diseases presented to the public by public health bodies and medical professionals.

Vaccination is much safer, but the risk of serious harm from the actual disease is often small or comparable when compared to risks we take every day.

You tackle misinformation with good information. You tackle laziness by making the task more convenient.

For the same reasons drunk driving is illegal, and wearing seatbelts is compulsory. This is despite them both being obviously bad/good thing to do.

Both of which are to do with an activity which is much more dangerous than many of the diseases we vaccinate against. For example, the lifetime odds of dying in a motor-vehicle accident are about 1 in 84 in the US.

 

[~enigma~]

I still find it hard to believe one of the RPhs that I used to work with is into that stuff. Guess it's proof education doesn't necessarily mean non-woo belief. But the odd part here is that my friend's education stands in direct contrast to the woo Mercola slings.

 

[richardm]

It's attractive at first sight, but has it actually stopped Sylvia Browne? Has her lucrative business been affected at all? Convince me!

Well, she's doing her farewell tour this year but who's to say that it's anything to do with Robert's site? However at the very least he's provided a one-stop shop to which people can be directed to see her lies exposed.

 

[Jekyll]

You tackle laziness by making the task more convenient.

Alternatively, you make not doing the task less convenient. Both method are valid.

Both of which are to do with an activity which is much more dangerous than many of the diseases we vaccinate against. For example, the lifetime odds of dying in a motor-vehicle accident are about 1 in 84 in the US.

Exactly. To an individual, they're more obviously important than vaccination. Yet the government still has to pass laws to make people behave appropriately.

So for something, both as significant and convenient as putting on a seatbelt, the government still has to pass laws to make people do it.

 

[fuelair]

Why does it make you angry?

Because they then potentially endanger the health of others who choose to be ignorant fools and caring for them raises my taxes (If someone dies or is in bad shape through their own stupidity, I do not sympathise a lot).

 

[Dymanic]

The people that I have encountered that are anti-vaccine can never give any good reason other than the standard evil money making pharmaceuticals and vaccines cause autism in people or shorten their animal's life (I've heard both), etc....

As an atheist, the "philosophical" or "religious" objection to vaccination is not that hard to understand. I might object to the idea of being forced to consume communion wafers, and while I couldn't (and wouldn't even attempt to) provide any scientific basis for that objection, it doesn't seem like I should have to. From what I can see, however, most of the antivaxers who seek philosophical or religious exemptions don't really object to the practice on philosophical or religious grounds. In short, in order to obtain these exemptions, they are prepared to lie about their beliefs.

What they really believe quickly becomes apparent upon examination of the arguments they present in attempting to persuade others to join them in opting out of vaccination. They start out attempting to argue scientifically against vaccination, and when this fails (as it always does, since the available evidence does not support their position), they retreat into arguing from ignorance: science will eventually come around to supporting their position, and probably would already if not for the political and economic pressures which influence it. Because they are not subject to these constraints (and because they still appreciate the value of "common sense"), they are more scientists than the scientists themselves.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

What they really believe quickly becomes apparent upon examination of the arguments they present in attempting to persuade others to join them in opting out of vaccination. They start out attempting to argue scientifically against vaccination, and when this fails (as it always does, since the available evidence does not support their position), they retreat into arguing from ignorance: science will eventually come around to supporting their position, and probably would already if not for the political and economic pressures which influence it. Because they are not subject to these constraints (and because they still appreciate the value of "common sense"), they are more scientists than the scientists themselves.

Is that called "argument from arrogance"?

What about people who want some but not all the vaccines?

Is downhill skiing irrational? Is running a marathon irrational?