Talk:Joseph Mercola

Deleting helpful suggestions

@Valjean, are you saying that an editor who gave a solid viewpoint about the article was "griping"? I don't interpret his statement as griping. I found it helpful. "Not sure where to note this but i was shocked to find this page on Mercola as so very leaning in bias. For every scientist against his claims you can cite a valid scientist who supports. For claims about vitamin d they as in government are now moving towards agreement that it does stave off the virus to some degree. This article needs a rewrite to temove bias. To cite that mercola is often making claims contrasting government guidelines only points out the bias in assuming the government cannot be wrong. Employees of the government are no more knowledgeable than any other source." I remember reading that we are encouraged not to bit the newcomers. Wouldn't a healthy, respectful response been a better way to go? On the WP:NOTFORUM page it says, "...bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles..." This is exactly what he was doing. I also find your threat of sanctioning me a bit dramatic and not necessary when we are both trying to improve wikipedia.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The comment reveals scientific and medical illiteracy, a fringe POV, advocates fringe ideas, and provides no RS for how to improve our coverage of the subject. It's just griping. We usually remove such comments on sight.

Now YOU own it, so do something to make it constructive and YOU find the MEDRS needed to fix these alleged defects with the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok I will take up the challenge as I find time to do the research. Thanks for the respectful response. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Valjean's removal of what I also see as a whining comment with no specific suggestions on how to improve the article, just that they don't like it. I remove Talk page comments like that also; they are non-constructive criticism. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

For the betterment of Wikipedia and the publics view of Wikipedia, it is better to explain all this to the new person, in other words explain/educate the person rather that expel them and their comment. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Keeping article objective

I think Mercola's promotion, in hs book, of Ivermectin ought to be included. FDA has recently been forced by the Courts to stop discrediting Ivermectin. To avoid mentioning areas where he may be correct seems to put an attack light on Wikipedia, not an objective one. Soundhill (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You are starting from a wrong assumption. Courts do not decide scientific questions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not about deciding a scientific question. The fact is that the FDA made a mistake that was shown in court. From an article by CNN - "The FDA told CNN on Wednesday that the lawsuit challenged its authority to issue a Consumer Update in March 2021, several tweets and other social media posts from 2021 and 2022 that linked to the article, and two FAQs posted in 2020, which the FDA said have “already been retired from the agency’s website.” The posts and other materials will be removed and archived as required by law." And then Dr. Marik's comment, “Today’s settlement with the FDA is a major win for the doctor-patient relationship,” Marik said in the statement. “It vindicates our position that the FDA overstepped its regulatory authority by trying to dictate appropriate medical care.” Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Soundhill said that Mercola may be correct about Ivermectin. That is a scientific question, and Mercola is still wrong about it. But without actual sources, there is nothing to talk about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok I am addressing the erroneous overreach of the FDA to try to control medical care. here are a two reliable sources that can be used regarding Invermectin which supports Mercola's view on Invermectin:

• Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ - Conclusions:Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
• Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34375047/ - Conclusions: Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

• Also this CNN article is a reliable source regarding the overreach of the FDA by trying to dictate medical care. FDA settles lawsuit over ivermectin content that doctors claimed harmed their practice https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/27/health/fda-ivermectin-lawsuit/index.html .Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to do that here. That would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (and likely more WP:PAG). It has to be a RS that connects Mercola, by name, to the issue. That he might be partially right doesn't mean Wikipedia gives him any support or a free pass to continue to push his BS pseudoscience quackery. Take your sources to the Ivermectin article talk page and argue the WP:MEDRS relevance of using those sources there.

BTW, you need to sign your comment above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your wiki guidance but you must see that your bias is blatantly showing when you say ..."his BS (as in bullshit I assume) pseudoscience quackery." This is what the public is objecting to on Wikipedia. If you were truly a neutral editor you would be looking for the sources to balance this article. We have had this discussion before. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality applies to edits, not editors. My editing is always based on RS, not my personal POV. When they agree, that's nice, but it's not a requirement. I often make edits that conflict with my personal POV. When significant, I change my POV and bring it into line with the RS. That Mercola is a noted pusher of very profitable and dangerous pseudoscience is a matter of record. We side with what RS say. We also side with the law. Mercola has received myriad warnings from the FDA. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see the essay WP:YESBIAS ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Valjean You are aware that some of the people in the public read the talks pages right? I also have my personal POV and most times keep it to myself and I too have made edits that conflict with my POV and use reliable sources. I do believe we need to be respectful of the person whose wiki page it is. We as wiki editors should show respect at all times to other editors and the pages we edit on. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we stop the chatting about our opinions? This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

When someone has responded to your contribution, do not change that contribution by deleting, adding, or changing text. Instead, strike the part you want to delete. Otherwise, the responses may not make sense. I am striking the part of my response that does not make sense anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• The FDA/ivermectin thing is covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. A US court found the FDA had exceeded their authority in giving (what amounted to) medical advice. The FDA however explicitly did not change their view that ivermectin had no evidence of benefit for COVID (a finding in common with all relevant RS). Meanwhile, online, ivermectin boosters tried to twist this technical legal ruling as some kind of "vindication" for ivermectin/COVID. As I say, it's covered. Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Question - where is the definition for misinformation for this article? Doctors who have cured people of COVID using other than the vaccine or remdsiver , would have valuable information and would not be considered providing misinformaion. To establish credibility here we need a precise definition. For instance I know of a 71 year old man who was quickly cured from a doctor diagnosed COVID infection using a number of things including a precise formula of hydrogen peroxide and iodine diluted in water and used a nebulizer for 15 minutes at a time. It was moving to his lungs and after one session he felt better already. He kept doing it and recovered quickly from COVID. Any ideas?Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Read anecdotal evidence. Worthless as real evidence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Yes but that is not my question. What is the precise definition of "Misinformation" that is used in this article? What authoritative group decides what is misinformation? It is used throughout the page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

      WP:Reliable sources decide. Bon courage (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

      See the sources after the lead sentence: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mercola spread misinformation about the virus...". In Wikipedia, we say what RS's say. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  • To decide whether a treatment has "cured" someone of a disease that typically does not take longer than a two weeks, or whether the disease has gone away of its own, one has to do very careful studies with randomized control groups. Please leave that work to the experts. And no, some random doctor (let alone some random osteopath) is not an expert on how to do medical science, even if they make millions selling chemicals to gullible people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we include his Substack blog?

Mercola has a known blog on Substack, takecontrol(dot)substack(dot)com, but it's explicitly for paid subscribers only. Should we include a link to it, or no? Lizardcreator (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Any link to him would violate WP:ELNO. That's why we don't have a website listed in the infobox or the External links section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Sunscreen

The NTP Technical Report cited as Source 69 specifically states that ALL treatment groups (control cream, RA cream, and RP cream, all commonly found in sunscreens) showed INCREASED the incidence of skin lesions and "multiplicities of squamous cell neoplasms" in test mice in comparison with controls. And it showed that the RA cream and RP cream showed HIGHER incidence of such pathology compared with the control cream. The conclusion that Joseph Mercola's view is "misinformation" is entirely inappropriate if you are basing this on this particular reference. PLEASE FIX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader1894 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Humans are not mice. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)