![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 59 to 83 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
In reply to Bottom Line on Fish Oil , posted by Scootermacgruder on August 14, 2002, at 21:52:06
Hi Scott,
I checked out Dr. Mercola's website and agree with you. His ideas are somewhat severe, but I know from my own research and experience that he's right on. The only downside I see is in the strictness of his health plan. But that doesn't detract from the soundness of his ideas. I guess the negative reactions are typical from those who will not look further or will not look within, and his being exiled to 'Quack-dom' is pretty extreme and rather ridiculous.Listen up, folks, ignore what he has to say at your peril (what, flouride bad for me? bah! What's wrong with vaccinations anyway?). He's by no means the first one to sound these warnings about our water, lousy diets, electronic pollution, insulin resistance, animal and human vaccination-induced illness, etc. There are definitely things out there that we'd prefer not to see, and it's so much easier to just drive on up to a McDonald's. Spongiform encephalitis with fries, anyone? You know, one has to be discerning with everthing and not be conned or hoodwinked - the research has to be done impeccably. There's so much crap that will readily relieve you of your money. But Quackwatchers throws the baby out with the bathwater. They throw in a few good nuggets and then flood you with disinformation. They're pretty much greeted with derision and sniggers in more esteemed circles than are ever reported in US News, CNS, or God forbid, the AMA.
> People, please all go to http://www.mercola.com and check out some of his info on fish oil (do a search for fish oil). Also, while you're there, check out his eating plan. I think it's been the best thing for me, I'll never eat another way. I feel so good.
>
> -Scott
>
Posted by Randal on August 19, 2002, at 19:53:25
In reply to Mercola and Quackwatchers » Scootermacgruder, posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
Hi,
I really don't want to get drawn into a long argument on this, so I will just make a couple observations and sign off.
Modern medicine has been responsible for a dramatic increase in over the last 100 years. This is largely due to two things: antibiotics and vaccines.
The mainstream medical community, which has been responsible for these advances, is not in a conspiracy to wreck our health. Scientists and physicians have devoted their lives to find cures and treatments for what ails us.
Think of the difference it would make in sub-Saharan Africa if there were an AIDS vaccine, to again mention the good of vaccines. Lifespans there have decreased as much as 20 years in some countries! The research and medical community does not want to see people suffer. You may possibly be here to read this only because we have vaccines for smallpox, polio, measles, etc.
Look at the organizations who make health claims. One can certainly criticize the AMA (American Medical Association) for their power as a political lobby, yet they have no reason to recommend things that endanger our health. They have been at the forefront of promoting healthier diets. The Stoll fish-oil study, which more than anything has catalyzed the use of fish-oil as a treatment for psychiatric disorders (and which started this thread), was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. This is in fact the psychiatry journal of the AMA!
By the way, what are these "more esteemed circles" who greet Quackwatch with "derision and sniggers". Examples, please. Unsubstantiated claims should always be questioned.
Again, look at which organizations support which health claims. Who stands to make a profit? Who do you trust? I'm sorry, but there is no conspiracy by the medical establishment to perpetuate illness. Look at their track record over the last 100 years.
Randal
> Hi Scott,
> I checked out Dr. Mercola's website and agree with you. His ideas are somewhat severe, but I know from my own research and experience that he's right on. The only downside I see is in the strictness of his health plan. But that doesn't detract from the soundness of his ideas. I guess the negative reactions are typical from those who will not look further or will not look within, and his being exiled to 'Quack-dom' is pretty extreme and rather ridiculous.
>
> Listen up, folks, ignore what he has to say at your peril (what, flouride bad for me? bah! What's wrong with vaccinations anyway?). He's by no means the first one to sound these warnings about our water, lousy diets, electronic pollution, insulin resistance, animal and human vaccination-induced illness, etc. There are definitely things out there that we'd prefer not to see, and it's so much easier to just drive on up to a McDonald's. Spongiform encephalitis with fries, anyone? You know, one has to be discerning with everthing and not be conned or hoodwinked - the research has to be done impeccably. There's so much crap that will readily relieve you of your money. But Quackwatchers throws the baby out with the bathwater. They throw in a few good nuggets and then flood you with disinformation. They're pretty much greeted with derision and sniggers in more esteemed circles than are ever reported in US News, CNS, or God forbid, the AMA.
>
> > People, please all go to http://www.mercola.com and check out some of his info on fish oil (do a search for fish oil). Also, while you're there, check out his eating plan. I think it's been the best thing for me, I'll never eat another way. I feel so good.
> >
> > -Scott
> >
>
>
Posted by Randal on August 19, 2002, at 19:58:03
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » BarbaraCat, posted by Randal on August 19, 2002, at 19:53:25
Previous post should read :
Modern medicine has been responsible for a dramatic increase in *lifespan* over the last 100 years. This is largely due to two things: antibiotics and vaccines.
Posted by Phil on August 20, 2002, at 12:32:53
In reply to Mercola and Quackwatchers » Scootermacgruder, posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
I'm at work but will address your statements later. Several of your general statements about those who will not look within has nothing to do with Mercola. But it assumes we aren't too deep.
You'll get my reply.
Posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 7:32:47
In reply to Mercola and Quackwatchers » Scootermacgruder, posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
I agree with Randall. Listen, the Mercola site has some good advice, but so does Quackwatch. I've been scammed before and when I checked out the link for Mercola on some therapy that involved tapping parts of your body, well, I am skeptical. Doesn't have anything to do with being closed-minded. It also had a bunch of tesimonials, then recommended a bunch of tapes for a not unsubtantial price.
If the Mercola site, helps folks, I'm so glad for all of you. As a binge eater who tries to eat healthy but then just loses control over junk food, I wish I could eat as he recommends. However, I have'nt had the willpower/whatever, to do so. I try to eat healthy. I do not eat at McDonalds, btw. But how can one be so anal about the water, for instance, and live and function in the real world?
BarbaraCat, Scott. Are you lives just wonderful now due to Mercola?
Posted by IsoM on August 21, 2002, at 13:42:24
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers, posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 7:32:47
"As a binge eater who tries to eat healthy but then just loses control over junk food..."
sjb, excuse me for sticking my nose in, but if you do binge on junk food, where do you binge? At home? How does the junk food get in your house? I eat healthy & try to avoid most junk food, but I have a weakness for a few things. To make sure I won't succumb to these foods, I never buy them or bake them. I could honestly sit down & eat a whole pie (has to be home-made) in a day (would get up to eat it at night if it was there) so I rarely make pies. I do so about twice a year - when fresh blueberries & peaches are in season but I make sure to have my sons over to eat it with me.
That's just an example of one of my beloved foods, but could you not do something similar? Keep such food out of your house? Avoid the shops where you'd buy such foods? Just curious, hope you don't mind.
Posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 13:50:51
In reply to Re: binge-eating » sjb, posted by IsoM on August 21, 2002, at 13:42:24
I wish I had your willpower. I keep the stuff out of the house but it doesn't matter. When cravings are overwhelming, I get stuff around where I work (in a small city) and hide in my office or while driving in car. It's pathetic. It's messy. It's awful.
Posted by IsoM on August 21, 2002, at 14:14:11
In reply to Re: binge-eating, posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 13:50:51
Don't berate yourself overly. It's not will-power on my part, it's just not as severe as yours. Your problem sounds bad enough to be similar to an addiction. Have you sought help for it?
Posted by BarbaraCat on August 21, 2002, at 17:00:01
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers, posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 7:32:47
>Are you lives just wonderful now due to Mercola?
That's a great question. No, my life is not wonderful, I still get anxious and depressed and blow up. But considering that last year at this time I was in bed extremely ill and had been so for 2 weeks out of every 3-4 months for years, it makes me realize how far I've come. The major diff is that I'm not working full time anymore because I developed a very severe case of fibromyalgia. It's not just the fact that my work stress is dimimished because I've been unemployed before as well and unemployment has it's own major stresses. This time around I've bitten the bullet and commited to my health - because I was literally dying. Because I'm not working I have more time to devote to getting healthy. I get alot more exercise, eat a very healthy diet, take a bunch of nutrients, meditate, drink around a gallon of water a day, etc (in fact I practically live like a yogini except for the fact that I still love my drinky-poos and the occassional toke!). This lifestyle management definitely takes time, money and consistency and sometimes when I'm going through a rough spell I wonder if it's worth it. But I only have to look back 12 months ago to see the vast improvement, huge, immense. I'd love to be more happy, but that may take longer. Besides, I can't easily see how one can be low-level sick and be very happy, unless they've found another compensating factor like following a life passion (e.g., Stephen Hawking).
As for the energy, or meridian tapping, I agree it sounds far-fetched. It makes more sense as you delve deeper into the accupuncture meridian systems (that is, if Chineses Traditional Medicine isn't too weird for ya). I've tried it, and while it didn't offer much relief for a bad depression or anxiety attack, it's surprisingly effective for habits, public speaking, phobias. Mercola's site also has a link to another site that offers a full book download of the method - free even. I'd agree with you that most of these sites offering health advice also ply their wares, kinda takes away from the altriusm of their intentions. But Mercola's site has a huge wealth of information, and I figure I can buy the stuff if I want and won't if I don't.
Posted by BarbaraCat on August 21, 2002, at 18:10:20
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » BarbaraCat, posted by Randal on August 19, 2002, at 19:53:25
Hi Randall,
Your comments are appreciated and well-taken. You're very right-on about how most of us wouldn't be here were it not for western medicine. I know I wouldn't. No matter how many naturopaths or accupuncturists I go to, I take my psych drugs with a prayer of thanks each day. St. John's Wort may be effective for some folks, but certainly not for me. Also, when I've had a serious illness, accident, or any acute condition, my first thought is ER! primary care doc! dentist! pain medication!!! Medical researchers are coming up with miracles and even though I grouse about how medical care has devolved with the HMO era, I'll not stop paying my insurance premiums.My point wasn't with the AMA (oh, maybe some), but more with Quackwatchers. They've lambasted quite a few 'marginal' healing methods that turn off people who might be helped. So much of their reporting style is the rolling of the eyes, can you believe these kooks category. I remember a few years ago the roasting they gave homeopathy, and another their scathing views on the mercury dental amalgam opponents. As far as the 'esteemed groups' you asked I cite, well, the royal family's physician is a homeopath. In fact, much of European medicine takes homeopathy, as well as banning mercury amalgams very seriously. Homeopathy may not show up on 'sensitive clinical lab tests', but something else is going on that shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. The smallpox vaccine is a good case in point of homeopathy's law of similars. Also, other esteemed groups of folks that come to mind are Chinese doctors and healers who have studied some pretty esoteric stuff for thousands of years - and are finally given credence to by western medicine.
Speaking of vaccines, something not widely known is the fact that since the 1930's, most vaccines have been preserved with thimerosal. Thimerosal contains mercury and these vaccines are being implicated in autism and asperger's syndrome. Even though this is a growing alarm, it's still not 'clinically proven' so there's no need to stop. The real reason is that it's expensive to do so.
You make a good statement about who's interests are being served. That is the question. I'd say that anyone in competition for our money, whether on the internet or otherwise, is suspect of not having our personal benefits as their reason d'etre. Although there's alot of cooperation and dialog between the alternative/alleopathic factions, it's still in early stages and both sides get defensive. I sure do and I waffle from one side to the other. So, that's my soapbox speech and we'll probably get bumped to psycho-social pretty soon anyway.
>
> Modern medicine has been responsible for a dramatic increase in over the last 100 years. This is largely due to two things: antibiotics and vaccines.
>
> The mainstream medical community, which has been responsible for these advances, is not in a conspiracy to wreck our health. Scientists and physicians have devoted their lives to find cures and treatments for what ails us.
>
> Think of the difference it would make in sub-Saharan Africa if there were an AIDS vaccine, to again mention the good of vaccines. Lifespans there have decreased as much as 20 years in some countries! The research and medical community does not want to see people suffer. You may possibly be here to read this only because we have vaccines for smallpox, polio, measles, etc.
>
> Look at the organizations who make health claims. One can certainly criticize the AMA (American Medical Association) for their power as a political lobby, yet they have no reason to recommend things that endanger our health. They have been at the forefront of promoting healthier diets. The Stoll fish-oil study, which more than anything has catalyzed the use of fish-oil as a treatment for psychiatric disorders (and which started this thread), was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. This is in fact the psychiatry journal of the AMA!
>
> By the way, what are these "more esteemed circles" who greet Quackwatch with "derision and sniggers". Examples, please. Unsubstantiated claims should always be questioned.
>
> Again, look at which organizations support which health claims. Who stands to make a profit? Who do you trust? I'm sorry, but there is no conspiracy by the medical establishment to perpetuate illness. Look at their track record over the last 100 years.
>
> Randal
>
> > Hi Scott,
> > I checked out Dr. Mercola's website and agree with you. His ideas are somewhat severe, but I know from my own research and experience that he's right on. The only downside I see is in the strictness of his health plan. But that doesn't detract from the soundness of his ideas. I guess the negative reactions are typical from those who will not look further or will not look within, and his being exiled to 'Quack-dom' is pretty extreme and rather ridiculous.
> >
> > Listen up, folks, ignore what he has to say at your peril (what, flouride bad for me? bah! What's wrong with vaccinations anyway?). He's by no means the first one to sound these warnings about our water, lousy diets, electronic pollution, insulin resistance, animal and human vaccination-induced illness, etc. There are definitely things out there that we'd prefer not to see, and it's so much easier to just drive on up to a McDonald's. Spongiform encephalitis with fries, anyone? You know, one has to be discerning with everthing and not be conned or hoodwinked - the research has to be done impeccably. There's so much crap that will readily relieve you of your money. But Quackwatchers throws the baby out with the bathwater. They throw in a few good nuggets and then flood you with disinformation. They're pretty much greeted with derision and sniggers in more esteemed circles than are ever reported in US News, CNS, or God forbid, the AMA.
> >
> > > People, please all go to http://www.mercola.com and check out some of his info on fish oil (do a search for fish oil). Also, while you're there, check out his eating plan. I think it's been the best thing for me, I'll never eat another way. I feel so good.
> > >
> > > -Scott
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by Randal on August 22, 2002, at 0:02:27
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » Randal, posted by BarbaraCat on August 21, 2002, at 18:10:20
Actually, Quackwatch's stand on homeopathy is exactly what led me to them in the first place. On June 18th of last year I read an article in Reuter's Science News that I found a bit surprising:
Homeopathic Metals May Cure All Manner of Ailments
June 18, 2001 11:06 AM ET
(I copied it, but the article is long and the link no longer active. Here is an excerpt)
"Indeed, the problem for many critics is that homeopathic medicines can be so diluted that there is nothing identifiable in the final dose except water. But Lawrence said they still contained a certain essence or dynamic of the substance. "Logically it doesn't make sense, but even modern nuclear physics doesn't make sense," he contested. "It depends on the mental modeling you use."
OTHER METAL REMEDIES
Metals are used quite widely in homeopathy, usually in the form of salts, but there is no common theme among them. With some metals, as with other substances, their so-called characteristics can manifest themselves in a patient, according to some homeopaths. The "remedy picture" for aurum (gold), for example, can be for those prone to severe depression. The type may be quite acquisitive and powerful and need to be best at whatever they do (going for gold), but also have a low opinion of themselves. Such patients might be trading in the stock market, Lawrence said, and the type to jump out of the window were share prices to plummet sharply. Aside from this, aurum can also be used for a whole range of symptoms, including mental exhaustion, digestive problems and heart and vascular disorders."I found the Quackwatch site and the same day wrote to Dr. Stephen Barrett, who runs the site:
Dear Dr. Barrett,
I was rather surprised and appalled by a story I read today about homeopathy in the Reuters science news online. If you haven't seen this, you may be interested in reading it. It's frightening that one of the major news organizations would print this.
I'm writing to you because I'm not sure of the best way to respond to this other than send a letter of complaint to the editor at Reuters. You have a great website--I found it by searching for "homeopathy, quackery, fraud". It's great that you take the time to do all of this!
Thanks,
(my name deleted), Ph.D.
Department of Biochemistry, (my university deleted)Barrett's response (the next day):
Only about 10% of articles about homeopathy are critical.
Yes, please send a protest letter to Reuters.
If you can figure out who on the Web uses the Reuters newsfeed, you
can send copies to them.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc.
NCAHF Vice President and Director of Internet Operations
P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105My letter to Reuters on June 18th (for which I received no response):
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the article of June18, 2001 titled "Homeopathic Metals May Cure All Manner of Ailments" by Karen Norton.
I am astonished to see a news organization of Reuters' caliber publish such a story, let alone under the category of "Science".
Homeopathy has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific and medical communities. Even the assumptions underlying the "theory" of homeopathy are, to put it mildly, flawed (ludicrous would be a better word). Homeopathy is nothing more than fraud and quackery disguised as alternative medicine. Please check with any of the leading research institutes, medical or scientific journals and you will get the same response.
I understand that homeopathy is currently popular in Europe with patients and many practitioners. However, this in no way validates the technique. Astrology and creation science are also popular--and there are even some who maintain that the earth is flat. Homeopathy in the same league as such beliefs. To present it as "Science News" does an incredible disservice to your readers, particularly those who are looking for medical information. Was a mainstream scientist or physician interviewed by this reporter? The complete one-sidedness of the article makes it appear more propaganda than reporting.
If I had more time, I would describe in detail why homeopathy is snake oil.
Reuters should be a dependable source of the best information on the web, not the worst. I am generally quite happy with Reuters' science reporting, but this story was truly appalling.
Sincerely,
(my name), Ph.D.
Department of Biochemistry
(my university address)Randal
Posted by BarbaraCat on August 22, 2002, at 2:14:06
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » BarbaraCat, posted by Randal on August 22, 2002, at 0:02:27
So, let's see. Jenner's supposition that milkmaids were able to resist smallpox by virtue of the fact that they handled infected cow's teats was based on the obvious? Where were his scientific studies? Is it possible that none of us knows all there is to know on any subject? We've ventured into the realm of arguing politics, religion and other sacred cows. However, I can't resist paraphrasing the Bard: 'There's more to Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Dr. Randal'. Cheers, Barbara
Posted by sjb on August 22, 2002, at 9:32:13
In reply to Re: binge-eating » sjb, posted by IsoM on August 21, 2002, at 14:14:11
Yes, 6 years of therapy with too many therapists to remember, numerous PDocs, OA, hospitalization and another treatment center that was awful.
My problem began with dieting and continues to be aggravated by restriction and training. I'm trying hard to remedy this, the restriction, not the training.
Posted by IsoM on August 22, 2002, at 13:10:02
In reply to Re: binge-eating, posted by sjb on August 22, 2002, at 9:32:13
Posted by Randal on August 22, 2002, at 13:51:35
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » Randal, posted by BarbaraCat on August 22, 2002, at 2:14:06
I did a quick google search on ( jenner milkmaids smallpox cowpox ). The first article that pops up says:
"Jenner was curious as to why milkmaids who came in contact with cows infected with a rash called cowpox didn't seem to get smallpox like everyone else. He noticed that the milkmaids got a similar rash, cowpox, on their hands after touching the cows during milking.
Jenner's careful observations led him to conclude that getting this milder form of infection must somehow protect the milkmaids. As an experiment, Jenner then deliberately gave people the mild cowpox infection to protect them against the more dangerous smallpox infection. "Now I don't know what was going through Jenner's mind at the time, but I assume he was aware of the fact that people infected with many diseases such a smallpox did not get the disease in the future. Given the fact that such epidemics would pass through every few years and kill a sizeable fraction of the population, it seems hard to believe that people back then would not have figured this one out.
So the fact that Jenner would guess that maybe a similar disease (Cowpox--was it called this back then?--if so people probably knew the disease was similar) would confer resistance to smallpox seems to me like a pretty reasonable deduction. I don't see a leap of faith here. In fact in retrospect it seems pretty "obvious" although one can often say that of great discoveries.
Now on to homeopathy. Hahnemann, who founded the field, made the hypothesis that if a substance caused the symptoms of a disease, that small amounts of that substance would treat the disease. This is refered to as "The Law of Similars". I know he did NOT use this, but as an example this would be like saying that because PCP causes symptoms similar to schizophrenia, minute doses would treat the disease.
Small doses in Homeopathy means immense dilutions, frequently to the extent that it is essentially impossible that there will be even one molecule of the compound. For example, what is sold as a 30C solution is diluted to the extent that a container of water 30 billion times the size of the earth would be required in order to have at least one molecule of the dissolved substance. So the homeopathic solution in many cases is nothing more than water.
The homeopathy crowd responds by saying that the water "remembers" the substance. When challenged with the physical implausibility of this argument they simply state that there are some things modern science doesn't understand yet. OK, so the hypothesis of a doctor 200 years ago means that modern physics is wrong, scientists don't know what they are talking about, etc. This seems like incredible rationalization to me.
And consider this: if water "remembers" what it has been in contact with, think of what else that water has been in contact with over its history. Additionally, what impurities are in that water in REAL quantities. We all are aware that the water we drink, even if it is incredibly pure, has at least minute quantities of hundreds of chemicals. Does each of these hundreds of chemicals have some unforeseen medicinal effect? Are these effects good or bad? It boggles the mind.
Barbara, to suggests that everyone who challenges such ideas is somehow ignorant of the spiritual side of things, or "will not look within" is a cop-out and insulting. Phil had said he would address this and I hope he does. There are many deeply religious and/or spiritual scientists (and others) who outright reject such things as homeopathy. I have certainly not been arguing "politics, religion and other sacred cows". I have not mentioned my philosophical, religious or spirtitual beliefs. I have simply been arguing about what is effective (and honest!) medical treatment.
Randal
> So, let's see. Jenner's supposition that milkmaids were able to resist smallpox by virtue of the fact that they handled infected cow's teats was based on the obvious? Where were his scientific studies? Is it possible that none of us knows all there is to know on any subject? We've ventured into the realm of arguing politics, religion and other sacred cows. However, I can't resist paraphrasing the Bard: 'There's more to Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Dr. Randal'. Cheers, Barbara
Posted by phil on August 23, 2002, at 7:11:52
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » BarbaraCat, posted by Randal on August 22, 2002, at 13:51:35
Haven't had time to research this guy enough but a few things jumped out at me when I saw his site.
He mentioned being a member of some Christian organization. I wonder if he was Islamic or practiced buddhism if that would be mentioned. It's a small thing but it's not. If he's a Christian, he hasn't figured out the idea of til death do us part. Not that many have.
He mentioned the money making machines but then says he isn't in it for a swimming pool and bigger house or whatever. Anybody that charges his marked up prices and says he just wants to make a difference is lying. I'd bet he has a huge house with a swimming pool already.
He's going the same route as Andrew Weil who I used to admire. Now Weil sells his own vitamins(of course, all profits go back into his company).
One of my brother's and I went through his 'Vitamin Advisor'. Between us, according to Weil, we should both be taking about $250.00 a month in vitamins.
Weil was busted on 60 Minutes before he made his own vitamins. Two of the brands he heavily promoted were independently tested and had very bad results. When asked about this, Weil said he would let the companies know. Yeah, right.www.mercola.com/article/eft.htm
Drop your greedy doctors because you can tap your chin and feel better. I'd like to really know how well EFT works. You can do it yourself or over the phone! Sounds like a psychic hotline.For a mere $50.00 you can restore your vision and throw your glasses away. An ebook for 50.00? Why not just sum it up? No hype?
EFT "Almost too good to be true. Teach yourself in 5 minutes or your money back." No hype?
Give me some studies.Get off your meds, throw away your glasses, and cure yourself by tapping on your chin(no more meds). What does it take to spot a quack. How about "Super Food"? A mere $80.00 for a 2 week supply.
Right beside his 'All health-no hype' is a headline screaming about EFT,"It ought to be illegal to
learn how to improve someone's health so quickly and rapidly." Yes and it probably is at least unethical.This is one guy I'd like to see Mike Wallace have a chat with.
Just an opinion,
Phil
I'm sure he has some very good ideas but I'd rather go elsewhere.
Posted by sjb on August 23, 2002, at 9:01:20
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers, posted by phil on August 23, 2002, at 7:11:52
Posted by Randal on August 23, 2002, at 12:42:55
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers, posted by phil on August 23, 2002, at 7:11:52
Phil,
I just can't resist this one. Here's something I found in Mercola's most recent newsletter at www.mercola.com It's from an article titled "McDonald's & Biophoton Deficiency".
"DNA is the central storage repository for light in our body and is twisted around itself in a double helix, which can turn right or left. It belongs to the group of nucleic acids, of which there are two chains: the DNA and the RNA. DNA and RNA are built like a helix. Both strands form the structure and consist of sugars and phosphate groups that show a basic reaction.
The links are attached to the sugars and are basic. However, there are only four bases in the DNA: adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. Only recently have researchers realized that cells do not simply absorb light but emit it coherently; the DNA and RNA molecules are a laser-active medium and can produce an optical hologram that communicates with the resonance of the background fields of our Earth and the planets as well as galaxies."
Now as someone who uses DNA and RNA on a daily basis, and has an advanced degree in biophysics, I can tell you that such ideas are well, um..."questionable" to put it politely. I showed it to a few people around here and we got a good laugh. One guy (who has a bipolar mother by the way) described the ideas as delusional. I was half-seriously thinking about posting it here and asking people whether they thought the thinking was more characteristic of manic psychosis or schizophrenia. I don't mean this as an insult to anyone--I've certainly had my own bizarre thinking while manic.So the question is: what does this say about Mercola? I'm assuming (hoping!) that he's not in need of antipsychotic medication (and again, no offense to anyone). Presumably he got this gem from someone else.
This raises the question: Is Mercola able (or willing) to critically judge information provided to him??
This is exactly why we need watchdog organizations like Quackwatch: to fill in the gaps of our own knowledge. With all the information out there none of us (including those with a background in medical research!) can know everything. If someone throws out terms like DNA, RNA and photon, I think some people will just assume he knows what he's talking about. I'm guessing that the part about communicating with the resonance of the background fields of the planets and galaxies clued in a lot of people, though...
Randal
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again"-- Alexander Pope
> Haven't had time to research this guy enough but a few things jumped out at me when I saw his site.
>
> He mentioned being a member of some Christian organization. I wonder if he was Islamic or practiced buddhism if that would be mentioned. It's a small thing but it's not. If he's a Christian, he hasn't figured out the idea of til death do us part. Not that many have.
>
> He mentioned the money making machines but then says he isn't in it for a swimming pool and bigger house or whatever. Anybody that charges his marked up prices and says he just wants to make a difference is lying. I'd bet he has a huge house with a swimming pool already.
>
> He's going the same route as Andrew Weil who I used to admire. Now Weil sells his own vitamins(of course, all profits go back into his company).
> One of my brother's and I went through his 'Vitamin Advisor'. Between us, according to Weil, we should both be taking about $250.00 a month in vitamins.
> Weil was busted on 60 Minutes before he made his own vitamins. Two of the brands he heavily promoted were independently tested and had very bad results. When asked about this, Weil said he would let the companies know. Yeah, right.
>
> www.mercola.com/article/eft.htm
> Drop your greedy doctors because you can tap your chin and feel better. I'd like to really know how well EFT works. You can do it yourself or over the phone! Sounds like a psychic hotline.
>
> For a mere $50.00 you can restore your vision and throw your glasses away. An ebook for 50.00? Why not just sum it up? No hype?
>
> EFT "Almost too good to be true. Teach yourself in 5 minutes or your money back." No hype?
> Give me some studies.
>
> Get off your meds, throw away your glasses, and cure yourself by tapping on your chin(no more meds). What does it take to spot a quack. How about "Super Food"? A mere $80.00 for a 2 week supply.
>
> Right beside his 'All health-no hype' is a headline screaming about EFT,"It ought to be illegal to
> learn how to improve someone's health so quickly and rapidly." Yes and it probably is at least unethical.
>
> This is one guy I'd like to see Mike Wallace have a chat with.
>
> Just an opinion,
>
> Phil
>
> I'm sure he has some very good ideas but I'd rather go elsewhere.
>
>
>
Posted by IsoM on August 23, 2002, at 15:59:13
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » phil, posted by Randal on August 23, 2002, at 12:42:55
Thought you might appreciate this one, Randal.
I use supplements judiciously & while looking for a particular mineral, saw a new supplement being offered. Picking it up, it said that it contained compounds essential for life found in fresh fruits & vegetables. The ingredients listed were different disaccharides & polysaccharides, plus a few inert binders. Yes, sugar pills! I shook my head in disbelief. I no longer see it offered. I guess not eveyone is as stupid as manufactors would like us to be.
Another new offer that ticks me off is SOD (superoxide dismutase), an enzyme said to have remarkable antioxidant properties. Never mind that it's among the commonest proteins in our body & is found in all our cells & that of the plants & meats we eat. Never mind that when we do eat it, it's digested into the amino acids that make it up & is no longer SOD. Never mind that the amounts offered in pill form are minute & not even listed by weight.
There's a lot of money to be made by marketing half-truths.
Posted by Randal on August 23, 2002, at 20:55:31
In reply to False Advertising » Randal, posted by IsoM on August 23, 2002, at 15:59:13
> Thought you might appreciate this one, Randal.
>
> I use supplements judiciously & while looking for a particular mineral, saw a new supplement being offered. Picking it up, it said that it contained compounds essential for life found in fresh fruits & vegetables. The ingredients listed were different disaccharides & polysaccharides, plus a few inert binders. Yes, sugar pills! I shook my head in disbelief. I no longer see it offered. I guess not eveyone is as stupid as manufactors would like us to be.
>
> Another new offer that ticks me off is SOD (superoxide dismutase), an enzyme said to have remarkable antioxidant properties. Never mind that it's among the commonest proteins in our body & is found in all our cells & that of the plants & meats we eat. Never mind that when we do eat it, it's digested into the amino acids that make it up & is no longer SOD. Never mind that the amounts offered in pill form are minute & not even listed by weight.
>
> There's a lot of money to be made by marketing half-truths.Those are great stories!
Actually I think the makers of the sugar pill really missed out. Think of it: they could've said that controlled scientific studies have shown that this supplement is just as effective for treating condition "x" as drug "y", as effective as supplement "a" for disease "b" and list all sorts of cases where a particular drug or supplement has been shown to be no more effective than placebo/sugar pill. They could make all sorts of (sometimes surprising) claims, and hey, they wouldn't even be saying anything untrue. Call the supplement something like MAX-PlaCeBo, package it well, and they could probably make a lot of money.
I have to admit that a couple times in the past I have actually walked into a vitamin store SOLELY for entertainment.
Unfortunately, a lot of people with serious illnesses do take things that either do nothing or make things worse. Very sad. I suppose I should make the disclaimer that I do take some supplements (a multivitamin and omega-3 fatty acids), and clearly not everything out there is bad.
Randal
Posted by IsoM on August 24, 2002, at 1:24:46
In reply to Truth in advertising » IsoM, posted by Randal on August 23, 2002, at 20:55:31
I certainly take my share of supplements, but I have a small appetite now. My food intake isn't great enough to provide all the nutrients I need. When I was young, I ate like a lumberjack, the envy of my friends. I could shovel the food in & would often go back for seconds & sometimes thirds. Yet I stayed rail thin at 5'6" & 115 lb. (No, not hyperthyroidic either.)
My metabolism is still great for my age but I only eat twice a day now, plus a bit of nibbling here & there through the day. I'm a firm believer of keeping mineral & vitamin intake fairly high as we age since assimilation tends to suffer as with age. I have no wish to develop osteoporosis or any other problems associated with age-related deficiencies.
I must do something right as I simply don't get ill. My immune system is iron-clad, no allergies whatsoever either. Any problems I have are all related to neurological problems that have been there throughout my life. So you better be careful about what sort of supplements you're going to trash. ^_^
Just an extra - what area in biochemistry is your expertise in? Probably as a professor, you might teach outside your forte too, but I'm curious nonetheless. There's just so much to know now (& to continue learning) in biochemistry compared to when I was young. I still love organic chemistry coupled with biology. It's fascinating.
I so wish I could start over again from youth, but I'd still be faced with the same impossible decision - what to end up specializing in. It's all equally interesting to me, the choice is incredibly difficult to make.
P.S. I managed a health food store for a while years ago, but gave people the straight goods on what was real & what wasn't. I'm not sure the owner would've appreciated it all. I still have fun arguing with some brash young uninformed salepersons trying to flog dubious products on customers. (Take note of the word 'flog'. Sound info, I have no problems with.)
Posted by Randal on August 24, 2002, at 14:11:10
In reply to Re: Supplements as we age » Randal, posted by IsoM on August 24, 2002, at 1:24:46
Hi,
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all supplements are bad--I tried to make that clear when in my previous post I said:
"I suppose I should make the disclaimer that I do take some supplements (a multivitamin and omega-3 fatty acids), and clearly not everything out there is bad."
Of course I could throw out the usual statistics that 25% of all prescription drugs and 50% of all over-the-counter medications (or whatever numbers people use these days) are in fact derived from plant sources. And non-plant "natural" medications brings to mind Lithium, for example.
However, there are a lot of things out there that are bogus, for example the SOD that you mentioned earlier. As you also point out, based on your background and experience, you are well aware that the people selling these things are not necessarily knowledgeable. A health food or vitamin store is not a pharmacy, and people shouldn't approach it as such. I really think we are in complete agreement here.
I don't want to get *too* specific on my background here, as I want to maintain some anonymity. I'm not actually a professor, but a postdoc, the stage between graduate school and a professorship (which means I am still actually working in the lab, as opposed to most professors!). My work involves the function of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and proteins, many of which are enzymes. My particular work right now is basic science and not (directly) medically relevant, but some people in my field work in areas that are directly involved with medicine and drug development. People I work with sometimes say we do cancer research, and this is not entirely untrue, since we study basic cellular functions that can go awry in cancer and other diseases. We are funded in part by cancer research foundations. My field straddles Biology, Chemistry and Physics, and people work in departments named with various combinations of the above fields (Biochemistry, etc...). Hopefully this is informative while still being ambiguous!
Randal
> I certainly take my share of supplements, but I have a small appetite now. My food intake isn't great enough to provide all the nutrients I need. When I was young, I ate like a lumberjack, the envy of my friends. I could shovel the food in & would often go back for seconds & sometimes thirds. Yet I stayed rail thin at 5'6" & 115 lb. (No, not hyperthyroidic either.)
>
> My metabolism is still great for my age but I only eat twice a day now, plus a bit of nibbling here & there through the day. I'm a firm believer of keeping mineral & vitamin intake fairly high as we age since assimilation tends to suffer as with age. I have no wish to develop osteoporosis or any other problems associated with age-related deficiencies.
>
> I must do something right as I simply don't get ill. My immune system is iron-clad, no allergies whatsoever either. Any problems I have are all related to neurological problems that have been there throughout my life. So you better be careful about what sort of supplements you're going to trash. ^_^
>
> Just an extra - what area in biochemistry is your expertise in? Probably as a professor, you might teach outside your forte too, but I'm curious nonetheless. There's just so much to know now (& to continue learning) in biochemistry compared to when I was young. I still love organic chemistry coupled with biology. It's fascinating.
>
> I so wish I could start over again from youth, but I'd still be faced with the same impossible decision - what to end up specializing in. It's all equally interesting to me, the choice is incredibly difficult to make.
>
> P.S. I managed a health food store for a while years ago, but gave people the straight goods on what was real & what wasn't. I'm not sure the owner would've appreciated it all. I still have fun arguing with some brash young uninformed salepersons trying to flog dubious products on customers. (Take note of the word 'flog'. Sound info, I have no problems with.)
Posted by IsoM on August 25, 2002, at 1:10:54
In reply to Re: Supplements as we age » IsoM, posted by Randal on August 24, 2002, at 14:11:10
Don't worry, Randal, I'm not that sensitive, I was joking - that's why I put in the silly smilie ^_^
Sadly, many of these bogus supplements are sold in pharmacies, sitting alongside helpful supplements, adding some credence to the idea of their uselfulness.To be honest, what you do sounds better than simply teaching (though I know there are few professors who only teach). A question for you:
I know there are thousands of different proteins in the body, all with their own unique 3D structure. As you know, the folding of a chain of thousands of amino acids into its final tertiary or quaternary structure involves many foldings (& unfoldings) along the way. Do you think it'll ever become possible for scientists to discover a way to find out what all the steps to the final structure are? It's one thing to unfold (denature) a protein, but entirely another to know what was involved initially.
Excuse me if I haven't worded the question peoperly, but I hope you understand it. It seems the more I've learned, the more questions I've got. I wish I could pick someone's brains each time I wonder about something & can't find an answer.
Posted by Randal on August 25, 2002, at 22:37:40
In reply to Re: Supplements, Jokes, and a Question » Randal, posted by IsoM on August 25, 2002, at 1:10:54
> Don't worry, Randal, I'm not that sensitive, I was joking - that's why I put in the silly smilie ^_^
> Sadly, many of these bogus supplements are sold in pharmacies, sitting alongside helpful supplements, adding some credence to the idea of their uselfulness.
>
> To be honest, what you do sounds better than simply teaching (though I know there are few professors who only teach). A question for you:
>
> I know there are thousands of different proteins in the body, all with their own unique 3D structure. As you know, the folding of a chain of thousands of amino acids into its final tertiary or quaternary structure involves many foldings (& unfoldings) along the way. Do you think it'll ever become possible for scientists to discover a way to find out what all the steps to the final structure are? It's one thing to unfold (denature) a protein, but entirely another to know what was involved initially.
>
> Excuse me if I haven't worded the question peoperly, but I hope you understand it. It seems the more I've learned, the more questions I've got. I wish I could pick someone's brains each time I wonder about something & can't find an answer.That's a very active field of research, and there has been a lot of progress in understanding things. Here's a simplified view: The overall process seems to involve a rapid formation of secondary structure (alpha helices and beta sheet). This collapses into the compact "correct" structure, which can occur with or without intermediates. The steps in the folding pathway have been delineated for a number of proteins. In a cell, of course, things can be somewhat different, since the protein (or pieces of it) may be folding while the polypeptide chain is still being extruded from the ribosome. Additionally, the folding of many proteins in the cell, especially large ones, is actually assisted by other proteins (called "chaperones").
Here's a couple references if you can retrieve them:
S.E. Radford, "Protein folding: progress made and promises ahead" Trends in Biochemical Sciences 25 (12): 611-618 DEC 2000.
D. Baker "A surprising simplicity to protein folding" NATURE 405 (6782): 39-42 MAY 4 2000.
But this is getting WAY off topic. In an attempt to bring it back at least a little bit, I'll mention that many neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's and BSE (mad cow disease), are associated with the misfolding and aggregation of proteins. So finding drugs that can inhibit or reverse the misfolding is a big priority.
A reference: Taylor, et al. "Toxic proteins in neurodegenerative disease" SCIENCE 296 (5575): 1991-1995 JUN 14 2002.
Posted by IsoM on August 26, 2002, at 0:41:42
In reply to Re: Supplements, Jokes, and a Question » IsoM, posted by Randal on August 25, 2002, at 22:37:40
I followed Dr. Stanley Prusiner's initial ideas about the causes of diseases like kuru, CJD, & scapie with interest when I first read about it in the early 90s. I remember how his ideas about prions was discounted by some in the scientific community. I'm glad he won the recognition & credit he deserved. It was his ideas about prions that first sparked my interest in protein folding. Interesting now that prions aren't all thought to be aberrant, but some are thought to have a purpose. Things are rarely as simple & clearcut as they may appear at first.
If I have difficulty in getting hold of any of the articles you mention (thanks for the links), I'm on good terms with the head of the biology department at the nearby u. & she'd help me get them. I knew (but forgot) that part of the polypeptide chain can already be folded while part of it is still coming off the ribosome.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.