Mercola gets the boot from Eenfeldt

#1

Wow, just saw a posting on the dietdoctor website that Dr Eenfeldt removed a recent video interview with Dr Mercola. I guess because he received a lot of grief from viewers. Dr Mercola is quite controversial and does not fit in any category. I have seen other controversial parties on the dietdoctor site (just look at the news blog link list), but I have to admit, I was surprised to see this recent move by Dr Eenfeldt. Is there another back story I am not aware of, or just what he said in the video?

(Kathy Swanson) #2

Dr Eenfeldt is not specific as to why he deleted the interview being vague about scientific reasons. Since he deleted the interview we aren’t able to come to our own conclusion about what Dr. Mercola said. You made me curious.

(Steven Cook) #3

Having watched the video from the link on dietdoctor, I can only assume that Dr Mercola’s theories on the damaging effect of artificial light was step too far for some subscribers. It’s understandable, especially if your only source of info/research is dietdoctor itself.

(Zack F) #4

Mercola’s been called a lot of things but one thing he does that I’ve been impressed with is…wait for it…changed his views as he learns more. He’s interviewed folks like Dr. Fung, Dr. Seyfried, Dr. McGuff and at least a score others that have added to the body of knowledge that we benefit from today. I would hope a thorough explanation would be forthcoming as to why the interview was removed. Robb Wolf had a good point in a talk he gave recently where rigorous medical skepticism has given way to just checking wikipedia for a reigning theory and dismissing inquiry into anything else. That is what was done to Noakes, Atkins and many others.

(Larry Lustig) #5

He probably fits into many categories; one of them is scam artist. I, for one, am extremely distressed to see important proponents of a science based approach to ketogenic eating cleave to this guy.

Mercola is a salesman first and last. His interest in medical technology and theory appears driven largely by his ability to monetize that information. I appreciate the desire people may have to leverage Mercola’s large following to reach more people but, ultimately, I don’t think getting on the wrong side of both science and ethics is going to help the cause.

(Michael Wallace Ellwood) #6

I don’t feel so harsh about him, but I don’t know exactly quite how to take him.

I think he performs a useful function, and I’ve learned quite a bit from some of his articles, and sometimes even more from the comments below. However, comments I make usually end up getting negative points, so I’m still shown as a “beginner” (or whatever) (whereas I regard myself as quite an experienced amateur student of health and nutrition). I think I must say things that people there don’t want to hear but I’m always polite, open-minded, and only say what I honestly believe.

#7

I just noticed a long comments list exploded on the diet doctor site as a result of this.

Reading through the comments, it reminded me that Ivor did the interview with Mercola. That’s the other shocker. What was Ivor doing, interviewing Mercola?

Bizarre.

(Karen Parrott) #8

Mercola is known for his anti-Vaxxer ideas. Nothing gets people more riled up in the US & Canada than that topic in the health space

(Crow T. Robot) #9

That was my first thought when I heard about this. I don’t know that he is anti-vax or not, but I’ve noticed that just the act of keeping an open mind about it is enough to get people angry and putting labels on you. It’s basically the medical/political 3rd rail.

(Michael Wallace Ellwood) #10

Andrew Wakefield put in an appearance in the UK recently (not sure if just visiting or meaning to come back here). A lot of hate pieces against him appeared in the papers, and even on a supposedly serious science programme on BBC Radio 4, a science journalist did a hatchet job on him (someone who previously had done another hatchet job on him, supposedly “exposing” his supposed sins/crimes. I think he’d have a reasonable case for a libel suit.

I don’t want to get into a debate about vaccination here (obviously), but on a purely scientific level, the way he (Wakefield) is treated, as well as being cruel on a human level, is actually irrational, and it is now impossible, ever, to have a serious debate, or even conversation, about vaccination. It’s treated like a religious truth that must never be questioned, that vaccination is always a good thing, and to question this is tantamount to murdering little children. Whatever this is, it is not good science.

Two points my wife often makes are:

  1. I doubt if most new mothers in their 20s in the UK had ever heard of Andrew Wakefield (until told about him by the recent press broadsides). But every time there is a panic about poor vaccination uptake in the UK, Wakefield always seems to get the blame…and yet it is almost 20 years since the Wakefield case.

  2. It’s not as though Wakefield was against vaccination at the time (he may be now). All he was doing was suggesting that maybe, it’s not a good idea to inject very little babies with a multiple vaccination, especially when their immune system is not yet fully developed, and that maybe, just maybe, we should pause this experiment (because that’s what it was in reality, at the time), and go back to the old way of doing it (i.e. separate injections, and at an older age).

But when the hue and cry goes out for a witch hunt, logic and science go out of the window.

Also his warnings/information that (I think) most if not all austistic children he had treated had some sort of GI tract problem, and that was something that should be looked at. i.e. he seemed to have noticed an association, and that it would be a good idea for research to be done to look into possible causation. However, amid all the fuss about MMR, this important point got neglected and forgotten.

Here we go:

http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info/p/autism-gi-problems/

Recent research shows that more than 50% of children with autism have GI symptoms, food allergies, and maldigestion or malabsorption issues (Horvath).

That seems to be a reference to a paper published in November 1999. Well Wakefield already knew about this connection in 1998 at least.

(And guess what: looks like a low-carb diet would help).

(Crow T. Robot) #11

Wakefield=Emmanuel Goldstein?

(jketoscribe) #12

I’ll say I was one of the people who complained about his endorsement on Diet Doctor.

Mercola says many things I agree with but he also spouts a lot of pseudoscience and fear mongering. And yes, he is all about the marketing. For example, he encourages people to make and eat fermented foods, but those foods aren’t “properly fermented” unless you buy and use his overpriced cultures (organic veggies come with their own cultures which are FREE). Because of his pseudoscience, fear mongering, and marketing hype, I do not feel like he is a credible source, even when I agree with his position.

Mercola spoke at the National Heirloom Food Exposition in my town and I went specifically to hear him speak. He came off as very arrogant and condescending. I did not disagree with the bulk of what he said, but how he presented it came off very poorly to me and I think to many of the attendees.

I feel like associating with him and presenting him as a credible source undermines the credibility of Diet Doctor and I’m glad that organization is choosing to disassociate themselves with him.

(Karen Parrott) #13

Thanks for your comments and experience, Jan. Mercola will be speaking at Low Carb USA in Aug 2017. Fortunately the venue is on the scenic waterfront in San Diego.

Perfect for getting my walk in or heading home early.

(Michael Wallace Ellwood) #14

Thanks for the insights. I have my own reservations about Mercola, but as an inveterate lover of gossip, I’d love to know the particular reason(s) why Mercola got the boot.