Feedback
Stan Litras from Great Teeth Dental Care left us feedback to our Facts on Fluoride Action Network’s visit to NZ press release.
Hi Dan, Ken and pals. My wife, Ellen, does not have a Facebook account as you are aware. As a favour, she has requested I post her quote. As her husband and best friend, I have agreed to do so…
“MSOF: I am saddened by the indignity of your regard for Paul Connett. You claim to be proponents of science, discussing, critiquing and debunking… or at least certainly attempting with much gusto to debunk scientific literature that is an ill-fit with your fluoridation agenda. Commonly I find splashed across your Facebook page cries of poor methodology and confounding factors not accounted for. Oh my goodness! Flaws! In scientific papers! Well, from my investigations I have found that perfect research is hard to come by! If you try hard enough you can find fault in even the most coveted studies. And it seems to me that when you run out of bullets to fire at studies that, shall we say, don’t fit the bill, many regular MSOF contributors merrily resort to petty digs, personal insults, and defamatory statements against colleagues who do not share the MSOF view of the literature.
Dan and Ken, it is not “Dr Paul Connett”. As you are more than aware, it is “Professor Paul Connett”. And Paul is not a ‘fringe dweller’ or ‘a quack’. He has a mainstream qualification (a PHD in chemistry) from a reputable international university. Furthermore, from the perspective of his training, Paul has dedicated years of his life to studying the science behind fluoridation. Tens of thousands of hours. What about you folk at MSOF? I’m not normally one to prompt “proboscis” measuring contests, but I venture that even if we consider all of your efforts combined, Paul has critiqued more fluoridation studies and in greater depth. Paul has travelled the world over and over at his own expense for years on end giving public talks (many free and others with a nominal charge to cover venue expenses), and co-wrote and published a well-known text which has made no profit and which lists a substantial chunk of his most commonly referenced citations up to, if I recall correctly, 2010. I for one feel most grateful for Paul’s dedication to science and commitment to encouraging every Joe and Jane Bloggs, key decision maker, and health professional around the globe to discuss fluoridation and fluoridation health policy, including whether in fact it is justified. He is not the only science PHD around, but he is without a doubt one of the most principled. This is one Professor who is not for sale or hire, who honours and cherishes science, a Professor with zero commercial bias who detests corporates cloaking their interests in scientific pretences, because he is absolutely passionate about science and scientific values. He is a purist and has nothing but contempt for those who mock science by illogically and erroneously using it to endorse nonsense endeavours. Professor Paul Connett is to be applauded for this. Try as hard as you can to dig dirt on this man of science and you will be bitterly disappointed. His record both personally and professionally is spotless.
In closing, I consider Professor Connett’s scientific position on water fluoridation reflects the weight of evidence, and I am convinced by his assertion that health risks cannot be excluded, that current research reflects this, that more and more studies will emerge linking fluoridation to health and developmental problems, and that the precautionary principle is warranted and thus fluoridation should cease immediately.
A final matter: if even one regular contributor to MSOF has a resume that is even remotely comparable to Professor Connett’s in terms of his investigations of fluoridation science and also his tireless public service I would sincerely be interested in hearing about it! In closing, because I object to the slurs and mudslinging that occurs all too frequently on the MSOF page, this is my last post and I will do my utmost best to make others aware that MSOF has a “science is settled” approach to fluoridation i.e., MSOF has a clear fluoridation bias and proactively seeks to discredit rather than objectively consider new science that challenges this position, and that anyone looking for polite stimulating and fruitful discussion/ debate should avoid MSOF like the plague. No more to add.
Farewell, and happy pertinacious debunking and clod-hurling folks.
Ellen.”
We thank Stan and Ellen for giving us feedback. We acknowledge we are not perfect and always looking for areas that this society can improve. But I hope to clear up some claims that were said.
MSOF
Proponents of science
Yes, we are “proponents of science”. The objectives of the MSoF incorporated society are:
- To foster awareness and dispel misinformation regarding fluoride with a focus on CWF.
- Use the scientific method as the foundational platform upon which this awareness is promoted.
We continue to use only the best evidence and the scientific consensus.
Agenda
We have no “fluoridation agenda”. I can’t speak for the rest, but personally, I’m pro-science so I hate to see misinformation and I don’t want to see unnecessary suffering from children. If you call that an agenda, so be it.
Science is settled
As Sir Peter Gluckman has said, “the science of fluoride in water is effectively settled”. We are all for continued monitoring and more peer review research around water fluoridation. When there is a repeatable high-quality study that shows fluoridation causes harm then we will be joining the scientific community to get it removed.
Paul Connett
Title
We know Dr Paul Connett has an Emeritus Professor title, but he is also has a PhD in Chemistry, so either title is fine. I tried to look up which is more respectable and came to an article – Dr Who or Professor Who? On Academic Email Etiquette – that says:
In the USA, the title Professor is used differently, often in a teaching context (e.g., in class, or in emails between students and their teachers) and is not reserved for senior academics with PhDs etc. The majority of our US/academic respondents felt that “Dear Dr ” was the most appropriate way to address a full professor – recognising their academic qualification. Some responses implied that “Dr” is seen as a higher status title (contrasting with the UK position), but there was less consensus about this and the titles appear more interchangeable in the US.
Quack?
If someone has a mainstream qualification it doesn’t mean they are not “a quack” in some way. For example, Dr Linus Pauling, who won two Nobel Prizes, believed that high-dose vitamin C cured cancer and other ills, even though no other study supported this.
Our press release didn’t call Dr Connett a quack, it just pointed out his flaws. Quackwatch does have an article on him though and he has shown that he has a distrust for vaccines and seems to believe in a conspiracy around the FDA and the CDC and the “pharmaceutical industry”.
MSOF Resume
At MSoF we have several dentists, scientists and other health experts helping us out. We have many people who have more experience in terms of their degrees, the number of peer-reviewed papers written and even the number of hours of research than Dr Connett. Most of our experts like to stick to the background because they do not want to be attacked by anti-fluoridationists; some are even worried about their own children if they speak out. MSoF gives these experts a way to speak out behind a respected society to remove the misinformation around fluoridation.
While Dr Connett might be a good chemist and we are not denying this, he can’t call himself a toxicologist, a dentist, a general practitioner, etc. Even if we didn’t have any experts behind us, we are not the ones going against the scientific consensus, unlike Dr Connett.
Cherishes Science
Dr Connett’s organisation, FAN, has close financial links to Joseph Mercola and is part of his “Health Liberty” organisation. And Mercola makes all sorts of ‘illogical and erroneous’ claims about science e.g. that statins and vaccines are bad, and that HIV does not cause AIDS. If he “cherishes science” he wouldn’t be working with Mercola. Skeptoid voted Mercola to be one of the top 10 anti-science websites around.
Science
Precautionary Principle
I feel you are abusing the precautionary principle. As you should know dental decay remains the single most prevalent common chronic (and irreversible) disease among all ages, and disparities still exist in oral health. Consequences include; pain, infection, bad breath and foul tastes, impaired chewing ability, tooth loss, compromised appearance, decreased the quality of life, personal financial costs as well as indirect costs to society. Without fluoridation, you are knowingly putting unnecessary suffering on children.
Flaws in Papers
The hierarchy of scientific evidence
No peer-reviewed paper is perfect, but that is no reason to ignore the hierarchy of scientific evidence. We shouldn’t be focusing on low-quality research when there have been better studies written. The anti-fluoride groups do this all the time. There have been 17 major peer-reviews of fluoridation undertaken across the world by recognised academic authorities in the past twenty years, all showing the safety and efficiency of fluoridation. There is no respected health organisation that is against fluoridation.
Recently, dental leaders, representing over one million dentists in 134 countries, reaffirmed their strong support for fluoridation as essential in promoting oral health. The assembly of the annual meeting of the FDI, world dental federation, reaffirmed its strong support for fluoridation. They stated that:
- Over seventy years of research and recent systematic reviews have shown that water fluoridation is an effective public health measure for the prevention of dental decay in children and adults.
- Water fluoridation is particularly appropriate for populations demonstrating moderate to high risk of dental decay.
- Water fluoridation confers positive health savings and contributes to reducing disparities in the rates of dental decay in communities.
- At the fluoride concentrations recommended for the prevention of dental decay, scientific research and reviews show that human general health is not adversely affected.
- The public health benefits of water fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay far outweigh the possible occurrence of very mild/mild dental fluorosis.
TLDR
MSoF will stick with the scientific consensus and best evidence instead of following the views of the founder and leading protagonist of ‘Fluoride Action Network – a single-issue activist group.
We thank Stan and Ellen for the criticism.
Ellen says of Paul Connett, “He is not the only science PHD around, but he is without a doubt one of the most principled. . . . Try as hard as you can to dig dirt on this man of science and you will be bitterly disappointed. His record both personally and professionally is spotless.” Ellen, I corresponded with Paul Connett in October of 2014. I copied several people on an email including Paul, our local media, and a health care professional who had interest in the subject matter. She (the health care professional) replied to me, intending it to be a private email, but inadvertently pressed “reply to all” so that Professor Connett received a copy of her private correspondence to me. Connett smelled blood, and in an effort to embarrass and humiliate her, he misquoted her, twisting her words and intent, and “replied to all” so that the media was included in his response. Ellen, I have rarely seen less principled behavior. He has openly misquoted, among others, Mr. Thomas Reeves, former CDC Fluoridation Engineer on his webpage. (I see that he has since removed that after being publicly called on it.) Moreover, Professor John Spencer of Adelaide University, in 2005, said, “Dr Connett misrepresents my study as an analysis of the benefits of water fluoridation, which it was not. He also misinterprets the study’s indirect evidence on the benefits of water fluoridation of decay.” Ok, Ellen, let’s recap. Professor Connett misquotes others not only to further his agenda of raising undue paranoia about drinking water (which would of course financially benefit Mercola LLC with whom the Fluoride Action Network is affiliated through Health Liberty) but also for the personal pleasure of embarrassing and humiliating health care professionals, and he misrepresents studies. Ellen, you have really lowered the bar for the definition of the word “principled.”
“No peer-reviewed paper is perfect, but that is no reason to ignore the hierarchy of scientific evidence.”
Seems to be special pleading because you seem to wish to stop people considering anything of the worth of someone like Mercola if they try to warn people of rhabdomyolysis and AZT iatrogenics when their doctors don’t.
Soundhill, what peer-reviewed papers of Mercola’s are you referring to? Please provde citations and links.
“The adverse event profile appears similar for adults and children. The following events have been reported in patients treated with Retrovir. They may also occur as part of the underlying disease process in association with other medicinal products used in the management of HIV disease. The relationship between these events and use of Retrovir is therefore difficult to evaluate, particularly in the medically complicated situations which characterise advanced HIV disease.” That is from our Medsafe and they would not have to say that it is difficult to know whether it is the HIV or the treating drug causing the symptoms if research had been done. So patients are getting symptoms and the docs cannot say if it is the drug or the HIV. Mercola warns about that. He also warns about the rhabdomyolysis side effect of statins when not all doctors tell their patients. That does not require another scientific paper, there are plenty on it.
So nothing to do with peer-reviewed papers then, Soundhill. Or to do with scientific evidence. Just another weak chance for you to promote one of your heroes.
Are you getting any financial kickback for this?
Ken, most doctors know about the power of placebo, and they do not wish to bring doubts into patients minds when they prescribe a drug. Mercola is a fully qualified medical doctor who believes that in the case of statins against cholesterol and AZT against HIV that the benefit of leaving the patient confident is outweighed by the negative effects of the drugs. I am not sure how to search for research on that.
As I have recently pointed out on Openparachute, many drugs only have an effect of -0.1SD. The placebo effect can be very important.
Oh, it’s just belief now. No evidence, no peer reviewed papers. Does Mwecola have any peer-reviewed publications at all?
Ken the only kickback I get is the feeling I may have advanced knowledge. That is of course subjective and see more on that in this extra reference I choose to post now. It also expands on the work of Gøtzsche whose work was in my recent openparachute posts. In this ref but not from Gøtzsche: “Withdrawal symptoms can also occur after placebo treatment. This was found, for example, after the discontinuation of the Women’s Health Initiative study of hormone replacement therapy for menopause. Women had been on placebo for an average of 5.7 years. Moderate or severe withdrawal symptoms were reported by 40.5% of those on placebo compared to 63.3% of those on hormone replacement.” I feel people on this group ought to have an extremely good understanding of placebo. Ken I quite often think you are trying to work with placebo associated with science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
soundhill :/
no peer review whatsoever…
Luke, I would be interested to know how you know this study was not peer reviewed: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201216
Ken Mercola is on google scholar quite a bit. Here is something of his that might apply if anyone is testing stuff on rabbits and thinking that makes it OK for humans: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001448358290027 The is also a bit of the usual “scientific” types worried about the rise of CAM and telling editors not to post anything of Mercola’s.
The link is broken.
doi:10.1001/jama.1987.03400210061017 try that or in google.
It only gives the first 11 lines.
Ken has been asking me for refs now how about I return the request for verification of your claim that Mercola says HIV does not cause AIDS.
“In the US, more than one million people are living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).1 The virus causes serious damage to your immune system, which leaves you vulnerable to disease-causing organisms, and may progress into AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome).” That is from his website on Dec 9, 2013.
Mercola may be one of the early workers to help prevent the spread of the disease, There may be some over-estimation in this letter on the future of pediatrics to JAMA in 1987: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=369482 but sometimes overestimation is needed to avoid trouble. (Note the case with the worry about year 2000 causing computer programs not to work, which got people to work against it.)
There looks to be more to Ellen’s comments than you will admit.
“verification of your claim that Mercola says HIV does not cause AIDS”
He might have changed his mind and if that is the case I will happily update this article to reflect that.
“Mercola has questioned whether HIV is the cause of AIDS. He says that the manifestations of AIDS (including opportunistic infections and death) may be the result of “psychological stress” brought on by the belief that HIV is harmful. The scientific community considers the evidence that HIV causes AIDS to be conclusive. Mercola.com has also featured positive presentations of the claims of AIDS denialists, a fringe group which denies the existence of AIDS and/or the role of HIV in causing it.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
Sources:
http://www.donotlink.com/ftv
https://web.archive.org/web/20081008220913/http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/09/05/hiv-aids.aspx
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2012/Dr-Joseph-Mercola-Visionary-or-Quack/
Are your first two links after the wiki to the same article? The title has a question after it. It poses the same problem as our Medsafe about AIDS drugs. It says a patient may be HIV positive still but recover from AIDS when attention is given to the T cells. Mercoal has put the question up, now here may be a reply for his courage: http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/rccm.201501-0011ED?journalCode=ajrccm#.VPQ1duErIoE
I ask you not to put weight on loosely talking articles. Here is an example from your 4th ref:
“He even advocates something considered outright heresy to most skin doctors: the use of tanning beds. Specifically, he recommends the Mercola Vitality Home Tanning Bed—on sale at his site for $2,997 (“Incredible Deal!”), free shipping within the continental United States for a limited time, returns subject to customer-paid shipping plus a 15 percent restocking fee.”
Please verify which “tanning beds”.
Normal tanning beds produce UVA which tans the skin but also destroys ay vitamin D on it and does not produce vitamin D. Thereby they predispose to cancer. Vitmain D is need in our bodies for a number of reasons, one is to promote cell differentiation and differentiated cells do not proliferate.
By implying all the other “tanning beds” as the same thing as Mercola’s the article suffers a severe loss of credibility or dignity.
Your 4th ref is fabricating: “For example, his site includes an article by a California doctor titled “HIV Does Not Cause AIDS.” Mercola posted a comment at the end of the article: “Exposure to steroids and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress, and poor nutrition are possibly the real causes.””
I cannot find it on Mercola’s site, but read it here:
http://aids-science.blogspot.co.nz/
“Comment by Dr. Joseph Mercola:
‘For many this will be new information, although Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Horowitz have been taking similar positions for many years. Dr. Al-Bayati provides a solid piece of scientific support for the position that HIV does not cause AIDS. Exposure to steroids and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress and poor nutrition are the real causes.'”
He is not saying it is conclusive. He says it is a position, and he is reporting what Dr Al-Bayati forwards. It is not his theory which your ref makes out it is.
20 percent off.
I see this article was deleted off his website, wiki also used this as a source:
http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/hiv-does-not-cause-aids.html
This old link of “articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/azt.aspx”
Now forwards the link to:
“articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/01/spirulina-the-amazing-super-food-youve-never-heard-of.aspx”
Could you please point me to where he says HIV never causes AIDS as opposed to saying such things as it’s not known how HIV suppresses T cells? And how it’s known that AZT does suppress them?
He says:
“Based partly on this evidence, a compelling argument can be made that much of what we call AIDS is a self-fulfilling prophecy which might happen as follows:
a) The severe, acute psychological stress of being diagnosed “HIV Positive” is quickly transformed into a severe, chronic psychological stress of living with a prediction of a horrifying decline that could start at any time. This causes a dangerous suppression of the immune system.”
And this:
“These factors have been studied in healthy people where they create the very same immunosuppression and immune dysregulation that may later be called “AIDS”.”
If that isn’t AIDs denial I don’t know what is.
But I am glad he has deleted the article.
Daniel, again your 4th ref: “He’s also undaunted by his recurring run-ins with the Food and Drug Administration. Last March, the agency slapped the doctor with its third warning to stop making what it describes as unfounded claims. Specifically, the FDA demanded that Mercola cease touting a thermographic screening he offers—which uses a special camera to take digital images of skin temperatures—as a better and safer breast cancer diagnostic tool than mammograms. (As of presstime, Mercola’s site had not removed the claims.) Mercola says that the FDA’s statements are “without merit” and has had his lawyers send a letter to the FDA telling it so. The FDA did not respond to repeated requests for comment.”
Anyone coming across this for the first time would be led to think that the agency has complained to Mercola 3 times about these cameras. I have explained before on this site about the two earlier complaints years ago about the heath benefits of certain oils. Health benefits of food may bot be claimed.
I may have said it before about the camera. I don’t know the current position, but my understanding is that frequent mammograms pose a cancer risk. And in between the mammograms aggressive cancers can develop too far. It’s no good having an xray which can detect a small cancer but then a new one grows before the next xray. Better to have 3-monthly physical exams by a trained examiner palpating the breast. They won’t pick such small lumps but will detect aggressive ones better than the infrequent xrays.
And the IR camera is a help as tumours may change the temperature of an area of the breast.
It’s like saying we forbid you to sell seat belts because we require air bags in cars.
Does he say the IR camera is the only diagnosis needed preparatory to biopsy? Probably not.
Daniel: “If that isn’t AIDs denial I don’t know what is.”
Please explain. I have referred you to the wiki placebo which shows the potency of psychological effects.
Anxiety and T cells:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06449.x/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+7th+March+from+10%3A00-13%3A00+GMT+%2806%3A00-09%3A00+EST%29+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
Mercola is well known for strange ideas, as long as they make money Here are a few
1) Chemtrails.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
http://www.donotlink.com/bn3e
Mercola has published many, many articles telling people that the world’s governments are secretly dumping nefarious chemicals on their heads out of airplanes, for
2) Homeopathy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
http://www.donotlink.com/d4k1
Mercola has written a good deal about this and sells a great many homeopathic products. The scientific and medical communities are pretty universal in their condemnation of homeopathy, as there is neither evidence that it works (ie no better than the placebo effect), nor any conceivable mechanism by which it might work.
3) Agenda 21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
http://www.donotlink.com/d4k4
Specifically, the belief that Agenda 21 is secretly a conspiracy to depopulate the planet (often by means of chemtrails or fluoride).
4) “Vaccines are evil” (and cause autism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies
http://www.donotlink.com/d4k6
An actively dangerous piece of marketing there, considering that the diseases vaccinated against can and will kill children. Needless to say, there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support Mercola’s various assertions about the dangers of vaccines.
5) “HIV does not cause AIDS”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism
http://www.donotlink.com/d4kc
Or maybe it does, depending on what he’s selling. In any case, don’t trust the medical establishment, trust Mercola and buy his “cures.”
6) Morgellon’s Disease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons
http://www.donotlink.com/d4kd
Morgellon’s Disease does not, in fact, exist. At least, not as described by Mercola.
No doubt there are innumerable other bogus and perhaps outright dangerous claims made by Mercola, but these seem like the ones most likely to get you to take a step back and ask yourself “Why am I listening to what this quack has to say?” “Why am I disseminating his material to unsuspecting people?”
@Chris, as I said before Mercola’s advice changes as does that of other doctors. As for vaccines and autism the CDC may not be honest.
Cloud seeding does happen.
Homeopathy may be largely placebo, but so are conventional treaments if you read teh wiki on placebo.
Agenda21 may be a bit overdone like the year 2000 computer trouble was averted and Mercola’s early letter to Pediatrics which I referenced about the possible HIV AIDS scenario.
It is strange the Morgellon’s has arisen since Bt corn. Monsanto are changing what they are doing. They are no longer supposed to be putting antibiotic resistance genes in their crops. But they are still in most of the crops. They are spending twice as much on conventional as GM agriculture.
Just to clarify some things you really need to understand, Soundhill, and which you really ought to be able to grasp by reading the wikipedia pages in question:
1) Any perceived benefits of homeopathy are entirely down to the placebo effect.
2) Conventional medicines must demonstrate benefits beyond those of the placebo effect (often demonstrated through the use of double-blind trials) in order to be approved for use.
3) The placebo effect is not as powerful as you seem to think it is.
I encourage you to do some serious reading until you understand just why relying on the placebo effect alone (which is exactly what you’re doing if you use homeopathy or, well, pretty much anything sold by Mercola) can be so very hazardous to one’s health.
@Chris Banks wrote: “I encourage you to do some serious reading until you understand just why relying on the placebo effect alone (which is exactly what you’re doing if you use homeopathy or, well, pretty much anything sold by Mercola) can be so very hazardous to one’s health.”
The right to free speech does not give you the right to malign a business without supporting facts.
Mercola is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. He is licensed to prescribe pharmaceutical drugs and do surgical operations. By taking the osteopathic medicine option he is also trained more in attempting to prevent people from getting to the stage where they need drugs or operations. He helps people with better vitamin and mineral &c options than they may get in the supermarkets and chemists. He also gives out much free advice on his website. He says it is the same he gives to patients who visit him. He funds his website advice by offering products and people support him as thanks.
Anything out of balance may be hazardous to your health, and Mercola’s advice
leads people around that. Sometimes he has changed his advice. So does traditional medicine.
Vitamins and supplements tend to be less hazardous than prescription drugs, if you read Medsafe.govt.nz
Soundhill, I really have no interest in discussing Mercola with you. Experience has taught me that it is a fruitless and frustrating conversation.
I have suggested you read up on the placebo effect, conventional medicine and homeopathy, in order to better understand these subjects.
I have suggested this because I genuinely care about your wellbeing, and am concerned what your attitudes towards these topics might lead you to do if your medical situation ever took a serious turn.
On a separate topic:
Of course vitamins and supplements tend to be less hazardous than prescription drugs. People are only meant to take prescription drugs as directed by a doctor, in order to treat a medical condition. Some of these drugs may have side-effects (sometimes serious side-effects), as indicated. Yet they are a lesser evil than the conditions they are prescribed to treat.
By contrast, vitamins and supplements do not require a doctor’s prescription, and do not generally have side-effects. Nor, however, do they have any effect upon medical conditions, except where these are caused or influenced by deficiencies in particular nutrients or whatever. If a person is not deficient in those vitamins/nutrients/whatever in the first place, supplements will not have any health benefits.
Unfortunately, slick marketing means that vast quantities of supplements can be sold regardless of whether they’re needed, to people who’re convinced they will improve or safeguard their health. Capitalism in action, I’m afraid.
Dr. Joseph Mercola has been the subject of a number of United States Food and Drug Administration Warning Letters related to his health advocacy activities:
02/16/2005 – Living Fuel RX(TM) and Coconut Oil Products – For marketing products for a medical use which classifies those products as drugs in violation of 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.[51]
09/21/2006 – Optimal Wellness Center – For both labeling / marketing health supplements for purposes which would render them to be classified as regulated drugs as well failing to provide adequate directions for use upon the label in the event that they were legally sold as drugs.[52]
03/11/2011 – Re: Meditherm Med2000 Infrared cameras – For marketing a telethermographic camera for medical purposes which have not been FDA approved.[53]
12/16/2011 – Milk Specialties Global – Wautoma – Failure to have tested for purity, strength, identity, and composition “Dr. Mercola Vitamin K2” and others.[54]
@Chris Price
Yes Mercola cannot claim a health benefit of a food because his business competes, and the big company lawyers are on to it. Nobody seems to have written a wiki about this yet, but what do you think of this sort of competition and what a milk seller may say about its product not having genetically modified milk stimulating hormone in it?
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Publications_Library/The_Controversy_Over_rBST_Milk_and_Absence_Labeling.pdf
Chris Banks wrote: “3) The placebo effect is not as powerful as you seem to think it is.”
http://www.cochrane.dk/research/theses/tendal_thesis2010.pdf
“many commonly used treatments have an
effect of 0.1 to 0.5 compared with placebo.
For example, the effect of acet-
aminophen [paracetamol] on pain in patients
with osteoarthritis is
SMD −0.13 (95% CI, −0.22 to −0.04),
5
the effect of antide-
pressants on mood in trials with ac-
tive placebos is SMD 0.17 (95% CI,
0.00-0.34),
6
the effect of physical and
chemical methods to reduce house dust
mite allergens on asthma symptoms is
SMD −0.01 (95% CI, −0.10 to 0.13),
7
whereas the effect of inhaled cortico-
steroids on asthma symptoms is rela-
tively large, SMD −0.49 (95% CI, −0.56
to −0.43).”
Chris I had that ref on openparachute in a thread where your name appears. Doesn’t it indicate I have been doing some serious reading?
“Doesn’t it indicate I have been doing some serious reading?”
No, Soundhill. No, it does not.
This is because you have completely ignored points 1) and 2), and I’m still not convinced you understand the limits of the placebo effect.
I am not going to waste my time reminding you what I said, or what you said. You can scroll up as easily as I can.
The goal isn’t to be able to spit references and copied/pasted text at me, it is to actually comprehend the subjects in question. Specifically, the three points I noted you ought to be able to understand at the end of your reading were aimed at getting you to understand the merits of homeopathy (none) as compared to conventional medicine (considerable).
I am concerned that you saw fit to respond by saying, “look, I have read a 56-page PhD thesis. This indicates I an a serious reader.”