Mercola's Newsletter

[elye]

Joseph Mercola has a feature on celiac in his latest newsletter which is, as usual, a no-nonsense, informative piece that will grab the attention of any subscriber out there who may have some subclinical symptoms (and those that we never hear about). He starts the piece off with a long quote from an article in USA Today, which I will take the time to read in full. Dr. Mercola is certainly on our side, as he strongly advocates a diet without ANY grains, not just those that are gluten-free. Once again, I find him making good sense....

[AndreaB]

Yep, I get his newsletter too.

[happygirl]

Will one of you delightful board members clue this girl into who this man is? I've heard about him recently....so give me the scoop

[tarnalberry]

Some of us ... don't entirely trust him.

He is a doctor who has a website which addresses a number of ideas on health, many from a nutritional perspective. His website does sell products (one of the reasons I'm not a huge fan), and some of what he advocates is little more than opinion. I'll add, however, that despite my dislike of his approach, I would not in any way say that everything on his site is wrong, and many people have found his resource useful. At the very least, it is controversial.

[happygirl]

Thanks

[AndreaB]

I don't agree with everything he says either but he does have some good info.

[elye]

Yes, the fact that he sells nutritional "stuff" on his site was something I had some trouble with at first. Now I just ignore any of his periodic sales pitches, and I do realize that any products that he makes money from go directly into his research/website. Tarnalberry, I respect your knowledge and opinions on things, so I am curious--what about Mercola's credo do you distrust? I like most of what he says about nutrition generally, but I'm not so sure about his metabolic typing.

[happygirl]

thanks for the info

[tarnalberry]

what about Mercola's credo do you distrust?

I haven't read much on his site for two years or so, but the last I did, I found most of his articles to be fluff, hyperbole, or flame-bait. It's the last, I think, which turns me off the most. I took another look around, and he's still pushing editorial (emotionally charged opinion) as medical fact. To me, science is science, logical and straightforward, and the facts should speak for themselves. He uses well chosen words to manipulate the emotions of the readers of his articles outside of the bounds of the science. That he would choose to go that route makes me distrust him. Additionally, many of his articles are low on the science as well.

Again, that points more to a personality difference than anything else. I haven't read enough of his postings to say whether or not I think he's barking up the wrong tree in general, some of what is linked does fit with 'mainstream alternative' (if I can use that phrase), and others here have been helped by his work. So I'm not trying to debate any of that, just answer the question on distrust.