 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / December 2005Dr. Mercola is a FRAUD
Dr. Mercola is a FRAUD This man recommends weekly a new product! Weekly! All the products he recommend he makes PROFIT! He recommends products that he makes at least $3 per item ordered. Dr. Mercola's website has a store http://store.mercola.com which is built by him to sell his products. He is not recommending other people's products. All he recommends are books and other products that he he sells himself and has a considerable profit. This charlatan's pure profit in a year is a fortune of millions of dollars that he gets from selling "recommended products". DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THIS SCAM ARTIST! Just his book, cost him $5 but he sells it for $25-30! His pure profit is 400%. IS this man up to changing any paradigm? Why doesn't he sell it for that much, when he could sell it for $6 or $10? BECAUSE HE WANTS TO MAKE PROFIT!! THIS MAN HAS AN INSATIABLE THIRST FOR MONEY AND PROFIT! This person at the same time sees patiens, and "tests" these products in a week. And in the same week he does research to send you 2 newsletters ina week. HE IS A FRAUD. I will explain to you more if you have any questions  It's hard to take serious a website with such a wide variety of 'stuff'.....the Discover a Revolutionary Approach to Personal Hygiene: Get Ultra Protection from Germs and Disease with Clenzology! webpage plays to the paranoid. Eating Ostrich Filet Strips (for health and beauty <g>) ??? > Dr. Mercola is a FRAUD > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I will explain to you more if you have any questions  >It's hard to take serious a website with such a wide variety of >'stuff'.... LOL ... you haven't read Mad Terry's Hate Website of Wackoness! Or the Quack Kingdom's "everybody is a quack but US" garbage! >>It's hard to take serious a website with such a wide variety of >>'stuff'.... > > LOL ... you haven't read Mad Terry's Hate Website of Wackoness! > > Or the Quack Kingdom's "everybody is a quack but US" garbage! Have you read them? You may find some understandable bias against inflated or unsupported medical claims but you will not find nuttiness to match Mercola's. An example: Mercola says that polio vaccination is unnecessary if you don't eat sugar. Must be news to a lot of African and Indian kids. Peter Moran. >Have you read them? nobody can be wrong all the time ... most of it is distraction from the real quacks and quackery ... i know many people who spent their life fortune on Con-Med Cancer care ... and ended up dead with their surviving spouses having hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. there's a lot of fluff for the real messages that are total Chemical Cartel PR ... like his total and utter garbage on MCS ... Barrett is so deceitful he never mentions that he ACSH is funded by Chemical / Pharma Cartels to write that disinformation. http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quack-suppdeclaration.html Here is why I know that Barrett's Regime and their Web of Deceit is dangerous for the women harmed by breast implants ... women I love beyond measure ... and to whom I have dedicated 9 years of my life telling their stories to the media. It Barrett's Quack Team has their way ... wonderful scientists and physcians who devote their lives to the study of MCS would lose their licenses and/ or sued into oblivion ... http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quack-suppdeclaration.html EXCERPTS: I believe that a review of Barretts and Polevoys websites also illustrates that they publish their opinions and conclusions on medical issues as "facts" concerning on-going medical controversies such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), an illness that devastates the health of a high number of women with breast implants. As explained in my original declaration, ¶16, Barrett prematurely and, in my opinion, inaccurately, concludes "Multiple chemical sensitivity is not a legitimate diagnosis." (Rosenthal Decl., Exhibit J, p. 6.) I was shocked that Barrett wrote of the clinical ecologists who believe in MCS, "most of them should have their licenses revoked." (See Ex. I to my original declaration.) I believe that if Barretts position becomes accepted by the mainstream medical community, it would not only hinder women who are impacted by the effects of this debilitating illness from getting the help they need, it would also aid in the defense of the silicone manufacturers in the billion dollar lawsuits against them that continue today. Plaintiffs claim that my statements about them are not related to breast implant issues. (Opposition, 2:2-6). Barrett, in ¶15 of his declaration, also declares, "I do not have a highly publicized viewpoint on the subject of breast implants" and then states, "Nor have I been involved in any public controversy about them." However, page 21 of the 24-page report on "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" (MCS), edited by Barrett, and widely disseminated by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), states "If the medical community accepts the diagnosis and theory of MCS, a wide range of industries could be seriously affected," and then lists the "silicone breast implant" makers as number 6 of the industries seriously affected. (See Exhibit A hereto for a true copy of excerpts of said report - opens PDF file.) >Subject: Re: Dr. Mercola is a FRAUD >From: "Peter Moran" moringa@gil.com.au [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Have you read them? You may find some understandable bias against inflated >or unsupported medical claims What you find is a huge list of denial of REAL diseases, even though Barrett had been porven wrong. Wonder why the FRAUD within conventional medicine isn't listed? Oh that's right, docs can committ FRAUD, cover-ups, REPEATED and DELIBERATELY violated regulations, KILL and remian on staff. Put that up against your unsupported medical claims. >you will not find nuttiness to match >Mercola's. Wrong, Here's a list: Acupuncture (updated 1/29/04) FEATURE AIDS-Related Quackery and Fraud (updated 12/5/01) Algae Products: False Claims and Hype (updated 7/25/03) Allergies: Dubious Diagnosis and Treatment (updated 7/26/02) "Alternative" and "Complementary" Methods Important Definitions (posted 1/3/01) Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods (updated 6/11/01) FEATURE A Special Message to Physicians (to be posted) "Alternative Medicine as Self-Care (posted 12/1/00) Commonly Publicized Methods (updated 12/8/99) The Braid of the 'Alternative' Medicine Movement ' (posted 6/21/01) Science vs "Alternative" Methods (posted 8/22/97) A Public Health Perspective (updated 8/16/99) The Eisenberg Data: Flawed and Deceptive (posted 3/16/02) Why Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof (posted 12/26/98) "Alternative Medicine" and the Psychology of Belief (posted 6/24/01) "Postmodern" Attacks on Science and Reality (posted 5/30/98) Problems with "CAM" Peer Review and Accreditation (revised 6/14/04) "Alternative Engineering": A Postmodern Parable (posted 1/4/00) Should Managed Care Companies Cover "Alternative Medicine"? (posted 1/24/99) Views of a Concerned Layperson (posted 8/23/01) Additional Thoughts about "CAM" Beliefs (posted 7/24/02) Newsweek's Misleading Report (revised 7/14/03) Definitions of 1,169 Methods (130-page dictionary posted 5/27/97) White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy (posted 3/4/02) FEATURE Detailed Analysis of WHCCAMP Draft Report (updated 3/4/02) FEATURE A Skeptical Look (index to Dr. Barrett's weekly column on Canoe.ca) Books: Recommended and Nonrecommended (to be posted) Journals and Newsletters: Recommended and Nonrecommended (to be posted) "Antiaging Medicine" (posted 8/26/04) Arthritis: Questionable Approaches (to be posted) Aromatherapy: Making Dollars out of Scents (updated 8/22/01) Ayurvedic Mumbo-Jumbo (updated 11/3/98) Cancer: Questionable Therapies (index to many articles, updated 10/13/03) FEATURE TOPIC "Calorie-Blockers" (posted 7/5/01) "Candidiasis Hypersensitivity/Yeast Allergy" (updated 9/19/01) "Cellulite" Removers (updated 8/10/00) Chelation Therapy (updated 3/28/03) FEATURE Chinese Medicine (updated 1/29/04) Chiropractic: FEATURE TOPIC - ALSO VISIT CHIROBASE Don't Be Fooled (updated 7/31/98) Chiropractic's Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes (updated 5/13/03) Advertising Gimmicks (posted 5/20/97) Steer Clear of Chiropractic Nutrition (updated 9/2/02)) "Chiropractic Pediatrics" (to be posted) Subluxations: Chiropractic's Elusive Buzzword (updated 12/25/01) Undercover Investigations (posted 9/14/97) How Chiropractors Oversell Themselves (updated 11/20/98) My Visit to a "Straight" Chiropractor (updated 9/11/98) Inside View of a Chiropractic Office (posted 7/14/97) Applied Kinesiology (updated 4/23/99) Contact Reflex Analysis (updated 4/16/98) What a Rational Chiropractor Can Do for You (link to Chirobase) Does the Bad Outweigh the Good? (posted 3/23/01) "Veterinary Chiropractic" (link to Chirobase) Chiropractic Victim Support Group (posted 6/13/98) Colloidal Minerals (posted 12/11/98) Colloidal Silver (updated 10/10/02) Colon Therapy and Related Quackery (updated 8/11/99) Craniosacral Therapy (updated 7/7/03) Dentistry: Dubious Care Holistic Dentistry (revised 8/4/01) Mercury-Amalgam Scam (updated 11/18/04) Neuralgia Inducing Cavitational Osteonecrosis (NICO) (updated 4/7/04) "Detoxification" Schemes (posted 8/15/97) DHEA: Ignore the Hype (updated 10/12/98) Dietary Supplements, Herbs, and Hormones (index to many articles) FEATURE TOPIC Dubious Diagnostic Tests (index to many articles) FEATURE TOPIC Ear Candling (updated 6/4/03) Electrodiagnostic Device Quackery (slow-loading article, updated 10/1/03) FEATURE TOPIC "Ergogenic Aids" (updated 8/14/00) Eye-Related Quackery (updated 8/21/03) Fad Diagnoses (index to 13 articles, updated 12/12/01) FEATURE TOPIC Fad Diets (to be posted) Faith Healing (updated 12/17/01) Genetic Testing Scams (updated 1/22/03) Glucosamine for Arthritis (updated 1/23/02) Gamma-hydroxybutyric Acid: A Growing Danger (posted 7/17/98) Growth Hormone Scams (posted 3/20/02) Hair Analysis: A Cardinal Sign of Quackery (updated 1/5/01) Hair Removal Methods: What Works and What Doesn't (updated 8/21/01) Herbal Practices and Products The Herbal Minefield (updated 7/22/00) Paraherbalism: Ten False Tenets (posted 8/31/99) "Natural Product" of the Month: Garcinia Homeopathy: FEATURE TOPIC - ALSO VISIT HOME)WATCH The Ultimate Fake (updated 8/25/01) FEATURE Essay by Oliver Wendell Holmes (1842) (posted 3/26/99) Hyperbaric Medicine: What Works and What Does Not? (partially posted 4/21/01) Insurance Fraud and Abuse (updated 7/14/00) Iridology (updated 8/20/04) Juice Plus+® (link to MLM Watch) Juicing (updated 9/7/99) Low-Carbohydrate Diets (including Atkins Diet) (revised 4/26/04) Lyme Disease: Questionable Diagnosis and Treatment (updated 9/3/02) Macrobiotics (posted 9/27/01) Mail-Order Quackery (updated 7/11/01) Magnet Therapy (updated 2/6/01) Massage Therapy: Riddled with Quackery (revised 9/22/02) Mental Help, Questionable Approaches Feingold Diet (updated 3/11/02) Nutritional Supplements for Down Syndrome (updated 10/18/98) Orthomolecular Therapy (updated 7/12/00) Procedures to Avoid (updated 7/10/03) Psychomotor Patterning (posted 7/6/01) Psychotherapy Mismanagement (updated 9/4/01) Self-Help Products (updated 8/18/04) Index to Mental Help Topics (updated 6/27/03) Metabolic Therapy (posted 7/1/01) Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (updated 9/8/00) Multiple Sclerosis "Cures" (updated 6/20/03) Multilevel Marketing: Mostly a Mirage (updated 8/17/01) ALSO VISIT MLM WATCH Naturopathy A Close Look (updated 6/13/03) Opposition to Immunization (posted 12/29/01) HEW Report (1968) (updated 8/30/99) Medicare Testimony (1970) (posted 5/25/99) Index to more information (posted 1/8/02) Nutrition Insurance: A Skeptical View (posted 12/1201) Organic Foods: Certification Does Not Protect Consumers (updated 10/22/02) Osteopathy's Dubious Aspects (updated 6/25/03) Pharmacists Selling Dubious Products and Services (updated 3/12/01) Misuse of Compounding (updated 10/14/02) Pneumatic Trabeculoplasty (PNT) for Glaucoma (updated 6/5/01) Power Lines and Cancer: Nothing to Fear (updated 5/17/01) Psychic Practices (Astrology, Tarot, Palm Reading, Tarot, etc.) (posted 5/1/03) Qigong (updated 7/30/99) Reflexology: A Close Look (2/26/02) Therapeutic Touch (several articles, updated 1/4/00) FEATURE Top Health Frauds (FDA list, updated 4/5/99) Unnecessary Surgery (posted 2/22/99) Vitamin C: The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy (updated 5/5/01) Water-Related Frauds and Quackery (index to several articles, posted 12/2/01) Weight Control Gimmicks and Frauds (updated 2/7/99) Wild Yam Cream Threatens Women's Health (updated 7/19/02) Questionable Advertisements "80% of Doctors Take Antioxidants" (updated 12/6/97) "Bust Developers" (to be posted) Can Florsheim Shoes Cure Your Magnetic Deficiency? (updated 8/8/00) "Chiropractic Healing Successfully Treats Cancer" (link to Chirobase) Clarified Butter (Ghee): Is It a health food? (updated 9/1/98) Eckerd Drugs' "Personalized Vitamins" (posted 7/4/01) Enzyte Marketers Sued (posted 9/28/04) "Enzyme Deficiency" (updated 8/31/01) Gero Vita, A. Glenn Braswell, and the 'Journal' of Longevity (updated 1/21/03) FEATURE Homeopathic Hype (posted 2/15/98) Impossible Weight-Loss Claims: Summary of an FTC Report (posted 12/16/03) Life Force Energy Discs (posted 10/25/97) Magnetic Bracelet (posted 8/13/99) Magnetize Your Beverages? (posted 9/19/98) "Mommy My Ears Hurt" (updated 4/23/03) "Oxygenated Water" Device (revised 3/11/02) Phytopharma/Plant Macerat Weight-Loss Plan (updated 9/14/01) "Recommend Centrum to Bridge Nutrition Gaps" (updated 8/9/98) Phony Diet Pills (to be posted) Recovery™: An "Amazing" Story (posted 11/30/01) Reflexology Steering Wheel Cover (posted 9/16/97) Slim Slippers: A Precautionary Tale (posted 2/28/02) "Free Preliminary Spinal Examination" (posted 10/11/97) Stress Vitamins (to be posted) Tobacco Ads: What Is Their Message? (to be posted) Nonrecommended Sources of Health Advice Books (updated 8/20/01) CME Providers Who Have Violated ACCME Guidelines (to be posted) Credentials to Be Wary of (to be posted) Degree Mills (updated 6/2/00) Health-Food-Store Advice: Don't Trust It! (updated 8/14/03) Individuals Robert Atkins, MD (to be posted) Robert Barefoot {updated 6/13/03) Herbert Benson, MD (to be posted) Peter R. Breggin, MD (posted 9/12/02) Jeffrey Bland, PhD (updated 12/2/03) Patrick T. "Tim" Bolen (updated 10/16/03) Hulda Clark's Bizarre Claims (updated 2/3/04) Adelle Davis (posted 3/27/99) Lorraine Day, MD (updated 5/31/02) Kurt W. Donsbach (updated 11/3/00) David Eisenberg, MD (posted 3/16/02) James S. Gordon, MD (posted 2/14/02) Earl Mindell (link to another site) Gary Null (updated 5/19/99) David W. Rowland (updated 5/6/00) Bernie Siegel, MD. (updated 11/25/98) Lendon Smith, M.D updated 12/22/01) Andrew Weil, MD (posted 3/10/02 ) Julian Whitaker, MD (link to another site) Other Individuals (Index) (updated 2/10/04) Questionable Organizations: An Overview (updated 4/24/04) American Association of Nutritional Consultants (updated 7/23/04) Center for Medical Consumers (to be posted) Citizens for Health (to be posted) Council for Responsible Nutrition (to be posted) Foundation for the Advancement of Innovative Medicine (updated 9/21/99) National Health Federation (link to another site) People's Medical Society (updated 1/1/01) Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (link to another site) Periodicals (updated 6/3/03) "Psychic" Advice by Mail or Telephone (updated 8/2/01) Publishers That Promote Quackery Avery Publishing Group (to be posted) Future Medicine Publishing (to be posted) Keats Publishing (to be posted) Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (to be posted) Rodale Press (to be posted) Nonrecommended Web Sites (updated 2/21/01) Consumer Protection Intelligent Consumer Behavior (posted 5/1/97) Doctor-Patient Communication Tips (updated 2/13/03)) How to Spot a Personal Injury Mill (posted 7/25/02) Antiquackery Organizations (updated 11/13/01) Where to Complain or Seek Help (updated 2/11/04) NCAHF Victim Redress Task Force (updated 9/4/99) Online Scams: A Message from the FTC (posted 5/20/97) Plaintiffs Wanted for Consumer-Protection Suits (posted 9/19/99) Dealing with Telephone Pests (posted 5/15/02) Spam Messages Some Strategies to Prevent Spams (updated 10/29/02) FTC Names "Dirty Dozen" Spam Scams (posted 4/6/00) Strengths and Weaknesses of Our Laws (updated 9/15/01) How Congress Weakened the FDA in 1994 (updated 5/18/02) Genetically Engineered Foods Should NOT Bear Special Labels (posted 1/2/00) Why Nutritionist Licensing Is Important (updated 4/17/02) AMA Discourages Product Sales in Medical Offices (updated 11/23/99) Viatical Settlements (posted 8/16/00) The Assault on Consumer Protection Standards (to be posted) FDA Warning Letters (2001) Other Important Regulatory Actions Enzymatic Therapy (posted 8/15/00) General Nutrition (updated 9/24/99) Home Shopping Network (posted 4/17/99) Consumer Strategy: Health Promotion Antioxidants and other Phytochemicals: Current Scientific Perspective (updated 7/28/03) Cancer Prevention: Real and Imaginary Risk Factors (to be posted) Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors (updated 12/20/00) Homocysteine: A Risk Factor Worth Considering (updated 3/29/03) Dietary Guidelines for Americans (posted 2/12/97) Dietary Guidelines for Infants (updated 5/26/99) Dietary Reference Intakes: New Guidelines for Calcium and Related Nutrients (posted 11/23/97) Dietary Supplements: Appropriate Use (updated 5/11/01) Exercise Choosing and Using Equipment (posted 11/7/97) Guidelines (to be posted) Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You! (4 articles, updated 3/4/01) Food Irradiation: A Valuable Public Health Measure (link to another site) Hormone-Replacement Therapy (updated 6/2/03) Immunization: Common Misconceptions (updated 6/6/02) Low-Fat Eating: Practical Tips (3/31/00) Osteoporosis Prevention (to be posted) Sugar: Myths vs. Facts (to be posted) Tobacco-Related News (updated 4/7/00) Vegetarianism: Healthful But Not Necessary (updated 3/17/00) Weight-Control Guidelines (to be posted) Consumer Strategy: Tips for Provider Selection Choosing Physicians (to be posted) Choosing a Dentist (posted 1/31/01) Where to Get Mental Help (updated 11/14/02) Where to Get Nutrition Advice updated 7/4/00) Choosing an Osteopathic Physician (updated 4/24/01) Choosing a Pharmacist (to be posted) Choosing a Chiropractor (updated 10/13/00) Be Wary of "Free Foot Exam" Ads (updated 12/20/98) Board Certification: What Does It Mean? (updated 12/5/00) How to Check a Physician's Credentials (updated 9/24/04) Choosing a Health Club (link to another site) Choosing a Personal Trainer (9/21/02) Personal Emergency Response Systems (posted 4/20/02) Nonrecommended treatment facilities (posted 4/13/02) Consumer Strategy: Disease Management Drugs Tips for Prudent Use (posted 10/25/99) Generic Drugs: What You Need to Know (posted 9/22/02) Overuse of Antibiotics, Blood-Pressure Drugs, and Heartburn Drugs (posted 2/19/99) Glaucoma Patients: Don't Waste Money on Overpriced Eyedrops (posted 5/1/00) Fibromyalgia Strategies (8 articles, updated 2/13/00) FEATURE TOPIC Irritable Bowel Syndrome (posted 6/7/00) Latex Allergy Epidemic (updated 1/23/00) Low Back Pain (updated 5/18/99) Refractive Surgery (updated 4/24/99) Scoliosis: A Sensible Approach (posted 1/14/98) Education for Consumers and Health Professionals Randi Foundation to host star-studded meeting, Jan 15-18. Consumer Health Textbook Updates (link to CH Sourcebook) Consumer Health Library: Recommended Reference Books (posted 10/1/02) Consumer Protection Books (updated 12/13/01) Handling Challenges to Skepticism (posted 9/30/99) HONcode Principles: What Do They Signify? (updated 9/20/04) Internet Health Scares (posted 9/12/99) Internet Search Strategies (posted 8/25/01) Media Watch: Critiques of Prominent Articles and Broadcasts Consumer Reports' Attack on Pesticides Criticized (posted 4/30/99) Why You Should Ignore the Baby Bottle Scare (posted 6/17/99) The Unfounded Vaccination/Autism Scare (updated 11/17/02) News Briefs (many topics, updated 12/18/01) Questions and Answers (updated 3/31/03) Quiz: What's Your Consumer Health IQ? (posted 9/19/97) Recommended Magazines, Newsletters, and Journals (updated 6/6/02) Reliable Agencies and Organizations: (updated 9/26/03) Urban Legends, Rumors, and Hoaxes (updated 3/3/02) Web Site Evaluations (updated 10/11/01) Research Projects (Volunteers Needed) Alternative Cancer Treatment Registry (posted 9/20/98) Dubious Advertising Link Patrol (posted 5/18/98) Multilevel Marketing through the Internet (updated 3/9/00) Publicly Held Companies that Market Questionable Products (to be posted) Quackery for Pets (updated 11/14/97) Questionable Methods Project (updated 1/9/99) > >>It's hard to take serious a website with such a wide variety of > >>'stuff'.... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > An example: Mercola says that polio vaccination is unnecessary if you don't > eat sugar. Must be news to a lot of African and Indian kids. The virus doesn't care whether one eats sugar or not. the virus is only affected by the specific immune system's speed, previous exposures, and its active and passive immunizations. If Mercola says that he and John Whale need to go fishing together. > Peter Moran. >> >>It's hard to take serious a website with such a wide variety of >> >>'stuff'.... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and its active and passive immunizations. > If Mercola says that he and John Whale need to go fishing together. I guess i should give a reference. From http://www.mercola.com/2002/mar/20/polio_vaccine.htm From one of about half a dozen articles about polio vaccination. "This is particularly troublesome as polio can be prevented in most people simply by eliminating sugar from their diet." Peter Moran >> Peter Moran. "This is particularly troublesome as polio can be prevented in most people simply by eliminating sugar from their diet." >I guess i should give a reference. > >From http://www.mercola.com/2002/mar/20/polio_vaccine.htm Let's see what else is written here ... that you Medical Deities have chosen to ignore ... picking apart one sentence as if YOUR opinion that it has no merit should discredit this fine doctor. You Judges and Juries and Executioners ... you Guerrillas for the Pharmaceutical backed ACSH and their splint groups like quackwatch ... work in tandem with the Barrett's Sue'm Team ... win or lose in the court rooms, the many defendants of the Quack Empire get blasted here ad nauseum ... libeled, insulted, spit on and dismembered ... you twisted Bullies with your KKK masques-on kicking the proverbial out of those they deem beneath them ... then congratulating yourselves on your high intellect and what great good you've done for the world. You post the quack brigade;s premature and often inaccurate conclusions on scientific issues as if they were etched in stone like the 10 Commandments. Dr. Mercola is a wonderful, open minded scientist working hard to help figure out complex medical challenges like MCS ... which Barrett was paid to write about by ACSH ... funded by the Chemical / Pharmaceutical Sellers. You can circle jerk yourself into oblivion ... you Peter Moran ... whoever you think you are ... maybe you could learn something about healing if you understand the rest of Dr. Mercola's writings. Regarding the sugar reference: http://www.mercola.com/article/sugar/polio_sugar.htm Sugar Increases Polio Risk -- Lessons For Other Viral Infections The following is a chapter from the book Diet Prevents Polio written by Benjamin P. Sandler, M.D., and published in 1951, at the height of the polio epidemic. Low Blood Sugar And Susceptibility To Polio During my research I observed a large number of patients who had symptoms that were caused by low blood sugar. They complained of the symptoms previously described, namely: headache dizziness weakness fatigue abdominal pain nervousness palpitation frequent sweats occasional fainting spells. Most of these patients were malnourished, which, physiologically, meant subnormal liver glycogen storage. Their diet was deficient in protein and consisted largely of the cheaper starchy foods. I noted that these patients also had poor resistance to infections such as colds, sore throat, grippe, influenza, bronchitis, and pneumonia. By increasing the protein content of their diet and by reducing the sugar and starch content, they improved considerably. They became stronger, more vigorous and buoyant, and had fewer infections. A few of these patients had had polio in childhood. Observations of these patients over a long period of time led me to suspect that their susceptibility to infection was possibly due to their poor diet with its high sugar and starch content. Their increased resistance to infection with a better diet confirmed this suspicion. It then occurred to me that their susceptibility to polio could be explained on a similar dietary basis. Specifically, I suspected that children and adults contracted polio because of low blood sugar brought on by a diet containing sugar and starch. I reasoned that the polio virus was able to cross tissue barriers, reach the brain and spinal cord, invade the nerve cells, damage or destroy them and cause paralysis. And I further reasoned that if the blood sugar never fell below 80 mg polio could never result. I suspected that during a polio epidemic only those children and adults who experienced periods of low blood sugar would contract the disease and that those individuals who were in actual contact with the virus but who maintained normal blood sugar levels would not contract the disease. Thus, it remained to prove that low blood sugar could be a factor in susceptibility to polio. And, after this had been proved, the following questions had to be answered: What causes low blood sugar in humans? How can low blood sugar be prevented? The prevention of low blood sugar would thus mean the prevention of polio. Before describing the experiments performed, I should like to make a preliminary summary and state without reserve that: Low blood sugar is a factor of susceptibility to polio. Low blood sugar occurs frequently in children and adults and is caused chiefly by a dietary error, namely, the consumption of sugar and starch Correction of this dietary error will prevent low blood sugar and thus prevent polio. An experimental method to prove that low blood sugar was a factor of susceptibility to polio was readily available. In 1938, the only laboratory animal that could contract polio by experimental inoculation was the monkey. All other laboratory animals were completely resistant to the polio virus. The rabbit is one of these resistant animals. Without knowing the blood sugar range in the monkey and rabbit, it was suspected that the blood sugar in the monkey reached lower levels than in the rabbit. These suspicions were found to have a basis in fact through the investigations of Drs. Jungeblut and Resnick of Columbia University who studied blood sugar levels in monkeys, and through the investigations of Drs. du Vigneaud and Karr of Cornell University who studied blood sugar levels in rabbits. In monkeys, blood sugar values as low as 50 mg. were observed, whereas in the rabbit, values below 100 mg. were never observed. In numerous determinations made on rabbits I have never obtained values below 100 mg. It was therefore concluded that the susceptibility of the monkey to the polio virus was due to the fact that its blood sugar fell to subnormal values, and that the resistance of the rabbit might be associated with the fact that its blood sugar never fell below 100 mg, and that at this concentration cellular oxidation of glucose in the nervous system and other organs would be maintained at such a level as to enable the cells to protect themselves against invasion by the virus. Physiologists have stated that the normal blood sugar level of 80 mg. holds true for all mammals. The next step was to lower the blood sugar of the rabbit to subnormal values with insulin injections, and then inoculate the rabbit with polio virus. This was done and it was found that the rabbits became infected and developed the disease. The details of these experiments were published in the American Journal of Pathology, January, 1941. Some rabbits showed signs of infection 8 to 10 hours after inoculation. I wish to stress this short period of incubation in the rabbit because it demonstrates that polio can develop in a short period of time. This is important, as we shall learn later, when we discuss the onset of polio in humans within 24 hours after severe physical exertion. The rabbit is also resistant to the dog distemper virus. One of the largest research laboratories has conducted much research with this virus and when I informed the members of the staff about my success in inoculating rabbits with polio virus after lowering the blood sugar, they inoculated rabbits with the dog distemper virus after insulin and reported to me that they observed signs of infection in the rabbit for the first time. This corroborating experiment indicates that low blood sugar may cause susceptibility to many infections. I was thus satisfied that low blood sugar was a factor of susceptibility to the polio virus in monkeys, and that rabbits could be rendered susceptible after their blood sugar was lowered with insulin (Insulin, as you probably know, is the hormone which diabetics inject into themselves in order to keep their blood sugar within normal range. It is a quick-acting drug and can lower the blood sugar within an hour or so after injection). I concluded that the concept that low blood sugar created susceptibility to polio in both monkeys and rabbits could be applied to humans as well. What Causes Low Blood Sugar in Humans? The next step in the solution of the polio problem was to find out the causes of low blood sugar in humans. Fortunately the answer to this problem was already at hand. It has been found that the consumption of sugar and starch and foods containing these substances were the chief causes of low blood sugar. When patients drank a solution of pure glucose they had a period of low blood sugar which began one to two hours after the glucose was taken and which lasted for one to two hours, and longer. This study of the blood sugar is called the "glucose tolerance test" and is employed for the detection of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. When they ate a meal containing sugar and starch they also had periods of low blood sugar which came on an hour or so later and which lasted for from one to two hours. The low blood sugar was more marked and lasted for a longer time after the glucose solution than after a meal containing starch. It is an established fact that this paradoxic depressant effect on the blood sugar level is more readily exerted by sugar than it is by starches. I have observed these results in hundreds of cases and similar results have been obtained by other investigators. It is a surprising paradox: the more sugar (and starch) you eat, the more likely you will develop low blood sugar. Drs. E. P. McCullagh and C. R. K. Johnston have shown how the glucose tolerance test is readily influenced by diet. Thus the second problem: What can cause low blood sugar in the human? was solved. How Can Low Blood Sugar be Prevented? The third problem, "How can low blood sugar be prevented?" was the only one left and this, too, was readily solved. It had been found by other investigators that a meal consisting of protein, fat, and carbohydrates, but with no sugar or starch, NEVER caused low blood sugar. The addition of sugar and starch to such a meal could readily produce low blood sugar. Thus I arrived at a simple formula for preventing polio: eliminate from the diet sugar and foods containing sugar, and reduce the consumption of foods containing starch. Since eating sugar and starch during a meal may cause low blood sugar after one to three hours, and since elimination of sugar and starch prevents low blood sugar, the invasion of the body by the polio virus will be prevented by a diet containing no sugar and no starch. Protection against polio would thus begin on the very day such a diet was started and protection would last just as long as such a diet was adhered to. I have found that a diet completely free of sugar and starch and consisting of proteins, fats, and non-starchy vegetables: May be adhered to for years with beneficial effect and absolutely NO harmful effect. There is NO supporting evidence to indicate that sugar and starch are necessary for health or for energy purposes. The human is a carnivore and can thrive on protein and fat alone, if necessary. The Eskimos thrive well on meat and fish which yield only protein and fat, and polio is unheard of among them. American and European explorers in the Arctic regions have lived on meat and fish for as long as 18 months and have maintained perfect health all the time on such a diet. Vilhjalmur Stefansson, the Arctic explorer, has described his existence on such a diet in great detail. He states that he was in perfect health on such a diet which consisted of protein and fat alone. Eskimos who live on meat and fish are not susceptible to infectious diseases. They do become susceptible when they live amongst white men and eat the white mans diet with its sugar and starch. It is true that the Eskimos fresh contact with the white man exposes him to infectious diseases to which he (the Eskimo) has not had the opportunity to become immune. The presence of sugar and starch in the Eskimo's new diet is of greater significance. A US public health officer stationed in Alaska has blamed this dietary factor for the great susceptibility of the Eskimo to tuberculosis. A low carbohydrate meal elevates and stabilizes the blood sugar levels. This stabilizing effect is important because some of the symptoms of low blood sugar are due to rapid fall in blood sugar level which accompany wide fluctuations in blood sugar levels following the ingestion of sugar and starch. Diet Prevents Polio, by Benjamin P. Sandler, M.D., and published in 1951 by The Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, WI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Mercola's Comment: Wow. This 50 year old article is a real gem, an absolute classic. It was written a few years before I was born, and it holds one of the major keys to good health. Dr. Sandler was generations ahead of his time. He used basic common sense to provide irrefutable evidence of the importance of severe restrictions of grains and sugars to avoid polio. Polio, however, is just one example of a viral infection, and I assure you that the dietary principles elaborated by Dr. Sandler also hold true for the other infections that we acquire. So, by cutting back (hopefully eliminating) the breads, pastas, sweets and sugars this holiday season and in the future we WILL absolutely and unequivocally reduce our risk of coming down with the old winter flus, coughs and colds. Will following the diet provide absolute protection? Certainly not. Other factors, such as sleep, stress, exposure to toxins, and exercise also play a role. But for the most part, you will practically eliminate your risk of ever getting sick again by following the diet. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I will post the other article by Dr. Mercola on a new post. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org > "This is particularly troublesome as polio can be prevented in most > people [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > whoever you think you are ... maybe you could learn something about > healing if you understand the rest of Dr. Mercola's writings. Oh, I just bet the good dignified Dr. Mercola is just tickled to death to have YOU publicly represent him and the quality of his work. KKK ....10 Commandments....circle jerk.........yamma, yamma, yamma....the ravings of an unmedicated shrew. (You too can turn out that by following Dr. Mercola's simple health plan .... <g>) >From: "Coleah" >Oh, I just bet the good dignified Dr. Mercola is just tickled >to death to have YOU publicly represent him and the quality [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >(You too can turn out that by following Dr. Mercola's >simple health plan .... <g>) >From: "Coleah" coleah@pacifier.com >People realize who is obsessed >with who in this newsgroup. www.mercola.com/2001/jun/6/breast_implants.htm Breast Implants: America's Silent Epidemic by Ilena Rosenthal Daily my phone rings and my email overflows with urgent and painful calls from women just awakening from the ether of their breast implants. Although their first surgeries may have been decades ago, they are finally emerging from the web of deceit that their plastic surgeons and the silicone manufacturers have woven through the media for years in a brilliant, expensive public relations coup of enormous proportions. Now reality has struck as they join scores of thousands of ill and disfigured women in learning the hidden truth - their cherished breast implants may cost them their insurance, their health, their beauty, their vitality, their families, their careers, and too often, even their lives. Everything I have ever done or thought or studied for 47 years brought me to November, 1995 when I created a Newsgroup (alt.support.breast-implant) on the Internet to provide an International Forum to discuss this perplexing issue and create a place for the women to connect with each other. I had no idea of the depth, breadth, or width of the Pandora's Box I was opening. Five years later, after unknown thousands of communications from women, doctors, loved ones, attorneys, supporters and tormentors alike, I admit I am no longer without bias. I now know that a huge fraud has and continues to be committed on women, and the background on this issue reads like a non-fiction espionage bestseller. No stranger to plastic surgery (first nose bob during my Dallas high school years) I do not now, nor have I ever had implants. There, but for the grace of God go I. A few million of our sisters have made that choice for a variety of reasons. However, two common denominators remain the same -- they were always assured they were "safe" and the "risks minimal," and eerily, they have come up against a medical establishment unwilling and unable to cure their illnesses. In 1992, after 30 years of unimpeded marketing, the FDA finally banned silicone gel implants for most women. Because of the lobbying of the manufacturers and plastic surgeons -- who flew in around 400 women to lobby Washington DC on their behalf -- women post-mastectomy were and are still allowed to get these unproven, highly risky medical devices. Even though early studies were resurrected, long hidden by the manufacturers, proving they knew that their implants would break, immune reactions would occur, the gel would migrate, and even more disturbing, could cross the placenta and affect the unborn fetuses, almost never did this information make it to the women it could have protected. They also hired visible spokesdoctors to misled the public into believing that implant rupture -- a devastating medical event -- was "only 4-6%." They also claimed to examine and find "no association" between implants and a myriad of painful and debilitating autoimmune diseases suffered in disproportionate percentages. In fact, the Executive Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, chose to publish two very flawed, small and short studies funded by those who stood the most to gain by the results. She then promoted and defended these studies as if they were gospel in her pro-manufacturer book, Science on Trial, and flooded the media with this corporate science while branding a scarlet "Junk Scientist" on any doctor who dared to dispute the "experts." This PR campaign includes labeling the women "crazies" and their leaders and supporters "fear mongers" and "wackos" so desperate are they to destroy the credibility of any of us who dared to speak out on the dangers. The result is that for years, women have been lulled into a false belief, that they had a 95% chance of being rupture free. The contrary is true. Alarming, indisputable evidence was released in October 2000, when the FDA published a landmark study of implanted women, many still without symptoms. This objective work revealed that 69% of these women had at least one ruptured implant, most without any knowledge of it, although implanted a median time of less than 17 years. Other studies had already revealed over a 90% chance of rupture within 20 years. Hardly, the "lifetime" product they were promised. The cover up continues to fall apart . . . Dr. David Feigal, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA, said it so clearly, "When it happens to you, the rupture rate is 100 percent." By January 2000, over 127,000 women had written the FDA about the serious complications from their silicone gel implants. The tragedy is that still today, they are unable to get good medical care as the majority of doctors refuse to believe the connection. Even worse, doctors don't have a clue what to do to heal these assaulted immune systems and rid women's bodies of the dozens of dangerous ingredients found in implants such as platinum, silica, formaldehyde, plasticizers and organic solvents. Implant formulations were frequently changed -- shells and gel thicker then thinner then thicker again -- and "new and improved" was marketed so often, it appears silicone merchants believed their own hype. In the 80's, as "the" answer to capsular contracture, over 100,000 women received gel implants with polyurethane foam glued to them. Not only did the foam disintegrate, often within just weeks of implantation, but it broke down into TDA, a known carcinogen, decades ago removed from hair dyes. These women are amongst the most ill, and even when these dangerous implants were hurriedly taken off the market in 1991, no recall or even courtesy call was made to warn the implanted women. The most recent implant disaster was exported to Europe, where well over 5,000 women, mainly in Britain, were implanted with soy oil filled implants, unlovingly known as "tofu titties." The American protocol for this product required this new round of female "lab rats" to be past childbearing age, but somewhere on it's way across the Atlantic, this requirement was dropped. Health advocates and cautious scientists were warning of the serious potential dangers but were ignored and the "experts" made fortunes implanting them even in very young women. Their bubble burst as shocking reports and the rancid soy oil leaked out in Spring of 2000, and all the women were advised to have them removed as quickly as possible. The damage to many had already been done. Now, like the millions with failed gel implants, they are faced with yet another difficult decision, should they replace them with saline filled implants? Is Saline the Solution? From her wheelchair, Jackie Strange, the former Deputy Postmaster General of the United States spoke of the destruction of her life at hearings by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC. Infections, peripheral neuropathy, and a myriad of autoimmune diseases struck in both rapid and slow succession following her implantation with saline filled, silicone implants. Concurrently, the manufacturers and plastic surgeons were creating a multi-media blitz touting saline implants from billboards, glossy magazines and TV. With ads reminiscent of "You've come a long way, baby," young women were featured praising their implants and plastic surgeons did the Talk Show circuit assuring women that saline was "natural" and leakage benign. In Spring, 2000, in spite of over 50,000 reports of serious adverse reactions from water-filled implants, the FDA made the fateful decision to give their highly valued stamp of "safety approval" on two brands of saline implants, declaring them "safe enough." How can this be? The manufacturers own studies show that within just the first 3 years, nearly 40% of post-mastectomy patients had to have additional surgeries with these implants. The complication rate for these women is around 80% in just 4 years time. After cancer, invasive surgery to remove the tumors, often radiation and / or chemotherapy, the body is simply not strong enough to handle this foreign invader. Even for women wanting implants just for augmentation to boost their self-esteem, the complication rates are staggering. Glamour Magazine, in their November 2000 issue published a full page photo revealing a saline filled implant, entirely black with aspergillus niger and other fungi. Breast Cancer and Implants - No Easy Answers Nearly 200,000 American women -- our sisters, mothers, teachers, lovers, daughters, friends -- will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. Cancer and implant survivor, retired Professor of Health Education, Henrietta Farber, recently summarized the feelings of many who know, "The cancer was challenging. The implants almost killed me." While the manufacturers press releases rage "The Case Against Implants Collapses," and try to close this ugly chapter in medical history, the women, now united, have a plan of their own. With the health of women and their offspring at stake, Martha Murdock, Co-Founder of the National Silicone Implant Foundation in Dallas, with four generations of her family affected by silicone toxicity, says it best, "It's not over 'til we win." Risks of Breast Implants 1. Implants can rupture during mammography. 2. Implants make routine self exams and mammography more difficult. More views are necessary, meaning additional radiation each time. 3. Implant rupture can go undetected for years and silicone is known to migrate through the lymph system and has been found in the brains, spinal fluid, ovaries, livers, and other organs of implanted women. 4. Implants are not lifetime devices, and may need to be replaced (even without systemic problems) more than once a decade. 5. At any time infections are possible, including fungal and antibiotic resistant bacterial infestations. 6. Loss of breast sensation, especially around the nipple area is reported, as well as hyper-senstivity to touch. 7. Capsular contracture can be very uncomfortable, to the point of severe pain and deformation. 8. Many women have experienced severe necrosis and other forms of breast tissue loss. 9. Many women have experienced serious autoimmune diseases post implantation including: rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, multiple sclerosis, Sjøgrens Syndrome (severe dry mouth, eyes, etc.), and lupus. Those women with pre-existing compromised immune systems are now warned to avoid implants. 10. Disproportional numbers of implanted women have reported neurological and cognitive complications, as well as endocrine disruption including hysterectomies, miscarriage. 11. Children born of implanted women have experienced the same autoimmune conditions and have been seriously inadequately studied. 12. Breast implants often negatively affect the ability to produce milk for breast-feeding. 13. Health insurance carriers are routinely denying coverage for implanted (and explanted) women. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ilena Rosenthal is the author of Breast Implants: The Myths, the Facts, the Women. Ms. Rosenthal has been connecting, supporting and educating women harmed by breast implants for over 9 years. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Health for Longevity Magazine November/December 2000, Volume 22, Number 6 pages 41-42 www.BreastImplantAwareness.org www.mercola.com/2001/jun/6/breast_implants.htm Breast Implants: America's Silent Epidemic by Ilena Rosenthal Daily my phone rings and my email overflows with urgent and painful calls from women just awakening from the ether of their breast implants. Although their first surgeries may have been decades ago, they are finally emerging from the web of deceit that their plastic surgeons and the silicone manufacturers have woven through the media for years in a brilliant, expensive public relations coup of enormous proportions. Now reality has struck as they join scores of thousands of ill and disfigured women in learning the hidden truth - their cherished breast implants may cost them their insurance, their health, their beauty, their vitality, their families, their careers, and too often, even their lives. Everything I have ever done or thought or studied for 47 years brought me to November, 1995 when I created a Newsgroup (alt.support.breast-implant) on the Internet to provide an International Forum to discuss this perplexing issue and create a place for the women to connect with each other. I had no idea of the depth, breadth, or width of the Pandora's Box I was opening. Five years later, after unknown thousands of communications from women, doctors, loved ones, attorneys, supporters and tormentors alike, I admit I am no longer without bias. I now know that a huge fraud has and continues to be committed on women, and the background on this issue reads like a non-fiction espionage bestseller. No stranger to plastic surgery (first nose bob during my Dallas high school years) I do not now, nor have I ever had implants. There, but for the grace of God go I. A few million of our sisters have made that choice for a variety of reasons. However, two common denominators remain the same -- they were always assured they were "safe" and the "risks minimal," and eerily, they have come up against a medical establishment unwilling and unable to cure their illnesses. In 1992, after 30 years of unimpeded marketing, the FDA finally banned silicone gel implants for most women. Because of the lobbying of the manufacturers and plastic surgeons -- who flew in around 400 women to lobby Washington DC on their behalf -- women post-mastectomy were and are still allowed to get these unproven, highly risky medical devices. Even though early studies were resurrected, long hidden by the manufacturers, proving they knew that their implants would break, immune reactions would occur, the gel would migrate, and even more disturbing, could cross the placenta and affect the unborn fetuses, almost never did this information make it to the women it could have protected. They also hired visible spokesdoctors to misled the public into believing that implant rupture -- a devastating medical event -- was "only 4-6%." They also claimed to examine and find "no association" between implants and a myriad of painful and debilitating autoimmune diseases suffered in disproportionate percentages. In fact, the Executive Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, chose to publish two very flawed, small and short studies funded by those who stood the most to gain by the results. She then promoted and defended these studies as if they were gospel in her pro-manufacturer book, Science on Trial, and flooded the media with this corporate science while branding a scarlet "Junk Scientist" on any doctor who dared to dispute the "experts." This PR campaign includes labeling the women "crazies" and their leaders and supporters "fear mongers" and "wackos" so desperate are they to destroy the credibility of any of us who dared to speak out on the dangers. The result is that for years, women have been lulled into a false belief, that they had a 95% chance of being rupture free. The contrary is true. Alarming, indisputable evidence was released in October 2000, when the FDA published a landmark study of implanted women, many still without symptoms. This objective work revealed that 69% of these women had at least one ruptured implant, most without any knowledge of it, although implanted a median time of less than 17 years. Other studies had already revealed over a 90% chance of rupture within 20 years. Hardly, the "lifetime" product they were promised. The cover up continues to fall apart . . . Dr. David Feigal, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA, said it so clearly, "When it happens to you, the rupture rate is 100 percent." By January 2000, over 127,000 women had written the FDA about the serious complications from their silicone gel implants. The tragedy is that still today, they are unable to get good medical care as the majority of doctors refuse to believe the connection. Even worse, doctors don't have a clue what to do to heal these assaulted immune systems and rid women's bodies of the dozens of dangerous ingredients found in implants such as platinum, silica, formaldehyde, plasticizers and organic solvents. Implant formulations were frequently changed -- shells and gel thicker then thinner then thicker again -- and "new and improved" was marketed so often, it appears silicone merchants believed their own hype. In the 80's, as "the" answer to capsular contracture, over 100,000 women received gel implants with polyurethane foam glued to them. Not only did the foam disintegrate, often within just weeks of implantation, but it broke down into TDA, a known carcinogen, decades ago removed from hair dyes. These women are amongst the most ill, and even when these dangerous implants were hurriedly taken off the market in 1991, no recall or even courtesy call was made to warn the implanted women. The most recent implant disaster was exported to Europe, where well over 5,000 women, mainly in Britain, were implanted with soy oil filled implants, unlovingly known as "tofu titties." The American protocol for this product required this new round of female "lab rats" to be past childbearing age, but somewhere on it's way across the Atlantic, this requirement was dropped. Health advocates and cautious scientists were warning of the serious potential dangers but were ignored and the "experts" made fortunes implanting them even in very young women. Their bubble burst as shocking reports and the rancid soy oil leaked out in Spring of 2000, and all the women were advised to have them removed as quickly as possible. The damage to many had already been done. Now, like the millions with failed gel implants, they are faced with yet another difficult decision, should they replace them with saline filled implants? Is Saline the Solution? From her wheelchair, Jackie Strange, the former Deputy Postmaster General of the United States spoke of the destruction of her life at hearings by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC. Infections, peripheral neuropathy, and a myriad of autoimmune diseases struck in both rapid and slow succession following her implantation with saline filled, silicone implants. Concurrently, the manufacturers and plastic surgeons were creating a multi-media blitz touting saline implants from billboards, glossy magazines and TV. With ads reminiscent of "You've come a long way, baby," young women were featured praising their implants and plastic surgeons did the Talk Show circuit assuring women that saline was "natural" and leakage benign. In Spring, 2000, in spite of over 50,000 reports of serious adverse reactions from water-filled implants, the FDA made the fateful decision to give their highly valued stamp of "safety approval" on two brands of saline implants, declaring them "safe enough." How can this be? The manufacturers own studies show that within just the first 3 years, nearly 40% of post-mastectomy patients had to have additional surgeries with these implants. The complication rate for these women is around 80% in just 4 years time. After cancer, invasive surgery to remove the tumors, often radiation and / or chemotherapy, the body is simply not strong enough to handle this foreign invader. Even for women wanting implants just for augmentation to boost their self-esteem, the complication rates are staggering. Glamour Magazine, in their November 2000 issue published a full page photo revealing a saline filled implant, entirely black with aspergillus niger and other fungi. Breast Cancer and Implants - No Easy Answers Nearly 200,000 American women -- our sisters, mothers, teachers, lovers, daughters, friends -- will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. Cancer and implant survivor, retired Professor of Health Education, Henrietta Farber, recently summarized the feelings of many who know, "The cancer was challenging. The implants almost killed me." While the manufacturers press releases rage "The Case Against Implants Collapses," and try to close this ugly chapter in medical history, the women, now united, have a plan of their own. With the health of women and their offspring at stake, Martha Murdock, Co-Founder of the National Silicone Implant Foundation in Dallas, with four generations of her family affected by silicone toxicity, says it best, "It's not over 'til we win." Risks of Breast Implants 1. Implants can rupture during mammography. 2. Implants make routine self exams and mammography more difficult. More views are necessary, meaning additional radiation each time. 3. Implant rupture can go undetected for years and silicone is known to migrate through the lymph system and has been found in the brains, spinal fluid, ovaries, livers, and other organs of implanted women. 4. Implants are not lifetime devices, and may need to be replaced (even without systemic problems) more than once a decade. 5. At any time infections are possible, including fungal and antibiotic resistant bacterial infestations. 6. Loss of breast sensation, especially around the nipple area is reported, as well as hyper-senstivity to touch. 7. Capsular contracture can be very uncomfortable, to the point of severe pain and deformation. 8. Many women have experienced severe necrosis and other forms of breast tissue loss. 9. Many women have experienced serious autoimmune diseases post implantation including: rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, multiple sclerosis, Sjøgrens Syndrome (severe dry mouth, eyes, etc.), and lupus. Those women with pre-existing compromised immune systems are now warned to avoid implants. 10. Disproportional numbers of implanted women have reported neurological and cognitive complications, as well as endocrine disruption including hysterectomies, miscarriage. 11. Children born of implanted women have experienced the same autoimmune conditions and have been seriously inadequately studied. 12. Breast implants often negatively affect the ability to produce milk for breast-feeding. 13. Health insurance carriers are routinely denying coverage for implanted (and explanted) women. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ilena Rosenthal is the author of Breast Implants: The Myths, the Facts, the Women. Ms. Rosenthal has been connecting, supporting and educating women harmed by breast implants for over 9 years. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Health for Longevity Magazine November/December 2000, Volume 22, Number 6 pages 41-42 www.BreastImplantAwareness.org "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the DOMINATING Directrix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently DEFUNCT Humantics foundation, DIRECT from her hideaway in Costa Rica, wrote > www.mercola.com/2001/jun/6/breast_implants.htm > > Breast Implants: America's Silent Epidemic > > by Ilena Rosenthal Who paid you for writing this article? According to your claims about Barrett, no one does this for free. First I have to clarify; I am not representing any other doctor. I am talking from personal experience and common sense. Now, lets see how greedy this Dr is. HE IS SELLING STEVIA ON HIS WEBSTORE! Why is this so appalling? Because in his book No Grain Diet he clearly states that he does not approve the consumption of Stevia as it is very addictive supplement. HE WRITES IT IN HIS BOOK. He has articles in his website about not consuming Stevia and not using this product or similar ones. BUT, all of these articles disappeared from his website. However, here are some examples from archives: http://web.archive.org/web/20000510150534/www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/stevia.htm However, it is still a sweetener, and if you have problems with sugar addictions, as most of us do, then it would not be wise to use stevia, as it will only perpetuate the addiction. http://web.archive.org/web/20021201104027/www.mercola.com/nutritionplan/beginner.htm In certain individuals, it can have devastating consequences. I do not recommend the herb stevia as a sweetener, most people are addicted to grains and sugars, and stevia will stimulate the carbohydrate/sugar addiction cravings. If you are healthy you can use a few teaspoons of succanat intermittently. One should also avoid artificial chemicals like MSG. Or about sweeteners (including Stevia) http://web.archive.org/web/20010208101446/www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_d angers.htm http://www.juiceguy.com/Nutrasweet-causes-infertility-in-males.shtml AND YET, THIS MAN IS SELLING IT ON HIS STORE! http://www.mercola.com/forms/stevia.htm He is making very favorable profit from this product that is why he went ahead and changed his website and covered up his previous articles. BUT, please check his book as well, because some things that are written in paper can not be changed to his whims and abuses for his sincere followers! IS THIS A DOCTOR OR A SCAM ARTIST?! I GUESS THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS! This guy is not a good intentioned doctor! He is after the profit ONLY! THIS dr DOES NOT DESERVE ANY BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT from any sincere person that has problems and want to lead a healthy life! There are other doctors and generations of traditions from all the cultures that give you enough info, rather than this CHARLATAN. Please look forward to my other articles soon =81 > "This is particularly troublesome as polio can be prevented in most > people [quoted text clipped - 195 lines] > It has been found that the consumption of sugar and starch and foods > containing these substances were the chief causes of low blood sugar. > When patients drank a solution of pure glucose they had a period of > low blood sugar which began one to two hours after the glucose was [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > Diet Prevents Polio, by Benjamin P. Sandler, M.D., and published in > 1951 by The Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, WI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Mercola's Comment: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > www.BreastImplantAwareness.org Thank you for an excellent and well documented post about how a guru of the Alties is actually a guru of making money and a flat out hypocrite. . First I have to clarify; I am not representing any other doctor. I am talking from personal experience and common sense. Now, let's see how greedy this "Dr" is. HE IS SELLING STEVIA ON HIS WEBSTORE! Why is this so appalling? Because in his book "No Grain Diet" he clearly states that he does not approve the consumption of Stevia as it is very addictive supplement. HE WRITES IT IN HIS BOOK. He has articles in his website about not consuming Stevia and not using this product or similar ones. BUT, all of these articles disappeared from his website. However, here are some examples from archives: http://web.archive.org/web/20000510150534/www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/stevia.htm "However, it is still a sweetener, and if you have problems with sugar addictions, as most of us do, then it would not be wise to use stevia, as it will only perpetuate the addiction." http://web.archive.org/web/20021201104027/www.mercola.com/nutritionplan/beginner.htm "In certain individuals, it can have devastating consequences. I do not recommend the herb stevia as a sweetener, most people are addicted to grains and sugars, and stevia will stimulate the carbohydrate/sugar addiction cravings. If you are healthy you can use a few teaspoons of succanat intermittently. One should also avoid artificial chemicals like MSG." Or about sweeteners (including Stevia) http://web.archive.org/web/20010208101446/www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_d angers.htm http://www.juiceguy.com/Nutrasweet-causes-infertility-in-males.shtml AND YET, THIS MAN IS SELLING IT ON HIS STORE! http://www.mercola.com/forms/stevia.htm He is making very favorable profit from this product that is why he went ahead and changed his website and covered up his previous articles. BUT, please check his book as well, because some things that are written in paper can not be changed to his whims and abuses for his sincere followers! IS THIS A DOCTOR OR A SCAM ARTIST?! I GUESS THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS! This guy is not a good intentioned doctor! He is after the profit ONLY! THIS "dr" DOES NOT DESERVE ANY BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT from any sincere person that has problems and want to lead a healthy life! There are other doctors and generations of traditions from all the cultures that give you enough info, rather than this CHARLATAN. Please look forward to my other articles soon ? Ilena Rose wrote: > On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 05:45:57 +1000, "Peter Moran" <moringa@gil.com.au> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You Judges and Juries and Executioners ... you Guerrillas for the > Pharmaceutical backed ACSH and their splint groups like quackwatch ... > work in tandem with the Barrett's Sue'm Team ... win or lose in the > court rooms, the many defendants of the Quack Empire get blasted here > ad nauseum ... libeled, insulted, spit on and dismembered ... you > twisted Bullies with your KKK masques-on kicking the proverbial out of > those they deem beneath them ... then congratulating yourselves on > your high intellect and what great good you've done for the world. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dr. Mercola is a wonderful, open minded scientist working hard to help > figure out complex medical challenges like MCS ... which Barrett was > paid to write about by ACSH ... funded by the Chemical / [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > A few of these patients had had polio in childhood. Observations of > these patients over a long period of time led me to suspect that their > susceptibility to infection was possibly due to their poor diet with > its high sugar and starch content. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > adults who experienced periods of low blood sugar would contract the > disease and that those individuals who were in actual contact with the > virus but who maintained normal blood sugar levels would not contract > the disease. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Low blood sugar occurs frequently in children and adults and is caused > chiefly by a dietary error, namely, the consumption of sugar and > starch > > Correction of this dietary error will prevent low blood sugar and thus > prevent polio. > An experimental method to prove that low blood sugar was a factor of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Without knowing the blood sugar range in the monkey and rabbit, it was > suspected that the blood sugar in the monkey reached lower levels than > in the rabbit. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In monkeys, blood sugar values as low as 50 mg. were observed, whereas > in the rabbit, values below 100 mg. were never observed. In numerous > determinations made on rabbits I have never obtained values below 100 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > subnormal values, and that the resistance of the rabbit might be > associated with the fact that its blood sugar never fell below 100 mg, > and that at this concentration cellular oxidation of glucose in the > nervous system and other organs would be maintained at such a level as > to enable the cells to protect themselves against invasion by the > virus. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > largest research laboratories has conducted much research with this > virus and when I informed the members of the staff about my success in > inoculating rabbits with polio virus after lowering the blood sugar, > they inoculated rabbits with the dog distemper virus after insulin and > reported to me that they observed signs of infection in the rabbit for > the first time. > > This corroborating experiment indicates that low blood sugar may cause > susceptibility to many infections. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The next step in the solution of the polio problem was to find out the > causes of low blood sugar in humans. Fortunately the answer to this > problem was already at hand. > > It has been found that the consumption of sugar and starch and foods > containing these substances were the chief causes of low blood sugar. > When patients drank a solution of pure glucose they had a period of > low blood sugar which began one to two hours after the glucose was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and is employed for the detection of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. > When they ate a meal containing sugar and starch they also had periods > of low blood sugar which came on an hour or so later and which lasted > for from one to two hours. > > The low blood sugar was more marked and lasted for a longer time after > the glucose solution than after a meal containing starch. > > It is an established fact that this paradoxic depressant effect on the > blood sugar level is more readily exerted by sugar than it is by > starches. I have observed these results in hundreds of cases and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Drs. E. P. McCullagh and C. R. K. Johnston have shown how the glucose > tolerance test is readily influenced by diet. Thus the second problem: > What can cause low blood sugar in the human? was solved. > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > explorer, has described his existence on such a diet in great detail. > He states that he was in perfect health on such a diet which consisted > of protein and fat alone. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Diet Prevents Polio, by Benjamin P. Sandler, M.D., and published in > 1951 by The Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, WI ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Dr. Mercola's Comment: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Polio, however, is just one example of a viral infection, and I assure > you that the dietary principles elaborated by Dr. Sandler also hold > true for the other infections that we acquire. > > So, by cutting back (hopefully eliminating) the breads, pastas, sweets > and sugars this holiday season and in the future we WILL absolutely > and unequivocally reduce our risk of coming down with the old winter > flus, coughs and colds. > > Will following the diet provide absolute protection? Certainly not. > Other factors, such as sleep, stress, exposure to toxins, and exercise > also play a role. But for the most part, you will practically > eliminate your risk of ever getting sick again by following the diet. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > www.BreastImplantAwareness.org >"This is particularly troublesome as polio can be prevented in most people >simply by eliminating sugar from their diet." http://www.mercola.com/article/sugar/polio_sugar.htm To read the entire article in context http://www.mercola.com/2002/mar/20/polio_vaccine.htm Polio Vaccine Linked to Lymphoma Non-Hodgkin lymphoma comprises a biologically diverse group of blood malignancies with clinical courses ranging from indolent to highly aggressive. During the past 30 years, the reported incidence and death rate of the disease have increased strikingly, nearly doubling since 1970. About 55 000 new cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are estimated to be diagnosed annually in the USA Deaths related to the disorder are ranked fourth and fifth among all cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Although the reasons for the increase in incidence are not fully understood, a substantial number of cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are linked to the HIV-1 epidemic. Indeed, non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a common malignancy in HIV-1-infected patients and the incidence can be up to 300 times higher than in HIV-1-negative individuals. No obvious risk factors have emerged for non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the general population, but a viral cause has been postulated. Some cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in HIV-1-infected patients have been attributed to deficient immune surveillance of oncogenic herpesviruses, such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8), or perhaps to chronic antigenic stimulation and defective immune regulation. The small DNA-containing polio viruses (simian virus 40 [SV40], JC virus, and BK virus) are known to infect human beings, to have cancer causing potential, and to be associated with some human cancers. SV40 DNA sequences have been found repeatedly in some brain and bone cancers and mesotheliomas. Polio viruses are known to induce tumor formation in animals, including the production of B-cell lymphomas by SV40. The major types of tumors induced by SV40 in laboratory animals are the same as the human cancers found to contain SV40 DNA, with the exception of lymphomas. Studies have reported the detection of SV40 DNA sequences in non-Hodgkin lymphoma from HIV-1-infected and HIV-1-uninfected patients. These findings suggest a possible role for polio viruses in lymphoproliferative disorders, but the small size of the study populations. This study showed that polio virus SV40 T antigen DNA sequences are significantly associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in HIV-1-infected and HIV-1-uninfected patients. This finding sheds new light on the possible cause of an important group of malignant disorders. Overall, 42% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas tested here contained SV40 DNA sequences -- a frequency similar to that found in an independent study (43%). The cancer causing potential of polio virus SV40 has been established in laboratory animals. In studies in which hamsters were inoculated intravenously with SV40, lymphomas developed among 72% of the animals in the inoculated group and none of the control group. Polio virus SV40 has been associated with specific types of solid cancers in human beings, including brain tumors, osteosarcomas, and malignant mesotheliomas. These are the types of malignant disorders caused by the virus in laboratory animals -- a finding that emphasizes the predictive value of the animal studies. Recent reports provide persuasive evidence that the presence of polio virus SV40 is meaningful in the development of those human cancers. The major source of known human exposure to polio virus SV40 was immunization with SV40-contaminated polio vaccines. Inactivated and live, attenuated forms of the polio vaccine were prepared in primary rhesus monkey kidney cells, some of which were from animals naturally infected with SV40 -- a virus that was unknown at the time. Studies showed that residual infectious SV40 survived the vaccine inactivation treatments, and millions of people were inadvertently exposed to live SV40 from 1955 until early 1963 In the USA, vaccine lots received by about 20 states are estimated to have contained 075-097 mL contaminated vaccine per child, lots from about 15 states were thought to have contained 001-074 ml contaminated vaccine per child, and about 15 states were believed to have received lots that were free from SV40. The Lancet March 9, 2002 Dr. Mercola's Comment: This is not new information as I have posted this several years ago. However, it was from a relatively obscure specialty journal. However, now a major journal, Lancet, has published clear evidence that contaminated polio vaccine is responsible for up to half of the 55,000 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cases per year. This should outrage nearly anyone that reads this. We trusted these experts to provide us with protection from polio and instead they planted the seeds of a deadly cancer that would kill over 20,000 a year in the US. This is particularly troublesome as polio can be prevented in most people simply by eliminating sugar from their diet. If you were one of those who received the vaccine you can do something positive to enhance your immune system. Increasing your amount of omega-3 fats and decreasing the omega-6 fats will be a potent step towards suppressing these types of cancers. Please be sure and read the articles below which goes into far more detail. A note about the SV40 virus: According to Regis Vilchez, M.D., M.Sc., who has studied the SV40 virus, "There are no commercial tests to evaluate SV40 infection. Serologic assays such as ELISA for SV40 have a low sensitivity. In addition, a recent FDA panel concluded that none of the current ELISA tests for SV40 are reliable for research or diagnostic. While the serum neutralizing antibody test is the recognized gold standard serologic test for SV40, it has low sensitivity and requires great labor. "Therefore, molecular assays such as polymerase chain reaction (qualitative and quantitative) have been used to study the relation of SV40 infections and human malignancies. These tests are currently for research purposes but different laboratories (including ours) are working to establish them for commercial and diagnostic use. Indeed, this is one of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine for studies of SV40 in humans. We hope they will be available to patients in the near future." Additionally, the test is not performed by medical institutions because there is no therapy that can be offered to individuals who may test positive. Individuals who want to be tested for legal reasons should contact a lawyer who works with this issue. Lawyers may be more familiar with labs that may offer this type of service on a case-by-case basis. In others words, he is a drug company or a Doctor:-) Your just jealous that he haven't got he same gig up and going:-) Maybe you can set up a nonprofit to collect donated monies to combat Dr. M and then pay yourself a handsome salary;-) Oh that's right, others have already filled that niche. > Dr. Mercola is a FRAUD > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I will explain to you more if you have any questions  >Dr. Mercola's website has a store http://store.mercola.com which is >built by him to sell his products. He is not recommending other >people's products. All he recommends are books and other products that >he he sells himself and has a considerable profit. I am a newbie here, and have no affiliation with Dr. Mercola or Carlson Labs. However, the above comment is not particularly factual. For example, Mercola recommends an excellent Omega-3 oil from Carlson Labs, which I love and order directly from the company (and you can too). He sells the stuff; so do health food stores, and it doesn't smell like fish, give you fish burps, or overload your system with toxic mercury, etc. I received a report in the mail from the lab Carlson uses to test each batch and it seemed legit. I then called the lab and verified it, so my experience with Mercola has been o.k. My complaint has more to do with anybody making claims that are not substantiated, which begs the question of a person's honesty, especially when the profit motive is apparent. And as we all know, the only thing that Omega-3's can cure is a ham... http://www.mercola.com/article/omega3.htm This is a good group. Bob Maybe I did not explain how Dr. Mercola's store works. He buys with lower price (or makes contracts with manufacturers of these products) and sells them in HIS webstore and mails it and ships these items from his redistribution centers! ALL HIS PRODUCTS HE RECOMMENDS ARE ON HIS WEBSTORE and he makes large profit! He makes a thick cut of profit for EACH item sold. He is NEVER WITHOUT PROFIT on any product! That is why he flips his opinion as the market goes. "Dr" Mercola is in for the profit more than the companies he is claiming he is fighting! And I am sure, for a one man show, he is making a lot of profit! MILLIONS of dollars! This is the hypocrisy, he is saying he is fighting the big companies, but is in for the profit for the other side of the market, just like those companies! My point in putting Dr is because he is not acting like a doctor with good and companionate intensions! And this guy took the Hippocratic Oath not to harm, and yet sells products he previously knew would harm! He chooses to close both eyes for the sake of profit! My question is: What will Dr Mercola do if he did not recommend any products that he sells? Would he really make any newsletter? In his newsletter, he ALWAYS sells a product, ALWAYS. People read his newsletter for information and he sees it as a sneaky way to selling/promoting a product on his webstore! SNEAKY SKEAKY =81 Check out my future posting about other products and articles that this Dr publishes on his site! > >Dr. Mercola's website has a store http://store.mercola.com which is > >built by him to sell his products. He is not recommending other [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > This is a good group. > Bob Maybe I did not explain how Dr. Mercola's store works. He buys with lower price (or makes contracts with manufacturers of these products) and sells them in HIS webstore and mails it and ships these items from his redistribution centers! ALL HIS PRODUCTS HE RECOMMENDS ARE ON HIS WEBSTORE and he makes large profit! He makes a thick cut of profit for EACH item sold. He is NEVER WITHOUT PROFIT on any product! That is why he flips his opinion as the market goes. "Dr" Mercola is in for the profit more than the companies he is claiming he is fighting! And I am sure, for a one man show, he is making a lot of profit! MILLIONS of dollars! This is the hypocrisy, he is saying he is fighting the big companies, but is in for the profit for the other side of the market, just like those companies! My point in putting "Dr" is because he is not acting like a doctor with good and companionate intensions! And this guy took the Hippocratic Oath not to harm, and yet sells products he previously knew would harm! He chooses to close both eyes for the sake of profit! My question is: What will "Dr" Mercola do if he did not recommend any products that he sells? Would he really make any newsletter? In his newsletter, he ALWAYS sells a product, ALWAYS. People read his newsletter for information and he sees it as a sneaky way to selling/promoting a product on his webstore! SNEAKY SKEAKY ? Check out my future posting about other products and "articles" that this "Dr" publishes on his site! Those of us who look for fact based medicine wil be awaiting your futhre postings. Keep up the good work. Jan Drew will Google you to dismiss what you say. Bob wrote: > On 3 Dec 2004 13:54:56 -0800, saythetruth7777@hotmail.com (Say The > Truth) wrote: > > >Dr. Mercola's website has a store http://store.mercola.com which is > >built by him to sell his products. He is not recommending other > >people's products. All he recommends are books and other products that > >he he sells himself and has a considerable profit. > > I am a newbie here, and have no affiliation with Dr. Mercola or > Carlson Labs. However, the above comment is not particularly factual. > For example, Mercola recommends an excellent Omega-3 oil from Carlson > Labs, which I love and order directly from the company (and you can [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This is a good group. > Bob I think Dr. Mercola is honest. Why would Dr. Mercola advice against Stevia and then sell it in his store? If he was really a fraud, he would say Stevia is the best everywhere, thus also in his book. He is just being honest and realistic. Stevia can still trigger some unwanted insulin reactions for people who already are diabetics or overweight, but compared to sugar it is a wonderful alternative. Mercola is realistic and understands that sometimes people want something sweet to eat. Also, the man is flexible, and sometimes alters his opinion about something, which I believe shows good character. A (potential) wise man is always prepared to adjust his point of view when there is a good reason for it. Unfortunately that doesn't happen too often in our society. Also, doesn't anyone realize that WE LIVE in a world that runs on money? If anybody would really use there mind, they could understand that just being a philanthropist doesn't make the world better, unless you are so rich you can afford to give everything away freely (that means either rich in money or mind or both). Do you think a book only cost 5 dollars?? What about the information in it, the research behind it, the recipies, the investment risks and so on? Do you want me to bother to explain this further? I believe in giving AND receiving. It is a healthy thing. Also, the profits of Dr. Mercola are nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, compared to the pharmaceutical companies. Not that it matters, because every man in a democratic society gets money for his efforts, if not more. Does this make the man more suspicious for fraud? Yes it does, and please be more careful, cause in my opinion almost EVERYONE is suspicious of fraud or at least they don't bother to put down the horse blinders for the (financial) inconvenience. Yes everybody, me, you, our parents, who knows! So if you want to know if Dr. Mercola is a fraud, then you have to look what he has to say, and compare it to what others have to say, or, if you feel like it, put his information on the test. If you say "Hell, I tried everything he said, but I only got fatter, I got bold, even my dick became limp of all the supplements he adviced" then you have got a statement. Or even less dramatic, if you just can show some plain evidence or something that makes his statements unstable, then you have got at least some kind of a statement (Mercola does this all the time). All else is in my opinion simpleminded nonsense. Regards, Pieter I think Dr. Mercola is honest. Why would Dr. Mercola advice against Stevia and then sell it in his store? If he was really a fraud, he would say Stevia is the best everywhere, thus also in his book. He is just being honest and realistic. Stevia can still trigger some unwanted insulin reactions for people who already are diabetics or overweight, but compared to sugar it is a wonderful alternative. Mercola is realistic and understands that sometimes people want something sweet to eat. Also, the man is flexible, and sometimes alters his opinion about something, which I believe shows good character. A (potential) wise man is always prepared to adjust his point of view when there is a good reason for it. Unfortunately that doesn't happen too often in our society. Also, doesn't anyone realize that WE LIVE in a world that runs on money? If anybody would really use there mind, they could understand that just being a philanthropist doesn't make the world better, unless you are so rich you can afford to give everything away freely (that means either rich in money or mind or both). Do you think a book only cost 5 dollars?? What about the information in it, the research behind it, the recipies, the investment risks and so on? Do you want me to bother to explain this further? I believe in giving AND receiving. It is a healthy thing. Also, the profits of Dr. Mercola are nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, compared to the pharmaceutical companies. Not that it matters, because every man in a democratic society gets money for his efforts, if not more. Does this make the man more suspicious for fraud? Yes it does, and please be more careful, cause in my opinion almost EVERYONE is suspicious of fraud or at least they don't bother to put down the horse blinders for the (financial) inconvenience. Yes everybody, me, you, our parents, who knows! So if you want to know if Dr. Mercola is a fraud, then you have to look what he has to say, and compare it to what others have to say, or, if you feel like it, put his information on the test. If you say "Hell, I tried everything he said, but I only got fatter, I got bold, even my dick became limp of all the supplements he adviced" then you have got a statement. Or even less dramatic, if you just can show some plain evidence or something that makes his statements unstable, then you have got at least some kind of a statement (Mercola does this all the time). All else is in my opinion simpleminded nonsense. Regards, Pieter > I think Dr. Mercola is honest. Yes, he is an "honest businessman" trying to make a buck. However, he is portrayed by the AltNuts as some form of missionary who is driven solely by altruism. Hi, You have spent a lot of energy on Dr Mercola. Why dont you target the FDA who are the real culprits??? By the way do you have a job or business? What is wrong with making a profit off hard work??? How do you expect the guy to pay his expenses??? >Dr. Mercola is a FRAUD > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >I will explain to you more if you have any questions  |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.