Talk:Joseph Mercola/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Incorrect

Wikipedia has posted incorrect info about Mercola 184.62.202.42 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Uh oh. Sad! Now you only need to tell us which information that is and which reliable source we can cite to correct it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling Here is a problem under Other Views. "Advocacy on the labeling and health of genetically modified food,[49] as well as for their elimination entirely from the market." I read through the entire source and there is no mention of Mercola and the second part of the sentence has no secondary source to back it up.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That is not incorrect information, it is a just bad source. It is easy to find links which tell you that Mercola is opposed to GMOs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Then the reliable secondary source needs to be added to this page or the information needs to be taken down immediately according BLP policies that you can read on this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

OK with me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok I will remove the content.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Now I looked at the source, after your edit was reverted, and you are wrong. I should not have trusted you. Don't you know how to search a web page for "mercola"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know how to look for the word Mercola in the reference and I spent the detailed time looking for his name and never found it. I just now looked a 2nd time and still didn't find it. @ScienceFlyer Please give us a screen shot of where Mercola is mentioned in this reference. What I did was not twinkle but sincere research and clarification.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ooops my mistake! I forgot about Control F and did discover his name in the article. Pardon me :). Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Don't add content to lead before it's covered in the body

Hello @Valjean, You reverted my edit stating "Don't add content to lead before it's covered in the body." So I looked in the body of the page where it is mentioned these words that are in the lead - "Mercola was banned from YouTube on September 29, 2021." I didn't see it anywhere. So why is this in the lead? I am a detailed oriented editor and do my best to follow wikipedia guidelines. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ooops my mistake again. when I used Control F I found it referenced in the main page. I will add the information I found about Mercola suing Google. thanks. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You are very welcome. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

His website is covered by WP:ELNO

We should severely restrict linking to his website. I think the mention in the infobox is the only place we should link it, if at all, so I'm going to remove it from the EL section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. ELNO #2 covers it. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

All pages should only have one external link to the persons or business website.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

In some cases none at all. We're compromising right now, and I'd back any move to completely remove any direct links to any and all of his websites. Their misinformation is very dangerous to public health. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Spouse

Greetings,

Joseph Mercola is not married thus would request the following be removed:

• | spouse = Erin Elizabeth
• He is married to Erin Elizabeth, a blogger listed by The New York Times as one of the most prolific spreaders of misinformation.
• Reference to https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7evpn/bill-gates-anti-vax-covid-lies-facebook-banned

The source (vice.com article linked in the third point above) already removed this erroneous information from their article.

Thank you. Rmw81 (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed it. - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Vitamin D Claims

Hello. Suggest adding supplementary information under COVID Misinformation, related to Mercola’s claims on vitamin D:

After this sentence: "The website includes links to Mercola's online store and puts a strong emphasis on vitamin D supplements, despite a lack of scientific evidence pointing to the effectiveness of such a treatment."

Add this: "He also asserted the claim that vitamin D can affect COVID outcomes in a 2020 journal paper published in Nutrients."

Reference: Nutrients. 2020 Nov; 12(11): 3361.

Thank you. CarLaena (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

So much information is coming out that I suggest the title of your section include all studies and outcomes.

More current study March 2022: Conclusion: Vitamin D supplementation might play an important role in protecting from acute respiratory infections like the SARS CoV2, and in high-risk individuals with COVID 19 from progressing to critical clinical condition and reducing mortality. [1]

And another one: Israeli study offers strongest proof yet of vitamin D’s power to fight COVID [2]

And another one: May 16, 2023 WebMD Could Vitamin D Supplements Help People With Long COVID? [3]

I find the Mercola article to be ridiculously out of balance, leaning to one POV.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Red Rose 13, thank you for your feedback.

With more information coming out, perhaps this part should be revisited as well:

“The website includes links to Mercola's online store and puts a strong emphasis on vitamin D supplements, despite a lack of scientific evidence pointing to the effectiveness of such a treatment.” CarLaena (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Let's do it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the current text needs changing at all. It already contains the claims made by Mercola about vitamin D; adding that he also did so in a specific publication (one that saw its entire ed board resign because they were pressured to publish crap) doesn't seem particularly noteworthy. I'm not sure what adding the articles proposed by (talk) would do either - the NIH guidelines mentioned in the text were updated and they still don't recommend vitamin D for the treatment of COVID. All that has been discussed and covered on the Vitamin D page, I don't see how we could arrive at a different result here. Robincantin (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read the studies I posted above you would understand that even in the government there are opposing views or discoveries. Wikipedia is known for having balanced articles but this page is completely out of balance leaning in one POV view and some of the references are questionable in reliability. In the first study and I quote, "...there are implications that vitamin D deficiency might increase the risk for COVID-19 infection and severity of the disease progression." Even Mercola was not saying that Vit D is the only supplement to use to fight COVID. Also, the studies found that a DEFECIENCY in Vit D means you are at a higher risk and that disease progression is more severe. This article needs more truth and less bias.Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

[4] 2/2017 before COVID - The investigators found that daily or weekly supplementation had the greatest benefit for individuals with the most significant vitamin D deficiency (blood levels below 10 mg/dl) — cutting their risk of respiratory infection in half — and that all participants experienced some beneficial effects from regular vitamin D supplementation.Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Three things here, but readers can skip straight to the third one.

Careful, you just posted a news release written by a PR department, instead of a credible source. Robincantin (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Cherry-picking a couple of studies is not a good way to write a wikipedia page, we go instead to reputable institutions that do the work of evaluating those studies and come up with clinical recommendations. Again, that work was done on the Vitamin D page, it has a whole section on this. Robincantin (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And what does one do when a reputable source produces respected studies like NIH National Library of Medicine or WebMD. Some Wiki editors have a narrow view of what is acceptable on Wikipedia and is part of the problem on this one sided bias page.

In any case, this discussion is missing the point made in that paragraph: Mercola took down a site giving medical advice about COVID after he received a warning letter from the FDA. He was playing doctor to sell vitamins, he was warned, he stopped. Those are the documented facts we have on the page. Robincantin (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Dr Mercola is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO). DO and Doctor of Medicine (MD) degrees are equivalent. In other words he is NOT playing doctor but is an actual doctor. His videos are available online. Did you not know that? Also it is time for Wikipedia to catch up to the current information regarding the alternative modalities that healed people of COVID.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I will be updating this page in a couple of days with the outstanding references I have found including a couple from this discussion. Thank you.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend taking more time to build consensus for your changes here before directly editing the article. I share Robincantin's view on the sources you've brought so far, and I'll add that the best one, the Jordan et. al systematic review, did not evaluate the effectiveness of vitamin D supplements. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to remind editors that if an source does not mention the subject of this article: "Joseph Mercola" than using that source is disallowed Original Research WP:OR. This article is NOT the place for EDITORS to either prove or disprove Mercola's claims, we follow what Reliable Sources say about him and his "treatments." The FDA warned him in a letter by saying "misleadingly represent them as safe and/or effective for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 include" and we summarize/paraphrase that. Likewise the WaPo says: In addition, while some studies have suggested that vitamin D might help prevent the flu, others have found no such benefit, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that the best way to protect against the infection is vaccination. in a 2019 article primarily focused on Mercola.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Mercola banned from YouTube

Mercola banned from YouTube then he sued Google and here he is - [5] The admins for this page need to update this information on this page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"Need" is not the right way to put it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. It would also be easy to overstate the importance of the latest events in this saga. I've updated the page. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Red Rose, in the future, it's not "the admins". It's any editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it from the lede as grossly undue, recentism, promoting his YouTube channel, and the original research involved. --Hipal (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The Reuters report belongs in the body. The YouTube link can be left out. Getting banned from YouTube is significant and we should mention it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this sentence - "Mercola was banned from YouTube on September 29, 2021." has been sitting on this page and as soon as it is pointed out that the ban was lifted an editor takes it all out. This is a perfect example of edits not following NPOV guidelines. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Please explain yourself. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Also the fact that the ban was lifted and that Mercola sued google and won should be in a reliable source ... perhaps even reuters. You need to find it and put it back in add that he sued Google and won.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course. We should document what RS say about the matter.

Red Rose, be bold. Find the RS and add that content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

NPOV isn't really the policy to point to here. We are supposed to document the "sum total of human knowledge" as it is found in RS. These are significant events and claims, and you seem to know a bit about it, so you are welcome to improve the article. Naturally that might entail some back and forth and revisions to get it to meet the requirements in our policies and guidelines, but you are allowed to try. Then, when you meet any resistance (such as your addition being deleted), discuss it on this talk page. Don't take it personally. This is the way things work here for every editor.

Red Rose 13, you seem to know these events, so you find the evidence from RS. We will help you and guide you so it ends up being documented properly. Feel free to ping me. Even the biggest cons, frauds, and quacks get their stories told accurately here, and it doesn't look nice for them because, well, that's what they are. We will not promote or glorify Mercola, but we will document what RS say about him. Now go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not finding anything about Mercola winning against Google or YouTube. Just out of curiosity, where does Mercola make this claim? Keep in mind that he's like Trump. Lies are the tools of his trade. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a good primary source to show that he is publishing on YouTube again. - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but without that specific example being mentioned in a RS it's OR and UNDUE for us to add it. (I found two YouTube channels he operates.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The case is ongoing, the court docket still open. Looks like not all channels were closed, or some of them were reinstated. Robincantin (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Next hearing in three weeks, clearly not going anywhere fast. Robincantin (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Rubbish. Read WP:OR - a statement of fact that involves no interpretation of any kind is not OR. - Bilby (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

OR is about editors using Wikipedia as a secondary source. If we go and find primary content that is not first mentioned in a secondary or tertiary source, then we are performing our OWN research (OR). If this were his own personal website, not hosted by YouTube, we could cite WP:ABOUTSELF and mention it, but that is not the case.

Other factors against doing this are that we are already refusing to link to his websites. This obviously violates ELNO, and YouTube is not a RS. We are not going to refuse to link to his websites and then send readers to his YouTube channels. There are no legitimate reasons for linking to this trash. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I get the impression that you still haven't read WP:OR. I'm ok with genuine arguments, but I'm not ok with inventing radical new readings of policy. According to OR: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." This fits fully within that. - Bilby (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

My main concern was the material in the lede. I didn't touch what was already in the article body. I don't see that a single reference calls for an entire section on the topic, duplicating and expanding upon what's already in the "COVID-19 misinformation" section.

As for his current channels, what independent source cares enough to cover it, making it clear that mention in this encyclopedia article is due? --Hipal (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Bilby, I think there's a reasonable SYNTH concern in juxtaposing news about the lawsuit with a primary source citation saying he has a live YouTube account. The implied claim, which is not found in any reliable source, is that the live account is proof that he has been unblocked. Your edit summary makes it seem like that was your intention: "I think it is reasonable that if the ban is mentioned, that it was lifted should be mentioned as well, for fear of misleading readers", but I'll admit it's notoriously difficult to judge intention from edit summaries. Incidentally, the implied claim is not true: it's evident from the Mercola Market's uploaded videos that it has never been blocked, and it was active during the period where Mercola's personal account was blocked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense. At least you aren't arguing SOAP or OR. The point you make that it was never blocked is interesting - does that mean that the reports he was blocked from YouTube are incorrect? But I'm not seeing a significant synth issue, given that it isn't drawing any special or unreasonable conclusion. Sometimes we really do need to consider WP:NFR WP:IAR in cases where we would otherwise mislead readers. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm wading deep into speculation here. YouTube may be distinguishing between Mercola the person and Mercola Marketing the company. Maybe he is banned but the affiliated company is not? Did you meant to link the inactive Wikipedia:Non-free content review? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I just got confused by the 5P "No Firm Rules" title as opposed to the "Ignore All Rules". :) I've fixed it. Yes, that may be the case. If so, there is no point in providing the link, and I'm good with leaving it out. But I wish that had been the debate instead of what we got. - Bilby (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)