Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!

Talk:Joseph Mercola

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Any time you want more info on this fuckwit, feel free to search him on my old blog (I also have some on my current one, but not much...he just makes me to angry.)-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --4 out of 5 doctors recommend RW for gas pain 16:07, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I think I'll expand a bit on this fucker, as long as no more patients come in...-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --4 out of 5 doctors recommend RW for gas pain 16:10, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Im sorry to be self-referrential, please feel free to delete links to my own crap when inappropriate, it's just that i already did the research and all...-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --4 out of 5 doctors recommend RW for gas pain 16:21, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey, you really don't like that guy, do you PAlMD?--Bobbing up 16:29, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
Does it show?-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --4 out of 5 doctors recommend RW for gas pain 16:32, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
I know your style, and there are a few subtle, give-away hints in your vocabulary.--Bobbing up 16:36, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
Curse your edit conflicts PalMD. I shall come back later. :-) --Bobbing up 16:53, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm getting too lazy busy to finish right now, so have at it...-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --4 out of 5 doctors recommend RW for gas pain 17:12, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm just going to bed mate! My time zone strikes me out. I was just doing a little bit of formatting anyway.--Bobbing up 17:14, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Osteopathy and being an actual doctor[edit] Nope. Trick (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, again. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC) This can be quoted as referring to Mercola as a quack, and both this and Wiki can be subjectively referenced as it being simply wrong. Just because you've studied something useless does not mean you're an educated expert. Trick (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm going to come in on a bit softer of a line and say that having the legal educational level, responsibilities, and duties of a physician is important. Not so important that a particular quack can't have "real" in the article. Ikanreed (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
We should probably opt for understatement and citation - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, if he's a DO in the US then that is actually a real doctor. (heck, Chopra and Ron Paul are real doctors) - David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I will absolutely concede to the fact that he's a -licensed- doctor. "Real" in this discussion seems very subjective, but yes, he is a licensed and studied medical practitioner.
Of crap.Trick (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
"HE is a licensed and studied medical practitioner of crap." ~Best quote about the man ever.
(EC)Regardless, of quackiness, this is glossing over something really important. Calling other doctors "real other" doctors uses the syntax and implication of the statement to acknowledge a factual understanding that he's legally a doctor. That's the whole point of strikethrough there. It takes a really contextless interpretation of the sentence to view it as libel, and this does not help with our level of honesty. We've allowed ourselves to be sidetracked by a side-discussion(the quackiness of osteopathy in general) when the main point here is that it isn't actually misrepresentative. Ikanreed (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Are you serious? I don't believe your interpretation is the only one out there, and I believe it wouldn't be worth testing that point in court either. There are ways to get our point across that don't involve skirting defamation. - Grant (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
A truth defense to defamation comes after the lawsuit. I take it that we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief because you, so wise, will be the judge on this one. This is fantastic news. Faraday Cage (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You can sue for anything, even completely true, completely subjective statements. You've made no argument. Ikanreed (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It was actually pointed out in Faraday Cage's edit summary how the article's previous state could easily be considered defamatory (and I happen to agree). I have yet to see you provide a convincing counterargument to that. - Grant (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Then I shall try. It's clearly and unambiguously sarcastic due to the markup. Ikanreed (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
If you're referring to my post immediately above yours, I was obliquely making exactly the same claim you just made. Why are you being dishonest to defend content that could get the foundation and yourself sued? I take it you actually be the judge. It's heartening that a responsible defendant that potentially shares liability with someone else will simply cross claim him into the lawsuit. At least the foundation will have Ikanreed's company in court if he puts his money where his mouth is and gets it sued for him testing whether calling a doctor a quack is unlawful. Faraday Cage (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Which is exactly the problem. I'm not sure why you think that helps your case. If strikethroughs generally mean something different in wiki parlance, I'm all ears (not that it matters, seeing as we can't assume all of our readers are well versed in such and will understand the distinction), but generally if I call you a jerk nice guy, that means I'm tacitly implying that you are, indeed, a jerk, and not a nice guy. Implying defamation is still defamation. - Grant (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Because I suspect you're going to try to apply my example in a way that runs contrary to its meaning, I'm going to add that when I see that somebody is a real something, the implication is that they aren't. - Grant (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
(DOUBLE EC)To cite a source,
Because liability for satire and parody hinges on a reasonable person’s belief about the truthfulness of the commentary, you would be wise to consider various factors that may help ensure that a reasonable person would recognize your material as protected ideas and opinion — Protection for satire and parody
We have met that standard. Ikanreed (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I can say I've met any standard I want. That doesn't make it true. - Grant (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Man, can't wait till the BLP review hits Conservapedia space. Popcorn time! - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It's also a really big problem in many of our science-related articles. Many of them attack scientists and individuals pretty savagely as opposed to attacking their ideas. I'm not looking forward to combing through those either. - Grant (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
ec IKanreed, get this: the RMF has been threatened on multiple occasions with legal action. What you link to may be correct, but it will not stop people from launching legal action. Even if we are right and they are wrong, the process is expensive, time-consuming and complicated. Unless you are an attorney offering your services to the Foundation pro bono, let go of the smug self-satisfaction you get from hitting save after writing a tired old strike-through joke and go work on articles on dead people or other things that can't sue us. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
(I hate you, edit conflicts)Right, and I can say any statement is potentially defamatory, and that also doesn't make it true. A reasonable marking suggesting to a reader that something is parody or satire(in this case strikethrough) is completely reasonable, and you're insane for thinking it doesn't meet that standard. I appreciate that we're trying to protect people from defamation, but parodying a litigious defensive of quackery through strike-through is completely reasonable. Like there's this perception that snark is the dame as maliciously false statements, and legally a distinction exists for exactly the kind of article we're writing. One that criticizes a public figure through humor.
You guys are conflating the possibility of a lawsuit(an unavoidable possibility in a world where your criticize people, which we're not going to stop), with the possibility of a legitimate lawsuit, which is all we can stop. Ikanreed (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so now I'm insane, am I? Speaking of defamation... I don't think you have a good understanding of what defamation is or what defamation law actually entails. - Grant (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
GrantC: the BLP stick of understatement and citation needs a lot of wielding - David Gerard (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It most certainly does. I have a list of science articles I'm determined to start cleaning up once I have the time to properly hunt for citations. - Grant (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It is the most persuasive style, given an intelligent audience who read carefully. Persuading the lump in the middle of the Gaussian curve is trickier. It may have been Bernays who found that annoying ads were the most effective, since they were the ones people remembered. Sometimes a spade must be repeatedly and emphatically called what it is, if the message is to sink in enough that it counts. (Devil's advocate here. I find well-handled understatement entertaining and informative.) Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Being able to call a spade a fucking shovel is in fact an important public service we perform. But for BLPs in particular, the citations for such better be bloody immaculate - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (EC, again)For christ's sake, I'm not a lawyer, but yes. I am. Defamation includes disseminating known false information about a person that could damage their reputation or cause financial harm. For public figures there is a higher standard of both purposeful malice, with the intent to damage reputation, not just impugning it incidentally, and a requirement to demonstrate the falsehood of the statements. That's all fine, our article as it existed wouldn't quite meet that standard. But there exist further protections for speech which is satirical and makes clear which statements are intended to be humorous. Strikethrough in this case meaning that we don't consider other doctors unique in the realness. I'm sorry for calling you crazy, but this was a reasonable article, and paranoia about lawsuits isn't the same as choosing not to be defamatory.

Examples of precedent establishing protected parody include: hustler magazine accusing Jerry Falwell of incest in a manner clearly intended to be false and humorous(Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell) and sites parodying Chic-fil-A's hate with more extreme versions( CFA Properties, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC). While an affirmative defense, so is the damned truth, so I'm not seeing the distinction. Ikanreed (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I do see your point, but am coming to concur with the above views that understatement and reference is a good practice on BLPs, so I would no longer support the strikethrough version - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, fine. I guess I'm really only defending it because it could be defended, not because it was crucial to the article quality. Ikanreed (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ikanreed, you are a liar. You're lying. If you were only defending it because it could be defended, why did you revert the removal as you did? You weren't just running your mouth. God you don't shut up, and you get appallingly dishonest in your rhetoric.
I'm a lawyer. I'll tell you that it's far from clear where the public figure line is.
I'll tell you that your intent analysis is irrelevant and imprudent.
I'll tell you that your legal gibberish about paranoia about lawsuits and choosing not to be defamatory is legal gibberish.
I'll also tell you that if, in your smug misapprehension that your legal analysis matters, you make the mistake that Brxbrx did of repeating defamatory statements, I'm banning you for a year.
It is absolutely astonishing to me the level of resistance some of you give to exercising sound judgment in considering how to criticize ideas — you know people sue over things of this nature.
I'll just come out and say that Trent was just recently personally sued for alleged defamation in a distant state. That's three lawsuits in a year. Are some of you really so arrogant that you think your legal opinion matters?
This is simple. Don't impugn a professional's competence. Don't call doctors quacks. Don't accuse people of criminal misconduct. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Under those guidelines pretty much anybody (or at least doctors here) is immune to any sort of criticism. Trick (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not how reading works. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
"This is simple. Don't impugn a professional's competence." I see. Then what else does this mean? Trick (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The article still calls him a quack. If that's the threshold, then that's the fucking threshold. Not some sarcastic quip. You're a piece of shit, nutty. Ikanreed (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Am I now? The article doesn't call him a quack. It refers to ideas. You read and reason poorly. Why not just cut your losses and shut your mouth for once? Nutty Roux (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That's because I just removed statements like this one after posting that:
In what can only be termed a quack alternative medicine practitioner group hug, Mercola has recently come to the defense of the Burzynski Clinic despite the obvious pitfalls of doing so
Jesus. Ikanreed (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Good on you. I didn't see that because I'm a piece of shit. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Fine, let me apologize for that, since all I meant is that you are needlessly like a piece of shit towards me. Believe it or not, I'm quite vulnerable to reasonable argumentation. Ikanreed (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"This is actually a thing" is a wildly overused and silly phrase[edit]

Hey, can we try to avoid this tedious cliche? In about four weeks, it will look out-of-date and silly.

If not sooner.

Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Saying a thing is a thing is still a thing. Ikanreed (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but God willing, not for much longer. Phiwum (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Blue Light Bad![edit]

Last night, I found an article of his where he promotes the "blue light keeps you awake at night" myth that's been going around lately. Of course, I commented correcting him, saying that, so long as it's not sharp or bright (like those always-highbeam headlights), blue light is actually relaxing. I did edit the article to show how he responds to disagreement in the comments of his blog, but the point of this section is to inform you about his position on blue light. To his credit, I found a similar article at Harvard, so even otherwise credible doctors are jumping on this bandwagon, but... That's no excuse. (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you provide sources for this? I am seeing what you call a myth a lot on what I see to be reliable new sources, such as—CheeseburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Here ya go:
You realize that this article contradicts you, right?—CheeseburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Blue light bad indeed[edit]

Just letting you know that blue light actually isn't great for sleep. Indeed, dark therapy is actually evidence-based medicine. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Nah... That goes against all intuition and experience. I have a blue lava lamp (the liquid is blue, the lava is white) that I turn on after dark. I turn off all my other lights. The darkness except for a soft blue light actually helps me wind down. Blue is a cool colour, which makes it relaxing. The "science" on blue light being bad is flawed and will be reversed in the next few years. I don't know how they did it, but I'm assuming they used those blue always highbeam headlights and extrapolated that to ALL blue light. Besides, doesn't the fact that Mercola claims blue light is bad discredit it? Even of otherwise reputable sources are saying the same thing? It's the Facebook effect. Like, when someone posts a fake news article on Facebook and then the real news picks it up without fact checking it. Happens all the time. (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidenceCheeseburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk)
How so? I said he posted an article about it, and then presented an article he posted about it. (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
That reply was meant to be above, but this one is meant to be here: Anecdotal, maybe... But, here's something that's not anecdotal. When the sun sets, suddenly we only have blue light. For billions of years before artificial lighting, blue light was the only kind available at night. But, after artificial light existed, suddenly blue light became the problem? Or how about the fact that humans' ability to see blue light is only about 200 years old or so. Prior to that, the sky was grey and the sea was green. But, before we were able to see blue, our circadian rhythms worked just fine. Why is that? (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, daylight contains the most intense blue light we're exposed to naturally. Light has to be of a certain lumen before the color of said light is relevant to biological effects. During times of grey overcast filtering direct sunlight, the color temperature can tilt as high as to 6-7000k. This is a known cause of migraines for some, for the record. Regardless — on the topic of quack medicine — we go by evidence and studies here, not anecdotes about what "feels" relaxing and lava lamp ownership. No need to beat around the scientific bushWikipedia. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems that what the evidence is actually saying is that intense light is the culprit, not any particular colour. I used to have migraines quite frequently myself, and it was fluorescent lighting and CRT TV screens that intensified the pain the most, although the brightness was most relevant. When suffering from a migraine, as with sleeping, complete darkness is preferred. But, in the few hours before sleeping, one should become relaxed, and a soft blue background light is good for that. On the subject of quack medicine, you do realise you're arguing the quack Mercola's argument here, right? I know. I know. Guilt by association fallacy. But, if he's a quack, why would he promote real science? (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a blue lava lamp and it keeps me up at night. Isn't anecdotal evidence fun?—CheeseburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you turn it off before you go to bed? Of course it keeps you up if you leave it on while you're trying to sleep. (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Jesus, dude. Have I been linking you to Mercola's articles as evidence for my claims, or what? No. I've been linking to real, peer-reviewed research, and to TOW's article on MelanopsinWikipedia. You do realize that melanopsin is an actual thing, right? And that if you have any respect for science at all, you'll promptly align your views to accommodate said findings? Who is the crank here, exactly — me or you? You talk about what you do with a lava lamp. Who cares? Why don't you read some actual science and drop your pet theory that blue light is relaxing or sleep-inducing. It's not. We know that low-wavelength light does the exact opposite to inducing sleep or relaxation. Get over it, dude. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's try another approach. A good skeptic, when wanting to challenge something, relies on examining flaws in 3 areas:

  1. Direct supporting evidence, adequately controlled for by experiment. If there's genuinely a problem with something being pseudoscience or myth, there's an absence of experimental evidence for it. Given what percy has linked above, do you think this is true? It seems to me that people have done experiments where there's a distinct correlation to a independent variable of "blue light exposure" and a dependent variable of "ease of sleep". Have you found contrary evidence?
  2. A substantive lack of mechanism. #1 can fail as a tool, occasionally though it's the biggest and best tool in the toolbox. This happens when confounding variables dominate and natural experiments are the only kind possible(i.e. murder rates). In such cases, you need to be able to point out that the proposed explanatory mechanism doesn't have rigorous scientific backing. Percy's links above are pretty thorough there.
  3. Structural woo. This is the least important way of identifying things you should object to, but it's a good first pass: does the idea rely heavily on half-explanations that aren't clear? Are their fallacies embedded in why you should believe it? Is there a history of crankery?

Which if any of these tools are alerting you to problems? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I love how you're harping on the one piece of anecdotal evidence he presented and ignoring everything else. Red herring fallacy. No wonder he gave up on you. "Rational" wiki? Hardly/ (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)