Dr. Mercola

[AaronMHatch]

I started following his diet plan in January (no grains, raw dairy, fish oil instead of mercury-laiden fish, no soy, less fruits due to fructose and more vegetables)

It has really improved my life through better memory, less illness, a clearer mind, and a more positive attitude.

I had researched Mercola and found that the FDA had requested he remove some claims from his website. Aside from this, I'm struggling to understand why he's been labeled a complete nutcase. I understand the concerns regarding his beliefs on vaccines, naturopathy, the evils of big pharma, and some alternative pseudosciences.

My question is this: Can you label everything he says as woo and false? Could it be that his nutritional recommendations are more or less sound? I see a lot of hate towards Mercola on this forum, but perhaps some of what he says is credible?

What is your take? I give him credit for at least responding to the criticism (mercolaquack.com).

[JJM]

Go to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ and search the blog (down a little on the left side of the page, not the two search options on the top right) and search for mercola

Also, search at www.quackwatch.org One-stop shopping for quackery

His diet advice doesn't look all that good to me. Besides, if you cannot tell good from bad health advice, it's a bad idea to consult someone who's advice is an indiscriminate mix of mostly junk and a few possibly sound notions.

[AaronMHatch]

The Quackerwatch posting of his run in with the FDA doesn't seem to question his knowledge. It's simply stating that the FDA requested that Mercola comply with their standards in regards to proper advertising.

scienceblogs seems to have several more informative sources. I'll have a look.

Thanks!

[Zep]

It's my understanding Mercola is not actually a real, qualified medical doctor, just a paper one.

Also, how he is a hypocrite: http://thelanguageguy.blogspot.com/2009/04/dr-mercola.html

[Skeptical Greg]

I started following his diet plan in January (no grains, raw dairy, fish oil instead of mercury-laiden fish, no soy, less fruits due to fructose and more vegetables)

.....

About how much mercury-laiden fish were you consuming, before you made the switch ?

[fls]

My question is this: Can you label everything he says as woo and false?

How do you distinguish his statements which are false from those which may be true?

Linda

[AaronMHatch]

About how much mercury-laiden fish were you consuming, before you made the switch ?

I was eating salmon, squid, or shrimp several times a week.

@fsl: that's what I'm faced with, now. I'm not sure where to go for my nutritional info now.

It does seem that people only attack Mercola's stances on vaccines, naturopathy, and homeopathy. I haven't seen anyone criticizing his nutritional recommendations.

[paximperium]

It does seem that people only attack Mercola's stances on vaccines, naturopathy, and homeopathy. I haven't seen anyone criticizing his nutritional recommendations.Why are "no grains, raw dairy, fish oil instead of mercury-laiden fish, no soy, less fruits due to fructose and more vegetables" good recommendations?

[Complexity]

What makes you think that fish-oil (derived from fish, some of which are mercury-laden) results in your consuming less mercury than you would if you ate the fish?

[paximperium]

What makes you think that fish-oil (derived from fish, some of which are mercury-laden) results in your consuming less mercury than you would if you ate the fish?
Not exactly a significant point. Fish-oil(Omega 3 Fatty acids) are purified to remove the mercury before sale.

[JJM]

It's my understanding Mercola is not actually a real, qualified medical doctor, just a paper one. ...He has a D.O.

[AaronMHatch]

What makes you think that fish-oil (derived from fish, some of which are mercury-laden) results in your consuming less mercury than you would if you ate the fish?

The oil comes from Krill, which are at the bottom of the food chain and thus have the least mercury content.

[AaronMHatch]

Why are "no grains, raw dairy, fish oil instead of mercury-laiden fish, no soy, less fruits due to fructose and more vegetables" good recommendations?

I can tell you why Mercola thinks they are good recommendations. I personally am no nutritionist and am frustratingly unsure of what to eat now. Part of me wants to go buy a pizza and be done with it.

I will say that within the first month on Mercola's diet, I lost 15 pounds. And I am not overweight. I did regain the weight after I began eating more raw protein.

[Zep]

Raw dairy exposes you to a number of known pathogens, some of which are particularly bad. It is precisely why Pasteur invented "pasteurisation" in the first place.

Questions: When you started this diet, did you also modify the overall volume you ate? And did you start on any exercise regime as well "for your health benefit"?

[Mr.D]

I started following his diet plan in January

... less illness ...

It's only been three months or so. How often were you ill before?

[AaronMHatch]

It's only been three months or so. How often were you ill before?

Before, I would get sore throats, headaches, and suffer from signs of depression. Since taking on his diet, those symptoms have disappeared.

Zep, I eat less food now than I did before. I eat 3 small meals a day with no snacks and usually feel full for the most part.

As for exercise, I had been running and working out daily (well, most days) for many years. I have continued that plan to this day.

[jimtron]

What's wrong with grains?

[Zep]

Before, I would get sore throats, headaches, and suffer from signs of depression. Since taking on his diet, those symptoms have disappeared.Are you aware that the placebo effect works precisely this way? And that you are probably counting the hits and ignoring the misses?

You started this diet fully expecting/hoping for it to have an effect. Therefore it did...at least in your mind.

Zep, I eat less food now than I did before. I eat 3 small meals a day with no snacks and usually feel full for the most part.

As for exercise, I had been running and working out daily (well, most days) for many years. I have continued that plan to this day.So you are eating less, while still exercising. Given that weight-loss occurs when calories out exceeds calories in...can you connect those dots? The diet per se has nothing to do with it, unless you have been skipping your vitamins and other healthy foods.

Also, rapid weight loss followed by rapid weight gain suggests it was more likely fluid loss/gain than fat. Your body can rapidly lose and regain water volume in hours to days - many pounds at a time. It's a condition exploited by those "fat-blaster!" 48-hour diets, etc (also, they "empty the bowels" - another "fake" rapid weight loss method). Fat has nothing to do with this; also, it's not a good thing to do repeatedly.

No human can lose pounds of fat in hours or days. It takes weeks to months. In extreme circumstances for fit people, it may also be muscle bulk loss, but that takes time too.

Good for you exercising - keep it up! That is the real way to keep your weight in trim. (I wish I had the time and opportunity myself, being a blimp!)

[paximperium]

What's wrong with grains?
What's wrong with any of them?

[Cavemonster]

Are you aware that the placebo effect works precisely this way? And that you are probably counting the hits and ignoring the misses?

You started this diet fully expecting/hoping for it to have an effect. Therefore it did...at least in your mind.


It's also possible that just by virtue of an extreme diet shift he cut out something he may have been allergic/ sensitive to, or just started getting something lacking by adding more vegetables.

[AaronMHatch]

Thanks, Zep. Surely, my shift to consuming more nutrient-dense carbohydrates which contain much less calories was, I presume, a big reason for my weight loss.

One benefit of removing grains is that they are nutrient-poor carbohydrates. Replacing them with the vegetables and other nutrient-dense foods helps in hopefully obvious ways. Another benefit, as argued by Mercola, is that the grains cause an increase in insulin, which forces the body to work harder and cause inflammation.

The placebo effect has definitely been a part of this process. I am fully confident, however, that my increased memory recall and clear mind were due in part to my diet change. Of course, as Cavemonster suggested, this may be due to the addition of a wide varieties of vegetables that I had never eaten before, along with eating raw eggs for the first time in my life.

I have been spending the past several hours researching Mercola. I truly think he means well and believes in his products and advice. It does seem, however, that his information does not always match up with science.

[casebro]

What's wrong with grains?

It sounds overall like a low-carb diet. I sure know lots of folks who lost weight on low-carb.

Lessee, no wheat, rice, corn, or sweet fruits. Sure sounds like "Mercola's Low Carb Diet" to me. The mercury and dairy stuff is just window dressing, neither have anything to do with weight loss.

[Zep]

He has a D.O....no idea, sorry. Diploma of Obstetrics?

[TheDaver]

I'm struggling to understand why he's been labeled a complete nutcase. I understand the concerns regarding his beliefs on vaccines, naturopathy, the evils of big pharma, and some alternative pseudosciences.

My question is this: Can you label everything he says as woo and false?
No. Obviously that would be unfair. But since he espouses so much utter crap, unless you’re a doctor yourself, you would really have to take everything he says with a grain of salt. In which case, he isn’t really worth listening to in the first place.

Could it be that his nutritional recommendations are more or less sound? I see a lot of hate towards Mercola on this forum, but perhaps some of what he says is credible?
It could be, but given all his misinformation, diversion, nonsense and lies, why bother trying to pick out the truth in what he says? Why not just find somebody more reliable to learn from?

ETA: And it’s not that we hate him. We just recognize him for the sleazebag he is.

What is your take? I give him credit for at least responding to the criticism (mercolaquack.com).
The way I see it, that’s just a different array of misinformation, diversion, nonsense and lies put up to defend himself. I really don’t think he deserves any credit for that.…

[AaronMHatch]

Thanks for the reply, Daver. Perhaps I should look for a nutritionist who has good nutritional information and has a credible background.

Does anyone have a good recommendation? What about Dr. Weil? Or, have any of you visited whfoods.com?

[TheDaver]

I haven’t bothered to read up on any specific people, but as I understand it, dieticians have better credibility than nutritionists.

[Bikewer]

Out of the frying pan... I haven't checked back on Dr. Weil for some time, but he was espousing plenty of silliness the last time I checked.

What, pray tell, is wrong with following well-recognized authorities like the FDA?

These "diet gurus" are a dime a dozen, and rarely have any credibility.

[ponderingturtle]

No human can lose pounds of fat in hours or days. It takes weeks to months. In extreme circumstances for fit people, it may also be muscle bulk loss, but that takes time too.

I am not sure this is strictly true, people who do things like swim the English channel might lose some in hours. Now for people who are not going through tens of thousands of calories worth of exorcise, it is pretty much impossible.

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks, Zep. Surely, my shift to consuming more nutrient-dense carbohydrates which contain much less calories was, I presume, a big reason for my weight loss.

One benefit of removing grains is that they are nutrient-poor carbohydrates. Replacing them with the vegetables and other nutrient-dense foods helps in hopefully obvious ways. Another benefit, as argued by Mercola, is that the grains cause an increase in insulin, which forces the body to work harder and cause inflammation.

Were you actually malnourished before? More vitamins and minerals are not uniformly better. They can become toxic or do odd things like turn you orange.

[ponderingturtle]

...no idea, sorry. Diploma of Obstetrics?

Doctor of Osteopathy. This is a real medical doctor in the US. It is slightly different from an MD but not some quack degree like a ND or such.

[AaronMHatch]

Were you actually malnourished before? More vitamins and minerals are not uniformly better. They can become toxic or do odd things like turn you orange.

I wasn't eating very healthy before, no. I consumed very few vegetables, mostly cereals, fruit juices, and pasta.

Bikewer,

search.mercola.com/results.aspx?k=fda

Several of the articles reference news from sources such as USA Today, LA Times, New York Times, etc.

EDIT: I would link directly to the Mercola articles or even the news reports he's linking to, but I'm don't have enough posts to link you to them.

[ponderingturtle]

I wasn't eaten very healthy before, no. I consumed very few vegetables, mostly cereals, fruit juices, and pasta.


Then this might be more healthy than you were before, because you are eating vegetables. That doesn't mean that he is a good source of information on what a good diet is. There are good reasons to cook dairy for example, and he seems to have hard and fast rule were they are more relative.

[AaronMHatch]

Then this might be more healthy than you were before, because you are eating vegetables. That doesn't mean that he is a good source of information on what a good diet is. There are good reasons to cook dairy for example, and he seems to have hard and fast rule were they are more relative.

I'm still up in the air regarding the pasteurized dairy. My farmer has told me that in the last 2 years, nobody has died from raw milk. He went on to explain that several people have died from spinach and peanut butter, yet there is no demand to ban those products.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm still up in the air regarding the pasteurized dairy. My farmer has told me that in the last 2 years, nobody has died from raw milk. He went on to explain that several people have died from spinach and peanut butter, yet there is no demand to ban those products.

So? We have not until recently has measles outbreaks in the US, so like this doctor advocates we should go back to an unvaccinated state?

If you like it more, it is not an unacceptable risk to take, but why advocate more risky behavior with out any benefit on medical grounds?

[fls]

Thanks for the reply, Daver. Perhaps I should look for a nutritionist who has good nutritional information and has a credible background.

Does anyone have a good recommendation? What about Dr. Weil? Or, have any of you visited whfoods.com?

What's wrong with just using a normal source?

Linda

[fls]

I'm still up in the air regarding the pasteurized dairy. My farmer has told me that in the last 2 years, nobody has died from raw milk.

How do you know that he is telling you the truth? And how would he know anyway?

Linda

[TheDaver]

I'm still up in the air regarding the pasteurized dairy. My farmer has told me that in the last 2 years, nobody has died from raw milk. He went on to explain that several people have died from spinach and peanut butter, yet there is no demand to ban those products.
But if tens of millions of people drank raw milk (as do eat spinach and peanut butter), you would see a lot more than several people dying.

I would trust a farmer pretty well to show me how to farm, but sure as heck not to give me nutritional advice.

[Empress]

I'm still up in the air regarding the pasteurized dairy. My farmer has told me that in the last 2 years, nobody has died from raw milk. He went on to explain that several people have died from spinach and peanut butter, yet there is no demand to ban those products.

Not sure where you're from, but even if what your farmer told you is true, it might simply be because it's illegal to sell raw milk in many places, so fewer people have access to it. I have to say, I drank some once and it was delicious. But I'll probably never get the chance again. Also, that's probably a good thing. Pasteurization is important for safety.

Since you've been to Mercola's site, you know he hawks all sorts of products. So he has a financial reason to get people to believe things, like only certain varieties of nutrition items--the ones he sells--are good for you, and the ones you buy at the grocery store spell certain death. Shop around. You'll find that even the most mundane items he sells are outrageously expensive. That's money right into his pocket. Why wouldn't he try to make you wary of other's stuff?

I believe he also has suggested that cancer is a fungus that can be naturally treated and cured with baking soda, although I'm just going by memory. If that is in fact one of his claims, I'm betting he sells a sooper-dooper baking soda much better than Walmart brand, or Arm and Hammer which no doubt contains some evil ingrediant that his doesn't.

He's a huckster, pure and simple.

[technoextreme]

. Aside from this, I'm struggling to understand why he's been labeled a complete nutcase. I understand the concerns regarding his beliefs on vaccines, naturopathy, the evils of big pharma, and some alternative pseudosciences.

He thinks staring at the sun denotes good nutrition. End of thread. I win.

[AaronMHatch]

So? We have not until recently has measles outbreaks in the US, so like this doctor advocates we should go back to an unvaccinated state?

If you like it more, it is not an unacceptable risk to take, but why advocate more risky behavior with out any benefit on medical grounds?

I can't say I have an answer for this one.

What's wrong with just using a normal source?

Linda

What do you mean by a normal source? A doctor? If that's what you mean, I don't have health insurance and thus can not ask them. Do you have an online suggestion? Would MayoClinic suffice?

How do you know that he is telling you the truth? And how would he know anyway?

Linda

I don't know for sure. I have met some of his children who he claims consume the raw dairy and grass-fed beef he sells. I figure he knows because he is currently in a battle with Whole Foods who have decided to stop selling raw milk (and thus his product). He's trying to build his case, and I would suppose from that he would be knowledgeable about the subject.

But if tens of millions of people drank raw milk (as do eat spinach and peanut butter), you would see a lot more than several people dying.

It would certainly be helpful to see a general number of people who eat spinach and peanut butter as compared to raw milk drinkers.

I'm still interested in seeing what you think about the FDA articles posted by Mercola.

[Ocelot]

Thanks for the reply, Daver. Perhaps I should look for a nutritionist who has good nutritional information and has a credible background.

Does anyone have a good recommendation? What about Dr. Weil? Or, have any of you visited whfoods.com?

The following advice is accurate for the UK. YMMV

Don't look for a nutritionist. Look for a dietician. Same as if there's something wrong with your teeth you should go to a dentist rather than a toothiologist. To call yourselve a dietician or a dentist you must complete a regulated field of study. The other terms aren't protected and anyone can call themselves such. Even a dead cat (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/sep/30/badscience.research)

[AaronMHatch]

Not sure where you're from, but even if what your farmer told you is true, it might simply be because it's illegal to sell raw milk in many places, so fewer people have access to it. I have to say, I drank some once and it was delicious. But I'll probably never get the chance again. Also, that's probably a good thing. Pasteurization is important for safety.



This is one example where Mercola does not have his own product. For example, he recommends raw milk and then provides links to farmer networks.

Another example is vitamin D. He recommends more sun before taking any supplements. He also recommends getting tested before buying supplements, including his own. If he was truly all about the money, wouldn't he be suggesting you buy his product instead of getting free sun?

[AaronMHatch]

The following advice is accurate for the UK. YMMV

Don't look for a nutritionist. Look for a dietician. Same as if there's something wrong with your teeth you should go to a dentist rather than a toothiologist. To call yourselve a dietician or a dentist you must complete a regulated field of study.

I did not know the difference before creating this thread. Thanks for the information.

[technoextreme]

I said end of thread. :mad:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/08/feasting-on-sunshine.aspx
I am not angry.

[fls]

What do you mean by a normal source? A doctor? If that's what you mean, I don't have health insurance and thus can not ask them. Do you have an online suggestion? Would MayoClinic suffice?

Mayo Clinic is good.
The Department of Agriculture puts out thorough guidelines.
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DietaryGuidelines.htm

I don't know for sure. I have met some of his children who he claims consume the raw dairy and grass-fed beef he sells. I figure he knows because he is currently in a battle with Whole Foods who have decided to stop selling raw milk (and thus his product). He's trying to build his case, and I would suppose from that he would be knowledgeable about the subject.

It doesn't occur to you that he would present information only in a way that supports his livelihood?

Linda

[technoextreme]

It doesn't occur to you that he would present information only in a way that supports his livelihood?

How does the whole stare at the sun fits into his livelihood?

[Rolfe]

There are very good reasons why selling unpasteurised milk is banned in many countries. Tuberculosis and brucellosis are the main ones but the list goes on.

Due to strenuous eradication regimes, TB and brucella have been pretty much eradicated from dairy cattle, making unpasteurised milk safer than it was, but other things such as salmonella may still contaminate it. Allowing the consumption of unpasteurised milk is public health insanity.

Of course, if few people drink it, then it's unlikely there will have been any deaths over the past two years - if that is correct of course. I'd also point out that TB and brucellosis are chronic diseases that leave you chronically sick but may well not kill you.

There are no particular health benefits to unpasteurised milk. It's just the same as pasteurised milk but with the pathogens inactivated. This "great taste" thing also seems to be based on a misconception. The pasteurisation process is designed to change the taste and appearance of the milk as little as possible. The problem is that many producers don't stop at that, but homogenise and fortify and do all sorts of other things that do change the taste and texture. So raw milk may be the only unprocessed milk people in the USA ever encounter.

Try to get hold of milk that's just pasteurised with no other processing, and you'll find the taste doesn't differ much from raw milk. Of course, there's no nutritional benefit anyway - it's just a taste thing.

Rolfe.

[AaronMHatch]

I said end of thread. :mad:

I am not angry.

I am in agreement with you that Mercola goes off the deep end in many articles. I'm still interested in his articles regarding the FDA. Someone has asked why I don't trust them, and it's because of the reports he's highlighted. Why should we fully trust them?

@ fls

I suppose I believe him because I've met him and his family. He is a 6th generation farmer who has lived off of his food. I guess I have a disposition to believe him.

[AaronMHatch]

Try to get hold of milk that's just pasteurised with no other processing, and you'll find the taste doesn't differ much from raw milk. Of course, there's no nutritional benefit anyway - it's just a taste thing.

Rolfe.

Does pasteurization deplete the nutritional content of the dairy?

[Zep]

I am not sure this is strictly true, people who do things like swim the English channel might lose some in hours. Now for people who are not going through tens of thousands of calories worth of exorcise, it is pretty much impossible.
No, endurance athletes do not lose stored fat. They definitely lose water, and whatever nutrients are in their gut will provide the fuel. However most endurance athletes are pretty trained-up and fit, and not carrying much excess fat anyway (who wants to lug around unusable poundage?!).

Endurance athletes carb-up beforehand - pasta and so on is slow-release energy over some hours. Whereas middle-distance athletes go for the high sugar load - quicker access to fuel. Sprint athletes usually rely on the "instant-on" fuel of blood-sugar [and adrenalin] but which runs out very quickly.

Channel swimmers will take on "fuel" and water regularly during the swim with stuff like Gatorade, like refilling the gas tank of your car. In the old days, it was sugary tea and chocolate!

[ponderingturtle]

What do you mean by a normal source? A doctor? If that's what you mean, I don't have health insurance and thus can not ask them. Do you have an online suggestion? Would MayoClinic suffice?

How about you cut back on some premium food items like raw milk, and save up for some face time with someone who knows what they are talking about?

[ponderingturtle]

There are no particular health benefits to unpasteurised milk. It's just the same as pasteurised milk but with the pathogens inactivated. This "great taste" thing also seems to be based on a misconception. The pasteurisation process is designed to change the taste and appearance of the milk as little as possible. The problem is that many producers don't stop at that, but homogenise and fortify and do all sorts of other things that do change the taste and texture. So raw milk may be the only unprocessed milk people in the USA ever encounter.


This might be dependent on if it is pasteurised or ultrapasteurised.

[AaronMHatch]

How about you cut back on some premium food items like raw milk, and save up for some face time with someone who knows what they are talking about?

That might be a good idea. It would be even better to find online sources of credible info for free.

[Zep]

Doctor of Osteopathy. This is a real medical doctor in the US. It is slightly different from an MD but not some quack degree like a ND or such.
Osteopathy:
Originally, a system of medicine based upon the theory that the normal body is able to rectify itself against toxic conditions. While some manipulation is still used to treat patients, most osteopaths today rely heavily on drugs and surgery to treat patients. Today, only about three percent (3%) of osteopaths perform any kind of spinal manipulation.http://www.bigdaddymedia.com/no-back-pain/index.php/terminology/chiropractic-terminology/

I would say that Mercola is stepping WAY out of his professional field most of the time.

[AaronMHatch]

I've now reached the 15 post count, so I can post URLs. Here are the concerns I have with the FDA:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/health/policy/25knee.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/08/13/secrets-of-the-fda-revealed-by-top-insider-doctor.aspx

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004029053_fenphen22m.html?referrer=digg

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-12-19-celebrex-cover_x.htm

These are for the person who asked why I don't fully trust the FDA.

[ponderingturtle]

http://www.bigdaddymedia.com/no-back-pain/index.php/terminology/chiropractic-terminology/

I would say that Mercola is stepping WAY out of his professional field most of the time.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Um you are missing the point, DO's are doctors, not quacks like chiropractors anymore. Unless you look at the credentials you will not know if your doctor is an MD or a DO. It is entirely likely that some doctors you know are DO's and not MD's.

you want links fine

A physician who is a DO (Doctor of Osteopathy) is held to the same standards as an MD. They both attend four years of medical school and complete their training during the same residency programs. A surgeon who wants to be board certified in a specialty will take similar tests for certification, regardless of whether they are a DO or an MD.

link (http://surgery.about.com/od/questionsanswers/qt/DOversusMD.htm)

So if is he a DO he is a real doctor, not a "doctor" like an ND or other BS profession. He is still a quack but a quack with real as opposed to fake credentials.

[paximperium]

That might be a good idea. It would be even better to find online sources of credible info for free.
You have had great questions thus far. Ultimately you were asking 2 questions:
1)Is it logical to reject his claims based solely on his prior history?
The answer is no. Each claim needs to be assessed by own its own merit and evidence.
HOWEVER
2)Is it rational to reject his claims based solely on his prior history?
The answer here is yes. His history lying and making crap up makes it likely any claim he puts forth as likely to be false. You don't have time to double check every claim put forth by him. You don't have the expertise or time therefore it it rational to depend on credible and dependable sources for information. Mercola is neither dependable or credible.

[paximperium]

Um you are missing the point, DO's are doctors, not quacks like chiropractors anymore. Unless you look at the credentials you will not know if your doctor is an MD or a DO. It is entirely likely that some doctors you know are DO's and not MD's.

you want links fine



link (http://surgery.about.com/od/questionsanswers/qt/DOversusMD.htm)

So if is he a DO he is a real doctor, not a "doctor" like an ND or other BS profession. He is still a quack but a quack with real as opposed to fake credentials.DOs in the US are physicians in every sense of the word. They have similar specializations like surgery, orthopedics, pediatrics etc. although they tend towards primary care. They receive similar training to MDs and have standards similar to MD medical boards.

The issue that plagues DOs is they still continue to train and teach Osteopathic Manipulation techniques and believe in a "hollistic" approach to patient management. This leads DOs to be more prone to woo and other such nonsense.

Most DOs do not bother to use osteopathic techniques and many don't believe it works. They went to a DO med school so they could get into a med school, any med school. This also leads to a slightly lower standard of students in DO schools as opposed to MD schools. 2 of my best friends are DOs and are perfectly competent physicians. The Vice chair of my department is also a DO and is an excellent clinician. A DO or MD degree does not automatically equate with competency.

[technoextreme]

I am in agreement with you that Mercola goes off the deep end in many articles. I'm still interested in his articles regarding the FDA. Someone has asked why I don't trust them, and it's because of the reports he's highlighted. Why should we fully trust them?

So why should we trust Mercola whose gone fully off the wall in terms of some of his articles and resorts to calling people names for no reason at all? Sure the FDA has problems but I would imagine that if I actually looked through Mercola's articles the vast majority of those problems are related to the fact that the FDA doesn't like people selling crap.

[ponderingturtle]

DOs in the US are physicians in every sense of the word. They have similar specializations like surgery, orthopedics, pediatrics etc. although they tend towards primary care. They receive similar training to MDs and have standards similar to MD medical boards.

The issue that plagues DOs is they still continue to train and teach Osteopathic Manipulation techniques and believe in a "hollistic" approach to patient management. This leads DOs to be more prone to woo and other such nonsense.

Most DOs do not bother to use osteopathic techniques and many don't believe it works. They went to a DO med school so they could get into a med school, any med school. This also leads to a slightly lower standard of students in DO schools as opposed to MD schools. 2 of my best friends are DOs and are perfectly competent physicians. The Vice chair of my department is also a DO and is an excellent clinician. A DO or MD degree does not automatically equate with competency.

Sure all of that is true, but it seemed that he was being claimed to not be a physician because he was a DO and not an MD. Any field has its credentialed idiots, but in this case it is wrong to attack his credentials instead of all the other things you have to attack.

[Ocelot]

I quibble.

It is not rational to accept claims on the authority of a known huckster. However that's a different thing from rejecting them. A such you should treat a claim made by Mercola no differently from one made by a random claim making machine. If it happens to be correct then that is a coincidence. Claims made at random are unlikley to be correct but they are not automatically incorrect.

[paximperium]

Sure all of that is true, but it seemed that he was being claimed to not be a physician because he was a DO and not an MD. Any field has its credentialed idiots, but in this case it is wrong to attack his credentials instead of all the other things you have to attack.
I agree. I was just expanding on your post. Sorry if that was not clear.

[Ocelot]

I've now reached the 15 post count, so I can post URLs. Here are the concerns I have with the FDA:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/health/policy/25knee.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/08/13/secrets-of-the-fda-revealed-by-top-insider-doctor.aspx

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004029053_fenphen22m.html?referrer=digg

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-12-19-celebrex-cover_x.htm

These are for the person who asked why I don't fully trust the FDA.
Good on you for providing the links.

The mercola site wan't me to sign up so I only got a brief look at it. The rest have a theme.

1) The FDA messed up.
2) The FDA corrected their mistake.
3) It's suggested that they could have corrected their mistake quicker or not made it in the first place.

In addition it's often the FDA noticing the mistake themselves or being accountable and transparent in their dealings.

Room for improvement, certainly. However I'd far rather trust such an organisation than one which never admitted its mistakes.

Ideally of course we'd place our trust in organisations which never made mistakes and had never been accused of making one. If one of those existed that's be great. In reality however we place qualified trust in the most transparent and accountable institutions available.

[Rolfe]

Does pasteurization deplete the nutritional content of the dairy?


No, NOT AT ALL.

This might be dependent on if it is pasteurised or ultrapasteurised.


You mean UHT (ultra heat treated)? That is horrible. Disgusting. Only to be consumed if there is no alternative, and maybe not even then.

Even so, I don't think there are nutritional issues with it.

Rolfe.

[AaronMHatch]

Over the past few months of trusting Mercola, I've found myself feeling very anti-government, anti-drug companies, anti-doctors, etc.

Perhaps there is some truth to what he says. But I'm starting to see that the establishment may not be as evil as previously characterized.

[ponderingturtle]

You mean UHT (ultra heat treated)? That is horrible. Disgusting. Only to be consumed if there is no alternative, and maybe not even then.

Even so, I don't think there are nutritional issues with it.

Rolfe.

I don't think there are nutritional issues with it, but if your choices are milk that has been ultrapasturized vs raw, then it changes things. Generally it involves higher temperatures for shorter periods, but it means that more flavor changes can take place.

[ponderingturtle]

Over the past few months of trusting Mercola, I've found myself feeling very anti-government, anti-drug companies, anti-doctors, etc.

Perhaps there is some truth to what he says. But I'm starting to see that the establishment may not be as evil as previously characterized.

He has to make people think that, or they will not buy his stuff.

[AaronMHatch]

double post

[AaronMHatch]

Mercola is big on water filtration. Do you think it's safe to drink tap water in the USA? Or would you recommend some form of filtration?

[ponderingturtle]

Mercola is big on water filtration. Do you think it's safe to drink tap water in the USA? Or would you recommend some form of filtration?

Is this well water or municipal tap water? Municipal sources are safe, well water needs to be tested regularly to be sure it is safe. After that the only reason to filter water is for taste.

[Chris Haynes]

This is one example where Mercola does not have his own product. For example, he recommends raw milk and then provides links to farmer networks....

He seems to not be able to also make up his mind on what is bad. There is this website that has been tracking wonky websites for over a decade, and on the comment dedicated to Mercola (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/mercola.htm), it says:

You might think that I am biased against Mercola just because he tells lies about diabetes cures, but let's look at his "causes" of autism.

Pasteurised milk - http://www.mercola.com/2003/jul/2/pasteurized_milk.htm
Flouride - http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/25/tooth_decay.htm (when consumed by pregnant women)
Aluminium - http://www.mercola.com/2006/apr/11/there_are_more_toxins_in_vaccines_than_mercury.htm
Mercury (of course) - http://www.mercola.com/2004/nov/3/mercury_vaccines_medicine.htm
MMR (of course) - http://www.mercola.com/2001/jan/28/mmr_autism.htm
Malnutrition - http://www.mercola.com/2004/jun/26/autism_malnutrition.htm
Lactose - http://www.mercola.com/2004/jun/26/autism_malnutrition.htm (it goes with the malnutrition)
Glutamine - http://www.mercola.com/2004/may/1/glutamine.htm (makes autism worse)
"An excess of grains, sugars, underground vegetables, and any fluid other than water" in the diet - http://www.mercola.com/2000/may/21/ritalin_prozac_adhd.htm (Mercola lies about achieving "near miraculous improvement" by following his advice.)


Edit to add: Which makes me wonder, if he thinks lactose is bad why does he have references to raw milk sources?

Then for more amusement, read about the recent Twitter Shorty award, kerfuffle that involved Mercola:
http://scepticsbook.com/2010/03/05/shenanigans-subterfuge-and-the-shorty-awards/

[pgwenthold]

But if tens of millions of people drank raw milk (as do eat spinach and peanut butter), you would see a lot more than several people dying.

I would trust a farmer pretty well to show me how to farm, but sure as heck not to give me nutritional advice.

And while I am not big on conspiracy theories and stuff, I wouldn't trust a farmer peddling "raw milk" for anything.

Current milk prices in the US (paid to dairy farmers I am talking about) are something like, what, $1 gallon? (I haven't looked lately).

Meanwhile, your "raw milk farmer" can sell (illegally - thanks, blackmarket!) you the same stuff for what, $10 - $15 per gallon? OF COURSE he is going to tell you lots of good stuff about it.

It's a major, major scam.

(I have told the story before about how when we were growing up, we used to buy "raw milk" from a local dairy farmer. This was before it was illegal to sell it. The difference was that we paid LESS for raw milk from the farmer than we did for milk in the store, but could also pay him more than he was getting from the local milkman, so we both came out ahead; actually, the only reason we drank raw milk was because we could get it cheaper).

[AaronMHatch]

Fascinating information. Thank you for the answers.

What is your take on grass-fed beef? Is it really any better nutritionally than regular, hormone and antibiotic given meat?

Also, what about mercury in the fish? Presuming there is a lot of mercury in the fish I eat, is it enough to poisonous to me?

EDIT: I found this article. What do you think about it?

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/20080515/n1

[Stout]

I quibble.

It is not rational to accept claims on the authority of a known huckster. However that's a different thing from rejecting them. A such you should treat a claim made by Mercola no differently from one made by a random claim making machine. If it happens to be correct then that is a coincidence. Claims made at random are unlikley to be correct but they are not automatically incorrect.

I side this completely.

This is, proper nutrition isn't rocket science and given the controversy surrounding Mercola it would probably be a good idea to delete all references to him from your dietary research and go with something more reputable, that gives you the good information without clouding the issue with supplements and woo.

[Praktik]

UGh, this interview with Wakefield recently posted on another board: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx

Anyone got any more info on thus studies they're quoting that allegedly support Wakefield's crackpot vaccine-autism theories?

[AaronMHatch]

UGh, this interview with Wakefield recently posted on another board: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx

Anyone got any more info on thus studies they're quoting that allegedly support Wakefield's crackpot vaccine-autism theories?

I actually watched his interview with Wakefield so that I could see both sides. Wakefield admits that he supports vaccination (and is against Mercola's belief). His problem was with combining vaccinations into one syringe. He also explained how there was confusion of his ethical requirements. And, he explained that he didn't say vaccination causes autism. He claims to have said that there was a correlation with illness in the gut and neurological issues.

It seems like Wakefield is a little more level-headed and less of a "liar" than people claim.

[Empress]

I said end of thread. :mad:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/08/feasting-on-sunshine.aspx
I am not angry.

Oh good god on toast, what an insane article. :mad::mad::mad: I apologize for having added to this thread after it was clearly over.

[icerat]

What is your take on grass-fed beef? Is it really any better nutritionally than regular, hormone and antibiotic given meat?

Grass fed tends to have higher levels of omega-3 and lower levels of omega-6. Wild meats are even better

Also, what about mercury in the fish? Presuming there is a lot of mercury in the fish I eat, is it enough to poisonous to me?

I read a study a few years ago that analysed the risks of heavy metal poisioning versus the benefits of omega-3 and they pretty much concluded they equalled each other out.

Which says to me the smart idea is don't eat too much fish and supplement with a quality omega-3 brand. Virtually all but the cheapest O3 supplements filter out toxins. This process changes the oil from a triglyceride form to an esterified from though. Some research shows the triglyceride form is better, but the jury is still a bit out on that. A few higher end brands convert the esterified, cleaned, oil back to triglyceride form. The problem is most of the research is industry funded, so its difficult to sort out the biases.

[ponderingturtle]

I actually watched his interview with Wakefield so that I could see both sides. Wakefield admits that he supports vaccination (and is against Mercola's belief). His problem was with combining vaccinations into one syringe. He also explained how there was confusion of his ethical requirements. And, he explained that he didn't say vaccination causes autism. He claims to have said that there was a correlation with illness in the gut and neurological issues.

It seems like Wakefield is a little more level-headed and less of a "liar" than people claim.

Funnily enough he has his one virus vaccine to peddle, he had massive conflicts of interest in the original published study, and everyone who worked with him or published the study has run as far away from him as they could. He might not be as much of a massive loon as Mercola, but he is not a reputable scientist or doctor.

He has also been consistently shown to be wrong on autism and vaccine connections, and he was hired by lawyers who wanted to sue vaccine manufactures before this whole thing started. He is a dangerous fraud who has killed children with his greedy crackpottery(I originally wrote crappottery, which might be an even more accurate term).

[AaronMHatch]

Grass fed tends to have higher levels of omega-3 and lower levels of omega-6. Wild meats are even better



I read a study a few years ago that analysed the risks of heavy metal poisioning versus the benefits of omega-3 and they pretty much concluded they equalled each other out.

Which says to me the smart idea is don't eat too much fish and supplement with a quality omega-3 brand. Virtually all but the cheapest O3 supplements filter out toxins. This process changes the oil from a triglyceride form to an esterified from though. Some research shows the triglyceride form is better, but the jury is still a bit out on that. A few higher end brands convert the esterified, cleaned, oil back to triglyceride form. The problem is most of the research is industry funded, so its difficult to sort out the biases.

Thanks for the information. On many of these nutrition topics, I feel like I don't know who to trust. Drug companies and doctors make money off illness, whereas people like Mercola make money off of that argument.

[casebro]

Also, what about mercury in the fish? Presuming there is a lot of mercury in the fish I eat, is it enough to poisonous to me?


Nobody in any market served commercially has ever actually suffered mercury poisoning from fish. Not tuna, not swordfish, not nothing.

The only poisonings have been in localities where the people ate much seafood from a single particularly polluted source. Like the one Japanese village where the people polluted their own bay, then got 80% of their caloric intake from same food out of the same bay.

I believe that the "mercury in sea food" is an alarmist theory, propagated by the FDA. So eat up your fish.

And umm, is there any study showing any in-vivo improvements gained by adding the oils, anyhow? Or only lab animal studies?

[Rolfe]

I can't speak for the nutritional value, but all the beef round here is grass-fed and marketed as a premium product. I wouldn't knowingly touch anything that had received hormones, and I'm fairly horrified by what I hear about American beef production methods. Even on animal welfare grounds it all sounds very dubious.

Rolfe.

[TraneWreck]

Almost all diets "work" if you follow them. 99% of the time it's due to a cut in calories more than anything else.

[AaronMHatch]

I can't speak for the nutritional value, but all the beef round here is grass-fed and marketed as a premium product. I wouldn't knowingly touch anything that had received hormones, and I'm fairly horrified by what I hear about American beef production methods. Even on animal welfare grounds it all sounds very dubious.

Rolfe.


Do you feel the same way about genetically modified vegetables and fruits?

[pgwenthold]

Thanks for the information. On many of these nutrition topics, I feel like I don't know who to trust. Drug companies and doctors make money off illness, whereas people like Mercola make money off of that argument.

If you are trusting the answers that you are getting here, then why don't you trust the FDA? Nothing that is said here is inconsistent with the guidelines of the FDA that I can see.

What about WebMD? I don't think you will find anything different there, either.

While I am sure there are doctors in the world that will give you bad advice on how to live healthy, the idea that they are doing it because they want you to be sick is pretty extreme.

Why would you ask a drug company for advice on a healthy diet? Most doctors won't tell you to take supplements or drugs as part of a healthy diet by default. They will prescribe them when it is clear your diet is deficient and where diet cannot provide what you need, but then they should be basing it on your individual case. If you have good cholesterol and triglycerides, for example, there is no reason to take fish oil.

[Rolfe]

Do you feel the same way about genetically modified vegetables and fruits?


No, why should I? Genetic modification isn't hormone treatment, and to the best of my knowledge fruit and vegetables are not sentient so fruit and vegetable welfare isn't an issue.

Rolfe.

[ponderingturtle]

No, why should I? Genetic modification isn't hormone treatment, and to the best of my knowledge fruit and vegetables are not sentient so fruit and vegetable welfare isn't an issue.

Rolfe.

What about vegetable hormone treatments like ethylene gas?

[AaronMHatch]

What do you say about the psychiatrists who give out anti-depressants after a 30 minute interview?

[paximperium]

What do you say about the psychiatrists who give out anti-depressants after a 30 minute interview?
What is there to say about this story?

Did it actually happen?
What actually happened?
Do you know what the criteria for anti-depressants are?
etc etc etc

[AaronMHatch]

What is there to say about this story?

Did it actually happen?
What actually happened?
Do you know what the criteria for anti-depressants are?
etc etc etc

6 years ago, my college offered one free psychiatrist visit per semester. I visited due to personal issues. After thirty minutes, the psychiatrist gave me a sample of an anti-depressant.

What decent doctor would give out neurological medicine before having more than 30 minutes worth of information?

[paximperium]

6 years ago, my college offered one free psychiatrist visit per semester. I visited due to personal issues. After thirty minutes, the psychiatrist gave me a sample of an anti-depressant.

What decent doctor would give out neurological medicine before having more than 30 minutes worth of information?That's not a very well thought out questions. I'd give "neurological" or "cardiovascular" or a host of medicines in seconds or minutes if I got the information I needed to treat someone.

However, I do see your point. You felt that 30minutes is not "enough" to gather enough information to treat you. I do not know what structured history was done by this psychiatrist so this psychiatrist may have appropriately treated depression or he/she may have been exceedingly sloppy.

It is a bit odd. From my understanding, most new psychiatrist visits are usually 1 hour long and follow up visits are 30minutes. I don't have enough information to make a call but sometimes, a 30minute interview may have been entirely appropriate to diagnose something.

[ponderingturtle]

6 years ago, my college offered one free psychiatrist visit per semester. I visited due to personal issues. After thirty minutes, the psychiatrist gave me a sample of an anti-depressant.

What decent doctor would give out neurological medicine before having more than 30 minutes worth of information?

Seems not unreasonable, the issue would be more too many months before a follow up. You should have a few follow ups regularly when starting anti depressants.

[AaronMHatch]

That's not a very well thought out questions. I'd give "neurological" or "cardiovascular" or a host of medicines in seconds or minutes if I got the information I needed to treat someone.

However, I do see your point. You felt that 30minutes is not "enough" to gather enough information to treat you. I do not know what structured history was done by this psychiatrist so this psychiatrist may have appropriately treated depression or he/she may have been exceedingly sloppy.

It is a bit odd. From my understanding, most new psychiatrist visits are usually 1 hour long and follow up visits are 30minutes. I don't have enough information to make a call but sometimes, a 30minute interview may have been entirely appropriate to diagnose something.

I will admit that at the time, I was severely depressed. Instead of taking the pills, however, I went through the free counseling on campus and worked on changing my attitude. Eventually, I improved my mental state and have felt much better since.

My concern with this psychiatrist is that instead of employing the many number of uninvasive measures to treat depression (cognitive behavioral therapy, for example), he chose the drug route.

Why start somebody on a medicinal regimen before trying other methods?

EDIT: I'm going to stop this side conversation before it goes too far into the philosophy of treatment. I am a graduate student in psychology and wholeheartedly disagree with the immediate prescription of anti-depressants. Psychiatrists are famous for getting people hooked on medication before applying one of the many cost-effective methods of treatment.

The main point is that there are practitioners who too readily look to cure via drugs. This is why I am concerned about entirely trusting doctors and the FDA. I believe that psychiatrist loved the money he made from dishing out pills to his patients. I see a conflict of interest in this field.

[JoeyDonuts]

You mean UHT (ultra heat treated)? That is horrible. Disgusting. Only to be consumed if there is no alternative, and maybe not even then.

UHT? More like UGH. I drank the stuff on deployment in the Navy. "Shelf-stable milk," they called it. It was watery, but with a slick oil-like texture to it and an oddly carmelized taste, but not in a good way.

Pour this stuff on your Froot Loops for 6 months and you actually start to believe that's what milk is supposed to taste like.

One of the first things I did the morning I returned from my last deployment was head directly to IHOP - in uniform and all - and wolf down a big plate of pancakes with all the fixin's. It was also the first time I'd drank a glass of good old USDA-certified 2% pasturized milk.

Foodgasm. Seriously.

Oh, and to the OP: Are you still on the fence about whether or not Dr. Mercola is a self-serving quack in the same order as Kevin Trudeau, Robert Tilton, and the "colon-cleansing" hawkers on late-night infomercials?

PROTIP: You do not have a five-foot long greenish-brown slime monster impacted in your bowels that can only be removed with this secret blend of herbs and fairy dust that's been tested in clinical trials nobody has the references for and that THEY don't want you to know about.

And if you DO have such a thing, Dr. Scatterson's Super Double-Acting Yohimbe Gingko Wort Yerba Mate Willow Bark Colon Blow is not what you should be taking. Rather, the sensible thing would be to go to a hospital.

[AaronMHatch]

haha

Nice way to put it, JoeyDonuts. I am still on the fence as to whether the Mercola claims that I have bought into are legit. I have a water filter; I take resveratrol; I consume the raw dairy and organic produce; I keep my cell phone turned off in case of EMF issues; and I follow his nutrition guidelines as far as combining foods.

[Rolfe]

What about vegetable hormone treatments like ethylene gas?


When ethylene gas as used in fruit and vegetable preservation acts as a hormone in the mammalian body, I'll worry.

Rolfe.

[JoeyDonuts]

Water filters are a good idea if you live in a rural water district. Municipal water services spend millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours making safe drinking water available for all. It's one of the sanitation developments that make a healthy society possible.

Reservatrol isn't a bad idea per se, but I don't think it's quite the magic bullet that some believe it to be.

Raw dairy we've already covered at length. Organic produce doesn't offer any nutritional benefits over what you can get at Wal-Mart.

EMF? You mean that weird band from the '80's? Unbelievable.

His nutrition guidelines aren't bad, but they aren't any better than what the USDA puts out. I'd put more stock in the USDA's. There isn't anything wrong with consuming grains as a component of a balanced diet with lots of fruit and vegetables.

If your'e a runner, there's gonna be certain dietary things you can do to help yourself out there, but most of them are common-sense to anyone with a baseline knowledge of what the body needs to do what you ask it to do.

I just hate to see someone taken in by Mercola's legit-sounding nutritional advice, only to be swept up wholesale by all the quackery he has in tow.

[Rolfe]

EDIT: I'm going to stop this side conversation before it goes too far into the philosophy of treatment. I am a graduate student in psychology and wholeheartedly disagree with the immediate prescription of anti-depressants.


Having had that done to me once, I agree with you. However, that's got nothing at all to do with the subject of your thread. Start a new one if you like, or I think there are a few old ones on the subject.

No matter how unprofessional your psychistrist might have been, that has no bearing on Mercola's credibility, and doesn't make any of his claims more credible. It's a common argument of the woo fraternity, when they're getting chewed up, to shout - "Look over there, there's a mainstream doctor (or pharmaceutical company) doing something reprehensible! This makes my woo completely justified and true in all respects!"

Not so.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I am still on the fence as to whether the Mercola claims that I have bought into are legit. I have a water filter; I take resveratrol; I consume the raw dairy and organic produce; I keep my cell phone turned off in case of EMF issues; and I follow his nutrition guidelines as far as combining foods.


What do you think you're filtering out? A mains water supply should be wholesome, though I suppose there may be a taste difference.

What the hell's resveratrol? OK, I have Google. Sounds pretty quacky to me. A fool and his money, and all that....

Raw dairy, well as I said, no health benefits and definite risk of serious health unbenefits. It's only by grace of TB and brucella eradication programmes you're not already suffering from something that could blight the rest of your life.

Organic is a con as far as health benefits are concerned - this has been shown time and time again. And while I don't really care about depriving carrots of medication, I care a great deal about depriving farm animals of preventative and therapeutic medication, including vaccines, to satisfy a bunch of cranks who don't understand safe withdrawal times. You wouldn't believe the animal suffering I've seen as a result of this fad.

Oh no, not another "mobile phone radiation is dangerous" victim. We've been round this again and again with Roger Coghill and a few others. There's no evidence for any danger, and no credible mechanism for any harm to be caused.

I don't know about this "combining foods" thing in detail, but the principle is generally baseless.

Rolfe.

[AaronMHatch]

The last few replies have been very helpful. Thank you JoeyDonuts and Rolfe.

I've uploaded Mercola's Primary and Secondary food charts to these links:

www.aaronmhatch.com/primary.pdf

www.aaronmhatch.com/secondary.pdf

Some of the food combination rules are mentioned. I've been told that the combinations are based on purine levels in the meats.

The secondary list includes all foods that are unnecessary but may be consumed in moderate amounts. The logic behind all fruits being on the secondary list is that they are mostly fructose, and their nutritional benefits can be had from vegetables.

[Rolfe]

Oh dear. Evidence? For purine levels being important, I mean?

Rolfe.

[AaronMHatch]

I certainly have no evidence aside from Mercola and a couple of his paid nutritionists.

[Stout]

OK this is just to weird.

I haven't been on Mercola's site since the H1N1 vaccine is going to turn us all into drooling idiots scare. I could have sworn that all Mercola had was supplements at that time but now when I click on his products page I'm offered damn near everything under the sun with each product carrying it's own infomercial.

So, I'm curious, I googled but found nothing, Is Mercola launching some sort of MLM program in the near future ?

[AaronMHatch]

I have found a few dietitian websites that have some well supported, detailed information without trying to sell me anything. This thread has helped me see the veil before my eyes. Thanks to all.

[AaronMHatch]

The good news is that I can send back the products I bought from Mercola's website for a full refund (minus my own shipping). At least I will get something back.

[paximperium]

What the hell's resveratrol? OK, I have Google. Sounds pretty quacky to me. A fool and his money, and all that....
Like Omega-3 Fatty acids and a bunch of "natural" products that have some effect, resveratrol is way overhype and sold by all these alternative medicine woos.
Not much evidence of its efficacy outside of labs at the present but some evidence shows it works...it absurdly high doses that most people can't tolerate.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/resveratrol.html

[paximperium]

I have found a few dietitian websites that have some well supported, detailed information without trying to sell me anything. This thread has helped me see the veil before my eyes. Thanks to all.
Glad to help.

The main thing is think things through and the ask questions.
Just like how you would read and review psychological papers by taking it apart from a design and statistical perspective, you should do the same with any other claim. What is the evidence? Is the evidence compelling and legit? Are there any errors that could lead to a false conclusion?

That is what skepticism is about. It is mentally challenging and tiring but it is worth it.

[ponderingturtle]

I have found a few dietitian websites that have some well supported, detailed information without trying to sell me anything. This thread has helped me see the veil before my eyes. Thanks to all.

It is a refreshing change to meet someone who can be convinced that quackery is quackery.

[AaronMHatch]

Glad to help.


That is what skepticism is about. It is mentally challenging and tiring but it is worth it.

You've got that right! I still believe that Mercola believes in his work and has some useful advice. I agree with the argument, however, that the best advice can also be found amongst registered dietitians and legitimate doctors.

[dakotajudo]

What is your take on grass-fed beef? Is it really any better nutritionally than regular, hormone and antibiotic given meat?

The two are not mutually exclusive - that is, grass fed cattle may be given just as much hormone and antibiotics as corn fed cattle.

I've yet to find any studies showing significant differences between organic and conventional beef. There are some differences between corn fed and grass fed; grass fed beef tends to contain more phytochemicals.

However, you should be getting most of your phytochemicals directly from plants themselves. Raising beef entirely on grass typically takes more land and more time than conventional finishing methods (most cattle are on grass a good part of their lives); production-wise, it's more efficient to eat corn fed beef, and eat your vegetables, instead of getting your vitamins from beef.

[JoeyDonuts]

It is a refreshing change to meet someone who can be convinced that quackery is quackery.

The important takeaway here is not to believe anything based just off what people say - even what you read here, in this very thread.

Research, from real peer-reviewed medical journals - trust the science, not the hype. Do that and you'll see where we're coming from.

[Mr.D]

Before, I would get sore throats, headaches, and suffer from signs of depression.

Don't know whereabouts you live, but when I lived in upstate New York, I had bouts of sore throat, headache and depressive symptoms all through winter (including say December and January), and the symptoms would slowly disappear as the weather got warmer (like in April).

Just saying ...

[!Kaggen]

I have found a few dietitian websites that have some well supported, detailed information without trying to sell me anything. This thread has helped me see the veil before my eyes. Thanks to all.
Before you go

Pastured livestock
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/smart_pasture_operations/

Organic Food is no healthier thread
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149479&highlight=organic+food+healthier

[Rolfe]

I can't say I'm at all convinced that grass-fed beef is healthier to eat, but the animal welfare aspects must commend it to any consumer.

Every morning as I drive to work I see the beef cattle out on the hills, grazing ground you could never use for crops, every cow with her calf at foot. The calves stay with their mothers, roaming freely, until they's so big they have to kneel down to reach the udder! Most of them reach slaughter weight on the hill, or there may be a short fattening period in a low-ground field. Lamb is produced the same way.

I'd far rather eat that produce simply on welfare grounds. But you know what? The minute you slap the "organic" label on it, meaning that you refuse to give these animals the benefit of preventative medication, or vaccines, or treat them when they get sick (I exaggerate, but that's the basic philosophy), and that you're part of a movement that explicitly recommends the use of homoeopathy rather than effective medication, then I'll pass and have the vegetarian option.

Rolfe.

[JoeyDonuts]

I really detest the rhetoric from the organic food camp that ranchers who use traditional methods are somehow uncaring, unfeeling meat pushers that care not one wit for the quality of life for their animals.

Show me a rancher anywhere in Oklahoma that isn't proud of every last calf he raises, breeds, feeds, tends to, and eventually sends to slaughter.

What's actually sad is that there are fewer and fewer "field" veterinarians now than ever before. As the older ones die or retire, fewer and fewer vet school grads are taking that job - and it is absolutely vital to our nation's food supply.

[!Kaggen]

I can't say I'm at all convinced that grass-fed beef is healthier to eat, but the animal welfare aspects must commend it to any consumer.

Every morning as I drive to work I see the beef cattle out on the hills, grazing ground you could never use for crops, every cow with her calf at foot. The calves stay with their mothers, roaming freely, until they's so big they have to kneel down to reach the udder! Most of them reach slaughter weight on the hill, or there may be a short fattening period in a low-ground field. Lamb is produced the same way.

I'd far rather eat that produce simply on welfare grounds. But you know what? The minute you slap the "organic" label on it, meaning that you refuse to give these animals the benefit of preventative medication, or vaccines, or treat them when they get sick (I exaggerate, but that's the basic philosophy), and that you're part of a movement that explicitly recommends the use of homoeopathy rather than effective medication, then I'll pass and have the vegetarian option.

Rolfe.

Good for you Rolfe.
Support pastured animal farming based on these principles

http://www.polyfacefarms.com/principles.aspx

and bullocks to organically certified products.

[!Kaggen]

What's actually sad is that there are fewer and fewer "field" veterinarians now than ever before. As the older ones die or retire, fewer and fewer vet school grads are taking that job - and it is absolutely vital to our nation's food supply.

Not only field veterinarians are dying breed, but farmers themselves are.
Lets face it it is not an attractive career for a young person these days.

In fact, about forty percent of the farmers in this country are 55 years old or older (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/demographics.html

[JoeyDonuts]

Yeah, "shove your arm up a cow's ass" doesn't quite have the same glitz as "administer accupuncture to prissy neurotic show dogs."

That's why they should get paid one hell of a lot more.

[dakotajudo]

I can't say I'm at all convinced that grass-fed beef is healthier to eat, but the animal welfare aspects must commend it to any consumer.

Every morning as I drive to work I see the beef cattle out on the hills, grazing ground you could never use for crops, every cow with her calf at foot. The calves stay with their mothers, roaming freely, until they's so big they have to kneel down to reach the udder! Most of them reach slaughter weight on the hill, or there may be a short fattening period in a low-ground field.

I don't think you understand what "grass-fed" beef means. What you described is typical for corn fed beef as well. I drive to work, I see the same thing. I grew up on a cattle farm, this is how we raised cattle. All beef would be grass fed, if this is your meaning.

You might not be able to see it from the road, the there's probably a feed bin for the calves, and that short fattening period is when calves are finished out with grain.

The simple rule of thumb is - stressed animals produce poor meat. We raise good meat.

[fls]

I don't think you understand what "grass-fed" beef means. What you described is typical for corn fed beef as well. I drive to work, I see the same thing. I grew up on a cattle farm, this is how we raised cattle. All beef would be grass fed, if this is your meaning.

You might not be able to see it from the road, the there's probably a feed bin for the calves, and that short fattening period is when calves are finished out with grain.

The simple rule of thumb is - stressed animals produce poor meat. We raise good meat.

I think the comparison is with the use of feedlots where calves are kept in pens and are fed corn (if in the US) or other grains/silage/etc. for the bulk of their growth, even though they started out in the pasture with their mother.

Linda

[!Kaggen]

I don't think you understand what "grass-fed" beef means. What you described is typical for corn fed beef as well. I drive to work, I see the same thing. I grew up on a cattle farm, this is how we raised cattle. All beef would be grass fed, if this is your meaning.

You might not be able to see it from the road, the there's probably a feed bin for the calves, and that short fattening period is when calves are finished out with grain.Your right the real welfare issue I believe Rolfe is bringing up is finishing beef on pasture rather than in feedlots.

The simple rule of thumb is - stressed animals produce poor meat. We raise good meat. Good point. Now which ones are the stressed ones?

These

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_333404bc47015490f2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19702)

[!Kaggen]

The simple rule of thumb is - stressed animals produce poor meat. We raise good meat. Good point. Now which ones are the stressed ones?

Or these

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_333404bc47159e9898.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19703)

[dakotajudo]

I think the comparison is with the use of feedlots where calves are kept in pens and are fed corn (if in the US) or other grains/silage/etc. for the bulk of their growth, even though they started out in the pasture with their mother.

I know what the comparison is supposed to mean, I don't think Rolfe is using it correctly. I'm not sure you are, either.

Calves are rarely kept in pens. The only cases I've seen are dairy operations, where calves simply can't be suckled, or the rare cases when a cow does not take her calf.

This happened, in our herd of about 100 breeding cows, every couple years or so - a calf born, typically in the dead of night in near freezing temperatures, is abandoned by the cow. That calf has to be raised in a pen and hand fed four times a day at the start; it's more labor than it's worth. (It also sucks, in that, when your a kid doing this, that calf starts to act like a pet, so when you have to put it out with the feeder calves, then load it up for slaughter, you feel like a real *******).

Feedlots are different - not a large as pasture, but not as enclosed as pens. Calves are put in feedlots, typically, only after they reach weaning weight - "so big they have to kneel down to reach the udder!"

Typical weaning weights are 6-800 pounds; slaughter weight will be 12-1400 pounds or so.

Calves are in lots for the latter part, but note that these are winter months - following calving in the springs, summer in the pasture, moved to feedlots in the fall, fed out over winter, sold for slaughter in the spring.

Even if they were left on pasture over the winter, they would still be fed silage or hay - grasses die off in the fall and cattle have a hard time grazing under snow. Sometimes that's how it's done - calves are fed out in pasture, by simply dumping hay and silage on the ground. Not as efficient, though - it's colder out on the open plain. Feed lots are sheltered from the wind.

[fls]

I know what the comparison is supposed to mean, I don't think Rolfe is using it correctly. I'm not sure you are, either.

I don't need an education - I grew up on a cattle farm and my parents are still there, plus the feedlot industry is alive and well in our area. Regardless of whether or not you wish to quibble over what is meant by a 'pen' or a 'calf', one can distinguish between the use of feedlots and pasture.

Linda

[Rolfe]

What Linda said. I'm not that familiar with the feedlot system, but I've heard a lot of Americans criticising it, and from all I've heard it doesn't seem to be high-welfare. A bit of supplementary concentrates isn't the same thing.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Good point. Now which ones are the stressed ones?

Or these

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_333404bc47159e9898.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19703)


This Never Happens round here, and I can see why US posters don't think much of this system.

Rolfe.

[dakotajudo]

I don't need an education - I grew up on a cattle farm and my parents are still there, plus the feedlot industry is alive and well in our area. Regardless of whether or not you wish to quibble over what is meant by a 'pen' or a 'calf', one can distinguish between the use of feedlots and pasture.
Yes, one can distinguish between feedlot and a pasture; but the AaronMHatch asked about the nutritional aspects of grass fed beef; Rolfe's use of the term is misleading, so why are you adding to the confusion?

Simply, calves can be raised entirely in pens, in confinement, on grass, and be legitimately marketed as "grass-fed":

http://farmingforum.co.uk/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11848&d=1250286490

or

http://www.jennifermackenzie.co.uk/2007/07/Abrahams3S.jpg

Conversely, calfs can be raised in pasture, yet intensely fed grain (you've seen creep feeders, I'm sure):

http://www.ruralni.gov.uk/print/suckled_calves_at_feeder.jpg

Rolfe's post used the term "grass fed" in a very general sense; but my comments about nutritional differences (and I suspect AaronMHatch questioned) was about "grass finished" beef - beef that has only had grass or forage throughout its life.

Of course, if AaronMHatch is concerned about animal welfare, he would want to know to not simply ask for grass fed beef, but to ask for pasture finished beef.

However, he should be aware that asking for grass- and pasture- finished beef is going to require a premium - it simply takes longer, and more space, to finish cattle out on pasture grass alone.

That, of course, would be a whole other debate - we could raise our cattle as if they were pets, but that would probably push the price of beef beyond the reach of the typical consumer (what does Kobe beef sell for?). Perhaps we should reduce our herds, get rid of cheap and plentiful beef and milk, but I don't know what the trade in human nutrition would be, on a national scale.

Removed breaches of Rule 5. Please do not hotlink images.

[dakotajudo]

I'm not that familiar with the feedlot system, but I've heard a lot of Americans criticising it, and from all I've heard it doesn't seem to be high-welfare. A bit of supplementary concentrates isn't the same thing.

Rolfe.

UK, right? The feedlot system in the UK (well, EU in general) is little different than the feedlot system in the US, if these links are correct:
http://www.ukagriculture.com/livestock/beef_farming_uk.cfm
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/01/13/113738/Efficient-finishing-essential-to-beef-profits.htm
http://www.ruralni.gov.uk/index/livestock/beef-index/cattle_at_gm/abbeyfarm/beef_finishing_enterprise_manage.htm

The only difference that I can tell is that what you might be calling the feedlot system are the large scale, concentrated feedlot operations - that is, many feedlots adjacent to each other. But the actual conditions that the cattle experience are little different than the single-lot family farm operation that are described above.

Well, the animal husbandry issues, anyway; waste management is a little more difficult.

That, and the US has had no BSE epidemics, TB is nearly eradicated, and haven't had a herd wiped out due to foot-and-mouth disease since the 1920s. I've never seen the wholesale slaughter that goes along with those kind of epidemics.

As for concentrates, the only difference there is that EU tends to use wheat, oats and barley, where we use primarily corn and soybeans.

[dakotajudo]

Your right the real welfare issue I believe Rolfe is bringing up is finishing beef on pasture rather than in feedlots.

Good point. Now which ones are the stressed ones?

These

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_333404bc47015490f2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19702)
That grass looks a little short - either it's too early in the spring for grazing, or that pasture is over-grazed. If they're not getting supplemental feed, those cattle are getting hungry.

This is what pasture grass should look like, not that skimpy stuff. Note the difference in the thickness of the tufts, cattle don't work so hard for their feed.

http://ars.usda.gov/images/docs/11444_11638/2005-11-21-Cattle-HillPasture_Wade.jpg



This is the question you need to ask of your local grass-finisher - how does he manage his paddock rotations? There have been more cases in the US of cattle herds starving to death on pasture land than in feedlots.

The other issue, of course, is the availability of water and shade. You note the canopies in your second picture; that's important - shade does a lot to reduce heat stress, but I can't see if there are any misters. They don't seem to be bunching, like I've seen in heat-stressed cattle in pasture, and it appears they have the necessary space.

Not many shade trees in western pastures, and a lot of effort is needed to deliver water to the open plain. It can get pretty dry and windy out there.

Hot, thirsty, poorly fed cattle are slow-gainers.

Another thing to look for is those extra tags in the picture above - one tag is typically to identify the animal, the second is to control insects. We usually only used the tags for cattle going to pasture; controlling insects in feedlots can be done more directly. I don't see tags in your first picture, but I wouldn't expect them in the second.

But tell me, how are you identifying the stressed cattle in the second picture - what symptoms do you see?

Removed breach of Rule 5. Please do not hotlink images.

[fls]

Yes, one can distinguish between feedlot and a pasture; but the AaronMHatch asked about the nutritional aspects of grass fed beef; Rolfe's use of the term is misleading, so why are you adding to the confusion?

Simply, calves can be raised entirely in pens, in confinement, on grass, and be legitimately marketed as "grass-fed":

I agree. I think the point was that, with respect to animal welfare, there is a difference between life in a pasture and life in a feedlot, and the "grass-fed beef" comment was simply used as a stepping stone to make that point. I agree that it doesn't hurt to make it explicit that like "organic", "grass-fed" doesn't necessarily mean that the cow spent its life in idle bliss in verdant pastures. But I'm not sure that anyone is actually confused about that here (certainly not Rolfe).

Linda

[AaronMHatch]

The farmer I buy from told me the trend in wording is shifting from "grass-fed" to "pastured" to remove confusion.

I think this is an example of why.

[Rolfe]

Zero-grazing? Not a system used for beef cattle round here. A lot of that "grass" looks like hay, too.

The word "corn" can be very confusing. In Scotand it means oats. In England it means wheat. Any intensive beef farmed round here would be on barley - they call it "barley beef".

As for the quality of the pasture, well, if you don't feed the cattle, they won't fatten, so nobody is going to leave animals on poor grazing without supplementary feeding.

BSE apart, and that's been sorted by legislation, I'm not aware of anyone this side of the pond who cares what the animals are fed on. Grass, hay, silage, supplementary concentrates - it doesn't matter. It's all about the welfare aspects of the free range suckler herd, though obviously a fair number are housed in winter against bad weather.

Even BSE is something I don't blame anyone for. It was all about making efficient use of protein sources that were available. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and lines like "cannibal cows" easy to trot out, but there was no reason that should have been anticipated. TB has been eradicated in Scotland since I was at school (if we didn't keep importing the occasional reactor), and brucella since I was a student. The sooner we get started on BVD the better.

FMD is all a question of whether you import it. England did, then screwed up its response. We got stuck with some of the consequences because it got loose too close to the border. It wasn't anything to do with management systems.

I never realised people in America were actually concerned about "grass-fed" in terms of the actual grass eating part, rather than the free-range high-welfare aspects of the suckler cow system. Well, we live and learn.

Rolfe.

[ponderingturtle]

The farmer I buy from told me the trend in wording is shifting from "grass-fed" to "pastured" to remove confusion.

I think this is an example of why.

And what is the legal definition of pastured?

[AaronMHatch]

I haven't found a legal definition, but pastured would mean that they are never fed grains at any point in their life.

[fls]

I haven't found a legal definition, but pastured would mean that they are never fed grains at any point in their life.

Umm...you do realize that 'grains' are grasses, right?

Linda

[ponderingturtle]

I haven't found a legal definition, but pastured would mean that they are never fed grains at any point in their life.

But with out a legal definition, it is just an unregulated marketing term that can be slapped on most anything. I also note that you are making not indication of them getting any amount of space to move around in, in this suggested definition. So if kept penned up and fed hay it would count as pastured.

That is the problem with feel good labels, unless you know what is required to meet the label it does not necessarily mean what you think it means.

[fls]

I haven't found a legal definition, but pastured would mean that they are never fed grains at any point in their life.

Also, grains are a good source of nutrition - cattle are better off if their their diet includes grains.

Linda

[!Kaggen]

Also, grains are a good source of nutrition - cattle are better off if their their diet includes grains.

Linda

Do you have evidence to support this?

This study seems to indicate that there is a negative side to a grain based diet.

The gastric stomach of humans is a barrier to food-borne pathogens, but Escherichia coli can survive at pH 2.0 if it is grown under mildly acidic conditions. Cattle are a natural reservoir for pathogenic E. coli, and cattle fed mostly grain had lower colonic pH and more acid-resistant E. coli than cattle fed only hay. On the basis of numbers and survival after acid shock, cattle that were fed grain had 106-fold more acid-resistant E. coli than cattle fed hay, but a brief period of hay feeding decreased the acid-resistant count substantially.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/5383/1666

[AaronMHatch]

Umm...you do realize that 'grains' are grasses, right?

Linda

So why are people distinguishing between grass-fed and grain-fed beef?

[Rolfe]

This is completely barking nuts. Pastured cattle are cattle turned out in a field to graze. They may or may not be getting supplementary concentrates, but in this neck of the woods it's likely supplementary feeding will be needed in winter - pretty inevitable, actually. In hot climates if the grass burns dry in summer, supplementary concentrates may be needed in summer.

Cattle need concentrate feeding in most management regimes unless you're very lucky with your grassland management, and they're certainly not any the worse for it. And neither are the consumers. "Cattle never fed grains at any point in their lives"? That's crazy talk, man!

That paper is about the conditions for survival of (probably) O127 in the guts of cattle. It has nothing at all to do with cattle health.

Excessive high-starch feeding in cattle can cause rumenal acidosis, which is an unpleasant illness. For this reason (and others) sudden changes to the diet of ruminants should be avoided, with supplementary feed introduced gradually and so on. Farmers know about this, and acidosis cases are fairly rare.

The idea that anyone thinks feeding cereal-based concentrates to cattle is a bad thing is just ridiculous.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

So why are people distinguishing between grass-fed and grain-fed beef?


Well, are they? Who are doing that?

Grass-fed, to me, is just a way of saying these cattle have had a nice life turned out in a field or on the hill, rather than being cooped up in a feedlot or similar.

Rolfe.

[fls]

Do you have evidence to support this?

This study seems to indicate that there is a negative side to a grain based diet.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/5383/1666

Try reading what I wrote and then see whether you think your link has any relevance.

Linda

[fls]

So why are people distinguishing between grass-fed and grain-fed beef?

Marketing.

And what Rolfe said.

Linda

[ponderingturtle]

Well, are they? Who are doing that?

Grass-fed, to me, is just a way of saying these cattle have had a nice life turned out in a field or on the hill, rather than being cooped up in a feedlot or similar.

Rolfe.

But does the labeling actual mean that?

[pgwenthold]

Marketing.



On one hand, I can believe that. Indeed, these claims of "grass-fed" are generally hype, and don't really mean that the cows are actually fed only grass.

But I would also say, being in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section, is it really too much to expect that apparently descriptive labels are really descriptive, and not simply parroting the marketing division?

I will admit, I always assumed that "grass-fed" meant that they were fed predominantly grasses (which I would include either pasture grazing, or hay/silage), while "grain-fed" meant they were predominantly fed grains - corn, wheat, soy, oats. Basically, cellulose vs complex starch diets.

[iknownothing]

I never realised people in America were actually concerned about "grass-fed" in terms of the actual grass eating part, rather than the free-range high-welfare aspects of the suckler cow system. Well, we live and learn.

That's the context I've always heard it -- grass-fed beef is so much healthier for you. Here's a place I ran across it just the other day:

(http://normaleating.com/blog/2009/10/good-nutrition-myths-and-facts/)

force-feeding animals grain (which is why they need the antibiotics in the first place), they change the natural of the fat in their meat so it becomes high in omega-6 fatty acids (like the grain they eat), versus high in omega-3 fatty acids (like the grass they are meant to eat). This creates very serious health problems.

Note: I'm not defending that -- just showing an example of how the idea is spread.

[ponderingturtle]

On one hand, I can believe that. Indeed, these claims of "grass-fed" are generally hype, and don't really mean that the cows are actually fed only grass.

But I would also say, being in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section, is it really too much to expect that apparently descriptive labels are really descriptive, and not simply parroting the marketing division?


Some of them are, and some of them are not. It depends on the label. Organic has a real meaning about what was or was not done, All Natural not so much.

For a term to have meaning it must be legally regulated.

[pgwenthold]

Some of them are, and some of them are not. It depends on the label. Organic has a real meaning about what was or was not done, All Natural not so much.

For a term to have meaning it must be legally regulated.

I think a better analogy would be homeopathic. A lot of stuff gets labeled or described as homeopathic these days, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the Hahneman characterization. They just call it homeopathic, because "unregulated drug or supplement" isn't as marketable.

That doesn't mean that we need here to call Zicam a homeopathic remedy.

[AaronMHatch]

They just call it homeopathic, because "unregulated drug or supplement" isn't as marketable.



:D

[Rolfe]

That's the context I've always heard it -- grass-fed beef is so much healthier for you. Here's a place I ran across it just the other day:

(http://normaleating.com/blog/2009/10/good-nutrition-myths-and-facts/)

Note: I'm not defending that -- just showing an example of how the idea is spread.


That's just a pile of manure, basically. Is there no limit to what you Yanks will invent to manufacture another food scare?

Rolfe.

[Hellbound]

That's just a pile of manure, basically. Is there no limit to what you Yanks will invent to manufacture another food scaresell another natural cures book?

Rolfe.

Fixed that for you.

And the answer is no, probably not.

[!Kaggen]

Do you have evidence to support this?

This study seems to indicate that there is a negative side to a grain based diet.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/5383/1666

Try reading what I wrote and then see whether you think your link has any relevance.

Linda

I did read what you wrote, that is why I asked for evidence.
Such a broad claim as this
Also, grains are a good source of nutrition - cattle are better off if their their diet includes grains.

Linda
needs clarification, no?

For example, How much grains should be included?
I then provided a study which showed that a grain based diet (i.e. mostly grains) effects the rumen pH and can lead to an increase in low pH tolerant E.coli.

Now why would cattle be better off if they harbored E.Coli which were pathogenic to humans?

Whilst you think of an answer I will remind you of the pigs in Egypt last year http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30480507/

[!Kaggen]

This is completely barking nuts. Pastured cattle are cattle turned out in a field to graze. They may or may not be getting supplementary concentrates, but in this neck of the woods it's likely supplementary feeding will be needed in winter - pretty inevitable, actually. In hot climates if the grass burns dry in summer, supplementary concentrates may be needed in summer.

Cattle need concentrate feeding in most management regimes unless you're very lucky with your grassland management, and they're certainly not any the worse for it. And neither are the consumers. "Cattle never fed grains at any point in their lives"? That's crazy talk, man!

That paper is about the conditions for survival of (probably) O127 in the guts of cattle. It has nothing at all to do with cattle health.

Excessive high-starch feeding in cattle can cause rumenal acidosis, which is an unpleasant illness. For this reason (and others) sudden changes to the diet of ruminants should be avoided, with supplementary feed introduced gradually and so on. Farmers know about this, and acidosis cases are fairly rare.

The idea that anyone thinks feeding cereal-based concentrates to cattle is a bad thing is just ridiculous.

Rolfe.

Calm down now Rolfe.

The point of pasture finished beef is not about irrational feeding regimes.It is a practice followed by clever rational farmers in areas were it IS possible to finish beef this way and grain farming on the same land leads to soil erosion and the depletion of soil carbon reserves.

Pastured beef, it is true, has taken off as a reaction to the irrational feeding regime in these areas were cattle are crammed on top of each other in a feedlot and the pastures are ploughed up every year to grow grains which are trucked to them.

I might add that pastured poultry (meat and eggs), turkeys, pork and rabbits are all becoming highly successful business ventures IN AREAS where it is possible to do this.

The biggest upside to all this is that the prophylactic anti-biotic use required in high density animal confinement operations becomes unnecessary and of course there is the animal welfare issues.

We should be asking at what point in the ratio between pasture and grain based diets does it become irrational to maintain animal husbandry.
The answer to this question has many important consequences from global food supply, soil erosion, climate change, human health and animal welfare.

How one answers this question revolves around whether you believe the earth is a consumable to maximize short term profits out of in order to catapult ourselves off to space as soon as possible or whether we strike a balance between what we want and what the earth can afford.

I am in the later camp as I see no evidence that the first choice is even possible.

[fls]

I did read what you wrote, that is why I asked for evidence.

You provided a link with respect to a grain-based diet, yet my claim was with respect to a grain-free diet.

Linda

[!Kaggen]

You provided a link with respect to a grain-based diet, yet my claim was with respect to a grain-free diet.

Linda

your claim

Also, grains are a good source of nutrition - cattle are better off if their their diet includes grains.

Linda


Huh?

[Rolfe]

Look, I'm a vet working in farm animal medicine, and my specialist area is biochemistry. I teach animal welfare and diagnostics at college and university level. If you would like to audit my module on metabolic disease, you might begin to get the picture so far as starch content of the diet and rumen health is concerned.

At the moment you're googling random papers without any clue how this fits into the general subject of ruminant nutrition. The paper you're so keen on has nothing to do with what you're actually talking about. It seems to be studying the aspects of ruminant nutrition which might favour or inhibit the harbouring of E. coli O157, an organism harmless to cattle but which is a serious pathogen in man.

I wish you would decide whether you're talking about animal welfare, or optimum human nutrition, or sustainable ecology.

For animal welfare, you can't easily beat the free range beef suckler herd. It's excellent for sustainable landscape management as well. But it doesn't matter a monkey's whether the animals get supplementary cereal-based concentrates, and actually as far as simple nutritional content goes (rather than taste and tenderness), a cut off a culled Friesian or a barley beef animal isn't significantly different.

Rolfe.

[AaronMHatch]

Rolfe, I'm currently weighing my option of purchasing grass-fed beef from my farmer as opposed to purchasing regular, cheap meat at the grocery store. Which do you recommend in terms of getting the best nutritional benefit?

[Rolfe]

I don't imagine there's any significant nutritional benefit. The benefits are in animal welfare, sustainable landscape management, and taste and texture. And if you're going for the welfare and ecological benefits, make sure they're real and not just marketing hype.

By the time your gut has rendered the meat down, nobody is going to be able to tell where it came from.

I always go for Scotch beef and lamb, and outdoor local pork - because I know about the welfare issues, and I know nothing has had to travel far. Different choices from your location I imagine though.

I'd always favour produce from the local farmers' market over supermarket stuff, so long as the local stuff wasn't "organic". But it's not about nutritional benefit, it's about taste and texture and animal welfare and sustainable countryside management.

Rolfe.

[!Kaggen]

Look, I'm a vet working in farm animal medicine, and my specialist area is biochemistry. I teach animal welfare and diagnostics at college and university level. If you would like to audit my module on metabolic disease, you might begin to get the picture so far as starch content of the diet and rumen health is concerned.

At the moment you're googling random papers without any clue how this fits into the general subject of ruminant nutrition. The paper you're so keen on has nothing to do with what you're actually talking about. It seems to be studying the aspects of ruminant nutrition which might favour or inhibit the harbouring of E. coli O157, an organism harmless to cattle but which is a serious pathogen in man.

I wish you would decide whether you're talking about animal welfare, or optimum human nutrition, or sustainable ecology.

For animal welfare, you can't easily beat the free range beef suckler herd. It's excellent for sustainable landscape management as well. But it doesn't matter a monkey's whether the animals get supplementary cereal-based concentrates, and actually as far as simple nutritional content goes (rather than taste and tenderness), a cut off a culled Friesian or a barley beef animal isn't significantly different.

Rolfe.

I know your a vet Rolfe and I appreciate that you have expertise.

I am not Googling random papers. I already highlighted this paper in discussion about E.Coli scares in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5743002#post5743002).

I am talking about all these factors. Why should they be separate?
Feed cattle a grain dominant diet in confinement- its hard on the environment, uncomfortable for the cattle and potentially dangerous for humans to eat.

[!Kaggen]

I don't imagine there's any significant nutritional benefit. The benefits are in animal welfare, sustainable landscape management, and taste and texture. And if you're going for the welfare and ecological benefits, make sure they're real and not just marketing hype.

By the time your gut has rendered the meat down, nobody is going to be able to tell where it came from.

I always go for Scotch beef and lamb, and outdoor local pork - because I know about the welfare issues, and I know nothing has had to travel far. Different choices from your location I imagine though.

I'd always favour produce from the local farmers' market over supermarket stuff, so long as the local stuff wasn't "organic". But it's not about nutritional benefit, it's about taste and texture and animal welfare and sustainable countryside management.

Rolfe.

Agreed, the best rule to follow is "eat local".

[Rolfe]

I am talking about all these factors. Why should they be separate?
Feed cattle a grain dominant diet in confinement- its hard on the environment, uncomfortable for the cattle and potentially dangerous for humans to eat.


I'm not at all certain it's inevitably hard on the environment. In winter, here, you really have to keep the beasts in because otherwise they'll poach the land into uselessness. And I don't think a field of barley or oats is exactly a bad thing either.

The comfort for the cattle depends entirely on the quality of the housing. This varies. Indoor cattle courts with a deep litter straw bed may be a helluva lot more comfortable than the side of a hill in a snowstorm.

And no, it's NOT potentially dangerous for people to eat.

Rolfe.

[Stout]

Interesting thread, I've never thought about it before and always just assumed that any descriptor like grain fed, or grass fed just means "better". In Canada we don't use the grade system, eg grade A etc so I really have no way of determining the quality of what I'm buying except for looking at it.

[!Kaggen]

I am talking about all these factors. Why should they be separate?
Feed cattle a grain dominant diet in confinement- its hard on the environment, uncomfortable for the cattle and potentially dangerous for humans to eat.

I'm not at all certain it's inevitably hard on the environment. In winter, here, you really have to keep the beasts in because otherwise they'll poach the land into uselessness. And I don't think a field of barley or oats is exactly a bad thing either.
The comfort for the cattle depends entirely on the quality of the housing. This varies. Indoor cattle courts with a deep litter straw bed may be a helluva lot more comfortable than the side of a hill in a snowstorm.



Just to remind you of what I said


The point of pasture finished beef is not about irrational feeding regimes.It is a practice followed by clever rational farmers in areas were it IS possible to finish beef this way and grain farming on the same land leads to soil erosion and the depletion of soil carbon reserves.

Pastured beef, it is true, has taken off as a reaction to the irrational feeding regime in these areas were cattle are crammed on top of each other in a feedlot and the pastures are ploughed up every year to grow grains which are trucked to them.

I might add that pastured poultry (meat and eggs), turkeys, pork and rabbits are all becoming highly successful business ventures IN AREAS where it is possible to do this.


And no, it's NOT potentially dangerous for people to eat.


You sure?

How does the bacteria spread?

E. coli bacteria can sometimes contaminate the surface of meat when animals are slaughtered, despite precautions. In highly processed or ground meat, the mechanical process can spread the bacteria through the meat.http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/concen/cause/ecolie.shtml

[Rolfe]

Every single animal, yourself included, has E. coli in its intestines. Meat hygiene is very much geared to dealing with this, and all the cooking instructions and so on designed to kill any bacteria that are there. You don't want to be eating raw ground beef from any animal at all. It's not just E. coli, it's Campylobacter and Salmonella and Yersinia and Clostridia and all sorts of things. Every piece of meat, from whatever source, has to be treated on the assumption that there is surface bacterial contamination.

In the specific case of O127, sometimes that's picked up directly from faeces (children's camp on cattle pasture was one incident, children petting farm animals was another), and sometimes from poorly handled meat. The infamous Wishaw incident was due to cross-contamination of cold and pre-cooked meat in a butcher's shop because they didn't stick to the hygiene rules.

The earlier paper you linked to was about the possibility that a cereal diet might be more inclined to favour the harbouring of O157 in the gut. It by no means proves that cereal-fed cattle are more dangerous than grass-fed cattle. You can get O157 in any animal, and assuming it can't be there because of the diet would be madness. So far as I could see, they didn't even show that there was a higher prevalence of O157 in any particular type of management regimen, out there in the field.

Rolfe.

[fls]

Huh?

Indeed.

AaronMHatch made a statement about a diet which excludes grains. I responded that 1) grains are part of the plants which form a pasture anyway (making it silly to think that you could avoid them) and 2) even if you could remove them from those plants, you wouldn't want to (they are a nutritious component of that plant).

You linked to a study which compared a diet of grain with a diet of hay. But my 'claim' that you highlighted refers to a diet of hay which doesn't exclude grains ("doesn't exclude grains" is a redundant qualifier, since a diet of hay which excludes grains doesn't really exist (nobody goes about the task of removing all the seeds from the grasses in the field (or the seeds from alfalfa, clover, etc.))).

If this is still confusing let me state explicitly that I am making no claim about whether a diet of hay or a diet of grain is "better", so there's not much point in putting the question to me.

Linda

[!Kaggen]

Every single animal, yourself included, has E. coli in its intestines. Meat hygiene is very much geared to dealing with this, and all the cooking instructions and so on designed to kill any bacteria that are there. You don't want to be eating raw ground beef from any animal at all. It's not just E. coli, it's Campylobacter and Salmonella and Yersinia and Clostridia and all sorts of things. Every piece of meat, from whatever source, has to be treated on the assumption that there is surface bacterial contamination.

In the specific case of O127, sometimes that's picked up directly from faeces (children's camp on cattle pasture was one incident, children petting farm animals was another), and sometimes from poorly handled meat. The infamous Wishaw incident was due to cross-contamination of cold and pre-cooked meat in a butcher's shop because they didn't stick to the hygiene rules.

The earlier paper you linked to was about the possibility that a cereal diet might be more inclined to favour the harbouring of O157 in the gut. It by no means proves that cereal-fed cattle are more dangerous than grass-fed cattle. You can get O157 in any animal, and assuming it can't be there because of the diet would be madness. So far as I could see, they didn't even show that there was a higher prevalence of O157 in any particular type of management regimen, out there in the field.

Rolfe.

few more studies which contribute to the idea of reducing 0157 by reducing grain intake.


Escherichia coli O157:H7 is a pathogenic bacterium that causes acute illness in humans, but mature cattle are not affected. E. coli O157:H7 can enter the human food supply from cattle via fecal contamination of beef carcasses at slaughter. Previous attempts to correlate the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 with specific diets or feeding management practices gave few statistically significant or consistent findings. However, recent work indicates that cattle diets may be changed to decrease fermentation acid accumulation in the colon. When fermentation acids accumulate in the colon and pH decreases, the numbers of acid-resistant E. coli increase; acid-resistant E. coli are more likely to survive the gastric stomach of humans. When cattle were fed hay for a brief period <7 d), acid-resistant E. coli numbers declined dramatically. Other workers have shown that brief periods of hay feeding can also decrease the number of cattle shedding E. coli O157:H7, and a similar trend was observed if cattle were taken off feed and exposed to simulated transport. These observations indicate that cattle feeding management practices may be manipulated to decrease the risk of foodborne illness from E. coli, but further work will be needed to confirm these effects.

from
http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/4/863

and

Although Escherichia coli are commensal organisms that reside within the host gut, some pathogenic strains of E. coli can cause hemorrhagic colitis in humans. The most notable enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) strain is O157:H7. Cattle are asymptomatic natural reservoirs of E. coli O157:H7, and it has been reported that as many as 30% of all cattle are carriers of this pathogen, and in some circumstances this can be as high as 80%. Feedlot and high-producing dairy cattle are fed large grain rations in order to increase feed efficiency. When cattle are fed large grain rations, some starch escapes ruminal microbial degradation and passes to the hindgut where it is fermented. EHEC are capable of fermenting sugars released from starch breakdown in the colon, and populations of E. coli have been shown to be higher in grain fed cattle, and this has been correlated with E. coli O157:H7 shedding in barley fed cattle. When cattle were abruptly switched from a high grain (corn) diet to a forage diet, generic E. coli populations declined 1000-fold within 5 d, and the ability of the fecal generic E. coli population to survive an acid shock similar to the human gastric stomach decreased. Other researchers have shown that a switch from grain to hay caused a smaller decrease in E. coli populations, but did not observe the same effect on gastric shock survivability. In a study that used cattle naturally infected with E. coli O157:H7, fewer cattle shed E. coli O157:H7 when switched from a feedlot ration to a forage-based diet compared with cattle continuously fed a feedlot ration. Results indicate that switching cattle from grain to forage could potentially reduce EHEC populations in cattle prior to slaughter; however the economic impact of this needs to be examined.
from
http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/3/852


That being said my preferred method to deal with pathogens is probiotics, seeing that's my business ;)

Bovine manure is an important source of Escherichia coli O157 contamination of the environment and foods; therefore, effective interventions targeted at reducing the prevalence and magnitude of fecal E. coli O157 excretion by live cattle (preharvest) are desirable. Preharvest intervention methods can be grouped into 3 categories: 1) exposure reduction strategies, 2) exclusion strategies, and 3) direct antipathogen strategies. Exposure reduction involves environmental management targeted at reducing bovine exposure to E. coli O157 through biosecurity and environmental niche management such as feed and drinking water hygiene, reduced exposure to insects or wildlife, and improved cleanliness of the bedding or pen floor. In the category of exclusion, we group vaccination and dietary modifications such as selection of specific feed components; feeding of prebiotics, probiotics, or both; and supplementation with competitive exclusion cultures to limit proliferation of E. coli O157 in or on exposed animals. Direct antipathogen strategies include treatment with sodium chlorate, antibiotics, bacteriophages, in addition to washing of animals before slaughter. Presently, only 1 preharvest control for E. coli O157 in cattle has been effective and has gained widespread adoption—the feeding probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus. More research into the effectiveness of parallel and simultaneous application of 1 or more preharvest control strategies, as well as the identification of new pre-harvest control methods, may provide practical means to substantially reduce the incidence of human E. coli O157-related illness by intervening at the farm level.
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/13_suppl/E73

Healthy ruminants are the main reservoir of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC). During their transit through the ruminant gastrointestinal tract, STEC encounters a number of acidic environments. As all STEC strains are not equally resistant to acidic conditions, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether acid resistance confers an ecological advantage to STEC strains in ruminant digestive contents and whether acid resistance mechanisms are induced in the rumen compartment. We found that acid-resistant STEC survived at higher rates during prolonged incubation in rumen fluid than acid-sensitive STEC and that they resisted the highly acidic conditions of the abomasum fluid, whereas acid-sensitive strains were killed. However, transit through the rumen contents allowed acid-sensitive strains to survive in the abomasum fluid at levels similar to those of acid-resistant STEC. The acid resistance status of the strains had little influence on STEC growth in jejunal and cecal contents. Supplementation with the probiotic Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077 or Lactobacillus acidophilus BT-1386 led to killing of all of the strains tested during prolonged incubation in the rumen contents, but it did not have any influence in the other digestive compartments. In addition, S. cerevisiae did not limit the induction of acid resistance in the rumen fluid. Our results indicate that the rumen compartment could be a relevant target for intervention strategies that could both limit STEC survival and eliminate induction of acid resistance mechanisms in order to decrease the number of viable STEC cells reaching the hindgut and thus STEC shedding and food contamination.http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/3/640

[!Kaggen]

Indeed.

AaronMHatch made a statement about a diet which excludes grains. I responded that 1) grains are part of the plants which form a pasture anyway (making it silly to think that you could avoid them) and 2) even if you could remove them from those plants, you wouldn't want to (they are a nutritious component of that plant).

You linked to a study which compared a diet of grain with a diet of hay. But my 'claim' that you highlighted refers to a diet of hay which doesn't exclude grains ("doesn't exclude grains" is a redundant qualifier, since a diet of hay which excludes grains doesn't really exist (nobody goes about the task of removing all the seeds from the grasses in the field (or the seeds from alfalfa, clover, etc.))).

If this is still confusing let me state explicitly that I am making no claim about whether a diet of hay or a diet of grain is "better", so there's not much point in putting the question to me.

Linda

Nice gymnastics Linda, for that you win :)

[AaronMHatch]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/01/mark-mcafee-interview.aspx

This is an article about raw milk. I'm having a hard time disbelieving Mercola here. Any advice on where to spot the errors?

[jimtron]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/01/mark-mcafee-interview.aspx

This is an article about raw milk. I'm having a hard time disbelieving Mercola here. Any advice on where to spot the errors?

Haven't read it, but this might help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_raw_milk_debate

[Amapola]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/01/mark-mcafee-interview.aspx

This is an article about raw milk. I'm having a hard time disbelieving Mercola here. Any advice on where to spot the errors?

I glanced through this article and I am hardly an expert. I raise goats, sheep and horses as well as hay but would not call myself an expert on dairy farming, although I milked goats for years.

However the idea that grain is bad for cows is kind of weird. As fls pointed out above, hay has grain in it, unless you go around with scissors or something and cut off all the seed heads.

Since I grew up around dairies I also find the idea that "most" milk is from cows that are in crowded conditions and eat nothing but grain, to be wrong. The dairies I saw had the cows out on grass when they could be, and they were not fed grain (although there was certainly grain in their hay) as the sole ration.

As far as the idea that cows are kept in filthy conditions and then milked, wow, have you ever been inside a dairy? I guess I've been in about 15 or so and every one was spotless. They have to be, in order to sell the milk. There are strict guidelines about how the milk is acquired, how it's handled etc.

Have you read this article about pasteurizing milk? (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/rawmilk.html) Mercola claims that pasteurized milk has practically no nutritious value but that is not the case. The pasteurizing does not destroy as much of the nutrition as he claims.

That's as far as I got. Since he started off wrong about how cows live and how dairies are run, I was not hopeful that the rest would be correct.

[AaronMHatch]

Thank you, jimtron and Amapola, for the helpful responses!

[Rolfe]

I'm tired of this.

Pasteurisation does nothing to milk but inhibit bacterial growth enough to make it much safer to drink (as regards things like TB and brucellosis), and improve the keeping qualities in the refrigerator. It changes the taste very little and the nutritional value not at all.

Cereal-based diets are excellent for cattle. They provide a natural source of nutrition for overwintering and for fattening. Excessive grain consumption can cause a disease called rumenal acidosis, due to excess soluble carbohydrate and too little cellulose. Only an idiot feeds their cattle in such a way as to allow this to happen.

Once a meat animal is slaughtered and eaten, its own diet is pretty irrelevant to the nutritional composition of the meat, except as it relates to the fat versus protein content.

Rolfe.

[JJM]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/01/mark-mcafee-interview.aspx

This is an article about raw milk. I'm having a hard time disbelieving Mercola here. Any advice on where to spot the errors?First, I will echo what Rolfe just said and remind you- you have been told it before. (See also http://www.ncahf.org/digest10/10-13.html ) What part of "no" don't you understand?

Second, you have been told that Mercola is a poor source of information. Since you can't separate the wheat from the chaff, why do you persist? That was a long paper that wasted your time, and it is not realistic to ask someone else to digest it for you (for free). The American Dietetic Association ( www.eatright.org (http://www.eatright.org) ) has a lot of reliable information, they are online and publish books. Don't fall for a substandard qualification, look for a registered dietitian (RD).

[CORed]

I started following his diet plan in January (no grains, raw dairy, fish oil instead of mercury-laiden fish, no soy, less fruits due to fructose and more vegetables)

It has really improved my life through better memory, less illness, a clearer mind, and a more positive attitude.

I had researched Mercola and found that the FDA had requested he remove some claims from his website. Aside from this, I'm struggling to understand why he's been labeled a complete nutcase. I understand the concerns regarding his beliefs on vaccines, naturopathy, the evils of big pharma, and some alternative pseudosciences.

My question is this: Can you label everything he says as woo and false? Could it be that his nutritional recommendations are more or less sound? I see a lot of hate towards Mercola on this forum, but perhaps some of what he says is credible?

What is your take? I give him credit for at least responding to the criticism (mercolaquack.com).


So, "mercury laden" fish is bad, but raw dairy (which can contain some truly nasty bacteria) is good? Why is raw dairy supposed to be better than pasteurized?

[CORed]

I'm tired of this.

Pasteurisation does nothing to milk but inhibit bacterial growth enough to make it much safer to drink (as regards things like TB and brucellosis), and improve the keeping qualities in the refrigerator. It changes the taste very little and the nutritional value not at all.

Cereal-based diets are excellent for cattle. They provide a natural source of nutrition for overwintering and for fattening. Excessive grain consumption can cause a disease called rumenal acidosis, due to excess soluble carbohydrate and too little cellulose. Only an idiot feeds their cattle in such a way as to allow this to happen.

Once a meat animal is slaughtered and eaten, its own diet is pretty irrelevant to the nutritional composition of the meat, except as it relates to the fat versus protein content.

Rolfe.


This is a bit of a derail, but I remember, several years ago in the US, an outbreak of E. coli traced to unpasteurized organic apple juice.

Apple juice is make mostly form windfall apples, i. e. apples that fall to the ground before harvest. These are usually too bruised to be salable whole.

Since one of the criteria for being "organic" is no chemical fertilizers, the trees were fertilized with cow manure.

So, you take some apples which have fallen into cow crap, make them into juice, and don't pasteurize it. This is supposed to be healthy. Brilliant.

[ponderingturtle]

So, "mercury laden" fish is bad, but raw dairy (which can contain some truly nasty bacteria) is good? Why is raw dairy supposed to be better than pasteurized?

Bacteria are natural, while mercury is a nasty man made chemical of course.

As to why it is supposed to be better it is the idea that more vitamins and the like are better. There is a certain amount of damage done to some of them in the processing of food. People argue that you seem to need incredible amounts of these so that damaging them is bad.

[AaronMHatch]

I was banned from Mercola's site for suggesting counter evidence. Today, he sent out a newsletter that includes this article:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/11/toxic-fluoride-contaminates-iceland-volcanic-ash-and-is-killing-animals.aspx

I asked why Mercola never tells his readers that fluoridation frequently involves the process of REMOVING fluoride from the water. The comment was removed, and my main account has been blocked. Fortunately, I can post with my second account. ;)

Perhaps he also didn't like the fact that I also returned and received full payment on about $800 worth of products. :D