Talk:Joseph Mercola

Mercola banned from YouTube

Mercola banned from YouTube then he sued Google and here he is - [1] The admins for this page need to update this information on this page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bank accounts closed

According to Mercola and a few unreliable sources, his bank accounts have just been closed. We need RS to say it before we can document it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Indeed, on hyper partisan websites and crypto news sites right now. Hopefully in a day or two actual news outlets will pick it up and fact-check. Robincantin (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

There's some text about it at the bottom of a CNBC news report, so I used what's there. Few details, as both parties have their reasons for not being entirely forthcoming. Robincantin (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Deleting helpful suggestions

@Valjean, are you saying that an editor who gave a solid viewpoint about the article was "griping"? I don't interpret his statement as griping. I found it helpful. "Not sure where to note this but i was shocked to find this page on Mercola as so very leaning in bias. For every scientist against his claims you can cite a valid scientist who supports. For claims about vitamin d they as in government are now moving towards agreement that it does stave off the virus to some degree. This article needs a rewrite to temove bias. To cite that mercola is often making claims contrasting government guidelines only points out the bias in assuming the government cannot be wrong. Employees of the government are no more knowledgeable than any other source." I remember reading that we are encouraged not to bit the newcomers. Wouldn't a healthy, respectful response been a better way to go? On the WP:NOTFORUM page it says, "...bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles..." This is exactly what he was doing. I also find your threat of sanctioning me a bit dramatic and not necessary when we are both trying to improve wikipedia.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The comment reveals scientific and medical illiteracy, a fringe POV, advocates fringe ideas, and provides no RS for how to improve our coverage of the subject. It's just griping. We usually remove such comments on sight.

Now YOU own it, so do something to make it constructive and YOU find the MEDRS needed to fix these alleged defects with the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok I will take up the challenge as I find time to do the research. Thanks for the respectful response. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Valjean's removal of what I also see as a whining comment with no specific suggestions on how to improve the article, just that they don't like it. I remove Talk page comments like that also; they are non-constructive criticism. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

For the betterment of Wikipedia and the publics view of Wikipedia, it is better to explain all this to the new person, in other words explain/educate the person rather that expel them and their comment. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Keeping article objective

I think Mercola's promotion, in hs book, of Ivermectin ought to be included. FDA has recently been forced by the Courts to stop discrediting Ivermectin. To avoid mentioning areas where he may be correct seems to put an attack light on Wikipedia, not an objective one. Soundhill (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You are starting from a wrong assumption. Courts do not decide scientific questions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not about deciding a scientific question. The fact is that the FDA made a mistake that was shown in court. From an article by CNN - "The FDA told CNN on Wednesday that the lawsuit challenged its authority to issue a Consumer Update in March 2021, several tweets and other social media posts from 2021 and 2022 that linked to the article, and two FAQs posted in 2020, which the FDA said have “already been retired from the agency’s website.” The posts and other materials will be removed and archived as required by law." And then Dr. Marik's comment, “Today’s settlement with the FDA is a major win for the doctor-patient relationship,” Marik said in the statement. “It vindicates our position that the FDA overstepped its regulatory authority by trying to dictate appropriate medical care.” Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Soundhill said that Mercola may be correct about Ivermectin. That is a scientific question, and Mercola is still wrong about it. But without actual sources, there is nothing to talk about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok I am addressing the erroneous overreach of the FDA to try to control medical care. here are a two reliable sources that can be used regarding Invermectin which supports Mercola's view on Invermectin:

• Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ - Conclusions:Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
• Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34375047/ - Conclusions: Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

• Also this CNN article is a reliable source regarding the overreach of the FDA by trying to dictate medical care. FDA settles lawsuit over ivermectin content that doctors claimed harmed their practice https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/27/health/fda-ivermectin-lawsuit/index.html .Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to do that here. That would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (and likely more WP:PAG). It has to be a RS that connects Mercola, by name, to the issue. That he might be partially right doesn't mean Wikipedia gives him any support or a free pass to continue to push his BS pseudoscience quackery. Take your sources to the Ivermectin article talk page and argue the WP:MEDRS relevance of using those sources there.

BTW, you need to sign your comment above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your wiki guidance but you must see that your bias is blatantly showing when you say ..."his BS (as in bullshit I assume) pseudoscience quackery." This is what the public is objecting to on Wikipedia. If you were truly a neutral editor you would be looking for the sources to balance this article. We have had this discussion before. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality applies to edits, not editors. My editing is always based on RS, not my personal POV. When they agree, that's nice, but it's not a requirement. I often make edits that conflict with my personal POV. When significant, I change my POV and bring it into line with the RS. That Mercola is a noted pusher of very profitable and dangerous pseudoscience is a matter of record. We side with what RS say. We also side with the law. Mercola has received myriad warnings from the FDA. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see the essay WP:YESBIAS ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Valjean You are aware that some of the people in the public read the talks pages right? I also have my personal POV and most times keep it to myself and I too have made edits that conflict with my POV and use reliable sources. I do believe we need to be respectful of the person whose wiki page it is. We as wiki editors should show respect at all times to other editors and the pages we edit on. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we stop the chatting about our opinions? This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

When someone has responded to your contribution, do not change that contribution by deleting, adding, or changing text. Instead, strike the part you want to delete. Otherwise, the responses may not make sense. I am striking the part of my response that does not make sense anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• The FDA/ivermectin thing is covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. A US court found the FDA had exceeded their authority in giving (what amounted to) medical advice. The FDA however explicitly did not change their view that ivermectin had no evidence of benefit for COVID (a finding in common with all relevant RS). Meanwhile, online, ivermectin boosters tried to twist this technical legal ruling as some kind of "vindication" for ivermectin/COVID. As I say, it's covered. Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Question - where is the definition for misinformation for this article? Doctors who have cured people of COVID using other than the vaccine or remdsiver , would have valuable information and would not be considered providing misinformaion. To establish credibility here we need a precise definition. For instance I know of a 71 year old man who was quickly cured from a doctor diagnosed COVID infection using a number of things including a precise formula of hydrogen peroxide and iodine diluted in water and used a nebulizer for 15 minutes at a time. It was moving to his lungs and after one session he felt better already. He kept doing it and recovered quickly from COVID. Any ideas?Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Read anecdotal evidence. Worthless as real evidence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Yes but that is not my question. What is the precise definition of "Misinformation" that is used in this article? What authoritative group decides what is misinformation? It is used throughout the page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

      WP:Reliable sources decide. Bon courage (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

      See the sources after the lead sentence: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mercola spread misinformation about the virus...". In Wikipedia, we say what RS's say. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  • To decide whether a treatment has "cured" someone of a disease that typically does not take longer than a two weeks, or whether the disease has gone away of its own, one has to do very careful studies with randomized control groups. Please leave that work to the experts. And no, some random doctor (let alone some random osteopath) is not an expert on how to do medical science, even if they make millions selling chemicals to gullible people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)