Protect yourself from harmful sites
articles.mercola.com Site owners click here
Get the latest and current health news and information from the best natural health source provider Dr. Joseph Mercola. Subscribe for FREE to one of the world's Most Trusted Health Newsletters.Site owners click here
Information from third-party sources (0)
This site doesn't appear in third-party sources. Read more about our trusted sources.
articles.mercola.com reviews (66)
Please Register / login to leave a review.
Comment votes have been disabled for this site.
This site won't harm your computer. However this site does support potentially controversial medicine.
Been with the site since it started.
One thing that Dr. Mercola does is citation, Citation, CITATIONS !
I did not find anyone in the comments listing citations for there negative opinions.
No get of the web and go read the "science" that Dr Mercola presents.
It does not matter if you do not "believe" in science, but it does not change the facts.
Question everything - Discovery Channel Mantra
Dangerously lacking in actual medical procedure or even rudimentary understanding
Honest and truth seeking. One of the best on the internet. See also for instance Natural News with Mike Adams and ANH.
This company, which is involved in misleading health claims, had to settle with the FTC because they were selling tanning beds and claiming they improved health.
There is a lot of good information on this site and many things don't work for everybody. Still, I appreciate someone who will raise red flags on things like hydrogenated oils and olestra where the FDA has proven time and time again to approve these types of things despite being harmful to our health and thus eroding our trust. Also, lots of people attacking this site on WOT here but use nothing but strawman and ad hominem logical fallacies. At least Mericola sites references and sources to follow up on.
Questionable health claims with lot of self promotion. The owner of this website were actually claiming that his tanning beds do not cause skin cancer. Good thing he was made to pay for his misrepresentative and dangerous scams.
So many parrots in the comments. A site is not "untrustworthy" because you don't know how to handle a pop up. There are "world class" newspaper sites that throw the same kind of pop up in your face after leeching free articles. These are all very easy to get around, and unlike those papers, this site does not require a fee or product purchase to read information, despite the implications of these WOT reviews. This is 2014...no one "wants your email address for sinister purposes" on that site. No one has just one address, and disposable email addresses for the paranoid are nothing new.
The rest of the parrots are dismising the entire site because they disagree with one or two pet issues (vaccines, etc). There are Vitamin D3, Q10, Spinach articles, etc, all well cited and gaining more and more support in mainstream science, amongst a plethora of other subjects. Discount an entire site because you don't like the studies on one controversial subject, despite the undebatable truth in other areas (D3, Q10, Omega 3, etc).
I have been freely harvesting information from articles from the site for over a decade without "being sold snake oil". I'm sorry, overpriced Q10 and D3 can not be written off as snake oil just because you disagree with the sales of "organic shampoo" and the like. They are simply over-priced products that fund the site and research, and the information on the site is littered with suggestions in any way imaginable to get most of his recommendations from others sources in the world, including free sources accessible to anyone. For a site that urges "local food" and raw food as much as they do to get certain benefits while being treated like a site that promotes getting everything from supplementation, is blatant dishonesty.
Anyone who has actually read the articles instead of looking for "dirt" on the man will come across this. Yes. He sells products, yes there are ads, which you usually have to deliberately click on. This is not "shady practice". And no, he is not the only doctor to have a nice house and nice car.
There is plenty of evidence of re-evaluation of past articles, and adjusting and tweaking his stance as new information and studies come in, something I doubt happens more than once in a blue moon by any doctor you or I have seen in our time.
Disagreeing with a controversial stance on one subject and dismissing the rest is not logical. That's like going to Trader Joe's and dismissing their n spinach, broccoli, and vitamins because they sell Pub Cheese, bagels, and hippy shampoo because some of those things aren't healthy and some produce poor results.
It's obvious, but people are so quick to swallow the common parakeet's tweet-critique that no one takes the time to call it out and question it.
Not one of these naysayers who cry "alarmist" (while all the while being nothing but alarmist) actually provide anything else other than their allegiance to the medical field (at best) have a problem with their hypocrisy. Wikipedia? "That study that supports my argument" (minus the ones that don't)? Have fun with that and hope you don't wind up with the next contradicting misdiagnosis that turns somewhere else for results.
The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Look around the internet. Anywhere, not just his site.
How many discussions are going around the web about how the advice of eating raw food and when to eat certain fats after certain types of workouts are out there are of those crying out into the void of the internet about how these things had hurt them? And how many of those same voices are out there crying out on how their revolving door of doctors left them up a creek or made them sicker when they weren't busy telling them it was all in their head? One of these things is abundant, easy to find, and the other isn't. I can throw a stone in the dark and land on someone's experience of the latter.
Don't give me the whole, "it's not an issue of "people only go on the internet to complain" line. Easy answer, but this isn't buying a piece of electronics on Amazon, this is human life. As in life, context is everything. When people overcome something they have been struggling with that affects their core well being, they aren't going to keep quiet about it when they overcome and run into extreme night and day differences, where one system wasn't working and another finally does. This is reality, and reality is BLATANTLY ignored by lab rat jockies if it's not already laid out in easy to recite text, in an environment where the contradictions outweigh the symptoms.
It is no secret, no matter how much you troll some ratings site without providing your cowardice voice. Talk to those who have spent their lives turning to their doctors just to be left up a bloody creek and tell them they are full of "snake oil".
The voices of those on either side of this coin have no incentive to go around making up bs stories. Those with any sort of incentives (be it a doctrine, denial, or something more professional) stick with one liners, wiki links, and thumbs up buttons. The reality is reflected in the human voice, and again -- you don't have to look far to see which way those voices have been led; not out of fads, but out of failure and learning the hard way that the text book, while wonderful, is not a one size fits all fix for life, and other things actually can make a world of difference when the standard practice has failed.
I don't agree with everything there, and not everything is going to work for everyone, just like I'm not going to discount everything my doctor does just because I and so many I've come across have been left up a creek on other issues. Black and white, all or nothingness is not compatible with reality, no matter what imaginary fence you find comfort behind.
Mercola, an inidividual with little to no expertise in the great majority of fields he comments in, has much more interest in selling his own branded products than actually educating people and helping the public. He states that "Mercola.com is not . . . a tool to get me a bigger house and car..." However, after running the site as a commercial entity for six years, he was able to purchase a huge estate and multi-million dollar mansio with extensive grounds and a private pool, amoung ohter amenities.
Reading his site might be dangerous for young children and the uninformed, as his claims were able to convince a 12 year old boy who only later came to know better through critical thinking (yes, that was me).
So, my advice? Buyer beware.
Full of misinformation and outright lies. For example, the page states "Incredibly, in August of last year, America's National Cancer Institute (NCI) finally acknowledged and cited some of Burzynski's peer-reviewed Antineoplaston studies" but as of 07Jan2014, the NCI's website (cancer.gov) says:
"No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (See Question 6.)
Nonrandomized clinical trials are ongoing at Dr. Burzynski’s clinic to study the effect of antineoplastons on cancer. (See Question 6.)
Antineoplastons have caused mild side effects and some serious nervous system problems. (See Question 7.)
Antineoplastons are not approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration for the prevention or treatment of any disease. (See Question 8.)"