He's no different than the 19th century patent-medicine man, hawking his fantastical theories as science.

Mercola needs to be sent a copy of this. www.mercola.com. I'll send one but it will be more effective is he receives a slew of these.

Real doctors and scientists are busy and can't dedicate hours to making sure that real science websites are more numerous then the woo sites. Mercola, Chopra, Weil, Oz and others have an army of followers posting woo shit all day long and the shear volume of nonsense on the web is massively in favor of the Snake Oil Salesmen.

will believe anyone that pretends their "natural remedies" cure everything from insomnia to cancer. I'm surprised nobody has tried to sue this latest fucking charlatan.

These are slick charlatans that prey on human frailties. in this case parents often want to do everything possible to do the 'best' things for their babies ... folk may lack the necessary education or may simply be duped by "slick' packaging and rhetoric.

I don't absolve the victims of all responsibility, but have compassion ... P.T Barnum may have said it best...

Maybe the FDA should have him straight up for a nice lunch and a quiet word.

Which was a poorly-written, muddle-minded attempt to ban genetically modified foods from grocery shelves. One of the main reasons I voted against it.

Proposition 37 called for LABELING of GMO, not banning.

Dupont 5.5 million.

The pro side didn't come close to the propaganda funds funnelled to the anti side.

And there is not one word of banning mentioned in the prop.

The accusation that it did comes straight from Monsanto propaganda. Thus, you based your vote on a lie.

Prop 37 is a rather simply written prop. Remarkably simple. What muddled it (and reveals that few people actually read the text of propositions) is the anti 37 advertising blitz funded war chest by Monsanto, Dupont, PepsiCo, Kraft, and Dow. (You know - those humanitarians *snort*).

Now I know why! People fell for the propaganda from Monsanto, etc. rather than getting the facts. Just lazy thinking, I guess.

You mean the fact that there's no scientific evidence to show any harm coming from the consumption of GMO food?

I have concerns with GMO's and genetic diversity, but that's a separate issue.

Period.

What's to dispute?

You don't think consumers have a right to know if a product is gm before purchase?

I don't care about what others think.... If it's my $ I want to know what's in it.

At one time or another there was no evidence lead paint was bad for people.

My $ my health my research my conclusions means my right to know and decide for myself.

Maybe we should stop labeling for nuts as an ingredient and see how that works out for people with allergies.

...has so far not shown to be harmful for consumption in any way. Sorry, but it's an apples to oranges comparison.

What was once thought safe turning out false is a common occurrence.

People need more info not less and they must draw their own conclusions.

Since when is it a progressive ideal to keep people from making their own informed decisions about their $ their bodies.

No. That is just wrong and leaves future policy making in control of a few what.... Fascists? Corrupt policy makers?

More info not less works best for all. I don't care about how convinced you are and I accept certain gm organisms. I totally don't want others in my life at all. Labeling is a peaceful coexistence. And no one has the right to deprive me of my right to refuse to injest something I find offensive.

Labeling may make it more convenient for people such as yourself who wish to avoid GM foods, but it's not like the information is being actively suppressed, either.

Period

Otherwise I'm not interested. Period.

Is nonsense.

If you sell a product, consumers have a right to know it's contents.

For any number of health or social reasons.... Like liability if a crazy person in ur company decides to throw in melamine as milk or any scenario.

We regulate and label to protect the public.

What progressive or Democrat stands and says prove its harmful first. Do u see anything wrong with this argument at all?

I can foresee a crazy sociopathic GOP party gm food that may be harmful to the poor and minorities.

I want the food chain secure, well labeled for those who make choices with their $ to support organic or kosher or humane ratings. I want chickens that have a 4 or 5 humane rating. I found them and that's what I choose to buy. If I don't want gm corn... I want the ability to pass it over at my grocery. It is a basic human right to injest only what one doesn't find offensive.

Do u think the Kosher rating should be done away with? For what? Manufacturer's convenience. Forget that. Maybe we should do away with home inspections because we can't prove harm?

Kinda takes away of for and by the people big time. Buy this non-kosher food, tortured animal meat, piece of shit house from a for shit corporation and STFU. Are u saying I have no right to no? Because once that shit starts they carry it into all kinds of business. How about we let poisons in the water supply of certain communities we don't like because they can't PROVE its dangerous.... Oh wait is that scenario for real?

It's an ethical way of doing business.

How can anyone defend taking an economic choice away from the public.

I am fairly poor. But I go without shopping at Walmart. I never set foot in one and never will. I cannot PROVE them dangerous. All I am armed with to boycott is PUBLIC INFO about their practices and it's my decision to go without rather than AFFORD them. I'm a nightmare anti consumer who puts my $ in the pocket of whom benefits me.

Anything less than full control over being informed is kinda fascist. Pure evil.

fascist and pure evil? Give me a break. I'm not saying they shouldn't label that there is corn or not corn in a product (something that's already done). I'm saying that why must they be forced to make a distinction between GMO corn and "organic" corn when there is effectively no difference between the two in terms of consumption and its effects?

This is a made up distraction of an issue, pure and simple. Now if you want to talk about the harms that GMO foods may have on genetic diversity, that's a conversation worth having, as it's at least grounded in reality.

Edit: An interesting article on the usefulness of labeling, and some unintended consequences.
http://www.biofortified.org/2009/01/to-label-or-not-to-label/

It was once ok to to use safe and cozy to use antibiotics to grow animals and the FDA wants labeling and a stop to the practice now. It seems it's rendering antibiotics ineffective for infections.

You think we need to prove harm when we think a simple right to know will make us more effectively control our own human right of making informed choices.

I don't know u or that Agra business that wants to gm anything.

I deserve the right to not buy your product until I can have the time to make my research and decision.

Your argument is for no sunshine unless harm is proven. You have no problem with this. I do.

That's just wrong. Contrary studies can be buried and otherwise manipulated.

No big business should be allowed to market products without proper labeling that immediately IDs the product as chemically or genetically modified.

I have no reason to trust Agra business. A label so vehemently fought against by them makes me distrust them at the get go. It's bad practice to take away the publics right to know what makes up their food.

Conversation over.

Last bit of reading material for ya, since the conversation is apparently over. http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/backers-of-gmo-labeling-unthinkingly-buy-conspiracy-based-arguments_2013-06-15.html

I was searching out no antibiotic used foodstuffs before it was vogue. My decisions based on nothing but what I want.

I want the power to make my own decisions

For most consumers that means accurate info and labeling.

Disclosure means consumer empowerment.

And for further disclosure: both my kids are vaccinated with every vaccine as required by schools and rec by pediatricians. Don't know mercola. Never bought into eggs are bad for u bs and too lazy to be conspiratorial 😂😂😂

I buy what's labeled accurately and don't give a shit about the herd. Go drink lye if you want. I want clearly marked labels for my family AND I want to know if kosher and humane rating. In exchange u get my money. Non kosher hasn't been proven unhealthy right? But they label it.

Do u think it's ok china toys and jewelry mkt to kids with high doses of heavy metals with no labeling?

Do consumers have a right to just SUSPECT certain things are unhealthy and steer clear? Why not?

My right to know what my food is trumps industry profits IMO

...then your right is not being violated, even without active labeling directly on the product itself.

So much for "conversation over," eh?

I demand to know if my food is organic

I'm appalled that anyone would find that offensive

Labeling of foodstuffs should be factored into cost and passed on to a better informed consumer

So all labeling is the result of showing harm? I can't afford my own testing. So I have no right to know if my corn is gm? I have to trust profiteers?

What is this Somalia?

And Somalia? Really? You've gone so beyond the pale on this subject that I doubt rational discussion will ever be possible.

Stop insulting me just because I am demanding and get over the top with my exasperation.

It is not an insult to you. But u insult me.

I don't know what the long term affects of gm products will be & neither do you. There are unforeseen results possible.

I prefer not to buy gm corn specifically because of roundup and maybe rice. I want gmo labeled.

Organic should be nonGMO whether agribusiness complies is a leap of faith maybe

That's my understanding

And i already have addressed your issues. That you ignored it is not my problem.

it simply requires labeling.

"That fucker Mercola (from NaturalNews.com) strikes again. The man is a menace to public health." .... I agree completely

"That fucker Mercola (from NaturalNews.com) strikes again. The man is a menace to public health."

Also, "Dr." Joseph Mercola should be in jail for fraud.

seems like once a week now - dead kid, no charges, no arrests.

I wish there was consistency in the law, hell it finally took a long time for some states to actually call neglecting a child's medical needs as actual neglect, regardless of excuse.

ready to share their proverbial wisdom.

has to be directed at a specific "person."

"All the assholes who think X are idiots" is not a personal attack.

"You, John Doe, are an idiot asshole who thinks X" is.

I'm surprised this wasn't a six-zip "take a hike."

Now, the statements may be true, or they may be false, but that's not the point I was making.

No one was "personally" attacked in either of those statements. Unless a person has a membership card in a formal club that says "John Doe: Dues-Paying Resident Woo Believer" or has a sig line that reads "Proud Member of the Age of Autism Gang" those posts were just GENERIC disparagements directed towards groups that the author did not agree with--they are not "PERSONAL" insults.

A personal insult has to be directed at a person. If a poster calls another poster names, e.g. You are (fill in the insult), that's personal. The examples provided are just a general statement of disagreement --they aren't at all specific.

The jury "got it" and that's good. It should have been six-nix, though.

Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

GOOGLE: proverbialwisdom mercola site:democraticunderground.com

Summary: I once participated on a thread on water fluoridation which mentioned Mercola, although I didn't, and I once linked to the sole distributor at the time of the film, THE GREATER GOOD, PERIOD. Yes, his store sold the DVD of THE GREATER GOOD before the film's website did and I linked to it. Here's info about the film, FYI.

to invoke and summon

Sid

That's what LINKS are for...just saying.

The only stuff that isn't copyrighted, that we can be certain of, is government material--that belongs to "We the People."

I wouldn't assume that stuff isn't copyrighted.

Edit--scroll down to the bottom of the page....

Copyright © 2012 THE GREATER GOOD Movie

You do know that DU was embroiled in a NASTY copyright case for awhile there, don't you? It's not something to take lightly and it's why copyright admonishments are part and parcel of the TOS here. The DU site owners prevailed, because the supposed "copyright holders" were a bunch of copyright-troll grifters, who would try to "shake down" website owners by threatening them with expensive lawsuits, but I wouldn't be surprised if the entire ordeal caused the site owners a few sleepless nights, a few wrinkles, and maybe a couple of gray hairs before they emerged victorious.

It's why copyright admonitions are part of the TOS:

Because they trust the internet more than they trust doctors and hospitals.

I have a friend in the UK whose daughter was permanently damaged by a brain hemorrhage -- back before NHS required Vit K shots in all infants.

Do these "natural" parents also accept the "natural" high infant mortality of the old days?

The things I have witnessed as an L&D nurse would make most of you fall out of your chairs. Just last week we had a patient who flat out stated she would accept the death of her baby over allowing the doctor to perform a c-section. Not even kidding. It happens all the time, every day. Patients tell me more and more, "I read on the internet...." and I just cringe.

She is an unfit mother. The kid should be taken away!

that you're not a "real woman" if you've had a c-section (or so I've been told...)

C-sections and use of pain medications during labor are very emotionally weighted for many women due to pressure from other women. Fortunately for me, I had 8 years of L&D under my belt before I had my own kids, so I didn't give a rat's ass what anyone else thought. LOL. Healthy me, healthy baby, that's all I wanted. My c-sections were fabulous.

For most of my recent pregnancy (6 months ago) my twins were Baby A breech, Baby B vertex. So we scheduled a c-section. 4 days before the c-section, Baby A turned vertex (so both vertex) and my OB offered to induce and go for a vaginal birth since I'd given birth vaginally 3 times before. I thought about it, but we had invested so much in the pregnancy to get the boys to almost 38 weeks (they were born at 37w 5d) that I wasn't about to jeopardize Baby B just to try a vaginal birth.

So I went ahead with the scheduled c-section and it was my best birth experience EVER! I really don't know why I suffered through hours and hours of labor with my first three when you could just have them out in 2 minutes

Luckily, my recovery was equally fast and amazing...but I'm not sure it would have been had I tried to labor for hours and had an emergency c-section for Baby B after giving birth to Baby A. Considering that both of them were over 8 lbs, it would have been hard to turn Baby B if he decided to flip back again.

There IS a lot of pressure in the Mommy wars to give birth "naturally" and then breast feed for a year and yadda yadda yadda... but we have to learn to resist that pressure and make our own decisions just like we did in high school!

I bow to your spectacular baby growing abilities. Your body must cook one helluva placenta. LOL. I'm glad you had a good experience.

Growth ultrasound a week before showed them at 6 lbs each...I was on bed rest for 5 weeks and was pretty miserable by the time they were born. That may have contributed to the good experience...the c-section was a relief. Being almost 6 feet tall helped, but didn't make it "easy"

whose parents refuse the injections. There can be problems with compliance, since the IM version is done in a single injection at birth, and the oral form requires three doses over a period of time. Also, at lower doses, the oral might not be as effective.

But the bottom line is that if a parent is that concerned, s/he should be talking to his or her doctor, not ordering anything over the internet.

http://newborns.stanford.edu/VitaminK.html#risks

If parents refuse IM vitamin K:

2 – 4mg PO vitamin K after first feeding then 2mg at 2 – 4 weeks and again at 6 – 8 weeks OR
2 – 4mg PO vitamin K after first feeding then 2mg within first week and weekly while breastfeeding OR
2mg PO vitamin K after first feeding then 2mg within first week followed by 25mcg daily for 13 weeks
(See notes below about oral regimens)

**************

there is no licensed PO form in US, but parental form can be given orally
in countries that have gone to PO prophylaxis, failures (even with good compliance) have been reported . Failures have not been reported with IM prophylaxis.
since multiple doses are required, compliance is an issue
advise parents regarding the increased risk of VKDB (exact numbers are unknown)
maternal dietary changes have little effect on overall vitamin K status of newborn
maternal vitamin K supplements of 5mg/day (800% RDA) has been shown in one study to raise infant serum levels to near formula-fed levels, but there is no FDA approved MVI that contains this amount of vitamin K

and parents don't always comply.

but I am only a volunteer so I only work one weekend a month, sometimes 2.
and we are in a pretty country area.
that is very scary.

We've gotten rid of most links to his woo web site on DU. And yet, he still spreads his deliberate ignorance and nonsense to visitors to his fact-free website.

He has supporters on DU, as well.

Mercola belongs in prison. How many people have died or gotten hurt after following his nonsense?

People are dying, and will continue to die because of this asshat.


Those poor babies.

Why isn't Mercola in jail?

Why on earth do babies need a Vitamin K injection at birth in the first place???

Nature probably didn't design us this way. So what are mothers doing wrong or what's wrong with our food supply that this is even necessary?

"Babies have very little vitamin K in their bodies at birth. Vitamin K does not cross the placenta to the developing baby, and the gut does not have any bacteria to make vitamin K before birth. After birth, there is little vitamin K in breast milk and breastfed babies can be low in vitamin K for several weeks until the normal gut bacteria start making it. Infant formula has added vitamin K, but even formula-fed babies have very low levels of vitamin K for several days."

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Vitamin_K_and_newborn_babies

There's no particular reason we have to stick with that.

There's a neonatal unit here in our city that has a new policy of not clamping preemies' cords for, I think 30 or 60 seconds and found that it led to a lot less brain bleeds and other preemie complications (this was a local news story a few weeks ago) and that the preemies who had the cord clamping delayed did far better and needed far less blood transfusions than 'early clamping' preemies. This goes with some theories about cord clamping in full term babies I read about (it's been awhile though...)

I was lucky enough to have nice doctors that did delayed clamping at my request with my 2nd and 3rd babies. I still got the vitamin K shots for my kids (even the ones who had delayed cord clamping).

With regards to your point about food supply there's also a theory about mothers not eating enough leafy greens and being vit K deficient themselves and not passing it on in breast milk, but I don't know if any of these theories have studies behind them.

I talked to my health care provider about this kind of thing and didn't assume "natural" was by definition better. I asked her about delaying cord clamping and she agreed that it was a good idea and said that at some point she imagines it'll become standard practice.

Anyway, I'm into the delaying cord clamping.

How is anything in nature designed?

infants dying without medical intervention jive with that?

THAT'S my question.

Instead of providing a helpful explanation as others did, you apparently chose to insinuate that I am some sort of biblical literalist and creationist whackjob, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

But coming from you, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Type one diabetes, childhood leukemia, truly crappy hearts, 2 or 3 hundred genetic disorders many doctors prescreen for, and about a million other things that could go wrong.

For instance, my daughter is almost 18. Nineteen years ago, there was no prenatal genetic screening. Six months ago my wife and I both got screened before she conceived for ~200 different genetic disorders. Science is truly amazing.

I can just imagine what would come up on mine. Yes, science is truly amazing.

I'd prefer being unnatural in this case.

easily. I have had two blood clots in my leg and have a Greenfield filter to catch the clots before they travel to the
lungs or brain. I am supposed to avoid vegetables like broccoli and brussels sprouts that are high in vitamin K which
helps blood to clot. What if the infant was born with that disorder and they gave him a vitamin K shot?

From the cited article:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report last month about four babies in Nashville, Tenn., who hemorrhaged after their parents refused vitamin K injections at birth. The babies were diagnosed with life-threatening vitamin K deficiency bleeding between February and September. Three had bleeding in the brain, and one had gastrointestinal bleeding. They survived, but the infants with brain hemorrhages could have long-term neurological problems."

There's far more infants that will suffer harm from not enough vitamin K than infants born with a Factor 5 problem...if there was no prenatal testing for genetic disorders and both parents are orphans with no family history.

Since neither of those is usually true, you can usually figure out before birth if a Factor 5 problem may be present and adjust accordingly.

Up to 8 percent of infants of white European descent have at least one copy of Factor 5 Leiden (which increases the risk of blood clots), and there are other disorders that cause too much clotting, too. But they do have testing for Factor 5 now, thank goodness.

(We have it in our family, too.)

What percent of babies are at risk of hemorrhage if they don't have Vitamin K?

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/factor-v-leiden-thrombophilia

On edit:


http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/health/four-babies-hemorrhage-after-parents-refuse-vitamin-k-shot-a/article_2f3f8317-6d00-5998-ad17-3e50cb21f254.html

Without the vitamin K injection, incidence of the early form of the bleeding disorder (up to 2 weeks of age) is 0.25 to 1.7 percent of all births. Incidence of the late form, which tends to be internal bleeding that can go unnoticed, is four to seven out of every 100,000 births.

Without Vit K, they were seeing DEATHS from infant hemorrhagic bleeds at rates of 130/100,000.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pitt.edu%2F~super7%2F14011-15001%2F14211.ppt&ei=UwelUsX1EsS3kQfDgIGYDA&usg=AFQjCNEr1D8iUddxvKeZkuq_-a0pPNuFTw&bvm=bv.57752919,d.eW0

In Vietnam, incidence is reported as over 100 cases per 100,000, and is a particular problem in breastfed infants.

I didn't know that.

Maybe you could enlighten us.

The question is what the risk would be to newborns with Factor 5 Leiden -- a mutation that comes with a risk of clotting -- from a Vitamin K injection to promote clotting. And I haven't seen that statistic, have you?

Vitamin K would affect primarily the prothrombin time. (Which can be counteracted by warfarin.)

Factor V, I believe, is reflected in both the partial thromboplastin time and also the prothrombin time.) (The effect is counteracted by a combination of heparin and warfarin.)

Which means that Vitamin K might not actually affect an infant with Factor V Leiden.

Are there any hematologists here who can clarify this?

(And Heparin) So it seems that they would be connected.

"Factor V is synthesized by the liver and is not a VK-dependent factor."

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/126354-differential

Which implies that Vitamin K may not affect the synthesis of Factor V. All the pharmaceutical information I can find does not list Factor V Leiden as a contraindication to administration of Vitamin K, and the most serious complication cited is anaphylaxis.