Dr. Mercola's take on swine flu - very interesting article

Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by mbofov, Apr 29, 2009.

  1. mbofov

    mbofov Active Member

    This is well worth reading:

  2. Pansygirl

    Pansygirl New Member

    thanks so much for adding the link to that article, very interesting indeed.

  3. sixtyslady

    sixtyslady Member

    yes I get his e-mails,I printed his article out to give to the rest of our family.
  4. gasolo

    gasolo New Member

    Interesting article, although I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion, still an interesting aricle. I do take exception to his opinion on the use of antibacterial soap. I designed a science project with my daughter to determine the difference between antibacterial and non-antibacterial soap. We placed our hands in mud and washed our hands for 20 seconds with each of these soaps and then cultured our hands. After one week of incubation, we counted the number colonies in the petri dish. The regular soap cultures grew four times as many bacteria as compared to the antibacterial soap. Food for thought.

    I remember when I was a resident in surgery, the HIV virus was just discovered. There were many conspiracy theories being batted around. Fortunately because good research and recent advances with antiviral therapy the HIV virus is more a manageable disease rather than a death sentence.

  5. gapsych

    gapsych New Member

    I am outraged by this article. Dr. Mercola is entitled to his views but his information is flawed and could have disastrous consequences if people follow his advice.

    He is not a respectible doctor, has been sited by the FDA over his website and his biases on issues are well known. (see below)

    This is not 1976. That was 33 years ago.

    The Medical Establishment has learned a lot since 1976. They were working from assumptions that were outdated. We now know these assumptions were incorrect. The vaccine was pulled once the side effects were known. There were NO mandatory vaccinations.

    We have come a long way and our knowledge of these outbreaks is understood much more. Do we know all we need to know? Of course not as medical knowledge evolves over time.

    Could there be a problem with a new vaccine. Hopefully not, but you do have to weigh the risks against the gains. Dr. Mercola lists the side effects of Tamiflu. This is mandated. But what about the side effects of the flu?

    Dr. Mercola is known for his anti vaccination stance, and buys into the Big Pharma conspiracies but takes it too far by claiming that the medical alert this last weekend was intentional, used scare tactics that would make people want to get a vaccine or takie medications as Tamiflu and the result would be making Pharmaceutical Companies rich.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued two warnings to Mercola related to misleading claims. On February 16, 2005, the FDA sent Mercola warnings on multiple products about misleading claims for products that he advertised on his website. On Sept. 21, 2006 Mercola received a second warning letter from the FDA for claims made on his website in relation to "various product labels".

    This is from the Time article Dr. Mercola sites in his article to make his case:

    "Medical historians and epidemiologists say there are many differences between the relatively benign 1976 outbreak and the current strain of swine flu that is spreading across the globe."

    .....points out that conventional wisdom in 1976 held that the 1918 flu pandemic — which started among soldiers and eventually killed as many as 40 million — was the result of swine flu (scientists now know it was in fact a strain of bird flu)."

    In May 2006 BusinessWeek published an article about Mercola's aptitude as an online health and medical entrepreneur . Columnist David Gumpert writes: " Mercola gives the lie to the notion that holistic practitioners tend to be so absorbed in treating patients that they aren't effective businesspeople. While Mercola on his site seeks to identify with this image by distinguishing himself from "all the greed-motivated hype out there in health-care land", he is a master promoter, using every trick of traditional and Internet direct marketing to grow his business.(...)He is selling health-care products and services, and is calling upon an unfortunate tradition made famous by the old-time snake oil salesmen of the 1800s."
  6. jasminetee

    jasminetee Member

    Thanks for posting this article.

    Gap's post is interesting too.
  7. mbofov

    mbofov Active Member

    I think the general objection to antibacterial soap is the possible rise of resistant strains of bacteria. THat's what happens when antibiotics are used indiscriminately - bacteria become resistant. So yes, antibacterial soap kills bacteria, but the ones that survive may end up stronger and more virulent.

  8. mbofov

    mbofov Active Member

    You may think Dr. Mercola is disreputable. I guess he is in your book, but not in mine. To me, the two FDA citations don't mean a lot. The FDA has approved very dangerous drugs, ignoring reports of deaths and injury, until forced to withdraw approval, but often only after years have passed and so many people hurt. Look at the Vioxx debacle - some 140,000 heart attacks attributed to Vioxx and related drugs (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6918), and meanwhile the FDA tried to stop a whistle blower within the agency from publishing reports of adverse effects from Vioxx (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424760.700)

    So who is the snake oil salesman? Merck?

    Take at look at the documentary "Sweet Misery" which documents the FDA approval process for the use of aspartame for human consumption. It's a story of greed and corruption, and now millions drink this poison. Snake oil?

    So I really can't get too excited about FDA citations re Mercola's labels. The FDA is not known for putting human health first.

    So a Businessweek columnist calls Mercola a snake oil salesman. Well, all the things I've read on Mercola's website seem pretty well-grounded, and he always cites his research. But I guess BusinessWeek calls him "snake oil" because he's not selling Big Pharma drugs. And so what if he sells products? "master promoter" - all these terms trying to make him sound sinister.

    Did you read that Tamiflu is only supposed to reduce flu symptoms by 1 to 1-1/2 days? Is it worth the risk of serious injury?

    Did you read the article about American company Baxter which distributed vaccines contaminated with the avian flu virus? see http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/26/Were-Tainted-Vaccines-a-Conspiracy-to-Provoke-a-Pandemic.aspx

    There are REASONS people are paranoid. We do need to be educated, and Dr. Mercola performs a valuable service in that regard.

  9. gasolo

    gasolo New Member

    I don't believe antibacterial soap has any antibiotic in it. Chlorhexidine soap doesn't have any antibiotic in its solution but is bacteriocidal. As far as I understand, there is no resistance to this soap. Silver ion also kill bacteria without the developement of resistance. I believe the author of this article is poorly informed and/or has a poor understanding of the difference between antibiotcs and antibacterials.

  10. mbofov

    mbofov Active Member

    You make an interesting point, but it appears that the jury is still out on this issue.

    The CDC did a study in 2005 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no10/04-1276.htm) regarding antibacterial cleaning products and drug resistance, and here's an excerpt from their findings:

    "Currently, no evidence suggests that use of antibacterial soap containing 0.2% triclosan provides a benefit over plain soap in reducing bacterial counts and rate of infectious symptoms in generally healthy persons in the household setting (4,5,15). Our 1-year randomized community intervention study adds to these earlier findings by assessing the potential risks associated with antibacterial product use in the home. The results from our study do not implicate use of antibacterial cleaning and hygiene products as an influential factor in carriage of antimicrobial drug–resistant bacteria on the hands of household members. Although we did not observe a significant impact on antimicrobial drug resistance during the 1-year period, a longer duration and more extensive use of triclosan might provide a suitable environment for emergence of antimicrobial drug–resistant species in the community setting. Further surveillance for the effect of long-term use of antibacterial cleaning and hygiene products on antimicrobial drug resistance in the community is needed."

    I wish I knew how to do italics - note what it says after "Although we did not observe a significant impact ..." - why did they say "significant", instead of NO impact on antimicrobial drug resistance?

    And here's an article from WebMD about a 2007 University of Michigan study, which says that the jury is still out:

    But several articles say that washing with plain soap and water is just as good as the antibacterial soap, so I'm sticking with that.

  11. gasolo

    gasolo New Member

    I agree with you that the jury is still out. Each of us make decisions based on the availble information. I have been using antibacterial scrubs for my hands before each surgery and use the same on the patients to prep the operative site for the past 30 years. I 've run a wound healing center for the past 15 years. Many of my patients have multiple drugs resistant bacteria in their chronic wounds. All the health care professionals working in the unit wash their hands with antibacterial soap before contact with each patients. As far as I know, no drug resistance has developed to these soaps. I also understand that my experience is not scientific but has value to me in making my decisions. I still will keep an open mind.

    [This Message was Edited on 04/30/2009]
  12. mbofov

    mbofov Active Member

    If a doctor were performing surgery on me, I would hope he or she would use antibacterial soap or something similar.

    I'm just talking about the average person in their home. I don't think the average person has a particular need for antibacterial soap (unlike a surgeon), and thus has no reason to run the risk of developing resistant strains of bacteria.

    Re wound healing: I've read remarkable things about the use of honey where other things have failed, and I think certain types of honey are more efficacious. Something to think about --

  13. gasolo

    gasolo New Member

    I guess the concern of developing a resistance to antibacterial soap is controverial. We all have to do what our intellect and experience dictate.

    Honey as a wound healing agent

    Actually honey is a reasonable dressing in certain wounds. The treatment of chronic wounds has evolved substantially. Wound care doctors now have many different option for treatment. Honey or a product with similar actions would be a good choice for clean exudative wounds, but a wounds with a large bacterial burden would probable benefit from a hydrocolloid dressing with silver ion (Aquacell Ag). A clean well vascularized wound might benefit from a cultured epithelial cell graft (Apligraph). A radiation ulcer with exposed bone at its base will generally require a vascularized muscle flap. Many choices for many different
    wound problems. If all you have is a hammer, the world looks like a nail.

    [This Message was Edited on 04/30/2009]
  14. Janalynn

    Janalynn New Member

    I didnt' read the article, but from what I heard on several news programs was the recommendation to use the hand sanitizer was for it's convenience. You can carry it with you and don't need water.

    I am a fanatic about hand washing anyway, so I'll be carrying Purell in my purse for times when I can't get to a sink for soap and water.
  15. gasolo

    gasolo New Member

    Everyone of my exam rooms has a hand sanitizer canister on the wall. I use them each time I enter the room and when I leave.