I often find Mercola's commentary superficial. He seems to read only the study abstracts, not take the time to put the study in context of other studies on the topic, or examine the quality of the research.
Take, for example, his commentary on Splenda. He relies heavily on information from some group called the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center. Here's the
reply of one person who's worked in medical research.
From the article
Pre-Approval Research
...The dose of sucralose in the experiments was high. However, for chemicals that do not have generations of safe use, the dosage tested must be adjusted for variations in potential toxicity within the human population and between humans and rodents. In order to this, toxicologists estimate a variation of effects in the human population of 10 times. In other words, one person may not have effects until a dose of 10 mg per kg of body weight (10 mg/kg) is reached, while another person may have chronic toxicity effects at 1 mg per kg of body weight (1 mg/kg).
Actually, that's not quite the industry standard way of figuring out a dose range for either pre-approval or long-term testing.
From the article:
In addition, it is well known that many chemicals are much more toxic in humans than in rodents (or even monkeys). For example, the chemicals that the sweetener aspartame breaks down into vary from 5 to 50 times more toxic in humans than in rodents. Therefore, toxicologists estimate a further 10 times the dose for differences between human and rodent toxicity for a total of 100 times (10 * 10).
Again, I'm always wary when a journalist who obviously isn't a scientist makes a statement like 'it is well known that...' and then only has one thing to back him up. And FYI, this dosage calculation is also not the industry standard, at least not for pharmaceutical research.
From the article:
In order to estimate a potential safe dose in humans, one must divide the lowest dose in given to rodents that was seen to have any negative effects on their thymus glands, liver or kidneys by 100. That dose is then known as the maximum Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for lifetime use. Keep in mind that the TDI is just an estimate. Some chemicals are much more than 10 times more toxic in humans than in rodents (or will cause cancer in humans in low-dose, long-term exposure and do not cause cancer in rodents at all). A person ingesting the TDI for some chemical may find that it causes cancer or immune system or neurological problems after many years or decades of use. So, if the manufacturer claims that the dose was equivalent to 50 diet sodas, then the TDI would be one half (1/2) of a diet soda, and even that dose may or may not be safe.
Again, where is this person getting these numbers and formulae? Anything for human consumption that was tested in rodents also had to be tested in other species, including NHP (non-human primates), and was probably also tested in dogs. I have never seen a chemical cause a reaction in man that hadn't caused *some* reaction in at least one species. In fact, with some of the stuff I've worked on, rodents *die* but it causes *no* reaction in other species, including man.
From the article:
Independent, Long-Term Human Research
None. Manufacturer's "100's of studies" (some of which show hazards) were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety in long-term use.
With all due respect, 'independent long-term human research studies' almost always happen post-approval...I'm not talking about 12-24 month carc studies (which should have been done pre-approval in non-human species) but true long-term human studies with large 'n' for 3-5 *year* periods. Care to volunteer?
From the article:
Conclusion
So, without even addressing the pre-approval research showing potential toxicity, it is clear that sucralose has a) no long history (e.g., decades) of safe use, b) no independent monitoring of health effects, c) no long-term human studies, and d) no independent human studies.
Folks, where are you going to find any 'new' products with a long history of independently monitored decades of safe use? The two statements are mutally incompatible. Of course sucralose doesn't meet that criteria. For that matter, neither does chocolate or sugar.
From the article:
As far as the pre-approval research related to sucralose.... As you probably know, pre-approval research is rarely published. It is only available from the FDA by filing a Freedom of Information Act request.
Odd--the pharmaceutical company I work for has to *publish* everything, including pre-approval research, especially for NDAs (new drug approvals.) Again, upon what is this person basing his factual-sounding but entirely erroneous statements?
From the article:
It is very important that people who have any interest in their health stay aware...
Ah...at last a point on which we can agree. And I would add to 'stay aware' the warning to not take at face value every factual sounding bit of personal opinion that crosses their paths.
This is particularly true when he immediately applies the results of mouse studies to humans.
For a more recent example, take his commentary on an
exercise study. Mercola even acknowledges that the study's authors are careful to not make too much of the results: "However, researchers point out that the study only questioned men about their exercise habits once during the study, so they do not know whether the men changed their habits changed over the 10-year study period."
Yet, in spite of this, he goes on to claim only vigorous exercise will reduce the risk of heart disease. While this may well be true, that assertion is not justified on the basis of the evidence he presents, not by a long shot.
I find that these two examples are typical of the shallowness of Mercola's commentaries. He may be relying on a wealth of knowledge, but he's not sharing it with us. I would prefer if he stopped taking a scattershot approach to presenting health information, when the results are sloppy and even inaccurate.
Mercola folds?
.
Re: Mercola folds?
Linear Mode
