I trust Dr Mercola far more than I do the FDA. If you have been reading
his articles over the
last few years, you will see that he's forthright and sincere. Any claim
that he makes can be
backed up with real science.
*snort*
Pull the other one.
"Real science", as you put it, requires a) systematic methods to prevent
bias and, generally, b) peer review.
With regard to health, these methods may involve experimental
(Randomized Controlled Trials) or non-experimental (Observation with
appropriate statistical controls) designs. Anedotal "try it for 2 weeks
and see if you feel better" evidence is neither and just *begs* for
confirmation bias.
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
Nor do I mean to suggest peer review is perfect by any means. As a human
activity, it certainly suffers from the politics and pettiness inherent
to any human activity. However, it still provides a *critical* set of
checks and balances on testable claims. A self published newsletter
lacks these checks and balances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
While I think of it, real science requires a 3rd element -- the lack of
a conflict of interest. Selling sensational books and supplements
certainly fails this requirement.
As far as whether or not you trust Mercola over the FDA, I'll simply
quote Dick Taverne: "Science, like art, is not a democractic activity."
Further reading.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/eletters/168/7/831-b#948
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020814/msgs/116830.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_science
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
