It is easy to attack the messenger, when you can't attack the
message. In this case, the message, is one of value.
Attacking an
honest messenger is nor good, I agree. However, an honest messenger doesn't
select the messages to support his advertising campaigns.
So, forget
it is even Mercola if you don't like what is there, take a look at it from Dr
Seyfried's point of view, and search for Dr Seyfrieds video sponsored by Boston
College, it is 4 minutes long, and tells the whole research background to
this...
Wow! Real research documented in 4 minutes of "sponsored"
video! I guess all the science journals with their peer reviewers and such can
just pack it, huh. No need for actual documentation of protocols,
conflict-of-interest statements, sample selection, ethics review, and results,
any more. Just make a video that supports what Mercola is peddling, and send it
off.
Seriously, if Seyfried and Mercola have a message that's meaningful, the
proper conveyance is published, credible, replicable and replicated, scientific
documentation, not a sales pitch for Mercola's quackery and woo.
I'll do the work for you - here it is
Since you are assisting
Mercola in selling his goods, and bills thereof, it's not me that the burden is
on, it's you and Mercola. So do your work and provide some actual
documentation (sources). If there's any worthwhile research, the documentation
is readily available. Caution — Woo-peddling quacks are known to
misrepresent research reports, giving (often) a story that the written
documentation belies. I suggest you take care that any Mercola references you
rely on actually say what The Master tells you to believe.--- --Bill.
NAL: question the answers, especially mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|