Mercola might be an egregious offender, but it has a fairly small influence to that of say CNN or other news agencies and organizations that consistently misquote studies or mislabel them as “scientific.” Attacking less powerful and grassroots organizations, while not criticizing powerful institutions simply plays into notions of a double standard. And again I am not debating whether or not one is worse, I am simply acknowledging the fact that people have become suspicious of science and claims made by experts, particularly those associated to big industries and powerful corporations (some of this is justified…btw I never gave the example of Pfizer, but the NFL, Phillip Morris, and corporations associated with the oil industry..Honestly, the biggest obstacle to climate change has been the oil industry paying scientists to print studies or make claims that climate change is not man made, this is followed by marketing strategies by said organizations.).
As for your last comments, you are acting as if all medical treatments work the same and are always effective. Chemotherapy is not the best treatment for all cancers, sometimes it is a fairly poor treatment option. In fact, your attempt to act as if it is commonsense to simply do chemotherapy and rationalizing it as its just “science” is the ignorance that allows people to question the authority of scientific claims. Yes, certain medical treatments are better than others, but large claims of universality that are easily and repeatedly disproven, can undermine people’s belief in science even if it isnt a problem with science but how people present it. Throughout this entire thread I am arguing about hte politics and power structures of science and its misuses. I am not actually claiming science is wrong or not the best option, but how it is used and how it being wrongly used has allowed organizations like Mercola to gain legitimacy.