I'm not quite sure what to make of this article
I do; it's nonsense that flies in the face of the vast bulk of peer reviewed data on this as well as the global medical consensus.
The sole source of information here besides Mercola (or ghostwriter) is Yeadon who claimed recently that
the pandemic is "largely over" in the UK when in fact, uh
So -- as with assessing
all narrative-oriented information sources (this includes all secondary and tertiary sources), we should be asking ourselves:
* is the narrative constructed out of
facts - that is, things which are
falsifyable. ("COVID-19 is a coronavirus" is falsifyable, "COVID-19 is a serious disease" is an opinion which is not, in and of itself)
* if not, then the narrative is fundamentally just that: a narrative that is trying to influence your thinking, without giving you any rational reason for doing so. (This doesn't mean it won't work, all propaganda works, as does advertising).
* if so, then ask yourself, "of the falsifyable claims made in this constructed narrative, can I prove that none of those claims can be falsified based on available data from primary sources?"
I find that particular Mercola piece to be mostly a mix of things which can be pretty readily falsified, and things which are not falsifyable. So, I don't think it's reliable.
Whether or not something is "close to Fox news" isn't a very good metric; they have a particular set of narratives they sell, which do not have a good general track record of being discernibly truthful, but that doesn't mean that any particular fact they offer up is itself wrong, or even inherently suspect.
All secondary sources need to be treated with a high, high degree of skepticism. Whenever possible, ignore the narrative and try to discern what sources the author used to form those opinions. Trace that back -- do you find primary sources, or more narrative? Do you have relationships with subject matter experts in different scientific and medical disciplines? If so, lean on that network to help you parse primary sources which you yourself might not have the context to interpret in the same way -- but
also be wary of just accepting narratives from subject matter experts,
especially if they are close friends.
We could talk about someone like Chris Kresser -- he's a blogging acupuncturist from California with a book to sell you, so all that should rightly set off some alarm bells. Flip side is, he wrote one of the most interesting takes on GERD I've ever read, his suggestions (which did NOT involve buying his book, or in any way spending money on his website) made sense and cleared up my GERD. But, in that case -- he cited a fair amount of actually cutting edge peer-reviewed papers, and was also clear to say "this is just my theory, based on the data we have". So, he's sort of -- somewhere on the "Mercola spectrum", but I am less immediately hostile to him because I think his intentions, while still basically capitalistic, are still more humanistic.