You have to see both sides of this.
If Barrett is right, then Mercola's activities are just a tad dubious.
If what Barrett says is untrue, then Mercola has a good case for libel.
The link given by jimmylegs is about as biased as anything that I have ever read. I guess that the reason it is not signed is because the author knows it is not true in a lot of detail. Some of it gets to be distorting the facts.
The article on Barrett mocks his liking for double blind studies and points out that "And worse, the "double-blind study" is considered to be heinous, and was banned by world government during the Helsinki Accord in 1964."
Wrong, dead wrong. The Helsinki Agreement was put together by the World Medical Association and is not binding on ANY government.
I hear that the European Union are trying to put it into law. This is the the same European Union that wants to give convicts the right to vote.
Double blind studies are a widely used research tool when coupled with the right statistics.
You got to pick the right statistics for the job. Caterpiller Tractor were using statistical based sampling for bought-in components over 40 years ago as a quality control method. It worked just great
You want to control out any experimenter effects, you got to use blinded (single, double, triple) studies.
Probably the anti-Barrett artical was written by Tim Bolen who makes the sort of living out of attacking Barrett that Barrett does out of attacking quacks.
You look at both sides, you pays yer money and takes yer choice.