Removing magnesium stearate from capsules?

If Mercola and many other popular “science” and/or “health” people/blogs are garbage, do you know of any that you recommend (other than examine/direct scientific papers)?

Nope. The entirety of the internet has been taken over by affiliate marketers turning every click into a profit center. Objective scientific blogs simply don't exist anymore. There is too much money in misleading people. So even if one exists, they will never rank organically in search results. Your best bet is to use Wikipedia or Examine to lead you in a specific direction, then use Google Scholar, Pubmed, and SciHub to read the full papers yourself.

And I struggle with this because not everyone can be full of shit and even people who are full of shit 75% of the time could be highly intelligent and an expert/very knowledgeable about the other 25%.

Could be, but likely aren't.

But then it’s tough because then there’s also the people who may be somewhat unknowingly full of shit 50% of the time and put out of good shit the other 50%, and they’re not inherently bad or dishonest, just wrong about some of their opinions. Its just like where do you draw the line? Everyone has something to sell, but that doesn’t make them bad people, liars, or not an expert in what they’re saying. It just unfortunately does do that a lot of the time.

I am not saying everyone is a bad person for spreading misleading and false information. Ignorance is the reason most of the time. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I would replace "stupidity" with "ignorance" myself. People just don't know what they don't know, and the loudest ones are generally the ones who know the least. What makes someone a bad person is purely subjective. Everyone will define what they consider bad in their own way. I don't consider ignorant people "bad" myself. In fact, many good people I know are completely ignorant on many things. They are two separate things. I know a lot of seemingly intelligent people that are actually very ignorant. Emotional intelligence, and the ability to self-reflect and admit you are wrong, is totally separate from normal intelligence. It's an ego-driven manifestation. It's how emotions can permeate and alter one's objectivity. Nobody is immune from it, even myself. I catch myself all the time letting my objectivity falter, and sometimes I don't catch it. That's just human nature. However, I try really hard to look at my stances from other perspectives, and to eliminate ego and emotion from them as much as I can. I of course lay that back in when discussing the stances, which is why I go on rants so often. It's just I try to eliminate that bias during the assessment of the stance. That's not common, though. It's difficult to do. Many people don't even realize how much of an effect ego is having on their objectivity. I think it is easier for those that have experience ego death in the past, as you are acutely aware of that higher-level processing happening in the background. However, it is always there. You just have to make an effort to limit its effects on your objectivity.

As to where the line is drawn, it has to be at factual, sourced, and scientifically sound reasoning. There's no easy way to do that, though. You just have to read what someone is saying, look at the data, assess the factual construction of the stance, then make a determination in that specific instance. You can't just assume what someone is saying is right because they seem to be correct most of the time. You have to look at each instance individually. There are things I have said in the past that were not factually correct, or later turned out to be a misinterpretation. Nobody is perfect, and nobody should be blindly trusted on a stance without an honest assessment of specific facts surrounding it.