> In your view, though, blame will always lie elsewhere. This is contrary to what I said, but I wasn't clear. Let me elaborate: > Perhaps if they were informe

> In your view, though, blame will always lie elsewhere. This is contrary to what I said, but I wasn't clear. Let me elaborate: > Perhaps if they were informed properly (due to regulation on full disclosure) they might have been better off. What statements the clinic puts out should be regulated, just like supplements. You are not allowed to say some things, but required to say other things. > It's either with the uneducated blind women, or, if you're a generous soul, the society that failed to properly educate them. The blind women is partly to blame (though dependent on her ability to research -- an 90 y/o alzheimer's patient is much much much less to blame than a 25 y/o office worker) for being taken advantage of. The clinic, however, holds the majority of the blame for practicing deceptive procedures and misinforming (if they indeed had misinformed, I only skimmed the article). > Quackery has a supply side and a demand side. The supply side is easier to deal with. It's a smaller target. This is true, but it does not bring about the best outcomes. Proper medical procedures (as accepted and enforced by regulatory agencies) are most of the time years behind in implementing new and better techniques (or not incentivized to, see: europe vs. american models of health treatment). You hurt: the people to whom accepted practices do not offer relief, the research of "unethical" procedures that could otherwise save lives if there was no stigma (again, see: head transplant), and people's freedom of choice.