2 ms·
Look, there's no need to have vague arguments about how we would describe their claims. Here is the wording they removed: "The science behind Gravity reveals t
by justinpombrio 9y ago
Look, there's no need to have vague arguments about how we would describe their claims. Here is the wording they removed:
"The science behind Gravity reveals that it can be used to treat a variety of ailments, including insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, as well as circumstantial stress and prolonged anxiety."
Assuming that "can be used to treat" means what I think it does, this is simply false: the science doesn't show that. And regardless, claims of this form are specifically forbidden by Kickstarter, which prohibits "any item claiming to cure, treat, or prevent an illness or condition". So they removed this claim, like they should have.
None of this contradicts the fact that you might want to buy one of these blankets if you have insomnia, etc.
- fapjacks 9y agoJust to add to what you said, the reason that language is prohibited by Kickstarter is because it's prohibited by the FDA. Specifically those words.
- naravara 9y agoThis is a lot of sturm-und-drang over nothing. These arguments aren't "vague," the meanings of the words involved are pretty clear. People routinely offer suggestions about how to deal with emotional and physical issues based on anecdotes or claims that a few studies here and there offer evidence that maybe there is something to it. Lots of things people do to handle their issues, especially emotionally, wouldn't pass a clinical trial because those standards are extremely rigorous (and they should be) and it can be impractical or unethical to perform a sufficiently well controlled test. But just because it's not adequately supported to pass a clinical trial doesn't mean there isn't something to it or even that claims are "unsupported." You can support a claim lots of ways, including with anecdotes or even just inductive reasoning. It's one thing to say that it doesn't clear the bar for proof we expect of the FDA or to establish a scientific consensus, but that's different from intimating that they're liars. They made a mistake in their ad copy, that's clear enough. But mistakes like these are common when amateurs try to start up a business or pursue an interest. Claims that they're snake-oil salesmen or frauds because they spoke colloquially, rather than couching terms in the vague messaging of people steeped in the business culture and lingo of health supplements, pharmaceuticals, or medical device manufacturers is really excessive.