This 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 sugge

This 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.