3 ms·

I think it is a problem if people or companies are advertising a non-existent or unsubstantiated medical benefits of a procedure.

• magduf 8y ago
  >I think it is a problem if people or companies are advertising a non-existent or unsubstantiated medical benefits of a procedure. Ok, now this sentiment I don't understand at all. Here in America (and other countries), we already have *entire "medical" fields" which consist of nothing but claims of unsubstantiated medical benefits. Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Acupuncture, TCM, etc. are all unscientific and make all kinds of claims with no evidence whatsoever, however the FDA allows them to operate with impunity, and even serious hospitals have these practitioners in them as "ACM". But now they're going give a hard time to a company for doing something similar? Seriously, I have a much easier time believing that maybe, just maybe there could be some health benefits from getting blood transfused into you from a really healthy person, than I would ever believe that 1) any ailment you have is caused by "subluxations" in your spinal column or that 2) someone can test if your body "needs" some "supplement" by pushing down on your outstretched arm while holding it in front of you or that 3) you can be cured of something by ingesting highly purified water.
  • hopler 8y ago
    Those things are are all regulated and get a hard time. They are not "medical" fields, and none of them operate under the license of "medical doctor". Dangerous ones are banned, and ineffective ones are required to carry a disclaimer.
    • magduf 8y ago
      They certainly are "medical fields", because that's how people treat them, and they promote themselves as viable alternatives to real doctors. Even worse, many hospitals actually have them there practicing; they call it "alternative and complementary medicine".
  • baddox 8y ago
    I don’t think I’m suggesting a double standard. I don’t know much about any of these fields but I think the standard should be the same.