> and there are no adverse effects Who gets to define what counts as an "adverse effect"? > if there are they are overridden by the benefits Benefit to who?

> and there are no adverse effects Who gets to define what counts as an "adverse effect"? > if there are they are overridden by the benefits Benefit to who? You? Society in general (by what definition of "society")? The doctor that defiantly isn't getting free lunches and other "gifts" from the company selling the treatment? The person receiving the treatment? How are you judging the magnitude of the beneficial and harmful effects? Who gets to define what type of arguments are allowed to be considered when making that judgment?