> No, they really don't have to to do any of those. I agree, I should have said they aggressively act against those things as matter of public relations, not b

> No, they really don't have to to do any of those. I agree, I should have said they aggressively act against those things as matter of public relations, not because of legal requirements. I edited the original post to reflect this. > A "reasonable" interpretation of advice given from an unauthenticated source (ie. not a real, living breathing doctor with their MD behind them) is that you shouldn't follow it. True, but it seems many people don't know this. Interestingly, outside of a book (protected by freedom of the press), if a non-MD dispenses, or appears to be dispensing, medical advice, in most times and places he can be prosecuted.