Should false advertising be legal? With respect to health claims, the line between what is "false advertising" vs what is not becomes blurry unless there is an authority that has the legal power to make the distinction. I think, I do not want someone to be able to trick me into buying something. In fact, I think I'd support stricter claim oversight.
.... eg. There should be stricter claim oversight in toothpaste, because currently no matter how tiny the amount of hydrogen peroxide is used in toothpaste, as long as there's a nonzero amount, they can still claim that it is whitening, despite the fact that the paste would probably fail a clinical trial on whitening ability. (According to my dentist)
Homeopathy has two meanings in modern English. (1) Super diluted to the point where it becomes just water. (2) An herbal or "home" remedy. Most people who attack homeopathy are referring to (1), whereas most people defending homeopathy are referring to (2). This makes for endless, unproductive, online arguments. The first type is akin to modern shamans or yogi treating illnesses with spirit crystals or other new-age products.
I'm all for herbal and home remedies. More studies should be done exploring these options. But I think it's okay to illegalize claims that a product which is 99.999999999% water can do anything other than "provide hydration".... Unless of course, it can be factually proven through a repeatable clinical study.
I know some people even here really do believe in the dilution-type homeopathy. Something to do with water-memory. But I really haven't seen any evidence beyond placebo-explanable anecdotes to convince me of their efficacy. I'm always open to change my mind if evidence suggests otherwise.
False advertising is the same as theft. A scam leading to an exchange where only one side fulfills their end of the exchange... Yes, after the vaccine fiasco, I'm as "disappointed" (putting it lightly) as you are with the FDA, but even if we don't have the FDA, we need the existence of some authority that can evaluate health-related claims for their truthfulness in advertising. Don't we? I'm open to alternatives if you have a better idea.
I guess one alternative would be to illegalize all marketing claims except those which are completely verifiably factual. No more statistical stuff in marketing. No more "whitening" toothpaste. The paste can say how much h2o2 it has, but any claims beyond that can come from your health care provider
I agree but the government doesn’t need to be the one policing this. They have proven over and over they can be bought. A company doesn’t have to tell what “natural flavors” are in products. That’s another can of worms. Natural flavors can be anything they choose.
If I’m buying supplements or herbs in capsules I look for third party tested products.
I do not think your understanding and definition of homeopathy is accurate or displays any knowledge of the discipline of homeopathy. Most people that don't know or understand their subject tend to spout ludicrous claims and opinions that have no actual basis in the discipline they are discussing. If you go online you can find bona fide info on this healing methodology, which has a very rich, provable history.
Regarding my understanding, dilution-type homeopathy is a medicinal belief system largely about the vibrational memory of water of diluted substance. A bit reductionist, sure, but I'm not really wrong. At least that's the basic idea. If you think I'm mistaken, please specify. Otherwise, simply saying "you're wrong" is ... Not productive. Of course there's freedom of speech, so you can say whatever.
Regarding the actual content I wrote, and the verifiability of true homeopathy, (not the herbal remedy linguistic dual) if there has been a placebo controlled double blind RCT showing favoritism towards the homeopathy treatment, please let us know. I'm sure I'm not the only one that would be interested to learn something new
"dilution-type homeopathy is about the vibrational memory of water of diluted substance. "...excep the vibrational memory is of the original substance...water or combo water/ alcohol is strictly the substance used to dilute a substance to make a potenized remedy that can be put in a water or alcohol/water solution or can be used to potentize sugar pellets or tablets.
Unfortunately you are asking for information that people spend years learning. I listed the 7 foundations of homeopathy in a comment farther down. There are many sites online that explain homeopathy and the laws that govern it. There are books written, courses taught and much information on the discipline of homeopathics...WAY too much info to condense here. I would have to research but all homeopathics have proving and there are materia medical that contain these provings, which is the basis for treatment.
I will give you one very clear example of an effective homeopathic. The remedy Apis uses a bee as the original substance...prepared homeopathically by dilution and succussing. We then have a ...say Apis 30X remedy. I get stung by a bee...exhibiting a certain set of symptoms. The law of similars states whatever causes a disease cures the disease. So I take the 30X Apis remedy under my tongue and the stinging and redness goes away. If it comes back, I repeat the remedy...you stop taking when the symptoms are ameliorated. Now say I have a stinging, red, burning sore throat...Apis 30X would also be effective. That is a brief explanation...homeopathy is a bona-fide discipline of study and if you are interested in it you can find many good books and articles online. Dana Uhlmam (sp?) is an excellent author.
The authority on false advertising should be a court of law on a case per case basis. Not some group who aren't accountable to the people they're supposedly "protecting" who can make up whatever they want.
Good rundown. I try to tell people, big pharma as a business model is the problem. not the chemical compounds their researchers create. Its just a form of high level alchemy; without the fear tactics, the predatory business, and the censorship, there is nothing technically wrong with using pharmaceutical drugs. Its a personal choice. Everything has a risk. What made this complicated was complicity between mass media and NGO's telling people what they can and can't take. Homeopaths use this same fear against the populace to sell their product, which as you said, isn't intended to work, but to sell.
Should false advertising be legal? With respect to health claims, the line between what is "false advertising" vs what is not becomes blurry unless there is an authority that has the legal power to make the distinction. I think, I do not want someone to be able to trick me into buying something. In fact, I think I'd support stricter claim oversight.
.... eg. There should be stricter claim oversight in toothpaste, because currently no matter how tiny the amount of hydrogen peroxide is used in toothpaste, as long as there's a nonzero amount, they can still claim that it is whitening, despite the fact that the paste would probably fail a clinical trial on whitening ability. (According to my dentist)
Homeopathy has two meanings in modern English. (1) Super diluted to the point where it becomes just water. (2) An herbal or "home" remedy. Most people who attack homeopathy are referring to (1), whereas most people defending homeopathy are referring to (2). This makes for endless, unproductive, online arguments. The first type is akin to modern shamans or yogi treating illnesses with spirit crystals or other new-age products.
I'm all for herbal and home remedies. More studies should be done exploring these options. But I think it's okay to illegalize claims that a product which is 99.999999999% water can do anything other than "provide hydration".... Unless of course, it can be factually proven through a repeatable clinical study.
I know some people even here really do believe in the dilution-type homeopathy. Something to do with water-memory. But I really haven't seen any evidence beyond placebo-explanable anecdotes to convince me of their efficacy. I'm always open to change my mind if evidence suggests otherwise.
False advertising is the same as theft. A scam leading to an exchange where only one side fulfills their end of the exchange... Yes, after the vaccine fiasco, I'm as "disappointed" (putting it lightly) as you are with the FDA, but even if we don't have the FDA, we need the existence of some authority that can evaluate health-related claims for their truthfulness in advertising. Don't we? I'm open to alternatives if you have a better idea.
I guess one alternative would be to illegalize all marketing claims except those which are completely verifiably factual. No more statistical stuff in marketing. No more "whitening" toothpaste. The paste can say how much h2o2 it has, but any claims beyond that can come from your health care provider
I agree but the government doesn’t need to be the one policing this. They have proven over and over they can be bought. A company doesn’t have to tell what “natural flavors” are in products. That’s another can of worms. Natural flavors can be anything they choose. If I’m buying supplements or herbs in capsules I look for third party tested products.
I do not think your understanding and definition of homeopathy is accurate or displays any knowledge of the discipline of homeopathy. Most people that don't know or understand their subject tend to spout ludicrous claims and opinions that have no actual basis in the discipline they are discussing. If you go online you can find bona fide info on this healing methodology, which has a very rich, provable history.
Regarding my understanding, dilution-type homeopathy is a medicinal belief system largely about the vibrational memory of water of diluted substance. A bit reductionist, sure, but I'm not really wrong. At least that's the basic idea. If you think I'm mistaken, please specify. Otherwise, simply saying "you're wrong" is ... Not productive. Of course there's freedom of speech, so you can say whatever.
Regarding the actual content I wrote, and the verifiability of true homeopathy, (not the herbal remedy linguistic dual) if there has been a placebo controlled double blind RCT showing favoritism towards the homeopathy treatment, please let us know. I'm sure I'm not the only one that would be interested to learn something new
Your definition is much closer to reality here...
"dilution-type homeopathy is about the vibrational memory of water of diluted substance. "...excep the vibrational memory is of the original substance...water or combo water/ alcohol is strictly the substance used to dilute a substance to make a potenized remedy that can be put in a water or alcohol/water solution or can be used to potentize sugar pellets or tablets.
Unfortunately you are asking for information that people spend years learning. I listed the 7 foundations of homeopathy in a comment farther down. There are many sites online that explain homeopathy and the laws that govern it. There are books written, courses taught and much information on the discipline of homeopathics...WAY too much info to condense here. I would have to research but all homeopathics have proving and there are materia medical that contain these provings, which is the basis for treatment.
I will give you one very clear example of an effective homeopathic. The remedy Apis uses a bee as the original substance...prepared homeopathically by dilution and succussing. We then have a ...say Apis 30X remedy. I get stung by a bee...exhibiting a certain set of symptoms. The law of similars states whatever causes a disease cures the disease. So I take the 30X Apis remedy under my tongue and the stinging and redness goes away. If it comes back, I repeat the remedy...you stop taking when the symptoms are ameliorated. Now say I have a stinging, red, burning sore throat...Apis 30X would also be effective. That is a brief explanation...homeopathy is a bona-fide discipline of study and if you are interested in it you can find many good books and articles online. Dana Uhlmam (sp?) is an excellent author.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I'll look into it
The authority on false advertising should be a court of law on a case per case basis. Not some group who aren't accountable to the people they're supposedly "protecting" who can make up whatever they want.
Good rundown. I try to tell people, big pharma as a business model is the problem. not the chemical compounds their researchers create. Its just a form of high level alchemy; without the fear tactics, the predatory business, and the censorship, there is nothing technically wrong with using pharmaceutical drugs. Its a personal choice. Everything has a risk. What made this complicated was complicity between mass media and NGO's telling people what they can and can't take. Homeopaths use this same fear against the populace to sell their product, which as you said, isn't intended to work, but to sell.
Hmmm, name checks out......
In what way may i ask? lel
I don't wish to be insulting but your comments have been...........shilly