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
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 claims except those which are completely 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
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 legally illegalize all claims except those which are completely 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
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.
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., 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.
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.
.... 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.
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.
For example, no matter how tiny amount of h2o2 is used in toothpaste, they can still claim it is whitening, despite the fact that the paste would probably fail a clinical trial on whitening ability.
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.
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.
For example, no matter how tiny amount of h2o2 is used in toothpaste, they can still claim it is whitening, despite the fact that the paste would probably fail a clinical trial on whitening ability.
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.
but 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.
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.
For example, no matter how tiny amount of h2o2 is used in toothpaste, they can still claim it is whitening, despite the fact that the paste would probably fail a clinical trial on whitening ability.
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. So, 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
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.
For example, no matter how tiny amount of h2o2 is used in toothpaste, they can still claim it is whitening, despite the fact that the paste would probably fail a clinical trial on whitening ability.
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.
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.
For example, no matter how tiny amount of h2o2 is used in toothpaste, they can still claim it is whitening, despite the fact that the paste would probably fail a clinical trial on whitening ability.
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 asking to 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.
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.
For example, no matter how tiny amount of h2o2 is used in toothpaste, they can still claim it is whitening, despite the fact that the paste would probably fail a clinical trial on whitening ability.
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 asking to 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 "provides hydration when ingested".... (Unless of course, it can be factually proven through a repeatable clinical study)