View Single Post
atyy
#13
Feb9-13, 06:05 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 8,658
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
Not specifically, no - but they often go together (many crackpots are frauds, but not all crackpots are frauds nor are all frauds crackpots). Not sure I see your point.
Quote Quote by AnTiFreeze3 View Post
I believe he is looking for evidence of fraudulent claims or lies.
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
IMO, that's setting the bar too high and requires too much effort. That requires dissecting specific claims to find explicit intent to deceive, then banning individual products, on a case-by-case basis. I just don't see why that should be necessary. It puts the burden of proof on the wrong foot. The fact that the claims are not vetted by the FDA should be enough reason to ban them, regardless of if they are technically fraudulent or not.
Yes, AntiFreeze3 interpreted me correctly. I asked about the fraud aspect because it was mentioned in the OP. I agree with russ watters that it is not necessary for the discussion about regulation to prove fraud, and the issue can be discussed on the basis of dangers to public health.