Governmental Pressure on alternative remedies

[Grogybear]

I believe that the government should force perscribers of alternative and unproven remedies to print warnings about the lack of effectiveness of these treatments unless they are proven by proper scientific tests. It would be similar to the health warnings on cigarette packets.
Homeopathy is a $1.6 billion dollar industry... an industry of fraud and it and all the other garbage that is circulating should be clamped down on to protect those who cannot think for themselves.

[jose]

What about those people who DO think for themselves, should we still be able to choose?

The old advertising slogan "Guinness is Good for You" may be true after all, according to researchers. A pint of the black stuff a day may work as well as an aspirin to prevent heart clots that raise the risk of heart attacks.

BBC


NEWS | Health | Guinness good for you - official
Young Scientist Proves Guinness NOT 'Good for You'

Paul Roberts (17), from Ard Scoil Ris, Donnycarney, yesterday won the Young Scientist of the Year Award at the RDS. His project, entitled "Guinness NOT good for you", showed the glaring inaccuracy of the advertising slogan, and now discredited popular myth, that Guinness is good for you. Paul researched his project by feeding himself nothing but 12 pints of Guinness a day for two months. His brother, the 'control' for the project, was fed three square meals a day and lots of Sunny Delight. The shock findings were as follows: Paul suffered confused thoughts, dry mouth, nausea, dizziness, the inability to walk or talk, and what he describes as "funniness" in the toilet each morning. His brother, however, experienced no such side effects, and even managed a B in maths during his mock Leaving Cert - a first for Jimmy.

Young Scientist Proves Guinness Not Good For You

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Grogybear I believe that the government should force perscribers of alternative and unproven remedies to print warnings about the lack of effectiveness of these treatments unless they are proven by proper scientific tests. It would be similar to the health warnings on cigarette packets. Homeopathy is a $1.6 billion dollar industry... an industry of fraud and it and all the other garbage that is circulating should be clamped down on to protect those who cannot think for themselves.

Why not just let people make their own decisions about what products to use? Why do you insist that the government should protect people from themselves?

[Grogybear]

I dont think that they should ban them but simply give them the same kind of protection as is offered on cigarette packets. Consider if a person is taking an alternative therapy that claims it can cure cancer. The person avoids cheomtherapy or other conventional and uses this unproven hocus pocus.
As a result they die.
They were not directly killed by the useless remedy but it certainly did not help.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Grogybear I dont think that they should ban them but simply give them the same kind of protection as is offered on cigarette packets. Consider if a person is taking an alternative therapy that claims it can cure cancer. The person avoids cheomtherapy or other conventional and uses this unproven hocus pocus. As a result they die. They were not directly killed by the useless remedy but it certainly did not help.

Chemotherapy and radiation therapy do not cure cancer. In fact, many who have undergone such cruel treatments have still died from cancer. The treatments did nothing more than prolong and add to their agony.

Why should the government force people to put warning labels on their products? Why shouldn't it be left up to the individual to go learn for himself whether or not a product does what the manufacturer claims?

[Grogybear]

because there are laws protecting the consumer. At least in my country there is. If your product makes false claims you can take them to court. Its in the governments interest to protect its people from unfair falsehoods.

[gallo]

Quote by: jose What about those people who DO think for themselves, should we still be able to choose?

Seguro. But from your two cites, I'm not sure that you understand. Your first cite, from the BBC, states that a pint of Guinness a day is as beneficial as an aspirin a day. Your second cite was about an individual whose only intake was 12 pints of Guinness a day (considerably more than claimed as healthy by Guinness) as opposed to someone eating more normally (we don't know if it was a healthy diet). The real control should have been 12 pints of Guinness a day as opposed to another individual who consumed only 12 aspirin a day - nothing more. I suspect that in that case you would find that Guinness was more healthy than aspirin. However, neither are claimed to be more healthy than food and water on a daily basis. In fact, neither advocates that one forsake food and water. The only claim made by either was that an aspirin a day, or a Guinness a day, in conjunction with a normal diet and normal exercise, had statistically meaningful effect on the rate of heart attack.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Grogybear because there are laws protecting the consumer. At least in my country there is.

That there are such laws doesn't mean there should be such laws.

If your product makes false claims you can take them to court.

Yes, you can. You can also refuse to buy any more of the product and you can tell others about the false claims.

It's in the governments interest to protect its people from unfair falsehoods.

Why?