[Nextgrid]

I don't think there is any argument at regulating what free people do. The argument here at best is for good, proven information to be available as well as eradicating quack therapies based on false claims that don't work because they unfortunately put people (like this man) at risk.

This is not an argument for regulating information, you are still free to peddle quack as long as you don't make false or unproven claims, and if you are sure your "quack" is actually legitimate you are free to do research, studies and tests just like the supposedly-evil "big pharma".

[Guy2020]

> The argument here at best is for good, proven information to be available

I believe going to a doctor is the way of accessing "proven information."

> eradicating quack therapies based on false claims that don't work because they unfortunately put people (like this man) at risk.

What would the mechanism for "eradicating" these "quack therapies" look like?

> the supposedly-evil "big pharma"

Well, can we really say big pharma isn't evil to some degree - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/?

[Nextgrid]

> I believe going to a doctor is the way of accessing "proven information."

Either that or government-approved websites (like the NHS is providing in the UK). It is in the government's best interest to keep you alive for as long as possible (if nothing else, just so you can pay tax longer), and while they aren't always perfect (like the current covid-19 response from some countries) I would still trust them more than some random people playing doctors on social media.

> What would the mechanism for "eradicating" these "quack therapies" look like?

Outlawing unproven medical claims, and actually enforce the law?

> Well, can we really say big pharma isn't evil to some degree

Perfection will never be achieved, but if we take all the effects of "big pharma" (both good and bad, across all diseases) and compare it to the effects of backyard quack medicine, who wins? I'm willing to bet good money that big pharma wins by a large margin, so I'd be willing to trust them until there is enough evidence that says otherwise.

[jcims]

>Outlawing unproven medical claims, and actually enforce the law?

This is extremely dangerous. The complexity of human biology and our ethical standards don't intersect in a way for any treatment to be 'proven'. There is just statistical evidence of efficacy for some subset of humans who's condition is materially in the same vicinity of any given patient. However, any given patient has zero control over what testing has been done on any given intervention, and therefore may have a perfectly viable treatment left legally outside of their reach because we just haven't got to test their case yet (and may never).

[Guy2020]

> Outlawing unproven medical claims, and actually enforce the law?

Would faith based approaches fall under your definition of "unproven medical claims?"

I get what you are saying, but if someone wants to take their chances on some "quackery," shouldn't it be their right to do so? Obviously this individual knew that he was engaging in alternative medicine that is not recognized by the mainstream.

I don't believe in this particular alternative medicine, but I don't believe established science understands everything in this world and believe individuals should retain the right to explore alternative perspectives.

[Nextgrid]

> Would faith based approaches fall under your definition of "unproven medical claims?"

Yes, I don't see why it shouldn't.

> I get what you are saying, but if someone wants to take their chances on some "quackery," shouldn't it be their right to do so?

The problem is that quackery being around puts people at risk like this man. This man didn't outright decide to do quack, he decided based on unproven claims made by the quack peddlers that this alternative treatment would somehow work and be better than the conventional, modern medicine.

Furthermore during his alternative "therapy" he not only did it for himself but attracted a large following online, claiming that this treatment was working and thus encouraging other people to go down the same path.

> I don't believe established science understands everything in this world and believe individuals should retain the right to explore alternative perspectives.

Established science has never claimed to understand everything. Established science adjusts its understanding of the world based on evidence and is constantly doing new research to further that understanding. I find it very unlikely that someone playing doctor on social media would do better than a multibillion-dollar industry.