|
|
|
|
|
|
by Guy2020
2166 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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.