In the United States, the FDA considers personal anecdata forbidden when it comes to the sale and marketing of dietary supplements -- for example, statements such as "This product cured/helped/relieved/improved/fixed my/my aunt's/someone's diabetes" (on a product label, website, or even verbally by a salesperson or retail clerk in a store) are strictly forbidden as they may be construed to be medical advice
This is covered by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. I don't know if DSHEA covers websites/apps/digital products -- probably not -- but I would be very surprised if there wasn't similar legislation covering websites, apps, and digital products
Note that DSHEA does prescribe language for safely discussing the effects of non-drug therapies. It's called structure-function language -- OP should definitely read up on it (better: talk to a lawyer versed in these matters, and note that I am not a lawyer, none of the above is intended as legal advice)
> It’s an online app that can help you tap into your hidden emotions and release them so they no longer influence your behaviour or cause depressive symptoms.
Did you read the article at all?
Here is a quote where they state the app can stop the cause of your depressive symptoms. That clear cut enough for you? Or do you still want to be wilfully obtuse?
Nobody owns the intellectual property to "the cure of depression". Are you suggesting that the only way to cure depression is by paying a medical professional using only scientifically backed and proven methods and procedures some money? Are you in the industry yourself?
A hobby can cure depression. A better diet can cure depression. More exercise can cure depression. Finding purpose can cure depression. Painting can cure depression. Dancing can cure depression. The heavens forbid someone start a dancing class that claims to help release negative emotions without a medical degree and scientific research to back it up.
And if a hobbyist, dietician, personal trainer, life coach, painter, or choreographer was telling people to stop taking their perscribed medications before they end up in a straight-jacket and instead just diet/exercise/paint/dance/etc then yes I think those people would be just as culpable for any harm they caused.
There's a difference between "these things might help the symptoms of depression" and "Doctor telling you to take life saving medication, what if it makes you crazy? I have no evidence that it will, but I feel like it might. You should use this app instead"
> A hobby can cure depression. A better diet can cure depression. More exercise can cure depression
We are not talking about a mere feeling down here. Depression is a clinically defined term with specific criteria, and no nothing you can fix with a new hobby is clinical depression, and yes if you claim to be fixing it with any tool which you make available to public you need to be a licensed professional.
> Nobody owns the intellectual property to "the cure of depression".
Luckily intellectual property protection is not the only protection we have around medical interventions. No one has the intellectual property to tonsillectomy either, and you're free to try operating on your own, but you will get into trouble real fast if you advertised you doing it to public as a fix to some ailment.
> We are not talking about a mere feeling down here.
Down where? Go to the apps website and find the term "clinical depression", then come back and tell me what we're talking about down here. It most certainly not back there... which is my whole point. Whats the world coming to if someone cannot create an app to help ease negative emotions without being harassed by gatekeepers and rent seekers?
You parsed the sentence wrong, I am talking about "feeling down", not "down here".
The title of the advertising blog post is literally "I built an app to fix my depression" and goes on to the details of their situation. Certainly we don't have enough data to assess the severity of their n=1 depression but having gone to professionals and used SSRI medication by definition makes them a part of the clinical population.
If they were to say "this app helped me with the negative emotions that came with depression", that would be OK, but they go on to claim that app has fixed their previously SSRI requiring depression, an app they sell a public subscription for. That association is definitely not OK.
> Whats the world coming to if someone cannot create an app to help ease negative emotions without being harassed by gatekeepers and rent seekers?
It is the same world where people have induced harm abusing people's illnesses or desperation in the name of a quick buck. I am not saying this is the intention of the app maker, but the gate-keeping is there for a reason.
Look at this way, anything claiming to be potent enough to fix something can also be potent enough to hurt you. We can't have it both ways with wishful thinking. That is why we need discrete labels, concrete processes and well evidenced claims when we go about what is an antibiotic or what is a cure for depression.
Do you also ask anyone who writes a dieting cookbook for their medical degree? The author does not state anywhere that the user should stop taking their medication or stop getting treated by professionals.