[noduerme]

Agreed on all points (especially about chiropractors calling themselves doctors). One major driving force behind quackery seems to be the ability to assert that it's banned because it works so well it would put pharma out of business. But as we've seen from the dire warnings and non-banning of Ivermectin, these things can now burst into mass poisonings in a matter of days, much faster than any regulatory body let alone public messaging campaign can keep up.

[dunco]

yes this is true and a good point. It is hard to account for active disinformation campaigns. I think it is generally safe to assume they won't be as extreme as those for ivermectin in most cases.

One counterpoint is that not banning things could increase general public trust in the regulator which could make disinformation less effective.

[noduerme]

But not taking action against something harmful could also make the regulator look like they're not doing their job.

I'm not in favor of banning anything (pot smoker, drinker, and big fan of the Darwin Awards here). I don't think bans accomplish much besides increasing demand and black market crime around the forbidden thing. But I still have no idea how you stop grandma from eating horse paste when she hears on facebook that it cures covid.