|
|
|
|
|
by anonymouswacker
880 days ago
|
|
Clickbait. I have taken a lot of these in the past, and the label "pseudoscientific" is unwarranted. The "writer" cherrypicks and generalizes data to discount it, but if you want to understand the mechanism of, say, Ashwagandha, you probably should spend a few hours reading research and meta-analyses and not spending 10 minutes on Google to decide if it's "good" or "pseudoscience". Should these companies not be allowed to advertise and distribute products that might help some and might hurt others? Should tech writers write health articles when they don't know what they're talking about? |
|
That is correct, yes. Pharmacologically active ingredients are medicine. Encouraging someone to take mental health meds without supervision, especially when made who-knows-where with who-knows-what quality control, because they're unregulated, is incredibly irresponsible.
There's a reason you can't buy Zoloft over the counter. Anything else in that space is either:
1. A placebo, in which case, no, companies should not be advertising it and thus keeping people from seeking qualified help, or
2. The real deal, in which case, no, companies should not be advertising it and selling it for unmonitored home use by people with zero education in the field.