[krapp]

>Which is why we desperately need companies to be able to make any medicinal claims at all about their products without being forced to substantiate them.

ftfy.

edit: downvote away, i deserve a hit for that.

[wissler]

Useful idiot.

[krapp]

My idiocy is useful to science and the public welfare, whereas yours is useful to snake-oil salesmen and quacks.

[wissler]

Which is why you make moronic assertions unsubstantiated by logic or evidence.

[krapp]

The only assertion I make is that it's better for medicine to be regulated and have standards than not.

[wissler]

You didn't merely make the bald-faced assertion, you were very rude about it with your snide "ftfy".

I've studied this stuff for years. I understand your status quo view, that thinks that good intentions are a substitute for philosophic rigor. Your view doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny, and it's holding all of mankind back.

[krapp]

>that thinks that good intentions are a substitute for philosophic rigor.

On the contrary, I think that scientific rigor is a good substitute for the free market when it comes to profiting from scientific advances. You can argue that the system in place is flawed and politically biased and perhaps it is, but the alternative is to treat cancer treatments and heart medication the same as vitamins and crystal therapy.

What profound innovations are being held back because of people like myself who demand that certain claims meet a standard of proof before hitting the market?