Talk:Quack Miranda Warning

2010
"Statements such as these are required by the FDA" - is this actually true? My understanding, from what I skimmed through on the FDA website, is that the statement is a voluntary opt-out on behalf of the quack-merchants themselves - i.e. they don't have to include this kind of statement, but if they don't, their product would be held to the same standards of regulation & liability as mainstream medical products. Can anybody verify this? I think there's quite a big distinction between things companies do & say because the government tells them they have to, & things they do or say by choice in order to cover their asses, so we should be clear about which this is. 17:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I was wrong.  18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on what you're claiming. Some things are protected terms and also, you often have to disclaim what things aren't just as much as what they are, take those "novelty" fake IDs or "for bird feed only" cannabis seeds. 00:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

2012
Whole New Mom (hippie new-age blog) is insane, saying probiotics are great, and the FDA are crazy, also I made a comment saying the truth, she didn't listen. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 67.180.16.83 / talk / contribs 02:16, 16 November 2012‎ (UTC)

BoN rant
I'll take this interpretation any day: 3.Bat-shit insane: The FDA and Big Pharma are in cahoots with the AMA to keep you from learning all the simple ways to treat diseases. They want your money, and they'll do anything they can to get it from you, including suppressing the knowledge that anyone can learn to heal cancer....  Ketosis starves cancer, as just one example, I didn't get that from a hoo-doo website, I got it from PubMed. That's not public information generally available though because the media hasn't blasted it all over the place yet and doctors haven't been routinely telling patients about it yet. Because it's "not yet a routine clinical procedure." In the time it takes for something that is factually known by researchers to make it down to the level of becoming a routine recommendation in the clinic... thousands if not millions of people will die. The people you label quacks are merely bringing the research to the public faster than you are. There is no harm in that. Anyone who doubts what Mercola or anyone else is saying can just go to PubMed and look it up. If they don't do that, THEN they are Bat-shit insane, not before. I think it's good that you're fighting back against creationists trying to push their agenda into schools, but when you classify people who are also trying to save lives just like you are in the same category with religious believers, you make a logic error of your own. I'd like to add what it says at the time of my writing as a warning on my edit page to show the amount of intimidation that is inflicted on people who say anything on this website: "Please note that all contributions to RationalWiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0, or any later version (see RationalWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. "  I do not believe that this is a rational wiki at all. A rational wiki would include all voices and a free exchange of ideas and this is not such a place. I'm saddened that this attack dog operation is in place in America. This is not my America. This is a symbol of propaganda in the USA today. If you want to really be balanced and seek the truth, why not tell the story of Snake Oil on your website? Is it because Snake Oil ironically had real value? I noticed that you avoided mention of Snake Oil in your many diatribes. Tell the story if you dare. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2014(UTC)
 * Anyone who claims to be doctor while claiming homeopath works is not to be trusted on anything else. Mercola is a fraud and a quack. Placeholder (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm....? Zero (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Quick, someone run this through a Markov chain. Swerve (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A distinction should be made between those 'herbal remedies etc' where there is a clear statement 'may help with (symptoms of/other statement) - check with your doctor (under these circumstances)', 'will make your hair look better' and similar and 'duck and pseudo-cover' non-remedies. Anna Livia (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Doctor DC disclaimer
Thanks to heavy ass ad campaigns on youtube from fucks like Gundry and Paris, I noticed a pattern of people that put doctor on youtube nutrition ads but the doctorate does not apply to nutrition. Instead it applies to some other field that rarely gets nutritional education e.g, surgeon, nephrology, chiropractic. 2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:68 (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)