About the article? The dramatically-flawed logic and use of proof through repeated assertion. Plus the basic fact that the FDA's job is to be skeptical. You know, proof of efficacy by statistical comparison with a control group, for example. Or requiring properly-constructed tests instead of accepting widespread distribution of an untested substance as if it was an actual test.
Having said that, I downvoted the post as a stand-in for the article. And the only thing I disliked about the post was the headline, which was probably auto-generated, but I think is misleading for both the post and for the article.
Down-vote retracted.
Actually, with a well-reasoned response like that I don't question the down-vote at all. :-)
>
About the article? The dramatically-flawed logic and use of proof through repeated assertion. Plus the basic fact that the FDA's job is to be skeptical. You know, proof of efficacy by statistical comparison with a control group, for example. Or requiring properly-constructed tests instead of accepting widespread distribution of an untested substance as if it was an actual test.
>
Having said that, I downvoted the post as a stand-in for the article. And the only thing I disliked about the post was the headline, which was probably auto-generated, but I think is misleading for both the post and for the article.
>
Down-vote retracted.
Actually, with a well-reasoned response like that I don't question the down-vote at all.
:-)
(post is archived)