I used to have the moderated outlook, but then I saw how traditional medicine is the #1 reason for rare animals being poached. I also saw how the related disinformation drove people towards quackery like Ivermectin and Chloroquine.

If you let crazy people gives themselves titles like Doctor and open a shopfront, all legit and everything, then people will just take that kind of thing on face value.

Freedom doesn't mean the freedom to defraud and wipe out entire species.

A lot of people here are voting me down and saying that I'm totalitarian. I'm just advocating for banning some quacks from practising fake medicine. The opposite is allowing our planet's wildlife to be permanently, irrevocably wiped out in the name of old people getting erections or whatever.

Honestly, which is the more extreme position in your mind: Specicide or Regulation?

They might be voting you down because it looks like you may not have read my entire reply. I specifically noted the caveat of endangered species and a Dr. Title being used by people who should not use it as situations that probably justify a ban.

I think we likely agree on these points, but perhaps not on the surrounding ones which don't have significant harm outside of parting foolish people from their money.

I did read that bit too.

Several of my acquaintances have been recently defrauded out of thousands of dollars by phishing attacks. You know the type: you get an SMS about an $925 Amazon purchase that you made, just enter your credit card details here to cancel. That kind of thing.

Should we just let this stuff happen? Take the safety signs off and let Darwin sort them out? Why bother with those expensive tests and government approvals for medicine? Just let people figure what works and doesn't work on their own! I mean, sure, those foolish people will get themselves killed taking placebos for their cancer, but that's their own fault for getting tricked, right?

"They should have known better."

Maybe my position can be clarified a bit better: We both want to minimize this problem and stop it from happening. My argument is not that we should ignore the problem, my argument is that banning these things is not the most effective solution.

My view is that we are likely to have a greater impact on stopping this problem by using tactics other than banning them.

I'm sorry to hear about your aquantances phishing attacks. There are parallels to be sure, but Phishing attacks are a clear deception, and everyone upon being phished will agree that they have been done wrong by, so it is easy to make these illegal; you don't create a black market for people who want to go out and get phished anyway. Unfortunately the same is not true of people who purchase quack therapy. Most will continue to think that their money was well spent.

>> Freedom doesn't mean the freedom to defraud and wipe out entire species.

I appreciate this statement. But this statement is contrary to the modern Christian view. The modern evangelical Christian view is that God made Man to do whatever he wanted with the earth. That's the basic justification for wiping out species or strip-mining or polluting the air or the water. "Freedom" is a concept that was meant to imply freedom from imprisonment, torture, harm or oppression. Not the freedom to demolish anything in sight. Or the freedom to con other people. They use "freedom" like it's an end-run around morality.

I deny that you describe the modern Christian view. The Christian view is that God made the world, and that humans are sub-rulers of it, but not owners. They are taking care of the property of another. They are not free to trash it.

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.

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.

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.