01-29-2017, 04:06 PM
Quote:If you intend to only use the scientific meaning of the term 'fact', then nothing will measure-up and all discussion will hedged to the point of bland incoherence. But you asked, so I'll answer:
The scientific meaning of the word "fact"? The bit this was in direct response to was your use of the word "correlation". The correlation between over-the-counter supplements and FDA-approved drugs' what? I still don't think you know what the word means.
Quote:Drugs v Dietary Supplements: Testing and approvals for use are required of drugs. That guarantees noting, but it does force an evidence trail that can be used to sue. Even Big Pharma hates law suits, so there is some degree of self regulation of both efficacy and quality control. None of that applies to dietary supplements, which are offered for sale as commercial, not medical, items.
Dietary supplements are regulated under the FDA. So is food, for that matter (between the FDA, the USDA, etc.). What does this prove?
Quote:Mechanic v. Physician: The physician has to pass medical boards to practice, and has responsibilities that are enforceable. That's why they have malpractice insurance. The same self regulation argument applies here. A mechanic has none of those.
So do hairdressers. There are certifications available for mechanics as well. They can also be held liable if poor repair work leads to an accident. So what?
Quote:In the social sphere, and even in some scientific applications, the preponderance of evidence is fully adequate to claim "proof". Ask any judge.
This is not a court room. An opinion that a doctor is or isn't similar to a mechanic is just that, an opinion. Similar to a mechanic how?