The claim is compelling. But the author's writing style–punctuated with needless character assasinations, e.g. the dig about not being a lumberjack, or hyperbolic rhetorical questions–makes me wanting for a better source. (Author says, at the end, they have experience as a journalist, so I want to underline that I'm going off style alone right now.)
> But the author's writing style–punctuated with needless character assasinations
I dare say those are the point rather than an side property of writing about quacks' downfalls.
The media serves non-zero inoculation effect against quacks, but their approach to coverage is much more self-indulgent than what anyone brainstorming a coverage approach to maximize their readers' heath literacy would create.
> The following newsletter has been rewritten using AI based on my original script for the video posted above—in the case of inconsistencies please defer to the video.
I have worked for some rather wealthy seniors living on waterfront property. Of all that pursued expensive stem cell injections, not one of them said the injections had solved any of their prior problems.
I'm reminded of "Dr. Death" aka Paolo Macchiarini, the former stem cell surgeon who washed plastic tracheal implants in a "stem cell bath" that did absolutely nothing to the plastic then inserted in people's throats only to cause them to choke to death. He was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison by a Swedish court for aggravated assault against patients he treated, but before the medical board finally took action against him he was heralded as a stem-cell revolutionary.
Less regulation and less oversight, easier to access and give unapproved treatments, less training and licensure requirements, less safety and compliance, less meddling medical authorities wanting to ensure safety and efficacy.
