What happens when you combine fascist government "safety" regulations with skewed academia? A medical tyranny that's what. I was recently reading this article about how an kindly Amish man got himself arrested for selling a healing salve made from natural ingredients. Was the salve dangerous or ineffective? No, it was quite safe and worked exactly as advertised. Nor did it contain any patented materials, just herbs you can grow in your garden. He got in trouble because he mislabeled it. He labeled it as "healing" salve. Apparently one can't claim that your product actually heals someone unless you're a big drug company. And also apparently if a substance actually can affect the human body it's then considered a drug even though it hasn't been patented, refined or modified in any way.
There in lies the problem. If we define any substance that can affect the body as needing to be regulated by government. And then say that only substances that CAN affect the body can be classified as actually working. Then it follows that if a substance actually can heal someone then it immediately is subject to government regulation. Government should not have exclusive control of healing the populace. We are no longer discussing copyright here. We are no longer discussing if someone took something from nature, modified it somehow, and then claimed profits and credit for those modifications. We are discussing the raw unadulturated usurping of the right to heal oneself and others using the means found in nature without any man made intervention. We're talking about the RIGHT to heal oneself and others. Period.
We are also talking about the right to carry on scientific study. How can one carry out tests to see if a substance CAN heal another if it's illegal to make the claim that it can or might be able to? It is understandable one would want to keep others safe but seriously one cannot lay claim to the concept of healing. To regulate the word "healing" is outrageous. Moreover anyone should be able to bear witness to their own observations. To do otherwise is to impede science.
One should have both the right to heal and to prove one can heal others. It's one thing to try and disprove efficacy. It's another to try and outlaw language and seize control of the ability to claim the ability to heal another. The logic of the current system is that if anyone can make a claim they can produce a product that might not work and that puts people at risk. That is true but that's how science works. Anyone can make something and claim that it works, and as long as they can prove it works, then they can maintain their position. Saying you have to spend a massive amount of money to get lab testing and do massive scientific studies to prove a product can heal someone when you have seen it happen with your own eyes is not science. One might dispute it's efficacy, one might argue it operates on the placebo effect even. In short one could go to all lengths to rebut "how" it works but if people are in fact being healed in a measurable way then there is in fact evidence to back up the claim that one is in fact able to heal them. To make it illegal to put this in writing defies scientific rational thought at the most basic fundamental level.
Let's change the word "heal" to "feed" for a moment. It's equally insane for the government to regulate who can feed the populace. Again often food regulations are based on the fear of food poisoning and health safety but these are not based on scientific fact. Health regulations are more about avoiding liability than they are about promoting the safety of the populace. An easy example of this is how anyone can touch a head of lettuce at the grocery store before buying it but how there are dozens of regulations before something reaches your plate if someone is professionally preparing food for you. If someone is cooking for you THEY are liable. If you are doing the cooking YOU are liable. But if the lettuce gets tainted at the grocery store you get food poisoning all the same. It has nothing to do with public health safety.
Another example is if a homeless person is starving to death on the street. What's the greater threat to one's life in that case? Starvation or the possibility of food borne illness? In that case it's starvation and the homeless person would be glad of a meal regardless of who prepared it. Food safety is like any safety, medical safety is like any safety, is relative. This is another reason why it should be the user not the government determining whether one can engage in an activity.
If one can show evidence that one can do something one should be allowed to claim that one can do it with legal impunity. Simple. Saying you can do something when there is no evidence, or worse yet clear evidence to the contrary, could be considered fraud. But if evidence can be presented you CAN do what you claim then one should be free to make that claim. Moreover the government should not be able to regulate all forms of effective healing. In short healing should not be a privelage of the King alone. Nor should one have to pay accademic elites for the right to claim one can heal visa vie expensive lab testing. To do so is much like asking the priests for their blessings in the form of coin. If someone wishes to rebut a claim they should get the testing done themselves. And at the end of the day it's still up the patient as to what medical treatment they desire. Much like the homeless man starving for food it doesn't matter how they get healed as long as it works. Compassion, regardless of it's form, should not be outlawed through the use of language or legislation.