I did find it interesting because it reminded me of the early days of Usenet (or rather ARPANET) when things consisted of true articles being posted by scientists, academians, & students, followed by critical discussion/debate. Things began to change when non-academics got involved, and criticisms and rebuttals took the tone of those of HealthWyze - resorting to ridicule, personal attacks and strawman arguments.

It doesn't change my opinion/recognition of snake oil when I see it (is it any surprise to anyone that I tend to be a skeptic anyway?) but it was disappointing that they couldn't have kept their side/position a bit more elevated.

At one point, they provided 2 links to illustrate the deaths caused by the substance in question, but upon reading those links, I found they were both referring to the same single incident, and admitted that that was the only known documented death. (shrug).

A similar observation was made about the "exploding baking dishes" that many of those reports could/may have been duplications of the same incidents ("My dish exploded", "My friend's dish exploded", "My sister's dish exploded", "My daughter's dish exploded" "My neighbor's dish exploded", etc. could have all been referring to the same incident, but there being no way to determine that, it would appear they were separate and distinct incidents.)

While these kinds of things don't do anything to support/strengthen the claims of the product/person under scrutiny, they do weaken the case(s) of the critics. IMO, they were as circumventious (is that a word?) as the snake oil salesman.

Ah, the good old days...

Doc