undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthaumasiotes10y ago0 comments

Hmm... on the one hand, I've always thought lumosity was obviously woo.

On the other hand, you could make exactly the same claims ("1) improve performance on everyday tasks, in school, at work, and in athletics; 2) delay age-related cognitive decline and protect against mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease; and 3) reduce cognitive impairment associated with health conditions, including stroke, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, ADHD, the side effects of chemotherapy, and Turner syndrome, and that scientific studies proved these benefits") about an "herbal supplement" and you'd be legally in the clear. Why is Lumosity's suite of product offerings more similar to prescription medicine (heavily regulated) than to dodgy supplements that might or might not contain mostly meth (basically unregulated)?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

intrasight10y ago· 2 in thread

Supplements industry lobbied congress to pass a law exempting them from FDA regulation.

thaumasiotesOP10y ago

Sure -- but Lumosity can't be prosecuted under FDA regulation, unless the scope of "food and drugs" has undergone some fairly significant expansion. I assume supplements are still subject to the FTC.

There is no plausible argument that it's fine to make unsubstantiated health-related claims in order to sell your edible product that is intended to be bioactive, but not in order to sell your video games. In terms of potential harm to consumers, the ratio there could best be approximated as 100-to-0.

intrasight10y ago

I agree. But it's about politics, lobbyists, and money.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse