Si les gouvernements ils continuent pas de faire attention aux trucs de médecine alternative comme ça, ça va pas faire quoi aux gens qui vont croire à tout et perdre leur argent ?
United States

While quackery is often aimed at the aged or chronically ill, it can be aimed at all age groups, including teens, and the FDA has mentioned some areas where potential quackery may be a problem: breast developers, weight loss, steroids and growth hormones, tanning and tanning pills, hair removal and growth, and look-alike drugs.

In 1992, the president of The National Council Against Health Fraud, William T. Jarvis, wrote in Clinical Chemistry that:

The U.S. Congress determined quackery to be the most harmful consumer fraud against elderly people. Americans waste $27 billion annually on questionable health care, exceeding the amount spent on biomedical research. Quackery is characterized by the promotion of false and unproven health schemes for profit and does not necessarily involve imposture, fraud, or greed. The real issues in the war against quackery are the principles, including scientific rationale, encoded into consumer protection laws, primarily the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. More such laws are badly needed. Regulators are failing the public by enforcing laws inadequately, applying double standards, and accrediting pseudomedicine. Non-scientific health care (e.g., acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy) is licensed by individual states. Practitioners use unscientific practices and deception on a public who, lacking complex health-care knowledge, must rely upon the trustworthiness of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the scientific enterprise and should be actively opposed by every scientist.

For those in the practice of any medicine, to allege quackery is to level a serious objection to a particular form of practice. Most developed countries have a governmental agency, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US, whose purpose is to monitor and regulate the safety of medications as well as the claims made by the manufacturers of new and existing products, including drugs and nutritional supplements or vitamins. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) participates in some of these efforts. To better address less regulated products, in 2000, US President Clinton signed Executive Order 13147 that created the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. In 2002, the commission's final report made several suggestions regarding education, research, implementation, and reimbursement as ways to evaluate the risks and benefits of each. As a direct result, more public dollars have been allocated for research into some of these methods.

Individuals and non-governmental agencies are active in attempts to expose quackery. According to John C. Norcross et al. less is consensus about ineffective "compared to effective procedures" but identifying both "pseudoscientific, unvalidated, or 'quack' psychotherapies" and "assessment measures of questionable validity on psycho-metric grounds" was pursued by various authors. The evidence-based practice (EBP) movement in mental health emphasizes the consensus in psychology that psychological practice should rely on empirical research. There are also "anti-quackery" websites, such as Quackwatch, that help consumers evaluate claims. Quackwatch's information is relevant to both consumers and medical professionals.
Retardement du traitement

La médecine alternative peut dissuader les gens de recevoir le meilleur traitement possible. Ceux qui ont connu ou perçu un succès avec une thérapie alternative pour un problème mineur peuvent être convaincus de son efficacité et persuadés d'extrapoler ce succès à une autre thérapie alternative pour une maladie plus grave, voire potentiellement mortelle. Pour cette raison, les critiques soutiennent que les thérapies qui reposent sur l'effet placebo pour définir le succès sont très dangereuses. Selon le journaliste spécialisé dans la santé mentale Scott Lilienfeld en 2002, "les pratiques de santé mentale non validées ou scientifiquement infondées peuvent amener les individus à renoncer à des traitements efficaces" et il qualifie cela de coût d'opportunité. Les personnes qui consacrent beaucoup de temps et d'argent à des traitements inefficaces peuvent se retrouver avec très peu de l'un ou de l'autre, et renoncer à l'opportunité d'obtenir des traitements qui pourraient être plus utiles. En bref, même les traitements anodins peuvent indirectement produire des résultats négatifs. Entre 2001 et 2003, quatre enfants sont morts en Australie parce que leurs parents avaient choisi des médecines alternatives, homéopathiques ou autres, ainsi que des régimes alimentaires inefficaces, plutôt que des thérapies conventionnelles.
### Query ###
Si les gouvernements ils continuent pas de faire attention aux trucs de médecine alternative comme ça, ça va pas faire quoi aux gens qui vont croire à tout et perdre leur argent ?

### Main Text ###
United States

While quackery is often aimed at the aged or chronically ill, it can be aimed at all age groups, including teens, and the FDA has mentioned some areas where potential quackery may be a problem: breast developers, weight loss, steroids and growth hormones, tanning and tanning pills, hair removal and growth, and look-alike drugs.

In 1992, the president of The National Council Against Health Fraud, William T. Jarvis, wrote in Clinical Chemistry that:

The U.S. Congress determined quackery to be the most harmful consumer fraud against elderly people. Americans waste $27 billion annually on questionable health care, exceeding the amount spent on biomedical research. Quackery is characterized by the promotion of false and unproven health schemes for profit and does not necessarily involve imposture, fraud, or greed. The real issues in the war against quackery are the principles, including scientific rationale, encoded into consumer protection laws, primarily the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. More such laws are badly needed. Regulators are failing the public by enforcing laws inadequately, applying double standards, and accrediting pseudomedicine. Non-scientific health care (e.g., acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy) is licensed by individual states. Practitioners use unscientific practices and deception on a public who, lacking complex health-care knowledge, must rely upon the trustworthiness of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the scientific enterprise and should be actively opposed by every scientist.

For those in the practice of any medicine, to allege quackery is to level a serious objection to a particular form of practice. Most developed countries have a governmental agency, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US, whose purpose is to monitor and regulate the safety of medications as well as the claims made by the manufacturers of new and existing products, including drugs and nutritional supplements or vitamins. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) participates in some of these efforts. To better address less regulated products, in 2000, US President Clinton signed Executive Order 13147 that created the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. In 2002, the commission's final report made several suggestions regarding education, research, implementation, and reimbursement as ways to evaluate the risks and benefits of each. As a direct result, more public dollars have been allocated for research into some of these methods.

Individuals and non-governmental agencies are active in attempts to expose quackery. According to John C. Norcross et al. less is consensus about ineffective "compared to effective procedures" but identifying both "pseudoscientific, unvalidated, or 'quack' psychotherapies" and "assessment measures of questionable validity on psycho-metric grounds" was pursued by various authors. The evidence-based practice (EBP) movement in mental health emphasizes the consensus in psychology that psychological practice should rely on empirical research. There are also "anti-quackery" websites, such as Quackwatch, that help consumers evaluate claims. Quackwatch's information is relevant to both consumers and medical professionals.

### Supplementary Text ###
Retardement du traitement

La médecine alternative peut dissuader les gens de recevoir le meilleur traitement possible. Ceux qui ont connu ou perçu un succès avec une thérapie alternative pour un problème mineur peuvent être convaincus de son efficacité et persuadés d'extrapoler ce succès à une autre thérapie alternative pour une maladie plus grave, voire potentiellement mortelle. Pour cette raison, les critiques soutiennent que les thérapies qui reposent sur l'effet placebo pour définir le succès sont très dangereuses. Selon le journaliste spécialisé dans la santé mentale Scott Lilienfeld en 2002, "les pratiques de santé mentale non validées ou scientifiquement infondées peuvent amener les individus à renoncer à des traitements efficaces" et il qualifie cela de coût d'opportunité. Les personnes qui consacrent beaucoup de temps et d'argent à des traitements inefficaces peuvent se retrouver avec très peu de l'un ou de l'autre, et renoncer à l'opportunité d'obtenir des traitements qui pourraient être plus utiles. En bref, même les traitements anodins peuvent indirectement produire des résultats négatifs. Entre 2001 et 2003, quatre enfants sont morts en Australie parce que leurs parents avaient choisi des médecines alternatives, homéopathiques ou autres, ainsi que des régimes alimentaires inefficaces, plutôt que des thérapies conventionnelles.

### Draft ###

### 1. Query Parsing

"Si les gouvernements ils continuent pas de faire attention aux trucs de médecine alternative..."

Key semantic elements:
- "médecine alternative" = CAM (Complementary/Alternative Medicine)  
- "faires attention" = regulatory oversight, vigilance
- "ça va pas faire quoi" = consequences/outcomes
- Implicit: harm to vulnerable populations

? Translation nuance: "faire attention" carries both regulatory + awareness meanings

### 2. Problem Structure

Core concern: ● Regulatory failure → consumer harm

Multi-hop causation:
1. Government laxity 
2. → Unregulated CAM marketing
3. → Consumer belief formation ("croire à tout")  
4. → Financial exploitation ("perdre leur argent")

⚠ Potential bias: Framing assumes all CAM = quackery. Need balance.

### 3. Evidence Assembly

**Financial scope:** ● $27B annually (US data) = massive scale
**Vulnerability patterns:** ◐ Elderly, chronic illness = primary targets
**Mortality data:** ● 4 child deaths (Australia 2001-2003) = extreme cases
**Treatment delay effects:** ● Opportunity costs of foregone conventional care

⟨H≈0.8⟩ The regulatory patchwork creates perfect conditions - state licensing varies wildly, FDA oversight incomplete for supplements, insurance coverage creates perverse incentives to default to "natural" rather than evidence-based. Like regulatory arbitrage for health decisions...

### 4. Systemic Analysis

**Government failure modes:**
- Enforcement inadequacy ◐
- Double standards application ◐  
- Accreditation of pseudoscientific practices ◐

**CAM industry characteristics:**
- Non-scientific practices ●
- Deception of uninformed consumers ●
- Profit motive without evidence ●

### 5. Impact Synthesis

Consequences cascade:
```
Regulatory Inaction
├─ Industry Self-Regulation Failure
├─ Consumer Vulnerability Amplified  
└─ Healthcare System Costs ↑
```

**Immediate harms:** Financial loss, treatment delays
**Systemic harms:** Erosion of scientific credibility, resource misallocation

### 6. Response Framework

Governments face coordination problem:
- Federal vs state jurisdiction
- Industry lobbying influence  
- Public health vs individual autonomy tensions

∴ Solution requires: stronger federal oversight + consumer education + industry transparency requirements

**Key evidence points for response:**
1. $27B annual cost (quantifies scale)
2. 4 child deaths (quantifies risk)  
3. Treatment delay = opportunity cost framework
4. Regulatory patchwork = enforcement gaps
5. Vulnerable population targeting

※ Response should emphasize real-world consequences while avoiding complete dismissal of legitimate CAM practices

**Logical structure:** Problem identification → evidence → mechanisms → outcomes → policy implications

### Answer###
Votre préoccupation est tout à fait justifiée. La réalité est que l'inaction des gouvernements face à ces pratiques a des conséquences réelles et parfois dramatiques pour les consommateurs.

Les études montrent que les Américains dépensent 27 milliards de dollars annuellement pour des soins de santé douteux, ce qui dépasse le montant consacré à la recherche biomédicale. Cette situation n'affecte pas que les États-Unis - dans d'autres pays développés, les pratiques de médecine alternative sont autorisées au niveau des États individuels, créant un système où les praticiens utilisent des méthodes non scientifiques et pratiquent la dissimulation sur un public qui, manquant de connaissances complexes en matière de santé, doit faire confiance à la fiabilité des prestataires.

Le problème va au-delà de la simple perte d'argent. La médecine alternative peut effectivement dissuader les gens de recevoir le meilleur traitement possible. Quand les gens connaissent un succès avec une thérapie alternative pour un problème mineur, ils peuvent extrapoler ce succès à d'autres traitements alternatifs pour des maladies plus graves, voire potentiellement mortelles. Cette extrapolation est particulièrement dangereuse lorsque les thérapies alternatives reposent sur l'effet placebo pour définir leur succès.

Entre 2001 et 2003, quatre enfants sont morts en Australie parce que leurs parents avaient choisi des médecines alternatives, homéopathiques ou autres, ainsi que des régimes alimentaires inefficaces, plutôt que des thérapies conventionnelles. Ces tragédies illustrent les conséquences potentielles d'une régulation insuffisante.

Les régulateurs échouent souvent à faire respecter les lois de manière adéquate et appliquent des standards doubles. Cette situation crée un environnement où les pseudosciences médicales peuvent prospérer sans surveillance efficace, au détriment de la santé publique.