Totally agree - to clarify, I was agreeing with what you were saying originally
I figured you were, but just for anyone coming to this thread late, I wanted to underline what I meant (not that anyone really cares haha).
On a broader point, while I'm a fan of
"if it works for you, and it's not going to harm you, have at it", the whole Emu oil presentations irk me in particular, not least because the entire framing on IW is designed to
exploit the sort of woes people of a certain age (they know their viewers) will be mindful of or worrying about. Many will be in genuine pain and are being encouraged to disbelieve doctors and trust salesman.
And lo, Pedro Simone gurns away extolling the virtues of his miraculous 'cure all' that can help with this, that and the other —
"but I'm not making health claims" he'll interject when prompted by earpiece
"…because I'm not a medical professional", before carrying on to insist how it can help with this, that, and the other.
Even that's disingenuous. The reason you can't make health claims Pedro is
NOT because you're not a medical professional —neither's Dr Lopitoff

— but because Emu oil sellers can't back up any claims up with proof, thus aren't regulated, thus can't "lie"

.
But who needs proof when you have endless unsubstantiated anecdotes!
"So many people swear by this, okay. My dear friend Barbara tried it, right, and she says: 'Peter, it's worked wonders for me'".
Oh week, if your
imaginary friend Barbera says it works…
The plural of anecdotes is not data, Peter. It's just anecdotes.
"Derrick, don't call the GP — call IW. One of the presenter's friends says a potion he's selling worked for her. I trust anecdotes more than I trust Big Pharma, they're just in it for the money!!! IW would never be so cynical…"