Let's examine these statements using logic, definition provided by Merriam Webster as :
"reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity"
"Here is the logic."
So we apply the principles in the above definition.
"This is a fraudulent scheme"
The fallacy of the statement is that the conclusion comes before the evidence, which is nonexistent.
"that uses press releases to try and gin up volume for the insiders who owns hundreds of millions of shares to get out at others expenses."
Unsubstantiated statements that are generated to support the predetermined conclusion.
"The FDA Banned this scam from interstate commerce"
Sucanon has never been sold in the US. FDA stated that Sucanon is a drug and that it would need a new drug application prior to sale in the US. Further, Sucanon has been subject to "substantial clinical investigations" as a drug, therefore cannot be sold as a supplement.
"and Consumer Reports clearly warns of these TYPES of products."
The only way this argument can be sold is to leave the subject sentence out, which lists the 15 companies warned for improper sale of supplements in the US. Logically, there would be no reason to warn about a product that has never been sold in the US and further is considered a drug not a supplement.
The strict principles of validity don't allow for deception by leaving out the subject sentence, pre determining a conclusion, or fabricating information to support a false conclusion.
