The wording and implications really do matter. I was chastised for "putting my own words" into a document even though they were clearly identified in parentheses as additional explanation of the meaning. Others were criticized for saying FDA says Sucanon is a drug (the clear and logical implication from their response letter as a whole) versus "appears to be a drug" as directly stated. Yet here you continue to embellish and add words that the FDA didn't say with the explanation "what's the difference".
The difference is accurately communicating publicly verifiable information with an explanation (in my case) versus misrepresentations like the following (in your case):
1. Modifying a Consumer Reports article in post 4477 to falsely indicate Sucanon as one of the supplements warned about improper advertising by the FDA when it was not and has not been sold in the US.
2. Stating that Sucanon in post 3963 contains only inactive ingredients despite the active ingredients being publicly stated, in one location directly above the cut and pasted inactive ingredients listed on the healthcanada website.
3. Misrepresenting the contents of the FDA response letter by leaving out their clear statements that Sucanon is a drug per the food and drug act, that Sucanon has undergone "substantial clinical investigations" as they reference the press release announcing presentation of a 12 week study of Sucanon in prediabetics in which 81% showed normalized HbA1C at the conclusion and that the study was presented at the 2013 EASD annual meeting and the abstract included in the EASD journal.
4. Stating falsely that Canagen (the Sucanon distributor for India, a multinational company) is a fake company and located in a diner.
5. Then stating in post 5014 that "I stand behind all those statements about this indefensible fraud"
That is only a small sample and all publicly verifiable. I encourage any to look up the source documents for themselves.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
