If a product that causes weakness can be proved to be damaging it surely stands a good chance of being the subject of a successful law suit, unless there are substantial benefits. In my view that has to be the case; how would a skin cream that makes skin permeable to viruses, or a supplement that makes bones porous be judged in a 'health and Saftey' context? To withstand such a suite, the benefits would have to be proved to outway the negative aspects. For instance, steroidal medicines have a whole array of nasty contraindications, but they are often needed.
How about the manufacturers and prescribers of orthotics? Those companies/individuals can no doubt claim that without such intervention, patients' existing conditions would not have been treated effectively. I think that to break that defence we need well designed longitudinal studies that demonstrate biomechanical strengthening to be more effective at alleviating/preventing injury than simply shoring up weakness. Common sense says that in most cases this MUST be the case, but do those studies exist, and are they being conducted?
