Oroboreus, you are dodging my direct questions to answer what you wish things were like.
Christian Scientists or whoever could publish a pamphlet saying that all medicine is evil and to be rejected.
If a religious organization held that religious conviction then their comments regarding it are religious and not medical.
However, if they wrote at length about the medical risks associated with a specific procedure, misquoted secular sources of information, and urged everyone (the public included) to use their provided information as a basis for an informed medical choice, that is medical advice—not religious advice.
The law doesn't make distinction with regard to medium a thing is comminicated in? So, if I heard someone say everything in the Blood Brochure I would not be required to prove they said it? You are joking, right? And the fact that I have it recorded would not be additional grounds for challenge over authenticity of the recordings?
C'mon, man! While the medium of communication technically doesn't make a difference as long as the contents are verifiably from an entity in a fiduciary relationship, printed works are much easier to verify the provenance of than are oral remarks—and are MUCH more difficult to overcome on the basis of misunderstandings or "he said, she said."
And my two question stand unanswered in your diatribes. I'll post them again, in case you overlooked them. The importance of these answers to the weight of this theory cannot be overstated.
(1) Is it a person's own fault for believing intentionally misleading legal advice from someone who is not an attorney? I was under the impression that was not the case, but perhaps I am mistaken.
(2) Is it a person's own fault for believing intentionally misleading medical opinion from someone who is not a medical professional? Somehow, I have a difficult time seeing how that would matter. But, perhaps you are correct.
If you were debating on this issue, I might feel sorry for your fatigue. But you aren't answering direct questions whenever they challenge your false preconceptions. Take that first step, then cry that you have been "debating." Otherwise, what you are doing is propagandizing, not debating.
Your Scientology remark addressed a religious doctrine, which the law will not touch. The blood doctrine is not JUST a religious belief, it is also a secular belief held by people who have been exposed to the indoctrination but either no longer agree or never did agree with the religious grounds. THAT is what you have failed at every turn to grasp. If Scientology tried to become more secularly legitimate than a fantasy world of aliens whose spirits entered humans lo these many years ago, they would be held accountable for their attempt if they fail to meet the standards associated with the field on which they comment.