When one makes decisions about what to purchase for a large organization, for a product which needs to perform well or people die, one assumes a degree of due diligence. A novel product requires more stringent due diligence than one which is a market standard. If no plausible mechanism of action is purported for a novel product that attempts to do things with several orders of magnitude more efficacy and less complexity than competitors, then yeah, I'm not buying it without independent testing.

If an underling at my restaurant replaced all dish-washing liquid and bleach solutions with a series of small metal figurines taped to the dishwasher and the prep tables, and told me "It cleans the surfaces galvanically", I'm not going to say "Brilliant!", I'm going to say "Brilliant, now prove it before it's allowed near my kitchen."

What about the lab itself? What if it's fraudulent? Do I need to send reports from that lab to another private lab?

More seriously though, at some point you need to stop. Capitalism is a fun game for adults, and entrepreneurship is a prestigious sport, but when people start dying because someone sold them something built with the purpose of earning him money by making other people die, one should stop hoping for the market forces to bankrupt him and just jail the murderous SOB directly.

Absolutely. The argument is not that he should be free to defraud people, the argument is that credulous buyers may still be liable for negligence charges (and certainly a civil suit and firing) after we prosecute this muppet for something in the vicinity of second or third degree murder / manslaughter by gross criminal negligence, plus fraud.