I've been active on a couple of questions where "science woo" claims are being challenged. The trouble with this kind of woo is that so many of the claims don't mean anything.
To quote one sample:
[The device] brings water back into [its] natural form.
How are we to determine if this is true or false? First we must determine what is meant by the "natural form" of water. But since the original claim does not define what this means, and there is no widely accepted meaning for the term, there is no way to do this.
We could of course make some guesses, but the list of things that this statement might mean is very long, and that is before the original writer responds to requests for clarification with even more woo.
When I wrote this in response to the first question @LangLangC commented:
I agree that there a lof of dubious claims around that 'device'. But you might take them one by one and analyse them by a common standard of language and scientific conceptions. 'They' may then continue to "but-I-meant". That is not futile, just a big task. In fact, it might be necessary for you to convert this long comment into an answer with the required references.
I can certainly see the merit in LangLangC's argument; a core value of skepticism is that we don't dismiss claims without evidence. However I stand by my original argument that trying to reverse-engineer a meaning into woo is a pointless exercise.
So how should we deal with woo in questions? Can we simply say "This is meaningless woo"?