If you're claiming to cure acute illness and are taking money from people who are in need of genuine medical help then I'd say that's immoral (and potentially illegal).
Things like crystal healing, aromatherapy, homeopathy and similar are an odd collection of therapies in that people believe they work so I'm undecided on those as general 'wellbeing' therapies, if they make someone feel better for having a nice smell around the house or give them a bit of attention that lifts a feeling of gloom are they really a bad thing?
I have a very firm stance on false healing claims - in part because I come from a biochemistry/immunology background (I even have a degree in it... that I haven't technically used yet...). The difference between a health claim and a "good audio" claim is that one of these can kill you and the other is much less likely to hurt anything save your bank account.
I mean, just last week a homeopathist died from an overdose.
He forgot to take his meds
"Wellbeing" treatments are all fine and well - it's well known that simply talking to a patient without actually treating anything can have quite drastic effects - which is why when a doctor has 10 minutes tops to spend on you, and your homeopathist has an hour, one will instantly win favour with the patient - even if their "treatment" has no efficacy. But there is a difference between prescribing a bogus treatment and talking - talk to your patient all you want - but don't give them water and tell them it will cure their cancer!
Now, to bring this full circle, I think we're now at the point where we have to describe what we mean by "moral" - for instance - audiophoolary could be considered immoral and harmless - while bogus health claims (from somebody who knows better) could be considered immoral and harmful: and this branches into a philosophical discussion about whether being misleading is a type of dishonesty and it goes on a bit from there.
For instance, if I sell moondust audio cables - as long as they contain moondust they are technically moondust cables - it just doesn't mean anything - so I haven't actually lied - but by leading you to believe that they impart better audio: am I now lying by omission/proxy?
No matter which way I fathom this I end up branching into philosophy (whether "immorality" can be equated to "harm", what is truth, what is harm, etc etc etc which is a massive field unto itself) - it might be worth separate post on the forum actually - though Im not sure I can be bothered!
Also, um... is it just me, or does the idea of "moondust cables" sound really cool? sure they won't do anything (apart from transmitting audio) - but they certainly
sound really cool! Plus it'd be a major bragging point amongst audiophiles - "dude have you heard these cables? They have DUST FROM THE MOON IN THEM!"
All I need now is a rock from the moon that I can crush into very, VERY fine dust which I'll place inside the sheath in minute quantities and I can make a LOT of money!
Maybe get 100-200 cables for per moonrock? £1000 each? That should offset the cost of buying a gram of moonrock (about £50'000)... I can even make them in 3-meter lengths - BARGAIN cost! Can even come with a certificate guaranteeing actual moondust... Hmm, maybe meteoric iron would be better... antimony impurities make the cables surprisingly brittle and weak - but it's sound quality? OUT OF THIS WORLD!
Despite being a perversion of science and technology, I kinda want to try this just to see if it'd catch on... anybody want to invest £50'000 for some moonrock? I could go on Dragon's Den with this!
--EDIT--
I feel kind a guilty just for coming up with that idea... I'd make a terrible businessman!
The other problem is that I'd probably want to keep the moonrock - because its a rock from the moon and I am a nerd and think that a rock from another body in the solar system is REALLY ****ING COOL