A South African consumers guide to scams, pseudoscience and voodoo science, OR, a critical thinker's guide to the ins and outs of Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Posted 16 May 2012

A consumer lodged a complaint against packaging for Dis-Chem’s anti cellulite detox product: “Dis-Chem GOLD ANTI-CELLULITE DETOX”. In essence, the complainant submitted that the name of the product is misleading as it suggests that the product is able to combat or prevent cellulite and/or detoxify the body. This is not true and cannot be substantiated.

Dis-chem submitted that the product has been discontinued and should have been removed from all shelves at all Dis-Chem stores.

The question should be asked, why is Dis-Chem selling this scam product in the first place!?  [Read more →]

Posted 14 May 2012

The ruling below against Patrick Holford’s Smart Kids Brain Boost and the claims for the product, is a significant one. Importantly , and not indicated in this ruling, is that Equal Education were actually the primary complainants.

Following this media-release, Holford released a press statement in response, the science and claims which I deconstructed on CamCheck showing that not a single of the 50 studies supported Holford’s science thereby questioning his competence and interpretative skills. 

Strikingly, even Holford’s selected expert hired to substantiate his claims for this product, Prof Frederick J Veldman, struggled to agree with Holford’s conclusions.

Importantly, this ruling (and taken in conjunction with the ASA ruling against Patrick Holford’s “Mood Food”), reflects on the scientific incompetence of Patrick Holford, his ability at assessing science, and therefore casts doubt over the entire scientific basis of all his products. But then again, we are not the first to point this out. See: http://www.holfordwatch.org

The question should be asked whether Patrick Holford would benefit from taking his own product? Unlikely. [Read more →]

Update 15 May 2012: I have been sent evidence that “horse chestnut” (listed as “esculin”) was scheduled as S3 in December 1979.

Posted 12 May 2012

Health Intelligence magazine states on its front cover as a byline: “The Science of Health.” In its advertising blurb on its associated company Solal Technologies’ website, it is stated to be “Sophisticated. Cutting edge. Credible.” The editorials in Edition 15 (May 2012) are however misleading, and disturbingly so.

The first [text] editorial by Colin Levin bemoans the new food labelling regulations from the Department of Health as having gone too far “[i]n their noble intention to prevent (sic) consumers from misleading claims.” He even quotes the Health Products Association of South Africa (HPA) which is “disappointed” that the regulations don’t address the relationship between certain food (sic) and various diseases.

So what’s the problem?

If Mr Levin and/or his editorial team (and the HPA) had perhaps done their homework and checked their facts, they would have been informed that the food labelling regulations they’re concerned about are just “phase 1″ – and that “phase 2″ which will specify which scientifically established health claims for foods can be made, will come into effect later in 2012 or in 2013.  It must be acknowledged however that Mr Levin is not a health professional. [Read more →]

Posted 11 May 2012

Professor F Bonnici (one of South Africa’s best endocrinologists) lodged a consumer complaint against a pamphlet available at the Clicks Pharmacy. The pamphlet contains information about “Adrenal Fatigue”.    Professor Bonnici submitted that the pamphlet misinforms the public about a condition that is not recognised by any health authority in the world. While there are well defined adrenal disorders, “Adrenal Fatigue” is not one of them. He added that he has encountered incidents where people insisted on consulting him in his practice as a specialist endocrinologist, based on the information conveyed in the pamphlet and the resulting self-diagnosis made. While the “treatment” recommended in the advertising is harmless, unrelated to adrenal gland function and ineffective, the fact remains that the information conveyed is untrue and potentially harmful.

Clicks submitted that it has removed all pamphlets related to this subject matter from its clinics, “without any admission of liability”.

Who else in South Africa claims that “adrenal fatigue” is a known condition? Solal, of course (among other). As CamCheck reports, Solal has some very strange conditions and “treatments” not accepted by traditional medicine. [Read more →]

Posted 10 May 2012

In a ruling dated 8 June 2007, the Directorate ruled that the respondent’s advertising for Rayma Balance Bracelet created a misleading impression that the bracelet will relieve pain when used by anybody, which was not proven and therefore unsubstantiated.

However this appears to have made no impression on Mr Mervyn Daitz of Topline Innovations who continued to make these nonsense claims, and deceive, cheat and steal from consumers by selling this simple scam. More than that, read the ruling carefully – the ASA appear to call Mr Daitz a liar, but not in so many words. If you are a consumer who purchased this product, I urge you to ask for your money back. If you do not get it, ask the small claims court for redress, or the CPA, or even lay a charge of fraud against the company. [Read more →]

Posted 07 May 2012

A consumer lodged a consumer complaint against the respondent’s print advertisement appearing in the Mail and Guardian during December 2011. The advertisement, inter alia, promotes the respondent’s “Immune Restore Optimal Health Supplements” under the heading “ARE YOU HIV+?” It punts the product as “… a combination of trace elements essential for normal immune system” and explains that it “… replaces the vital aminal acids & vitamins depleted by HIV”.

In essence, the complainant submitted that the claims highlighted above (save for “CAN BE TAKEN WITH ARVS”, which the complainant did not specify) are unsubstantiated. In addition, the references to HIV, viral load, CD4 counts and ARVs are clearly a reference to Aids, which contravenes the provisions of Appendix F.

[Read more →]

Posted 07 May 2012

A consumer lodged a consumer complaint against the respondent’s print advertisement appearing in the Mail and Guardian during December 2011. The advertisement, inter alia, promotes the respondent’s “FATBURN” weight loss product as “The 4 in 1 Weight Loss Solution For Best Results!!!”  In essence, the complainant submitted that the claims highlighted above are unsubstantiated. He explained that the respondent’s website makes reference to the substance “Opuntia ficus-indica”, but that there is no evidence to suggest that this substance or ingredient (derived from a cactus) has any effect on weight loss.  [Read more →]

Posted 06 May 2012 

This infographic poster can be printed out at various sizes for hanging in your favourite place that has walls. Make yourself, your class, your friends or your kids smarter by hanging it somewhere your face is near. This poster lists a wide range of logical fallacies that scam artists, pseudoscientists, and alternative medicine practitioners use in order to dupe you.

“A logical fallacy is usually what has happened when someone is wrong about something. It’s a flaw in reasoning. They’re like tricks or illusions of thought, and they’re often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people. Don’t be fooled! This website and poster have been designed to help you identify and call out dodgy logic wherever it may raise its ugly, incoherent head.” yourlogicalfallacyis.com  [Read more →]

Posted 02 May 2012 

A consumer lodged a consumer complaint against Pharma Natura’s Internet advertisement promoting its Vitaforce Generics range. The advertisement was published at http://pharmanatura.co.za/vitaforce-PremiumGenericTopUps.aspx. The complainant submitted, in essence, that claims promoting the Generics range of products need scientific substantiation. He added that those claims that contravene Appendix F need to be removed. The respondent addressed the merits of the matter, but in a subsequent response confirmed that all the statements that were raised by the complainant have been withdrawn or amended and will not be repeated.  [Read more →]

Posted 02 May 2012 

A consumer lodged a consumer complaint against Pharma Natura’s Internet advertisement promoting its Vitaforce Lifestages range.  The complainant submitted, in essence, that claims promoting the Vitaforce Lifestages range of products need scientific substantiation. He added that the asterisk statements also requires such substantiation especially for the phrases “additional protection”, “help to protect the body’s cells from damage”, “support the immune system” and “minimize the effect of aging”. 

The respondent addressed the merits of the matter but in a subsequent response stated that “all the statements that are raised by the complainant have been withdrawn or amended and will not be repeated”.  [Read more →]