Starch Blockers – MCC regulations

Posted 29 January 2013

Are Starch Blockers, e.g., “USN Carb Blocker”, legal in South Africa?

This is an extract from the MCC regulations:

Read the rest

Tri-Vortex scam now in India?

Posted 28 January 2013

Has the Tri-Vortex “scam” been “exported” to India?


The Headlines India article (dt. January 25 2013) said that the Tirangaa bangle would not only foster patriotism and oneness among the Indians wearing it, but also cure a long list of ailments. If that was not enough it would also curb excessive radiation that otherwise impacts our being.

The words “Tri-Vortex technology from South Africa” and the name “Anton Ungerer” stood out among the tall claims to “cure ailments like acidity and arthritis, purifies water and even protects people from harmful cellphone radiation”. Of course, this would prove “particularly beneficial for athletes and the elderly”.


Continue reading Nakul Shenoy’s article:

Update 29 January 2013: Here is another excellent read (Shashi Tharoor’s Magic Bangles…) from an Indian news site, IBTL, on this this baloney.

Update 31 January 2013: Two further articles Read the rest


Posted 23 January 2013

Pomegranate is being marketed as effective for a range of health conditions. Are the claims true?

In the USA, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), has struck at a seller of pomegranate juice and supplements for claiming that the product is effective, among other, for preventing or treating heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction. The FTC bases its actions on science i.e., evaluating whether the evidence for the claims are justified by good evidence or not. 

Read the rest

Florence Niemann – Fountainhead

Posted 19 January 2013

As mentioned previously on CAMCheck, we do not usually identify the individual(s) responsible for the marketing/selling of unsubstantiated products. However once a company continues to ignore ASA rulings or displays clear evidence that the trust of consumers is being abused, by inter alia, continuing to promote these or similar products, then in our view it is fair that these individuals should be identified and exposed.

 Florence_Niemann Florence Niemann is the owner of Fountainhead. In spite of a number of rulings against her company’s Detox Patch products, Fountainhead continues to make nonsensical and scientific implausible claims for these products. 

In other words, a company that has at its mission statement, “Quality – Integrity – Effectiveness“, is clearly lacking integrity.

Read the rest

USN Phedra-Cut Hardcore – No proof!

Posted 18 January 2013

USN continues to deceive consumers with either exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims. This is particularly true for their Phedra-Cut range – all making unsubstantiated weight-loss claims. There is not a single study to confirm that a single one of USN’s Phedra-cut range, has efficacy (or for that matter, most of their products), i.e., works. 

In this instance, the ASA has become aware that USN continues to claim that they will alter their unsubstantiated claims, but USN then simply generates new false claims.

It appears that the ASA have now become fed-up with USN: “Given the respondent’s apparent pattern of providing undertakings as opposed to evidence for its efficacy claims, the Directorate will consider whether or not additional sanctions in accordance with Clause 14 of the Procedural Guide should be imposed on the respondent.” 

Read the rest

ASA ruling: SCIO full-body scan

Posted 18 January 2013

A complainant laid a complaint with the ASA arguing that the claims for the SCIO full-body scan were unscientific and false. However as the complainant did not construct his complaint correctly “he did not relate this information to his complaint, or explain which portions thereof apply to which claims”, the ASA  argued that “[G]iven the requirements for clear and concise grounds in the Code,  . .  the Directorate has to decline to rule on the merits of this matter at this time, based on the complaint at hand.” In other words, the ASA did not rule that the claims were valid but that they could not consider the complaint.

The SCIO full body scan makes claims completely contrary to known physiology, science and physics. Here is a good overview of why this product’s claims are nonsensical as well as an investigation by Canada’s Investigative Consumer ShowRead the rest

Nycomed-Dona – ASA ruling

Posted 18 January 2013

On 16 August 2012, the ASA held that the claims made by the respondent in its advertising was unsubstantiated and in breach and in breach of Clause 4.1 of Section II: “… DONA ® has been clinically proven to not only aid in the reduction of pain, inflammation and swelling of affected joints in OA, but also to improve mobility and prevent further progression of OA”.  Nycomed-Dona submitted new substantiation in terms of Clause 4.1.7 of Section II. The ASA accepted the new evidence and the previous ruling was therefore overturned and Nycomed-Dona may continue using the claim.

Read the rest

Biolife Multivitamin – ASA ruling

18 January 2013

A consumer laid a complaint against a range of claims being made by Biolife Multivitamins. The ASA agreed that as the company could not prove their claims, that they were therefore misleading and in conflict with the ASA regulations.

Read the rest

Fountainhead Chi Detox Patches – Big scam!

Posted 18 January 2013

Fountainhead (owner: Florence Niemann) continues to deceive consumers selling a range of products with dubious health claims, i.e., the science backing the product is either paper thin or complete rubbish. (More to be posted later)

One of these products, their Detox Patches, has been repeatedly ruled against by the ASA in this ruling but the company continues to make false unsubstantiated claims for this product. Note: similar products have been considered to be nothing but scams by the USA Federal Trade Commission. What does this say about Florence Niemann?

Read the rest

Créche Guard Cough – ASA ruling

18 January 2013

A complaint was laid against Créche Guard Cough arguing that there is no evidence that this product has any effect on ill children.

However the complaint was badly composed and therefore “. . . the Directorate has to decline to rule on the question of the efficacy of the respondent’s product at this time.”

Following the text of the ASA ruling, the scientific argument pointing out why this product is unlikely to have any benefit on ill children, has been added (and a new complaint laid with the ASA)

3 July 2013: Update: Results of the ASA ruling which confirms my contention that there is no proof that the ingredients, or this product, has ANY benefit.

Read the rest