Search results for "Homemark"

Breach complaint against Solal dismissed

Posted 5 July 2011

The Sugar Association (SASA) laid a breach complaint with the ASA against Solal arguing that Solal continued to make claims for their “Naturally Sweet” and “Stevia Sweet” products, which had claimed among other, "[F]or a long time it has been known that a diet high in sugar can cause weight-gain, diabetes and sugar-shock (tiredness about 1 hour after eating or drinking something sweet)”.

SASA argued that a Google search found these documents on the Solal website. However Solal argued that the documents had been removed and that the links referenced were probably "cached" documents – which were no longer accessible. The ASA concurred, after also not being able to find documents at the URLs submitted, and dismissed the breach complaint.

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0


Homemark, a company that has previously sold a number of products declared as scams in the USA by the Federal Trade Commission, has launched a new product called Nicogel [no longer listed] onto the South African market. This product claims to be a gel made from natural extract from the stems of Nicotiana spp (Niteshade family of which tobacco is a member). The company claims that by rubbing the gel into your hands, it replaces smoking a cigarette. The product is NOT aimed at helping you stop smoking. The product claims to be “Doctor Recommended”. What a load of bull.

What is the evidence in support of these claims?
Nothing of course!

The product claims to be a concentrate of tobacco and that sufficient amount will be absorbed through the skin of the hands to replace the craving of a normal cigarette. Considering that very few products can physiologically be Read the rest

Continue Reading 1

ASA Ruling: Solal – Supplement for vision loss

Dr Laithwaithe lodged a consumer complaint with the ASA against a print advertisement that appeared in the May edition of Fair Lady magazine. The advertisement is headed “Interesting facts about your health” and states, inter alia,“FACT 1: The eye damage that causes vision loss in old age, actually starts in early adulthood, or even younger”.

In essence, the complainant submitted that the advertiser makes claims for this product for which there is no medical evidence. How did the ASA rule?

Read on:

Read the rest
Continue Reading 2

Multiple organ failure – death of consumer protection?

“This hard-hitting commentary by Harris Steinman and Roy Jobson appears in the August 2010 South African Medical Journal (SAMJ).”

“Multiple organ failure has clearly resulted in an inability to efficiently clear or reject deleterious medicines and substances, resulting in financial and health trauma to consumers, with possible consequences including unnecessary deaths.”

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0

South African Pharmacy Council “dismisses complaint against” [absolves] substantiators

Posted 01 June 2010

In brief:

Complaint: Beverley Summers PhD erroneously substantiated Homemark products Peel Away the Pounds and Slim Coffee to the detriment of consumers.

Result: Complaint dismissed as the SAPC (a science-based statutory council) did not want to override any decision of the ASA (an industry-based, non-scientific, non-statutory “authority”). The SAPC erroneously refers to the Final Appeal Committee of the ASA as an “independent judicial tribunal” — possibly on the basis that Judge Mervyn King convenes the Final Appeal Committee.

Unintended consequences: the SAPC decision creates a precedent which allows pharmacists to substantiate claims made for unregistered and unregulated products where there is insufficient evidence for the claims to be made. The SAPC decision therefore places consumers at risk of harm, financially and possibly even healthwise.

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0

Complaint: Pharmacy Council re: Dr Beverley Summers

Posted 1 June 2010

The following formal complaint was laid with the South African Pharmacy Council against the ongoing actions of the pharmacist, Dr Beverley Summers for her continuing substantiation of products with no valid scientific proof of benefit, and at least two having been banned in the USA (and regarded as scams)

[note note_color=”#f9fca8″]Update: The outcome of the complaint below, laid with the SAPC against Dr Beverley Summers, was that the SAPC did not find against her [read outcome]; because they did not consider the case at all, choosing instead to allow the ASA’s ruling to stand – along with her untruthful substantiations of these spurious weight-loss products, denounced as scams by the USA Federal Trade Commission.[/note]

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0

Dr Summers appeal argument

Posted 18 May 2010

Part A: Heads of Argument – To be read at the appeal as I was unable to attend the hearing

Part B: The essential written argument against Dr Beverley Summers being re-instated as a “credible expert” for purposes of substantiating products for Homemark.

[note note_color=”#f9fca8″]Documents submitted by Dr Beverley Summers Her argument in favour of her re-instatement as a “credible expert” Her response to my argument against her being reinstated. Her substantiation of Slim Coffee with Caralluma fimbriata (1 MB pdf file)[/note]

Part A: Heads of Argument
[non-essential aspects removed]

15 March 2010

Dear Mr Makgato and Jude King: 

Re: Homemark Slim Coffee / HA Steinman / 12988: Final appeal 

I am unfortunately not able to attend the appeal hearing and no disrespect is intended. As I am unable to personally make representation, I have synthesised the essential rationale as to why Dr Read the rest

Continue Reading 1

Simply Slim ‘defies’ the MCC

Prof Roy Jobson, professor of pharmacology at Rhodes University, has posted an article on the Mail &Guardian ThoughtLeader blog expressing his views on the re-launch of Simply Slim. You know, the product without proof of efficacy that also contained a Scheduled and risky ingredient, sibutramine, that the MCC "banned".

"Simply Slim relaunched their new product, as spokesperson of the Department of Health (DOH) Fidel Hadebe stated on 15 April 2010, “in defiance of the MCC [Medicines Control Council] directive” — ie before it had been registered and a certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of the MCC as is required by the Medicines Act. If this is incorrect, my full apology will be made, and a link to a copy of the certificate of registration will be posted on this blog."

Read more . . .

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0