Archive | Fountainhead

Top ten signs your detox may be a scam

Continue Reading 0

Posted 29 December 2017

From Science Based Medicine

As we prepare to welcome 2018, it’s time to start thinking about your New Year’s resolutions. And what better way to start fresh in 2018 than by literally purging yourself of 2017, inside and out? You may already been seeing advertisements for all forms of detox products and services: Your local pharmacy likely has a shelf of supplements and kits that promise a svelte, glowing you within a few days. A Facebook post is promoting lemon juice, cayenne and maple syrup as a cure-all. Or there’s your local naturopathic clinic promoting IV vitamin infusions – not only will a detox make you feel better, you’ll look better too.

Unfortunately, most of the hype around detox is useless at best, and expensive and potentially harmful, at worst. Most detoxes are only successful at cleaning you of your savings, not your toxins. Here are Read the rest

Continue Reading 0

Cardioflow Pomegrante – ASA ruling

Continue Reading 0

Posted 24 April 2013

The Fountainhead sells a number of scam/unsubstantiated products. One of these is Cardioflow Pomegranate. This product makes a number of claims which have never been shown to be true. In fact, the USA Federal Commission has fined companies in the USA for making similar claims. In this complaint, a consumer argued that the company was in breach of a previous ruling. The ASA disagreed. A new complaint has been laid against the new claims. See the argument against the claims below this ruling.

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0

Florence Niemann – Fountainhead

Continue Reading 7

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
Continue Reading 7

Fountainhead Chi Detox Patches – Big scam!

Continue Reading 0

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
Continue Reading 0

Memoregain For Your Brain

Continue Reading 2

Posted 13 March 2012

In Memoregain For Your Brains (18 January 2010) the Directorate ruled, inter alia, that the claim “The ultimate brain nourisher. Improves memory and learning ability. Repairs and acclerates [sic] neuron growth and repair” was unsubstantiated and in breach of Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code. The Directorate added that by virtue of this, the claim was also misleading and in contravention of Clause 4.2.1 of Section II. The respondent was instructed to withdraw the claim with immediate effect. On 19 February 2012, the complainant lodged a breach allegation against the respondent’s information available on its website, submitting, inter alia, that the respondent continues to make claims that Memoregain (The Ultimate Brain nourisher) is effective for repairing the brain, improving memory, and a host of unproven brains effect. 

The ASA agreed that the respondent was in breach of the previous ASA ruling. In other words, Read the rest

Continue Reading 2