Archive | Simply Slim

Simply Slim nonsense

By Harris on 10 March, 2014 in Simply Slim

Posted 12 February 2010

Here is part of one of the Simply Slim advertisements that have appeared in many media throughout the country. The slogan reads Simplifying Slimming Naturally. Paradoxically however several allegations have been made that it is not a natural product but contains a registered medicine.

Simply Slim epitomises the mess that has developed in the complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) market in the absence of adequate regulatory oversight in South Africa. It was announced that the Medicines Control Council had ruled on 27 January 2010 that sales of the product should be suspended because of health risk concerns. It’s ironic then that a half-page advertorial in the Sunday Times of 31 December, 2010, in defence of the product and claiming that all the existing regulatory requirements had been adhered to, was published. (The MCC’s directive to Simply Slim was made on 2 February, 2010 and Simply … Read the rest

Continue Reading 0

Simply Slim – ASA breach ruling

By Harris on 19 April, 2011 in ASA (SA) Rulings, Simply Slim

Continue Reading 0

"The complainant submitted that no changes have been made to the misleading / false claims on the Simply Slim website, www.simplyslim.co.za, and the respondent clearly has no intention of desisting from duping consumers, because roadside banners between Johannesburg and Pretoria are also still in use, Therefore only the severest level of sanctions may have some effect."

… Read the rest

Continue Reading 0

Simply Slim – ASA ruling

By Harris on 9 December, 2010 in ASA (SA) Rulings, Simply Slim

Continue Reading 0

Simply Slim claims to be effective for weight-loss, is registered with the MCC, is natural, and a host of other claims. A complaint was laid with the ASA against these claims. The ASA has ruled in favour of the complainant.

What is significant about this ruling is that for the first time, the ASA is specifying that Clause 4.25 of Section 1 of the Code is part of the issue:

"Other than Dr Pretorius’ unqualified opinion, there is nothing before the Directorate to show that the levels of ingredients contained in the product are sufficient to deliver the claimed benefits, or that the ingredients would not contra-indicate one another. In addition, there is nothing to show that the product as is currently available on the market has ever been subjected to trials for efficacy or that any such results have verified the claims made."

Till now, all the ASA … Read the rest

Continue Reading 0

Simply Slim – Taking the piss out of consumers

By Harris on 3 August, 2010 in Simply Slim

Continue Reading 2

The interesting tale of the slimming pill that was and isn't and may be…

Thanks to noseweek (www.noseweek.co.za) for permission to reprint this article published in the August 2010 edition.

		IT CERTAINLY GRATES that anyone can make a fortune selling "slimming" tablets to a gullible public. That the fellow can simply replace one scam with another, when things get hot, truly irritates. But that he can openly sell a schedule 5 drug is downright frightening, and a sad indictment of the current state of the regulatory system in South Africa.
Yet there it is: ex-used-car salesman Dirk Uys managed to keep his Simply Slim lark going for some nine months.

… Read the rest

Continue Reading 2

Quackery and mumbo-jumbo pseudo-science?

By academic1 on 30 June, 2010 in Alternative medicine, MCC (Medicines Control Council), No Proof!, Simply Slim, Solal, Weight Loss

Continue Reading 2

This is an invited article by a guest author who points out a discrepancy between the 'talk' and the 'walk' so often demonstrated by dedicated sellers of complementary medicines.

… Read the rest

Continue Reading 2

Letters: Simply Slim vs Prof. Roy Jobson

By Harris on 26 June, 2010 in MCC (Medicines Control Council), No Proof!, Simply Slim

Continue Reading 0

Lance Rothschild, the PR person for Simply Slim, submitted this letter for publication in the Mail&Guardian essentially objecting to Prof. Roy Jobson’s blog, Simply Slim ‘defies’ the MCC, on the Mail & Guardian’s Thought Leader blog. Below Rothschild’s contribution is Prof. Jobson’s rejoinder. The Mail&Guardian have however not published either of the letters in the three weeks since submission, so it is unlikely that they will be published in the M&G. I have taken the liberty of publishing them here, with thanks to Prof Jobson for passing them on to me.

… Read the rest

Continue Reading 0

Articles on Simply Slim in the Beeld newspaper

By Harris on 14 May, 2010 in Simply Slim

Continue Reading 0

The senior medical reporter at the Beeld newspaper, Antoinette Pienaar, has written a number of superb articles while following the Simply Slim saga. We have kindly been given permission to reprint them here. A central theme throughout this sage is that Simply Slim will not accept responsibility for any of their actions: the impact of their contaminated product on human health, or whether there is sufficient evidence of efficacy and safety of the product. They are simply concerned with making money. Indeed, comparing their claims in adverts, press-releases and spin by their PR rep, Lance Rothchild, it is clear that one cannot trust much about what this company says. Don't believe me? Read for yourself.

… Read the rest

Continue Reading 0

Simply Slim ‘defies’ the MCC

By Harris on 11 May, 2010 in Simply Slim

Continue Reading 0

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."

Supreme Slim’s original claims look just like Simply Slim’s

By academic1 on 2 April, 2010 in Simply Slim, Supreme Slim

Continue Reading 2

Compare the claims made for Supreme Slim and Simply Slim.

Claims for each product
Simply Slim	Supreme Slim
NO COMPULSORY EXERCISE	Get results without exercise
NO DRASTIC CHANGES TO DIETARY ROUTINE	No Special Diet Required
APPETITE SUPPRESSANT	Appetite Suppressant
100% NATURAL
NO CHEMICALS	No Chemicals
NON ADDICTIVE	Non Addictive
BODY DETOXIFICATION	Body Detoxification
ACCELERATES METABOLISM	Accelerates Metabolism
INCREASES ENERGY LEVELS	Increases energy levels
ENHANCES WATER INTAKE
FAT BURNER	Fat Burner
NO HARMFUL SIDE EFFECTS
SUITABLE FOR MEN AND WOMEN	Suitable for men & women

Simply Slim

By Harris on 22 March, 2010 in Simply Slim

Continue Reading 0

A great deal has been written in the press regarding Simply Slim.

Carte Blanche Consumer flighted on a Thursday gave an overview of the problems experienced with the product. As you the reader may now, a Scheduled substance, sibutramine, was found in the product.

… Read the rest

Continue Reading 0

1 2 Next →