Dr Auer’s Base Powder – Liar, liar, pants on ….

Posted 19 July 2013

What do Solal and Dr Auer’s Base Powder have in common? Two things: both flagrantly ignore ASA rulings, and, although the ASA ruled against the claims being made for this product in 5 September 2003, they are making the same claims in the July-August 2013 issue of Solal’s Health Intelligence Magazine (Edition 22). Then we know that Solal cannot be trusted – either their science or their ethics. Indeed, in the same issue is an advert for Solal’s Breast Protection Formula with the line “there are nutrients and plant extracts that can help protect your breasts…”, yet they could not prove their claims with the ASA ruling against the claims being made for this product.

Here is the advert that was issued in the magazine:

Dr Auers HealthIntelligence Jul-Aug 2013

And here is the previous ASA ruling:

Dr Auer”s Base Powder Sport / M R Jobson / 278
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
Dr M Roy Jobson Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
AAPO-SPA SA (Pty) Ltd Respondent

5 September 2003

A consumer, Dr Jobson, lodged an objection to the radio commercials featured on Radio 702 and the web page advertising for Dr Auer’s Base Powder and Dr Auer’s Base Powder Sport. Dr Jobson subsequently supplemented his complaint to include further objections to point of sale and web page material.

The advertising material includes, inter alia, the following claims:

1. Dr Auer’s Base Powder “reduces the risk of disease”
2. Dr Auer’s Base Powder Sport “reduces the formation of lactic acid”
3. “Gain vitality, ease backache, lose weight, stop gout attacks, decrease cholestrol (sic) levels, normalise digestion, eat less, sleep better, have more stamina, decrease stress, improve your skin and reduce your allergies.”
4. “Dr Auer’s Base Powder Sport reduces lactic acid, optimizes performance and promotes regeneration.”

The complainant submitted that multiple medicinal claims are made for these products. It is medically incorrect to ascribe the problems referred to in the advertising material to the effects of acid in such a generic and non-specific way. The complainant advised that to the best of his knowledge neither of the products in question is registered as a medicine, yet both make medicinal claims.

In his amplified complaint the complainant called for evidence that the word “Dr” in the name of the product was established prior to 1 July 1947, and for evidence that the required warnings in terms of the Code appear on the product label. The complainant submitted that the packaging creates the impression that the product is a registered medicine and that the point of sale poster implies that the various ailments and diseases listed can be “cured”.

The complainant submitted that the references to super-acidity appeal to fear and exploitation of credulity; that the point of sale poster refers to diseases listed in Appendix F of the Code; that the poster and web-page refer to the product in terms calculated to lead to its use for the treatment of arthritis, or chronic or persistent rheumatism. He called upon the advertiser to supply proof that the claims were submitted to the MCC. He stated that the combined effect of the advertising is that good health can be improved by using the product; that the advertising causes consumers unwarranted anxiety; that the advertising encourages consumers to make a self-diagnosis; that the advertising misleads as to the nature of the product and its indications and that the product is said to be side-effect free and safe for use in pregnancy.

The complainant submitted that the advertising is misleading and in breach of the Code.

In light of the complaint the following clauses of the Code were found to be relevant:

i) Section II, Clause 4.1 – Substantiation
ii) Section II, Clause 4.2.1 – Misleading claims
iii) Appendix A – Medicinal and related products and advertisements containing health claims.

The respondent submitted that each specific claim listed by the complainant will be amended as part of its new marketing strategy. The respondent confirmed that it undertakes to comply with the deadlines set out in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide as far as possible.

At a meeting held on 27 August 2003 the ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

The Directorate notes the respondent’s submission that the advertising will be amended to address all the complainant’s concerns. In the circumstances, the Directorate accepts the respondent’s undertaking on condition that the advertising in its current format is withdrawn with immediate effect within the deadlines in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide and is not used again in the future.

7 comments to Dr Auer’s Base Powder – Liar, liar, pants on ….

  • Roy Jobson


    Thank you for drawing the comparison between this product and Solal’s Breast Protection Formula. I’d like to draw your attention to my article about this product which I titled “An incorrigible perversion.”

    It’s worth noting that Dr David Gorski, surgeon and breast cancer scientist, does not believe that Solal’s Breast Protection Formula is of any value. In fact, Gorski makes this very important statement about Solal’s claims for the product: “[Breast Protection Formula] contains nutrients and plant extracts that can inhibit the growth of breast cancer cell lines in tissue culture. That’s a very different thing [from helping prevent breast cancer in living women at risk].”

    Gorski also explicitly states: “Solal Technologies is very much like the *most dubious* supplement manufacturers we have in the United States.” (my emphasis)

  • ian

    This really helped me a lot with my gout, great product

  • Harris

    Ian is correct, for very specific conditions, changing pH may be very useful. However this is not what these products claim: they claim to be useful for a range of conditions in normal individuals, and that is absolute quackery.

  • Carl

    I have mercury poisoning from amalgam. Tests was done in the UK (cannot be done in SA). My dentist said he does not have to tell me mercury amalgam is dangerous.
    I lost all my respect for the medical profession (and him). They protect each other and do not have answers for many sicknesses. They can only prescribe anti-biotics. They cannot heal. They are manipulated by the pharmaceutical firms.

    • Atoke

      You are right, Carl There seems to be a conspiracy by the major pharmaceutical companies to manipulate health treatment & the healthcare system.. It is really more about making fat bucks than the well being of the people. The sicker we are, the richer they get. They will rather mass-produce synthetic drugs that treat symptoms than promote herbal remedies which get to the root of diseases. Of course, the synthetics drugs are cheaper to make and make fast & huge profits.
      They love money instead of loving people who are created in the image of GOD. As the Holy Bible says, “the love of money is the root of evil”.

      The word of GOD in Jeremiah 17:14 says “Heal me O LORD, and I shall be healed. Save me and I shall be saved. For YOU are my praise”. Halleluyah

      • Harris

        @Carl and Atoke
        One has to be careful when generalizing. I can assure you that there are those in the medical profession who have been “manipulated by the pharmaceutical firms” as there are other manipulated by CAM firms. The solution is simply to find a practitioner who has not and has your best interests at heart, and there are many who do. Seek them out!

  • Nick

    I’m sorry, I disagree. Dr Auer’s Base Powder has been a miracle in my life. Heartburn, gout, anything related to acidity – this stuff is a miracle. And no, I have no links to the product or its makers. I’m just a user and could not live without it. Believe the claims.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.