Posted 21 May 2012
There is so much evidence that MMS is nothing but a scam, yet so many consumers still believe the product works – more supported by absolute faith than a shred of evidence to support the claims. The claims become more bizarre.
A complaint was laid with the ASA against this website advertising MMS, and making the most extraordinary claims.
They did not respond to the ASA and the ASA ruled against the claims being made for the product.
| Bio Sil MMS / HA Steinman / 19687|
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
Dr Harris Steinman Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
Bio-Sil South Africa CC Respondent
21 May 2012
Doctor Steinman lodged a consumer complaint against internet advertising on the URL http://www.biosil.co.za/1964/bio-silmms-miracle-mineral-solution
. When the link is accessed the following information is displayed:
“Bio-Sil MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution)
Approved by creator, Jim Humble.
This is an incredible product for fabulous health!
*These wonder drops offer a simple defence against viruses,
bacteria, deviant cells and parasites wherever they may be
lurking in the body.
*Also for body detoxification and elimination of bacteria,
viruses, fungi and parasites.
*Candida yeast, viruses, and killer germs are destroyed on
contact with activated MMS drops.
*MMS is a simple, inexpensive, powerful water purifier and
This product has been tested over the past decade by 75,000
human volunteers whose diseases were eliminated, including
malaria and tuberculosis.
*The chemistry of MMS enables it to be selective and
accurate in differentiating between normal healthy living cells
Chemically it does not and cannot harm normal living body
cells, as is explained for those who read further about the
nature of chlorine dioxide (a gas) that makes this possible.”
In essence, the complainant submitted that the product is misleading and dupes the average consumer into using a product that is unsafe, ineffective and discourages treatment for conditions which require medical supervision.
Information was also attached from “Health Canada” warning against the dangers inherent in consuming this product, and explaining, inter alia, that “There are no therapeutic products containing sodium chlorite authorized for oral consumption by humans in Canada”. Mention is made that the sale and distribution of this product is a contravention of the Food and Drugs Act, that the problems associated with consumption of this product include “… poisoning, kidney failure and harm to read blood cells … abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea”, and that that the product contains 200 times more sodium chlorite than the tolerable daily intake established by Health Canada.
RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
In light of the complaint the following clauses of the Code were taken into account:
• Section II, Clause 4.1 – Substantiation
• Section II, Clause 4.2.1 – Misleading claims
All reasonable attempts were made by the ASA Directorate to elicit a response from the advertiser, but the advertiser failed to respond.
ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the complainant.
Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code requires that advertisers hold substantiation for any direct or implied claims made in their advertisements.
Despite being afforded an opportunity to supply such substantiation, none was received from the respondent.
The advertising therefore promotes the respondent’s product on the basis of unsubstantiated claims, which is in contravention of Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code.
Given this, the advertisement is likely to mislead people in a manner that is in contravention of Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code.
In light of the above, the respondent is required to:
withdraw the advertising and relevant claims in its current format;
the process to withdraw the advertising and relevant claims must be actioned with immediate effect on receipt of the ruling;
the withdrawal of the advertising and relevant claims must be completed within the deadlines stipulated by Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide; and
the advertising and relevant claims may not be used again in its current format until adequate substantiation is submitted, evaluated, and a new ruling is made.
In view of the fact that the respondent has failed to respond and an adverse ruling has been made, the ASA will also issue an Ad Alert to its members with reference to the advertisement in question.
The complaint is upheld.