Tag Archives | Health Intelligence Magazine

Health Intelligence Magazine “dead”

Continue Reading 0

Posted 24 December 2015

Health Intelligence Magazine (HI), a publication of Solal, then CAVI Brands, now Ascendis Health – and often mentioned in CamCheck – will no longer be published. See the “farewell” in the picture below.

HealthIntellFarewell2015-12One of the CamCheck postings was by Kevin Charleston, who wrote: “The irony is that the magazine Health Intelligence is itself a disguised marketing programme for Solal Technologies, a company that actively promotes pseudoscience and aggressively attempts to shut out valid criticism of its advertising.” For this, Solal instituted a High Court action in 2012 against Mr Charleston suing him for R350,000, as reported by GroundUp. Solal has not backed away from this action and it remains on the roll of the High Court despite it being clear that the magazine was at that time, a disguised marketing program for Solal.

Health Intelligence which has the subtitle “the science of healthRead the rest

Continue Reading 0

Is Sugar toxic?

Continue Reading 4

Posted 05 August 2013

In Solal’s latest issue of Health Intelligence Magazine (their vehicle for deceptive advertising), an article written by Tamzyn Campbell (a dietitian, and sister of Solal’s head pharmacist, Brent Murphy), reviews the book written by Prof Robert Lustig and claims that this is “probably the best book of our time explaining the obesity epidemic and exploring the link between diet and health”. The article is highlighted on the cover as “Toxic Sugar”, and within the magazine as “Fat Chance”.

We have previously pointed out that Solal uses pseudoscience in order to promote their products. Solal have had ASA rulings against their claims for sugar but this has not have any impact on reigning in their pseudoscientific approach to evidence and science. Solal are great admirers of Prof Robert Lustig and hence promote his views that sugar is toxic with zealousness. We do not argue that Read the rest

Continue Reading 4

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

Continue Reading 7

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.

Read the rest
Continue Reading 7

Compounding Pharmacy of SA – ASA ruling

Continue Reading 1

Posted 24 April 2013

A consumer lodged a consumer complaint against the respondent’s print advertisement regarding bioidentical hormones appearing in Solal’s Health Intelligence Magazine during 2012. Ms Allana Moskovitz of Health Intelligence Magazine claimed that this particular advertisement was published in error. Huh? Really?

Read the rest
Continue Reading 1

Solal “Most Important Chemical Reaction – ASA ruling

Continue Reading 0

Posted 13 December 2012

ASA ruling: “Given the requirements for clear and concise grounds in the Code, and in keeping with the approach followed in the Nature’s Choice ruling referred to above, the Directorate has to decline to rule on the merits of this matter at this time, based on the complaint at hand.”

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0

Bodytrim – no proof of efficacy

Continue Reading 0

Posted 31 August 2012

A consumer lodged a consumer complaint against Topline Innovations’ print advertising that appeared in the Health Intelligence magazine, promoting its Bodytrim system. The advertising shows the picture of a lady in a white two piece swim suit. It is headed “MELT BODY FAT & flabby skin fast”.

In essence, the complainant submitted that he was unable to find any reputable research that proved the claims made for this product. He noted that the advertising only uses Australian testimonials (which in themselves are not regarded as substantiation), and that there may well be no evidence of efficacy for the South African population. The complainant also referred to a ruling made by the ASA in the UK against this system on the basis that the claims made were not substantiated. The ASA concurred.

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0

Health Intelligence Magazine: Is it marketing or education?

Continue Reading 0

Posted 22 May 2012 ~  Cross-posted to Quackdown

By Kevin Charleston 

There’s a deep irony in the latest edition of Health Intelligence (Edition 15 May/June 2012). In an article by staff writer Clio Stevens (Online Content Manager & Writer) titled Behind the scenes of pharmaceutical marketing: the details of veiled persuasion, she writes “We’ve published accounts of … disguising marketing 

  programmes as ‘professional education'”.  

The irony is that the magazine Health Intelligence is itself a disguised marketing programme for Solal Technologies, a company that actively promotes pseudoscience and aggressively attempts to shut out valid criticism of its advertising.

This glossy magazine, available on the shelves at major supermarkets and pharmacies at a cover price of R29.95 is little more than a marketing ploy by Solal Technologies, but nowhere in the magazine is the Solal connection mentioned.

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0

Health Intelligence – misguiding the public?

Continue Reading 2

Update 15 May 2012: I have been sent evidence that “horse chestnut” (listed as “esculin”) was scheduled as S3 in December 1979.

Posted 12 May 2012

Health Intelligence magazine states on its front cover as a byline: “The Science of Health.” In its advertising blurb on its associated company Solal Technologies’ website, it is stated to be “Sophisticated. Cutting edge. Credible.” The editorials in Edition 15 (May 2012) are however misleading, and disturbingly so.

The first [text] editorial by Colin Levin bemoans the new food labelling regulations from the Department of Health as having gone too far “[i]n their noble intention to prevent (sic) consumers from misleading claims.” He even quotes the Health Products Association of South Africa (HPA) which is “disappointed” that the regulations don’t address the relationship between certain food (sic) and various diseases.

So what’s the problem?

If Mr Levin and/or his editorial team Read the rest

Continue Reading 2