|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 11/16/2005 : 08:16:02
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10054116/
Yup, you read right, Katherine Harris ordered this study. Yes, THAT Katherine Harris.
Kudos to the Florida department who declined to "test" the Kabbalistically blessed water on citris cancer as a cure.
It makes a lot of sense now why Jeb picked her to be head of elections.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 11/16/2005 : 13:51:20 [Permalink]
|
| WOW!. I don't know whether to give them credit for using evidence to reject the obvious or wonder who made a profit off either the investigation or did Ms Harris actually think the stuff had some validity. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2005 : 14:33:47 [Permalink]
|
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2005 : 14:44:04 [Permalink]
|
At least science won out:
quote:
In a letter to the state government, Wayne Dixon, the head of Florida's Bureau of Entomology, Nematology and Plant Pathology, reported that the "product is a hoax and not based on any credible known science." He added, "I wish to maintain our standing in the scientific community and not allow [the developers of Celestial Drops] to use our hard-earned credibility" to promote their product.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Stargirl
Skeptic Friend
USA
94 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2005 : 12:50:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wayne Dixon, the head of Florida's Bureau of Entomology, Nematology and Plant Pathology, reported that the "product is a hoax and not based on any credible known science." He added, "I wish to maintain our standing in the scientific community and not allow [the developers of Celestial Drops] to use our hard-earned credibility" to promote their product.
How could they prevent the developers of Celestial Drops from using the study to promote their product?
All the promoters have to do is say that in their opinion the product is great and was even tested by Florida's Bureau of Entomology, Nematology and Plant Pathology. The promoters aren't lying they just don't say that the results of the tests concluded the product is a hoax. And how many people would go so far as to check out the results of the study?
It seems to me that anytime some Woo Woo claim is made that is investigated by anything even closely resembling a credible source the people making the claim will twist the results. Or say that the very fact that it was investigated by a credible source must mean that there is something to it. And if all else fails they can always shout that “The powers that be have tested our product and are now engaged in a cover-up of its usefulness”.
|
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him - Voltaire |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2005 : 14:49:21 [Permalink]
|
| The Federal Trade Commission and its State versions are mandated to eliminate false and misleading advertising. Claiming that your product has been studied by such-and-such an organization, but not revealing that the results of the study were entirely negative, is surely intentionally misleading, and thus fraudulent and criminal behaviour. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Stargirl
Skeptic Friend
USA
94 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2005 : 18:14:05 [Permalink]
|
| DAVE W. I think it's a little more complicated than that just look at Kevin Trudeau who's claims are misleading at best and fraudulent even dangerous at worst yet he still runs his infomercials all across the country. He even cites research to bolster his clam such as altering pH kills cancer cells. Though the research was not on his specific product (Coral Calcium) he still claims that his product meets the criteria of the research. And although he has been fined I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank. |
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him - Voltaire |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2005 : 20:31:04 [Permalink]
|
Indeed, he's not allowed to sell his product any longer. And from what I've read, he's not recommending it in his book, either.
The complicated part is that the FTC is a woefully underfunded group. They've got a massive policing job to do, and very few resources with which to do it. What they did to Trudeau is about the best we can expect until there is a massive effort to get the Federal budget rewritten with an eye towards consumer protection. Write your Congresspeople, and tell them the FTC's funding needs to be multiplied by a factor of, say, 100 for starters.
It won't, of course, happen. Not with the neo-cons running the show. The FTC's very existence is anathema to the idea of a free-market economy, wherein good products survive because they work, and lousy products (and false claims) go extinct because consumers are smart enough to not buy them.
On the other hand, even with Democrats in charge, the FTC's budget would have to be huge to make fraudulent advertising not pay. They'd need enough lawyers working for them so that when the next Trudeau comes along, an injunction would get slapped on him the day after the first infomercial hit the air, before he has enough time to make enough money to laugh off fines and loss of income.
Or, another possible solution is to hold media outlets responsible for the advertisements which generate their income, too. Don't just hit the Trudeaus with the fines, hit the stations which carry the infomercials in the first place with big penalties. Don't forget radio, magazines, newspapers and the Internet Services Providers. Make everyone who wants to accept money for an advertisement bear some of the responsibility for ensuring that those ads are true.
The National Psoriasis Foundation faced this question just a few years ago when deciding whether or not to accept advertising in their bimonthly Bulletin (now Psoriasis Advance). They decided that if they clearly marked the ads, no one could hold the NPF itself responsible for loss of health or wealth. After all, "The Psoriasis Foundation neither tests nor endorses psoriasis products or treatments."
Quickly scanning the July/August 2005 issue, I count 7 ads which don't make obviously misleading claims, 2 which might (I'd need to do some research), and 6 ads which are definitely misleading - about products designed to treat psoriasis. The NPF has washed its hands of any responsibility, though, just by printing "advertisement" over top of the ads, though with one ad, they did helpfully write underneath it, "This product category is not FDA-approved for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis treatment." It's painfully obvious, with that extra disclaimer, that the editors of the magazine are well aware that the ad is pushing crappola, but they still take the money because "The Psoriasis Foundation neither tests nor endorses psoriasis products or treatments." What a joke!
But it doesn't end there. On page 29, we have a regular column, "It Works for Me." This is an attempt to let psoriasis sufferers share tips on what helps relieve psoriasis symptoms, in the hopes that this nationally-distributed "word of mouth" helps as many people as possible. What do we have in this issue? Two e-mails recommending name-brand products (including this stuff), and one for another "all-natural" treatment with little good evidence in the dosing method suggested. Again, we get the NPF's standard disclaimer at the top of the page, but for each e-mail, the editor's tell you where to go buy the stuff. Free advertising.
Should the NPF be held responsible if any of this stuff is false advertising? Should they be held to account if one of their staff writers praises some whacky day spa which claims ludicrous things about permanently curing psoriasis in a review, even though it's not an ad?
Crap, I'm starting to ramble.
Is this a complicated issue? Obviously. The point of my previous post was only that the behaviour you described (twisting the results of studies) is already a crime. Making it a crime wasn't difficult. Prosecuting the criminals is where the U.S.A. falls flat, and this post of mine is trying to describe why that's so (lots of reasons). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2005 : 20:50:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
They'd need enough lawyers working for them so that when the next Trudeau comes along, an injunction would get slapped on him the day after the first infomercial hit the air, before he has enough time to make enough money to laugh off fines and loss of income.
Or just make the fines = total earnings obtained through fraudulent means.
You make $20,000,000 pedaling crap, then the fine is $20,000,000. I'll never understand why lawmakers refuse to enact fines that would actually make the crimes themselves unprofitable.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2005 : 21:02:54 [Permalink]
|
It's because the government doesn't like to have unpaid fines hanging around on the books.
Seriously. They know that even a criminal has to eat, and you're not going to be able to go to every four-star restaurant the criminal has been to and get the money which was spent there. Or, out of the $20 million, the guy has paid out $18 million to factories and office staff, all of whom may really have no clue that he's a criminal. That money is gone, period.
Of course, some of the fines are absurdly low. FTC injuctions tend to say things like "$10,000 for each after after Jan 1, 2006, in which these claims are made." Obviously, if you make more than 10 grand in profit a day, you've got that fine covered and can flip the FTC the bird. It won't look good when they finally haul you into court for the lawsuit proper, but that's at a later date, and you've fled to Mexico by then, but hey. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2005 : 21:16:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's because the government doesn't like to have unpaid fines hanging around on the books.
Seriously. They know that even a criminal has to eat, and you're not going to be able to go to every four-star restaurant the criminal has been to and get the money which was spent there. Or, out of the $20 million, the guy has paid out $18 million to factories and office staff, all of whom may really have no clue that he's a criminal. That money is gone, period.
If I had my druthers, white collar criminals would have their assets liquidated to pay off as much as they could, and whatever they can't pay they make up in prison time. No "golden parachutes" for execs that screw over their employees' pensions funds, no cushy retirement for CEOs who falsify earnings reports to drive up the value of their stock, and no way a con man found guilty of pushing bogus medical cures raises enough capital to start another grift. He should owe back the money he stole for the rest of life.
If the money "is just gone" then about 50 years in the clink should dissuade any others from trying to follow Trudeau's business model. Just my opinion.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/17/2005 21:19:01 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2005 : 01:51:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The Federal Trade Commission and its State versions are mandated to eliminate false and misleading advertising. Claiming that your product has been studied by such-and-such an organization, but not revealing that the results of the study were entirely negative, is surely intentionally misleading, and thus fraudulent and criminal behaviour.
Criminal? Surely you jest that what should be criminal actually is. The FTC slaps wrists, nothing more. And, it takes them many months before any commercials are mandated for withdrawal from public display. By that time everyone has come to believe Listerine prevents colds and flu and Geritol gives you energy. Thus, companies know they can run false ads with good results. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
