Subject:
|
A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:54:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
167 times
|
| |
|
|
Lately I've seen a bunch of commercials for pseudoscientific "health"
products, such as magnetic insoles, ionic bracelets, and electro-stimulating
gut reducers. In general, these products have been shown to have no
beneficial medical effect, yet the manufacturers and marketers proclaim to
be the cure for all that ails us. Commercials for protein supplements and
energy drinks likewise make claims that not only can't be supported but
which are also disclaimed within the very same commercials, usually
something like "this product is not intended to diagnose or treat any
illness or injury," and "these statements have not been evaluated by the
FDA." The disclaimer itself is patently ridiculous, since the entire
commercial is a claim of medically valuable treatment? Typically the
disclaimers, if any, show up as white type on a pale background and flash
onto the screen for no more than a second or two of a 30-minute infomercial.
GNC is a major offender, catering to a populace desperate for
get-fit-quick products. Check out this pitch from
http://www.gnc.com/healthConcern.asp?id=1
> Cushioning the Blow on Your Joints
> Everyday, your joints undergo stress that can wreak havoc on your body. Along
> with regular exercise, certain dietary ingredients may be helpful in
> supporting joint health. Scientific studies have shown that along with
> exercise, dietary ingredients such as glucosamine and chondroitin may be
> helpful in supporting healthy joints.
> Glucosamine provides an important component for joint cartilage and supports
> healthy joint function.*
The asterisk refers to a footnote outside the body of the article that
points out:
> *These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug
> Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or
> prevent any disease.
Of course, joint injury isn't necessarily a disease, but GNC is making
grossly and deliberately misleading claims about the value of its product.
Sure, "glucosamine and chondroitin may be helpful in supporting healthy
joints," but gargling with stale beer "may" support healthy joints, too. A
critical thinker would not be swayed by such obviously bogus claims, but
what about a person desperate for treatment but unable to afford actual
medical attention?
Spiritualists such as the fraud/cheat/thief/con John Edward likewise charge
for their services but do not deliver what they profess, namely legitimately
supernatural guidance for a tidy fee. Granted, Edward runs a ridiculous
syndicated TV show, but he (and thieves like him) also works the talkshow
circuit in orgies of deceptive self-promotion.
I know that some readers think the FDA is superfluous at best and that
individuals should be responsible for themselves without a hand-holding
government, so caveat emptor, right? I know also that some would suggest
that in a non-regulated society, quack doctors and fraudulent "psychics"
would be weeded out and held accountable, and tough luck for their customers
anyway.
Regardless, my question is a little different:
If I were to claim in writing or on the air that Bruce Schlickbernd was
arrested in Peru in 1974 for smuggling Bavarian Circus Midgets, I would be
subject to libel and slander suits for presenting (presumably!) false
information about a person. Even if I included a small disclaimer at the
bottom of my statement such as "this story, and the one about Bruce's hefty
fine for alphabetizing all the canned vegetables at a local grocery store,
are intended for entertainment purposes only," I think I could still be sued
if my (presumably) false claims resulted in damages to Bruce (that no-good,
alphabetizing smuggler). Why, then, are bogus health companies not subject
to similar liability for their claims?
I don't care if Jane Doe buys a useless ion bracelet for $20, but I'm
bothered that John Smith might seek hot-rock therapy for his lung cancer
instead of a treatment that actually works. How is it that these companies
can make fraudulent claims with impunity? When was the last time one of
these companies or "psychics" was successfully sued for damages? Is there
any recourse for a consumer misled by such false advertising?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
| [snip] (...) Well it can be proven that Bruce is innocent of the charge. While there is no proof that a *insert magic cure of your choice* works, there is also no proof that it does NOT work. I agree that it is a stupid technicallity but that is the (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A small rant on an unrelated issue
|
| (...) The midgets (Little People nowadays) were NOT being smuggled. However, what we had inserted into their alimentary canal may have brought objections from the Peruvian government (it certainly did from the midgets). (...) In this case, I can't (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
