One Big Scam? CTRN, ECTS, IVHD, SMEK & MALB Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : One Big Scam? CTRN, ECTS, IVHD, SMEK & MALB

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bear Down who wrote (112)	1/27/1999 8:27:00 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) of 559

This is the best one yet!!! Industry complaint from: London hairgrowth.com asa.org.uk webforce10.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Invest Holdings Group Inc t/a NHP Marketing Ltd Little Trewollack St Wenn Bodmin Cornwall PL30 5PL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Media: Direct mail Sector: Health and beauty Industry complaint from: London Complaint: Dr Hugh Rushton, a trichologist, objected to a direct mailing for the Hair Formula package that contained shampoo and tablets. The mailing was headlined "Hair Formula. A scientific breakthrough for hair loss problems in men and women". The complainant challenged the claims: 1. "with clinically proven DHT inhibitor ... Hair formula is a powerful combination of natural nutrients that achieve DHT inhibition ... trials imply that DHT levels can be corrected within six to eight weeks"; and 2. "Hair Formula is a powerful combination of natural nutrients that achieve DHT inhibition, vasodilation and fat mobilisation", because he believed this implied that fat mobilisation played a role in preventing genetic baldness. (3.1, 7.1, 50.26) Adjudication: 1. Complaint upheld. The advertisers claimed the tablets contained an ingredient that was a dihydrotestosterone (DHT) inhibitor. They submitted the results of in-vitro experiments that suggested this ingredient could inhibit enzymes required for the production of DHT. The Authority considered that the advertisers had not substantiated that their product inhibited DHT in humans or that it could prevent genetic hair loss. The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) informed the Authority that the advertisement contained medicinal claims. The Authority asked the advertisers to remove the claims and urged them to take advice from the MCA and the Copy Advice team. 2. Complaint upheld. The advertisers claimed that Hair Formula achieved fat mobilisation by two routes. Firstly, the shampoo contained a chemical that the advertisers believed emulsified fats. Secondly, the tablets contained a nutrient that the advertisers believed could reduce abnormally high blood cholesterol. The Authority noted that the advertisers had not substantiated that the products mobilised fat or that fat mobilisation could prevent genetic hair loss. It asked them to remove the claim. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to: All adjudications - By advertiser - By Code clause(3.1, 7.1, 50.26) - By media(Direct mail) - By sector(Health and beauty) March 1998 - By advertiser - By Code clause(3.1, 7.1, 50.26) - By media(Direct mail) - By sector(Health and beauty) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next