[*quote*]
Consumer Health Digest #16-15
April 24, 2016
Consumer Health Digest is a free weekly e-mail newsletter edited by Stephen Barrett, M.D
http://www.quackwatch.org/10Bio/bio.html,with help from William M. London, Ed.D., M.P.H
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/william-m-londonIt summarizes scientific reports; legislative developments; enforcement actions; news reports; Web site evaluations; recommended and nonrecommended books; and other information relevant to consumer protection and consumer decision-making.
###
Mercola ordered to stop marketing tanning bedsJoseph Mercola, D.O. and two companies he operates (Mercola.com, LLC and Mercola.com Health Resources, LLC) have settled a Federal Trade Commission complaint by agreeing to stop selling tanning beds and to pay up to $5,334,067 to cover the cost of refunds and administration of the refund program.
[Marketers of indoor tanning systems to pay refunds to consumers: Defendants ran ads claiming that Indoor tanning is safe, Doesn't increase the risk of skin cancer
http://www.casewatch.org/ftc/news/2016/mercola.shtmlFTC news release, April 14, 2016]
The defendants were charged with falsely claiming that their indoor tanning devices would enable consumers to slash their risk of cancer and improve the clarity, tone and texture of their skin, giving them a more youthful appearance. Commenting on the case, Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, noted that indoor tanning is not safe because it increases the risk of skin cancer, including melanoma. This is the fourth federal regulatory action against Mercola. In 2005 and 2006, the FDA ordered him to stop making illegal health claims for a total of seven dietary supplement products sold through his Web site. In 2011, the FDA ordered him to stop to making claims for thermography that went beyond what his equipment was cleared for.
[Barrett S. Dr. Joseph Mercola ordered to stop illegal claims
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.htmlQuackwatch, April 22, 2016]
###
Naturopathic pediatrics denounced as unsafeBritt Hermes, who left naturopathy after concluding that it is a public menace, believes that most naturopaths go into practice with almost no experience in treating children.
[Hermes B. Naturopathic pediatrics is not safe
http://www.naturopathicdiaries.com/naturopathic-pediatrics-is-not-safe/Naturopathic Diaries Blog, April 14, 2016]
Her observations include the following:
* The programs do not have clinical rotations built into pediatrics courses or any clinical science course.
* Students were taught to prescribe homeopathic remedies to treat febrile seizures, ear infections, burns, and snake bites.
* Dana Ullman's Homeopathy for Children and Infants and Dr. Bob Sears's The Vaccine Book (which advocates an "alternate" vaccine schedule), were included in the syllabi for her courses.
[Homeopathic products have no medicinal effect whatever; and Sear's vaccine schedule involves delays that expose children and those around them to unnecessary risk—SB]
During the elective clinical shift dedicated to pediatrics, which few students took, students saw no newborns, talked to parents about what supplements to take to "boost the immune system," counseled about alternative vaccine schedules, and didn't actually give out vaccines.
[There is no logical reason to believe that dietary supplements can improve immune system function in people who are not malnourished—SB]
Writing about the case of Ezekial Stephan, who died of meningitis at age 19 months while his parents followed naturopathic advice, Hermes said:
In order to meet graduation requirements, naturopathic students, at least at Bastyr University, are allowed to present vignettes of a medical case, and describe how to diagnose and treat these fictitious patients. This sort of training actually counts as "direct patient care" by the schools and by their accrediting agency. I presented cases for made-up patients suffering from HIV/AIDS, cancer, cardiovascular problems, and infectious diseases. I never had a chance to get any meaningful, first-hand training with patients actually suffering from these conditions. The ND treating Ezekiel probably didn't either.
[Hermes B. A toddler dies from meningitis, governments need to block naturopathic pediatrics
http://www.naturopathicdiaries.com/restrict-licensed-naturopaths/Naturopathic Diaries Blog, March 10, 2016]
###
Sequenced amino acid modulation debunkedQuackwatch has posted a major investigational report on sequenced amino acid modulation (“SAM" or "SAAM"), an obscure treatment in which amino acid derivatives (peptides) are injected or placed under the tongue to treat a wide variety of diseases and conditions. Most practitioners who offer SAM do not advertise it. The investigation located no supportive research and was unable to find out who makes or distributes the SAM products or teaches how to use them.
[Barrett S. A skeptical look at Dr. Nelson Kraucak and sequenced amino acid modulation therapy
http://www.quackwatch.org/06ResearchProjects/saam/overview.htmlQuackwatch, April 23, 2016]
###
Continuing request for help from Dr. BarrettIn June 2010, Doctor's Data, Inc. sued Dr. Barrett because it didn’t like what he wrote about its urine toxic metals test on Quackwatch and in this newsletter. The events leading up to the suit are described at
http://www.quackwatch.org/14Legal/dd_suit.htmlAbout half of the counts were dismissed in 2011, and most of the rest were dismissed in March 2016. Dr. Barrett expects to prevail completely, but the proceedings have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars so far. Even small donations, if sent by enough subscribers to this newsletter, will be very helpful. Contributions can be made by mail or through
http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/donations.html ###
Other issues of the Digest are accessible through
http://www.ncahf.org/digest16/index.htmlTo help prevent the newsletter from being filtered out as spam, please add
bounces-chd@lists.quackwatch.org
to your address book or other "whitelist." To unsubscribe, log into your chd account or send a blank message to
chd-unsubscribe@lists.quackwatch.org
This must be sent from the address you used to subscribe. To subscribe from a new address, send a blank message to
chd-subscribe@lists.quackwatch.org
=================================
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Consumer Advocate
287 Fearrington Post
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Telephone: (919) 533-6009
http://www.quackwatch.org[*/quote*]
Barrett is a nuisance always concealing the source urls. This is the original source by the FTC:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/04/marketers-indoor-tanning-systems-pay-refunds-consumers[*quote*]
Federal Trade Commission: Protecting America's Consumers
News & Events » Press Releases » Marketers of Indoor Tanning Systems to Pay Refunds to Consumers
Marketers of Indoor Tanning Systems to Pay Refunds to ConsumersDefendants Ran Ads Claiming That Indoor Tanning Is Safe, Doesn’t Increase the Risk of Skin Cancer
FOR RELEASE
April 14, 2016
The Illinois-based marketers of Mercola-brand indoor tanning systems will pay refunds to consumers and will be permanently banned from marketing or selling indoor tanning systems, under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.
In the FTC’s complaint, which was filed in federal court, the Commission charged that Dr. Joseph Mercola and his two companies ran ads claiming that their indoor tanning systems are safe, that research proves indoor tanning does not increase the risk of melanoma skin cancer, and that their systems which deliver both ultraviolet (UV) light and red light can “reverse the appearance of aging.” The FTC’s complaint alleged that these claims are false, misleading, or unsubstantiated.
According to the complaint, the ads also falsely stated that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has endorsed the use of indoor tanning systems as safe, and represented that an organization called the Vitamin D Council has recommended the tanning systems – without disclosing that the Council was paid for its endorsement.
The “Vitality Elite” tanning bed sold by Mercola.
“These types of false claims are especially troubling because of the serious health risks posed by indoor tanning,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The fact is, indoor tanning is not safe because it increases the risk of skin cancer, including melanoma.”
According to the FTC, Dr. Mercola and the two companies – Mercola.com, LLC and Mercola.com Health Resources, LLC – advertised their systems through the Mercola.com website, Google search ads, YouTube videos, and newsletters and claimed that consumers could “Slash [Their] Risk of Cancer” by tanning indoors and “improve the clarity, tone and texture of [their] skin, basically giving [them] a more youthful appearance.”
The defendants sold several different models of indoor tanning systems, intended for home use, including beds, door mount models, and standing systems, with varying numbers of UV lamps. Mercola brand tanning systems include the D-Lite, Sun Splash, Sun Splash Renew, Vitality, Vitality Refresh, and Vitality D-Lite. The systems sold for between $1,200 and $4,000 each.
The proposed stipulated final order bans the defendants from marketing or selling indoor tanning systems. It also prohibits them, in connection with the sale of devices other than indoor tanning systems, from making false or unsubstantiated health-related or efficacy claims, from misrepresenting the existence or results of scientific tests or studies, and from falsely claiming that the benefits of such devices are scientifically proven. The proposed order also requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of material connections between the defendants and any individual providing an endorsement or review of such a device.
Finally, the defendants must pay refunds to consumers who bought Mercola brand indoor tanning systems between January 1, 2012 and the present. An FTC redress administrator will send refund eligibility notices and claim forms to these consumers. Purchasers who want a refund must return the claim form by the date stated in the letter. The defendants are required to pay a maximum of $5,334,067 to cover the cost of refunds and administration of the refund program.
The Commission vote authorizing the filing of the complaint and approving the proposed final order was 3-0. The complaint and proposed final order were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
The FTC is a member of the National Prevention Council, which provides coordination and leadership at the federal level regarding prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices. This case advances the National Prevention Strategy’s goal of increasing the number of Americans who are healthy at every stage of life. These cases are part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers from misleading advertising.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about consumer topics and file a consumer complaint online or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357). Like the FTC on Facebook (link is external), follow us on Twitter (link is external), read our blogs and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
CONTACT INFORMATION
MEDIA CONTACT:
Mitchell J. Katz
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2161
STAFF CONTACT:
Janet M. Evans
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-2125
[*/quote*]
