INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Advertising Standards Authority

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#61 Postby Alan H » July 11th, 2008, 11:37 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

The lesson here is to make sure you can substantiate your claims (or at least spell check your ad!):
********************************************************************************
Ace Continental Exports Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44630.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ASA Adjudications
Ace Continental Exports Ltd
Rays House
North Circular Road
London
NW10 7XP

Date: 2 July 2008
Media: Television
Sector: Health and beauty

Ad
An ad in Bengali for Rumoplus on Bangla TV said "Are you suffering from rheumatism, arthritis, fibrosis, spondylosis, sprains and strains or joint pains or lower back pain, cervical and limber spondylosis? Dont worry, take Rumoplus. The natural ingredients in Rumoplus will help you naturally to ease the pain and get back to work. Rumoplus. Call Ace Herbal Product on 0845 xxx xxxx that is 0845 xxx xxxx at Rumoplus.

On-screen text stated "are you suffering from Rheumatism, Arthritis, Fibrosis, Spondylosis, Sprains, Joins [sic] and lower back pains and cervical and limber spondylosis? Dont worry, take Rumoplus. The netureal [sic] ingredients in Rumoplus helps [sic] you naturally. Rumoplus. Ace Herbal Product Tel 0845 xxx xxxx http://www.dbcare.org over background graphics of a skeleton.

Issue
Monitoring staff challenged whether Rumoplus:

1. was a treatment for rheumatism, arthritis, fibrosis, spondylosis, sprains, strains, joint pains, lower back pain, cervical and limber spondylosis;

Monitoring staff challenged whether the ad:

2. made medicinal claims for an unlicensed product;

3. suggested that Rumopluss effectiveness was due to it containing "natural ingredients".

4. Monitoring staff challenged whether Bangla TV had sought independent medical advice as required by rule 8.1.1.

BCAP TV Advertising Code: 5.1;5.2.1;8.1.1;8.2.3;8.2.14

Response
Bangla TV withdrew the ad as soon as it was brought to their attention. Bangla TV submitted no evidence to substantiate the claims and did not comment on how they believed the ad complied with the Code.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted Bangla TV promised to send the evidence when they received it from the advertiser. We were concerned that Bangla TV had not sought to evaluate the evidence before broadcast as required by the Code. Because we had not received any evidence, we considered that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).

2. Upheld
We understood that Rumoplus did not hold a marketing authorisation under the Medicines Act 1968. Medicine law defines medicinal claims as those that suggest the product can treat or prevent a disease or restore, correct or modify physiological function by metabolic, pharmacological or immunological means. We considered that the ad offered to help sufferers of rheumatism, arthritis, fibrosis, spondylosis, cervical and limber spondylosis. We considered that the ad had made medicinal claims for an unlicensed product.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 8.2.3 (Products without a marketing authorisation).

3. Upheld
We considered that the ad suggested Rumoplus was effective because of its "natural ingredients".

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 8.2.14 (Natural products).

4. Upheld
We noted Bangla TV had not sought independent medical advice for a proper assessment of claims as required by rule 8.1.1.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 8.1.1 (Assessment of claims).

Action
We concluded that the ad must not be shown again in its present form and that the product should not be advertised without adequate substantiation for the claims made for it. We reminded Bangla TV of its responsibility to ensure that transmitted advertisements complied with the Code.

[Captured: 11 July 2008 23:35:37]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#62 Postby Alan H » July 11th, 2008, 11:39 pm

This lot can treat just about any ailment (not!). How do they think they can possibly claim their herbal remedy can eliminate cancers?:
********************************************************************************
Healthy for Life
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44611.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ASA Adjudications
Healthy for Life
P.O. Box 216
Jersey
JE4 9SE
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 2 July 2008
Media: Brochure
Sector: Health and beauty

Ad
A brochure from Healthy for Life featured a number of products:

1. Caisse Plus. Text stated "Essiac - For All Your Cancer Concerns ... It helps boost the spirit, ease pain and in most cases reduce or eliminate tumours ..."

2. Beres Drops. Text stated "Overcoming Cancer & Other Serious Health Concerns ... At the end of one year 29.8% were 100% cured and 51.1% had tumours regressed to the point that they were almost complaint-free. The treatment also stopped hair loss, impotence, allergy and the nausea induced by chemotherapy and radiation ... All the following diseases have found Beres Drops Plus successful:- fatigue, insomnia, headaches, anaemia, hormonal disorders, Hodgkin's disease, asthma, bronchitis, cervical lesions, diabetes, allergy, hypertension, epilepsy, ulcers, arthritis, haemorrhoids and multiple sclerosis (MS) ...".

3. DHEA. Text stated "... DHEA supplementation can re-energise older people and reverse many diseases ... inhibits the development of tumours of the breast, lung, colon, skin, lymphatic and other tissue ... linked with a 48% reduction in death from heart diseases and a 36% reduction in death from other causes. Another study found benefits including better ability to cope with stress, increased mobility, decreased pain & higher quality sleep ... supplementing with DHEA naturally increases estrogen levels.".

4. Slim-Pep. Text stated "Slim-Pep is a formulation of natural herbs and amino-acids ... The herbs in Slim-Pep ... have many other health benefits including, combating tiredness, reducing stress, cleansing and detoxifying and providing energy ... The other ingredients of this amazing product include spirulina and bladderwrack both assisting thyroid function, capsicum, bitter orange, green tea and L-carnitine providing antioxidant scavenging and increased energy levels. A true power-house combination that is safe to be used by people with high blood pressure ...".

5. VitaPep. Text stated "... ideal for weight reduction ... restricts fats from digestion and absorption into the blood ... By normalizing blood sugar ... it may also help to prevent the onset of diabetes and hypoglycaemia ...".

6. Melatonin. Text stated "... ability to immediately restore a healthy sleeping pattern ... It will stimulate your immune system and play a major role in the production of many anti-aging hormones in men & women including oestrogen and testosterone ... it can prevent the changes that lead to hypertension and heart attacks, as well as reducing the risk of certain types of cancer ...".

7. Sedate. Text stated "KavaKava is used to alleviate a range of health problems including anxiety, depression, insomnia and pain ... can also reduce feelings of nervousness, and somatic complaints such as heart palpitations, chest pains, headaches, dizziness and feelings of gastric irritation ...".

8. SAMe. Text stated "the Wonder Supplement for Arthritis, Depression, Fybromyalgia, Mood and Much More ... Over 3000 scientific research papers show SAMe supplementation has also shown to be beneficial in a variety of conditions including osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, several liver disorders, migraine headaches, ADHD, Alzheimers and learning and memory deficits associated with advancing age ...".

9. Asthmex. Text stated "Ease Asthma the Natural Way Asthmex contains a combination of natural ingredients to help restore lung function and reduce histamine release from allergic reactions ... Vitamin B6 ... can also offset some of the damage medications commonly prescribed for asthma have ...".

10. Serrapeptase. Text stated "... Clinical studies show that serrapeptase induces fibrinolytic, anti-inflammatory and anti-odemic (prevents swelling and fluid retention) activity in a number of tissues, and that its anti-inflammatory effects are superior to other proteolytic enzymes. Besides reducing inflammation, one of serrapeptase's most profound benefits is reduction of pain, due to its ability to block the release of pain-inducing amines from inflamed tissues ... The health conditions that have benefitted from Serropeptase are numerous and include Ankylosing Spondylitis, Osteoporosis, Lupus, Diabetes, MS".

Issue
The Health Food Manufacturers' Association (HFMA) challenged whether:

1. the efficacy claims for these products were misleading and could be substantiated; and

2. claims in the brochure implied supplements could be used to prevent or treat illness, elevate mood or enhance normal performance.

The ASA challenged whether the brochure:

3. discouraged essential treatment and offered treatment for serious medical conditions without the supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional;

4. made medicinal claims for unauthorised products; and

5. suggested that the products DHEA, Slim-Pep and Asthmex were safe or effective merely because they contained natural ingredients.

The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;50.1;50.3;50.5;50.11;50.20;50.21;2.6

Response
Healthy for Life did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.

Assessment
Upheld
The ASA was concerned by Healthy for Life's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code clause 2.6 (Non-response). We reminded them of their obligations under the Code and told them to respond promptly in future.

1. & 2. Upheld
In the absence of any evidence to support the brochures efficacy claims for Caisse Plus, Beres Drops, DHEA, Slim-Pep, VitaPep, Melatonin, Sedate, SAMe, Asthmex or Serrapeptase, we concluded that they remained unsubstantiated and were likely to mislead.

In addition, we noted the claims for supplements referred to, for example, reversing diseases, alleviating health problems, increasing mobility and providing energy. We considered that the claims implied the supplements could be used to prevent or treat illness, elevate mood or enhance performance, which had not been demonstrated.

On these points, the brochure breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies - general), 50.20 and 50.21 (Health and beauty products and therapies - Vitamins, minerals and other food supplements).

3. Upheld
We noted the brochure referred to serious medical conditions such as cancer, bronchitis, diabetes, hypertension, epilepsy, arthritis and multiple sclerosis. We referred to the CAP Code, which stated that marketers should not discourage essential treatment or offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for serious or prolonged conditions unless it was conducted under the supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional. We noted, although the brochure referred to the treatment or alleviation of serious medical conditions, Healthy for Life had sent no evidence to show that treatment with the products was conducted under suitably qualified medical supervision. We were also concerned that, by referring to the products ability to treat or alleviate serious medical conditions, the brochure could discourage essential treatment.

On this point, the brochure breached CAP Code clause 50.3 (Health and beauty products and therapies - general).

4. Upheld
We noted the brochure included medicinal claims, for example "... reduce or eliminate tumours ..." and claimed to successfully treat serious illnesses such as multiple sclerosis. We noted the CAP Code stated that medicinal claims should not be made for unauthorised products. We were not shown, however, any evidence to demonstrate that any of the products in the brochure had a valid marketing authorisation. In addition, we understood that some products, Melatonin, SAMe, Kava Kava and DHEA, were acknowledged to be medicinal by function and must not, therefore, be marketed without a marketing authorisation.

On this point, the brochure breached CAP Code clause 50.11 (Health and beauty products and therapies - medicines).

5. Upheld
We noted the brochure claimed DHEA "naturally" increased oestrogen levels and that Slim-Pep was "natural" and "safe". We considered, however, that those claims did not go far enough to suggest that those products were safe or effective merely because they contained natural ingredients.

We then noted claims for the product Asthmex: "Ease Asthma the Natural Way Asthmex contains a combination of natural ingredients to help restore lung function and reduce histamine release from allergic reactions ... Vitamin B6 ... can also offset some of the damage medications commonly prescribed for asthma have". The CAP Code stipulated that marketing communications should not suggest that any product was safe or effective merely because it was natural or that it was generally safer because it omitted an ingredient in common use. We considered that claims for Asthmex implied the product had those qualities. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that that was the case, we concluded that the brochure breached the CAP Code in this regard.

On this point, the brochure breached CAP Code clause 50.5 (Health and beauty products and therapies - general).

Action
We told Healthy for Life to ensure that future marketing material did not feature products that were medicinal by function if those products did not have a marketing authorisation. In addition, they must not repeat any efficacy claims for any of the products listed unless they held documentary evidence to support them. We told them to ensure that future material did not refer to serious or prolonged medical conditions, did not imply products were safe or effective merely because they contained natural ingredients and did not suggest that supplements could prevent or treat illness, elevate mood or enhance performance. We told them to seek a view from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.

We asked CAP to notify its members of the problem with Healthy for Life.

[Captured: 11 July 2008 23:37:50]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#63 Postby Alan C. » July 12th, 2008, 1:38 pm

Shouldn't these nutters be prosecuted for making such outrageous claims? It seems to be the case, that they can say anything they like and the only consequence, is being told that's naughty, don't do it again.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#64 Postby Alan H » July 12th, 2008, 1:43 pm

It could be there really are unaware that what they are claiming is utterly ridiculous. However, the ASA only has very limited powers, but I think you'd need to show that actual harm was done before a prosecution would be considered.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#65 Postby Alan H » August 2nd, 2008, 1:12 am

Not a pseudo science one, but worth mentioning. Who else is fed up with black bags through the front door purporting to be collecting for a charity?
********************************************************************************
Memel Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44750.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Memel Ltd
Queens House
180 Tottenham Court Road
London
W1T 7PD
Number of complaints: 2

Date: 30 July 2008
Media: Circular
Sector: Non-commercial

Ad
A leaflet, for Memel Ltd, stated "UNWANTED CLOTHING SOS CHILDREN We ask you for your kind support in raising funds for orphans ... Your contributions will make a great difference to the children and we believe that with your help we will reach all of our objectives. For more information on supporting SOS CHILDREN CHARITY please visit the website: http://www.sos-vaikai.lt ... ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IS FILL THE PLASTIC BAG(S) WITH YOUR GOOD QUALITY UNWANTED ITEMS ... MEMEL LTD. Registered in England No. 5700273 ..."

Issue
1. Clothes Aid and Northamptonshire Trading Standards Service challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it implied Memel Ltd was a charity.

2. Clothes Aid also challenged whether Memel could substantiate the claim that they were raising funds to help orphans.

3. The ASA challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it did not make clear that not all funds raised through the collections would go to support the SOS Vaikai charity.

The CAP Code: 7.1;3.1

Response
Memel said they worked with a children's charity in Lithuania and collected clothes on its behalf. The charity was called SOS Vaikai, which translated as SOS children. They said they had a sponsorship agreement with SOS Vaikai, which stated that they would transfer 1500 Litas (Lt) (approximately £300) per month to SOS Vaikai until the total support reached an amount of 18,000 Lt. Memel provided a copy of that sponsorship agreement and evidence to demonstrate that they had transferred money each month to SOS Vaikai.

Memel said they were a limited liability company, not a charity, and they held any additional money made from their collections for the company's development, employment expenses and transportation expenses. They said, however, they were aware that their leaflet had led to some misunderstanding and they had therefore amended it to make clearer that Memel was a registered company, not a charity, and they had a sponsorship agreement with the Lithuanian charity, SOS Vaikai.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted Memel had a sponsorship agreement with the Lithuanian charity SOS Vaikai and that, through that agreement, a certain amount of the proceeds raised from the collections went to the charity.

We considered, however, that the text "We ask for your kind support in raising funds for orphans" and "your contributions will make a great difference to the children", along with the presentation of the leaflet, which was similar to genuine charity leaflets, implied that Memel was a charity. We also noted the ad stated "Memel Ltd. Registered in England No. 5700273" and we considered that, in the absence of qualification, readers might infer that Memel was a registered charity. Because the ad did not make sufficiently clear that Memel were a limited company or that they merely had a sponsorship agreement with the separate SOS Vaikai charity to donate a specific amount of funds, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Not upheld
We noted SOS Vaikai was a Lithuanian based charity, which helped orphans and homeless children. We noted Memel had a sponsorship agreement with SOS Vaikai and they had demonstrated that they sent £300 a month to SOS Vaikai in line with that agreement. Although we noted not all the funds Memel raised went straight to SOS Vaikai, and therefore towards helping orphans, we considered that Memel had substantiated that at least some of the funds they raised were helping orphans.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Upheld
We noted Memels sponsorship agreement with SOS Vaikai meant they transferred the agreed amount of 1500 Lt, which was around £300, per month to the charity and they would continue to transfer that amount until they reached the agreed total of 18,000 Lt, which was around £4000.

We noted, however, the ad did not make clear that Memel would transfer only a certain amount of the proceeds they made to SOS Vaikai and we considered that in the absence of any information to the contrary, readers were likely to understand that all proceeds from clothing collections would go towards supporting the SOS Vaikai charity. We concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We welcomed Memels action in amending the ad to make it clearer that they were a registered company and not a charity. We told them to amend the ad to make clear that only a certain amount of the proceeds they made went to charity. We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team for their future advertising.

[Retrieved: Sat Aug 02 2008 01:09:38 GMT+0100 (GMT Daylight Time)]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#66 Postby Alan H » August 2nd, 2008, 1:14 am

Another psychic who didn't predict that their advert was misleading!
********************************************************************************
New Guardian Light Mystic Centre Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44757.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New Guardian Light Mystic Centre Ltd
Guardian House
655 Lordship Lane
Wood Green
London
N22 5LA
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 30 July 2008
Media: Magazine
Sector: Leisure

Ad
A magazine ad, for the New Guardian Light Mystic Centre (NGLMC), stated "This is the most important phone call you will ever make. Leading Psychic and Clairvoyant with over 25 years experience covering LOVE RELATIONSHIPS MONEY CAREER We will read your past, present and future accurately. Do you wish to bring back a loved one or prevent a break up? Has your loved one left you? We will make them come back to you for good. For immediate changes in your life call 0208 xxxx. Readings cost £20.00 ...". Contact details were given at the foot of the ad.

Issue
The complainant, who had commissioned the NGLMC to carry out work which proved unsuccessful, challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that the services were certain to succeed.

The CAP Code: 3.1;6.1;7.1

Response
NGLMC said they had been established for 13 years and provided reading services. They explained that if any client was dissatisfied with their services, they provided a refund of between 40 and 50%.

Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that the claims "We will read your past present and future accurately.", "We will make them [loved ones] come back to you for good." and "For immediate changes in your life call ... " were likely to be interpreted to mean that the services offered by NGLMC were certain to succeed. We noted the CAP Help Note on the Marketing of Spiritual and Psychic Services, Astrologers and Lucky Charms stated that "Claims that marketers will successfully solve all problems, break curses, banish evil spirits, improve the health, wealth, love life, happiness or other circumstances of readers should be avoided because they are likely to be impossible to prove." Because we considered that the ad misleadingly implied that NGLMC's services were certain to work and because no evidence existed to support such claims, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told NGLMC to withdraw the ad and to contact the CAP Copy Advice team for help with future ads.

[Retrieved: Sat Aug 02 2008 01:12:44 GMT+0100 (GMT Daylight Time)]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#67 Postby Alan H » August 2nd, 2008, 1:16 am

Praise the Lord!
********************************************************************************
North Shrewsbury Community Church
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44761.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

North Shrewsbury Community Church
34 Albert Square
Shrewsbury
Shropshire
SY1 4HT
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 30 July 2008
Media: Circular
Sector: Non-commercial

Ad
A circular, for the North Shrewsbury Community Church, was entitled "THE NORTH SHREWSBURY BEAUTIFUL NEWS HEALED, RESTORED AND FORGIVEN". Text underneath stated "WELCOME TO THE BEAUTIFUL NEWS My name is Dr John Matthias and I would like to welcome you to Beautiful News. In this issue you can read stories of local ordinary people who have been healed as a result of Christian prayer. I am a medical doctor with over thirty-five years experience, more than twenty locally. I have checked all the stories written here and can vouch that they are true ...". Underneath were testimonials from people who had experience of the church. Text stated "... John Cardinal prayed for my sciatica which was extremely painful and awkward to live with ... After more prayer I sat up. I had no pain. It was incredible ... It didn't hurt, I was able to kneel and I ran. I had been well blessed and truly healed ... "; "... I was addicted to drugs and my physical, mental and emotional health was at rock bottom from years of abuse ... I prayed a prayer of commitment and gave my life to God. Since that day, although it hasn't always been easy, I know that I never have to go back to the life I had before. God has set me free from addiction. He has healed me, restored me and forgiven me through Jesus Christ ..."; "... I was referred to a hospital consultant and diagnosed with ME ... The doctors couldn't treat ME and said that I'd have to live with it ... When I was 19, God made me well ... the woman preaching looked at me and said, 'You at the back, God's going to heal you this weekend,' then carried on with her talk. At that point I knew I'd go home healthy ... At the end of the weekend, the lady called me up to the front and prayed for me. Instantly, God healed me. That was fifteen years ago and I've had no recurrence of ME since ..."; "During my pregnancy I had low blood pressure which was making me feel light headed, very tired and at times I would even faint. On a Sunday morning healing service, I decided to get prayer for this and the following day I didn't feel tired or light headed for the first time in a while. That same week I had my blood pressure checked by a doctor and found that my blood pressure had gone back to normal, Jesus had healed me. Later on in my pregnancy I started to suffer with a bad back and I noticed that my legs were not the same length due to my spine being twisted. Again, I asked for prayer about this. Some people prayed for me and immediately after I noticed that my legs became the same length again and my back had stopped aching ..."; "... In the last few months we have seen God do some wonderful miracles when we've prayed to him. One man with arthritis in his back found that the pain and discomfort disappeared when he was prayed for. Another man who had destroyed the veins in his arms through heroin abuse was touched by Jesus and received new veins and a restoring of the circulation in his arms and hands. We've seen others backs, ears, noses, necks and shoulders healed by the power of Jesus ...".

Issue
1. The complainant challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and likely to discourage readers from seeking qualified medical advice by offering advice on treatment for medical conditions.

2. The ASA challenged the implication that John Matthias was a qualified medical doctor, registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) to practice in the UK.

The CAP Code: 7.1;50.1;50.3;2.2;3.1

Response
1. North Shrewsbury Community Church (NSCC) asserted that nowhere in the newsletter did they offer medical advice or discourage anyone from seeking medical advice. They argued that at no point during their meetings did they offer medical advice, ask for money, suggest alternative therapies or discourage anyone present from consulting their doctor. They said it was their orthodox belief, shared by the majority of Christians for 2000 years, that God was able to heal people of emotional, mental, spiritual and physical problems. NSCC said they had merely invited people to seek God in prayer for those problems. They said a number of their congregation were, or had been, members of the medical profession and a number were also currently receiving treatment.

2. NSCC sent a photo of John Matthias' last registration with the GMC which was dated 16 July 2004 and showed his date of qualification as 1968. NSCC said Dr Matthias was a partner at the Albert Road Medical Centre until he retired in 2005. They argued that his statement that he was "a medical doctor with over 35 years experience, more than 20 locally" was true.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted NSCCs response. We considered, however, that by referring to, and implying attendance at their service could help treat or prevent the occurrence of, medical conditions, the ad was irresponsible and could discourage readers from seeking qualified medical advice.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2. (Responsible advertising) and 50.3 (Health & beauty products and therapies).

2. Upheld
We noted John Matthias most recent registration showed he had been registered with the GMC between 2004 and 2005. We considered, however, that the ad, particularly the claim "I am a medical doctor with over thirty-five years experience, more than twenty locally", implied John Matthias was registered as a medical doctor with the GMC at the time the ad appeared and had been actively practising medicine in the UK for the period stated. Because the certificate did not prove that, we concluded that NSCC had not justified the claim.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its present form. We told NSCC to remove the references to medical conditions and not to imply that John Matthias was currently registered with the GMC as a medical doctor and had practised medicine in the UK for over 20 years. We advised them to seek advice from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising in future.

[Retrieved: Sat Aug 02 2008 01:14:28 GMT+0100 (GMT Daylight Time)]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#68 Postby Alan H » August 20th, 2008, 4:27 pm

********************************************************************************
Fun Messages Pty Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44866.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fun Messages Pty Ltd
Address Unknown
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 20 August 2008
Media: Television
Sector: Leisure

Ad
A TV ad for a premium rate text message service. A voice-over stated "Whats in a name. It could be everything! Numerologists and psychologists believe names play an important role in relationships and romance. Find out how it could affect you! Love Rating can predict how compatible you are with anyone".

Issue
The viewer, an academic psychologist, complained that the claim that numerologists and psychologists supported the principles behind the service was untrue and misleading.

BCAP TV Advertising Code: 5.1

Response
The ASA was unable to unable to obtain contact details for Fun Messages Pty or its agency, which was in Australia.

Clearcast said it was clear the service was for entertainment only and the claim was therefore unlikely to be interpreted as scientific fact.

Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted Clearcasts view that it was clear the service was for entertainment purposes only. We considered, however, that viewers would infer that the claim had some basis. Because no evidence was provided to substantiate the claim that numerologists and psychologists supported the principles behind the service, we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead viewers.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 5.1 (Misleading advertising)

Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

[Captured: 20 August 2008 16:26:54]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#69 Postby Alan H » August 20th, 2008, 4:40 pm

********************************************************************************
Works With Water Nutraceuticals Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44779.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Works With Water Nutraceuticals Ltd
Sagar Fold
Grindleton
Clitheroe
Ribble Valley
BB7 4QT
Telegraph Media Group Ltd
111 Buckingham Palace Road
London
SW1W 0DT
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 6 August 2008
Media: National press
Sector: Food and drink

Ad
A national press front-page flash stated "LOWER YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE WITH OUR FREE SPRING WATER". The promotion was detailed inside the newspaper and claimed "the first spring water developed especially to tackle the growing problem of high blood pressure ... 120/80, named after the optimum blood pressure level, is the first spring water in the UK to contain dairy peptides, which are derived from milk protein and clinically proven to be effective in the lowering and management of blood pressure.

Issue
1. The complainant challenged whether the promotion discouraged essential treatment for a serious medical condition.

2. The ASA challenged whether the promotion made medicinal claims for an unauthorised product.

The CAP Code: 50.3;50.11

Response
1. Works with Water said they took extreme care to ensure they did not mislead consumers by claiming or implying that their products could treat, prevent or cure disease or discourage essential treatment for a serious medical condition. They said the first paragraph of the main editorial copy made a positive statement raising awareness of the prevalence of increased blood pressure in the UK. They argued that throughout the communication, emphasis was placed on the fact that medical research has shown that the daily consumption of 4 g of dairy peptides could help to lower blood pressure in people with mild hypertension. They said they were careful to highlight that 120/80 contained half of the recommended daily intake of dairy peptides and that drinking two bottles per day was "beneficial" and "a simple addition to lifestyle" (sic). They said they stated on their website that the product was designed to be used alongside other healthy lifestyle choices and was not intended to be a replacement for drugs prescribed in hypertension treatment. They also detailed the wording on packaging which included advice to consult a doctor if high blood pressure was suspected.

Works with Water said the headline on the article inside the newspaper should have stated "Free spring water for every reader to help lower your blood pressure" to be consistent with the main editorial copy, but the word "help" was omitted due to a proofing error for which they accepted full responsibility. They said they were not responsible for the front page flash or content, which were down to the Telegraph's editorial discretion at the time of going to print. They recognised that it would be sensible and responsible to include the on-pack and website statements in all future press promotions. They added that they did not intend to repeat the promotion, and they would seek guidance from CAP Copy Advice before publishing future promotions.

2. Works with Water said the blood pressure claim was in line with other products launched in the UK and Europe and followed on from numerous cholesterol lowering and heart health claims for products on the market. They sent clinical studies of the blood pressure-lowering effects of dairy peptides and examples of food and drink products that claimed blood pressure control or lowering, or cholesterol lowering. They said, as far as they were aware, no food manufacturer was required to have a cholesterol-lowering claim approved by the MHRA, because such products were not drugs and their natural active ingredients were mild in comparison to standard medication. They asserted that such products were not and never had been an alternative to medication. They claimed they took great care to select an ingredient with solid scientific efficacy, knowledge of which was growing annually. They explained that the results of a double blind placebo controlled study on dairy peptides would be published shortly. They added that dairy peptides were currently undergoing the EFSA health claims process in a number of EU states, which aimed to harmonise health claims within the food industry throughout member countries, based on sound science and evidence, and that a definitive list was expected to be finalised by December 2009.

The Telegraph said they had been alerted to the problematic wording by CAP on the day the ad appeared and had immediately halted the promotion. They said the procedures they had in place to prevent such occurrences had not been properly followed, and the relevant personnel had been reminded of their obligations to the CAP Code. They said every effort would be made to avoid a similar occurrence in future.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the copy should have stated "help lower your blood pressure". We also noted the numerous references to lowering blood pressure and the claim "the UK's first spring water developed especially to tackle the growing problem of high blood pressure". We considered that readers could infer that the product would treat high blood pressure. We concluded that the ad could discourage readers from seeking essential medical treatment for a serious medical condition.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 50.3 (Heath & Beauty products and therapies)

2. Upheld
We noted Works With Water believed their product did not require a marketing authorisation because the active ingredients were relatively mild and it was not an alternative to medication. However, we understood from Lancashire Trading Standards department that a claim to lower blood pressure was considered to be medicinal under the Food Labelling Regulations 1996. We concluded that the ad made medicinal claims for an unauthorised product.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 50.11 (Medicines)

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We advised Works With Water to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team on future advertising campaigns.

[Captured: 20 August 2008 16:39:29]
###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#70 Postby Alan H » October 8th, 2008, 9:19 am

Trying to use science to baffle punters:
********************************************************************************
Aromatheutics Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _45102.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Aromatheutics Ltd
1 The Stables
Lower Farm
Irchester
Northamptonshire
NN29 7AB
Number of complaints: 2

Date: 8 October 2008
Media: National press
Sector: Health and beauty
Agency: Lavery Rowe Advertising Ltd

Ad
A national press ad for a pain relief device was headlined "NEW DRUG FREE ALTERNATIVE TO MEDICATION". The body copy stated "With the brand new PainSolv CE marked medical device, you now have truly portable health management! ... PainSolv encourages your body to enhance the efficiency of cell functions which in turn increases oxygen content in your blood as well as many other beneficial processes ... PainSolv can help relieve the pain associated with the following conditions and many more - Arthritis, Back Pain, Migraine, Whiplash, Joint Pain, Muscle Spasm, Stress, Leg Ulcers, Gout, Tendinitis ... Unlike TENS machines that simply block pain signals to the brain, PainSolv works directly on the cause rather than just the symptoms! ... Painsolv is a CE marked MDD Class 11a medical device, approved for the treatment of pain, wound and stress conditions. The CE mark confirms that a product meets all essential European health, safety and environmental requirements."

Issue
1. Pulse Medical Technology challenged whether the claim "Painsolv is a CE marked MDD Class 11a medical device, approved for the treatment of pain, wound and stress conditions" was misleading, because it implied the MDD certification specifically approved the device for treating the conditions listed in the ad.

One member of the public challenged whether the claims:

2. "PainSolv encourages your body to enhance the efficiency of cell functions which in turn increases oxygen content in your blood as well as many other beneficial processes"; and

3. "PainSolv works directly on the cause rather than just the symptoms" were misleading and could be substantiated.

The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1

Response
1. Aromatheutics agreed to remove the claim "Painsolv is a CE marked MDD Class 11a medical device, approved for the treatment of pain, wound and stress conditions" from the ad. They sent a copy of the certificate of registration for the Medical Device and said that in future ads they would state that the CE mark confirmed the device met all essential health, safety and environmental requirements.

2. Aromatheutics said Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy was scientifically proven to encourage the body's own immune system through a number of physiological reactions. They said the claim was not misleading because PainSolv worked on the same principal and sent a link to a database containing articles on the use of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy.

3. Aromatheutics said the claim "PainSolv works directly on the cause rather than just the symptoms" was supported by scientific experience. They sent three diagrams they said showed how pulsed electromagnetic field therapy worked at cellular level. They argued that it was logical to conclude that, because pulsed electromagnetic field therapy had been shown to reduce inflammation and neuralgic symptoms at site, it worked directly on the cause of the pain rather than just the symptoms.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA welcomed Aromatheutics willingness to amend the ad and remove the claim. However, because the medical device certification did not approve the device for the treatment of pain, wound and stress conditions, as stated in the original ad, we concluded the claim was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and Beauty Products and Therapies).

2. Upheld
We noted Aromatheutics comments. However, because the articles contained in the database did not describe clinical trials on the PainSolv device itself, we considered they had not shown that the PainSolv device encouraged the efficiency of cell functions and increased oxygen content in the blood. We concluded the claim was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and Beauty Products and Therapies).

3. Upheld
We considered the evidence sent by Aromatheutics. We noted that the diagrams and accompanying text illustrated in general terms the theoretical basis behind the way in which pulsed electromagnetic field therapy worked at cellular level. However, we considered that the claim "PainSolv works directly on the cause rather than just the symptoms" should be supported by evidence from clinical trials using the PainSolv device, rather than general theory about pulsed electromagnetic field therapy. Because it was not, we concluded the claim was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and Beauty Products and Therapies).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Aromatheutics to ensure any future claims about the health benefits of the PainSolv device were supported by evidence relating directly to the testing of the different settings in the PainSolv device. We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.

[Retrieved: Wed Oct 08 2008 09:18:23 GMT+0100 (GMT Daylight Time)]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#71 Postby Alan H » October 8th, 2008, 9:25 am

This one is interesting because of the comment on mentioning a recommendation by scientists (I hope to post something more about this shortly):
********************************************************************************
GlaxoSmithKline plc
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _45121.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GlaxoSmithKline plc
980 Great West Road
Brentford
Middlesex
TW8 9GS

Date: 8 October 2008
Media: Television
Sector: Health and beauty


Ad
A TV ad for Corsodyl Mint Mouthwash featured a naked woman carrying a scarf and walking through a field. Successive, brief shots showed her feet, legs, buttocks, stomach and the profile of her breasts. A voice-over said "Bleeding gums are one of the first signs of gum disease, a leading cause of tooth loss". The woman turned to the camera and smiled. One of her front teeth was missing. A bottle of the mouthwash was shown with superimposed text stating "Corsodyl Mint Mouthwash contains chlorhexidine digluconate. Always read the label" and the voice-over said "Corsodyl Mint Mouthwash is clinically proven to treat gum disease. Now help maintain healthy gums every day with Corsodyl Daily Defence. It contains the same ingredient used by dentists". The end caption stated "Ask your dentist or hygienist about gum health.

Issue
Monitoring staff challenged whether the reference to Corsodyl Daily Defence containing the same ingredient used by dentists breached the Code.

BCAP TV Advertising Code: 8.1.2(c)

Response
ClearCast said the ad merely referred to Corsodyl Daily Defence containing an ingredient used by dentists. Because it contained no product endorsement by a dentist, they believed the statement complied with the Code. ClearCast maintained that the rule did not state that reference to the use of any relevant product or its ingredients was unacceptable; rather that reference to approval of, recommendation of or preference for the use of any relevant product or its ingredients was unacceptable. They believed that a factual statement that a product contained an ingredient that was used by healthcare professionals was merely that, a factual statement.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) asserted that the ad contained no direct or implied reference to the approval or recommendation or preference for using Corsodyl Daily Defence or chlorhexidine digluconate by dentists. They maintained that the claim merely referred to the use of one of the ingredients by dentists. They explained that the reference was a statement of fact, not a recommendation.

GSK pointed out that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's (MHRA) Blue Guide, which advised on the advertising and promotions of medicines, stated "advertisements to the general public should not contain material which refers to recommendations by scientists or health professionals". They added that the Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB) Code, over which the MHRA had significant input, reflects the law and is a means of self-regulatory control for over-the-counter medicines advertisements; it included a similar rule but states:

"it is acceptable for advertising to include a health professional recommendation of an ingredient, treatment type or formulation or preparation as long as there is more than one product available with this attribute" and "it is acceptable to state that a product's active ingredient, formulation or preparation has been prescribed by a health professional, provided there is evidence that this is the case".

GSK stated that the phrase used in the Corsodyl Daily Defence TV advertisement is therefore acceptable under the PAGB Code for advertising medicines and acceptable to the MHRA. Such phrases have therefore been used previously by GSK in medicines advertising.

GSK concluded that, because healthcare professional recommendation of active ingredients was deemed acceptable by the MHRA in medicines advertising, it was unreasonable that TV ads for both licensed medicines and unlicensed products (such as Corsodyl Daily Defence) are more restricted than those for medicines.

Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the MHRAs Blue Guide advised that "advertisements to the general public should not contain material which refers to recommendations by scientists or health professionals" because that "could encourage consumption". We understood that the PAGB proposed to revise its code and advises that giving a brand name in the same sentence as the ingredient recommendation was unacceptable because it considered that that was too close to the prohibition on health professional endorsement.

The background to Section 8 of the Code (Medicines, Treatments, Health Claims and Nutrition) explains that advertisements making therapeutic or prophylactic claims are subject to the rules in Section 8. We understood that chlorhexidine digluconate was used in the treatment and prevention of gingivitis and in the prevention of dental plaque and in the treatment of oral candidiasis. We noted the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code specifically prohibited references to the use of ingredients by professionals.

We concluded that the reference to Corsodyl Daily Defence containing the same ingredient used by dentists breached the Code because rule 8.1.2 (c) prohibited references to the use of ingredients by the professions referred to in (a) [includes dentists].

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 8.1.2 (c) (Impressions of professional advice and support).

Action
We concluded that the ad must not be broadcast again in its present form.

[Retrieved: Wed Oct 08 2008 09:23:15 GMT+0100 (GMT Daylight Time)]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#72 Postby Alan H » October 8th, 2008, 9:27 am

This is same device as the adjudication one above this one:
********************************************************************************
MediConcepts Ltd
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _45101.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MediConcepts Ltd
120 Queens Road
Leicester
LE2 3FL
Number of complaints: 1

Date: 8 October 2008
Media: Leaflet
Sector: Health and beauty


Ad
A leaflet for a pain relief device was headlined "PainSolvTM". Further text stated "Cell Function Enhancement Using clinically proven technology ... 3 in 1 medical device Pain Relief Wound Relief Stress Relief". Inside the leaflet the headline text stated: "The clinically proven technology that PainSolvTM employs has successfully treated the following conditions as well as many others". The first section was headed "1 Pain Relief" and listed the following conditions: "Arthritis Carpal tunnel syndrome Frozen Shoulder Muscle Strains & Sprains Neuralgia Period Pain Backache Dental Pain Bursitis Chronic Back Pain Fibromyalgia Coccidynia Golfer's Elbow Gout Gouty Arthritis Heel Pain Housemaid's Knee Ligament Strains Lumbago Muscle Strains Osteoarthritis Painful Joints Rheumatoid Arthritis Sesamoiditis Synovitis Tendonitis Toothache".

The next section was headed "2 Wound Relief" and listed the following conditions "Burns Bone Fractures Cuts & Grazes Heel and Leg Ulcers Post-herpetic neuralgia Psoriasis & Eczema Scalds Shingles Sports Injuries Varicose Veins Acute soft tissue injury Dermatitis Slipped Disc Osteoporosis Post operative wounds Sore Veins Swollen Joints Tempromandibular Dysfunction Whiplish".

The final section was headed "3 Stress Relief" and listed the following conditions "Anxiety Blood Pressure Depression Exam Stress Insomnia Migraine Sleep Disorders Tension Work Stress Stress Deep vein thrombosis Menopause symptoms Muscle Spasm Post-natal depression Post-operative depression Post-traumatic Stress".

The next page was headed "So how does the PainSolvTM work?" The body copy stated "Application of the PainSolvTM therapy is based on more than 30 years of worldwide research carried out by renowned scientists ... clinical research carried out for NASA proved that millisecond duration pulsed electromagnetic fields have the greatest beneficial effect on living tissues over any other energy form. This is because the PainSolvTM pulsed waves pass through all types of body tissue including bone, without any reduction of wave strength ... "

The next page was headed "Is there just one setting for treating all the conditions mentioned?" and showed a picture of the PainSolvTM device and the price "£129.95 Plus postage, packaging and insurance". Text above the image stated "It is not clinically effective to have a single-setting for all types of treatment that may be required and Mediconcepts have ... developed different patented software algorithms for specific areas of therapy. Each of these programmed algorithms differs in duration, intensity and/or frequency".

The next page was headed "How will it benefit me?" The body copy stated "Exposure to PainSolvTM wave forms creates a ripple effect, which activates biological processes in the body which will work on your health problem for approximately 8-10 hours at a time ... ". The back page contained testimonials from customers and the text "DESIGNED & MANUFACTURED WITH PRIDE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM".

Issue
Pulse Medical Technology challenged whether:

1. the advertiser could substantiate their claim that the device treated the medical conditions listed;

2. the advertiser could substantiate their claim that the device used "clinically proven technology";

3. the claim "the PainSolvTM pulsed waves pass through all types of body tissue including bone, without any reduction of wave strength" could be substantiated;

4. the claim "Each of these programmed algorithms differs in duration, intensity and/or frequency" was misleading and could be substantiated;

5. the advertiser could substantiate the claim "Exposure to PainSolvTM wave forms creates a ripple effect, which activates biological processes in the body which will work on your health problem for approximately 8-10 hours at a time";

6. the advertisers could substantiate the claim that they had "patented software algorithms for specific areas of therapy"; and

7. whether the claim "DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED WITH PRIDE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM" could be substantiated.

The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;50.1

Response
1. MediConcepts Ltd (MediConcepts) said they had used incorrect terminology in the ad. They said the claim should have stated "Users say the technology that PainSolv employs has successfully reduced pain associated with many conditions". They said that was an oversight on their part and acknowledged that they should not have listed the conditions by name.

2. MediConcepts included a link to their database and said the information contained there showed the technology used in the PainSolv device was clinically proven. They said there was only one pulsed electromagnetic field modality and that all devices sold and tested used the same modality. Therefore the claim "clinically proven technology" was acceptable. They sent clinical trial data they said was based on a prototype for the PainSolv device. The notes to the trial data stated that it was collected over a period of ten months at a clinic in Germany and was to determine whether randomised controlled clinical trials would be feasible to assess the effectiveness and application of the PainSolv device. The data reported some "surprisingly effective results" based on follow-up telephone interviews after treatment, and stated that those results had not been measured "in any scientific way".

3. MediConcepts said that the claim should have stated "the PainSolvTM pulsed waves pass through all types of body tissue including bone, without any refraction of wave strength" and not "reduction of wave strength". They said that was a type setting error. They said it was a scientific fact that magnetic waves could pass through all materials without refraction at any level.

4. MediConcepts said the claim "Each of these programmed algorithms differs in duration, intensity and/or frequency" had been independently tested and scientifically proven. They sent a report from the Academy of Sport, Physical Activity and Wellbeing at South Bank University that measured the frequency and intensity of the algorithms for the three different settings of the PainSolv device and stated the different duration of the algorithms. The report concluded that the peak field intensity ranged from 12 kHz to 75 kHz but was likely to be below those figures depending on the distance of the device from the tissue.

5. MediConcepts said it was scientifically proven that pulsed electromagnetic fields that permeate body tissue set in motion the effect described in the claim. They emphasised that it was not a product specific claim, and included a link to their database of articles on pulsed electromagnetic field therapy. They acknowledged that the amount of time stated in the claim could very, and said they would remove the reference to "approximately 8 -10 hours" from the ad.

6. MediConcepts said they were currently considering which parts of their technology to patent, and acknowledged that they should not have included the term "patented software algorithms ... ". They said they would amend the claim to "software algorithms for which we are in the process of applying for patents".

7. MediConcepts said the product was designed and manufactured in the UK. They sent signed testimonials from the companies involved in the design, manufacture and assembly of the product, including the circuit boards and the moulded parts that enclosed the device. They sent a sample of invoices from the component manufacturers they used who were based in the UK.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged MediConcepts willingness to amend the ad. However, we considered that the impression created by the ad, particularly the claim "The clinically proven technology that PainSolvTM employs has successfully treated the following conditions ... " combined with the extensive list of conditions strongly implied PainSolv could treat those conditions. Because the advertiser did not send evidence to substantiate that claim, we concluded it was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and Beauty Products and Therapies).

2. Upheld
The ASA noted that the information contained in the database showed articles had been published on the use of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in a range of clinical trials on both people and animals. However, we also noted that those articles did not show that the technology used in those trials was the same as the technology used in the PainSolv device. We noted that the results in the German trial relating to a prototype device had not been measured in a scientific way, and the trials themselves had been carried out to determine whether it would be feasible to carry out a randomised controlled clinical trial using the device. Because we had not seen evidence that the effectiveness of the technology used in the PainSolv device had been proven in clinical trials we concluded that the claim "clinically proven technology" was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and Beauty Products and Therapies).

3. Upheld
We acknowledged that the word "reduction" was a type-setting error and welcomed MediConcepts decision to remove it from the ad, particularly because we understood that the intensity of pulsed electromagnetic waves decreased with distance from the source. We noted their assertion that the PainSolv pulsed waves could pass through all types of body tissue including bone, because it was a scientific fact that all magnetic waves passed through all materials. Because we understood that only magnetic field pulses of low frequencies (below around 50 kHz) could pass through all types of tissue, but the settings of the device ranged from 12 kHz to 75 kHz, we considered the claim should be supported by evidence related to the testing of the three different settings of the device. Because it was not, we concluded the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and Beauty Products and Therapies).

4. Not upheld
We considered the evidence sent by MediConcepts. We noted that the report from the Academy of Sport, Physical Activity and Wellbeing concluded that the PainSolv device had three settings, and the frequency and intensity of each of those settings was different. We noted that the report stated that the duration of the programmed algorithms was different for each setting. Although we noted the report concluded that the peak field intensity was likely to be below the recorded figures of 12 kHz, 50 kHz and 75 kHz depending on the distance of the device from the tissue, we concluded the testing substantiated the claim "Each of these programmed algorithms differs in duration, intensity and/or frequency".

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

5. Upheld
We noted MediConcept's assertion that the claim was not product specific, and referred to pulsed electromagnetic fields in general. However, because the claim "Exposure to PainSolvTM wave forms creates a ripple effect, which activates biological processes in the body which will work on your health problem for approximately 8-10 hours at a time" referred specifically to the ability of the PainSolv wave forms to work on health problems for a set amount of time, we considered it should be supported by evidence that showed how the PainSolv wave forms worked on health problems for 8-10 hours. Because it was not, we concluded the claim was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and Beauty Products and Therapies).

6. Upheld
We were concerned to note that MediConcepts had included the claim "patented software algorithms ... " before they had decided which algorithms to patent. However, we welcomed their decision to amend the claim so that it stated they were in the process of applying for patents.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

7. Not upheld
We accepted that the evidence sent showed the product had been designed, manufactured and assembled in the UK. We concluded they had substantiated the claim "DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED WITH PRIDE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM".

On this we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told MediConcepts to ensure any future claims about the health benefits of PainSolvTM pulsed waves were supported by evidence relating directly to the testing of the different settings in the PainSolv device. We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.

[Retrieved: Wed Oct 08 2008 09:26:35 GMT+0100 (GMT Daylight Time)]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#73 Postby Alan H » October 15th, 2008, 1:47 pm

Too many this week to list in full, but here's the quackery ones:

Archway House Natural Health Centre t/a The Harborough Asthma and Eczema Clinic for Kids This is a homoeopath making claims they could not substantiate.

BritChiro Clinics Ltd A chiropractic using the phrase 'professional doctors of chiropractic'. Unfortunately, the ASA rejected the complaint saying:
The ASA noted the title Dr was not used in the ad as a practitioners title and considered that listeners were therefore likely to understand from the claim "doctors of chiropractic" that BritChiros practitioners practised chiropractic rather than medicine. While we considered that Doctor of Chiropractic would not be an adequate qualification in an ad referring to a practitioner as Dr, we considered that, used on its own as a description of a practitioners profession, it was unlikely to mislead listeners about the nature of practitioners qualifications or to be interpreted as a claim that they held general medical qualifications.
Unbelievable.

Direct Beauty Products Ltd One of the complaints was about the phrase 'SCIENTISTS CONCLUDE IT WORKS' and the ASA concluded that this was not allowed because the report the advertisers referred to was for a significantly different formulation.

Healthy Marketing Ltd t/a Woods Supplements A whole variety of claims of the efficacy of supplements that the advertiser could not substantiate.

Ideal Spine Centre A doctor of chiropractic (not a proper doctor!) making claims that rubbished germ theory and making claims about vertebral subluxations that he could not substantiate. He also was not on the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) register and was therefore not entitled to practice as a chiropractor in the UK.

Pinnacle Health Ltd Yet more claims about vitamins and supplements that could not be substantiated.

Potters Ltd t/a Equazen Yet another one!

RND Engineering Ltd A claim about an engine lubricant that claimed to improve the efficiency and CO2 emissions from cars that could not be substantiated.

Unilever Bangladesh Ltd This is about a bizarre advert for a cream called 'Fair & Lovely' for Bangladeshi/Nepali girls to lighten their skin to make them more beautiful!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#74 Postby jaywhat » October 15th, 2008, 4:48 pm

I see in today's Guardian that Maltesers and Jaffa Cakes have been slapped down for lying about their health benefits.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#75 Postby Alan H » October 15th, 2008, 4:52 pm

jaywhat wrote:I see in today's Guardian that Maltesers and Jaffa Cakes have been slapped down for lying about their health benefits.
What? You mean they're not healthy? :twisted:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#76 Postby Alan H » October 15th, 2008, 11:59 pm

Alan H wrote:Archway House Natural Health Centre t/a The Harborough Asthma and Eczema Clinic for Kids This is a homoeopath making claims they could not substantiate.
Ah ha! The Quackometer has highlighted this particular miscreant...a very interesting read — click on the link below to read the whole article.
********************************************************************************
the quackometer: The Society of Homeopaths: The Failure of Self Regulation
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/10 ... -self.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Society of Homeopaths: The Failure of Self Regulation
Wednesday, October 15, 2008

The Adverting Standards Authority has today found that a homeopath advertised their asthma clinic for kids by making untruthful, unsubstantiated and irresponsible claims. Archway House Natural Health Centre holds an Asthma and Eczema clinic for children, run by Julia Wilson, a member of the Society of Homeopaths.

Inasmuch, this is not news. The ASA make judgments like this every week. Their weekly published list today contains all sorts of findings against chiropractors and related quacks. But what makes this interesting is that this advert, in the form of a leaflet, has already been subject to a complaint directly to the Society of Homeopaths, who claim to regulate their members. Over a year ago, I was concerned that the Society's Code of Ethics was being widely ignored by their member and there was no evidence that they took any steps to uphold their code which is designed to protect the public. If so, this was pretty serious. People would be visiting homeopaths under the impression that their membership of the Society of Homeopaths ensured that certain standards would be maintained and that they would not be misled or endangered as a result of the consultation.

[Retrieved: Wed Oct 15 2008 23:55:39 GMT+0100 (GMT Daylight Time)]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#77 Postby Alan H » October 22nd, 2008, 1:19 pm

Some of this week's adjudications:
GlaxoSmithKline plc Making claims that Horlicks made children 'become taller, stronger and sharper'. More worryingly, it was made to appear that the trial carried out was scientific, when it was nothing of the sort. The advert was not intended for broadcast in the UK, but in Nepal where rules are more lax. That's all right, then.

Mashco Ltd A product that 'nourished hair', making claims that could not be substantiated by scientific evidence (the evidence they had related to a different chemical).

Woodvale Clinic Misleading use of the title 'Dr' to infer medical qualifications.
We considered, however, that the title "Dr" before a practitioners name should not be used in ads unless the practitioner held a general medical qualification, a relevant PhD or doctorate (of sufficient length and intensity) or unless the similarities and differences between the practitioner's qualifications and medical qualifications were explained in detail in the ad.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#78 Postby Alan H » October 29th, 2008, 1:41 pm

Some of this week's adjudications:

Lifes2good UK Ltd A company selling a preparation for hair loss using anecdotal evidence instead of proper evidence.

New Nordic Ltd Making medicinal claims about some kind of 'natural' tablet that helped growth that could not be substantiated.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#79 Postby Alan H » November 5th, 2008, 4:43 pm

05 November 2008 Adjudications

Lifescan Ltd A circular for Lifescan stated "We've been checked! Put your mind at ease with a health check from Lifescan, the UKs leading provider of private CT assessments". They lost the adjudication because the ad might discourage people seeking advice from their GP; that their CT scan could identify any type of health problem; and it didn't make clear that CT scans exposed patients to radiation and could be harmful if used frequently. The complainant was particularly concerned because the NHS National Screening Committee did not recommend CT scans.

Zipvit Ltd A brochure for health products featured an ad for ZV Snore Solution Spray. They could not substantiate the implied claim in the ad that the product could cure snoring, so they lost!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#80 Postby Alan H » November 20th, 2008, 3:33 pm

Recent adjudications

God TV Ltd A circular, for God TV, was divided into two halves. On the left-hand side, the ad contained strobe lines, broadly similar to those used in the Big Brother logo. Text stated "WATCH THE HOUSE MATES SLEEP?". The right-hand side was plain white and text stated "WATCH A PARALYSED WOMAN WALK?" Further, smaller, text stated "THIS IS REALITY TV SKY 760 (580 AFTER 21ST JULY) EVERY NIGHT FROM 7.00PM". Issue: One complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it implied viewers would witness a miracle on TV. The complaint was not upheld, because they were questions, not statements!

Healthspan Group Ltd A catalogue mailing, for health food supplements, stated: "Selenium is thought to be important for a healthy immune and cardiovascular system, as a protection against some forms of cancer and to maintain male fertility. Three complaints about their claims were upheld.

Agora Lifestyles Ltd A direct mail leaflet for a Nano UV Disinfectant Light Scanner. Issues: 1. The complainant objected that the ad caused undue fear and distress. 2. The ASA challenged whether claims about the efficacy of the product could be substantiated. Both upheld.

Sister Charlotte A leaflet, for a psychic and clairvoyant named Sister Charlotte, stated "TO ALL BELIEVERS PSYCHIC READER SPIRITUAL HEALER ... SISTER CHARLOTTE CAN DO MANY GREAT THINGS FOR YOU! Issues: 1. The complainant challenged whether Sister Charlotte could prove that she had a 100% success rate in removing bad luck, sorrow, depression, curses, body sickness, headaches, jealousy, witchcraft, evil and negative energies. The ASA challenged whether Sister Charlotte could substantiate: 2. the claim that she had 25 years' experience, and 3. the claim that she could find solutions to people's problems in love, relationships, marriage, jobs, business, family, money, finance, studies, exams and immigration. All upheld.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Advertising Standards Authority

#81 Postby Alan C. » November 21st, 2008, 2:31 pm

In any kind of business, it pays to advertise.

And in the case of Sister Charlotte, self- styled crystal ball reader and spiritual healer, her promotional leaflets gave a glowing impression of her mystical powers.

Depression, bad luck, sorrow, curses, sickness, headaches, jealousy, negative energies around the home and even witchcraft - she could banish them all.

But there was one thing she had not foreseen: the negative energy of the Advertising Standards Authority.

The watchdog stepped in after receiving a complaint from a member of the public who objected to a leaflet trumpeting the psychic's '100 per cent success rate'.
No proof: The Advertising Standards Agency took exception to Sister Charlotte's claim of curing everything from witchcraft to depression

No proof: The Advertising Standards Agency took exception to Sister Charlotte's claim of curing everything from witchcraft to depression

The leaflet said: 'I am a palm, tarot card, crystal ball reader and spiritual healer with 25 years' experience.

'Remember no matter how big you think your problems are, they are not impossible to solve. I can find solutions for you in: love, relationships, marriage, job, business, family, money, finance, studies, exams, immigration.'

Confronted with her extravagant claims, the ASA challenged the psychic to prove it. As she was unable to do so, the agency ordered her to tone down her more extravagant boasts.

Sister Charlotte, 33, who declined to give her real name, lives with her husband and three children in Chorlton, Manchester.

She said her gift for spiritual and psychic reading was spotted, aged six, by her paternal grandmother, who was also a spiritualist.

Sister Charlotte offers palm readings for £15, crystal ball readings for £25 and a tarot service for £20.

She said: 'A man phoned out of the blue asking how I can claim to do all this but I don't claim to cure cancer or solve devastating marriage problems.

'I speak to my clients. They tell me I am effective at removing negative energies and relieving their physical, emotional and spiritual problems. I am 100 per cent successful with people who come to see me. If someone does not think the treatment works, I give them a refund.'

A spokesman for the ASA: 'We noted Sister Charlotte was unable to send documentary evidence to prove she had a 100 per cent success rate in removing the afflictions listed in the ad or to demonstrate her length of experience.

'In addition, she was unable to send evidence to show that she had found solutions to people's problems in any areas of life.

'We concluded that Sister Charlotte's claims were unsubstantiated and were likely to mislead.'

Rather than continue to make her fantastic claims, Sister Charlotte has decided to stop handing out the offending leaflet.

The ASA has received 174 complaints about psychics' advertisements over the past two years

I am 100 per cent successful with people who come to see me. If someone does not think the treatment works, I give them a refund.'Eh!
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests