Comments on: The FTC wakes up, too

By: michelle

michelle — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:58:42 +0000

isnt it odd that there hasnt been a cure for a major disease since polio? cmon people, canser is a money making business, pharmacutical compnaies would go out of business if they found a cure for cancer. They create diseases then creat a phony drug that surpresses it temporariy until it causes some other “unatural function” in yr body.
the earth has many remidies, how do you think mankind survived before, doctors, pharmacutical companies, fda, fts, and the goverment?
they are trying to regulate population and want money money money

By: Celtic_Evolution

Celtic_Evolution — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:14:49 +0000

@ Harold –

OK… Thanks for clarifying. I still think it helps to keep an emotional response within the context of a particular conversation, and yours seemed a bit extreme for this discussion. But I can understand the reason for your feeling that way, based on your description.

By: Celtic_Evolution

Celtic_Evolution — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:12:51 +0000

Michael L –

Well, it depends… if an endorser is found to meet the same 5 criteria listed above for fraud, and profits from that fraud at the expense of the victim, yes… an endorser could technically be included as a party to the fraud. A victim must demonstrate that the endorser is in fact aware that a claim is false, and that’s always the hard part.

Additionally, I believe most celebrities who do endorsements sign contracts that have built in indemnity clauses in them which state that while the person may endorse the product, he or she does not represent any claims made by the product manufacturer. This is fairly common in endorsement deals and is meant to protect the endorser from liability. I can’t think of a case off the top of my head where an endorser has been found guilty of fraud for endorsing a fraudulent product. Although someone with more direct knowledge of such a case may know of one.

By: Harold

Harold — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:48:58 +0000

Celtic_Evolution, to be honest, I don’t think any one comment here set me off, though I had the same visceral reaction to what Max Fagin said as you, and that got the train of thought rolling. In a large part it was that damned illustration in Skeptical Inquirer, which came out shortly before a series of people around me began to be diagnosed with cancer. As soon as I began reading this entry I started getting mental pop-ups from the SI article. Considering that that article appeared ten years ago, you can tell how much of an impression it left, and how deeply the image burned.

By: Michael L

Michael L — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:23:35 +0000

Thanks for the info, Celtic. One question though, that hasn’t been answered as far as I can see. Would a celebrity who endorses a fraudulent individual and his product be complicit. For example, Hugh Downs endorsing Kevin Trudeau?

By: Celtic_Evolution

Celtic_Evolution — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:59:38 +0000

If you’ve never had cancer, never known someone with cancer – well, good for you. I’m jealous. But, please, while we’re lashing out at the scumbags who peddle these snake oil cures to the desperately ill, please show a little compassion towards the desperately ill victims of their scams.

Harold… I certainly agree with this statement, as do i think most of us here… so I’m curious as to what prompted you to feel the need to write it. Reviewing both the original post and the comments that followed, I see most of the vitriol being directed at the “scumbags who peddle these snake oil cures”… I’m not really seeing a lack of compassion for the victims’ conditions, per se. We’ve been arguing Max’s “buyer beware… in ALL cases” stance, but I’m not sure that’s necessarily showing a lack of compassion for the victims’ illnesses.

So, did I miss something that prompted this concern? If so, I apologize.

By: Peter B

Peter B — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:23:56 +0000

Max Fagin said: “You don’t have to be an expert in 127 (bleeping) disciplines to survive. Just learn good critical thinking skills, and know your sources. You probably aren’t a doctor, but you didn’t need to consult the FDA to figure out that homeopathy is bogus. You probably aren’t astronomer, but you didn’t need to consult the NSO to figure out that astrological medicine doesn’t work.”

Yes, it might be obvious that astrological medicine won’t work, but what about that packet of headache tablets you bought? If they’re the real thing, they’ll relieve your headache, but how can you know they’re the real thing?

If you’re going to test things for genuineness, the only practical solution is to band together with a group of like-minded people and share research. But, as I’m sure you’ve realised, the effect is much the same as having a regulator. So why not simplify the situation, and have a regulator who is legislated to act in the best interests of the consumer?