Be Excellent To Each Other

Oh and here is a little dirt on the wonderful Klee Irwin.



http://www.casewatch.org/civil/irwin/cl ... plaint.pdf

It's a good job alternative medicine practitioners and companies aren't into suing people for libel.

* MODS-

Could we please split out the 'hi fi' stuff into a new thread if that's OK please? Many thanks.

Cavey

I shall do that right now.

Actually there's an existing thread we can dig up.

Here!

How is it libel if it is true ?

You'll find many websites that exist to get the truth out about these products.

http://www.infomercialwatch.org/reports ... tion.shtml

Has been around since the launch of the product. I can't remember if that specific one was put up by an actual doctor but I know for a fact that a site of the ilk existed. The doctor in question (a real qualified one) sat down and went through the ingredients one by one explaining exactly what they were, what they did and the effects. By the time he was done he concluded that it wasn't really safe for any one, let alone those with digestive problems.

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Infact that is the website.

That hasn't stopped the BCA or NMT.

Also, bear in mind it's not just about whether any particular facts are true (e.g. "the ingredient doesn't work"), it's also about how you present them and the words you surround them with and the implications that can then be drawn (e.g. anything to do with motive, dishonesty or them knowing the stuff doesn't work), which can be fucking hard to prove to be true if you have to defend yourself.

Many thanks mate.

wrong thread!

Well TBH that website is pretty much what I have said. Only difference of course is that unlike that website I have worked in the actual company. I have read (and been forced to read, in verbatim) all of their 'scripts' and am no longer under NDA.

FWIW that website list most if not all of the legal wranglings Irwin has been through. Cellular research was the name he came up with after Irwin Naturals and a couple of others were forced to cease trading.

So? What's that got to do with you implying e.g. that they're dishonest? Do you have copies of anything which proves that they're dishonest?

They may well be a bunch of shysters, but given how litigation happy shysters can be you'd be well advised to be a bit more careful about what you publish on the internet. Fine if it's your website, but as someone pointed out last time, you're putting Grim... at risk too.

You could happily have told that story without the name of the company, ffs.

Is he doing it again?

Lawyers: advise?

OBJECTION! I just did, dude.

I think the hifi stuff was an attempt at drawing a parallel - Doc was quoting a USB cable that was touted to give you better sound quality of MP3s copied over using it.

So, something that has no basis in science, but it promoted by sources (what hifi) as being a great product, and users will say that "it works for them".

So the same thing as homeopathy, basically.

Indeed, but it did quickly veer off into specifics of cables (possibly my fault). Doc's point is still clear.

In what way does that address what I've said?

It may well be a fact that the products can cause problems, but you appear to be making accusations of dishonesty against the owner, which is nigh on impossible to prove. Are you really this dense, or do you just not read my posts?

I concur with my friend.

Exactly that, yes.

If you can hear the difference, even if there is none, can you not argue that it's money well spent?

Yes, you could argue that.

I wouldn't say it's impossible to prove. He has a huge track record of being dishonest.

http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/pro ... omni.shtml

Any way. I didn't post to cause an argument about legal wranglings, hence why I probably seem 'dense'.

If my post can cause any problems for this forum and its users (other than me, I'm quite prepared to stand by what I have posted) then please by all means remove it.

Good lord, man, do you read your OWN posts? Nothing there is about dishonesty, but mislabelling and selling drugs which need to be licensed.


Try not to do it yet again in a week's time though.

So mislabelling drugs is not dishonest?

Not necessarily, no, because it can be done through utter fucking ignorance or incompetence or just a technical breach. It's also a case of not putting things on there which need to be on there.

I've already referred to the BCA case, which was about just this sort of thing - while we may think that chiorpracters thinking they can cure colic with spinal manipulations is dishonestly selling bunkum treatments, the court of first instance disagreed, basically because the chiropracters genuinely believe in their treatments. i.e. the defendent would have to prove that they didn't.

Well, I like to think that with my background, and given that I actually took the trouble to 'audition' various cables at home over weeks at a time with an overriding objective of spending as little as possible, there *was* a quantifiable difference in performance that was worth paying for, otherwise I wouldn't have paid it. Obviously. (And if I didn't, I'd be an idiot, wouldn't I? Must admit, the implication of Gaywood's question, as now explained to me by Craster, is now clear to me, whereas I was just answering it in earnest/good faith originally. )

You must have been like "WTF is Gaywood on about?"

Here's another one. Yet this time I will leave Wikipedia to do all of the explaining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau

Very interesting stuff though.

Yup, I was mate lol.
I should have realised, however.

I believe the claim goes that the water "remembers" what was mixed in with it, and takes on the qualities of that chemical. Because of magic.

It has never been proven, and every single time it has ever been tested, there has been no significant difference between water and magic homeopathy space juice.

If the homeopaths were right, then all the water on the planet would have the same effect on the body as every single chemical on earth, and all life on the planet would have melted in a chemical-induced mess aeons ago. It is demonstrably bollocks, to the extent that there is one doctor in the US (I think - I forget the guy's name) who has publicly maintained for many years a promise that he will personally give 1 million dollars to anyone who can prove that homeopathy works. In fact I believe he doubled the prize a few years ago.


And Chris - stop being mean to JC

James Randi? Though his is a Paranormal test, but he debunks homeopathy as well.

There is a bloody brilliant image that Lave (?) posted here one time which is like a photo panel strip about homeopathy pills having the water evaporated from them, so that even if you 100% accept the fact that water 'remembers', there is no water left anyway.

Someone should know what I'm on about and post it. Unless I already missed it.

The pills remember that they used to have water in, duhh.

Now, now. There's nothing in THE SCIENCE about sugar also having a memory.

Do you like your shiny super boffo HDMI cables?

Found it!

http://i.imgur.com/jKenI.jpg

See, told you. Memory of sugar.

Good name for a blog.

... for Chinny.

If damn near every bubble of that didn't have a terrible typo in it, I'd find it far more entertaining. As it is, 2/10.

664 Bananas

Topical:
http://www.sadanduseless.com/image.php?n=1098

So, there's a petition on Change.org that says

Jimmy himself replied.

http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-w ... nses/11054

Wow, I'd entirely forgotten about this thread.

All my favourite topics are back today. I truly am in the magic kingdom.

And reminded me of this excellent image I posted further up the thread. It's ace.
http://i.imgur.com/jKenI.jpg

*goes off to find the Amy Winehouse thread*

You'll need to search for 'junkie bitch'

That is brilliant!