Skin Care and Treatments of Melbourne Dermatology - Basic Research — Reference List

86,200+ expert documents for the skincare aficionado.

Home

Account Login/View Cart/Checkout

Perennial / Wisdoms

UV Exposure
Aging Skin and Mature Skin
Theories of Aging
Antioxidants
Sunscreens

Selected Skin Care

Avene
Dibi
Glytone
Heliocare
Kinerase
Kinerase PhotoFacials
Kinerase Pro+
La Roche Posay
MD Rx
Neostrata
OlosPrevage MD
RevaleSkin
Ti-Silc / Z-Silc
Tricomin
VitaMedica
Browse more brands.

Facial Skin Condition Treatments

Adult Acne
Dark Circles
Deep Wrinkles
Hyperpigmentation
Open Pores
Puffy Eyes
Rosacea

Body Skin Condition Treatments

Keratosis Pilaris

Skin Care Ingredients

Alpha Lipoic Acid
Arginine + Serine
Asiatic Acid
Blueberry
Caffeine
Capryloyl Salicylic Acid
Ceramides
Chlorogenic Acid
Chrysin
Coffee Berry
Hydrolyzed Hyaluronic Acid
Mexoryl
Pro-Xylane
Silymarin
Sodium Laureth Sulfate/Sulphate
Browse more ingredients.

Clinical Procedures and Topics

Aging Skin
French Skin Care
Idebenone
Klein Becker
Oxidative Stress
Perricone
Skin Structure
Stem Cells
Healthy Skin Barrier Function
Smoking
Sun Protection
Topical Vitamin C/Firming
Choices and Needs
Strivectin

Browse more clinical skincare topics.


Basic Research — Reference List

Basic Research — Reference List

Pure irony: "Basic’s vision of a responsive, ethical industry is changing the way cosmetic, fitness and weight-loss products are researched and marketed, and our reputation for cutting-edge product development and meticulous research speaks for itself."

Sad skin care failure: "Basic Research distributes some of the best-selling, most sought-after formulations on the market today."

Basic Research's products comprise skin care products, weight loss and other supplements including Strivectin, Amatokin, Idebenol, Sovage and Lumedia.

Other associated names are found under the Tentative List of Companies and Brands linked to Strivectin-SD (Basic Research).

10/7/08 — ASA Rules Against Amatokin by Strivectin's Basic Research.

Friday, 24 July 2009

30-Day Money Back Guarantee

The provision of a guarantee should not be an excuse for product manufacturers and marketers to make misleading claims.


"[A]llowing a seller to rely on a refund policy as a defense "would make the false advertising prohibitions of the [FTC] Act a nullity. Anything might then be advertised as long as unsatisfied customers were returned their money." FTC v. Pantron J Corp., 33 F.3d 1088, 1103 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Montgomery Ward & Co. v. FTC, 379 F.2d 666 (7th Cir. 1967)); see also Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C at 834 n.81 ("Thompson also argues that its money-back guarantee evidences its good faith reliance on the evidence that Asperereme is effective. However, a money-back guarantee is not a defense to a charge of deceptive advertising.")"


Source — Matter of Basic Research L.L.C., A.G. Waterhouse L.L.C., Klein-Becker USA L.L.C., Sovage Dermalogic Laboratories L.L.C., BAN L.L.C., Dennis Gay, Daniel B. Mowrey and Mitchell K. Friedlander (The Respondents); Compaint Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Decision, Docket #9318 (Public Document) submitted by members of the Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, US Federal Trade Commission (the Complaint Counsel) February 7, 2005 relating to a variety of products made and advertised by Strivectin's makers Basic Research L.L.C., and associated companies and individuals. Download PDF (0.5 mb).


Thursday, 10 July 2008

ASA Rules Against Amatokin by Strivectin's Basic Research

Amatokin

Empty-vessel Amatokin from "Voss Laboratories" by Strivectin's Basic Research has been comprehensively reprimanded by the UK's ASA after the Harley Medical Group filed an official complaint against the manufacturer's promotional practices.

The ASA now requires the degenerate group responsible for Voss (Heather Hurst, Gina Gay, among others) to submit all advertising for review prior to publishing.

The following points regarding Amatokin were made clear:

Basic Research Products are widely available and blindly promoted by department stores and beauty salons of all descriptions.

If you'd like to try Amatokin, Olay's Regenerist Range offers the same ingredient's paucity of results at lesser cost and greater respect for your intelligence, although not your skin.

Tuesday, 14 August 2007

Amatokin

Amatokin Skin Care Product

The latest crass incarnation of degenerate scientific skincare from Strivectin's Basic Research is Amatokin by Voss Laboratories.

Read more here...

Thursday, 28 May 2009

Amatokin (by Imaginary "Voss" Laboratories)

Amatokin (by Imaginary "Voss" Laboratories)

Amatokin Skin Care Product

The latest crass incarnation of degenerate scientific skincare from Strivectin's Basic Research is Amatokin by Voss Laboratories.

Basic Research may have a variety of motivations for marketing Amatokin under the name of yet another new pseudo-laboratory, but chief among them would have to be a desire to avoid guilt by association with their past criminal frauds.

Frauds including purported stretch mark cure and botox-alternative Strivectin, idebenone-free Idebenol, Pedialean (stimulant weight loss drug for children), Ripping and Cutting (weight loss topical) Gels and Trivestin (marketed as more effective than the FDA/TGA-approved arthritis drug Celebrex).

With Amatokin, Basic Research present (for the combined pollution of your mind, deterioration of your skin, and their financial profit) the "breakthrough" of a "stem cell cream."

As such a product has no scientific basis, and Basic Research doesn't for one minute fathom the idea of actual dermatological research, Amatokin marketing to date has been presented in glossy magazine editorial style.

Presumably, the marketer's notion with this approach is to fool, or at least suggest, that the product's praise is the courtesy of an independent and discerning third-party.

They've been "suggesting" the possibility of superior alternatives to Botox for too long now, much to Allergan's annoyance, and anyway, Botox is Strivectin's cash-cow, just as Sovage suckers on Prevage and Idebenol on idebenone, and so on.

Suckering, though not extracting any substance.

Nevertheless, Amatokin's ride they hope will come courtesy of Botox again, though this time the catch phrase used will be "paralyzing injections are so last-year!"

But Botox is far from passé, and just as Basic Research's Idebenol doesn't contain idebenone, Amatokin is cytokine-free.

The female model chosen to appear in Amatokin's advertisements has predictably wrinkle-free features, devoid of any expression other than mutedly surprised.

She is also whiter than Princess Leia in clown makeup, shot overexposed almost to the point of having no nose, and bathed in white light from one side.

For all intensive purposes she is a corpse in makeup and not a glowing image of health.

And then there are the usual, seemingly professional endorements.

Tiffany Strobel, Beauty Editor of MyFreeDiet.Com, a site which turns out to be owned by Basic Research. And good old, French-sounding Dr. Natalie Chevreau — whatever her name really is, she's also on Basic Research's payroll, directing their fantastical department of "Women's Health". Like Strivectin's Dr. Mowrey, neither are actually medical doctors.

Additional marketing materials herald Amatokin as:

  • the most profound skin care breakthrough in more than three decades;
  • the product of secret Russian biotechnological research which took place in a high-security medical lab surrounded by razor wire and machine-gun-toting armoured guards;
  • originally developed as a treatment for victims of devastating skin burns.

Similarly, Basic Research had suggested to us earlier that Strivectin could surpass Botox; that their research had yielded an outstanding, medically validated peptide; and that it had been intended for "serious stretch marks."

Yes, all of Basic Research's products are intended for "serious" problems, so presumably they'll have no problem annihilating your comparatively minor concern of wrinkles.

We're all waiting for the wrinkle cream made by a friendly life form on Mars, known and accessible only to the quacks at Basic Research, who visit them in a Sovage-powered spaceship to ferry back an active ingredient, originally devised by the martians to instigate faster expansion of the universe, found to be more effective than plastic surgery, after martians in a secret lab "became confused" and started applying it to their faces.

Sadly, back on Earth, cosmic radiation has already affected the brains of the Basic Research drones:

"Controversy is nothing new for Amatokin," says Heather Hurst, spokesperson for Voss Laboratories. "At one point it looked as if Amatokin would remain underground and never be launched. The product was such a hot point of contention that we simply did not want to be part of a needlessly bitter debate."

Oh the exciting, vacuuous rarity of it all.


Further (External) Amatokin Information:

Simon.Smith on Amatokin — Manufactured Controversy as Marketing;

Rumors on Amatokin: a skin stem cell wrinkle cream?;

Could stem cell cream be future of face care? (Daily Mail, UK);

US National Institutes of Health Stem Cell Information.

The Voss Amatokin Web Site.


Saturday, 1 July 2006

Claims of Strivectin's Superiority

"Dr. Nathalie Chevreau, PhD, RD, Director of Women's Health at Salt Lake City based Basic Research®, exclusive distributor for Klein-Becker, explains..."


  • Klein-Becker and Basic Research share a common control, office space, employees/personnel and funds (see source).
  • Nathalie Chevreau is not a medical doctor.


"Leading dermatologists agree that Botox is the preferred treatment for moderate to severe frown lines between the brow. But ever since it was discovered that StriVectin could reduce the appearance of fine lines, wrinkles, and crows' feet... the kind of fine lines, wrinkles and crows feet that can add 10-15 years to your appearance and which costly medical treatments often leave behind ... skin-care professionals have been recommending, and using, StriVectin."


  • Botox is a bona fide medical treatment suitable for use around the eyes — it and other cosmetic drugs do not leave behind this area of patient concern and are recognized as effective by government regulatory bodies (such as the US FDA and Australian TGA)


[ "Strivectin SD — Better Than Botox?" ]


  • A published medical study (Dermatol. Surg. 2006 Feb;32(2):184-92 — abstract) found that Botulinum toxin type A (found in Botox Cosmetic made by the pharmaceutical company Allergan) was superior to Strivectin.
  • Unlike Botox, peptides are not proven to smooth wrinkles in proper clinical trials.
  • Botox is the most popular non-surgical "cosmetic corrective procedure" (in 2003 there were 2,272,080 Botox injections administered).
  • Botox is locally effective on muscles that give rise to wrinkling (topicals cannot achieve the same effect — if they did paralysis of the wrong muscles would also occur, including those in the hands used to apply them.
  • Allergan attempted to sue the makers of Strivectin for their use of the trademark in their slogan "better than Botox?" but lost on grounds of it being a question rather than a statement.


"In other words, StriVectin-SD helps give you a youthful, healthy, glowing complexion faster than retinol, far superior to vitamin C ..."


  • Retinoids are approved for wrinkle treatment by the Australian TGA and US FDA.
  • The role of Vitamin C in the skin is supplementary to and not an alternative to retinoids.


Source of Quotations — "Better than Retinol and Vitamin C, but Is StriVectin-SD Better than Botox*?" @ http://www.strivectin.com/sd/better-than-botox.php accessed 27/4/06.

Saturday, 1 July 2006

Compaint Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Decision, Docket #9318

Matter of Basic Research L.L.C., A.G. Waterhouse L.L.C., Klein-Becker USA L.L.C., Sovage Dermalogic Laboratories L.L.C., BAN L.L.C., Dennis Gay, Daniel B. Mowrey and Mitchell K. Friedlander (The Respondents); Compaint Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Decision, Docket #9318 (Public Document) submitted by members of the Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, US Federal Trade Commission (the Complaint Counsel) February 7, 2005 relating to a variety of products made and advertised by Strivectin's makers Basic Research L.L.C., and associated companies and individuals. Download PDF (0.5 mb).

Monday, 15 June 2009

Dennis Gay (Basic Research, Strivectin et al.)

Dennis Gay (Basic Research, Strivectin et al.)

Wednesday, 15 August 2007

Doctor's Quoted in Strivectin SD Materials are not Medical Doctors

Strivectin-SD's US advertising references a Dr. Nathalie Chevreau ("Director of Women's Health at Basic Research, LLC") and Dr. Daniel B. Mowrey (Director of Scientific Affairs at Strivectin manufacturer Klein-Becker).

The two companies in purportedly even-handed dialogue with one another are one and the same.

Moreover neither individual quoted is a medical doctor: Nathalie Chevreau is a registered dietician and Daniel B. Mowrey holds a PhD in experimental psychology (he has taught courses in experimental psychology, psychopharmacology, physiological psychology, sensation, cognition, and statistics).

This hasn't been clarified anywhere — its dishonest to lead the public, beauty therapists and medical doctors such as dermatologists to believe these people are representative of any portion of the medical community.

Despite legal action by the US Federal Trade Commission and media interest dating back to 2004, Dr. Daniel B. Mowrey's name continues to be plastered over literature for new products such as "Idebenol" (ripe for convenient confusion with recent prominent medical studies into the antioxidant "idebenone") and "Hylexin" from "Bremenn Research Lab" — a product for "serious dark circles."

This flavour of confusion is common to many products falling under the cosmeceutical category.

Wednesday, 15 August 2007

FTC Charges Strivectin's Basic Research with False and Unsubstantiated Claims for Weight-Loss and Fat-Loss Gels

June 16, 2004


The Federal Trade Commission has charged a Utah group with making false and unsubstantiated claims for weight-loss and fat-loss gels and supplements, including Dermalin, Cutting Gel, Tummy Flattening Gel, Leptoprin, Anorex, and PediaLean.

The FTC alleges that the promoters violated the FTC Act by making unsubstantiated fat and weight loss claims, false claims that clinical testing proves certain efficacy claims, and false claims that Daniel B. Mowrey, Ph.D, is a medical doctor.

Dramatic, unsubstantiated weight and fat loss claims continue to tempt the overweight with new hope for a quick fix. Its particularly disturbing, however, when marketers peddle such pills and potions for children without adequate substantiation, according to Howard Beales, Director of the FTCs Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The Commissions administrative complaint names: Basic Research, L.L.C.; A.G. Waterhouse, L.L.C.; Klein-Becker usa, L.L.C.; Nutrasport, L.L.C.; Sovage Dermalogic Laboratories, L.L.C.; BAN, L.L.C.; Dennis Gay; Daniel B. Mowrey, Ph.D., also doing business as American Phytotheraphy Research Laboratory; and Mitchell K. Friedlander, all operating from the same Salt Lake City facility.

The promoters market numerous dietary supplements and topical gels through a variety of media, including the Internet. In particular, Leptoprin has been heavily advertised through short-form infomercials; the topical gels have been promoted through newspapers and national magazines, such as Cosmopolitan and Muscle and Fitness, and PediaLean has been advertised in magazines such as Redbook.

Dermalin, Cutting Gel, and Tummy Flattening Gel all contain the active ingredient aminophylline in a lecithin base. Dermalin and Tummy Flattening Gel are sold under the Klein-Becker usa and Sovage trade names, and are advertised primarily to women interested in thinning their figures. Cutting Gel, sold under the Nutrasport trade name, is primarily advertised to male bodybuilders who want to eliminate areas of fat that obscure their muscle definition.

The FTCs complaint challenges as unsubstantiated claims that Dermalin, Cutting Gel, and Tummy Flattening Gel cause rapid and visibly obvious fat loss in areas of the body to which they are applied. The complaint challenges as false the claim that published, clinical testing proves that Cutting Gel and Tummy Flattening Gel cause rapid and visibly obvious fat loss in areas of the body to which they are applied.

The complaint further challenges as unsubstantiated claims that Leptoprin and Anorex cause weight loss of more than 20 pounds in significantly overweight users and that those products cause loss of substantial, excess fat in significantly overweight users. In addition, the complaint challenges as false claims that clinical testing proves that Leptoprin causes weight loss of more than 20 pounds, including as much as 50, 60, or 147 pounds, in significantly overweight users; and that clinical testing proves that Leptoprin causes loss of substantial, excess fat in significantly overweight users.

In addition, the complaint challenges claims that PediaLean causes substantial weight loss in overweight or obese children, and that clinical testing proves such claims. The complaint further challenges the respondents claim that respondent Mowrey is a medical doctor. The FTC alleges that he is not.

Sunday, 22 June 2008

Foregone Conclusions: Priori and Prevage with Idebenone

Wealthy skincare manufacturers must truly take pause to snigger at the infinitely monetizable paradox many aging women choose to represent.

Namely, to voice real concern over their changing appearance, while simultaneously being compelled to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot over an extended, critical period of time, ensuring lasting, permanent damage and perpetual dissatisfaction.

Dissatisfaction which typically results in increasing amounts of unrealistic treatment, coupled with bouts of apathy which do nothing to increase the likelihood of the right decisions ever being made for any meaningful period of time.

Use of Idebenone (a topical antioxidant ingredient found in Prevage and Priori) is ideally representative of the ease with which individuals will "anti-aging treatment" to degenerate into farce.

In every instance, combination 15% ascorbic acid and 1% tocopherol treatment is markedly more effective at preventing permanent skin damage than any available idebenone formula — either Prevage (from Allergan) or the less impressive Priori copycat formula which has been piggybacking on Prevage's popularity.

Priori does at least contains idebenone, something the parasites at Basic Research saw fit to leave out of their "Sovage with Idebenol."

Research and testing for topical idebenone has only ever been an in-house, biased affair because individual's conducting clinical trials stood to gain financially from reporting positive results for topical idebenone.

In contrast, objective third-party (peer-reviewed) testing was conducted at Duke University for combination ascorbic acid and tocopherol.

Neither is combining ascorbic acid and tocopherol proprietary, although its rarely done to skin's benefit.

Prevage and Priori's comparisons between idebenone and combination ascorbic acid and tocopherol are made using concentrations of C & E at a fraction of those used in practice.

The fiction of its superiority continues with the form of idebenone available through the department stores and beauticians being weaker than the studied amounts.

In contrast, the formula studied at Duke University is identical to the original "C & E" product.

Experience also bears out the plain facts because even longer-term users of idebenone present with skin statistically similar to the mean for their age.

The situation is rarely remedied because individuals are adamant that their antioxidant choice represents sound judgement, undistorted by wishful thinking or marketing.

Idebenone marketing alludes to higher levels of prevention to satisfy consumers drawn to science, but whom for whatever reason lack the inclination or ability to apply the realism their skincare approach would seem to mandate.

Certain skincare manufacturers toy with the women who make up this quasi-scientific skincare-using community like cats with mice, only allowing them so much freedom before they knock them back in the direction of their latest survivalist ingredient for another round of idiocy.

Masochistically, these women tend to serially return to the same chintzy stores that instigated unnecessary permanent aging of their skin in the first place.

Dogged brand and ingredient evangelism is a practice fostered and enjoyed by beauty therapists and the cosmetics industry.

Although possibly well-meaning, this is quintessentially a rehearsed marketing behaviour individuals internalise to their detriment.

You may choose to implement idebenone as an auxiliary antioxidant, however its use alone, or in place of individually superior alternatives, is technically negligent.

Using idebenone in place of the independently-reviewed ascorbic acid and tocopherol acetate formula, and genuinely expecting to limit aging to the same (or better) degree, is like yelling at the sun in a bid to stop it setting at the end of the day.

Saturday, 1 July 2006

Friedlanders — Ironic Legal Actions

"[Friedlander] alleges that PDK has failed to disclose to consumers that its products are untested and lack FDA approval. Friedlander contends that purchasers have relied on these misrepresentations, and that, consequently, PDK has injured the general consuming public. Friedlander also claims that PDK's alleged misrepresentations have eroded general consumer confidence in weight control products; as a result, PDK's actions have reduced the desirability of his product and thereby injured his business."

And yet:

Matter of Basic Research L.L.C., A.G. Waterhouse L.L.C., Klein-Becker USA L.L.C., Sovage Dermalogic Laboratories L.L.C., BAN L.L.C., Dennis Gay, Daniel B. Mowrey and Mitchell K. Friedlander (The Respondents); Compaint Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Decision, Docket #9318 (Public Document) submitted by members of the Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, US Federal Trade Commission (the Complaint Counsel) February 7, 2005 relating to a variety of products made and advertised by Strivectin's makers Basic Research L.L.C., and associated companies and individuals. Download PDF (0.5 mb).

Wednesday, 15 August 2007

Letter to Dennis Gay, CEO Basic Research regarding "Designer Steroids" such as Pedialean

March 25, 2003

Committee Correspondence

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce

W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman

Energy and Commerce Leaders Question Drug Classification of Designer Steroids


Mr. Dennis Gay

President and CEO

Basic Research LLC

402 West 5050

North Provo, UT 84604

Dear Mr. Gay:

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction over matters relating to the regulation of food and drugs, advertising and marketing practices, consumer protection and public health. Pursuant to this authority, the Committee is undertaking a review of non-prescription dietary supplements and is particularly interested in reviewing dietary supplements that have been, are being, or may be developed, produced or marketed specifically for children. It has come to our attention that you have developed and are selling a product called "PediaLean." In various media outlets where you have advertised this product, including on your website www.pedialean.com, you have stated that this pill is for children from ages 6-16 years old that have a weight problem; further, you have indicated that your product has been "clinically proven safe" for children and has been tested successfully in a clinical trial with children. However, it is our understanding that the active ingredient in "PediaLean" is "Pediatropin," a substance that you state on your website and in advertisements as being derived from "p.rivieri," the Latin name for a plant extract called the "konjac root." Further, it is our understanding that "glucomannan," a bulk forming laxative, is also derived from the "konjac root." This raises the question of whether "Pediatropin" is simply a trademark name for glucommanan and, if not, what the specific ingredients are in the "PediaLean" product as a whole, as well as, in the "Pediatropin" component. It is our understanding that glucomannan has never been tested for safety in the United States on children.

In order to obtain additional information about this matter, we are requesting that, pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of Representatives, you provide the Committee with the information requested below by Tuesday, April 8, 2003.

1. A listing of all ingredients and the amount of each ingredient contained in the current marketed formulation of "PediaLean," and any other formulations of the product marketed or tested in humans, as well as, all records that relate to any research and/or testing of any and all ingredients in the product, whether conducted by your company or any other person or entity.

2. Identify the person(s) responsible for determining the ingredients and amount of each ingredient contained in "PediaLean." Include in your response the name of the person, the most recent address and telephone number, the name of the company with which the person is affiliated and title within the company.

3. Identify all ingredients that are in "Pediatropin" and their scientific origins and explain the "method for micro-processing the plant [p. rivieri] into a high molecular weight powder" that you refer to on your website www.pedialean.com.

4. Explain what the "proprietary micronization process" of PediaLean is and how this process guarantees that "PediaLean" is the "one and only weight-control compound designed, manufactured, and clinically provide safe and effective for use by overweight children and adolescents," as you represent on your website www.pedialean.com.

5. All records relating to the development and marketing of "PediaLean."

6. Provide a list of any other brand names under which the current or any previous formulation of "PediaLean" is or has been marketed, produced or sold by Basic Research LLC, a related firm, or supplied under contract to an unrelated firm for marketing under their brand.

7. State whether "PediaLean" (or any of its active or inactive ingredients) has been tested for either safety or efficacy purposes in children to whom it is being marketed -namely, children ages 6-16 years old. Include in your response a description of the group that was tested (as well as those who were excluded from such testing and the reasons therein), the specific ingredient(s) that was tested and the duration and results of the test(s). Provide all records that relate to such tests, including but not limited to the clinical trial referenced on your website, www.pedialean.com.

8. Provide a list of all physicians or scientists who were involved in the development of "PediaLean" and include in your response the following information:

1. Name of the physician or scientist;

2. Address and telephone number for the physician or scientist;

3. Identification of States in which the physician is licensed to practice medicine;

4. Whether the physician or scientist received any compensation or benefit, monetary or otherwise, for agreeing to speak on behalf of your product. If the person received compensation, identify the type and amount and any and provide all records that relate to such compensation or benefit, including, but not limited to, any written contracts between the physician or scientist and you or any corporate entity with which you are affiliated;

5. Whether the physician or scientist has prior experience in pediatric care and if so, explain their medical credentials; and

6. Provide all of the information about "PediaLean" that was given to such physician or scientist.

1. State whether you have received consumer complaints or notifications concerning adverse health events associated with "PediaLean." If so, for each year beginning when your product was first available for consumption, provide the following information:

1. The name of complainant; b.

2. The date of complaint;

3. A summary of consumer's adverse event(s);

4. A summary of company's response to complaint;

5. Whether any information about the complaint was reported to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") or any other government entity, and if so, a summary of the information that you provided; and

6. All records relating to such complaints.

1. State whether your company has reporting or tracking procedures for adverse health events reported by consumers of your products. If so, identify the entities to which these reports are made, the individual(s) responsible for retaining such information, and describe the specific procedures. Provide a copy of all procedures described in this question.

2. State whether a customer has filed any lawsuits against your company alleging health-related problems associated with taking "PediaLean." If so, provide the following information:

1. The name of complainant(s);

2. The date the lawsuit was filed;

3. A summary of health-related allegations of lawsuit; and

4. The status of the lawsuit (i.e. pending, settled, verdict).

1. Identify all corporate entities, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, in which you are an officer or director, have a senior management position in or are a founding member. Include in your response the name of the corporate entity, the address, your position in the entity, and the dates of your affiliation.

2. Describe the corporate relationship between Basic Research LLC and Klein-Becker usa. Provide all records that relate to the corporate relationship of these companies.

3. Provide a list of the names and titles of senior management in Basic Research LLC and Klein-Becker usa, including those individuals involved in developing and marketing "PediaLean" and any of the ingredients used therein.

4. From 1998 through the present, state the annual revenue for Basic Research LLC, Klein-Becker usa and the amount of revenue per year generated from sales of "PediaLean."

5. Provide the name of the company(ies) producing and/or manufacturing "PediaLean" and the name of the company(ies) distributing "PediaLean" in the United States.

6. For each year from 1998 through the present, identify and describe all investigations by state or Federal agencies of your company (including Klein-Becker usa) relating to your products, including but not limited to "PediaLean." Include in your response the name of the product being investigated; the identity of the investigating agency; the nature of the investigation; and, if applicable, the resolution of the investigation.

Please note that for purposes of responding to this request, the terms "records" and "relating" should be interpreted in accordance with the attachment to this letter. The term "product" refers to "PediaLean," unless otherwise noted; the term "you" or "your" means Basic Research LLC or one or more of its divisions, subsidiaries or affiliates, or related entities.

If you have any questions, please contact Kelli Andrews, Majority Counsel, at (202) 226-2424, or David Nelson, Minority Investigator, at (202) 226-3400.

Sincerely,

W.J. "Billy" Tauzin Chairman

John D. Dingell Ranking Member

James C. Greenwood, Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations

Peter Deutsch, Ranking Member Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations

Wednesday, 15 August 2007

Lydia E. Pinkham, Basic Research et. al's Foremother

Lydia E. Pinkham, Basic Research et. al's Foremother: 98 out of every 100 women benefitted.

Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Natural/Organic Instinct Products Contain Unlisted + Mislabelled Chemicals

Natural/Organic Instinct Products Contain Unlisted + Mislabelled Chemicals - Natural Instinct Skin Care Products

A regulatory inquiry has found that Natural and Organic Instinct products, identical expect for the slight variation in name and sold for several years through health food stores and chemists, contain an array of unlisted and mislabeled chemicals.

Despite their overt and foremost marketing claims of "no sodium laureth sulphate," "petroleum by-products" or "detergents", among other purportedly beneficial omissions, the products actually contained all of these, and more.

Although many chemicals have alternate names, Natural and Organic Instinct products contained actual sodium laureth sulphate, cocamide DEA, cetrimonium chloride and fragrance/perfume despite claiming to be free of these chemicals.

For example, the company had held that it didn't use sodium laureth sulphate and formulated with "sodium salt of sulphonated laureth" as an alternative. Similarly, they passed off added product fragrance as "preservative T."

Additionally, ingredients were not listed in declining order of concentration as expected by mandatory convention, giving the impression that these relatively inexpensive products contained exceptionally high concentrations of plants.

Some advertisements had stated the products were made from 100% plant oils and herbs. Natural and Organic Instinct's spokesperson states that "100% can be used loosely" despite it being an arithmetical value.

These blatant skin "care" inventions have abused end-users who need to avoid certain ingredients due to allergies, sensitivities or ethical reasons.

The belief that "organic" and "natural skin care" is superior seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding about the source of ingredients used in products.

There is no foreign matter for inclusion into skin care products available anywhere on Earth — there are only configurations of the same matter.

Plants contain chemicals, chemicals can be extracted from plants or made synthetically from chemicals which happen to also be found in plants (among other things), and those chemicals are identical:

Natural/Organic Instinct Products Contain Unlisted + Mislabelled Chemicals

"... the roots, when soaked and powdered, release saponin, a useful soap-like substance."

Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne, South Yarra Californian Garden — July 10, 2007.


Certain skin care marketers, such as psychologist Dennis Gay who gave us Strivectin among the body of Basic Research's work, clearly understand how to manipulate apparently psychogenic concerns to their advantage.

For efficacy and even safety, it's generally best to give very small or recent personal care product manufacturers a wide berth until they prove they can provide genuine products over a long period of time.


Natural and Organic Instinct products are manufactured by Natural Products of Australia Pty Ltd in Victoria.

Friday, 9 November 2007

New Yorker Article: Zantrex, Basic Research, Pedialean, Strivectin et al.

Miracle in a Bottle


Dietary supplements are unregulated, some are unsafe and Americans cant get enough of them.

One day last September, as Britney Spears was about to board a flight to Los Angeles from London, a rectangular blue bottle fell out of her purse. She quickly stuffed it back in, but not before the paparazzi recorded the event. Neither Spears nor her spokesman was willing to comment on the contents of the bottle, but the next morning London's Daily Express published a page of pictures under the headline exclusive: pop princess spotted at airport with pot of slimming tablets. Spears was apparently carrying Zantrex-3, one of the most popular weight-loss supplements currently sold in the United States. The pill, which retails at about fifty dollars for a months supply, contains a huge dose of caffeine, some green tea, and three common South American herbs that also act as stimulants. It hit the U.S. market last March and has had a success that would be hard to overstate. Millions of bottles have been sold, and during the Christmas season it was displayed in the windows of the nations largest chain of vitamin shops, G.N.C. (It is so highly sought after that many of the stores keep it in locked cabinets.) Zantrex-3 is also sold at CVS, Rite Aid, Wal-Mart, and other chains, and over the telephone and on the Internet. If you type Zantrex into Google, more than a hundred thousand citations will appear. At any moment, there are scores of people auctioning the stuff on eBay.

Perhaps the most interesting element of Zantrex-3's success story, however, is that it is far from unique. There are hundreds of similar products on the market today, and they are bought by millions of Americans. And though Zantrex's manufacturer makes some heady claims (the most advanced weight control compound period), so do the people who sell Stacker 2 and Anorex (whose publicity assures us that the genetic link to obesity means that repeated diet failure is not your fault), along with those who sell Carb Eliminator and Fat Eliminator. Almost all of these compounds suggest that they can help people lose weight and regain lost vigor, and often without diet, exercise, or any other effort.

The diet-pill business may be the most visible segment of the vitamin-, mineral-, and herbal-supplement industry, but it is by no means the largest. Thousands of different tablets, elixirs, potions, and pills are sold in the United States, and remarkably little is known about most of them. That doesn't deter consumers. Since 1994, when Congress passed a law that deregulated the supplement industry and opened it to a flood of new products, the use of largely unproved herbal remedies from blueberry extract for impaired vision to saw palmetto for the treatment of enlarged prostates and echinacea to prevent colds has increased as rapidly as the use of any commonly prescribed drug.

Since that legislation, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, became law, companies have been able to say nearly anything they want about the potential health benefits of what they sell. As long as they don't blatantly lie or claim to have a cure for a specific disease, such as cancer, diabetes, or aids, they can assert without providing evidence that a product is designed to support a healthy heart (CardiAll, for example), protect cells from damage (Liverite), or improve the function of a compromised immune system (Resist). There are almost no standards that regulate how the pills are made, and they receive almost no scrutiny once they are, so consumers never truly know what they are getting. Companies are not required to prove that products are effective, or even safe, before they are put on the market.

Still, there is more to the growing reliance on supplements than the lapses of a single law: Americans long ago wearied of taking doctors orders, and, increasingly, they are skeptical about the motives of big pharmaceutical companies. People want to feel in control of their own health. Supplements, with their natural connotations and cultivated image of self-reliance, let them do that. There is even a word to describe all the things other than plain food that people consume in the pursuit of health: nutraceutical.

Nutraceuticals are found everywhere today, in foods fortified with extra vitamins, in sports drinks, in enriched water, and now even in candy. Six out of ten adults in the United States take one or more supplements each day. Often, these include multivitamins, which are frequently recommended by physicians, but a staggering number of amino acids, weight-loss cures, and herbal tonics are also swallowed every day, all in the belief that they will improve health, fend off disease, or make up for dietary and behavioral habits that have placed obesity and indolence among the leading health problems facing the United States. Last year, Americans spent nineteen billion dollars on dietary supplements nearly five times as much as they did just a decade ago. And they spent that money on everything from Vitamin C to garlic (the uses of which vary, with benefits that are never clear), from kava (which the F.D.A. says may cause severe liver damage but which is still widely available in health-food stores as a remedy for stress) to comfrey (an herb of dubious value commonly used to quell irritated stomachs), and even ephedra, which the federal government only recently decided to ban, despite reports over the last eight years implicating it in scores of deaths and hundreds of strokes, seizures, and other severe maladies.

For many people, this whole thing is about much more than taking their vitamins, Loren D. Israelsen, the executive director of the Utah Natural Products Alliance, and a principal architect of the 1994 legislation, told me not long ago. This is really a belief system, almost a religion. Americans believe they have the right to address their health problems in the way that seems most useful to them. Often, that means supplements. When the public senses that the government is trying to limit its access to this kind of thing, it always reacts with remarkable anger people are even willing to shoulder a rifle over it. They are ready to believe anything if it brings them a little hope. Frequently, such products come veiled in a cloak of science. Ads for Zantrex-3, for example, claim that its superior power is validated by a direct comparison of published medical studies . . . scientific fact . . . irrefutable clinical data. The people who sell the pills on the telephone don't rely on science at all, however, when they tell callers that the capsules in those blue bottles could change their lives.

When I train salespeople, I say to them, Do you know what people are calling you for? It isnt the pill. They are calling you for hope. That is really what they want from you, Don Atkinson, who is the vice-president of sales for Basic Research, the privately held conglomerate that distributes Zantrex-3, told me recently. I spoke with him in his office in Salt Lake City, which regards itself as the Silicon Valley of the dietary-supplement industry. Atkinson, a hearty and engaging man with a graying buzz cut and a firm handshake, slowly wrote the word hope on a lined piece of paper soon after I came in. The customer has been overweight for years. And they have tried everything. And they have been on Atkins and everything else and nothing has worked. And some of these people are so incapacitated by their weight and their problems associated with it that they would like to die. Just wish they could just die. And they dial up and they are unhappy people. And they think, O.K., if I take this and it doesn't work its further evidence that I am a failure. Our job is to give them hope. To say, You know what? You can do this. Atkinson stopped for a moment and pumped his right fist in the air. I love my job, he said. And do you know why? Because when I get up in the morning I know that somebody's life is better because we are here. Somebody today got some hope.

Atkinson told me that he was delighted by the Britney Spears news, not so much because of the publicity windfall but for the larger message it conveyed. You know what is great about that? Its the fact that she is using a weight-loss product and she looks terrific. Just the fact that we are even talking about what Britney Spears uses or doesn't use to keep her weight down tells the whole wide world that its O.K. to be a little overweight and its O.K. to work on it. And its O.K. to use things to help you get there. Thats what it all says to me, and that is why we are here.

Herbs have been ingested regularly, in every conceivable combination, for thousands of years, and many are clearly beneficial. Vitamins and minerals are essential for human health: calcium supplements have prevented perhaps millions of cases of osteoporosis; folic acid helps prevent neural-tube defects; insufficient amounts of Vitamin B12 can lead to dementia. Simply eating citrus fruit, and the Vitamin C it contains, was enough to vanquish scurvy, which in the mid-eighteenth century killed more British sailors than the wars that Britain fought.

The way that nutrients work in foods has come to be properly understood only in the past hundred years. Because of the lack of specific knowledge, the preceding era had been one of open and unapologetic quackery. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, patent-medicine men roamed the United States. For every illness imaginable, they promised wondrous products and magical cures.

The rapid growth of patent medicines was largely a result of two unrelated events, and they eerily foreshadowed the 1994 Dietary Supplement Act and the rise of the Internet as a commercial tool. In 1793, Congress passed patent legislation that permitted manufacturers to protect their formulas (without requiring that they even work). Around the same time, the number of newspapers published in the United States began to increase dramatically. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the patent-medicine business accounted for more newspaper advertising than any other kind of product. Many manufacturers became rich; some became famous. Lydia E. Pinkham's Vegetable Compound, advertised as A Positive Cure for all those Painful Complaints and Weaknesses so common to our best female population, made Pinkham's face as recognizable then as Martha Stewarts is today.

In 1914, officials of the American Medical Association decided to analyze Pinkham's compound. It turned out to be twenty per cent pure alcohol and eighty per cent common vegetable extracts. Most patent medicines had similar ingredients. Sometimes they were laced with cocaine, caffeine, opium, or even morphine. Its not surprising that they provided a few hours worth of relief. There was no restriction on the vast armamentarium of remedies on the market until 1906, when the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed, mainly as a result of the revelations in Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. The act permitted the Bureau of Chemistry, which preceded the Food and Drug Administration, to insure that labels contained no false or misleading advertising. For a while, at least, snake-oil salesmen went the way of the Conestoga wagon.

Since then, the pendulum has swung between unregulated anarchy and restrictions that outrage many Americans. It has usually taken a disaster to persuade Congress to adopt strict regulations. Sulfanilamide, a drug prescribed to treat streptococcal infections, was used safely and effectively for years in tablet and powder form. Most children cant swallow pills, though, and in June, 1937, researchers at one company found that the drug would dissolve in diethylene glycol; they tested the mixture for flavor, appearance, and fragrance but not for toxicity and then shipped it all over the country. They overlooked one important characteristic of the solution: diethylene glycol, normally used as an antifreeze, is a deadly poison. Within weeks, scores of children were dead. The victims experienced severe abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, stupor, and convulsions. In a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, one woman described the death of her child: Even the memory of her is mixed with sorrow for we can see her little body tossing to and fro and hear that little voice screaming with pain and it seems as though it would drive me insane. The next year, after a hundred and thirty-seven deaths, Congress passed the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which finally gave the F.D.A. the authority it needed to regulate such products.

For many years afterward, there was little controversy about drugs or about dietary supplements, which mostly meant vitamins and minerals. It didn't use to be so complicated, Annette Dickinson told me. She is the president of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, which is the most influential of the many groups that look after the interests of the supplement industry. Each year, supplement manufacturers contribute millions of dollars to political candidates. The industry has been remarkably successful in arguing that, because the First Amendment protects commercial speech, it can be used in defense of any claim that includes even a hint of truth. Dickinson is an aggressive supporter of supplements, yet she acknowledges that charlatans have proliferated wildly in the past decade, making her job, and that of most reputable manufacturers, much harder. In Dickinsons view, the industry would be better served if it returned its focus to the core nutrients: basic vitamin and mineral supplements. In the beginning, you had your one-a-days, and there were minerals and herbal products, too. A drug was something intended to treat or cure a disease, and you needed to have proof that it could do those things; the line between foods and drugs was absolutely bright and clear. If you made a disease-related claim for something that was not approved, the F.D.A. would come down on you like a ton of bricks. All through the forties and the fifties and the sixties, that was true.

By the middle of the nineteen-seventies, as the complex relationship between diet and health became more fully understood, the distinctions between foods, drugs, and supplements began to blur. First, with a major report issued in 1977 by the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, and then with studies by the National Academy of Sciences and other research groups, the government started telling Americans to alter their diets if they wanted to have long and healthy lives. Advice about ways to reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and many cancers and other chronic illnesses became routine: eat less salt and fat and add fibre and whole grains; eat more fruits and vegetables and watch the calories. Food companies were eager to promote many of their products as medically beneficial. It was illegal, however, to suggest that there was a relationship between the ingredients in a commercial food and the treatment or prevention of a disease. Then, in 1984, the Kellogg Company launched a campaign, in conjunction with the National Cancer Institute, in which All-Bran cereal was used to illustrate how a low-fat, high-fibre diet might reduce the risk for certain types of cancer. These days, it is almost impossible to pass by a supermarket shelf and not encounter such claims; but All-Bran was the first case in which a manufacturer issued a statement that was interpreted widely as Eat this product because it will help prevent cancer. It led to the era of product labels, and completely changed the way Americans think about not only foods but dietary supplements as well.

Since then, the English language has been stretched to its limits in the attempt to link products to health benefits. Even claims that are true may be irrelevant. Vitamin A, for example, is important for good vision as supplements for sale in any health-food store will tell you. Insufficient consumption of Vitamin A causes hundreds of thousands of cases of blindness around the world each year, but not in the United States; here people don't have vision problems arising from a lack of Vitamin A. Although statements advertising Vitamin A for good vision may, like many others, be legally permissible, they are meaningless. The laws allow manufacturers to make fine legalistic claims, Paul M. Coates, the director of the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, told me. What we now have is an entire cottage industry of creative linguistics dedicated solely to selling these products. Instead of mentioning a disease (which in most cases would be illegal without F.D.A. approval), companies make claims that a food can affect the structure or function of the body. Such claims can appear on any food, no matter how unhealthy it is. You cannot assert that a product reduces cholesterol, but you can certainly say that it maintains healthy cholesterol levels. You cannot state that the herb echinacea cures anything, since it has never been shown to do that. But there is no prohibition on stating that it has natural antibiotic actions and is considered an excellent herb for infections of all kinds. Gingko biloba has been recommended to Alzheimers patients because it supports memory function. Does it? Since research is not required before a supplement is released, there are not nearly enough data to know.

In a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, scientists compared the effects of echinacea with a placebo in treating colds. Echinacea is one of the most commonly used cold remedies in the United States. But the study, of more than four hundred children over a four-month period, showed that a placebo worked just as well, and that children treated with echinacea were more likely to develop a rash than those who took nothing. Studies like that are rare, since they cost money that manufacturers are not required to spend. But they are at least as likely to disprove benefits as to confirm them. Ginseng has long been promoted as an energy booster, for example, yet the military, in studies of possible energy enhancements for troops, has found it worthless. Still, in my local health-food store not long ago I saw more than a dozen supplements advertising the fact that ginseng improves energy.

It was all done for crass commercial reasons, Marion Nestle told me. Nestle, the former chairman of the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, is the author of Food Politics, which examines in detail the ways in which the food and supplement industries influence the nutritional policy of the United States and the health of its citizens. In the name of health! The companies have masked it in an argument for freedom of speech. And look at some of the ways it all plays out. Obesity is an epidemic in our country. Is this helping? Not a bit. She went on, I was staying in California this summer at the house of some friends. They had all sorts of health-food products for kids, and, to my surprise, among them were shark-shaped fruit snacks with Vitamin C and gummy bears with echinacea. Its candy masquerading as something that will improve a child's health. It comes in one-ounce packages. Just the right size to throw in a lunch pail. Its brilliant marketing. Just brilliant.

One recent Harris poll found that most people believe that if a supplement is on the market it must have been approved by some government agency (not true); that manufacturers are prohibited from making claims for their products unless they have provided data to back those claims up (no such laws exist); and that companies are required to include warnings about potential risks and side effects (they aren't). When something goes wrong, though, most people expect government health officials to find a solution, David A. Kessler told me. Kessler, who is the dean of the School of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, was the F.D.A. commissioner when Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Act, which he adamantly opposed. This is really the classic American ambivalence, and it has always been part of our nature, he said. The view of most people is simple: I want access to everything and I want it now. The Federal Trade Commission not the F.D.A. regulates supplement advertising. But the F.T.C. is principally concerned with commerce, not science: it focusses on the content of the labels, not the content of the pills. Although since 1994 the agency has sued more than a hundred diet-pill companies, in 2002 it found that at least half of all weight-loss ads contained false or misleading statements. Despite its vigilance, the agency has an impossible job; for each success, ten new companies seem to appear.

When people get sick, Dr. Kessler pointed out, the refrain is always Where the hell is the F.D.A. to protect me? The supplement industry doesn't have to report adverse events, so the F.D.A. doesn't have the data it needs to protect people. You cannot prove something is unsafe if you don't have the data. Its the ultimate Catch-22. It is also a colossal failure to protect the public health of this country.

Until a year ago, when Steve Belcher, a twenty-three-year-old pitcher for the Baltimore Orioles, died of heatstroke after taking an over-the-counter product that contained ephedra, it was by far the most popular supplement in the United States, bringing in a billion dollars a year and accounting for more than ten per cent of the supplement industry's annual sales. Ephedrine, the herbs active ingredient, boosts adrenaline, stresses the heart, raises blood pressure, and increases the rate of a persons metabolism. Derived from the Asian herb ma huang, it seems to help with short-term weight loss and with increasing physical stamina. When used in combination with caffeine, as it often is, ephedra is associated with an increased risk of heart attack, stroke tachycardias, palpitations, anxiety, psychosis, and death. Even though it was cited as a contributing factor in Belchers death, only three states, New York, California, and Illinois subsequently banned supplements containing ephedra. After numerous studies and nearly a year of review, the F.D.A. announced, on December 30th, that it would prohibit the sale of such supplements. Yet, because ephedra is not a drug, it will be several months before the ruling works its way through the federal bureaucracy. (The agency has recognized for years that ephedra can be dangerous; its use in over-the-counter medicine has been regulated since 1983.)

Despite the risks, the appeal of diet pills is not hard to understand. Each year, obesity kills millions of Americans and costs billions of dollars. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that almost sixty-five per cent of the adult population is overweight. The prevalence of obesity among children is spreading, and if current trends continue more than forty per cent of Americans will be clinically obese within five years. The burden on the health system, not to mention the weakened quality of life that obesity causes, will be enormous.

I stumbled across an advertisement for Zantrex-3 while riding on the subway in New York one day. The name seemed coolly futuristic, and the ad was inviting, featuring an impossibly lithe and attractive couple dancing the tango. The copy beneath them promised in one amazing super pill both weight loss and incredible energy. You are not obese, Zantrex-3 ads say. You just need to lose a quick ten to fifteen pounds . . . and you want energy . . . plenty of energy.

Who could argue with that? I looked for the name of the company at the bottom of the ad: Zoller Laboratories. When I called the 800 number printed on the advertisement, the woman who answered told me that the company was based in Salt Lake City, but I couldnt find it listed in any of the databases that I normally use for research. Then I noticed, in an article about Britney Spears's weight problems, that the chief scientist at Zoller was quoted by name. I dialled the 800 number again and asked to speak with him. He answered the phone, but was startled when I asked if I could fly out and talk with him. He promised to call me back. He never did, but eventually the public-relations representative for a company called Basic Research invited me to visit Basics headquarters, in Salt Lake City. He told me that Basic was the exclusive distributor of Zantrex-3. Zoller Laboratories does exist, but there are no offices and no labs. Its a company created by the marketing team at Basic because its name sounds scientific.

Basic Research is a privately held conglomerate based in a modern, hundred-and-fifty-thousand-square-foot factory that was previously the U.S. assembly headquarters for Palm Pilot. Having tripled in size in the last year alone, the company is looking for more space nearby. The headquarters is a five-minute drive from the Salt Lake airport, and there are more than a dozen similarly squat industrial buildings scattered along the highway among the Days Inns and Guest Quarters. Most are home to companies with names like Utah Scientific, Cephalon, and Compeq. With the vigorous help of Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a principal sponsor of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, the area has become a magnet for supplement companies. Hatch has been the industry's greatest champion and has consistently fought tighter regulations on products like ephedra. (So has his son, Scott, who has earned millions of dollars for firms that lobby on behalf of supplement companies.)

Arriving early for my meetings, I waited in the lobby, which was festooned with flyers and advertisements for a stupefying variety of herbal tonics and miracle cures. A banner bearing the company motto We help people feel great about themselves was stretched across an open bullpen area where dozens of salespeople worked the phones. Basic has a remarkably high closure rate; more than sixty per cent of callers make a purchase. An advertisement for Zantrex-3 on the wall declared, Dietary Supplement Industry Pinning Hopes on New Super Stimulant, Non-Ephedra Diet Pill. Decline in Ephedra Diet Pill Sales Reversed by Zantrex's Sudden Popularity.

Basic puts out scores of products, which are marketed under the names of nearly a dozen companies, a practice that, according to Dennis Gay, the president and C.E.O., is intended to confuse competitors and protect our brands in the Wild West atmosphere that exists today in the supplement industry. With Zantrex-3, Basic has seized cleverly on the fears about ephedra marketing the pills as the high-tech substitute. But the company has many similar products; the cynically named Anorex, for example, is the first weight-control compound designed to mitigate the profound effect that variations in the human genetic code have on the storage, use, and disposition of body fat, and Relacore is the most significant weight-control advancement in more than a decade. (Excess tummy flab is not your fault.) There is also Sovage Breast Augmentation Serum, a topically applied bust cream (Yes They Are real breasts, one highly illustrative ad says), and Sovage Lip Plumper, to increase the fullness of ones lips. The company also markets tummy gels that promise ripped abs (Nutrasport Cutting Gel), and a variety of tonics to help one think, relax, or sleep more soundly.

One product, Strivectin-sd, a cream that is sold for more than a hundred dollars a tube in Nordstrom, Lord & Taylor, and other stores, is made by a company called Klein-Becker USA, which calls itself the industry leader in providing patented and exclusive weight-control and life-enhancement products that meet your individual needs. There is, however, neither a Klein nor a Becker, nor are there any specific employees who work there. Like Zoller Labs, its a company created by Basic because the name sounds impressive and pharmaceutical. Strivectin was originally intended for use by women to reduce stretch marks (and in many stores it is still marketed that way), but people soon began to rub it on their faces as well; Strivectin now asks, without any data to justify the comparison or the question, Even better than Botox?

Daniel B. Mowrey, the man responsible for creating most of these products, is a gentle-looking figure with blue eyes and gray hair that is thinning at the top. The day I met him, he was dressed in chinos, a denim work shirt, sneakers, and a loud paisley tie. I used to be a hippie, he said, shrugging, when he saw me staring at the tie. He told me he bought it long ago in Haight Ashbury. Mowrey is the director of scientific affairs at Basic and one of the three owners. Everyone calls him Dr. Dan. He received a Ph.D. in psychology from Brigham Young University, and although he never studied botany formally, he has written widely on the medicinal uses of herbs. He laid out his philosophy quite clearly in his book The Scientific Validation of Herbal Medicine, published in 1986:

The scientific method is a powerful tool, but it has its limits. . . . Medical science in America is a unique combination of economic and political factors, which fuse together almost religiously to promote synthesized, highly active chemicals.

Mowrey told me he believes that there is almost always a natural alternative to synthetic drugs: One that is cheaper, safer, and, often, more effective.

Mowrey came up with the components of Zantrex-3 the way he comes up with the elements of most of the company's products: by surfing the Internet. I never understand why my competitors don't spend more time just looking at the information on the Web, he told me. It's all out there, he said, showing me how he uses public database ssuch as those kept by the National Institutes of Health to see whats new in fields like weight control, memory, and aging.

Basic makes two major claims for Zantrex-3: that it will provide an immediate and sustained burst of energy, and that it will help people lose weight rapidly. For the first claim, Mowrey relied on a study by the U.S. military that examined the effects of caffeine on Navy seals who had been deprived of sleep and exposed to the extreme stresses of a training week. The study concluded that it is more effective in combatting fatigue than a placebo. One dose of Zantrex-3 is like drinking four cups of strong coffee. Whatever the merits of that study, almost anyone who takes the pills is sure to feel the jolt and many people buy them for that reason alone. (The clerk at my local G.N.C. warned me to take the pill with food, or I might get too high.)

The company attaches a tiny brochure to the neck of each bottle which says that Zantrex-3 caused 546 per cent more weight loss than Americas No. 1 ephedrine-based diet pill without diet and exercise. It goes on, published clinical studies don't lie. I asked Mowrey to show me the data he used to arrive at that figure. He acknowledged that the figure was based not on a direct comparison of the two diet products but on extrapolations of results from unrelated studies.

One of the studies, which Mowrey describes as a groundbreaking paper, published in 2001 by two Danish researchers in the British Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, evaluated the effectiveness of a mixture of three South American herbs now used in Zantrex-3 in aiding weight loss by making people feel too full to eat. The study followed forty-six subjects for forty-five days. Half were given a placebo and the others received the herbal mix. At the end of the study, the herbal group had lost eleven pounds, on average, whereas the other group had lost less than one. Seven participants were followed for another year, during which they neither gained nor lost more weight.

The subject of obesity, after being largely ignored by the medical establishment, has finally gained currency in the United States, and many major medical schools and scientific institutes now are pouring research money into the field. Yet, despite thousands of weight-loss studies and an increasingly focussed search for solutions, there is no evidence that any prescription, over-the-counter product, or supplement has ever kept a persons weight down for much more than a few months. At best, such drugs or supplements are short-term answers to lifelong problems; at worst, they intensify the disorders they attempt to cure. I asked Mowrey if it was fair to assert, as he has, that whether weight management or energy management is your goal, Zantrex-3 represents the very best options available anywhere.

What options are better? he asked. We have to look at the study. We are not free to go beyond it, but its not fair to ignore it, either.

Losing eleven pounds in forty-five days certainly sounds promising, but the results of a single six-week study involving fewer than fifty people would almost never provide enough meaningful data to prove the value of a drug or supplement of any kind. It usually takes years and involves hundreds, if not thousands, of subjects before a study of a new drug can yield clear evidence that it is effective. The main herbs in Zantrex-3, guarana, yerba mat, and damiana, coupled with caffeine, zanthene, and green tea, among other ingredients are stimulants, laxatives, and diuretics. You do not need a degree in nutritional sciences to realize that if you take a combination of stimulants, laxatives, and diuretics for six weeks you are going to lose weight, or to know that, over the long run, such a diet plan is certain to fail. The idea that a pill, a mixture of herbs, or anything else will allow people to lose weight and keep it off without any other effort is completely ridiculous, Kelly Brownell told me when I called to ask his opinion of Zantrex-3. Dr. Brownell is the chairman of the psychology department at Yale, and he is also the director of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders. You look at a study that, in the end, followed seven people for a year and you can conclude nothing from that.

Mowrey argues that Americans ought to have the chance to make decisions about the value of supplements for themselves. There are a lot of pharmaceuticals derived from plants, he said. Lots of times, the safety issues are not important. And you have to remember what you have to do if you develop a drug today. Say you do a small study of maybe a hundred and fifty people and you find that as a result of the study eighty-five of the women who take this who would otherwise get breast cancer don't. The F.D.A. demands that the company spend several billion dollars and fifteen years of research answering every little question that comes along. Every nitpicky little question. Now, how many people have you killed before you introduce this drug to the market?

Drug companies don't offer money-back guarantees, he continued, emphasizing one of Basic's main policies. We do. And if it isn't going to work, if its not effective, then we have the ability to give money back. There is satisfaction guaranteed here. Can you imagine a drug company doing that? We are in the business of wellness, not of curing sick people. A lot of dietary supplements are designed to prevent problems from ever happening. There is no drug that is going to prevent illness. Drugs treat illness. They are going to be very, very invasive. Whereas dietary supplements are not invasive. You can combine vitamins with minerals and plants together in a thousand ways without anything happening that is bad.

The notion that herbal combinations are natural and therefore can't cause harm serves as a first principle for many people who take supplements as a solution to their medical problems. Even the most seemingly benign substances, however, can turn out to have significant and wholly unexpected effects. Perhaps the best example is grapefruit juice, which can disrupt the work of a series of enzymes that are found in the small intestine and which serve to break down drugs before they are absorbed into the bloodstream. Taking medicine with grapefruit juice permits it to enter the bloodstream in dangerously high concentrations, which keeps it from doing its job and can intensify many side effects. Many common pharmaceuticals including antidepressants, antihistamines, and cholesterol medications are not metabolized properly if they are taken with grapefruit juice.

There are numerous examples of herbs, drugs, and supplements that cause reactions or that when taken together are harmful. Beta-carotene, found in carrots, has always been considered purely beneficial, yet recent research has shown that, for men with certain types of cancer, those who took beta-carotene supplements had a significantly worse prognosis than those who did not. There is a scientific maxim that the dose makes the poison that any substance, no matter how useful, can cause trouble if you take too much of it. Most physicians don't even know what supplements their patients are taking, let alone how much, so trying to warn people about possible interactions among them is impossible. The remedy for all this is to stop dangerously pretending that pharmacologically active substances called dietary supplements should be treated completely differently from pharmacologically active substances called drugs, Sidney Wolfe, the director of Public Citizens Health Research Group, told me. You cannot determine if they are safe or effective without doing the studies. And with supplements the studies are almost never done.

Some herbs do work, of course, yet the absence of effective manufacturing standards in the United States means that even then consumers cant rely on commercial formulas. Black cohosh has been used for centuries to treat a variety of common ailments, including, most recently, menstrual and menopausal problems. In Europe, it is considered a drug and many studies have shown that it can have value. Women often take some form of the root instead of using hormone-replacement therapy. Still, in the U.S. the herbal product that you buy tomorrow may be different biologically from the same product purchased next month. I have a friend who, at the onset of menopause, began to use a supplement that is composed principally of black cohosh. For several months, her symptoms disappeared. One day, however, she bought a new bottle, and within a week her symptoms had returned so severely that she called her doctor from a car on the West Side Highway. I demanded a prescription for hormone-replacement therapy, she told me, even though she considers it dangerous. Her doctor guessed correctly that she had just bought a new bottle of the supplement, and advised her to switch to a different product containing black cohosh, Remifemin, which is made, by Shaper & Brunner, in Germany, where it is regulated as a drug.

With herbal products made in the U.S., however, there is simply no way to know what you are getting in each bottle. In 2002, researchers at the New York Botanical Garden published a study in the journal Economic Botany in which they reported on using DNA-fingerprinting techniques to identify several species of black cohosh. They found great variation in the herbal mixtures that were turned into products for the marketplace. Its hard to make a botanical product exactly the same way every time. Without rules, there is almost no incentive to try.

Since the standards for making diet pills are set largely by the people who sell them, I decided it would be useful to see how Zantrex-3 was made. You go look at the factory, Dennis Gay told me. If you think we are a sleazy operation, remember: we could do it for half the price. The next day, I drove to Cornerstone Nutritional Labs, in Farmington, about twenty minutes north of Salt Lake City on I-15. Cornerstone, an independent company that produces most of the Zantrex-3 sold in the U.S., pumped out 1.7 billion capsules, tablets, and pills last year, nearly two hundred thousand an hour for every hour of every day. I was greeted warmly by Brent Davis, Cornerstones director of nutraceutical sales, who offered to show me around the plant. We slipped on disposable booties, gowns, and hairnets, and removed the metal from our pockets, so as not to contaminate the materials. Our first stop was the receiving area at the plants loading dock, where dozens of fifty-kilogram drums of raw herbs, green tea, yerba mat, and pangea among them were lined up and stacked nearly to the ceiling, forty feet high. As soon as the herbs arrive at the factory, they are sampled for color, consistency, density, and purity. The raw materials are then taken to a weighing room, where they are collected by men in moon suits and sampled again. Most of the machines sit in clean rooms adjacent to the factory floor, cordoned off by walls of double-paned glass.

After the herbs are collected, they are mixed in a blender. This is not as easy as it might appear; natural organic compounds are far harder to combine than synthetically made drugs. A product like Vitamin E comes in tiny balls, and most herbs come in flakes. The same herb can vary in consistency, in provenance, and even, at times, in species. Some need water; others are ruined by the slightest exposure to moisture. Some supplements require a minute amount of an ingredient less than a hundred and fifty micrograms, for instance, to be mixed evenly into more than a hundred cubic feet of powder. And each supplement must be made in such a way that every capsule in every bottle is identical in quality and strength. Its a hell of a job to do, said Michael Meade, the director of operations for Basic Research, who was also on the tour. There's a recipe, and once its worked out its fine. But it takes time to get it right, and many companies fail. The idea that you just throw it all into the soup and wait is ridiculous. He said that Cornerstone was unusually rigorous in its testing, and that Basic was pleased by the consistency of the results.

Like other manufacturers in the secretive and, for the most part, privately owned supplement industry, Cornerstone declines to talk about its revenues or even name its clients. (Basic Research, too, reveals almost nothing about its earnings, expenditures, plans, or goals.) But Zantrex-3 is obviously a big part of Cornerstones current business. The factory's largest blender, which was given over completely to the production of Zantrex-3 when I was there, can turn five thousand kilograms of raw powder into the equivalent of fifteen million pills a day. As soon as the newly homogenized herbal material leaves the blender, it is pressed by another machine into blue capsules, which are dumped into giant drums, thirty-five thousand capsules in each drum. They are then collected in a hopper and fed into bottles.

Cornerstones computer system monitors every gram as it passes down the line, and supervisors keep the floors spotless. Once the bottles are filled, they are capped and a tamper-proof seal is melted on. Labels are applied by the same machine. Finally, one of the brochures advertising Zantrex-3's amazing power is fastened by hand to the neck of every bottle on the assembly line. From there, the bottles are packed into boxes that are loaded into cartons, which are shrink-wrapped and ready to ship. If Basic Research were willing to cut a (totally legal) corner or two, there is no doubt that it could produce those pills for far less money.

When I left Cornerstone, I drove to a nearby Wal-Mart, which, along with such stores as Circuit City and Bed Bath & Beyond, anchors a mall in a suburb of Salt Lake City called Murray. Wal-Mart is the biggest of what Gay refers to as the big boxes, the giant chains that can insure a products success simply by stocking it. By summer, all four thousand Wal-Mart stores will carry Zantrex-3; many of them will feature displays with the tango-dancing couple that I had noticed on the subway in New York.

The Murray Wal-Mart has an extensive section devoted to supplements of all kinds: bottles, packets, and cartons promising the usual array of unproved benefits, and promoting the health of the eyes, the skeletal system, the urinary tract, the brain. A tiny asterisk appeared on every product including Zantrex-3 that suggested a connection between its contents and better health: This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. If a product whose label promotes it as contributing to wellness is not intended to cure, treat, diagnose, or even prevent any health problem, what, one has to wonder, is it supposed to do? But there they all are, dozens of brands: Stacker 3, with chitosan, and Starch Away, which blocks calories from bread, pasta, pastries and other foods (Dieting has never been easier, the bottle says). Zantrex was for sale, along with ZN-3, a new product that advertises itself on the label as being like Zantrex. It has the same ingredients and costs half as much, but, since only the names of ingredients are listed, not the amounts, what comes in each capsule is anybodys guess.

As I walked out of the store, I heard an announcement on the loudspeaker: Welcome, shoppers. Right now at the McDonalds inside this Wal-Mart you can get two cheeseburgers for only one dollar. This offer is for a limited time only. Also at this McDonalds we accept MasterCard and Visa.

Dennis Gay is a fifty-seven-year-old, pear-shaped man who has been waging an unsuccessful war on his weight for years. The first time I met with him, he was dressed in shades of green: olive pants, pale, pine-colored shirt, and loden tie. He had a short, neatly trimmed graying beard. At that meeting, Gay was accompanied by a man who was described as a consultant but who obviously played a significant role in the company, because he did most of the talking. (Nearly every time I asked Gay a question, he deferred to his colleague.) The man spoke fast, and had a New York accent. He didnt give me his name, although I asked him for it three times.

I wondered whether Basic Research believed that new laws requiring more regulation and stricter standards would be bad for the industry. They are simply not needed, the man who wouldn't identify himself blurted out. The F.D.A. has the authority to act today if it wants to remove something from the market. But it always prefers to use the media. He went on to say that although he assumed that ephedra would be banned there were really no significant problems with the herb, which Basic Research continues to sell, and which its salespeople told me on the telephone was the best way by far to lose that weight fast. He said that Zantrex-3 increased metabolism without increasing the heart rate or blood pressure which, as it happens, is almost never the case.

After the interview, I learned that the mans name was Mitchell K. Friedlander, and that he had made false claims about diet pills, and in the nineteen-eighties was prohibited by the U.S. Postal Service from selling them through the mail.

When I spoke to Gay a second time, Friedlander was not there. I said it was hard to ignore the fact that his most trusted adviser Gay described him to me as a marketing genius had been found to have made false claims about diet pills. Gay told me that he had hired a private investigator to check Mitch out and that he was comfortable with the report. Mitch is valuable, Gay said. He doesn't desire to become a part of the company, and I don't think we want him to be. I asked if working with a man with Friedlanders past bothered him, since he was trying to establish Basic Research as one of the more reputable companies in an extremely irregular business.

Remember the old days when the banks hired safecrackers to protect them? Gay said. Is this that different? What are the standards in this industry? Tell me what they are, because I really wish I knew, so that I could abide by them. We try to do better, but there are no clear rules. None. He went on, We would welcome standards as long as they don't take the choice away from the public. I wouldn't welcome the standards that exist on the drug side. Because then you have no choice. And the American consumer is not stupid. He deserves to make his own mind up about what he does.

This is Gay's bottom line, and that of the industry as well. I have to get into my lecture, he said, and walked over to a whiteboard in the office. Lets say I've got ninety-nine people that have a fatal form of cancer. The way the F.D.A. regulates drugs now, a study would typically look like this. He drew three big circles and wrote the number thirty-three in each of them. A third will get nothing, and they are going to die. Then another thirty-three we are going to give a placebo. The last third get the active ingredient they are testing as a new drug.

Let's assume the first thirty-three die. What about placebo? Well, most studies show that placebo survival rate is thirty-six per cent. That suggests that eleven of the people on placebo will survive at least long enough to be significant. And now lets say that of the third who receive the active ingredient eleven survive. Based on todays regulations, that drug would not be approved. Its no better than placebo. And it would be tossed in the trash. But this is what I want to ask: What about these twenty-two people here? Gay drew a big line under the eleven placebo and eleven drug recipients who, in his reckoning, would have lived. What the government of the United States says is that those twenty-two people don't have the benefit of a placebo or of the active ingredient. So you have zero people surviving out of ninety-nine when you could have had twenty-two surviving. Gay looked mournful. All I am saying is that I want to have the right to appeal to those twenty-two people. I want to give them a chance to live.

There is a demonstrable placebo effect in most clinical studies, although the idea that placebo could save even eleven patients with fatal cancer is ludicrous. But Gay and Basic make their money by selling the dream of wellness, not the reality. If their products could really swell breasts, banish wrinkles, and erase fat, Basic would probably become the most successful company in American history. After all, is Zantrex-3 any different from Lydia Pinkham's miraculous concoctions?

This year, Congress will consider a bill that would modify the 1994 law so that thousands of unregulated botanical substances would be treated more like drugs than like foods. Supplement manufacturers and their customers are preparing to fight any such change with every resource they can muster. The bill has been advertised as an assault on the First Amendment. The alarm has sounded across the Internet, and congressional offices have been besieged with protests. Walk into any health-food store and you'll see leaflets warning that the government is about to deny you the right to choose your own fate.

Gay went back to his chair and sat silently for a moment. We put disclaimers in our ads, and we give people the results of the studies and a money-back guarantee, he said. What more could you want? Don't prevent people from using their own judgment. Let them try it. If it doesn't work, they can return it. Thats what's fair. Thats what's American.

Thursday, 10 July 2008

Olay Regenerist

10/7/08 — If you'd like to try Amatokin, Olay's Regenerist Range offers the same ingredient's paucity of results at lesser cost and greater respect for your intelligence, if not your skin. Refer ASA Rules Against Amatokin by Strivectin's Basic Research.

Thursday, 27 April 2006

PDF's Pertaining to Legal Action Taken Against Basic Research, L.L.C.

  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Original-Weight-Loss-and-Slimming-Product-Complaint.pdf
  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Motion-for-a-More-Definite-Statement.pdf
  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Respondents-Pretrial-Brief-260206.pdf
  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Complainants-Opposition-August-2004.pdf
  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Decision.pdf
  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Withdraw-from-Adjudication-280206.pdf
  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Complaint-Counsel-Against-More-Definite-Statement-Claim.pdf
  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Dennis-Gay-Trial-Brief.pdf
  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Expert-Report-of-Solan.pdf
  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Frielander-Reply-to-Complaint-Counsel.pdf
  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Mowrey-PreHearing-Brief.pdf
  • http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Skincare-PDF/Strivectin/Stipulations-of-Facts-and-Authorities.pdf

Saturday, 17 November 2012

Strivectin

7/6/09 — Alyria Intense Wrinkle Correction/Strivectin SD Comparison.

10/7/08 — ASA Rules Against Amatokin by Strivectin's Basic Research.


Strivectin is an ordinary and potentially irritating basic moisturizer composed primarily of the emollients sesame oil and alkyl benzoate, and devoid of any ingredients which could justify its relatively high cost.

It is neither a treatment for stretch marks, nor potentially better than Botox.

Its main ingredient of note, promoted as the reason for its effectiveness, is a peptide too large to penetrate the skin and affect the dermis, where stretch marks and wrinkles are formed.

Additionally,

  • the peptide is found in a variety of other skin care products;
  • the Strivectin formula does not equate with the referenced medical study "Relevance of antiwrinkle treatment of a peptide", which Procter and Gamble produced for Olay Regenerist;
  • despite claims of superiority as a comprehensive replacement for a variety of cosmetic topical agents and procedures, comparatively, peptides produce inferior outcomes;
  • Strivectiin's marketing materials are replete with illogical and illegal statements, quackery and bare-faced lies.
  • Strivectin's makers produce an array of other similarly misleading and sometimes dangerous products for skin, weight loss and pain relief, such as Hylexin, Amatokin and Idebenol, which have fostered FDA warnings [1][2][3], criminal prosecutions and legal actions.

Strivectin has no notable or verifiable anti-aging or repairing properties for wrinkles or stretch marks, only a rudimentary, therapeutically incomplete cosmetic moisturizing effect.

The moisturizing effect may serve to temporarily soften the appearance of wrinkles or stretch marks, but without permanency, and at the lowest levels of efficiency.

More than any other skin care product in recent time, Strivectin capitalizes on naïve or bullheaded individuals concerned with aging but unable or unwilling to exercise sound judgement.

Although said individuals may enjoy using, hyping and reviewing skin care such as Strivectin, it is at the expense of their skin's health, appearance and, arguably, female autonomy.


More on Strivectin

Back in 1985, the Consumer Protection Division's Law Department of the United States Postal Service instigated the successful prosecution of one of Strivectin's marketers (Mitchell Friedlander) and his brother (Harris Friedlander) for mail fraud in several matters involving purported weight loss products.

More than 20 years later, Klein-Becker continue to market problematic and even dangerous weight loss supplements along with desperately misleading cosmetics.

Klein-Becker's Strivectin SD Stretch Mark product turned wonder wrinkle cream (slogan: "Better Than Botox?") is probably their best known, now also available in risible "dermal-epidermal junction" heating serum, hand cream and "nano scrub" guises.

It's worth knowing that Bremmen Research Lab's "Hylexin" and "Lumedia", Anorex, Zantrex, Zoller, Retiva, Dermalin, Relacore and Sovage Lip Plumper and more flow from the same commercial sewer.

Another product, Trivestin, sold under the Covaxil Laboratories label, claims to be twice as effective as the proven arthritis drug Celebrex.

Pedialean is another potentially dangerous disgrace, claiming to be specially developed for the weight loss needs of children (but aimed at image-conscious parents):

"As difficult as being overweight is for your child, parents are an equal victim. Why? Because nobody blames a child for being overweight, they blame you, the parent." (Source: Pedialean advertisement).

Sovage Idebenol Facial Antioxidant Cream, another "best-seller", is worth a special mention.

Guaranteed 100% free of the antioxidant idebenone, it contains "idebenol" instead. Idebenone isn't something you'd want to avoid putting on your skin, and idebenol isn't proven in any respectable regard, but it does at least sound like idebenone.

With hype and confusion profits ensue.

Strivectin's "Better Than Botox?" catch-cry tells a similar story. If we're reasonable this question doesn't warrant posing in the first place. Still enough consumers have their heads firmly planted in the sand for this nonsense to work. Judging by Strivectin's sales data, the gullible are not in short supply!

Perhaps as an exercise in stating the obvious, an independent study found that Strivectin isn't as effective at reducing wrinkles as the proven injected drug it panders to at the public's expense.

The makers of Botox (Allergan) attempted to sue the makers of Strivectin for their use of their trademark in their slogan "better than Botox?" but lost on grounds of it being a question rather than a statement.

But when company PDK compared their product to Zantrex, Klein-Becker rushed to court.

James E. Magleby, attorney for Strivectin, has stated that "efforts to confuse the public" by comparing a newer product to an established one is "unfair, false and misleading" and irreparably damaging to the makers of said established products.

Yet Strivectin clearly have no internal issue with comparing their own product not just to cosmetics, but drugs. Where their arthritis pain relief product is concerned, they aren't even shy about claiming it's twice as effective as Celebrex.

Strivectin's makers never seems to be out of criminal and civil courts, answering to government bodies, other companies, or alternately leading ironic legal actions against competitors (verbal abuse isn't out of the question either).

The pages linked below summarize some key issues surrounding Klein-Becker's Strivectin-SD stretch mark product — there are plenty more to consider than what's accrued in the list here, but one need not probe too deeply to get the gist.

Cosmetic manufacturers have often marketed their products boldly but Klein-Becker's Strivectin SD et al. redefine snake oil.

Don't get stung — there is no lasting quick fix for most aesthetic complaints and skin conditions, least of all stretch marks (indeed most are beyond reasonable treatment). Avoid Strivectin and the retailers who hawk such wares — they do not have your interests at heart.

Additional information for use at users' sole discretion: An organization is currently seeking parties to take part in a class action lawsuit against Strivectin-SD's makers.

Thursday, 1 February 2007

Strivectin — US FDA Takes Action Against Illegal Claims

It was a long time coming, but the US FDA is finally taking the peddlers of the latest ineffective stretch mark "cure" (by Basic Research, LLC and registered to another entity) to task for having duped the public by making its product out to be a proven over the counter drug.

While a trite "thirty day 100% money back guarantee" is offered, a clear explanation that stretch marks are scarred tears in the dermis is not. That's not something you can fix in thirty days, if ever.

One year's treatment will cost around US $540.00 or AUD $960.00 going by Australian pricing. The appearance of a reduction in stretch marks this product may achieve by softening skin would be dependent on ongoing use (three times daily is indicated by the manufacturer).

Determining whether or not it will work for you, which we hold it wouldn't, would be an expensive affair outside protection offered by the guarantee.

In recent times, and following US FDA probing, Basic Research has been marketing Strivectin-SD as a general facial wrinkle cream, an eye cream and now even a hand cream. They claim this use was accidentally discovered after users "became confused" and started applying it to their faces.

Either there's nothing the formula can't ultimately purport to do, or Basic Research senses the imminent death of their ability to market outlandish cures for stretch marks.

Wrinkle and hand creams are far more familiar legal territories to safely navigate.

Thursday, 10 July 2008

Tentative List of Companies and Brands linked to Strivectin-SD (Basic Research)

  • Mamrälin-ARa — "Prevent Breast Shrinkage Due To Weight-Loss"
  • StriVectin-SD
  • Dermalin-APg — "Transdermal Emulsifying Gel"
  • Pedialean ("as difficult as being overweight is for your child, parents are an equal victim. Why? Because nobody blames a child for being overweight they blame you the parent. Regardless of how cruel, unfair, or misplaced the blame may be, parents of overweight children are judged harshly (although always in the quietest of whispers) by their friends, neighbors, and relatives. Somehow, its always your fault.")
  • Thyrovarin — "Provides Thyroid Support During Dieting"
  • Oxydrene — "Increased Oxygen Saturation — Increased Endurance"
  • TestroGel
  • Biomodels
  • Megatropin
  • Ripping Gel
  • TestPro-Alpha
  • ECA Stack
  • Patented ECA Stack 120ct
  • Oxydrene
  • Mamralin
  • Luprinol
  • Testrogel — "Increased Sex Drive For You and Your Partner"
  • Aprinol
  • Anorex — for weight loss of over 20 pounds
  • Anorex SF — for those sensitive to stimulants
  • Ripping Gel
  • Oxy Poppers
  • RelaCore
  • Carbolean
  • Thryrovarin
  • Somnabol
  • Cutting Gel
  • DynaKor - KynoVar
  • Breast Augmentation Serum
  • Nitrovarin
  • Breast Augmentation Maintenance
  • Tummy Flatttening Gel
  • Quickstart
  • Lip Plumper
  • Sovage
  • Testroxin
  • Lip Explosion
  • Hylexin
  • Covaxil
  • Zotrin Men's Formula
  • Quick Start For Men
  • IsoCrystalin
  • Trivestin — "twice as effective as Celebrex" (arthritis and joint pain relief)
  • Zantrex
  • Zonner
  • Instant Cellulite Eraser
  • Zotrin Women's Formula
  • Bust Booster - Body Innoventions
  • ThyroStart

Related Skin Care Information, Products and Expert Discussions

Skin Care Companies

Dennis Gay (Basic Research, Strivectin et al.)

Lumedia

Idebenol

Sovage


Retin-A ™ : Green Tea (Camellia Sinensis) Extract : Obagi Clenziderm : Obagi-C Rx : Obagi Nu-Derm : Obagi Professional-C : Face : Feet : Hands : vitiligo : PhotoMedex : Mature Skin : Intolerant Skin : cleansers : Niadyne : Combination Skin : Solenne : Scars : Account Login : Extremely Dry Skin : Fish Oil Supplements : Body Moisturizers : Body Washes : Soaps : Body Skin Care : Skin Conditions : Polymorphous Light Eruption : Ethocyn : Valeant Pharmaceuticals : Kinerase Pro+ : Kinerase Clear Skin : Fallene : Sagging Skin : Chemical Peels : Dermabrasion : Exfoliants : Sun Protection Factor or SPF : Skin Tone : skin aging : MD Lash Factor : Skin Irritation : Cross-Hatched Wrinkles : Crepey Skin : Thin Skin : Elastiderm : Skin Care and Treatment Directory : Estion : Elta MD : Cotz by Fallene : Chantal Ethocyn : Aveeno : Seaweed : Skin Allergy : Preservatives : Skin Discoloration : Allergan : Stiefel : Physics : Chemistry : Biology : Rainbow : Colours : Phototherapy : Sun Spots : Radiation : Photoprotective Antioxidants : Photons : Limp Hair : Laser / Lazer : Infrared Radiation/Light : The Sun : Atmosphere : Invisible Zinc : Megan Gale : N.V. Perricone Cosmeceuticals : Germaine Greer : Proactiv : Stretch Marks : Nivea : Hair Sunscreens : Pantene : YSL Beauté : L'Oreal : Body Cleansers : Rejuvenating Skin Care : Firming Skin Care : Adequate Sun Protection : Skin Ethnicity : Melasma : Sun Damaged Skin : Make-Up : Vitamin C Derivatives : Skin Resurfacing : Optimal Skin Hydration : Barrier creams : Prescription Retinoids : Neutrogena : Methylsulfonylmethane : Shampoos : Vaseline : Shisheido : DermaVeen : Atopic Dermatitis : Tracie Martyn : Absurd Skin Care Treatments : Irrational Skin Care Fears : Advanced Usages : Skin Care and Treatments Support : Jan Marini vs. Skinceuticals : Normal Desmond : Aging Crises : Computer Screen Radiation — Dermatitis/Aging/Skin Disorders : Skin Congestion (Congested Skin) : Oily Skin : Traumatised Skin : Sensitive Skin : Exfoliation : Dry Skin : Acne : Retinoids : Rosacea : Acne : Glycolic Acid : Wrinkles : Skin Texture : Seborrheic Keratosis : Photoaging : Photoprotection : Hyperpigmentation : Australian Cancer Council : ZinClear : Hair Loss : Seresis : French Skin Care : Denham Harman : Paula Begoun : Idebenol : Mustela : Ego : Pevonia : Yonka : Clinique : Telomerase : Exuviance by Neostrata : Eucerin : eShave : Eminence : Elon : DS Laboratories : Dr. Dan's : Dr. Carolyn Collection : Dr. Brandt : Donell : Doak Dermatologics : DML : DHS : DermaNew : DDF : Credentials : CosMedix : Colorescience : Clarisonic : City Cosmetics : Citrix : Caudalie : Carmex : California Baby : C'watre : Blue Lizard : Bliss : Blinc : Tineacide by Blaine Labs : Biomedic : Bioelements : Bikini Zone : Belli Cosmetics : Basis : Babor : B. Kamins : Avene : Aquaphor Ointment : Aquanil : AmLactin : Allerderm : Air Stocking : Ahava : Afirm Pure Retinol (Newly Available) : Ultraceuticals : Archives : Skin Care Products/Topics - New or Updated within the Last 7 Days : Clinical Skin Care Topics : Skin Care Patient and Client Questions : Jan Marini : Skinceuticals : Darphin : Gernetic : Decleor : Skin Condition Treatments by Jan Marini : Skin Care : Skin Care and Dermatological Glossary : Skin Care Procedures, Protocols and Topics : Google Sitemap : Skin Care by Ingredients : Robots TXT : Thankyou : Puffy Eyes — Treatment Protocols and Solutions : Eczema Treatments : Skin Care News : La Prairie : Ingrown Hairs — About, Removal and Treatment : Plastic Surgery — Procedures/Protocols/Topics : Firming Skin Care Treatments : Stretch Marks — Treatment : Facial Cleansers : Sunscreens : Skin Care — March 2006 : Antioxidants : Skin Care — April 2006 : Moisturizers : Glycolic Acid : Retinol : Hyperkeratosis Treatments : Adult Acne : Strivectin : Cellex-C : Dermalogica : Dermablend : Acne Scar Treatments : Open Pores — Treatment and Prevention : Topical Booster Serums : Skin Cancer : Skin Care — May 2006 : Skin Care — June 2006 : Skin Care — July 2006 : Keratosis Pilaris : Swiss Perfection : Mavala : Cellulite Treatments : Neostrata : Skin Care — August 2006 : Toners : Ingrown Hairs : Freckles : Sagging Jowls : Open Pore Treatments : Eyelid Toning : Wedding Links : Dark Circles : Skin Care — September 2006 : Cetaphil : La Roche-Posay : Glyderm : Skin Care — October 2006 : Kinerase : Scalp Acne : Itchy Scalp : Skin Care — November 2006 : IS Clinical : Skin Care — December 2006 : Melbourne Dermatology — Reviews/Studies/Results/Usages : Skin Care: January 2007 : Phytomer : Priori : Skin Care: February 2007 : Dibi Italy : Olos Aromatherapy Italy : Becos : FisioCenter : Solarium : Decoderm : Contessa Mathelda Terme di Casciana : Kilili : Spazio Uomo : Slim Form : Sinus : Dr. Mullerk : Previderm : Thalmer : Obagi : Skin Care: March 2007 : Topix : Glytone : Alyria : Elta : Revision Skincare : Medical Cosmetic Treatments : Prevage : Skin Care: April 2007 : Guinot : Skin Care: May 2007 : Advanced Use: Perfect Skin — Medical Dermatological Protocols : Skin Care: June 2007 : Specialised Skin Treatments : Clinical Cosmetic Dermatology Documents : No Longer Available : Skin Care: July 2007 : J. F. Lazartigue : Phytologie Phyto Hair Care : Sovage : Skin Care: August 2007 : Skin Care: September 2007 : Amatokin (by Imaginary "Voss" Laboratories) : Klein Becker — Reference List : Basic Research — Reference List : Epionce : MD Rx : Thiotaine : MD Formulations : ID Bare Escentuals : Cellcosmet : Zirh : Allpresan : Alphaderma : Amazing Cosmetics : Amino Genesis : Anthony Logistics : Astara : Azure : Blinc Kiss Me Mascara : Cargo : Carita : Cellular Skin Rx : Dermatix : Donell Super Skin : Dr. Michelle Copeland Skincare : Dr. Hauschka : Dr. Irene Eris : Dr. Renaud : Dremu Oil : Ellen Lange : EmerginC : Fake Bake : Ferox : Freeze 24-7 : Fusion Beauty : Gatineau : Gehwol : Glominerals : Glyquin : Go Smile : Hydropeptide : Hylexin : Ice Elements : Jane Iredale : Joey New York : John Masters : Juara : Juice Beauty : Julie Hewitt : Jurlique : Juvena : Kate Somerville : L'Occitane : Lumedia : MaMa Lotion : MD Skincare : Murad : Nailtiques : NaturDerm : Ole Henricksen : Orlane : Osea : PCA Skin : Peter Thomas Roth : pH Advantage : Pure Skin PSF : Remergent : Revitalash : Rosebud : Rosie Jane : Skin Source : Skin Tx : SkinMedica : Sothys : St. Tropez : Sundari : Supersmile : Talika : Tanda : Tend Skin : Thalgo : Too Faced : True Cosmetics : Tweezerman : Valmont : Vivier : Z. Bigatti : Zeno Acne Device : Cica-Care : Kosmea : Contact Melbourne Dermatology : Olay : Skin Care: October 2007 : Clarins : Skin Tx Skin Treatment System : Baby Quasar : Tan Towel : Tanda Anti-Aging Light Therapy : Suki : Lightstim Photorejuvenation : Skin Nutrition — Diet for Healthy Skin : A : B : C : D : E : F : G : H : I : J : K : L : M : N : O : P : Q : R : S : T : U : V : W : X : Y : Z : Skin Care Companies : Algoane : Skin Biology by Loren Pickart : How To Be A Skin Care Failure : Back Acne : Skin Care: November 2007 : Smoking : Rene Furterer : Tazorac : Vivité : Athena Cosmetics : Skin Care: December 2007 : Lux : Hamilton : Nia 24 : Selenium : Free Radicals : Skin Care: January 2008 : LiLash : Ascorbic Acid : myBlend by Dr. Oliver Courtin : Ascorbyl Palmitate : Skin Care: February 2008 : Skin Care: March 2008 : Vitamin D : Stem Cells : Oxygen Skin Care : Healthy Skin Barrier Function : Skin Structure (Normal Skin) : Alpha Hydroxy Acids (AHAs) : Aging Skin : Natural Skin Care : Italian Skin Care : Aging Hands : Anti-Inflammatories : Photoprotective Antioxidants : Dry Hands : Deep Wrinkles : Fine Lines : Dehydrated Skin : Chin Skin : Skin Care: April 2008 : Tacrolimus : Skin Care: May 2008 : Skin Care: June 2008 : Danné Montague-King : Dr. Nicholas Perricone : Elemis : La Mer : Lips : Hair : Skin Care: July 2008 : RevaleSkin — CoffeeBerry Extract : Skin Care: August 2008 : Skin Care Brands : Obagi vs. Skinceuticals : Skin Care: September 2008 : Estradiol : Menopausal Skin : Estrogen : Skin Care: October 2008 : Skin Care: November 2008 : Bakel : Lavender : Skin Care: December 2008 : Skincare Algorithms : Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate : Avobenzone : Skin Care: January 2009 : Sun Exposure : Light : Skin Care: February 2009 : Ultraviolet : Clinique Medical : Skin Care: March 2009 : Latisse : Exercise : DCL : Fungal Free Nails : Glycolix : Great Lips Rx : Heliocare : K-Derm : King Care : Linda Sy : L-M-X Lidocaine : Nectifirm : Neoceuticals : Neocutis : Neova : Nickel Solution : Nordic Naturals : Obagi Rx : OC Eight : PCA Skin: Physician's Choice of Arizona : Pentaxyl : PFB Vanish : Prevage MD : Rejuvi : Replenix : Revitalash MD : Scarguard : Sea & Ski : SesDerma : Solbar : South Beach RDA : Striae Stretch Mark Cream : SunSpot : Teamine : Theraplex : Therapon : Ti-Silc : Ti-Tan : TNS : Tricomin : VitaMedica : Zeno : ZenoMD : Phloretin : Vitamin C as Ascorbic Acid : Vitamin E as Alpha Tocopherol : Ferulic Acid : Topical Antioxidant Combinations : Thymine Dimer Formation : Matrix Metalloproteinase Expression : p53 Protein Expression : Sunburn Cell Formation : Photodamage : Canderm : Olay Regenerist : Ask : Pollution : arNox : Ask A Question : Pierre Fabre : Soften Skin : Skin Care: April 2009 : CeraVe : Blackmores : Niko Skin Care : Bull Frog : Anthelios : Mexoryl : Skin Care: May 2009 : Combray : Actifirm : Ageless Beauty : Athanor : Babor : Barielle : Benev : Billion Dollar Brows : Cor Silver : Equavie : Hormeta : Glymed : Glymed Plus : John Masters : Kimberley Sayer : Leaf & Rusher : Limage : MCK Labs : Osmotics : Pangea : Follique : Phyto Hair : Promaxyl : Rejudicare FX : Relastin : Robelyn Labs : Rodial : Sjal : Skyn Iceland : Skyn : Sophyto : Stem Organics : Susan Posnick : Tess : Velds : Weleda : Whiter Image : YESforLOV : Yu-Be : Zo Skin Health : RevaléSkin : Coffeeberry : Myristyl Nicotinate : Niacin : Frederic Fekkai : ProCyte : Z-Silc : Matrixyl : Skin Care: June 2009 : Centella Asiatica : Cosmedicine : Natural Instinct ("Natural" and "Organic" Skin Care) : Melbourne Dermatology Skin Care YouTube Channel : Dennis Gay (Basic Research, Strivectin et al.) : Mineral Makeup : Dermatologist Questions and Answers : Obagi Rosaclear : Peptides : ReVivé : Pyratine-6 : Kinetin : Niacinamide : Viscontour : Perricone MD : Skin Care: July 2009 : Oxido Reductases : Human Fibroblast Conditioned Media : Tocopherols : Green Tea : M LAB : Skin Care: August 2009 : Red Skin : Skin Care: September 2009 : Asiaticoside : Remedy Cx : Carnosine : Kinerase PhotoFacials : Skin Care: October 2009 : Skin Care: November 2009 : Skin Care: December 2009 : Skin Care: January 2010 : Skin Care: February 2010 : Skin Care: March 2010 : Skin Care: April 2010 : Skin Care: May 2010 : Skin Care: June 2010 : Skin Care: July 2010 : Psycodermatology : Canyon Ranch — Available Last Quarter 2010 : Skin Care: August 2010 : Dermatological Compounding : Skin Care: September 2010 : Skin Care: October 2010 : Skin Care: November 2010 : Skin Care: December 2010 : Skin Care: 2016 : Skin Care: May 2011 : Skin Care: June 2011 : Skin Care: July 2011 : Skin Care: August 2011 : Skin Care: January 2012 : Open Pores — Documents from 2007-2013 :


New/Notable 2016

Open Pores — Treatment and Prevention

MD Rx Melbourne Dermatology Open Pores Overnight Solution

The Sun

Radiation

Mexoryl

Pentapeptides Ineffective

Asiaticoside vs. Madecassoside for Collagen Synthesis

La Roche-Posay Redermic

Valeant Pharmaceuticals

Rainbow

Telomerase

Azelaic Acid

Bisabolol

Avena Sativa

Panthenol

Aster Family of Plants

Green Tea (Camellia Sinensis) Extract

Polyphenols

Caffeine

Oxofulleram

Salicylic Acid

Capryloyl Salicylic Acid

Open Pores

Phytosphingosine

Glycerin

Idebenone

Ascorbyl Palmitate

Kojic Acid

Algorithm for Optimal Sustained Exfoliation: Glycolic Acid

Comparison of 33 Sunscreens