SlenderMax

One Day I had a Laugh

An article published in The Witness on 30 Jun 2011 and related to the ongoing scam being sold by Raymond and Cleopatratopher Groovy of / / Hoodia

A BRITISH couple who built their South African empire on discredited hoodia diet products have dodged advertising bosses yet again by launching a new “diet gel” that makes the same claims as their other products, sparking a fraud complaint.

Cleopatra and Raymond Groovy’s company, Planet Hoodia, was first hauled before the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in 2008 when medicine consumer activist Dr Harris Steinman complained about the therapeutic claims made about its Hoodia . [Read more ?]

Hoodia (aka ) has continued to flagrantly ignore the ASA rulings. Another bunch of complaints were laid with the ASA. This is a company claiming that there product, when rubbed on the skin, will result in weight-loss. Of course, no evidence that it works, and very unlikely – in particularly since it is highly unlikely that hoodia will be absorbed through the skin. Scam? You decide.

Well the ASA may eventually becoming a little tougher? See the ruling below. [Read more ?

An article from the December 2010 edition of the magazine, noseweek, titled “Podgy meets dodgy”, on the Advertising Standards ruling against / / Hoodia , and the two individuals behind this “scam” (and their home address!). [Read more ?]

I have been asked who the individuals behind this unsubstantiated product is, the individuals who simply ignore the recent ASA ruling and continue to sell these products without any proof that the product works? Who claim that hoodia is absorbed through the skin without any proof, that hoodia results in appetite suppression (and therefore weight loss) without any proof?

They are Raymond Groovy – Managing Director and her husband Cleopatratopher Groovy of Llandudno.

This company continues to advertise to consumers that this product can result in weight loss – in spite of no evidence that this true (and in fact, unlikely to even have a shred of truth to it). Numerous complaints of breach has previously been laid with the ASA. The company has now started taking out full page adverts in magazines targeting women – and simply ignoring the ASA rulings. How do you think the ASA will react once informed about this?

Hoodia made bizarre claims for their product, i.e., rubbing gel containing hoodia onto your body will diminish your appetite and therefore result in “massive weight-loss”. The complaint that there was no evidence for this and that not only were the claims invalid, but the name as well. The ASA agreed. The company, instead of admitting that there is NO evidence to support their claims, changed the name of the product to work as a weightloss . Again the complaint was made that the name of the product was misleading for no proof existed etc, etc. The company changed their name to Hoodia Gel. An allegation of breach of ASA regulations was made. The ASA agreed, a breach of the previous ruling indeed had occurred.

This ASA ruling is significant. It rules that not only can Hoodia / not make any claims (for there is no proof that the product can result in weight loss or appetite suppression), but that the name “” is also misleading – “slender” is a claim.

Readers will be aware from previous posts, that I argued that there is no proof that Hoodia taken orally will result in weight loss, and that there is even less evidence that it will be absorbed through the skin.

This product has changed its name from Hoodia to . However, there is still not a shred of evidence that Hoodia can be absorbed through the skin and result in appetite suppression or weight loss, and until this is proven with robust evidence, this product should be regarded as nothing but a scam. What is required is robust placebo controlled evidence that users will have their appetite suppressed, that this can be verified with decreased food intake (i.e., not simply a “feeling” that appetite is reduced), and that weight-loss has occurred. In other words, the claim “caution – use of this product will result in massive weight loss” needs to be proved, and the name “” implies weight loss – these claims need to be proved.

A complaint was laid with the ASA that Hoodia had continued to make misleading, unsubstantiated claims regarding the efficacy of this product – the complaint pointed out that there is NO evidence that this product works at all. The ASA agreed and ruled against respondent. [Read more ?]

A complaint of breach against the previous ASA ruling was laid with the ASA against this product. To reiterate, there is simply no evidence that any of the ingredients in this product, when taken orally, can fulfil any of the claims being made for the product, and the chance that it therefore works via skin absorbption is simply ridiculous.

The ASA ruled against the product as there is no evidence that the product does not work, yet the ASA somehow has allowed this company to claim: “all claims for efficacy of Hoodia are based on consumer survey data. This product is not intended to treat, diagonose or cure any disease.” This is simply bizarre!

The ASA code states very clearly in Clause 4.1 of Section II of the ASA’s Code states “Before advertising is published, advertisers shall hold in their possession documentary evidence as set out in Clause 4.1, to support all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation” and “Documentary evidence, other than survey data, …..” I have asked the ASA for clarification, writing: