As mentioned in our last post, we have been running this blog for about two years now. It wasn't too long after we started the blog that we registered our own domain name. The contract was for two years, so it I knew that the time to renew was coming up. Still I was surprised to get a letter that appeared to be from some government agency asking me to send in my money for my renewal. Then I read the fine print.
When I got this letter, I did some research. If you Google "Domain Registry of America," by the 5th hit you will see sites talking about this scam. Basically, their letter is worded such that, if you don't read carefully, it is easy to think you are required to pay them to keep your domain. In reality, by sending the form back to them with money, you are transferring your domain to them. There are two problems with this. First off, it is a sneaky way to steal another company's customers. Second, if I were to switch, I would end of paying 4 times more every year.
Scams really bother me. I think is is why I have written up so many of them over the last two years. Still, the thing that got me about this one was the way they presented themselves. The letter I got in the mail looked like government document. The font, boxy layout, and American flag under the logo all add to this effect. The back side of the letter is filled with the smallest text I have ever had sent to me. It is so small as to be on the edge of readable and makes my eyes hurt after a short time. If you read close, the letter does say on the front "Domain name holders are not obligated to renew their domain name withe their current Registrar or with the Domain Registry of America. Review our prices and decide for yourself." I am glad they put this on the letter. Still, I only caught this on my second read through of the letter. It is certainly not the letter's theme.
The Domain Registry of America uses underhanded tactics to try and steal customers from other companies. The Better Business Bereau has given them an F because of a large number of complaints filed against the company and their failure to resolve them. The Internet has a lot to offer and I am glad to we have our own domain. So, if you are looking to get a domain or renew one your already have, take your time, do your research, and read carefully before you hand over any money.
Showing posts with label Scams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scams. Show all posts
June 28, 2011
May 11, 2011
Light Relief: Flashy Lights and Deceptive Advertising
We have all seen infomercials for products that seem silly, if not useless. I went through a phase where I would actually watch infomercials for the sheer ridiculousness of the advertising. The advertising of some products however I think can cause harm such as in the case of a product called Light Relief.
I think the best way to review Light Relief is to go through the claims they make on their website. First, however, I want to describe their product. Light Relief is is a hand held unit that contains 59 Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). The majority of these LEDs give off visible light the same way any handheld flashlight would. 24 of them are emitting infrared light. Infrared light is just another color of light which we can't see, but which we sometimes experience as heat. I would be quite surprised if the heat coming off those 19 LEDs would even equal that of a heating pad. So with that foundation let's move on to the real question: does it work? Light Relief makes two main claims on their website. I want to look at each of these individually.
Claim 1: "[Light Relief] relieves muscle and joint pain, improves flexibility"
Anyone who has used a hot pad knows that heat can relieve minor muscle and joint pain. This is nothing new to medical science. Light Relief, however, is unlikely to even work as well as something like a heating pad. The reason is infrared radiation actually covers a wide range of wavelengths of light. In order to get the effect they are claiming you would need to focus the LEDs to specific wavelengths. I have not found any evidence that Light Relief has done this.
Claim 2. "[Light Relief is] safe, non-toxic and FDA-cleared"
This one is a little more tricky. The language used in this statement could confused just about anyone who isn't at least a little familiar with how the FDA works. The FDA approves products for two separate things, safety and effectiveness. Light Relief has been approved for safety but not effectiveness. How do I know? At the bottom of their webpage, in small dark font on a dark background, are the words "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, cure or prevent any disease." These words are a huge red flag on any product. Imagine if a new drug entered the market and admitted that they had not show the FDA the product worked. This is an equivalent admission by Light Relief. I have little doubt that their product is as safe as a flashlight, but if it doesn't work, why should we care?
So in the end I am left with one question. How is Light Relief (~$80) different from a standard LED flashlight (~$10) or a heating pad (~$20)? I know flashlights that do more and heating pads have actually been studied and shown to work. My advice, if you want to spend some money to make light, get one of these.
I think the best way to review Light Relief is to go through the claims they make on their website. First, however, I want to describe their product. Light Relief is is a hand held unit that contains 59 Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). The majority of these LEDs give off visible light the same way any handheld flashlight would. 24 of them are emitting infrared light. Infrared light is just another color of light which we can't see, but which we sometimes experience as heat. I would be quite surprised if the heat coming off those 19 LEDs would even equal that of a heating pad. So with that foundation let's move on to the real question: does it work? Light Relief makes two main claims on their website. I want to look at each of these individually.
Claim 1: "[Light Relief] relieves muscle and joint pain, improves flexibility"
Anyone who has used a hot pad knows that heat can relieve minor muscle and joint pain. This is nothing new to medical science. Light Relief, however, is unlikely to even work as well as something like a heating pad. The reason is infrared radiation actually covers a wide range of wavelengths of light. In order to get the effect they are claiming you would need to focus the LEDs to specific wavelengths. I have not found any evidence that Light Relief has done this.
Claim 2. "[Light Relief is] safe, non-toxic and FDA-cleared"
This one is a little more tricky. The language used in this statement could confused just about anyone who isn't at least a little familiar with how the FDA works. The FDA approves products for two separate things, safety and effectiveness. Light Relief has been approved for safety but not effectiveness. How do I know? At the bottom of their webpage, in small dark font on a dark background, are the words "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, cure or prevent any disease." These words are a huge red flag on any product. Imagine if a new drug entered the market and admitted that they had not show the FDA the product worked. This is an equivalent admission by Light Relief. I have little doubt that their product is as safe as a flashlight, but if it doesn't work, why should we care?
So in the end I am left with one question. How is Light Relief (~$80) different from a standard LED flashlight (~$10) or a heating pad (~$20)? I know flashlights that do more and heating pads have actually been studied and shown to work. My advice, if you want to spend some money to make light, get one of these.
October 19, 2009
Glymetrol, and the Dangers of Alt Med
I teach thousands of students a year. Many of those students have diabetes. Diabetes can be fatal if not properly controlled. Luckily, with modern medical advances, we can control diabetes. The students I see live good lives. A new supplement threatens their health and quality of life.
Diabetes is caused by problems with pancreas. Without a properly working pancreas, your body can't properly control your blood sugar levels. Let me say now that unregulated diabetes can be fatal. This is not something to mess around with. Some cases of diabetes can be controlled with changes in diet, and others require injections of insulin. With these careful measures, people affected by diabetes can live fairly normal lives; without them, they can die.
The other night, I was watching TV and saw an ad that is incredibly dangerous. The ad was for a supplement called Glymetrol. They are making a few simple claims: that it is safe and effective, and that you will receive the first bottle free. I want to review these clams, and try to make it clear why this ad frustrates me so much.
First, let's look at "safe and effective." Glymetrol is catching the wave of the natural medicine fad. One of the underlying fallacies throughout the advertisement of Glymetrol is the "all-natural" fallacy. The idea is that if it's natural, it's good for you, or at least better than processed items. This is just wrong, arsenic is natural too. Whether or not it's natural bears no relation to its safety or effectiveness. The bottom line on this note is that no one knows if Glymetrol works or not. It has not been tested clinically. There is some plausibility to some of the ingredients, but we need to remember we are dealing with a life-threatening disease. Because there is no clinical data, it could be helpful... or just as easily harmful. If you are going to be relying on anything to regulate your diabetes, it should be shown to work, and to work safely. "Safe and effective?" We have no idea.
The other really despicable part of this whole deal is who they are marketing it to. They say you get your first bottle free, and that it is part of a "market trial offer." When I was watching the commercial, I thought that market trial offer meant that it was part of a study. The fine print let me know otherwise. Unless you read those tiny letters at the bottom of the screen, you could easily be tricked into thinking that Glymetrol was being tested in a clinical trial. The first bottle is also not quite free. Again, the problem is in the fine print.
I could go on and on about the other claims in their FAQ areas, and about similar products. For me this highlights the reason I am so against alternative medicine. They are asking people with a life-threatening disease to rely solely on them for treatment. Beyond that, they are making deceptive marketing claims to lure people into purchasing their product. Medicine needs to be shown to a reasonable extent that it is both effective and safe before it is sold to the general public. Just look back to radioactive water. I can't stand of thought of the diabetic kids I work with being without their insulin. I want them to be able to live healthy lives, and have the information they need to avoid scams like this.
For a more detailed breakdown I recommend this article.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use/glymetrol-a-scam-targeting-people-with-diabetes/
Diabetes is caused by problems with pancreas. Without a properly working pancreas, your body can't properly control your blood sugar levels. Let me say now that unregulated diabetes can be fatal. This is not something to mess around with. Some cases of diabetes can be controlled with changes in diet, and others require injections of insulin. With these careful measures, people affected by diabetes can live fairly normal lives; without them, they can die.
The other night, I was watching TV and saw an ad that is incredibly dangerous. The ad was for a supplement called Glymetrol. They are making a few simple claims: that it is safe and effective, and that you will receive the first bottle free. I want to review these clams, and try to make it clear why this ad frustrates me so much.
First, let's look at "safe and effective." Glymetrol is catching the wave of the natural medicine fad. One of the underlying fallacies throughout the advertisement of Glymetrol is the "all-natural" fallacy. The idea is that if it's natural, it's good for you, or at least better than processed items. This is just wrong, arsenic is natural too. Whether or not it's natural bears no relation to its safety or effectiveness. The bottom line on this note is that no one knows if Glymetrol works or not. It has not been tested clinically. There is some plausibility to some of the ingredients, but we need to remember we are dealing with a life-threatening disease. Because there is no clinical data, it could be helpful... or just as easily harmful. If you are going to be relying on anything to regulate your diabetes, it should be shown to work, and to work safely. "Safe and effective?" We have no idea.
The other really despicable part of this whole deal is who they are marketing it to. They say you get your first bottle free, and that it is part of a "market trial offer." When I was watching the commercial, I thought that market trial offer meant that it was part of a study. The fine print let me know otherwise. Unless you read those tiny letters at the bottom of the screen, you could easily be tricked into thinking that Glymetrol was being tested in a clinical trial. The first bottle is also not quite free. Again, the problem is in the fine print.
If you are enjoying the product and loving the results after 30 days, do nothing. Only then will your credit card be automatically billed 1 easy payment for the 2 bottles at just $49.99 PER bottle.So after the thirty days you not only get charged for the first bottle, but for a second bottle as well. Bottom line, this is a complete scam.
I could go on and on about the other claims in their FAQ areas, and about similar products. For me this highlights the reason I am so against alternative medicine. They are asking people with a life-threatening disease to rely solely on them for treatment. Beyond that, they are making deceptive marketing claims to lure people into purchasing their product. Medicine needs to be shown to a reasonable extent that it is both effective and safe before it is sold to the general public. Just look back to radioactive water. I can't stand of thought of the diabetic kids I work with being without their insulin. I want them to be able to live healthy lives, and have the information they need to avoid scams like this.
For a more detailed breakdown I recommend this article.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use/glymetrol-a-scam-targeting-people-with-diabetes/
September 11, 2009
Radioactive Water- "The Cure of the Century"
In the beginning of the 1900's, scientists discovered radioactivity. With this discovery, it was found that many natural hot water spas were radioactive. Some people made the correlation of health spa to radioactivity and boom; you had the birth of a medical pseudoscience. So, why did so many people buy into something that we now know to be so harmful?
In the 1920's and 30's, ads for radioactive water, as well as other radioactive products, were very similar. The Radium Spa was an at-home radioactive water cooler. One of their advertising slogans was "Radium Spä Duplicates Nature's Process! The Radium-Spa is a Water Jar, permanently lined, with especially selected high grade radium ore. This ore imparts to any water placed therein, millions of tiny gaseous particles known as Radio-activity, in exactly the same manner as Nature does herself."
Notice that the ad tries to use scientific sounding language to build credibility. They also invoke the all-natural claim. Another ad for the "Curie Re-Generator Jar" uses that same approach. "The Curie RadioActive Re-Generator and Stone Water Filter is a Water Jar in which is placed your local drinking water. In this jar is also placed a Radium Ore Disc - this Disc throws off light Rays thereby forming Niton Gas, making the water RadioActive, the same as the Great Health Springs. Radioactive Water is a proven means to Health as millions can testify." Notice the use of anecdotal evidence to try to bolster the claim.
At the time, little was known about radioactivity. The medical community, however, showed their opinion in the November issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), in review of one of these radioactive water dispensers (ad pictured above). The articles states "As is commonly the case with latter-day pseudo-medicine having large financial resources behind it, the Revigator concern puts forward an hypothesis for which there is no foundation." In the same article, the effectiveness of radioactive treatments is equated to that of a two dollar watch.
The advertising techniques for these quack cures are, unfortunately, all too familiar. We look back on this, and it is easy to say that these people must have been really gullible. Maybe so, but are we any less gullible now? There are many, very popular, alternative medicine practices and "cures" today that the medical community has spoken out against. Science-based medicine works by sorting out what works from what doesn't. Treatments that are unsupported by evidence, even if they are popular, can be very dangerous. Radioactive water was popular until a wealthy spokesperson and celebrity, Eben Byers, died of radiation poisoning in 1932.
For more on radioactive treatments see http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/quackcures.htm
and you can read the JAMA article at http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/revig.htm.
In the 1920's and 30's, ads for radioactive water, as well as other radioactive products, were very similar. The Radium Spa was an at-home radioactive water cooler. One of their advertising slogans was "Radium Spä Duplicates Nature's Process! The Radium-Spa is a Water Jar, permanently lined, with especially selected high grade radium ore. This ore imparts to any water placed therein, millions of tiny gaseous particles known as Radio-activity, in exactly the same manner as Nature does herself."
Notice that the ad tries to use scientific sounding language to build credibility. They also invoke the all-natural claim. Another ad for the "Curie Re-Generator Jar" uses that same approach. "The Curie RadioActive Re-Generator and Stone Water Filter is a Water Jar in which is placed your local drinking water. In this jar is also placed a Radium Ore Disc - this Disc throws off light Rays thereby forming Niton Gas, making the water RadioActive, the same as the Great Health Springs. Radioactive Water is a proven means to Health as millions can testify." Notice the use of anecdotal evidence to try to bolster the claim.At the time, little was known about radioactivity. The medical community, however, showed their opinion in the November issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), in review of one of these radioactive water dispensers (ad pictured above). The articles states "As is commonly the case with latter-day pseudo-medicine having large financial resources behind it, the Revigator concern puts forward an hypothesis for which there is no foundation." In the same article, the effectiveness of radioactive treatments is equated to that of a two dollar watch.
The advertising techniques for these quack cures are, unfortunately, all too familiar. We look back on this, and it is easy to say that these people must have been really gullible. Maybe so, but are we any less gullible now? There are many, very popular, alternative medicine practices and "cures" today that the medical community has spoken out against. Science-based medicine works by sorting out what works from what doesn't. Treatments that are unsupported by evidence, even if they are popular, can be very dangerous. Radioactive water was popular until a wealthy spokesperson and celebrity, Eben Byers, died of radiation poisoning in 1932.
For more on radioactive treatments see http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/quackcures.htm
and you can read the JAMA article at http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/revig.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)