There is a new product being sold from a country address in NSW.

In its glossy booklet the product claims " Guarantees 100% results for all forms of skin cancer including malignant melanomas ".

Embedded in the pages of fluff extolling its wondrous effects there is a contradictory disclaimer.
" this product is internationally recognized and accepted as both a diagnostic and treatment for all types of skin cancers. We don't recommend it for these purposes "

Then several series of graphic pictures of it allegedly clearing up cancers.
the product is CAUSTIC.
It's only attempt at realistic justification is that its based on some character who died in 1978 ha had no qualifications.
What it doesn't say is that the product ISN'T allowed to be sold in the USA except as veterinarian supliment.

The product is not registered in Australia.

Now here's the rub,
despite it is clearly touted as a cure for Skin cancer (a medicine). and despite the odd vague warning/disclaimers.

The view or mum's local member is Caveat Emptor (surprise, surprise the local source is a parishioner of his home church.

From my limited research among GPs and skin cancer scanning practices they have all had instances where naive (usually older) patients have refused treatment in favour of this poultice cream.

However, the Consumer protection and state Departments have a vastly different view to the product.

Knowing the MP (a devout Christian(?) Catholic) personally I am reasonably sure the local member's motivation is political/party ideological (anti nanny state) and not risk his support base, rather than interested in his constituents.
Wait for some one to die then react to public response?

The product is claimed to be a Indian cure (a stunning east coast native American woman on the front cover and a deserted Anasazi Cliff pueblo on the back (Extinct culture Arizona). Manufacturer is in Ecuador

What is neglected by The MP is the full appreciation of
a. how cancer spreads.
b. the desperation/fear of the general public.

What do you think ? What would you do if anything and why?

Dear Examinator,

You don't give us the name of the product -
so I'm unable to do any research on it.
However if its as bad as you say it is,
I'd contact all the appropriate Government
agencies that need to get involved, including
Consumer Affairs, and then I'd also
contact the media. ("A Current Affair," -
and others). I'd bring this product to
everyone's attention.

Which is what you're trying to do now - right?

Report it to advertising standards bureau.

http://www.adstandards.com.au/

Your MP is not able to do anything, but the bureau is obligated to deal with every complaint.

Foxy and SM
The product is Cansema
I've already done my nanny bit and advised local, State and Federal authorities, the local news paper and am prepared for any Kicks (if any)

I was interested in other peoples views on how they saw the the situation.
Would they be concerned?
would they chase it down?
Would they be shocked by the local MP
Would they be disgusted, cynical about his response?
Do they agree that it's caveat emptor.

Clearly for obvious reasons, I don't view snake oil products/solutions (magic cures for anything) well.

I wanted to know what people thought

Caveat Emptor be damned examinator. Clearly we are under regulated in this area as well as every other area in the relationship between business and the consumer. The local member to whom you refer confirms this fact.

But I do fear "the nanny state" as I perceive it to be.

When one party/person seeking power wants you dob in someone through an instrument set up for that purpose, ultimately they encourage you to support their view of life anonymously. "You can show the face that you would normally hide away", (i.e your dark side, your need for vengeance etc). This can't be good for our social structure.

What if the view of life of those seeking you co-operation is faulty/incorrect in the first place, and their leadership illusionary anyway.

Religion and Politics are now consummated bedfellows. Scary isn't it.

The opportunity for people with a distorted view of the truth, life, the universe and everything, through doctrine or belief/faith/dogma to dominate in the critical decisions affecting our future has grown.

Whether they are religious or political zealots they represent the past not the future.

Could we start by making business more accountable for it's actions rather than rewarding it with our tax money for a continuance of the same?. And what about making operating a religion no longer tax exempt and see how many operators stay interested in religion as a product?. what do you think examinator ?,

There are already protections in place to prevent false advertising and I think this case would be easily proved. There has been no major breakthrough announcement as yet about a cure for skin cancers.

An MP sprouting caveat emptor just means he/she is ignorant and is so used to spin answers they haven't given much thought to a valid non-form response.