@imZerroo said:@Yossarian said:What do you mean you're not sure if it's scientific hokum? Not one of the claims about what their product "may" do is scientifically verifiable. Consumer law is there to protect all consumers, including dumb ones. You can't (well at least you shouldn't) be able to even suggest a product does anything that there is absolutely zero chance that a product is having that effect.
Just because it's not proven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
@Yossarian said:**Benji's entitled to believe whatever the hell he likes but he shouldn't be lending his name to something that is going to suck money out of gullible punters.**
These things are no better than people who sell betting systems.
IMO Benji can endorse what he wants, if the product is faulty or whatever, it's his rep, and we shouldn't be the ones telling him what to endorse and what not to.
As for the gullible people, it's your fault for believing it IMO, just because Benji is endorsing it doesn't mean it's 100% good. You should do your own research before going out and buying this stuff.
"Just because it's not proven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
Yeah that's now really how consumer law works. You need to be able to prove your claims rather than others need to prove your claims don't stand up. Do your own research? Come on now… What I should conduct some tests on my noodles to make sure they're 97% fat free like the packet claims? That's just ridiculous. As I said, a vendor needs to be able to defend the claims they are making, consumers shouldn't and don't have to make their own enquiries as to the veracity or otherwise of the claims.
I didn't see he couldn't endorse them I said he SHOULDN'T endorse them because they seem to be a heap of crap.