Search This Blog

13 October 2010

Power Balance meets new ACCC powers - bring it on!

Back in April, the ACCC was given some powers that I had thought were a good idea, for some time...

See the article here for more details.

But now, Christopher Zinn believes he's found the perfect candidate for testing the new laws.

The Power Balance bracelet has been called a "blatant con" by the Australian consumer watchdog, Choice (read report).

So, watch this space, for more exciting updates. Could it be we're entering an age, finally, where consumers can hold manufacturers properly accountable for their claims?

Here's hoping.

What other products do you think would be best for testing under the new laws? List them here in the comments - and I'll send a list of the best ideas on to the ACCC.

More references:

[Ed Note: for follow up, see post here]


Anonymous said...

What an absolute joke!

I have had one of these bracelets for 9 months and for that time i have not had any problems with my balance.

Those who know me, know i had serious balance issues!

This product works!

This is an example of how to misuse Australian Tax Payers $$$ by chasing a company that is doing the right thing!

Nicholas Gledhill said...

@Anonymous - I am glad for you that your balance issues have resolved themselves.

However, there is no evidence to support the proposition that the purchase of your bracelet and the correction of your symptoms is connected in any way.

It is most likely one of those strange coincidences that will happen, every now and then, if you get a large enough collection of people to try a product out.

Otherwise untreatable conditions often spontaneously correct themselves - as mysteriously as they arose. It's in the nature of untreatable conditions to be unpredictable.

I would challenge you to take the product off and see if your symptoms return.

I would also like to point out that a company that dresses up an unproven product as "scientifically proven" is doing the wrong thing, whether or not it helps you, personally. If they wish to sell their product and claim that it is in any way reliable, then they should be required to show that reliability in experiment before being allowed to go to market.

The product has been tested and has never, in a double-blind control test (the only sort worth relying on) to work - and can therefore be said to be unproven and unreliable.

It IS right and just that ANYONE presenting products as reliable that haven't been shown to work, should be stopped - how else can we avoid going back to the days of snake oil peddled by quacks from the back of vans in the street… oh, hold-on, I'm not sure we ever got far past those days, now I think about it… these people should be stopped until they can present solid scientific evidence that their product works.

If the product really does work for you, I would also challenge you to find someone who can test you, and the effect of the product on you - so that scientific evidence of the product working CAN be collected and we can all start benefiting from further knowledge of the process at work on you.

I would also ask you to give evidence that you are not simply a product spin-doctor, writing (anonymously, I note) a comment, that you hope will confuse the issue enough to keep readers of my blog believing in this completely unproven and unreliable product.

Anonymous said...