Skip to main content

Administrative Law Judge Dismisses Complaint in Case Challenging Cancer Cure Claims

An Administrative Law Judge has dismissed a Federal Trade Commission administrative complaint alleging that the respondents were responsible for the deceptive advertising of an herbal remedy that was falsely advertised as a cure for cancer.

Although Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell did not evaluate the allegation in the complaint that deceptive and false claims were made about the herbal remedy RAAX11, he wrote that complaint counsel had failed to prove those claims were made by the respondents named in the complaint – the company Gemtronics, Inc., or its officer, William H. Isely. Specifically, Judge Chappell found that complaint counsel had failed to prove that Gemtronics or Isely had a role in creating or circulating the Internet advertisements for RAAX11that were alleged to be deceptive.

“Complaint Counsel failed to meet its burden of proof in support of the violations alleged in the Complaint,” Judge Chappell wrote in his decision.

In September 2008, the FTC charged Gemtronics and Isely with making deceptive and false claims that RAAX11 effectively prevents and cures cancer, and that it is scientifically proven to work. The set of claims was one of 11 challenged in “Operation False Cures,” a law enforcement sweep aimed at peddlers of phony cancer remedies. RAAX11 was promoted as a mixture of chrysobalanus icaco, a derivative from a tropical bush, and agaricus, a medicinal mushroom. Gemtronics and Isely also received a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last year warning that RAAX11 was being marketed in violation of federal law.

The Initial Decision was filed on September 16 and announced today. Complaint counsel has 30 days to appeal the decision to the full Commission.

The judge’s initial decision in this matter is subject to review by the Commission on
its own motion or at the request of any party. The initial decision will become the final decision of the Commission 30 days after it is served on the parties, unless either a party files a timely notice of appeal, or the Commission places the case on its own docket for review.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...