Talk:Dynamiclear/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This company e-mailed me complaining of "slander" and describing the article as being written by their "competitors." The article seems fine to me, and well sourced, but I have directed them to give me specifics or post them here. In the mean time, might be worthwhile to work on this article as it seems to be having an effect. tmtoulouse 18:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we get a maintenence category or some sort of flag for this type of thing? Scarlet A.pngmoral 18:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Clearly they have made an error in emailing you. It's offensive to think that this sight contains any slander at all! After all, slander is spoken; in print, its libel. On the other hand, I'm curious to hear their claims. SardonicMouse (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(EC)All looks fine to me Trent. Let's see what specifics they give you, although it's likely they'll just reply "you can't say our scam product is crap!" PS. Isn't it libel if it's in written form? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hence the quotes, I e-mailed them back and included a brief tutorial on libel versus slander. 7/10 times I don't hear back after the first complaint. But we shall see. tmtoulouse 18:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Emailing back to request specifics usually scares them off, although if you remember the recent case with Quackwatch, that doesn't stop them because they just still shout and scream. If they can generate specifics, I'd be very, very impressed. Scarlet A.pngmoral 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Trent, can you share such email exchanges with the community? I enjoy reading how people try to censor with vague legal threats, but end up looking stupid! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Got an email about this talk page. Quick message: regarding the article being written by their competitors, you might want to point out that the author of the article is a software developer working in the health and safety industry who suffers from coldsores and can spot bullshit a mile off. That is all. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Their competition is rational thought and science. So their competitors would be people who don't like health woo. So yes, it was written by their competitors - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Proofready issues...[edit]

One, there are a lot of words here that would not normally be capitalized (Bioflavonoids, say). Are they capitalized in the source? If so, we should use quotation marks for clarity.

Two, do they call it "sulphur"? Ah, no, they don't. In the US it's "sulfur". I go fix now. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sulfur has been the IUPAC standard since the mid nineties. It's still used by guys who prefer the nuanced complexities of the fact that "ph" is pronounced "f", but generally it's all sulfur these days. Scarlet A.pngmoral 22:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Trent and People, the reason why we thought the page was written by a competitor of our is because the page seems to be written in the format of trying to find issues with our product and was built from there, it does not look objective. Also we have come across a couple of sites that had similar content and was written by a competitor of ours. Can I ask what other pages the author of this page has created?

Our product is not "woo", we have been in business for 13 years and have completed clinical studies which were accepted by the Therapeutic Good Association (which is the Australian equivalent of the FDA). A version of Dynamiclear is available in Australian pharmacies and used by Australian doctors and health care professionals.

We would like to contribute to the page and make it as fair as possible and clarify the incorrect information. Should we make changes directly or send them to you Trent? — Unsigned, by: 124.148.38.30 / talk / contribs 06:19, 11 August 2010

Can you provide evidence on this talkpage that backs up your claims, before you edit the article? 24.118.247.165 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
To Dynamiclear: I was the original author, and for the record, I do not work for your competitors or even for a company providing medical treatments of any kind. I stumbled on your site as I myself am a sufferer of coldsores and after looking over all the details I decided to write this article. At Rationalwiki we pride ourselves on being accurate and therefore if you have evidence to discredit any of the claims in the article then please specify it on this talk page for discussion and we will decide whether or not to remove the associated claims.
P.S. You claim your product is approved by the TGA. Do they actually test efficacy of a product or simply the safety of the ingredients? If the former then please scan and post any correspondence from them showing the results of their efficacy testing. If the latter then it means nothing, as I could just as easily market parsley tablets as a cure for insomnia and claim it is TGA / FDA approved. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
For this class of low risk "complementary medicines" containing nothing but herbs and vitamins and marketed only to provide symptomatic relief of self-limiting conditions, I don't believe the TGA requires any pre-market efficacy or safety testing, but merely that the manufacturer certify that it has proof its health claims and indications are "true, valid and not misleading." See here for a brief description of the regulatory regime. Thus, unlike with traditional medicines, Dynamiclear is essentially unregulated except to the extent it claims it has some evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of its product. Crundy appears to be correct that the only tests submitted to the TGA, if they were ever done, relate to the ingredients and not the product itself. To Dynamiclear: what's wrong with the article? You refer to incorrect information. Pony up. And FYI this is a wiki project; Trent is not your contact here. You're free to edit this talk page or the article itself to correct whatever you think is wrong, but keep in mind that if it's unsupported, unsupportable, apparently false, or plain marketing material we're going to delete it. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, is it that "FDA approval" only means "it won't kill you" rather than "it will work"? I'm sure I remember reading this distinction somewhere. Scarlet A.pngmoral 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
How about, you tell us who your competitors are and we write an article about their product as well (provided it is a similar herbal non-regulated product)? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Morphing web pages[edit]

I suggest this article needs the attention of our good friend User:Capturebot2. Hint: if you need a different URL for a page that keeps the same name, add the date as a fake anchor, e.g. http://example.woo/bollocks.html#2010-08-06 or similar.

This should probably be done right away, the Wayback Machine does switch off access to pages if asked by the right incantations. - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Captured. tmtoulouse 00:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
A few of them are messed up. Scarlet A.pngmoral 22:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I've manually captured the current ingedients list.  Lily Inspirate me. 20:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dynamiclear reply[edit]

Below are the issues raised in correspondence:

Ingredients

  1. The changing ingredients referenced in the article are actually listings for 2 different products which are sold from the same website. They have never been ingredients contained in Dynamiclear. Source: http://www.dynamiclear.com/ingredients.htm
  2. This brief summary "A sulphate based solution which contains copper as a trace metal in an aqueous, odorless herbal base" is not an ingredients listing
  3. Copper sulfate (also called Copper Sulphate, depending on the country) is one of the active ingredients in Dynamiclear and has been proven in comprehensive clinical trials to have antiviral effects on the Herpes simplex virus 1 and 2. A study conducted by the FDA has found copper sulfate to penetrate the DNA of the Herpes simplex virus (HSV) on contact rendering it inactive. Reference: Mechanism of Copper Mediated Inactivation of Herpes Simplex Virus

Clinical Trials

  1. Please refer to the research study "Mechanism of Copper Mediated Inactivation of Herpes Simplex Virus" demonstrating the efficacy of the active Copper Sulfate on HSV-1 and HSV-2
  2. Phase III clinical trials on the Dynamiclear formulation have been conducted. The CT summary report is available online via PDF download at: http://www.dynamiclear.com/ct-summary.pdf
  3. A rationale for the study design and plan is provided in the summary, along with details of the clinical trial organization for authenticity
  4. The disclaimer referenced is required by the FDA for all dietary supplements (source: http://www.fda.gov/food/dietarysupplements/consumerinformation/ucm110417.htm) which is why it is included in the footnote of the Dynamiclear website, a site where dietary supplements are sold.

Search engine manipulation

  1. Google impose heavy restrictions and penalties for search engine manipulation. The practice referenced is not deemed illegal and is accepted by all major search engines, including Google.
  2. None of the websites referenced are created, owned, hosted or operated by Dynamiclear.

Site locking

  1. Much time and work has been invested in the creation of the Dynamiclear website which is why it is protected from right-click copying. We have also found our content copied and plagiarized by competitors in the past. This is commonplace on many websites where content is copyright protected. The articles can still be printed, bookmarked, facebooked, twittered or forwarded to a friend via email.

My initial thoughts[edit]

My primary interest is in looking at the claims in studies. The first thing that stands out is that the "stage 3" trials were done in India when the company claims to be based in Australia, with outlets in the UK, Canada, and the US. Why would they do trials in India? Alternative medicine with no efficacy is much more widely supported in Indian government than just about anywhere. A little digging for the standards for India vs. other countries may be enlightening.

The other issues such as the ingredient lists maybe crundy will come back by. tmtoulouse 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the third party sites and page rank issues, the websites in question appear to have business relationships with products they push. So these websites collect a dozen products or more, right fake reviews and link to Dynamiclear, if people buy they get a cut. tmtoulouse 18:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

i.e., it's not actually illegal and doesn't get you a page rank of 10, so therefore us pointing out it's deceptive and dubious is ... unrelated, and their excuse is odious bollocks - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My Response[edit]

Ingredients:

  1. Check the documents from Archive.org, you'll see that the ingredient lists were copied verbatim from the ingredients list for Dynamiclear itself in each case. I even pointed out that they also recommend other products. I'll check to see if they have split the ingredients out into separate products now but as of writing and using the wayback engine my comments are accurate.
  2. That's a direct quote from the website as of Oct 2007 [1]
  3. Since when do the FDA perform clinical trials? Citation? Re the second reference, I presume they're referring to this article. Can someone with a better grasp of chemistry check the concentrations for me? I'm guessing the concentration and exposure time required for the effect is outside that of applying a topical solution to an area of the body where length of contact is minimal (as the lips and tounge can involunatarily remove the application over a short period)

Clinical trials

  1. As above, needs checking. That also isn't a clinical trial, it's an in-vitro research paper.
  2. They are using the official terminology of "Phase III" clinical trial, but what happened to phase I and II? I can understand omitting phase I, as it is almost purely for safety checks, but phase II trials are essential. Also, phase III studies are massive and expensive[2], but I doubt they tested more than 100 people for the trial (I need to check the summary again). And, as mentioned in the article, it was neither blinded, randomised, or placebo controlled and would be dimissed by any respected medical establishment.
  3. I've recently reinstalled my laptop so I need to install Acrobat again before I can check, but as mentioned in the article the trial conditions were removed from the summary a while ago. Hopefully they have put them back.
  4. So they admit the product is a "dietary suppliment" and is not intended to treat any medical conditions? Thanks!

Search engine

  1. Indeed. I agree.
  2. The section in question is of course speculation. Aside from getting the websites to provide the IP of the user who created the articles on the sites and then contacting the ISPs to demand the user's personal information (which they won't do unless the police force them to) there is no way of proving this. However, based on the evidence provided it does appear extremely suspect. I will ask the wife (a Crown Prosecutor) if the evidence would be admissable in a court of law, but I still think we should either (1) Explicitly state that the information is speculation, or (2) Remove the section altogether. What are the communities thoughts?

Site locking

  1. I'm not convinced. Anyone who wants to steal the information for profit can get it simply by doing View -> Source in their browser, which is how I quoted a lot of the information. This could be Hanlon's Razor though, so I'd be happy if it was removed from the article.

Can I just say though, well done Dynamiclear for actually taking the time and effort to formulate a proper response. It's a refreshing change and my opinion of them as a company has changed greatly. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should tweak the search engine section by pointing out that the sites are likely not owned by Dynamiclear, but that they include disclaimers discussing how they get a kick back for products they "review." It opens up an interesting set of articles to discuss some of these sites as they cover multiple products. tmtoulouse 18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh now this is getting interesting. Note that the article which was originally titled "Dynamiclear Reviews Will Reveal the Scam"[3] is now just titled "Dynamiclear Reviews"[4]. Someone has changed it after this discussion started. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Dude. This is why every page referenced needs a datestamped page capture, including the ones on archive.org - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Times+Concentrations[edit]

Since you asked about the Sagripanti, paper, I took a look. The concentrations used in that paper seem low, the 100 mg/L range is pretty dilute (give or take 100 ppm), although not vanishingly small. Although I wouldn't know what you'd find in the medication itself, it could be indeed plausible. The concentration of the virus then becomes the principle issue, without comparing these figures to that found in vivo it is meaningless, and this is the main reason you don't want to trust an in vitro study - although the authors seem to think it is a very promising result with potential applications, you have to remember that even the most promising lab studies can be dead ends. The times are also plausible and pretty quick (again, remembering that this is in vivo and I don't know how the virus concentrations relate in the real world):

The times to inactivate 90% of the HSV PFUs (D10 values) were 1.2, 9.8, and 24.7 min for Cu(II) in combination with ascorbate, hydrogen peroxide, and cysteine, respectively.

Looking at the part involving metal chelators stopping the effect is interesting. It may be related to some of the cyanobacteria work that a few people I know are working on, where the copper atoms for complexes with the anti-microbial agents and are absorbed. If I have time tomorrow, I might run it through the citation mapper to see where it's gone since then or ask around. As this paper is 1997, there will certainly be more recent developments if it has gone somewhere. Scarlet A.pngmoral 23:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Copper Sulphate[edit]

I'd be interested to know Dynamiclear's reasoning behind paying a high price for a chemical, a lifetime's supply of which can be bought cheap on eBay[5]. Should I not just buy some CuSO4 and some Lysine tablets and do it myself? P.S. Anyone else think this is turning into the Streisand effect? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Only a local one with respect to the Streisand Effect. RW doesn't tend to set the blogosphere alight too much. Scarlet A.pngmoral 22:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ingredients[edit]

I checked the wayback machine and for July 207:

Dynamiclear is an all natural herbal remedy that has been scientifically formulated to have powerful anti-viral properties. This remarkable 'proprietary formula' is based on a mineral and himalayan herb combination. It is applied to the site of an active condition. This combined formula allows Dynamiclear to penetrate through the membrane of the virus, hence the destruction of the virus on contact.

In addition they recommend:

  • Dual Formula Lysine (an amino acid combined with Vitamin C, Zinc and Bioflavonoids)
  • Immune Support (a herb formula containing Olive Leaf, Andrographis and Echinacea)
  • Biogenic Aloe Vera Gel (a non-sticky gel to help regenerate new skin cells)

So the last ingredients are NOT constituents of Dynamiclear itself.  Lily Inspirate me. 21:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes[edit]

OK, so here's some changes to the article I think we need:

  1. Mention the Sagripanti paper and remove details about Copper being ineffective against viruses. Probably need to add something about in-vitro != in vivo and we should try and hunt down a properly conducted study to see if Cu(II) is effective in human patients at treating herpes simplex. It's actually something I'm quite interested in myself. When I've finished moving house I might ask the uni medical dept if they'd help get volunteers to create an amateur double blind study.
  2. Clarify the ingredients at all stages using the wayback engine.
  3. Change the google section to clearly show these are oddities but are not necessarily due to malice.

CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made what changes I think are merited. tmtoulouse 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Message from User:Dynamiclear[edit]

Hi People, by the overall tone of the Dynamiclear page it seems you still think our product is not genuine so I would like to make you an offer: If anyone of you has cold sores or herpes we would love to provide you with a sample of Dynamiclear. You can see first hand the results it offers. This offer will be available for a limited time and to only a few members. So let me know if you really want to find out if Dynamiclear actually works. — Unsigned, by: Dynamiclear / talk / contribs

I have moved your comment down here so it is easier to find, some would deem it to be spam, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The main author of the article (and perhaps some others) may wish to take you up on your offer, but personally as an editor here I would like to see your company provide some evidence as to the claims of your product. Not marketing blurb, but hard, cold, boring scientific evidence. Before you do such, you may also like to read some of the works of this man. Thank you for entering in to a dialogue, we all eagerly await your response. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Have to agree with DeltaStar on this one. If you could provide me, say, one medical journal or peer-reviewed study about your product, I would have no need to take you up on your offer. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Is Dynamiclear publicly traded? If so, I promise I'll rewrite this article to say nothing but good things if you send me, oh, about 1000 shares. Any company built on taking money from stupid people has got to be doing at least fairly well. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This right here is the problem. Anecdotal evidence no matter the source is merely anecdotal. Drugs are not valid based on evidence of one or two people trying it out and seeing if they thing it works. Efficacy is established through extensive clinical testing. Many people being tested in a double blind, placebo controlled study. Even if we tried your product and it appeared to work wonderful it would mean nothing. This site is about evaluating the evidence for claims, and certain claims, like drug efficacy requires certain kinds of evidence.
Drugs that rely on anecdotal evidence are highly suspect. tmtoulouse 04:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to nail the point further, if there are specific claims made in the article that are wrong then let us know what those claims are and preferably provide us with a way to verify that they are wrong. That is how to get this article content changed. tmtoulouse 04:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh, for some reason I wasn't getting change notifications to this page so I missed all of this. In response, I actually have a coldsore at the moment, albeit a minor one which didn't puff up quite as much as some do, and only seems to be leaving a small scab. This is part of the problem. Let's say you sent me a free sample just before this happened. I use your product, and then sing praises about it because my coldsore is small and inoffensive. The issue is that it would have been the same without it. That's why, as people note above, simply providing samples to a few individuals won't prove anything. You need to have a double-blinded trial with hundreds, if not thousands of people to determine efficacy. This is why pharmaceutical companies HAVE to spend a fortune on their products, rather than doing what companies like Dynamiclear do, that is, finding a journal article which weakly suggests that a particular chemical / plant is effective against a self-limiting condition, then marketing a preparation of it with a Quack Miranda warning slapped on the side to avoid being prosecuted. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Silver level article?[edit]

Looks like, based on the criteria, the only thing holding this back from being silver is that it needs some kind of picture. Anybody want to proofread this to see what you think and, also, anybody want to add some kind of illustration? The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 02:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is a picture truly necessary, on an article whose topic may not be very "graphically interesting"? Let's not get into the "add a crappy picture to improve article" bind. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but is there anything else keeping this from silver? Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 04:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Lack of cash? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
A bit skimpy. Feels disorganised. I did add one of their misleading advertisements, though - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd err on the side of "no" for this one. While it's notable for the fact it's engaged the company directly, which is fantastic, I'm not sure it's really of enough importance, and as DG says, it's a little disorganised. I also think we need to review whether this is woo or not, as while it appears an unproven treatment and what studies have been claimed to exist have suspect methodology, it's not quite fraudulent or pseudoscientific or "oooh, look at the shiny shinY!!" snake-oil like stuff. Scarlet A.pngmoral 00:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think how "big" they are really matters, what matters is the quality of the article. Shouldn't a "bronze" article at least be free of spelling errors and sentence fragments? Heck, this thing even had a mispelled subpage title. I still think it has promise, and I don't see it as skimpy or disorganized. It just needs a lot more healing. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please source this "statement"[edit]

I'm going to give you time to source this claim but I'm ain't going to give you forever. Try to make the cite something not affiliated with your company nor a blog or a woo peddling site. 08:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamiclear&diff=795520&oldid=679720 -- Nx / talk 08:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Ta Nx. Just looking through. It seems the TGA regulate Australian medicine in the same way as the FDA, i.e. they only register and monitor safety and not efficacy. There are other unproven "medicines" listed alongside such as saw palmetto and glucosamine. Nevertheless if we already list Dynamiclear's FDA approval status then we should add the FGA as well. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
So companies are allowed to edit their own articles?? Interesting, I thought there would be a ban on that like RWW bans users doing their own article. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 09:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it's "allowed" per say, but companies certainly aren't allowed to try and whitewash critical articles. They are more than welcome to point out incorrect statements in articles (on the talk page) and provide evidence after which we will remove the offending statements. Usually never happens though. It just turns into a circular argument. In this case it's "We're FDA approved", "Doesn't prove efficacy", "Alright, well we've done clinical trials", "No you haven't, you've done a very unscientific non-blinded non-placebo controlled 'proof of concept' against an unstated competitor product", "well, we're FDA approved!" etc etc. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
And they always end up shooting themselves in the foot, because these whitewashing attempts bring more attention to the articles and result in their expansion... Röstigraben (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That's especially the case here. When the article was first made it wasn't of any particular importance. As soon as DC showed up trying to whitewash it (and threatening libel) loads of other editors jumped in and improved the article making it more relevant. It's now on the first results page in a search engine beginning with G for "Dynamiclear" which is probably why they are back trying to scrub it again. They've spent a lot of time, money and effort buying domains with "dynamiclear" in them, publishing articles on herbalist and HSV websites, and replying to criticism in forums so that all the search results for their product will show it in a positive light. This seems to be the last place they haven't supressed yet.
Seriously, the only thing we want is an independent double-blind placebo controlled trial involving at least 200 people to show statistical efficacy and then I will personally remove the article as it will no longer be deemed "woo". CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Lol, I can see the deletion log now: "Company produced reputable scientific data indicating efficacy, and thus no longer meets missionality." ... of course, I won't hold my breath for the day... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd happily put that. If this product does work then it would be an awesome breakthrough in HSV treatment. I don't mind being wrong for the right reasons at all. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That'd be quite awesome, really. What was woo is now not woo. Every RWian should look forward to being able to type that at some point. :) With the right evideence of course. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 11:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We're generally OK with companies, cranks and quacks editing articles about themselves, but there is no guarantee given that the changes will remain. In fact, it's the quickest way to bring tough scrutiny to the changes. Of course, if a company can manage to withstand that scrutiny with their edit, then there is no problem with them making that edit. After all, if what they post is actually correct and valid information/arguments, then there's little to argue with about the edit. It would be stupid to revert such information. But then, we so rarely write articles about anyone capable of the exacting correctness required that there is little likelihood that they will produce an edit that won't be reverted or significantly altered. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 10:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This. Note above that we did change a lot of information in the article after Dynamiclear put forward reasonable data to support the changes. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Re this, if Dynamiclear can show that they have taken steps to get the affiliate who created that image to remove it from their advertising campaign then I'll gladly remove the image and caption. Simply saying that "an affiliate did it" is not sufficient as Dynamiclear themselves are the ones reaping the benefits from the advertsing image. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Cracked[edit]

Amusingly Cracked has mentioned the tactic of buying domains or posting blog article that look critical of your product and then using SEO to boost them to snag people who are searching for "productname scam"[6] (#2 in the list). The example they give is the whole acai berry scam going on at the moment. Might be worth its own article. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Very similar to what we have on scam site but the name was a little problematic. ADK...I'll condense your engraving! 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Silver?[edit]

It's a good rundown and rebuttal of a pseudoscientific woo product. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 11:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. ТyLonely. Ever so lonely. 12:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not that woo-ful or pseudoscientific because it's not really saying "magic plant make good!!" or anything like that. It just hasn't proved efficacy through non-anecdotal testing, and may have used some awkward marketing to get there. ADK...I'll plagiarize your leash! 11:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Exaggerating?[edit]

Just noticed this page which very loosely references us (no links or quotes), but claims we've said a few things we haven't, e.g.

According to Rational Wikipedia this substance contained in Dynamiclear causes severe itching or eczema on any skin area, let alone highly sensitive genital areas. Higher doses can cause nausea, vomiting, headache and even liver and kidney damage.

OK, CuSO4 does cause skin irritation, but I doubt the concentration in Dynamiclear is high enough to cause any damage. Also this seems a bit harsh:

If you are considering trying Dynamiclear the following information could save your life or a trip to the emergency room

What do you think? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's seriously pushing what the article claims to the max - "fraud" is a protected term and we don't accuse people of fraud for reasons of legality and sense. But they did say something about competitors putting up false information, which is what this looks like. Looks like the gloves come off when it comes to alt meds. Scarlet A.pngpostate 18:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that they are trying to link us to saying it's dangerous. We make no claims of safety whatsoever. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
They don't link, therefore people won't be entirely obligated to check the source and see that it doesn't support the claim. Same reason newspapers don't give you citations to science journals. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 13:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

FDA[edit]

Dynamiclear claim they have FDA approval, and we mention as such in the article, but I note that in August 2011 the FDA filed an import refusal report[7] on the grounds that it is an unlicensed medication:

502(o), 801(a)(3); MISBRANDING: It appears the drug or device is not included in a list required by Section 510(j), or a notice or other information respecting it was not provided as required by section 510(j) or 510(k). 505(a), 801(a)(3); UNAPPROVED NEW DRUG: The article appears to be a new drug without an approved new drug application.

They don't seem to mention the FDA on their website anymore so I guess we should remove that claim. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Or at least mark it as out-of-date. One of the main issues is with the site content being pretty variable, so it's to be expected that claims are going to be playing musical chairs. Scarlet A.pngbomination 18:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Might be best to get rid of that section all together, including the quack miranda warning. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Dynamiclear seized by US customs. Charged as illegal[edit]

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ImportRefusals/ir_detail.cfm?EntryId=UPS-3224181-8&DocId=1&LineId=1&SfxId=

Didn't I mention that above? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dynamiclear Response[edit]

Hi, I represent Dynamiclear. Just to clarify a few points -

  1. Dynamiclear is manufactured in Australia and is a TGA listed medicine, not an FDA listed medicine. TGA is the Australian Government health system equivalent to the FDA in the US.
  2. The link on the FDA website mentioned above relates to a UPS parcel that was returned to sender in 2011 due to export documentation not being included with the parcel. This was a dispatch error. An approval for export certificate has been issued by the TGA Government for the export of Dynamiclear into the US. I have uploaded a current copy of the certificate for reference: http://www.dynamiclear.com/export-certificate.pdf
  3. We have taken the criticism on board and removed from the Dynamiclear website references to the clinical trial being labeled as phase III. This is in response to concerns about the criteria required for the trial to meet phase III status. Although this trial was commissioned to be a phase III trial and does fulfill much criteria for this classification.
  4. The Clinical Trial for Dynamiclear was peer-reviewed in 2011 and published in the prestigious Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Vol 11, Issue 2 (New York) in February 2012: http://jddonline.com/articles/dermatology/1726 (JDD members). Non-members can access the full article at this link: http://www.dynamiclear.com/clinical-trial-review.pdf It is now listed in the PubMed database of clinical trials: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270204
  5. Site locking has been removed from the website (right clicking is now enabled).
  6. Affiliate Image (http://herpes.hubpages.com/hub/Herpes) - we have contacted this affiliate to remove this image, we will continue to contact them until the image is removed. This image serves us no purpose and we will continue to pursue it further.
We would like to give some samples of Dynamiclear to the contributors of this article so that you are able to see first hand how it is true to its claims of efficacy. This treatment is not a cure for HSV but it is a significantly effective topical treatment for rapid relief of the symptoms.
Dynamiclear are intent on improving information that is incorrect and preserving our reputation in the community. If something requires attention please provide our staff with an opportunity to make it right, and work with us to help us meet our critics' concerns. DynamiclearTalk

Delete[edit]

Although I'm still skeptical of the efficacy claims of Dynamiclear, I'm nominating the page for deletion on the grounds of:

  1. Dynamiclear have taken criticism on board and have taken action to remove or reword certain claims and remove the SEO pages
  2. As mentioed above, this page is being misquoted by other websites, which I'm not happy about.
  3. We consider peer-reviewed studies as a "gold standard" for evidence, which Dynamiclear has provided

After this article was published, Dynamiclear provided the required evidence and removed questionable claims, and as the original author I'm therefore happy for this article to be binned. Although I'll leave up to the hive mind to decide whether to delete the article or just remove the addressed statements in it. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with deletion on those grounds. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 14:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the opinion of a medical expert might be in order.--Brendiggg (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, the only "definitive" proof would be a full set of clinical trials, which would cost billions of dollars, and I don't think that's required for deletion. Dynamiclear have provided sufficient proof to remove the product from the "woo" category and into the "unknown" category, which does not warrant an article. Full clinical trials would move it into the "proven" category in which case we could safely say "it works", but that's not expected of Dynamiclear considering they are not a pharmaceutical company. Therefore I'd be happy with deleting the article and leaving the talk page in place should any visitors wonder where it went. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
What he said. Bad Faith (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
There may have been changes to packaging and advertising, but there is probably something worth keeping in the article if only to highlight the role RW had in getting some of the misleading information removed. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 01:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, changing the article to be in line with the new information would leave a pretty empty article, and while leaving data up to show our role in the changes might sound like a good idea it just seems like more RW "circlejerk" and unnecessary. Perhaps another article similar to "Pissed at us" in which we describe the rare occasions where companies / individuals actually took some criticism on board and sorted themselves out would be better? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that the deletion is held off at least through the weekend till I can have time to carefully review. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ps. Since im certain Dynamiclear will NOT remove robots.txt so the editors can see the way back machine i have screenshots of internet archive that clearly show on dynamiclear.com that "chorapor" is now named "dynamiclear". Please post back under this if you need to view this.

A thought: move to RWspace and use this to blow our own trumpet about how we got a company to do the right thing. SophieWilder 20:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Dynamiclear. Response to removal of page[edit]

Before the editors of this board consider removing this page which is 100% helping people from not being scammed consider the following

  1. Since the dynamiclear representative wants to reference time and again the Australian TGA authority please be aware that the TGA has already taken action against dynamiclear and told them they need to remove almost every single claim that is being made on that website right this moment. Again, the TGA has told Dynamiclear and taken legal enforcement action against them to remove the claims that are on the website. Dynamiclear agreed but they have not removed any of the claims which are referenced specifically in the link to the TGA enforcement action below http://www.tgacrp.com.au/index.cfm?pageID=13&special=complaint_single&complaintID=1486 Editors please read the above document. The TGA authority went thru Dynamiclear’s claims and research study and concluded that there was nothing but lies and half-truths throught.
  2. they are not permitted to say TGA approved listed (see item 31 of the link above)
  3. the TGA claims that the study referenced by dynamiclear and mentioned on this board is flawed and that dynamiclear refused to turn over all of the documents from that study. (what could they be trying to hide?) Here is an excerpt from the TGA enforcement action

13. As a preliminary matter, the Panel reviewed the evidence material provided by the advertiser in their response to the complaint. The clinical trial upon which most of the claims in the advertisement relied was a randomised, multicenter, open-label study, involving 149 subjects. The methodology of the study did not include blinding. It compared Dynamiclear Topical Solution with an acyclovir 5% cream, and did not measure results against a placebo.

14. The Panel noted that, although acyclovir 5% was used as the comparator treatment in the study, half of the subjects in the study were already experiencing crusting or scabbing at the study’s commencement, and almost all were experiencing blisters at the study’s commencement. The Panel noted that, ordinarily, acyclovir should be applied at the first onset of cold sore symptoms such as tingling, itching, or burning.

15. Moreover, the Panel did not find that the study provided clear evidence that the advertised product was in every sense faster or more effective than the comparator product. The Panel found that some aspects of the study’s outcomes were not consistent or persuasive. While this did not mean the study was without value, it meant, in the Panel’s view, that conclusions based on the study should be drawn with caution and, ideally, with the support of matching results from other, unrelated studies.

16. The Panel also noted that the study had not been provided in its entirety, as many pages of it were not provided by the advertiser.

17. As a further preliminary matter, the Panel noted that it did not consider the advertisement to be an advertisement directed to healthcare professionals, as it was available to any person accessing the website


  1. With regard to dynamiclear being rejected by the US for import, and the response from the dynamiclear representative that it was a “shipping error” this is a joke. Is Dynamiclear claiming that an export certificate from Australia automatically means it is legal to import the product into the USA? It does not matter if Australia agrees that the product can be taken out of the country it only matters if the US says the product can be legally imported into the country. This link which is referenced on this rationalwiki page specifically states that dynamiclear is an unapproved new drug and cannot be imported into the US. The CHARGES FROM THE US FDA are specifically stated on the document and are clear as a bell.
    Can you imagine if every product that China said could be exported to the US was allowed to be imported to the US base on that merit? It makes no sense at hope the moderators of this board see through this shameless attempt to get rid of this page which is extremely valid.
  2. Dynamiclear has specifically blocked robots.txt so that you cannot use the way back machine or Internet archive to see that dynamiclear is simply a renamed version of Choraphor which was busted by the FDA for false claims and misbranded product back in 2005-06. Before the moderators of this board with this page, they should at least ask the dynamiclear makers to unblock robots.txt so that the Internet archive can show if this is the same product that was warned for false and misrepresenting statements by the US FDA. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2005/ucm075980.htm
  3. Anecdotally, but lately obviously the dynamiclear makers have filled the Internet with sites like dynamiclearreviews.org and many, many others advance to mislead users.

So, if dynamiclear is in trouble with the TGA who they seem to rely on for credibility. If they refuse to let us see their own website for 2006 that clearly states that Choraphor is now Dynamiclear by blocking robots.txt which used to be accessible. And if they have already been busted for false and misleading claims, and for an illegal attempt to import the product into the US. Wouldn't it be better to leave this page up what readers see all the facts and make their own choice?

^Attempted to tidy up. Will now read. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That is an interesting link. I'm surprised I never found it before. Alright, what do the mob think in light of this? Rewrite? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

---Crundy and other editors i forgot to mention probably the most important aspect about the TGA enforcement action. That action is based on the fact that they are making claims only about cold sores which in the USA is a self-limiting disease. Dynamiclear clearly has two different sections on their website one for herpes and one for cold sores. So if these claims cannot be made against the self-limiting malady of cold sores. How can it possibly be made about genital herpes? — Unsigned, by: 166.147.123.24 / talk / contribs

Response from the Dynamiclear Company to Consider[edit]

For several reasons, including the familiar writing style, I suspect that the above retort has been posted by a competitor called Medavir. This company has been engaged in a smear campaign for several years and are the authors of the website discussed in the Exaggeration section above. A check of the user's IP address and it's origin may help to confirm this. Medavir is a Florida based company.

In any case, in all fairness these points have been raised and therefore they require a response.
  1. Please take a closer look at the TGA register database (http://www.tgacrp.com.au/index.cfm?pageID=13&displayYear=2009) which includes the above mentioned link. Here you will find a record of all notifications sent to companies by the Australian TGA regulatory authority in regards to Complaints pertaining to Claims for Medicines. Each of these complaints relates to a specific advertisement and an outcome is recorded. This particular complaint was lodged by GlaxoSmithKline, a competitor. A list of all companies and products who have received complaints of this nature are included in the registrar. There are complaints listed against many reputable retail products including Neutrogena by Johnson and Johnson, Panadol (Australia's top selling paracetamol tablet) by GlaxoSmithKline and Colgate Sensodyne Toothpaste by Colgate Palmolive. All have incurred various complaints over the course of time. The difference however between a company that is intended on misleading the public (a 'scam' as the poster above alleges) and a company who is genuinely interested in understanding, improving and adhering to advertising guidelines, is how they respond to and rectify complaints such as these.
  2. TGA guidelines prohibit the use of the term "TGA approval for sale" by all Australian companies in advertisements because it can be misconstrued as a Government Endorsement. See code section 4(6)(b) (http://www.tga.gov.au/consumers/advertising-complaint-consumer-guide.htm). After consulting with the TGA, Dynamiclear were advised to reword "TGA Approval for sale" to "Dynamiclear is a TGA Listed Medicine - AUSTL 161978" to be in correct compliance with the code.
  3. (13,14,15,16,17) Dynamiclear have ongoing and regular communications with the TGA and it is Dynamiclear's highest priority to conform and comply with any of their recommendations. At the time of the listed complaint (December, 2009) the clinical trial of Dynamiclear was not peer-reviewed or published which affected Dynamiclear's ability to make claims that were pertaining to the results of this clinical trial. Therefore, many claims made in the advertisement in question were rejected by the TGA, including the use of words such as "clinically proven", "instant" and reference to any results obtained from the study. As a result, the advertisement was withdrawn. Dynamiclear acted on the advice and guidance of the TGA by amending future claims to be in compliance with the code, submitting additional clinical documentation to the TGA for review and undertaking a peer-review and publication of the clinical trial in order to use it as clinical evidence. There has been no consequent complaint or dispute since 2009.
  4. The export certificate does not grant Dynamiclear FDA approval for sale within the US, this is true. What it does provide is certification that a health care product is officially listed with the TGA government and that it contains only recognized ingredients that are deemed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as acceptable for use in the importing country and which have been manufactured to Australian and US recognized health and safety standards, such as being manufactured in a GMP compliant laboratory. Dynamiclear is a complimentary health care product made from well known natural substances and all of the ingredients are extremely low in concentration (well below the statutory levels designated by international standards). This product is not classified as a drug, nor is it an internally taken medicine. It is an externally applied antiseptic gel. Dynamiclear currently export to over 60 countries throughout the world and is engaged in many commercial partnerships for the distribution of the product. To date, Dynamiclear have had no such complaints from any overseas regulators or companies except for those instigated by this US company called Medavir, an online competitor and almost certainly the author of the objection above.
  5. If there are further claims and instances of misuse of our brand on the market by affiliates we are interested in correcting these. The website sited dynamiclearreviews.org is a website created by an affiliate. Many affiliates apply to become affiliates after using the product and his story, although colloquial, is typical of many testimonials we receive. However, the suggested use of a medical doctor for promotion of the product is against our guidelines and we are contacting the affiliate to have the doctor's image removed.
  6. Following the advice of the TGA Dynamiclear have acted on all suggestions given and will continue to do so to help ensure proper application and compliance of the code.

On a side note, I find it difficult to understand why such an angry and vindictive approach is taken toward something as simple and innocuous as Dynamiclear. All aside, we are dealing with a natural topical product that does not promise to cure any ailments but which for many years has been helping people get rapid and effective symptomatic relief. DynamiclearTalk

I'm not qualified to address your assertions, but with respect to the attitude, you might want to have a glance at RationalWiki, since it details RW's mission. There are a lot of snake oil cranks out there, entirely willing to fleece the unwary and gullible. Documented cases of these snake oil remedies being applied in lieu of professional medical treatment have caused deaths. RW has a long history with this sort of bullshit, and over time the community's developed a collective antipathy towards the whole bucket. P.T. Barnum was absolutely correct, and there is always another woo-peddler out to separate more rubes from their legal tender in exchange for water and hay fever medication to treat their kidney stones since they mistrust the medical establishment. We don't tend to give these things the benefit of the doubt.
Now, I'm not familiar with the whole case (too lazy to read the edit history and all of the talk and so on to get a total understanding of the article's life on RW), but it seems that some of RW's perceptions of your product were skewed by third parties acting independently, so that doesn't help. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 08:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Dynamiclear: I'm curious, was the study (not a clinical trial, by definition) published in the JDD[8] the same trial that is referenced in the TGA complaint[9]? If so then as far as I can tell their complaints on the protocol are still valid (Points 13 - 16: lack of blinding, trial performed on people with active blisters, no placebo control etc), and the fact it got published in a journal does not change that.
If you don't understand why people are questioning your product that is "natural and safe" then you should ask yourself if it would be fine if a relative of yours who has cancer decided to shun conventional medicine and use some "natural and safe" pills they emtptied their life savings into which has no efficacy data against it. Extreme example, but the same principle applies: taking money from sick people in exchange for snake oil. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not a terribly extreme example as the main criticism of fairly mundane and supposedly harmless alternative/unproven medicine is that it gives the illusion of credence to alternative/unproven medicine where it does cause harm - i.e., where regression to the mean and the placebo effect have no chance of providing significant benefit. It's very much harm by proxy, but the criticism is legitimate. Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator 19:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, fair points by Ochotonaprinceps, Crundy and Armondikov, and agreed. I should clarify that I was not meaning to refer to the scrutiny of natural products per se which is often warranted, but rather I have a difficulty in understanding this competitor's persistent sensationalism and relentless attacks on Dynamiclear.

Dynamiclear is generally innocuous - it is externally applied, made of well known and internationally accepted substances for skin care use, and contains them in extremely low concentrations manufactured to GMP compliance. This competitor, who repeatedly posts false negatives anonymously (both here and elsewhere across the internet), is persistent in their vindication and their motive does not seem to be one of genuine curiosity or concern.

Regarding the safety of Copper sulphate pentahydrate, Dynamiclear has been used extensively in the Australian retail pharmacy market over the last 3 years and there have been no reported complaints of adverse reaction to the TGA. Prior to first use it is recommended that all individuals, especially those with copper allergy, perform a patch test to ensure there is no sensitivity or allergy to the product (as stated in the product directions for use).(DynamiclearTalk 03:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC))

Moving forward[edit]

Oh wow, thanks to Dynamiclear I just looked up Medavir, who also claim clinical trials and have had slaps on the wrist from the FDA etc. Same story, different company.

OK, here's my suggestion: Nuke this page and start a new page (something like "HSV Woo") and include all the methods we find and list products as references, or give each product / company a subheading with specific details. We need to be fair in our criticism and it isn't practical to create a whole article per company. How does that sound? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:51, 13 September 2012

Sounds like a plan to me. Maybe have the Dynamiclear page redirect to the new page, and we can leave the talk page here for the record. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 05:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah redirecting the company names to the page is a good idea. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The BoN troll continues[edit]

To Dynamiclear retort

  1. Selling a product that is highly toxic to some in the name of profit. Including recklessly telling suffering and embarrassed people to put this untested solution on/in the mouth and genitals. (if you retort that “small doses are not toxic please provide clinical evidence of same” since the evidence below from Cornell University clearly states you are selling a toxic product only used as a pesticide in the US) Even Dynamiclear’s own website say it “stings like the dickens” and for a product that may be toxic that can’t be good.
  2. Selling a product with the exact claims that have been called “false and misleading” by the US FDA and Australian TGA years ago which are still evident all over the net.
  3. Selling a product into American that the FDA has clearly charged is illegal to import into the USA. (see FDA import rejection report)
  4. Selling a product for a condition which must be diagnosed by a physician without a doctors guidance or approval. (genital herpes)
  5. Possibly hurting those who might be spread this disease from others who avoid the appropriate medical treatment after ordering your product.
  6. Offering this possibly toxic product on websites geared at CHILDREN.
  7. Using a fake message board at herpes-coldsores.com to promote this product in a highly deceptive way. (yes we have evidence that this site is owned by “Sana Spurge” of Dynamiclear) and “amazingly” all people who “post” on this message board say they “love Dynamiclear”.)
  8. Using a USA address to deceive people who order into believing you are a US Company.
  9. Promoting this product as a cure. (see below)

Is Dynamiclear’s main ingredient toxic? Who cares no one can sue us in Australia!

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/copper-sulfate-ext.html

Even more alarming is you are placing this product (which may be toxic at least to some of the population) on a website for CHILDREN. (if you look closely you can see this “affiliate” of Dynamiclear did not even change all wording when the product name was changed from Choraphor to Dynamiclear).

http://vitaklenzforkidz.com/coraphorfaq.htm

Choraphor of course is the product that was called misbranded and illegal in 2006 by the FDA. At that time your company was charged with false advertising and those same claims called false still adorn the home page of Dynamiclear.com right this moment.

ADMIT you used to be Choraphor if you really are claiming you want to be better and more honest.

I noticed you did not address the fact that your product was named Choraphor (renamed Dynamiclear) which the FDA called illegal in 2006. You have stated you are Dynamiclear (so you control the website) so why not remove robots.txt so the internet archive can show what your website Dynamiclear.com looked like in 2005-06? The reason is your website stated that “Choraphor is now Dynamiclear” and I will put a web page up with the screen shot soon since I cannot put images up on this site. Non the less respected message boards tell of this fact and several of your oldest affiliates have been too lazy to change all links so here you will see the connection.

Selling Dynamiclear as “cure for genital herpes”. (a condition which must be treated and diagnosed by a physician)

— Unsigned, by: 166.147.123.26 / talk / contribs

Attention Mr. Bunch of Numbers; Wiki formatting is not so nice to straight paragraphs of text. Let me clean up your formatting slightly so it looks less crazypants in the actual talk page output. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this still up for deletion?[edit]

The {{delete}} flag has been up for four months. Either shit or get off the pot. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 2013-01-02T23:08:47‎