If what you claim is true, then why the need to delete the key sentence? Why not let all the board readers see the entire article and decide for themselves if it is applicable?
Of course we both know the answer.....the article is not appicable!
Each time the Consumer Reports article has been posted as supposed evidence that FDA warns against Sucanon or 'types of products' like Sucanon, the subject sentence is left out of the middle of the claimed "verbatim excerpt" (post 6475, 6489 and others).
It reads : "It warned 15 companies last week about the illegal marketing of certain diabetes products, including Glucocil, Glytain, ProBeta’s Gynmena Sylvestre, and Zostrix Joint and Arthritis Pain Relief Cream. " Note that Sucanon is not mentioned in the article and has not been sold in the US.
Further, IF the article was applicable, why would it be necessary to leave out the subject sentence? It is claimed a "verbatim excerpt" in many previous posts, when it is not which leads to a false conclusion. That is a notorious omission and the falsity easily and definitively established.
Let's consult the definition of verbatim: "in exactly the same words that were used originally", which your post is clearly not. More disturbing, when the error is pointed out, it is incorrectly repeated again for the stated purpose of "scaring others away" as stated in post 4550.
This is further evidence of my contention that no credible information has been put forth of a scam or fraudulent actions by this company. If the "evidence" has to have the subject sentence removed while falsely claiming a "verbatim excerpt" and attempting to lead others to an incorrect conclusion, then that is not evidence at all. In court it would be false testimony. If the company is a scam and fraudulent as claimed, there would be plenty of supporting information for those claims. Instead, information is falsely and surreptitiously edited to make it appear to support the false claim and conclusion as above. See my previous few posts that debunk many other false claims in detail...
The argument of "same product type" falls short of applicability to Sucanon. 1. Sucanon is not mentioned in the article, which was about improperly marketed supplements sold in the US 2. Sucanon is not sold in the US 3. A request was submitted to the FDA to consider Sucanon as a natural product and FDA said it could not be sold as a supplement because it is a drug per the food and drug act, a drug that underwent "substantial clinical investigations" and specifically referenced the Sucanon study in 97 Latino prediabetics presented at the 2013 EASD annual meeting and published in their peer reviewed journal. 4. As you point out, specific products in the Consumer Reports article are allowed interstate commerce. That was true as supplements do not need FDA approval, but is likely in doubt now due to the warnings on improper marketing. 5. The reason Sucanon is not allowed sale as a supplement is that FDA says it is a drug per the food and drug act and it needs a new drug application. 6. Sucanon, as shown in preclinical and clinical testing, actually works in treatment of type 2 diabetes, and better than many prescription oral diabetes medications. 7. If the "same product type" argument really applied, it would have been unnecessary to modify the Consumer Reports article to falsely make it appear applicable to Sucanon in post #4477 for the stated purpose of "scaring people away" (post 4550). Here are the details including a link to the entire article.
In post 4477 you conveniently left out a sentence following ".....want you to beware" and just before "What can you do?".
The sentence omitted is as follows:
"it warned 15 companies last week about the illegal marketing of certain diabetes products, including Glucocil, Glytain, ProBeta’s Gynmena Sylvestre, and Zostrix Joint and Arthritis Pain Relief Cream."
Post #4477 conveniently changed the colon (:) to a period (.). The colon lets the reader know that there is more. The period means an end. This is clearly a misrepresentation of the article. Sucanon is not listed and Jayyy intended for everyone to think that Sucanon is included.
Now the repetitive misleading information continues to be posted despite its proven inaccuracy as Sucanon is not in the list or at all related to the article.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
