Common online dating scams

18-May-2017 11:15

So basically, a clinical study that has such major flaws cannot be trusted to prove much of anything.Interestingly, even though this clinical trial was done in 2006, it was not until February 2012 that an abstract of the results were published in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.water or an inert cream) was discarded because it would have had a “soothing” effect vs. This is just a convenient excuse not to test Dynamiclear against a Placebo or a true “standard of care” comparator product.Instead, they chose a product that was not widely used and needed to be applied 5 times a day for 7 days. IF this had been a well-done, double-blind clinical study comparing Dynamiclear to a Control Group or a Placebo – then if might have shown whether or not using Dynamiclear would be better or worse than using nothing at all.Or they recommend products that result in affiliate income for them – and do not disclose that relationship. At the time that this warning letter was written, Global Herbal Supplies was the main worldwide marketer and distributor of Choraphor.

common online dating scams-29

Sex dating sites free yahoo answer

In a research “summary” posted on Dynamiclear’s site, they claim that the option of testing Dynamiclear against a Placebo (i.e.The makers of Dynamiclear, Global Herbal Supplies – commissioned a clinical research study that was (either intentionally or erroneously) mislabeled as a “Phase III clinical trial” – but this study never met the recognized standards of a “Phase III” clinical trial, with only 149 subjects and no double-blind testing.If such a research study was submitted for official review as a “Phase III” clinical trial, it would be dismissed by any respected medical establishment.Unfortunately, herpes scams are all over the web and can appear legitimate to the unsuspecting readers.

There are many dishonest people and companies who prey upon people with genital herpes and other STDs.

All references to the study being a “Phase III” clinical trial were finally removed, and some of the flaws in the study’s methodology were cited, but underplayed.