Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In this thread WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk , we had the owner of this company sign up and make claims about the dangers of wireless phones. Many which have not been proven or substantiated by peer reviewed studies.

If you goto the Wave Shield site, the company claims that Cellphone usage can cause brain cancer, Alzheimers and more

Here is what it says on their site.

Are cell phones safe?
There is no absolute proof that cell phones cause cancer and health problems but the evidence is growing.

What can we do to reduce the health risk?
Use the Waveshield , proven and tested to REDUCE THE POTENTIAL HEALTH RISK by blocking the majority of radiation from entering your ear when you place the phone there, the ear being the point of highest absorption of radiation in the body and the area where most tumors and health problems develop.
So while the sellers of this device say their is no absolute proof, they then turn around and say that Waveshiled has been "proven and tested"

Where is the logic in that?


Interestingly on the Wave Shield site it says you can become a "dealer" or "distributor". A Google search of Wave Shield then finds hundreds of sites selling the product. Many of these affiliate websites are publishing blatant falsehoods and ascribing miraculous benefits to the Wave Shield. In addition, these affiliate websites use copy from the Waveshield such as

If we insist on seeing proof that that an epidemic or indeed a pandemic is already underway, before acting to restrain exposures to the agent that damages DNA, weakens the blood -brain barrier, and unleashes destructive free radicals throughout the body, we will condemn ourselves and our families to lesser angels. There is no virtue in waiting until it is too late.
In repeated Google searches, I could find NO valid medical studies suggesting this product has any value.

Do you think this a scam or a useful safety product?

Your thoughts?
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Some other notes:

Many of these sites link back to wave shield's "news" site with adtrack links so the site earns money if they can get people to goto the news site

Here is what i found

xxx.cprnews.com/?aff=wave


aff=wave is an affiliate code.

Paying companies to goto your "news" site?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Hugh

Will you allow me to explain....

I have absolutely nothing to do with that website...

It is run by waveshield.com out of the USA..Boca Raton Flordia..

I am the Canadian master distributor for canada..that is it.


I would strongly suggest you remove this thread.....

and if you'd like to clear the air then call me..and this will be over and done with.. 226-444-9101

otherwise you will be sued...by my company Kaye Communications of Waterloo and Interact communications of Boca Raton, the creator of the Shield.

You have made several erroneous allegations here..we have valid testing from Cetecom...you think because it's not on the web it's a scam...that is laughable..
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Pussim13, I did not say WaveShield is a scam. You came to our site promoting your product, posting links to various sites owned by you (most removed by Digital Home since the links violated the terms of service on our site that you agreed to when you signed).

Once you posted on our site about the benefits of your product (again since removed), you brought your product to the attention of me and my readers.

Now that I am aware of WaveShield, I am asking others what they think. Is this product a Valuable product or waste of money?

Are people not entitled to their opinion?

May we see the CETECOM study so that readers can decide for themselves?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Hugh..the document is 24 pages long....

I have a summary on my facebook page that shows the efficacy of the waveshield and how the more radiation a phone emits the better the shield blocks the emr from the earpiece..

You can access the facebook page from the homepage of waveshield.ca

If you want the document I'd be more than happy to email it to you...but I do not want it posted in a public forum..

If you'd like to make arrangements ..call me 226-444-9101
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,368 Posts
I think if distributors are hypersensitive enough to threaten lawsuits about a products effectiveness then maybe we should look into whether there actually is any independent testing for the product.

That is, testing that is done by an organization that didn't accept money from the manufacturer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,422 Posts
Do you think this a scam or a useful safety product?
I believe this, like so many other "products" over the years, belongs in the snake oil catagory.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
Did Cetacom or CETECOM (not sure which) Comply with the FTC settlement? (feel free to email any supporting documents to the email address on the Contact US page of this site)

Marketers of Cell Phone Radiation Protection Patches Settle FTC Charges

Distributors of the “WaveShield” cell phone radiation patches that claim to protect consumers by blocking up to 99 percent of electromagnetic (“EM”) radiation emitted by cell and cordless phones have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that their claims are unsubstantiated and false. The settlement with Interact Communications, Inc., and its president, Sheldon Kalnitsky, bars false or unsubstantiated claims about radiation-blocking phone shields or other similar devices.

Interact Communications, Inc., based in Boca Raton, Florida, sells and distributes products under the names WaveShield 1000, Wave Shield Gold, and WaveShield 3000, all of which are intended for use on cellular or cordless phones. Interact Communications supplies these products to various distributors and also directly sells the products on the Internet. In addition, Interact provides the packaging and some advertising and display materials to distributors. The company sold the WaveShield product to California-based Comstar Communications, Inc., a company that settled similar charges with the FTC in April 2003.

The complaint, filed in federal district court, challenges the defendants’ claims that the WaveShield prevents up to 97 percent or 99 percent of all radiation and other electromagnetic energy emitted from cellular and cordless telephones from reaching the brains of users. The complaint alleges that the defendants fail to disclose that most of the energy emitted by cellular and cordless phones comes from the antenna and other parts of the phone, and that WaveShield products have no effect on these other emissions. These facts, the FTC said, would be material to consumers’ decision to buy or use their products. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants made false statements that their products had been scientifically “proven” and “tested,” when in fact that was not the case.

The proposed stipulated final order, which requires approval by the court, prohibits the defendants from making any claims regarding the ability of any cell phone shield or other similar radiation-blocking product to reduce exposure to EM radiation, unless the claims are true and can be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. The settlement further prohibits the defendants from making any unsubstantiated claims about the benefits, performance, or efficacy of any other health-related product or service. The order requires the defendants, when making any claim regarding radiation blocking, to disclose clearly and prominently that the majority of EM radiation emitted by cellular and cordless phones comes from the antenna and parts of the phone other than the earpiece and that the WaveShield products have no significant effect on this other EM radiation. In addition, the settlement prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting any test, study, or research. It requires the defendants to send a notice of the order to all resellers, and inform them that the defendants will stop doing business with the reseller if it continues to use any advertisement or promotional material that contains the alleged claims.

Finally, the settlement contains various recordkeeping provisions to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants’ compliance.

The Commission vote to file the complaint and proposed stipulated final order for permanent injunction was 5-0. They were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami on December 1, 2003. The order requires the court’s approval.

Copies of the stipulated final order for permanent injunction are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint, or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1 877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

Media Contact:
Brenda Mack,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2182
Staff Contact:
Serena Viswanathan
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3244
(FTC File No. 022 3104)
(Civil Action No. 03-81106-CIV-HURLEY/HOPKINS
Source:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/12/interactcomm.shtm

EDIT:

I see this at the bottom of the Waveshield site in virtually indecipherable text. I had to cut and paste it to read it.

The majority of electromagnetic radiation emitted by cellular and cordless phones comes from the antenna or body of the phone other than the earpiece. Waveshield products have no effect on this electromagnetic energy. They may reduce the strength of electromagnetic field emission from the cell/cordless phone ear pieces by as much as 50-99% depending on the phone model.
Is this to comply with the FTC settlement?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Cetacom is the gold standard for any manufacturer that wants to market a product and have it tested to make sure it complies with the FCC/Industry Canada etc standards.

So while the manufacturer pays for the specific type of testing..in the case of cell/cordless phones/Waveshield it would be SAR testing.
Specific Absorption Rate...

Cetecom has labs set up to do this type of testing and the results are accepted by the government agencies.

If you look on my Waveshield Facebook page..I believe it is the first WHO video there..there is actual footage from the Cetecom Lab in California that shows how they test.,

As far as the FTC ruling..it is all explained on my website...but the short of it all is that we complied and unlike all the other shielding companies that were called in the same way we were in the early 2000's, we turned over all our testing date and it was reviewed and the FTC signed off on Waveshield and has allowed us to stay in business for almost 12 years..all the other companies at that time were shut down and any company around today cannot claim what we do and they are not allowed to claim they have been srutinized by the FTC and that lawyers from both Waveshield and the FTC signed off on this agreement.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Cetecom..they are an independent testing facility with labs all around the world.

If we were claiming anything that wasn't verifiable we would have been shut down by the FTC a long time ago. Nuff ced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Hugh

Why don't you post the final FTC settlement?

It's on my website.

All you have posted is the notice.

That's not the whole story..is it?
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
From the settlement

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Order, the following definitions shall apply:

1. “Competent and reliable scientific evidence” shall mean tests, analyses, research,
studies, or other evidence based on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area, that have been conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified to do so, using procedures generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results.

2. “Covered product or service” shall mean “WaveShield” and any other device or
product manufactured, distributed, or sold by either of the Defendants that is designed or intended to reduce exposure to, prevent absorption of, mitigate the effects of, or prevent penetration of electromagnetic energy or other fields from any cellular telephone or cordless telephone or any other product, device, equipment, or appliance, or any service relating to such device or product.

3. “Clearly and prominently” shall mean as follows:

A. In an advertisement communicated through an electronic medium (such as
television, video, radio, and interactive media such as the Internet and online
services), the disclosure shall be presented simultaneously in both the audio and
video portions of the advertisement. Provided, however, that in any advertisement- 4 -
presented solely through video or audio means, the disclosure may be made
through the same means in which the ad is presented. The audio disclosure shall
be delivered in a volume and cadence sufficient for an ordinarily prudent
consumer to hear and comprehend it. The video disclosure shall be of a size and
shade, and shall appear on the screen for a duration, sufficient for an ordinary
consumer to read and comprehend it. In addition to the foregoing, in interactive
media the disclosure shall also be unavoidable and shall be presented before the
consumer incurs any financial obligation.

B. In a print advertisement, promotional material, or instructional manual, the
disclosure shall be in a type size and location sufficiently noticeable for an
ordinarily prudent consumer to read and comprehend it, in print that contrasts
with the background against which it appears. In multipage documents, the
disclosure shall appear on the cover or first page.

C. On a product label, the disclosure shall be in a type size and location on the
principal display panel sufficiently noticeable for an ordinarily prudent consumer
to read and comprehend it, in print that contrasts with the background against
which it appears.
I would certainly argue that "Clear and prominent" is not the case on your site. It's at the very bottom of the page below the fold and is barely legible. Of course, IANAL so I don't know the legal definition of Clear and Prominent.

We have the FTC settlement document link now so I go back to the subject for members for their opinions.

Wave Shield: Valuable product or waste of money?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,318 Posts
Hugh..the document is 24 pages long....
...
If you want the document I'd be more than happy to email it to you...but I do not want it posted in a public forum..
A 24 page medical study is not that impressive. And the fact that you don't want it posted to refute "erroneous allegations" is very questionable. Any study of this type must be available for public/peer review if it is to be taken seriously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
we have been under the magnifying glass for almost 12 years

So this should put to rest all the grumblings about a scam...

We were allowed to stay in business...
All records were turned over..

All scientific testing...

This only happened because a dealer in S. California, Comstar Communications (which we shut down) made false claims..and they were reported....we as the manufacturer had to defend our product and company which we did... and have made sure it is clear what the product does and doesn't do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Medical study?

IT is not a medical study..where did you get that from..IT is the 24 page Cetecom testing of the product that shows were are in compliance as to what we claim and that the product works.

We do not make that information available to anyone as it is proprietary..but we are allowed to put at big CE on our product boxes which certifies it as tested and passed by Cetecom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Disclaimer

We have the disclaimer posted at the bottom of every web page...it is clearly legible. it is also prominently displayed in numerous places throughout Waveshield.com and Waveshield.ca.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,368 Posts
Cetacom is the gold standard for any manufacturer that wants to market a product and have it tested to make sure it complies with the FCC/Industry Canada etc standards.
I'm not so sure about that. The gold standard would be peer reviewed scientific publications done by people who aren't paid by manufacturers.

For example, if Anandtech or The Tech Report accepted money from, say, NVIDIA to review NVIDIA's latest video card chipset that would greatly tarnish their credibility.

Another example. Consumer Reports doesn't accept money from the manufacturers of the products that they review. Not even in the form of advertising dollars. Pussim13, do you understand why this is important and why accepting money from manufacturers would harm the credibility of Consumer Reports?
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Summary

FTC Complaint

The complaint, filed in federal district court, challenges the defendants’ claims that the WaveShield prevents up to 97 percent or 99 percent of all radiation and other electromagnetic energy emitted from cellular and cordless telephones from reaching the brains of users. The complaint alleges that the defendants fail to disclose that most of the energy emitted by cellular and cordless phones comes from the antenna and other parts of the phone, and that WaveShield products have no effect on these other emissions.

What the Complaint wanted and essentially got

The order requires the defendants, when making any claim regarding radiation blocking, to disclose clearly and prominently that the majority of EM radiation emitted by cellular and cordless phones comes from the antenna and parts of the phone other than the earpiece and that the WaveShield products have no significant effect on this other EM radiation.

What Waveshield now says at the bottom of their website in small type (which I suggested in a previous post does not comply with the FTC's ""Clear and prominent" requirement )

The majority of electromagnetic radiation emitted by cellular and cordless phones comes from the antenna or body of the phone other than the earpiece. Waveshield products have no effect on this electromagnetic energy. They may reduce the strength of electromagnetic field emission from the cell/cordless phone ear pieces by as much as 50-99% depending on the phone model.

I think we can conclude that WaveShield fails to block the majority of electromagnetic energy reaching the Brain because it does nothing to block the energy from the antenna and other parts of the phone. So whether you believe this energy is causing Cancer or not, the truth is that WaveShield fails at blocking the majority of energy.

Based on the fact that the WaveShield fails to block most energy then I would say its a waste of money because to be of value to someone concerned with this energy, it would have to block much more than a minority percentage.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top