Procerin requests Removal of Articles - Your Input Requested

[Administrator]

Hi all -

The owner of Procerin, CJ Montgomery, has requested that we remove the articles we wrote about their product and their web sites.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/newsletter/article249.htm

The articles contain feedback from real users on another hair loss site stating that the product is not scientifically backed, and did not work for them. The articles also demonstrated that the "Consumer Review" sites touting Procerin as # 1, more effective than Propecia, and that Propecia costs $170 a month, are really just dishonestly worded sites owned by Procerin to market their product.

The articles eventually were top ranked in Google, and this is why they have requested we remove them.

I do not feel we have broken any laws, or violated any ethical boundaries by writing these articles. We were receiving several emails from people confused and upset, questioning whether to drop Propecia for Procerin because they "heard" it was more effective on another site. This alarmed me for obvious reasons. Our job is to educate consumers with solid science, and that includes identifying non-scientific claims.

Now... that is my viewpoint. But I'm obviously biased.

I have told CJ Montgomery that I will consider his request to remove those articles, but I want to ask my users what they think we should do, and why they think we should do it. If you feel we should remove those articles... or even reword them in any fashion... please tell us what you think here. You, the consumer public, are why we exist, and who we serve.

What is your take on this? Should the articles stay or be removed, and exactly why do you feel that way?

If this ever goes further than email discussions with Procerin, your input will be invaluable in either defending the existence of the articles or motivating their removal. So speak your minds, even if its not what you think we may want to hear.

Admin

 

[Rage]

Well... its all about the saw palmetto isn't it?

Studies show that it doesn't reduce serum DHT, and only has small effects on DHT levels in prostate tissue (absolutely nothing compared to finasteride).

Article Here

I say keep it, they have the onus of proof here. They must PROVE it works, maybe divert some of their million dollar profits to a independant scientific trials. That, I highly doubt will ever happen..

 

[youngguy_uk]

why remove it? all youre doing is reporting other people opinions and feedback and collating them into an article.

as for if procerin were to take this any further...well surely theyd have to justify their web pages, and show some sort of figures showing that procerin does indeed work better than propecia. depends how theyve worded their sites i guess - if its pretty obvious they are making claims that their product is better than propecia, i wouldnt worry too much.

 

[JJ Gittes]

I would say keep the articles, but perhaps you could soften up the language (e.g., "Lie #3", et. al). That's probably what's inflaming him more than anything.

Even if it is snakeoil, it might be better to present users' testimonials and then sum up the, in your opinion, non-efficacy of the product with straightforward, objective language.

That way, you can fulfill your duty to visitors without totally flaming this guy.

 

[HairlossTalk]

I would say keep the articles, but perhaps you could soften up the language (e.g., "Lie #3", et. al). That's probably what's inflaming him more than anything.

Unfortunately he wants them completely removed. He has filed formal complaints with Google. If he requested softer wording, I'd definitely discuss it with him.

Even if it is snakeoil, it might be better to present users' testimonials and then sum up the, in your opinion, non-efficacy of the product with straightforward, objective language. That way, you can fulfill your duty to visitors without totally flaming this guy.

True, and this has been suggested before ... but I guess the real question is, does he (or I should say, his affiliates) really deserve softer wording, or does he (affiliates?) deserve harsh wording? Consider for a moment what their actions are resulting in: They're intentionally deceiving people to increase their income and simultaneously harm people in many ways.

No doubt thousands of people have already dropped Propecia for Procein both at the expense of their wallets and their hair, which extends into their social lives, self esteem, self worth, and success with the opposite sex and in jobs. We all know the far reaching mental and social effects of balding. We discuss it every day.

I honestly can't think of a more unethical business practice than to lie for your own financial gain. In my eyes, they have a complete lack of respect and concern for hair loss sufferers. It seems you would have to really not care about people to be this way. To me that would take a lot of internal muck and grime to accomplish. Seems like you'd have to be a really disgusting person to be like that.

So I guess ... do we really owe them softer wording?

Im not so sure.

 

[Petchsky]

Personally i think the articles should stay...toning it down a bit is a good idea in case of retaliation by procerin's owners, but you should not be held ransom by these hethens. Maybe there could be a comprimise, its not a dirty word you know. You could request that they remove certain unfounded claims that are the most misleading to consumers in return for either the toning down or removal of the article.

But, ideally you are just fufilling your duties as an information based website, so the article should remain negative towards procerin.

 

[Petchsky]

sh*t...after just reading your post HairLossTalk.com, i feel really angry. The thought of throttling this sonofabitch is high on my mind...makes your blood boil. Is there no way you can go after this guy and do everything possible to shut his website down. Filing complaints for example as you have clearly stated that this guy is using lies and misinformation to confuse and manipulate people at a great personal cost to the individual. (of which there will be many)

I do not hold the FDA in high regard and think they are pretty useless as an organisation... the example of the man made chemical Aspartime is a great example of this. A potentially dangerous substance made by Monsanato as an artificial sweetner, which the body cannot process and is stored in the brain leading to seizures and many other fucked up problems if sufficient amounts build up. Not many people really know about this as it was kept quite and is still used commonly today...most noteably in diet coke. But hell, people stand to earn a sh*t load of money from it so whats a bit of blood when you don't have to see it. One of the bad sides of capitalism, along with this shite product procerin.

 

[drinkrum]

I say leave it all on there; there's no need to change a word. Clearly, he's got no leverage here. He's got really nothing on his side (rather loads of mounting evidence against) and he doesn't even have the courtesy to be polite. Tisk, tisk.

D.

 

[The Gardener]

HairLossTalk.com, I think you need a lawyer. Not a full time one, just someone you can run stuff like this by.

Personally, I say keep the postings. The speech is protected by law, whether it be 'just' users opinions or even your opinion that Procerin is crap and they tell proven lies. As long as you don't state as fact things that are not, and are careful to state when things are proven lies versus what you believe to be incorrect, then you are in the clear.

Maybe instead of him asking you to change your webpage, you should instead be asking him to change his product. Exactly WHICH of the two changes would be the more honest one that really should be made?

HairLossTalk.com, on another topic did you see my posting a while back about the lawyer friend I talked to vis a vis that anti-spam vigilante you were feuding with?

 

[Administrator]

Here are his comments. I will include both good and bad comments so that I am 100% fair to him. He seems like a reasonable person. I still would like more people's feedback on this issue so that we make the right, true, and ethical decision on this matter:

-------------------------------
As I mentioned before, I take full responsibility for any/all content on our site, procerin.com, point to anything you deem misinformation, and we can discuss it.

I monitor affiliates for any claims/actions they make that could open us up to liability only. Past that, I'm not telling 300 affiliates how to run their sites if they aren't breaking any rules. Enough of them are already ticked at you, I don't see that me telling them that you get to decide what they write on their sites is going to help your cause. If you see some particularly egregious violation then let me know, but everything I've seen runs afoul of no rule/law that I'm aware of.

To put it succinctly, I'm trying to reach a peaceful solution with you because neither of us benefits from this. I doubt you're selling any more product because you rank on our keyword, and our firm certainly doesn't benefit when people searching on our keyword see these two articles at the top of the list. You know just as well as I do that, while some of what is in those articles is accurate, alot of it is not; even after your revisions. Take them down, and everybody goes about their lives.

Up to this point, you've had no real incentive to remove these articles other than in response to my pleas. If they remain up after this week, then I have to take further actions to make sure they come down one way or the other. I say this not to threaten you, but rather to play my cards openly; I will do whatever it takes to see that they disappear, even if it involves the HairLossTalk.com site as a whole suffering. Several things about how you conduct your business are questionable, and leave you open to liability. I'm not here to tell you how to run your business, and I think I've been pretty open to suggestions from you on how I run mine. Take them down, and everyone stays ahead. Leave them up, and you gain nothing that I can see, and instead you have new headaches to deal with. If your business is anything like mine, then you have plenty of day to day headaches to keep you occupied without adding any new ones. I await your reply.

Sincerely
CJ
-------------------------------

 

[Vampa]

Don't give in, HairLossTalk.com.

I've been fortunate to have never really bought anything online that turned out to be a farce, but I know I'd be upset if I did. Finally we have a site that gives out true input from users and a whole forum to ask questions with; we fortunately know better. But had I not stumbled onto hairlosstalk.com, I probably would've bought a product like procerin.

Thank you for saving my money and please don't take them down. If you want to reword them, that's fine, but I don't see the real need to do so.

Arrghhh!

I posted just after the edit went up. Anyway, there's not much they can really do to you (that's legal, at least). They can't sue because a) free speech, and b) they're articles about user feedback with solid facts to back them up. Really, all I can see them doing is trying to hack your site or some BS like that.

 

[Rage]

They way it works, they haven't actually even looked at the way you have conducted your business, in fact, i doubt they have even looked at most of the site at all.

Its simply a threat, not one based on their own knowledge, but one based on your insecurities. Don't give it thought !

backup the server, and move overseas ... we'll follow where-ever you go

 

[NeedSomeHelp]

HairLossTalk.com...i do not believe you should remove the articles. It seems to me that if anyone has broken any laws here it is more obvious procerin has. You shouldnt have to deal with 2-bit hustlers trying to scam drugs on the internet to unsuspecting people new to hairloss. What kind of research does procerin have? Does anyone know what kind of long term effects/damage procerin can have on people? Nobody knows....and people are their guinea pigs. Up to this point they have done nothing but lied or told half truths. It seems to me they just made a concoction of possible remedies "thought" to assist with hairloss and slapped a label on it. Also nobody knows the synergistic effect of all those ingredients and how potent they are until someone shows up with a problem. Speedwinds nutrition also sells other products like HGH, and i've noticed on the testimonial part "Andrew from Vancuver" has positive remarks for both procerin and HGH, more fake testimonials. I think if anything u should ask "CJ" to provide u with the data that supports his claim of 88% success claim, and not just fake email accounts of success or a random poll like ask Doctor web.

 

[Petchsky]

Knob Head Says,

I monitor affiliates for any claims/actions they make that could open us up to liability only. Past that, I'm not telling 300 affiliates how to run their sites if they aren't breaking any rules. Enough of them are already ticked at you

Check his passing of the buck. The mans trying it on. He has nothing and is tested the water trying to scare. You should see this as a compliment really as it is testament to the effectivness of this site. HairLossTalk.com's articles are obviously losing profits for procerin and he sees this site as an obsticle in his way to conning more money out of people. Therefore his solution is to try and threaten you as best he can. Please do not give in to this man's scare tatics and do everything possible to bring him down.

Petchsky :-x

 

[Administrator]

Yet somehow, in the midst of it all, I am actually the one who feels harassed and threatened. Is it ethical for one business owner to email another business owner and blatantly state that they will "do whatever it takes to get those articles taken offline, even if it means that the business will suffer as a whole"?

Admin

 

[Shave my poodle]

Keep the articles!

If he had any confidence in his product then he wouldn't need to threaten people and if his product worked then we'd be hearing about it on forums like this from satisfied customers. Its not happened.

Never let the snakeoilers win!

 

[drinkrum]

Keep the e-mails he's been sending you. What he said in the last one can be seen as a mild threat in the least. But really, he's got nothing on you.

What happens in the real world is this. Let's say a Fortune 500 company makes a fradulent product and gives false claims. Either the product users will sue the company and/or Web sites spring up shedding the product in true light. The company, in an effort to save its name and bottom line, settle with these Web sites to prevent bad press from getting out and to avoid a massive litigation by dissatisfied consumers.

So, I would tell your friend at Procerin that either he coughs up the cash to make this go away or he gets ready for a bunch of people that have been fooled by Procerin to sue his ***.

D.

 

[elguapo]

I almost started to try to find a passive solution, one that would entail backing down just to survive. But then I thought "Bullshit! This site was created to inform us, and to prevent us from being misinformed, which is exactly what procerin is trying to do. They saw a way to make money, by chiming in on an age-old scam, and they want a piece of it. Screw that!


My points on the matter:

1) Get them to stop lying. If they are going to continue with their scam, make them write their statements in the same deceivingly ambiguous manner that every other scam artist does. Otherwise, WE should sue THEM!! And if they don't correct their "facts", then restate them correctly on the procerin article of this site.

2) You should take your case to Dateline or Pen and Teller (sp?), or SOMETHING! Dude, you really need to advertise. Somebody has to, and I"m not talking about an NBC special at 5:30 in the gd morning! Isn't there a Better Business Bureau or something to assist in these manners?

3) They can't possibly try to sue you if they are lying there balls off themselves! You always present your case as opinion or backed up with evidence. They aren't going to find anything. Call their bluff!

4) Talk to Google. Get them to remove this site's feedback on procerin from #1 to, say, #5 or something. Yeah, this goes along with backing down. My rationale is, if somebody is stupid enough to just believe the first thing they read, then you can't blame yourself for not being their to inform them. The should read multiple articles.

5) If you do change anything, rewrite the article to exclude anything that isn't hard fact. You might be citing anecdotal evidence. Instead of this, just state what procerin really is- its contents- and talk about those contents in a scientific manner. Let the reader figure out that it is no good, or at least not as good as minoxidil and finasteride.

Hope this helps. Let us know how things progress.

 

[PartTimeNinja]

Do not remove the article! As some one else said this article is the only thing between a heart broken hair loss victim and a scam product! I was one of those suckers who bought Procerin only to learn I've been ripped off. If it wasn't for HairLossTalk.com I am sure I would still be using Procerin sitting around hoping that my hairloss would stop! I am so glad I found this site.

I am so embarrassed as a human being that some people take advantage of others people's problems psychically & mentally!

Had a look around HairLossTalk.com to see if I could find anything that could be against the law on the site - and I could not find one single thing (although make sure the web shop is according to web security standards RE: handling credit card information etc.- but I'm sure it would be).
And keep the emails they sent/will send you. They are very close (if they haven't already done so) to breaking the law by threatening you.

 

[Guest]

facts

If your articles are based 100% on facts and user feed backâ€