I'm going to pull an oldie out of the vault, because some companies who make extraordinary claims about their products would rather sue someone for criticising them than produce evidence.
What am I talking about? This: Ken Harvey taken to court; on the Australian Skeptics website.
Now, not every company who takes a critic to court is shonky. But on the 'How to Tell if a Product Manufacturer is Shonky' checklist in my head, this appears at the top in bold letters:
Does the manufacturer of the product make claims of amazing results, without any science to back it up?
If you dare to suggest that the manufacturer produce evidence of the product's results, do they go running to court?
It kinda sorta looks like SensaSlim gets a big tick next to both those items. So...
When medical scientists test a new drug
Just how do they have it appraised?
A Clinical Trial is performed to debug
Any problems or side-effects raised.
Phase I involves just a small sample, and that’s
To determine its safety and dose
And to see if what worked well in rabbits and rats
Works in people, or even comes close.
Phase II looks more closely at safety and such
And effectiveness measured all ‘round.
More subjects are used in Phase II, as that’s much
More complete and statistically sound.
Phase III is quite thorough, as one drug’s compared
To others in mass circulation
Much data’s collected and test results shared
To prepare for its use by a nation.
Phase IV kicks in once widespread use is effected
And long-term impact is assessed.
So if anything pops up that wasn’t expected
Those problems can then be addressed.
There’s only one phase in a quack’s evil plot
They claim that their magic’s good for ya,
And if anyone else dares to claim that it’s not
They get huffy and call in a lawyer.