I doubt Google will do anything.

Apricot Kernels are said to provide aid to many people suffering from cancer - who are we to decide whether they do or don't? Surely that is part of the joy of the internet - the serfer is able to read reviews/articles and make his/her own opinion. As the prodct is not pharmaceutical, I doubt very much whether Google would interfer. After all, is it any different to offering a product that claims to reduce the size of your stomach, or skin creams that reduce acne scars etc etc. There are (sadly) a whole host of such products readily advertised on the net, one has to rely upon the person actually carrying out their own research to ascertain whether they think this product is worth a go or not. For every advert for alleged "cancer" cures, there are sure to be a whole host of other pages that slate the product or voice a different opinion. That is what the internet should be all about - freedom of choice. Providing people with the relevant information & enabling them to make informed decisions about various products or services.

Part depends on location. The way you phrased it, it's almost certain that the claims/products are illegal in the USA and Canada. As such, yes, I think google would act. A lot depends on the details though.

Even if the product/claims are legal, I suspect Google would still act.

Don't know about your country but in the UK it is illegal to say anything can cure cancer unless you have been specifically licensed to say so.

Google do far too little about dodgy medicines and health cures. As a US based company they should have an FDA-approval-only policy. Of course, respecting each national regulatory structure would be better, if more work.

Hi,

In general it sounds like the US/CA/UK laws say that you cannot make unsupported medical claims for products. Good.

(And I bet that say DE/FR/SE/etc... are no more liberal in that area! Unfortunately, the claim that garlic and lemon cures HIV is still the (fatal) official line in some places, but let's not go into politics here...)

I think that you should notify G and let them decide what they want to do. If I were in their position I'd not want my ad network to be pushing unproven medications that may result in death (ie by not taking some better-understood choice)...

Rgds

Damon

<dup>

[edited by: DamonHD at 5:06 pm (utc) on Aug. 29, 2006]

If I point this out to Google, will they do anything about it?

By all means, do contact the AdWords support team - and ask them to take a look.

When doing so, please be sure to include enough information to ensure that the support person will be able to find the ad(s) in question. At the minimum, please include the keywords searched, and the display URL of the ad. A copy/paste of the entire ad(s) would be even better.

AWA

It's strange that this ad ever got approved in the first place.

The mere use of the term "cancer" (or any medical term) should block the ad from being displayed until reviewed.

I know that when I advertise books containing a medical term in the title, that is what happens. You get a notice at the time of ad entry that the ad has to be reviewed before it will be shown.

Sounds like somebody found another loophole, or else the Google reviewers are just getting sloppy. (GETTING? ;) )

yea Ive seen the same thing, I would say that the system is pretty strict on keywords of medical reference, it forces you to request an exception when you try to add these sorts of terms to your keyword list. Ive also seen some sort of pharma ID appear in the account settings / profile bit now as well.

I manage large site with a lot of medical information on it. It does not sell pharmaceutical items/drugs etc. The only keywords it has ever had problems with are if they are thought to contain pharmaceutical products. As this site is not selling a controlled substance I do not think that it would have a problem. However, I do think that Google could do more to vet such sites to ensure that they are not misleading in any way, and that they are clearly not involved in the sale of any controlled substances.

Hi,

In the UK you basically now cannot promote ANY product from flour to brickdust to apricots as having medicinal properties unless you can demonstrate that they do.

And rightly so IMHO; snake-oil + Internet = serious risk of death/injury.

Rgds

Damon

But, but, in ELbonia, it's legal!

In the UK you basically now cannot promote ANY product from flour to brickdust to apricots as having medicinal properties unless you can demonstrate that they do

Bravo for the UK!

Unfortunately, the U.S. is similar to Elbonia in this regard.

I see the gullible carting Penta Water out of Whole Foods Market by the case - at $22/case, for 12-ounce bottles!

(Penta Water is the most popular of a number of "structured water" products, which claim to "restructure" water molecules by a secret process of slamming the water around with ultrasound, varying pressure, etc. They make claims that it hydrates better than "normal" water, because the water molecules have a "smaller cluster size" and thus can more-easily pass through cell walls. They also make a number of medical claims. It's pure bunk, and they have discontinued selling it in the U.K. Water molecules pass through cell walls one molecule at a time - cells are the original "reverse osmosis membrane". Water molecule "clusters' constantly form, break-up, and re-form, regardless of what state they started in.)

In the U.S., you are not allowed to make unsubstantiated medical claims - in theory. But you can skirt the regulations by using weasel words - "may", etc. It's a joke. There's a huge industry here built selling expensive nutritional supliments for which dubious medical claims are made, with little or no real scientific testing.

Just so the Penta Water people don't jump on me (you never know, this thread may rocket up in the SERPs like the Siemens washing machine thread in Foo...) the cases I was referring-to contain 24 16.9 oz bottles. For $22, that's still pretty expensive water, unless you happen to be in the middle of the dessert or at a public event. :)

FWIW, I produce <0.5TDS water (as touted on the Penta website) from my under-sink RO/DI unit at a cost of no more than a few pennies per gallon. This is almost certainly unnecessary (as certain as it's eating-up the insides of my espresso machine and icemaker with carbolic acid...), but then I'm a nutcase about water. I don't however, slam the water around for 8 hours with ultrasonic cavitation, as that's too crazy for even me to consider.

Just an example of the gullibility of the American public, the lack of effort on the part of our government (despite many protests to the contrary) to protect us from ourselves, and (getting back on-point) why you'll see so many more products advertised with highly-dubious medical claims in the U.S. than elsewhere.