Webglimpse Search Results:

Looking for vega in entire archive - Found 23 matches in 9 files
Showing results 1 - 9

Index to FDA Warning Letters, 2/3/2008
VEGA Grieshaber KG, Schiltach, Germany (4/25/01).

VEGA SELECT, VEGA SOM, VEGA AUDIOCOLOR, VEGA S-I-T pocket, VEGA SIT, VEGA TEST Expert, VEGATEST basis, VEGA D-F-M, VEGA SEG, VEGA QUICK TEST, VEGA SI TRANS, and DNA Ampoules, which were claimed to diagnose and/or treat various diseases.

(The Bioscan 2010 and the various Vega devices are frauds that have no diagnostic or therapeutic value.)

Regulatory Actions Related to EAV Devices, 11/7/2016
In 2001, the FDA warned Vega Grieshaber KG and an American distributor (BioEclectic Research, of Santa Rosa, California) that the Vega devices and several others were unapproved medical devices that could not be legally marketed in the United States

In 1990, the New Zealand Medical Journal described how a homeopathic physician had used a Vega device to diagnose allergies in three infants. In each case, the device was applied to the mother with the child on the mother's lap or roaming about the examining room. The doctor also diagnosed "miasms," which, if not removed, would prove fatal later in life. The Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee ordered that he be censured, pay a penalty of NZ$900 plus NZ$25,000 for costs and expenses, and follow certain standards of care for three years .

In 1995, after reviewing her care of 36 patients, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (Canada) concluded that Carolyn Dean, M.D. was unfit to practice and revoked her registration certificate. The questionable practices that concerned the regulators included Vega and Interro testing .

In 2016, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation suspended the chiropractic license of Michel Y. Roy, D.C., who had advertised on his web site that he used the Vega Test to measure "electromagnetic fluctuations" in a patient's body to attain "clinically relevant information" about "food allergy testing," "organ screen," and "intestinal flora imbalance." The disciplinary order noted that the device was neither a diagnostic nor a screening tool and lacked FDA approval .

In 2002, Health Canada suspended the licenses for the Vegasom (License No.13264), Vega Audiocolor (License No. 13267), Vegaselect (License No.13270) and Vegatest Expert (License No. 14736), which prohibits the sale or importation of these devices.

In 2002, the ASA concluded that a leaflet offering Vega testing as a "complete test for hidden problems" was misleading and advised the advertiser to withdraw it .

Discipline of Dr. Josef Krop, 20/8/2006
The central role of Vega testing in Dr. Krop's practice appears to be unusual.

It was claimed by Dr. Krop that the Vega machine -one electrode of which was held by a patient while the other electrode was applied to the patientís toe - assisted him in arriving at diagnoses. He used the Vega apparatus to screen for a broad range of sensitivities (as the only method of evaluation in at least one patient), as an integral part of the provocation/neutralization procedure in a number of patients, and as a means of adjusting previously prescribed treatment sera.

Despite the wide range of symptoms, the patientsí assessments were remarkably similar. All completed exhaustive "environmental" and "food sensitivity" questionnaires, all charts contained the same physical examination check-list, and virtually all received the same battery of tests. All were "screened" with Vega testing. Intracutaneous testing with serial dilution end-point titration was foregone only in the case of the child and an adult, in the latter instance because of cost. All but one underwent provocation/neutralization sublingual testing. All underwent extensive conventional hematologic and biochemical testing, the results of which were uniformly unremarkable. In a number of patients, subsequent treatment was modified by repeat Vega testing.

In the Committeeís view, the testing techniques and treatment approaches employed by Dr. Krop have in common a lack of scientific validation. This judgment includes, in particular, the Vega machine which Dr.

employed inappropriate tests, including the use of the Vega machine, provocation/neutralization and hair analysis;

(b) In addition, prior to any use of Vega testing, provocation/neutralization testing, serial dilution end-point titration testing for non-inhalant sensitivities including candida-related sensitivity, and hair analysis when not used in the diagnosis of heavy metal toxicity or essential element deficiency, Dr. Krop:

Naturopathic Misrepresentations, 30/8/2002
Vega Machine For Sale. VegaTest II complete with carrying case, extra hand electrode, instruction manual (Short Manual of VegaTest), test kits and 114 food vials. Remember, Vega units are no longer available in the United States. Save yourself the expense and hassle of importing a Vega unit (and avoid the possibility of having the unit confiscated at the border)."

Comment: These ads, culled from many more like them, are from the AANP website "Equipment 4 sale" page. Vega units "may be confiscated at the border" because the FDA has ruled that they are worthless and cannot be legally marketed or imported into the U.S. for diagnostic or treatment purposes. The devices merely measure the skin's resistance to a tiny electric current.

Quack "Electrodiagnostic" Devices, 5/6/2016
The Australian College of Allergy has concluded that "Vega testing is a technique of diagnosis without scientific basis." In 1997, a biomedical engineer found that placing ampoules in the honeycomb of a Vegatest I device did not affect the device's readings . This is not surprising, because glass is not an electrical conductor.

Katalaris CH and others. Vega testing in the diagnosis of allergic conditions. Medical Journal of Australia 155:113-114, 1991.

Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake, 25/8/2016
Subsequent models include the Vega, Dermatron, Accupath 1000, and Interro.

Revocation Ordered for "Biological Dentist" Douglas Phillips, DDS, 6/5/2014
Respondent's Exhibits 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18 were rejected. Respondent's Exhibit 16 was withdrawn. All other Respondent's exhibits were admitted into evidence. Respondent's exhibits included the depositions (transcript and video for each deponent) of the following: Boyd Haley, Ph.D.; Donald Warren, D.D.S.; Jerry E. Bouquot, D.D.S.; Raymond G. Behm, D.D.S.; Wesley Shankland, D.D.S., Ph.D.; Richard T. Hansen, D.M.D.; Christopher J. Hussar, D.D.S., M.D.; Marlind H. Stiles, D.M.D.; David Minkoff, M.D.; James P. Carter, Sr., M.D.; William Cowden, M.D.; Mark McClure, D.D.S.; James Medlock, D.D.S.; Andrew Slavin, D.D.S.; and Victor A. Marcial-Vega, M.D.

A Critical Look at Robert Dowling and His North Carolina Institute of Technology, 23/10/2012
Spears LD. Warning letter to company director Gehrhard F.P. Braun, April 25, 2001.

Biological Terrain Assessment Is Nonsense, 21/8/2006
Spears LD. Warning letter to company director Gehrhard F.P. Braun, April 25, 2001.

New Query: Rank by: