bioeffective a 320, page-3

From the TGA:
“If a good is a listed good (that is, the safety and quality of the product have been demonstrated by extensive clinical trials) and there is evidence available from well designed controlled trials or analytical studies as to the efficacy of the product, advertisements may make claims as to the product's utility in:

- reducing the risk of any disease, disorder or condition aiding or assisting in the management or relief of symptoms of any disease, disorder or condition health enhancement

If a good is a listed good and there is limited evidence available from descriptive studies, case reports of relevant expert committees and reference texts, advertisements may make claims as to the product's use in:

- relief of symptoms which are not related to any disease, disorder or condition (for example 'relieves headaches')
- health maintenance, nutritional support, vitamin or mineral supplementation”

BioA doesn't list any health claims which is a real worry if it is even at the low level of a listed good that only requires ‘limited evidence’. If the evidence is there as Jefferies pointed out then why aren't even low level health claims being made? The reason of course is that there is little to no evidence and please don't start banging on about 70 years of research, 2 million PhD hours etc. Where are the studies to support this: there should be 100s available on Medline search? And no, don't do the usual thing when the SLA brainwashed are pushed into a corner to show evidence for their strong beliefs: telling someone to 'do their research' and 'read the last few years of ASX announcements' doesn't cut it. Where are the studies to support the benefit of BioA? They just don't exist - go Solascam.