3458. Misbranding of violet ray device, .S. v 2 Cases * * *. (F.
D.C. No. 30801. Sample no. 3858-L.):
LIBEL FILED: Between
March 2 and April 24, 1951, District of Maryland.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT: On
or about July 24, 1950, by Master Appliances, Inc., from Marion, Ind.
PRODUCT: 2 imitation
leather cases, each containing a violet ray device, a general electrode,
a rake electrode, a throat electrode, and circulars entitled "The Master
High Frequency Violet Ray," "The Master High Frequency Violet Ray A Professional
Aid to Health and Beauty," and "Directions for Operating," of Baltimore,
Examination showed that the product consisted essentially of Geissler
tubes of various shapes with a transformer assembly to activate them, designed
to apply an intermittent ray discharge to the body.
NATURE OF CHARGE:
Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements in the circulars were false
and misleading. The statements represented and suggested that the device
would produce pleasing, invigorating, and corrective effects; that it would
be effective as a general treatment by stimulating the circulation;; that
it would be effective for beauty, health, and strength; that it would be
efficacious in the treatment of rheumatic pain in the shoulder, nervous
disorders, rheumatism, lumbago, and neuritis; that it would produce a sedative
or quieting effect and establish a normal equilibrium of the nervous system;
that it would relieve paingul sensations' that it would be efficacious for
treatment of the eyes and ears; that it would be efficacious in the treatment
of cystitis, strictures, gonorrhea, and prostate and vaginal troubles; that
it would promote circulation; that it would aid beauty and health by gently
stimulating the flow of blood; that it would be helpful in relieving pain
and congestion and in restoring food health and vigor; that it would be helpful
in removing facial blemishes and in promoting a clear, healthful complexion;
and that it would aid in the removal of dandruff and assist in stopping falling
hair. The device was not an effective treatment for the conditions stated
and implied, and it was not capable of producing the effects claimed.
DISPOSITION: April 24,
1951. Default decree of condemnation. The court ordered that the devices
be released to the Food and Drug Administration.
From the American
Medical Association's Historical Health Fraud & Alternative Medicine