She who laughs last laughs best.

"For some of the above, defense witnesses supported plaintiff's view
that the claims had been misleading."

The judge:

"There are no clinical trials of any type supporting any of the other
numerous claims in defendant's advertising. Further, anecdotal
testimonials are not reliable evidence of need for effectiveness of the
product."

"Trials, conducted by individuals with a financial interest in the
product and reported in a marginal peer review journal, ..."

"The court finds the representations set forth in paragraphs 1-41 false,
or in the case of the structure-function claims, scientifically
unsubstantiated. All of such representations are likely to deceive a
reasonable consumer. . . .

Defendant's deceptive representations are not protected commercial
speech under state or federal Constitutions..."

Now, of course, the Alties wil lwhine that it is published on Barrett's
site....but, of course, we know that their whining is a smoke screen, as
they do not want to deal with the deception..

And...it was CellTech....

Chuckle....