Why is it acceptable to sell Woo Woo
09Feb. 10
Why is is okay to sell one type of scam but not the other?
If I were to sell bottles of “Hair Tonic”, concocted from urine and ink on the street corner I am sure I would very soon run a foul of the Department of Consumer Protection for selling a product that does not and has not been proven to work. The most common term for such a product is “fraud” and it is against the law to sell such products to the consumer for financial gain.
However Psychics and Clairvoyants frequently engage in such activities whereby they sell a service that does not work. Even with a prize of $100,000 AUD on offer from Australian Skeptics and One Million USD from The James Randi Educational Foundation not one Psychic has ever come forward to verify their extraordinary claims. This reluctance comes as no surprise to anyone of a Skeptical mindset but anyone who is not a Skeptic should be asking why these people cannot verify their own claims to have such psychic powers particularly when there is a significant financial incentive to do so. The all to obvious truth is that Psychics, Clairvoyants, Mediums and all the other New Age powers are nothing more than a fallacy.
Unlike my earlier hypothetical scenario with the “hair tonic” when it comes to Psychics and Clairvoyants the Department of Consumer Protection is content with standing on the sidelines and allowing ignorant people to be parted with their cash. There is a monthly “Psychic Awareness Magical Fair” here in Perth and I felt it was only fitting that Consumer Protection should know about the fraudulent practices taking place here. So I visited their Scamnet website where I stumbled upon an intersting page about Psychics and Clairvoyants.
Psychic scams prey on people’s vulnerabilities by promising to change their lives through lucky charms and winning lottery numbers.
Often these so-called psychics do not exist. They are fictional characters created by mailing companies to fleece you of your money. The pictures accompanying the psychics’ biographies are purchased from commercial photography libraries. The models in these photographs probably have no idea that their image is being used to scam people.
So it seems that you are not allowed to pretend to be a Psychic but it’s ok to be an actual Psychic. What is the difference, Psychics are frauds so how can it be ok to be a Psychic so long as you aren’t just pretending to be a Psychic? That simply doesn’t make sense. So I emailed them to ask about it and this is the response I got.
Dear Mr Buzzard
Thank you for your enquiry regarding Psychic and clairvoyant scams.
WAScamNet reports on a range of matters that are currently being marketed to the public of Western Australia. In many instances the wording and style of information presented to members of the public falls into the category of material that Consumer Protection considers likely to mislead the recipient of the material.
One of these instances is what we define as psychic scams. Often these scams will involve a claim that simply by sending money to a particular person some defined result, e.g. personal wealth or happiness, will follow. In many cases, no readily identifiable service is actually provided.
The Department’s particular concern in relation to clairvoyants and psychics is where generic information or material is published which gives an impression to the reader that the publisher of the material has particular knowledge of the circumstances of the individual, potentially causing the reader to be misled into acting in a way that they would not normally do. However, we take the view that material published by way of general invitation or information allows the reader to make an informed choice about whether to participate.
WAScamNet does not purport to support, deny or define the existence of the ability to foretell the future or issues that may affect individuals. There are a wide range of individuals and groups, including psychics, clairvoyants, and even religious organisations, that may claim knowledge of aspects of the future or that may provide guidance to individuals on how to act based on their values and beliefs. Consumer Protection considers that where the material published by these individuals or groups is sufficient for the reader to make an informed decision about whether or not to engage a particular service or to participate in a particular activity or belief system, there is unlikely to have been misleading conduct in breach of the Fair Trading Act 1987.
Consumer Protection will receive and consider all complaints about information published by any person or company.
I trust this information is of assistance.
Kind Regards
–Name Omitted–
A/WA ScamNet Research Officer
Retail and Service Industries Branch
Will they attempt to support deny or define the effectiveness of my fraudulent “Hair Tonic” if I start to sell it on the street corner, or is this special acceptance reserved only for the Psychics. The stance taken by the Department of Consumer Protection is deeply disappointing, as far as I’m concerned Fraud is Fraud and the authorities should not pick and choose between them. Psychic’s cheat the consumer just like any other scam and the authorities should deal with them accordingly.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I share your confusion. The WA govt banned the Moletech Fuel-Saver device on the basis that their own testing showed it didn’t work — but you can buy homeopathic products at the local chemist.
The general approach to psychics, by govt and media, appears to be that they’re real if they only bilk you of hundreds of dollars in return for “advice” or “information” but they’re fake if they ask for thousands to rid you of a curse. One is protected, the other pursued.
They may argue “belief” as a defence but a quick search of the net will show that plenty of people believe fuel savers, including Moletech, actually work. Apparently their beliefs are unimportant because their claim is objective, not subjective.
Your hair tonic, as best I can tell, would be legal as long as it is harmless. So sterilise it and make no written claims as to efficacy and you’re on your way. Or so it would appear from the myriad sham products advertised and sold around the country.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Here’s the problem — if you admit that psychics are frauds, you’d have to admit that priests are frauds too, as none of their claims are provable either. If you start arresting psychics, you have to arrest priests too, particularly any that make any money from their services (as most do). What government wants to start on that path, when most of their voters believe in some form of supernatural religion?
Psychics and their ilk are benefiting from the general ‘don’t look too closely’ attitude that society places on religious beliefs.
In the words of Dr Gregory House — “if you could reason with religious people, there wouldn’t be any religious people”.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Why is it acceptable to sell so called “Detox Packs”?
February 9th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I think its a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater if one gets too attached to the stereotypes implied.
I am certain there are great intuits (an umbrella term for the sagely), and there are no doubt 100 frauds for for every legitimate sage.
I’d also like to parallel your idea of misleading with the general practice of politics. The majority of politicians are in the business of misleading, with a rare few staying the course without becoming corrupted.
The problem ofcourse is that it’s hard to apply the scientific method to sincerity. That is clearly a concept in the relm of the sagely, so far as expressing it’s meaning.
But ultimately, in responding to your post, I find that through personal experience there does indeed seem to be a relationship between the positive attitude that comes from complete belief in an idea, and the body’s reaction to that state of mind.
I don’t like to see anyone fooled by a charlatan, but I also give weight to areas of knowledge where the scientific method is to date, rather lacking.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:55 am
“Here’s the problem — if you admit that psychics are frauds, you’d have to admit that priests are frauds too, as none of their claims are provable either.”
The Government’s stance is understandable in that respect, however many if not most psychics charge money for their services. Surely if they are going to allow psychics to sell their service they should also allow me to sell my phoney “hair tonic” so this argument can be taken in either direction. I feel that when there is a direct exchange of money for a service it cannot hide behind the same vale as religion.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:13 am
I’m against ‘outlawing’ anything because you then have to determine which is ‘bad’.
And if you use ‘science’ to make the determination, sooner or later you will bang up into someones ‘religion’ or some silly person will try to outlaw other dangerous stuff that isn’t — Dihygrogen monoxide has killed many people and look at how many people signed to get it illegal to use.
I consider psychics, homeopaths, and priests as a public service. They point out the silly, gullible, STUPID! people. Like when at a party you can ask simple questions like ‘what’s your sign’, ‘what about those mormons’, ‘What homeopathic medicine is good for a headache’, etc. The answers immediately indicate the intelligence of the answering person.
So don’t outlaw the stuff,which is a dangerous road, but use it.
April 17th, 2010 at 12:49 am
Yes, there are scammers everywhere in all different fields. But I ask you, have you ever been in contact with a real psychic? How can you reasonably judge this whole group of people to be scammers? Why don’t you spend $50 and get a reading… see what happens..it’s logical to get the proof before making such a bold assumption is it not?
April 17th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Because they are scammers. There is no such thing as a “real psychic”, psychic abilities have NEVER been proven to exist.
April 17th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
@Andrea How about this.,
I have the ability to cure cancer; anyone refuting my claim should give me the $10,000 I ask for. You should get proof before criticising my treatment.
See how absurd that would be?