In a piece about bogus advertising claims, I come across this about skincare products - and over breakfast, mind:
Claims about cosmetic effects are acceptable. Claims about physiological effects are not.My Mom would have a word or two to say about that, and since she's not in the loop here, I feel I must represent her. Or, rather, I'll let WotN do so; she fired off this communication to the Graun:So no hope, in 2006, for St James' Balm, from 70 years ago. It dealt with "boils, abscesses, ulcers, eczema, acne, spots, styes, dermatitis, pimples, barber's rash, carbuncles, sore feet, psoriasis, impetigo, wounds, cuts, burns etc". I read the list down the phone to a nice woman at the British Association of Dermatologists. She just laughs at me.
My mother-in-law, her five children and her entire extended family have been using St James's Balm for the 40 years I've known them. It's truly amazing stuff and has cured every single minor skin ailment I've ever come across. My mother-in-law would go further. She reckons it also brings deeply-buried splinters to the surface of the skin and makes short work of post-operative wounds.