CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Threelac and Fivelac are a scam! Threelac costs $6.00 for 60 packets but they sell it for $65.00
zenith1 Views: 17,595
Published: 7 years ago
This is a reply to # 818,608

Re: Threelac and Fivelac are a scam! Threelac costs $6.00 for 60 packets but they sell it for $65.00

I don't know whether the person who wrote this statement was from a competitor company, as it appears to have something of a flavour of anger and resentment, not to mention is plainly erroneous. It is now Christmas eve 2012, 5 years from when the writer claimed that Threelac was going to be discontinued yet it's still on the market. So this statement contains errors from the outset.

The writer alledges to know how much Threelac costs the distributor to purchase. Now, unless he is a senior buyer, or ex senior buyer for this company, it is incoveivable that he or she would know this, as this type of information would be proprietary.

Even assuming it was true, we live in a capitalist society and the suppliers are legally within their rights to charge whatever they want. If its too expensive, free market economics dictate that it will not be purchased. If it is within what the market will consume, it will be purchased.

Aside from the above absurdity, let us turn to the question of the person who it is alledged to have been "nearly killed". It's probably a bit of an exaggeration since let's face it, probiotics are not known to have this effect on people. I wonder what tests the writer did of the life signs of the individual concerned, or what paramedic report he is able to cite in order to come to such a conclusion. None? Yep, I thought so. But assuming this were the case, and it was a common and recurrning problem, the American FDA, and the equivalent authorities in other countries where the product is being distributed, would have been alerted by now, the product would have been banned, and the sales discontinued several years ago. This has not ocurred. Therefore this is obviously nonsense. The writer cites some anonymous person in England to whom this ocurred. As it happens I am in England too, and can confirm that I have had good results with it. So evidently it does not harm every Englishman that takes it.

As for it being a scam - all I can say is that it has worked for me, and worked for a number of friends I know who have used it. I also know people for whom the product did not seem to work (although none of them said it "nearly killed" them or indeed harmed them at all). But there again, no product does work for all the people, all of the time. If there was one anti candida product that worked for all the people all of the time, there would be no need for more than one anti candida product on the market. Sadly the human body is rather more complex than this.

If the writer is extrapolating from his or her individual experience that it is a "scam", fair enough. People have every right to be so unwise as to assume that because something didn't work for them, or didnn't work for someone they know, it follows that it doesnt work for anyone. And readers have the right to be to beleive it, based on one or two rather angry and embittered internet postings, and thus deprive themselves of the opportunity of trying something that might have helped them. From my own experience with this product, and with my health decisions in general, I would not say this was a wise or measured judgement. At the end of the day, finding the right anti candida product for you is a question of trial and error. Threelac may or may not be the answer for you, but I would urge people to form their own experienced based judgements, not third hand ones.


Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2019

2.562 sec, (2)