It is moronic in my opinion for any manufacturer to claim 100% effective, although it is done throughout American manufacturer’s advertising campaign. I believe that this fact will also play some role in any decisions rendered.

You talk about common sense but we all know that once inside a courtroom, we can easily discard any amount of common sense. We see it everyday.

I’m not a scientists and don’t believe I have to be to understand that Scent-Lok says 100% effective, 100% of the time. Idiots!

I also agree that the lawyers must figure a good case but I don’t believe for a minute it will be as easy as some say.

Where’s the conspiracy? Is there one and how can they prove it. I assume, as it was part of the original suit, that the lawyers must also believe they can prove conspiracy. That will be difficult.

And one final thought. In your last comment you mentioned Dr. Shivik’s test. You spoke strictly about one animal versus another animal in its “believed to be” ability to sniff out odors.

While I am not challenging the results of that test, it certainly would have been much more effective had there been a way to bring in the deer after the dogs. You would have to agree that both animals have different ways of “educating” themselves to recognize or associate certain odors with danger.

It has been shown and I’m sure in your travels you have seen or heard about wild animals having never encountered man before, certainly react differently than those who have learned that the smell spells potential danger.

So while the “smell test” can reveal how dogs detect odors escaping from the 100% effective scent blockers, one cannot directly correlate that to how deer react. The point of the test is well taken though.

Personally, I would like to see consumers become smarter shoppers. I think mostly speaking manufacturers do an okay job of advertising their product. I think Scent-Lok erred in promoting 100%/100%.

Yes the lawsuit is underway and is growing and will continue to grow. I am just the kind of individual that believes that it is me who should look out for me and ignore idiot advertising campaigns.

What I do have an issue with is the conspiracy theory. If this is true and all of these companies actually knew Scent-Lok didn’t work and they conspired to make sure the consumer didn’t find out while they raked in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$, I hope they all get more than what’s coming to them.

Please keep us updated with the progress of this suit.

In comparison to dogs, deer have more nasal receptors (meaning they may smell better than dogs). Most deer researchers feel that if the dogs could smell the humans in suits, they deer could – end of story.

Obviously this research study will be part of the attotney’s case against Scent Lok.

God bless,

T.R.

Understood, and I would agree, that after looking at responses on at least 15 different talk forums, with over 4000 posts, it seems that the question as to whether or not there should be a lawsuit; it seems to be about evenly split.

However, as I mentioned, it does not matter what anyone thinks at this point – there is a lawsuit – which I believe is waiting to be certified as a “class action lawsuit”. My sources also tell me that this may eventually become national lawsuit, or at least be instigated in several other states.

As to where does the “onus” fall. As a manufacturer myself, and having been inviolved in the hunting industry with several other manufacturers since 1989, I can tell you that usually it is the manufactuers who take it upon themselves NOT to make false statements, mis-leading statements, unfounded statements or statements that cannot be backed up by verifiable sources or scientific proof.

But, we all know that false or misleading claims are made about some products. Recently one large scent company lost a lawsuit due to what was termed “false advertising” here in Minnesota.

In my efforts to determine if activated carbon can eliminate “100% of your odors, 100% of the time”; I dont think anyone can make that statement, it is simply not possible – according to what I have learned in talking to a couple of scent/odor experts, a couple of activated carbon experts, according to everything I can find on the absorbtive capabilities of activated carbon in the amounts used in hunting clothing (especially the fabric shown on my web site) and according to the Shivik “Search and Rescue Dog study”.

If you have not seen the fabric on my site you should look at it.

Secondly, all of the information and studies I have looked at show that in order to “desorb” odors from activated carbon, which will adsorb any and all odors, you can’t even desorb activated carbon of human persopiration odors in a houselhold dryer, non-the-less the hundreds of other odors that will be adsorbed by activated carbon worn by hunters.

Commone sense tells anyone ane everyone that at some point it has to become full of odors…

Common sense also tells us that not all of the odors can be desorbed from the carbon, thus – at some point – it can no longer adosrb ANY odors – and it is no longer any good to the hunter. I don’t think there is any way to dispute this argument.

Thus – both the statement that actvated carbon can “reduce 1005 of human odors, 100% of the time” is false/misleading; and the statement that activated carbon can be desorbed/reactivated by removing adsorbed odors in a household dryer at temperatures below 180 degrees is false/misleading.

In any state that is considered fraud.

The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for this type of fraud, but as most of us know they are swamped with health issues due to lead, and infections diseases. And they have failed to respond to any complaint.

When Federal regulatory agencies fail to act, or cannot act, it then falls upon consumer advocates or groups to expose fraud. And I suppose I have ended up in the category of an “advocate” because I have been involved, and I am very vocal about my beliefs.

I believe, I, as an outdoor writer, author and seminar speaker since 1989, owe it to the hunting public, to make known my beliefs – that they have been misled about this multi-million dollar making “activated carbon clothing business”. I owe to the hunting public becaue they are how I make my living.

I do not belive any outdoor writer has reserched this more than I have.

I also suppose that when the public feels they have been misled, or defrauded of their money, that they DO have the right to go to the court system, make their case, and if they are found to be in the right, to ask for punitive camages. That is part of the right of people in the United States – no matter what anyone else thinks.

Let me add that having spoken to several law firms about class action law suits, no law firm takes on such a suit unless they feel they have the evidence to win. And they do this knowing that they (the law firm) will pay for all of the required research, all of the legal motions and appeals, etc, over the course of the lawsuit. And I have been told by the lawyers that they expect this suit to take 2-5 years to complete. One can only wonder at the total cost to the plaintiff’s attorneys.

So – why would they take the case – unless they felt very strongly that fraud has been commited by Scent Lok????

At first, I believed what I had been told about how good sctivated carbon was. After all of my research – I believe fraud has been committed. But, since I never bought a suit of clothing, I cannot be involved in the lawsuit. I stand to gain nothing monetary in the lawsuit.

Incidentally, I was told that Scent lok had 30 days to appeal the Final Rejection notice of their patent# 9000337, which was mailed on September 13, 2007. I checked today and see no notice of appeal. What avenues Scent Lok now has to retain or regain that patent I do not know.

Any hunter who wears an activated carbon suit that is over two months old, should give himself the credit for not being winded – not the suit …

God bless,

T.R. Michels

My questions has been and always will be, where does the onus fall? Is it the responsibility of government, manufacturers, consumers or someone/something else to look out for and tell people whether advertised products work the way it is presented? Where do we draw this line?

These are questions not statements. Nobody has answered any of these questions yet – nobody.

Of course the Scent Lok commercial says it can work. They are trying to SELL something. Problem is science and knowledagable sceintists (who have nothing to gain either way) say(s) activated carbion cannot work as claimed (100% of your odors, 100 % of the time, which is in a Scent Lok ad), and human perspiration odors cannot be deactivated from the carbon at temperatures below the boiling point of human perspiration, which is mainly water which has to be heated to 212 degrees. Houeshold dryers do not get above 165-180 degrees, because it would set the clothes on fire. So it cannot be reactivated.

To Tom Remington.

I don’t believe any nationwide studies have been conducted to determine the percentage of hunters who don’t think there hsould be a lawsuit. But it makes no difference – there is a lawsuit and it ios getting more plaintiffs every week. Where is the data behind your statement?

If you check POLL at this link (http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_113902.asp) you will find that of the 300+ people who have taken the poll; over 70% think activated clothing does not work as advertised.

If you want some easy to find facts about activated carbon, and the story behind Scent Lok’s tactics, you can log on to this link http://www.trmichels.com/ActivatedCarbonScience.htm

T.R. Michels

There are tons of items on the market today that fall into that category and it is a consumer’s choice as to whether they are convinced of what is promoted as the benefits of owning such a device.

Obviously, Scent-Lok has loyal users and there will always be skeptics and those not willing to spend the money to try. That’s human nature.

This is a ridiculous suit against a company that has done nothing but try to help hunting with technology. “Old school” or not, people want an edge, whatever they can get.

Actually, I hope you many of you disbelievers keep on doing it, because you CANNOT convince me in my home state of North Dakota that 20-30 deer passing me 20 yards downwind with NO idea that I’m there does not work!

Fine! You get scented! I’d rather hunt!

Watch the video and then comment!