On Dec. 7th, ED is supposed to release the CG of all their EOs. That is them putting proof of the purity out there!
I am shocked that the good people of this forum are so ready to believe the rumors and mud slinging that a person (with questionable motives) puts out on the internet! How about reserving judgment until proof is given one way or the other? All we have right now are allegations and rumors.
I can't speak for others, but my interest in this particular article was generated by my knowledge of their issues with the bad lye and how that was handled. The bad lye issues had already made me very reluctant to purchase from them, and reading this added more distrust. Did I assume when I read this man's story that all of what he said was true? No, that's why I posted it here, to hear from others with more experience with them. But there has to be some truth in what this man has accused them of or how did all the evidence come about?
I do think this man is on a mission to bring them down, in retribution for what he feels is their responsibility for destroying his business. I don't particularly like his method of blasting all of it on the web, but I'm glad he shared the info.
I do think that, regardless of his unfortunately flamboyant and rather manic presentation of his experience with them, that there is something shady going on. And as a consumer, I'm interested in exactly what the shadiness is.
I do think that just because they are producing CG tests in Dec to prove their stock is pure, this does not nullify the fact that their previous stock could very well have been fraudulent (based on the tests that were supposedly done at the time).
I don't see myself as jumping on any bandwagon or jumping to assumptions in this as I feel it is completely fair to draw logical conclusions based on what's been presented so far. Based on what has been presented so far, this company has a history of selling sub par product (knowingly or unknowingly) to its customers and not owning up to it once it's discovered, choosing instead to dump responsibility for the product's failure on the customer. So, yes, based on what I've read and learned, I feel completely justified in saying I don't trust them or their product, and I won't be buying from them because I am reluctant to play Russian roulette with my money by giving jt to a company that has a proven history of selling poor quality product, bad handling of complaints about poor quality product, and an inappropriate response to detractors (hunt them down).
Is it bad that I don't think this emailing them is a bad thing? The internet is a big place. It might be difficult to find these articles unless you know where to look. And honestly, from this guys site it really sounded like he had every intention of suing them for losses.
I'm not saying ED handled things well (then or now). I just don't think that asking for information like that is unprofessional. I don't think they said they were going to bash the person that is reported. It's possible they were going to gather data so they could build a case. I think that's only fair.
Gathering that much GC documentation takes time. I bet they have to make sure any information of the company that tests their oils is removed from the files and they may even need to annotate them by hand with the hundreds of compounds found in EOs.
Please understand I'm not trying to support either side or argue just to argue. I'm just trying to shed some light on what could be happening in the background. By no means do I know any of this to be the case.
Galaxy, I'm not on anyone's side either, but I do have my own opinion on it, based on what I've read. And my issue with them asking for detractors info to be turned in is the way it's been done and the way it's perceived. This is not the first company to have a faulty product issue, there have been many, but it's inappropriate to put a call to action out there that charges your viewing audience and supporters to help you hunt down detractors and turn them in. It comes across as arrogant and vigilante, versus concerned and responsive. It doesn't matter what they are trying to find them for, the manner in which they are trying to get the information comes across as suspect and punishment oriented, not caring and restitution oriented.
If your company is currently under fire for supposedly selling a faulty or fake product, a smart response should be to
1) acknowledge that the issue exists so your customers don't think you're skirting the issue and begin questioning the trust they placed in you,
2) reassure that you are researching to find out if you may have indeed sold a faulty or fake product, so your customers don't feel like you're not going to have their back if they discover they were one of the recipients of said bad product,
3) create an environment of concern for your customer's shaken trust by establishing a dedicated portal for addressing customer concerns regarding their possible involvement in the suspect purchases, and
4) encourage any customer who feels they may have indeed been effected by the issue to come forward so they can be contacted directly with updates on the progress and any restitution should the issue prove to be true.
What you don't do is act as though it's impossible for you to have made a mistake in the past, that it's impertinent of people to suggest you may have made a mistake in the past, and ask people to help you hunt down those who have the temerity to speak ill of you. Their current poor handling of the situation has created an overall sense of distrust in the public eye.
If they are looking for past customers who have been affected by previously sold product that may be faulty in any way, they should be approaching the public with a call to action that speaks to those impacted directly. The more appropriate response to this would be to put a call out to the customers themselves, with language that reassures them that they are trying to gather information to discover how wide reaching the issue is so they can rectify, not punish.
I'm sorry that my opinion on this seems to rub people the wrong way, but that's how I feel. I don't know one way or the other if the things they've been accused of are true or not. But as a consumer, I can only base my overall impression of their company on what I see, which includes past and present experiences of their customers, and their response and handling of past and present issues.
So far, all they've managed to do with their current situation and response is to create a bigger sense of wariness and suspicion in me.
Just my opinion folks, so please take it as that - opinion, not statement of fact.
