had basic elements of liquid petrolatum, iodine, 7800 units of vitamin A and 1560 units of vitamin D, and that its only use would be as an emollient, which could adversely affect hypersensitive or allergic users. He further stated, that stroking of the breasts as directed in the "Stein Method" would not increase their size, but could result in mastatitis of an existing carcinoma of the breast, a site where many women are prone to malignancy. He concluded that such use, to which the massage was related, would prove a highly dangerous pursuit when advertised for general use by the female public.
Testimony of Dr. Beloff, to the extent that it was contrary to Dr. Campbell's, was rejected in the departmental decision. Credibility of witnesses, expert or otherwise, is always a factor in seeking a finding of fact and truth. There was sufficient evidence in the record displaying a close personal and doctor-patient relationship between plaintiff and Dr. Beloff, as well as demonstrating their close conjunctive efforts in programing the challenged enterprises, as to give a partisian coloration to such testimony, thereby warranting a cautious weighing of such self-serving declarations.
The Departmental Decision found "La Femme Ointment" to be a patently fraudulent inducement as advertised to the public; that plaintiff well knew that neither the product nor his method could accomplish the embellishments of the female body to which they pretended.
It seems inescapable, from an examination of this record that the Fraud Order was based upon substantial evidence that the "Blood Building Tablets" and "La Femme Ointment", each used in conjunction with plaintiff's "Stein Method", were fraudulent inducements directed to uninitiate purchasers, and that the plaintiff well knew and intended in both fact and law, use of the mails to accomplish these purposes contrary to the Mail Fraud Statute, 39 U.S.C. § 4005.
In the opinion of this Court, reviewing this record, such insight into the facts of this case is not only amply warranted on substantial evidence, but most clearly, reasonably and intelligently justified. The Departmental Decision is based both upon scientific opinion having universality of reasonably certain medical acceptance, and judicious rejection of the preposterous propositions and explanations offered by plaintiff and his expert witness. Reilly v. Pinkus, 338 U.S. 269, 70 S. Ct. 110, 94 L. Ed. 63 (1949). The test in cases of alleged fraudulent advertisements is as stated by the Supreme Court, Donaldson v. Read Magazine (1948) 333 U.S. 178, at page 189, 68 S. Ct. 591, at page 597, 92 L. Ed. 628.
"Questions of fraud may be determined in the light of the effect advertisements would most probably produce on ordinary minds."