While I tend to agree with your statements, I do so with reservations for the
following reasons:
1. Just because a complaint is filed does not mean it has merit.
2. Government agencies make public statements that tend to be opinion as
opposed to fact. What testing has the agency done?
3. If testing was done, what were the standards used?
4. In 1942, the U.S. and British Gov'ts started using additives that were
stated as achieving the same results that Prolong makes in all of their long
range bombers. What standard of evaluation did the Gov't use and if these
standards were applied to Prolong today, what would be the results?
Prolong and the like have been over hyped in the Infomercial format, as have
certain car finish products that use Lasers. This in itself does not mean
Prolong or the other products are without value.
They are expensive, but if you feel they are of value use them. My single use
of such a product resulted in a decrease in engine operating temperature and
a slight, but measurable increase in fuel economy.
In the end, the best solution is to use the product that has had ample
testing, synthetic oils get my vote.
Remember all you Vietnam Vets, agent orange is safe to bath in and Gulf War
Syndrome and PTSD do not exist. Can we really trust what the Gov't and the
advertiser says?
For those of you in California, we are led to believe that our Tigers are a
major source of air pollution. If you don't believe CA. why do we not
question other Gov't agencies also?
Dr. Moonstone
|