Science, Medicine and Snake Oil

Snake oil is a derogatory term used to characterize fake or fraudulent medical devices, pills, tonics or ointments.  It is based on true events in American history when a man named Clark Stanley did very well for himself selling to credulous consumers his liniment, supposedly (but not really) made from the fat of rattlesnakes.  He claimed it cured any number of medical conditions.  Later the government fined him, declaring the product worthless.

Today the same thing is going on but with a slightly more sophisticated presentation. Last November an Ontario chiropractor appeared on a CBC program, Dragons' Den (known as Shark Tank in the US) to pitch the idea of wearable clips to a panel of venture capitalists.  Called Neuro Connect, these clips were said to “improve a person's balance, strength and joint function almost instantaneously” through a process called quantum entanglement, which is a real term used by scientists but has nothing to do with balance or strength.  After a live demonstration he raised $100,000 in exchange for a 30% share of the company.  (The parts of this article where the inventors explain that they don’t know how it works – it just works, are pretty funny reading.)

The investigative journalist and scientists were more skeptical.  They set up a real test:

“With the help of experts at the University of Toronto's Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, 10 participants were asked to do two tests: a static standing balance test and a grip strength test to measure whether the clips had any effect. 

 “Each participant did the strength and balance test three times — once with Neuro Connect clips, once with a set of name tag clips and once with no clips. It was double-blind — neither those conducting the test nor the participants were told which clips were being used.”

They found no difference in any of the tests and declared the product “snake oil.”  In light of these findings the inventors are not backing down promising to do their own tests.  But since then Health Canada has forbidden the company from selling three other products.

See how the University of Toronto went about their test.  It’s a good example of how science should be done.  They set up a double-blind experiment, based on measurable outcomes, not on a clever sales pitch using fancy scientific-sounding terms and a single demonstration.  They did not rely on personal endorsements.

This should be a concern to all Americans interested in protecting their health and savings.  Sure, this example came from Canada, but in the US the same kind of activity is rampant.  Just last August on BuzzFeed a sub-headline read: “Analysis by BuzzFeed News found that more than half of the most-shared scientific stories about autism published in the last five years promote unevidenced or disproven treatments, or purported causes.”

Look at some reviews of a website called NaturalNews.com with 6.5 million hits per month.  The Skeptoid says: It’s the #1 "worst anti-science website".  Steven Novella, M.D. and assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine adds: The author is "a dangerous conspiracy-mongering crank."  From Oncologist David Gorski: It’s “the wretchedest, scummiest, and quackiest" website on the Internet.  Another cites it for “pseudo-scientific insanity." Everyone must be more careful, despite the tendency to believe that Natural = Good.  That’s just marketing, not evidence.

Don’t stop there.  The popular Dr. Oz Show, which just ran it’s 1500th program and a related show The Doctors are not without their critics.  After a thorough investigation of the content, one critic wrote:

“The recommendations made on these shows only occasionally follow evidence-based guidelines. Often, we couldn’t find any literature citation (such as a medical study) to confirm the claims made on the show. The costs and harms of the suggested treatments were often overlooked. And, the hosts on the show frequently hawked products made by companies that advertise on the show.”

 So if Americans watch these shows for medical advice rather than entertainment, it’s best to get a second opinion to distinguish valid medicine from snake oil.  A little critical thinking goes a long way.