Flashback - Ignoring The Facts

[This one comes from January 2012 and is still one of my favorites. People, who are involved in a test that proves that a $30 item is not effective, continue to insist on buying one. Note, they didn't just hear on TV or read on the internet that the item is bogus - they were actually involved in testing it and shown the results. It didn't work as advertised, but they still wanted one regardless of what their eyes were telling them because of all the hype they had heard elsewhere! Being swayed by marketing promotions and celebrity endorsements is not wise behavior.]

While looking for a different article on the Placebo Effect, I found this interesting video. As you know, the Placebo Effect causes people to recover or show improvement even when they are given only a fake remedy, the familiar sugar pill. The power of the mind is amazing.

I recall an article a number of years ago stating that the improvement within the control groups in certain drug studies increased as the power of the real medicines increased. They were getting the sugar pill but believed they were getting the latest, stronger medicine, so they experienced even better results. It was all psychological. It is easy to understand how this reaction could play into the hands of "snake oil" salesmen. They sell you a useless cure and let your mind do the rest. Then they get a few believers who help them sell more. That's why I always say, "Endorsements are not evidence."

Here is the  CBS News video testing the claims of a particular performance wristband, one endorsed by famous athletes, and touted to improve athletic performance. When test subjects were given the advertised wristband, their performance on physical and balance tests did improve. But when they were given a one-dollar replacement band and told it also was special, performance on physical and balance tests improved comparably. The video also explains how the bracelet company sets up tests to ensure the perception of improved performance.

The scariest part is the ending where, despite the fact that the $30-wristband claims had been debunked, shown to be no more effective than the $1 bands or even not wearing a wristband at all, the participants still wanted one!

This is not critical thinking! This is the kind of decision-making that leads people to spend money on worthless items instead of using it wisely. Then they wonder why they get into debt and can't afford to retire. It's the kind of thinking that leads us to vote for candidates based on endorsements or personal appearance or charisma instead of the leadership and ideas we need. It's the kind of thinking that contributes to the decline of America!

How Can Facts Compete With Fads?

A couple of years ago beet juice was all the rage. Promoters sold a powder to dissolve in water.  They called it a circulation super-food. They backed up their claim with a pile of testimonials but scant scientific evidence; except that beets are vegetables, and vegetables are healthy. Does that make any vegetable a super food?

Well, step aside beet juice. It’s time for celery to take a turn.

How do we know celery juice is the latest super food? – Testimonials, of course! Says one article, “Celery juice is everywhere. So much so, that the two New York Whole Foods locations I’ve gone to in the past two weeks have been out of celery” as people buy it in bulk to take it home and run it through the blender.

These are not ordinary testimonials. Apparently the fad start when the Medical Medium (MM not to be confused in any way with MD) told his thousands of on-line followers that celery juice was “one of the most powerful and healing juices we can drink.” Since then it has been “rising in popularity within the health and wellness world” with tens of thousands of personal endorsements on Instagram. Among them are celebrity/influencers including Gwyneth Paltrow, Kim Kardashian and Debra Messing.

When I looked up articles about celery juice, though, most that I found said that those claims are false. This one begins with a headline, “Celery Juice ‘Benefits’ Are Total B.S., According to Nutrition Science.” The claims of it reducing chronic inflammation are grossly exaggerated. It doesn’t necessarily help with weight loss, because juicing any vegetable “will yield a higher concentration of sugar.” Any mention of detox should automatically be a red flag for anyone with an ounce of nutritional common sense.

Another website mocks the whole idea of the detox claim saying, “this entire celery juice trend is the epitome of bullshit pseudoscience.” It’s all about being a member of the super cool crowd that crowed about kale until celery juice was declared the new kid in town. It’s more about a need to belong, than a desire to be healthier.

Another reason people are drawn to juice fads is the convenience. The answer to not having time for fruit and vegetables is to grab a bottle or tumbler of the liquid equivalent, but it’s not really equal. The process of juicing compromises some of the nutritional value because it loses the beneficial fiber you find in raw veggies.

And Americans don’t get enough fiber.

This BBC article argues, “people who eat more dietary fiber are actually feeding their gut microbiome,” and “fiber leads to greater satiety, less insulin secretion, and more short-chain fatty acids, which all amounts to one thing: less body weight.”

Studies show that “those who had the highest intake of fiber or total fiber actually had an almost 80 percent greater likelihood of living a long and healthy life over a 10-year follow-up, [and] were less likely to suffer from hypertension, diabetes, dementia, depression, and functional disability.” 

This fiber, that BBC calls a lifesaving food, is easily available. “You find it in fruit and vegetables, some breakfast cereals, breads and pasta that use whole-grains, pulses such as beans, lentils and chickpeas, as well as nuts and seeds.” That’s whole fruits and vegetables, not the ones that have been run through a blender.

Once again, that’s the truth about another so-called super food. But how does the truth compete with celebrities, influencers and self-declared wellness experts with thousands of Instagram followers but no formal training in nutrition or science? All these fad diets are based on testimonials and endorsements that appeal to the emotions without any scientific basis with the sole intent of selling to gullible people their books, products and other secrets of good health.

Weight Loss and Diets

In America the news media tell us that we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic. This is clearly a discipline issue. As in most cases about the dimension of discipline, the answer is simple to understand and hard to do. Apparently though, and typically, a great number or people think there is some easy path to weight loss.

That’s why Americans buy about 5 million diet books every year. Millions are looking for that magic answer and presumably going back to buy a second and third book as each particular formula invariably fails them. Hundreds of different diet books are listed on Amazon, many labeled as best sellers. I found from another source a list of the ten best books on the Ketogenic diet. How many books do we need on a diet described as an “extreme form of low-carbohydrate diet” originally used to treat epilepsy in children a century ago. But today, by way of “celebrity endorsement it has become a popular weight-loss fad diet, but there is no evidence of any distinctive benefit for this purpose, and it risks causing a number of side effects.The British Dietetic Association named it one of the ‘top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018’.” 

This article in the Guardian from earlier in the year challenges these diet programs with all their accompanying hype by presenting five myths about weight loss. The thrust of the argument is that people tend to misjudge the dangers of their condition as well as their personal progress toward their goals.

People can hugely misjudge their calorie intake, and overweight people have a strong tendency to grossly underestimate the calorie content of their food (by about 47%). Those who believe they are fat but healthy, according to the writer, are deluding themselves. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy. “Their risk of becoming ill was eight times higher than that of the healthy group with normal weight. The risks include, but are not limited to: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, sleep apnea, arthritis/joint problems, fertility problems, asthma, back pain, incontinence, gout and stroke.”

The BBC reinforces the seriousness by proclaiming in this headline “Obesity-related cancers rise for younger US generations, study says.”

The other side of the problem has to do with the fact that people also misjudge other factors including: how many calories they burn through exercise, how overweight they are, that the extra weight doesn’t slow them down or that they can blame it on genetic differences. (See last Friday’s comments.) 

The most reliable advice comes from people not trying to sell books or diet programs, for example, advice from the book, The Cure for Everything, which I also referred to last Friday. Exercise is necessary and healthy, but it does little toward weight loss without a change in eating habits. (This is backed up by over 60 independent studies.) It’s not about a diet, in the popular sense of the word, but in a lifestyle choice. To make good choices the author recommends paying close attention to what you eat, either by calorie counting or any other method. This “forced self-monitoring…causes you to eat less, which is the only way to lose weight” (p. 54). The tendency to give yourself special treats for being successful or to treat the whole exercise as a temporary “diet” yields only temporary results – an outcome familiar to so many. It’s all about portion size.

This certainly seems Spartan and the opposite of fun, but simple-to-understand-and-hard-to-do is the hallmark of discipline. Unfortunately, the search for magic answers continues; but doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is the mark of insanity. Quoting from the book one more time: “If you see the word detoxify, cleanse, supplement or metabolism associated with a product or process, be suspicious. Someone is trying to sell you something that likely does not work and, in fact might be harmful” (p. 92). (I would add celebrity endorsements to the list of warning signs.)

People, People, People...

And now back to one of my favorite topics, Americans being duped by celebrities or celebrity endorsements into buying things they don’t need, things of little value or things that are potentially dangerous. On an individual basis it’s sad, and on a societal one it’s very discouraging.

If your car broke down, would you have it towed to the local TV station for the news anchor to look at – even if his or her hobby happened to be car repair? Probably not.

If your toilet backed up would you invite the local golf pro over to fix it – even if he had an engineering degree and an interest in plumbing? I don’t think so.

If you had a health question, would you seek advice from a Hollywood star instead of a health professional? The answer should be the same, but then how does Gwyneth Paltrow get away with it?

She holds health summits for her Goop brand charging $1500 per person, “despite repeated debunkings of her brand’s health claims, and piece after piece arguing the nonsense she sells is nothing more than snake oil.” This article comments on a new partnership with Netflix to push her products. In addition to her original lifestyle-and-wellness business, she owns a clothing manufacturer, a beauty company, an advertising hub, a publishing house, a podcast producer and several others. According to the New York Times, her brand is worth $250 million!

By playing on her celebrity status, Ms. Paltrow is reeling in customers by the boatload pedaling what many sources refer to at pseudoscience and misinformation. Errors in fashion may be OK; customers risk nothing more than possible derision. But when it comes to someone’s health, outcomes can reach beyond a waste of time and money to become dangerous or even fatal. 

Take for example one of the ten most read entries on the Goop site. “In consultation with Dr. Alejandro Junger, we created a week-long detox menu to recover from post-holiday indulgence.” Likely no one ever looked up the doctor’s credentials or questioned the efficacy of his advice before venturing into this experiment in self-medication. Unfortunately, as I’ve often written before in detail, detox plans are both unnecessary and dangerous. 

In other examples related to health, Goop continues a war on science with claims that are so outlandish that the whole thing could be mistaken for satire. But it’s not, and it’s very problematic. Dr. Timothy Caulfield, Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta, is a frequent critic. “Assuming this isn’t performance art, the increasing popularity of companies like Goop is a cause for legitimate concern. Despite the best efforts of journalists and doctors, the debunkers are not winning the wellness war. Indeed, there is evidence that the trust people place in traditional sources of science is eroding.”

 Or as Vox put it just last summer, “Goop has been called out for bullshit over and over. But the brand seems to be stronger than ever.” Many agree that such opposition has just strengthened the brand among those already made suspicious of traditional medicine by so many other snake oil enterprises – basically appealing to those people who have sent their critical thinking on a long vacation.

It’s ironic that science brings us smart phones and the Internet so celebrities can use them to profit from the ignorance of people by selling and/or endorsing junk-science treatments and fake cures. It demonstrates the truth of what Isaac Asimov said many years ago: “The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”

Getting Smart About Your Health

A recent edition of the Consumer Health Digest in my email was a real eye-opener! It illustrated the primary reason for the need for consumer protection: many Americans are not using the slightest bit of critical thinking or scientific understanding when dealing with personal health issues. They are looking for magic answers and falling for the most outlandish promises with paper-thin backing.

The first article was about a New York University Psychology Department review looking for what they called “drift” from the core mission of social work. It asked: “Should social workers be engaged in these practices?” By systematically searching the Internet for practitioner websites, they identified many offerings that “fall beyond those fuzzy borders” of the defined mission and in fact, “might appear highly questionable.”

Looking at the accompanying table, there is no “might” about it. The long list includes such services as: a course in miracles, angel card reading, Aura-Soma®: Color and Aromas, Auricular Detox, Awakening Your Light Body and Radiance, Biofield Tuning, Certified Cuddle Party Facilitator and Certified Intuitive Healer. And those just brush the surface at the beginning of the alphabet!

These and many others on the list have the distinct color and aroma of pseudoscience, superstition and scams using mysterious-sounding methods to lure in customers. It leads to calls for a “concerted national effort to stamp out pseudoscience in all of healthcare.” But people are wasting their time and money of their own free will. We don’t need a national effort; we need a critical thinking population, because it doesn’t stop there.

Next I read about a former massage therapist explaining, “Why I quit my massage therapy career.” The author tells about disputes with his regulatory body and the hate mail from colleagues as he tried, through his writing, to call attention to all the unproven therapies passed off in that field of practice. He concludes, “Massage therapy has a deeply pseudoscientific character overall, defining itself mostly in opposition to science-based or 'mainstream' health care, where rejection of science is actually celebrated by many practitioners, probably a majority."

Again, the problem is not all the false cures, but that so many people fall for these deceptive practices with the hope that they have found the easy and magical way out of their various health problems.

Finally, in that same newsletter from that week: “The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced that – as a result of a settlement – [the company] is mailing 227,995 refund checks totaling more than $6 million and averaging $26.57 to consumers who purchased health products from three individuals and the 19 companies they controlled—collectively known as Tarr, Inc.” Refunds included products for weight loss, muscle building and wrinkle-reduction. The company was accused of marketing their products with “unsupported claims, fake magazine and news sites, bogus celebrity endorsements, phony consumer testimonials, deceptive offers of 'free' and 'risk-free' trials, and enrollments of people without their consent in programs that charged them for additional products each month.”

But for every one the FTC catches, how many others slide by with similar schemes using endorsements in place of evidence, self-conducted so-called clinical trials, weasel words like “results may vary,” and the usual other tricks I warn of frequently? The only way to avoid these traps is to wise up, be skeptical and use critical thinking.

As an added note, not all the people that promote such treatments are charlatans. As I was training as a yoga teacher, I ran into a fair number of serious, devoted practitioners. They have a selective acceptance of science, where they want to pick and choose what to ignore and what counts as medicine, therapy and healthy practices depending on how their aura or chakras are aligned. Arguing the facts isn’t worth the time. (I’m sure many a shaman was equally sincere as he hurled virgins into the volcano.)

Food For Thought

Considering consistency by the news media: CBS This Morning has a regular series, "What’s Working," which investigates innovations in America that seem to be paying off. On one particular episode a few weeks ago they went to the University of Vermont to highlight a program to discourage the use of drugs and alcohol and move students toward more healthy activities.

Near the end of the piece the professor who designed the program explained that the brains of college students are not yet fully developed. "You couldn't come up with a worse age to send someone to college than when they're 18.” The reporter feeds back the notion, “The brains are not done developing at 18?” He responds, “Not even close.” 

This was not the only report emphasizing the immaturity of college students, and is not confined to CBS, with some saying the brain is not done developing until the early twenties. Some sources put the age of a fully developed frontal cortex closer to 25. Such statements have been fairly common when discussing various crimes and indiscreet tweets. Then why were these same reporters so excited just ten months ago about the apparent wisdom of a group of high school students lecturing the country on gun policy?

Considering income inequality: If we didn’t have rich people, there would be no designer goods. Nobody would be able to show off for their friends by buying the cheap knock-offs.

Considering trusting medical information based only on endorsements: Bloodletting was a common practice among doctors for thousands of years up to about one hundred years ago. Today bloodletting has been shown to be ineffective and mostly harmful. (A controlled variation is used today only in the treatment of a few very rare diseases.)

Since there would have been no opportunity for controlled experiments, the only way it could have continued to be practiced for so long would be through endorsements and by doctors hyping their own successes. “Marie-Antoinette, for instance, seemed to benefit from a healthy dose of bloodletting while giving birth to her first child, Marie-Thérèse, in 1778” – an endorsement from the Queen! 

Doesn’t this same practice of celebrity and friends’ endorsements and doctors hyping their own successes sound like anything we might see on TV or read on the Internet today for any number of miracle cures?

Considering the cancer conspiracy: Did you know that doctors, Big Pharma and the FDA are working together to suppress cancer research for fear that discovery of a cure will put them out of business? They also try to undermine real cures provided by alternative medicine. Many Americans do believe this conspiracy theory. Wired reported on a video that came out last July on the Internet about a miracle cancer cure derived from moss and available online. It “quickly racked up millions of views.” The video used the usual lure of “what the pharmaceutical companies don’t want you to know.”

The problem was the video was intentionally faked for the purpose of education, “teaching people to be skeptical of videos exactly like this one.” Do the same people who endorse this cancer-conspiracy myth also believe that firefighters want more fires and do not promote the use of smoke alarms and the practice of fire safety? Do they think dentists don’t want you to brush and floss? All this is equally hard to believe.

It doesn’t take much research (and critical thinking) to find obvious distortions and contradictions in the news and social media. As always the bad information flies around the world at lightning speed, while the truth struggles to catch up (often just in time to be slapped down by committed advocates or enterprising charlatans).

Do We Really Know Our Own Minds?

Well, except for the big-time procrastinators Christmas shopping season is about over. We have made our choices and spent what will probably again be a record amount of money on gifts, food and decorations. But recent stories in the news force me to wonder how Americans made those decisions, how they make buying decisions in general, and to ask the question: Do we really know our own minds?

The subject comes up after a few recent references to “influencers.” According to one business dictionary, influencers are individuals who have the power to affect purchase decisions of others because of their real or perceived authority, knowledge, position, or relationship. In consumer spending, members of a peer group or reference group may act as influencers.

They have power and they get that power because of their real or perceived knowledge or taste. But do they really deserve it? The only way they can get that power is because the ones whose decisions are affected have given that power to them. (I wrote not too long ago about the celebrity-endorsed sneakers selling for $999 with easy monthly payments – these are sneakers, not a car or a living room set!) 

We may listen to friends and neighbors to get some advice and learn from their experiences, but why do we listen to and follow the advice of sports stars or celebrities who don’t even know us? We let them make decisions for us and define what's cool. It must work because influencers are often paid to sway our opinions.

As this piece tells, there is more to the influencer phenomenon than meets the eye. In what the reporter refers to as a “bizarre and shadowy” industry, some companies feel they must pay influencers to speak positively about their products on social media. Despite the fact that “hundreds of thousands of dollars change hands daily” to buy these endorsements, many consumers trust these influencers as they would their friends and neighbors. The opinion of one experienced investor in a new start-up was that “to succeed, quality didn’t matter, nor did customer satisfaction—only influencers.”

It’s big business with the objective of making up your mind for you about what’s in, what’s out, what’s cool and what’s worth paying extra for. (One agency for influencers expects to make $20 million in deals this year.) And some influencers have been accused of buying followers to beef up the appearance of their popularity and raise their earning potential.

Surprisingly, there is some evidence that the influencers aren’t any better judges of fashion than the folks they try to influence.

A good example came from Payless shoe outlets, the discount retailer with stores in many malls. They teamed up with an advertising agency to make over a former Armani store in Los Angeles and fill it with Payless shoes, marking regular prices up by 10 times, rebranding the shoes with the designer-sounding name Palessi.

Next they “invited fashion influencers to get an exclusive first look at the new brand.” Some of these fashion experts “paid $200, $400, and even $600 for shoes that are normally sold for $19.99 to $39.99” 

In the first three hours they sold more than $3,000 worth of shoes. The company returned the money and let them keep the shoes, but will use the sincere and very complimentary comments in an upcoming advertising campaign.

So the question is: do we have the confidence to stop giving away our power, allowing others, who don’t know us and have little or no real expertise, to affect our decisions as consumers and citizens? Can we achieve a level of perspective to judge what is true and important instead of letting someone else do it for us? In short, can we stop acting like sheep, following the crowds as they follow the paid influencers, just trying to be cool or trendy?

Another question to consider: Unless we change this habitual behavior, how much easier do we make it for foreign powers or other nefarious actors to influence us using the same social media tools?

Best Tasting Tomato

Every year around the beginning of August, the local Master Gardeners held an open house for the public.  People were invited to tour the gardens, get their questions answered about growing flowers and vegetables, indulge in some free food or snacks, and enjoy activities for the kids.  The attendance over three hours was 200 to 300 and the otherwise very adequate parking lot of the County Extension Office was overflowing.

One popular attraction was the tomato tasting.  The garden usually featured over a dozen different varieties of hybrid and heirloom tomatoes.  Master Gardeners would pick a few of each and slice them up into individual bowls and invite the public to sample as many as they wanted and cast their votes for the best tasting tomato.  At the end of the day, votes were tallied and the winner announced.

Whenever I would describe this activity to others on a garden tour at different times of the year or to people in general, the same question would always arise:  Which variety of tomato won?  This is the typical (and wrong) reaction.

Why is it wrong?  This was just a fun activity.  The objective was to let everyone decide for himself which tomato tasted best.  It didn’t matter if, from this unscientific sample, one particular tomato got more votes than another.  That wasn’t the point of the exercise.  The point was to allow people to sample many different kinds of tomatoes, an opportunity they probably could not find elsewhere, and decide for themselves which they liked the best.  Except for fun, it was not intended to crown one tomato the best.  Yet even those who weren’t there at the time wanted to know.

I’m sure in some cases they asked just out of simple curiosity.  Perhaps some of the other gardeners might want to order seeds for the following year and were looking for some different ideas.  In general, though, I think the reaction was the same as many Americans have to a wide range of issues and purchase decisions.  They let other people make decisions for them.  They react to the hype.  They follow the advice of celebrities and other influential voices about what to eat, what not to eat, what to be upset about, what movies and television shows to watch, how to dress, how to vote, what diet plans to follow, what books to read and what brand to buy, including: cars, sporting equipment, furniture and beverages.

Why would I think that is true?  Last month, after his scandal at the Olympics, swimmer Ryan Lochte lost several endorsement deals.  One relationship was with Speedo.  I can understand a swimmer representing swimming apparel, although I shouldn’t let it influence me.  On the other hand, USA Today reported, “Airweave, a mattress company, said it had ‘ended its partnership’ with Lochte.”  Unless some significant number might let a famous swimmer advise them about what mattress to buy, Airweave was throwing away their money.  Yet this happens.  Celebrities represent products or causes with no relationship to their areas of expertise.  We let others influence us as we respond to ads that a particular brand is the most popular.  We see political candidates seeking the endorsement of singers and actors.

The hype machine is working overtime every day.  Advertisers tend to drop campaigns that are ineffective.  When we see so many using similar appeals, the only logical conclusion is that this stuff works; enough consumers fall for it that the expense is justified.

So remember the lesson from the tomato tasting.  If you get a chance to sample many and decide for yourself which one you like the best, that one is best for you.  What others think makes no difference.  Opinions are not facts.  In matters of taste or opinion, yours is as good as anyone else’s, and a better choice for you.  In matters of fact, like which car is the safest or most reliable, which candidate (if any) is best qualified or which foods are safe, find the facts for yourself instead of following the crowd or putting all your faith in a famous spokesperson (who often has little knowledge of the subject).

Covert Celebrity Endorsements at the Olympics

What’s the difference between medicine and superstition?  Medicine works most of the time for most people because it has been carefully tested in controlled studies comparing treatment results to no medicine (a sugar pill) or to no treatment at all.  It is also tested for safety and side effects.

Superstition sometimes works for some people for one or more of three reasons.  The ailment is often not diagnosed in the first place, so it may or may not exist at all.  The power of the mind is very strong and people can sometimes think themselves well, showing improvement even when given only a sugar pill (the placebo effect).  Many ailments go away over time with the “cure” attributed to whatever someone happens to be doing at the time – valid or not.

This month people watching the Olympics see Michael Phelps and others with marks on their bodies from cupping.  Those who are not critical thinkers will likely decide to spend their money (around $70 per session) for this traditional Chinese practice figuring if Michael Phelps does it, it must be good.  But last time I checked, Michael Phelps did not earn a medical degree between swimming laps.  What he does to prepare for swimming is equivalent to the motions a batter might go through before stepping up to the plate.  Neither is a prescription.

The cupping practitioner, places an array of suction cups (glass, rubber, silicone, earthenware or plastic) on the body for five to 20 minutes where they suck at your flesh with the help of a flame or pump.  In the practice called dry cupping (as seen on the Olympics) no blood is involved, but wet cupping is akin to the obsolete medical art of bleeding (where they sometimes used leeches) that cured or killed many in the Middle Ages.

When I saw a TV news spot on cupping they said that it draws the impurities in your blood to the surface.  This seemed a bit far-fetched.  How does it separate the impurities from the blood itself and how do you know there are impurities in your blood in the first place?  Likely, they assumed everyone has these impurities.  The reporter said the effects last for about three days.  What then, go back for another $70 session to draw out new impurities?  It smacks of a scam.

Other sources tell a different story.  GQ.com says this alternative therapy has gone mainstream as a treatment for “improving circulation, pain relief, giving you energy” after Phelps and Gwyneth Paltrow (another medical expert) backed it – no mention of impurities.  On sciencebasedmedicine.org we find it targets common complaints like “low back pain, muscle pain, joint pain, fatigue, and headaches.”  (Targeting these common, subjective complaints is an easier sale.)  According to webmd.com one source claims that cupping helps acne, herpes zoster, pain management, facial paralysis and cervical spondylosis; and another claims that it treats blood disorders, fertility, anxiety, depression, high blood pressure – and the list goes on.  They then go on to warn of side effects.  (Yes, even traditional Chinese medicine can have side effects, like burning and bruising in this case.)

When some medicine claims to cure so many disparate ailments, it is wise to be skeptical.  So it comes as no surprise that evidence for it’s effectiveness is slim at best.

The GQ article says, “Studies to support cupping’s efficacy either have been poorly designed (lacking control groups, etc.) or were hilariously biased. This week alone, Slate called cupping ‘another expensive placebo,’ while ScienceBlogs thanked Phelps for ‘glamourizing cupping quackery.’”  Sciencebasedmedicine.org agrees, saying, “The higher quality studies tend to be negative.  There is no good compelling evidence for any real physiological effect from cupping.”

 Wikipedia sums it up:  Cupping is a pseudoscience, lacking good evidence it has any beneficial health effects, with some risk that it may be harmful…Neither [dry cupping nor wet cupping] have [sic] any verifiable health benefit.”  The site quotes various medical experts, who call it nonsense, a celebrity fad, gibberish, utterly implausible and laughable.

What we have then is another case of traditional Chinese medicine, purporting to cure a whole host of ailments but with no evidence of effectiveness, going mainstream based on a fad and an indirect celebrity endorsement.  As Pete Seeger would say, “When will they ever learn?”