Paying Attention

We start with a CNBC story about a new miracle product advertised to help people achieve optimal human performance – whatever that is.  A reader sent me an email with the subject line “If only people read your blog” along with the link to that story.

The headline reads:  “This start-up raised millions to sell 'brain hacking' pills, but its own study found coffee works better.”  So what do conscientious business people do when their own study shows that pills they are selling for $40 a bottle are “less effective in many ways than a cup of coffee”?  They try to “delay publication of the study and asked researchers to change the name of the product [studied] to distance it from the analysis.”

The company claims their “supplements such as chewable caffeine pills help the human system become ‘quantified, optimized, and upgraded’…and that they may unlock the ‘next-level thinking’ that will be key to humanity's evolution.”  Pay no attention to that pesky research comparing it unfavorably to coffee or to the general lack of scientific evidence backing their claims.  The news report concludes with information that one month after receiving the results of the study, they changed the company name and hired a scientist, as neither co-founder “has a scientific background.”

Of course these products are marketed as dietary supplements to sidestep FDA regulations.  They are therefore only subject to investigation after problems are reported.  Problems may include illness, injury or major physical side effects; the financial side effects of tossing away $40 for a bottle of chewable caffeine pills are left to the individual.  (For a more in-depth discussion of the problems with nutritional supplements in general, see my comments here, here and here.)

What is frightening is that they are selling millions of dollars of these products to people who should know better.  (But that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue generated by the supplement industry as a whole.)  P. T. Barnum was right!

And speaking of people knowing better – after much legal foot-dragging, stalling and negotiating by the defendants, a Federal Judge has ordered tobacco companies who lied to the American public about the dangers of cigarette smoking to take corrective action.  They are forbidden to use any health descriptors including "the words ‘low tar,’ ‘light,’ ‘ultra light,’ ‘mild,’ ‘natural,’ and any other words which reasonably could be expected to result in a consumer believing that smoking the cigarette brand using that descriptor may result in a lower risk.”  In addition, they’ve been ordered to undertake a broad campaign, advertising the dangers of smoking including: website postings, labels on cigarette packages, and newspaper and television ads.

That’s all fine, but a few weeks ago I was out with my granddaughter on the day after my birthday.  She asked how old I was now.  When I told her, she said, “It’s a good thing you didn’t smoke or you would be dead already.”  So if a five-year-old can figure it out and express it that clearly, I think it’s more a matter of motivation than information for teens and adults.

A little critical thinking and paying attention goes a long way to making us healthier and wealthier.  Isn’t it worth a try?

News Flash! Smoking is Good For You!

If you saw a headline like this, your first reaction rightly would be that it’s ridiculous, obviously a spoof or a ploy to get your attention.  You would be right.  Everyone knows that smoking is hazardous to your health.  It causes cancer and other diseases.  It kills people everyday.  When people try to explain how dangerous something else is, they often use smoking as the benchmark.  So why would I say that smoking is good for you?  I did it only to bring to your attention how stupid and invasive the latest push by the federal government is, trying to add more labels plus scary pictures to cigarette packages.

The cigarette companies took the government to court to oppose it.  When the courts blocked the requirement, the government appealed, but the court affirmed the ruling and refused to reconsider the case.  The next step may be the Supreme Court.  More of our tax money will be spent on hearings to determine whether or not to intensify a warning that tells us what everyone already knows.

This is not new knowledge.  Long ago cigarettes earned the nickname of coffin nails, and the dangers of tobacco have been known for over 150 years.

Almost any smoker can explain the dangers of smoking and the wisdom of quitting.  They continue to smoke by choice or because they feel either they can’t quit or the misery of quitting is not worth the benefit of becoming a non-smoker.  The only smokers who did not take this stance were the ones suing the tobacco companies back in the 1990s claiming that they were victims, tricked by Big Tobacco or enticed by a cartoon.  They claimed not to know the dangers; it wasn’t their fault.  Sympathetic juries went along.  This led to a settlement between the states and the tobacco companies for almost a quarter of a trillion dollars to be used for anti-smoking education – most of which, by the way, was not.  Education has worked to an extent, but increased warnings hold little hope of further reducing the percentage of smokers.

Why should we care?  First it’s our tax money being wasted.  There is no magic money tree, and dollars used for this are not available for better purposes.  

Second, it’s another form of government intrusion brought about by their apparent belief that Americans are not responsible enough to take care of themselves.  (Every time we behave in a way that is less than responsible it reinforces that belief and our freedoms are further eroded!  That's only one reason why responsibility is so important.)  If you are not a smoker, you may think this does not affect you or you may take a “better them than me” attitude.  But be careful.  Governments develop patterns of behavior just as people do and the next interference or restriction may affect something you hold dear.