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.

Enough Already!

I found the juxtaposition of two items on television one day quite ironic.  First a local station ran a public service announcement advising parents to be patient with their teens.  They explained how young brains don’t become fully developed until around the age of 25, particularly the frontal cortex, the executive region that controls rational decision-making.

Soon afterward came a series of national news stories featuring high school students taking an active role in pushing for a change in gun policy, praising them for their involvement and, in some cases, endorsing their position.  Because of the trauma they suffered, the news media implied that these teens had somehow gained the wisdom to solve a complex issue that has stymied legislators, law enforcement officers and psychologists for years.

As the weeks wore on and I saw continued coverage of the issue and the media celebration of the marches and demonstrations, I grew increasingly uncomfortable.  Finally I understood what was bothering me.  I was concerned for the upset and angry children being abused to promote a political agenda.  They may have felt encouraged rather than abused, but for over a month instead of helping them start a much-needed healing process, advocates and the media worked together to keep them stirred up, anxious and excited.  This carried over to needless anxiety among thousands of other children.

I was also embarrassed for the other participants in these marches for getting suckered in, not being able to see what’s really happening, for leading with their hearts instead of examining evidence and looking for reasonable solutions.

In particular I was frightened about the implications of the overall situation, not because I own a gun – I don’t.  The problem runs deeper than any single issue.

Is America becoming a country where public policy will now be dictated by emotion rather than logic and evidence?  Will truth and justice be defined by whoever can chant the loudest or tell the most heartbreaking stories?  Will we ignore rationality and certain realities about human nature to fall into the trap of equating good intentions with good outcomes every time?  If so, it does not bode well for the future of the democracy.

Only People Have Money

A key to economic understanding is the concept that only people have money.  Other entities pass around the money and may hold it for a while, but when you “follow the money,” as the expression goes, it always eventually comes back to individual wallets and bank accounts.

Thomas Piketty, a well-respected French economist, professor and author of several books on income inequality, made the point clearly in a 2009 essay.  He wrote, “Let’s also recall that no taxes are paid by businesses: ultimately, every euro of tax is always paid by households…there is unfortunately nobody except physical, flesh and blood people who can pay taxes.”

He goes on to say, “Inevitably, firms pass on everything they pay to their workers (by reducing their wages), or to their shareholders (by reducing dividends or accumulating less capital in their name) or to consumers (by raising prices).”  Higher (or lower) corporate taxes means one or more of these entities is going to be affected.

In fact, this economic principle is not limited to taxes.  Any action that affects every company in the US or all companies in a particular industry – whether it be regulations, union bargaining, tariffs, or external events such as weather – feeds back to the end consumer.  This is true because when a cost affects every company, it takes competition out of the equation.  In this case each company can pass along those costs directly without fear of falling behind.  

It works in both directions: companies pass along costs to the three categories of people but their revenue also comes from people.  After they make sales and pay expenses, they must decide how much of the difference to reinvest in the business, making shareholders happy; how much to lower the price, hoping to get more customers and grow the business; or how much to increase wages, hoping to attract and retain the best workers.

So when CBS reports, as they did early last month, that Apple, Amazon and Google made a load of money in the last quarter of 2017, we must understand that those billions came from our wallets. And no one forced anyone to buy an iPhone or order items on line.  Facebook had similar positive results, but they forced no one to log in or click on the ads.  All these companies got their money from individuals (households) by providing goods and services that they valued.  Unlike the case of corporate taxes where every company gets to pass along added costs, all these companies, and any other company that wants to stay in business, must compete every day to provide the best service or product at the best price. When they do, they attract customers. That’s where their money comes from.

Some politicians want you to hate the rich.  But, barring those who inherited their wealth, it was people who made them wealthy by willingly giving them money in return for something of value, either directly (Jeff Bezos at Amazon) or indirectly (Warren Buffett investing in successful companies).

This dynamic works very well unless the government gets involved.  When certain companies are favored due to their relationships rather than their ability to provide the best for the least, their incentive shifts from satisfying customers to influencing politicians.  They no longer compete for our business where we voluntarily trade our money for their products.  Instead they compete for money that was taken from us involuntarily by the government (in taxes) and paid out in grants and subsidies.  It’s easy to see how this can skew the system, replacing an emphasis on added value with efforts to influence politicians.  This shift ends up costing the entire economy in the long run as less efficient companies stay in business through government favors.

Economic understanding helps voters to step back and look objectively at some of the actions and promises of elected officials, sorting through fact and fiction by following the logical path to and from households – wallets and bank accounts.  As a current example, when all the cities and states sue drug companies over the opioid epidemic, the money they (and their lawyers) collect will ultimately be an indirect tax levied on households through higher drug prices just as tobacco lawsuits translated into higher cigarette prices.

More Problems With Bottled Water

I have never been a big fan of bottled water.  On several occasions I have pointed out that, compared to the tap water in the vast majority of municipalities, bottled water is no safer and far more expensive.  In fact, bottled water, those brands that are not just tap water repackaged, is inspected less often and less thoroughly than water delivered to our house in pipes.  Blind taste tests yield mixed results.

The only advantage is the portability, which anyone can duplicate by filling his or her own container with tap water.

So when this story about bottled water containing little bits of plastic came on the news, it should have cheered me up.  Instead I was skeptical.

The headline in Fortune reads: “Bottled Water You're Drinking May Contain Tiny Particles of Plastic.”  It goes on to tell of tests done by a group called Orb Media at the State University of New York on more than 250 bottles from 11 different brands, sold in nine countries.  They found particles in more than 90 percent of some of the most popular bottled water brands.

CBS News added that the average number of particles found was 10.4 per liter meaning that people could easily ingest thousands of these particles each year. The World Health Organization is looking into the problem.  This makes it sound very scary, but at no point in the report did CBS answer the obvious question about the danger of ingesting tiny particles of plastic.  Do they just go through the system or do they hang around and cause major problems later in life?

Fortune asked the same question:  Is this a problem? No one’s really sure, because there isn’t enough data on the health effects of ingesting plastic.”  At this time health experts think most of the micro-plastics pass through our systems.  It is possible that some very small particles may be absorbed into our organs, such as the liver and kidneys, or that even the particles that pass though may give off toxins along the way.  But not enough research has been done to confirm either of these suspicions.

It turns out the same organization has tested for and found micro-plastic, invisible to the naked eye but detectable with a standard infrared microscope, in tap water from different countries as well as in beer, honey, table salt and seafood.  Sounds like they have an ax to grind.

There is no rational explanation for the fascination Americans have developed for bottled water over the recent past.  It’s not taste, safety or purity.  Fluoridated tap water is better for children’s development.  It’s not concern for the environment since, given that the majority are not recycled, the bottles themselves are a source of pollution.  It may be a slight convenience, but how does this justify the billions spent each year for a resource that falls from the sky.

Critical thinking cannot make sense of it.  But I’d rather people go on making bad decisions than to be frightened into making the wise choice by some half-baked new report spurred by an organization that clearly has an agenda to push.