Flashback – Critical Thinking

The idea behind the flashbacks on Fridays is to review and update some thoughts and examples from the past. These examples remain valid because behavior has changed very little over the years. We are not learning from our mistakes.

 

The main difference in 2020 is that almost every subject quickly becomes political with people taking sides. The Real Solutions are not political. They come from people changing their personal consequences by improved choices using the Five Dimensions. As these individual improvements accumulate, America moves in the right direction. The solutions come from us and not from the government, but try telling someone that in an election year! 

 

Here from almost nine years ago are some thoughts on critical thinking.

[Around the time of the Civil War, John Stuart Mill wrote essays in opposition to slavery and in favor of women’s rights. In both cases he recognized the difficulty of persuading people to change their minds when their conviction was based on feelings rather than logic – thinking with their hearts instead of their brains. Near the beginning of “The Subjection of Women” he writes: “So long as opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses instability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, … the more persuaded adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, … always throwing up fresh entrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old.” In other words, it’s tough to get people to change their mind when their opinion is not based on logic. The more you talk, the deeper they dig in to protect long-held beliefs.  

We see this behavior almost daily. We are warned to avoid subjects of religion and politics in social conversations. They lead to no resolution, instead causing others to protect their turf.

This is why many of my critical thinking arguments will fall on deaf ears. Considering, though, the waste, misdirection and sometimes danger that result from individual and societal forays down these blind alleys of feeling-based decisions, I continue.

There are two categories of critical thinking. The first involves paying closer attention, for example, recognizing the popular advertising pitch of “save up to 50% or more” as virtually meaningless. Literally it means: maybe saving some undefined amount that can be less or more than 50%. Likewise, how can all car insurance companies save you (up to) $300 when you switch? They all say so. One even claims that  80% of those who switched saved money - but doesn't mention the 20% dumb enough to switch anyway. These examples, and many others, just take some basic questioning.

The second category hits on subjects treated almost as religious beliefs. When I warn of the dangers of dietary supplements, the ineffectiveness of performance bracelets, or that all-natural does not necessarily mean healthier, I know there are a certain number of readers who will dig in, ignoring examples, evidence and explanations, knowing in their hearts that they are doing the right thing, resisting rather than even considering an alternative point of view. For some the ideas of green and sustainable are nearly sacred. They will not bat an eye when told that a particular wind turbine, for example, saves enough coal-powered energy to pay for itself in 150 years, but has a life expectancy of only 50 years! “But, but, but it’s green! It must be good. It’s the direction we need to be moving!”  Logic is lost in feelings and further argument leads only to increased resistance.

Nevertheless, I will continue to cite examples and drive the message of critical thinking. Making good decisions most of the time is essential for our success, both as individuals and as a society.]

More Secrets To A Longer Life

A couple of related stories caught my attention recently. The impression I got from them is that people continue to look for easy answers, tips and secrets. With all the new technology and scientific breakthroughs, they tend to abandon common sense, expecting something better and easier. This attitude drives a lot of wasteful behavior indicative of a lack of discipline and critical thinking.

 

The first was from a website called Outside with the title: “8 Simple Tips to Live Longer and Healthier.” These tips, it explains, are easy and based on scientific time-tested methods. The tips are merely to develop healthy daily living habits. This idea has been around for ages and the evidence to support it “has mounted, even as more people try to find the elixir of youth.”  A 2016 British study “found a healthy lifestyle reduces one’s chance of all-cause mortality by a whopping 61 percent.”

 

To make such a list, as the line from Casablanca goes, “round up the usual suspects.” They are easy to understand, but not so easy to adopt.

1. Exercise is good for you.
2. Watch what you eat.
3. Socialize – loneliness has surprisingly bad effects.
4. Avoid nearly all supplements – “the vast majority don’t work and may even cause harm.”
5. Get enough sleep.
6. Get outside and enjoy nature.
7. Don’t smoke.
8. Drink alcohol in moderation.

This kind of information is republished frequently by the news media and in public service announcements. By now it’s not really news! Some might add a few more such as: sunscreen, brushing and flossing, drink when you are thirsty, wash your hands and get a flu shot.  But most of this is common knowledge.

 

The one about the supplements is certainly right but not often mentioned. For example, Harvard School of Health calls claims about antioxidants “mostly hype” adding, “mostly disappointing [study] results haven’t stopped food companies and supplement sellers from banking on antioxidants.” The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) says, “Many studies have shown antioxidants do not add health benefits nor do they play a key role in preventing cancer or heart disease.” I have covered the dangers and waste associated with dietary supplements many times in the past.

 

The related idea of looking for the easy answer came from a story early in the pandemic. Americans were hoarding not only toilet paper but also another product that made little sense. Last May a Forbes article reported, “retail sales of orange juice increased 46% in the United States in a four-week period ending on April 11.” 

They apparently believed in the power of Vitamin C to cure colds and other viruses. That this is not true should also have been common knowledge. Back in 2006 NPR ran a story, “The Vitamin C Myth.” By then there had been “at least twenty well controlled studies on the use of mega doses of vitamin C in the prevention of colds, treating the duration of colds, and in treatment of the severity of colds;” none of them showed any evidence that “vitamin C in mega doses does anything.” 

 

This vitamin C myth is just another example of what I referred to recently in “Flashback – Fear of Power Lines” on September 11: when people get an idea stuck in their heads, it takes a great deal of persuasion to get them to change their minds, even if the science is definitive.

 

Problems in discipline cause us to ignore the simple but not easy-to-follow lifestyle instead hoping for a pill or magic medical device. Problems in critical thinking cause the brain latch on to one of those ideas and never again wonder if it’s accurate.

One Last Time: Alternative Medicine

There are certain subjects that have come up time and again over the last 9 years. The main benefit of a behavioral approach is that so many seemingly diverse behaviors can be grouped into categories or dimensions to make sense of the consequences that arise from the resulting choices. 

About five weeks ago, in August, I wrapped up the subject of unfounded fears over GMOs with a One Last Time entry. Today the subject is the very broad area of alternative medicine, which I have described as magic pills and miracle cures. Just typing “magic pill” in the search box at the top left corner of the screen will reveal about 20 entries on this subject from vitamins to caffeinated underwear. In these and several other cases I pointed out the fallacies in their advertising and directed attention to the legally required disclaimer: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

Recently, I found this informative site with an excellent summary.

First they list the various aliases used instead of alternative including: esoteric, complementary, holistic, integrative or natural medicine. It includes such a variety of treatments that “generally accepted definitions do not exist.” 

An incomplete list includes: acupuncture, anthroposophical medicine, applied kinesiology, aromatherapy, autologous blood therapy, Ayurvedic medicine, Bach flower remedies, bioresonance, chelation therapy, chiropractic, colonic irrigation, detox therapies, dietary supplements, energy healing, herbal medicine, homeopathy, iridology, Kampo medicine, macrobiotic, magnet therapy, mind-body therapies, music therapy, neural therapy, ozone therapy, reflexology, Reiki, shiatsu and Traditional Chinese Medicine. I have discussed many of these elsewhere, here and here, for example, but some I’ve never heard of. 

Since they have no scientific backing, how do they lure in customers? “The realm of EM (Esoteric Medicine) is riddled with fallacies which confuse patients and consumers and are used regularly to undermine critical thinking.” In other words, they trick people. The most prevalent and important of these fallacies from the site are summarized below.

The “appeal to popularity” or “appeal to authority” tries to substitute popularity or the opinion of respected people for scientific evidence. But “medicine is no popularity contest” and “even people of high standing make mistakes.”

The post hoc fallacy wrongly assumes “an event ‘X’ that is preceded by another event ‘Y’ must be caused by ‘Y’. If the rooster didn’t crow, the sun would not come up. If the child skipped vaccinations, he would not have autism. (No and no.) It is not true for individuals or for groups.

Many of these interventions rely on the placebo effect. Scientists are just beginning to understand the power of the mind to heal the body. This effect is present whether the medicine is real or not. Likewise, sometimes people just get better on their own. These alternative treatments take advantage of these facts to gather supporters and celebrity endorsements without bothering with scientific evidence.

Using an appeal to tradition, citing a long history is another fallacy, assuming that if it has passed the test of time, it must be effective and safe. This may be good reason to conduct research, and if the argument is valid, the results will be favorable. But long history is no substitute for evidence. Many treatments were applied in the past that would be unconscionable today. Contrary to some popular opinion, ancient Chinese is not a code for safe and effective.

The article gives a long explanation of why EM is unethical by medical standards. “Informed consent is rarely possible in the realm of EM.” Often there is not a professional diagnosis.

“Another fallacy holds that EM defies science or extends beyond the boundaries of science as it is currently understood. Therefore, proponents claim, it cannot be tested in the same way as one would test conventional treatments.” 

Finally, because it is natural, it is assumed to be harmless. “Nature is pictured as benign and natural remedies are therefore not just intrinsically superior but also safer.” This shows a limited viewpoint and a basic misunderstanding of nature. Hurricanes, tornados and blizzards are natural. No one would argue that tobacco is safe because it is natural. To be enamored with words like “natural” and “non-chemical” or the phrase “available without a prescription” is to succumb to deceptive advertising.

These tools are used to “mislead the public such that even the most extravagant absurdities of EM might appear more plausible. Collectively they help foster and perpetuate a culture of unreason that is essential for EM to thrive.”

Ads for a vast number of bogus alternative medical products and services have cropped up since the advent of the COVID-19, faster than the authorities can alert the public or warn the purveyors about their illegal activity. The best defense is: Don’t be a sucker!

The truth is there is no such thing as alternative medicine (no matter what name it goes by); there is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t work. All these tricks, alluring words and excuses do not change that fact. Lack of critical thinking in this area can lead to a waste of money, but worse, real harm to you or your family.

Another Health Scam

With the coronavirus leading every news broadcast, the networks have begun also to highlight the prevalence of false claims, fake cures and scams. To make the point that this is not new, CBS Sunday Morning (4/26) addressed the history of fake medicines and cure-alls, but was disappointingly vague on some of the current scams, ones people fall for every day, probably from fear of offending both promoters and viewers. They did, however, include a few comments from Dr. Stephen Barrett who pulls no punches in his criticism of modern scams.

In one of his latest investigations into junk medical science, Dr. Barrett addressed a process known as bioresonance hair testing. Practitioners use a device "based on the pseudoscience of radionics to analyze hair samples mailed in by customers" to "detect nutritional deficiencies; overexposure to heavy metals; and food and environmental intolerances” to serve as a “roadmap to better health.” He calls the practice preposterous, in that “hair analysis is not reliable for evaluating the nutritional status of individuals” as well as giving several other reasons why it doesn’t work.

An earlier article on the same subject he warned its use by “chiropractors, nutrition consultants, physicians who do chelation therapy, and other misguided practitioners who claim that hair analyses can help them diagnose a wide variety of health problems and can be used as the basis for prescribing supplements.” 

Since bioresonance is based on radionics, it gets even more “preposterous.” These theories supposedly rely on quantum entanglement, a central principle of quantum physics where information can be transmitted instantaneously at a distance apparently violating the speed of light. Quantum physics is arcane and incomprehensible to non-scientists, yet many questionable products use it to explain action at a distance to add a scientific-sounding aura to their sales pitch. But it's all bogus.

Then it gets more unrealistic. According to this site, “Radionics can be used for humans, animals and agriculture by means of radionic instruments which amplify and 'balance' the subtle energy field of the subject” by using “a photograph, hair snippet or other biological sample.” It works best with a good quality digital photograph because “the image stores the information of the subject and a digital file cannot be contaminated like a biological sample can,” and the light “creates a crystallization of the energy matrix of the subject.” 

Another site says, it’s “a method of healing and diagnosing at a distance using the unique extra-sensory faculties of the operator supported and amplified by a physical instrument, device, geometric pattern, energy or substance.” Since “every person's energy patterns, frequencies, signatures, vibrations or rhythms are as unique to them as their fingerprints,” they can easily detect and help correct any type of “illness, injury, infection, stress, pollution, malnutrition, or poor hygiene.”

In summary, “patients” send a full digital picture or some strands of hair. "Doctors,” using their powers of ESP, run it through their energy detection machine, make a diagnosis based on an individual energy matrix, vibrations and rhythms and recommend supplements to cure what ails them, all using the magic of quantum physics. Remember, the same technique applies to their pets or their houseplants – with a separate charge for each.

But that’s not all! In some cases, their house may be causing the problem due to the presence of “geopathic stress,” which messes with the occupants’ health. That, too, can be cured at a distance by sending a photograph and using the above technique.

This seems so outlandish that I can’t help wondering who would be taken in by it. Then I see the statement that radionics can be a “supplement to other complementary and Subtle Energy therapies especially Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Reiki,” and it all becomes clear.

CBS might mock citizens of the nineteenth century for buying Stanley’s snake oil concoctions or for making a millionaire of Albert Abrams (1864-1924), developer of devices that were the precursors of today’s radionics, but they needn’t look far to find twenty-first-century parallels.

Arthur C. Clark wrote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic,” but come on, people! These scams are packaged as advanced technology and sold to people who want to believe in magic.

Don’t Be a Sucker

Last week I received an email where the subject line included the words “immune system.” There was something in the message about clicking on a link to unsubscribe. It was obviously either a promotion for a fake product or a phishing attempt. In any case, I sent it to the spam folder without opening it. 

Even if there were no link attached, it would have suffered the same fate. Anytime you see words like “boosting your immune system” or “promotes healing,” put your hand over your wallet and run away! It’s surprising how many people still don’t get it.

Marketing of these products has ramped up as the threat of the coronavirus pandemic hit the US. In fact according to this website, the airwaves and Internet are already overrun with bogus products and fake cures. “The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have sent warning letters to seven companies allegedly selling unapproved products that may violate federal law by making deceptive or scientifically unsupported claims about their ability to treat coronavirus (COVID-19).” 

These companies and others are pushing products, running the gamut from teas to essential oils to colloidal silver and other supplements, as being able to treat or prevent the disease. By law all such substances must state in their advertisements that they have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Most do, but some, like the ones in the article, get into trouble when they fail to comply. 

In any case, there are not yet any treatments for coronavirus nor is there a vaccine to prevent it. Even without the disclaimer, it should be clear that these are scams. Here, for example, is what Mayo Clinic says about colloidal silver. “Colloidal silver isn't considered safe or effective for any of the health claims manufacturers make.” It doesn’t work for coronavirus or any other condition and may be harmful.

It takes almost no effort for critical thinkers to find flaws with the products and supposed health services listed. The truth should be common knowledge by now. (See any of my many previous entries debunking the benefits of dietary supplements, starting here.) References in the above article to a “naturopathic doctor” or to renegade chiropractors falsely claiming some power against the virus should raise red flags. 

But instead panic buying of supplements, or what this site refers to as “immune products,” in the wake of the coronavirus scare is leading to supply shortages and higher prices.

The expression “There’s a sucker born every minute” is often attributed to P.T. Barnum, but there is no evidence that he ever said it. It may have been said by any number of other people and is commonly heard and understood in the 21^st century.

I have no respect for these companies pushing fake remedies. They all should be sent to the spam mailbox. The ones that fail to post the disclaimer deserve their problems with the government. The ones that post the disclaimer but still imply some medicinal power for their products are no better than modern day snake-oil salesmen looking for the next sucker. Those who still believe in what NPR calls the Vitamin C myth or rely on other supplements, essential oils, reiki or other alternative medicine for their health needs may as well be handing their money to a witchdoctor for all the good it will do them.

Wise up. Don’t be a sucker.

Added Note: It is helpful to remember we are all in this together, except apparently for the news media, doing all they can to highlight the negative aspects of the disease and the efforts to combat it to promote fear and anxiety.

Flashback - The Homeopathy Scam

[It's Friday and time for another flashback. This time we go back to April 2015 when I ask, does homeopathy really work? Since then I have posted a few more times on the same subject. All of that research comes to the same conclusion. No, it doesn't. Here is the original.]

In a widely circulated article from the Guardian newspaper, the news from Australia is that it does not. The headline reads: “Homeopathy not effective for treating any condition, Australian report finds.” After a thorough and extensive review of over 200 research papers on the subject, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) states: “there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.”

They go on to warn that people who use homeopathic medicine as an excuse to delay or avoid professional medical help may be putting their lives at risk.

What is homeopathy? The article describes it as the belief “that illness-causing substances can, in minute doses, treat people who are unwell,” and by diluting them in water or alcohol, “the resulting mixture retains a ‘memory’ of the original substance that triggers a healing response in the body.” That is the theory.

Wikipedia defines it as “a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann based on his doctrine of like cures like, whereby a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people.” 

The fact that it is not effective is certainly not news as the first paragraph of Wikipedia entry immediately goes on to say: “Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience. It is not effective for any condition, and no remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo.” References associated with this conclusion date back to 2000 and earlier. It was known for a long time, but the fact that any government agency has come out so strongly against it is new.

The industry has a different take. The National Center for Homeopathy tells us: “Homeopathy is a safe, gentle, and natural system of healing that works with your body to relieve symptoms, restore itself, and improve your overall health.... It is extremely safe to use, even with very small children and pets, has none of the side effects of many traditional medications, is very affordable, is made from natural substances, and is FDA regulated.”

This British source sees it differently. After an extensive explanation of the theory behind it they describe it as being rooted in superstition, ritual and sympathetic magic; and cite a comprehensive study from 2005 showing that it is ineffective. For the theory to be true “we would have to toss out practically everything we have learned over the past two centuries about biology, pharmacology, mathematics, chemistry and physics.”

It seems many people disagree with the industry portrayal. Many studies have shown it as ineffective, but what about the claims of safety and regulation? The US Government’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Health states: “We have a fair amount of research on homeopathic medicine for a variety of conditions, but less evidence on its safety, particularly for over-the-counter products.” The FDA “doesn’t evaluate these products for safety or effectiveness” and “some contain ingredients or contaminants in amounts that could cause side effects, drug interactions, or other safety concerns.” [Note: As of November 2019, no homeopathic products have been approved.]

If potential contaminants along with the ingredients are diluted beyond the point of detection, usually the worst outcome would result from people relying on homeopathy to the exclusion of professional medical help, especially if they avoid vaccinations.

So what’s the big deal? It’s just people again throwing away money on products that have been known for years to be ineffective. But when a company gets you to pay money for something that doesn’t work, how can that be legal? Doesn’t the government also have an agency to protect us from our own foolishness, like credit card scams, payday loans and fraudulent vacation schemes? Out of curiosity I asked, “Where does the government’s Consumer Protection Agency stand on all of this?”  

Their website lists under the heading “Current Scams That You Should Be Aware Of” the following categories:  Benefits and Grants, Business, Cars, Citizenship and Immigration, Computers and Internet, Family, Home, and Community, Health and Nutrition, International Relations, Jobs and Education, Money, and Travel and Recreation. A closer look at the Health and Nutrition link shows no mention of homeopathy (but there are a large number of other very interesting topics where Americans have been sold worthless or dangerous products). Until there are enough complaints on this topic, I guess we are on our own.

The government can’t (or won’t) protect us from sellers of every product or service that takes our money and give us only promises in return. Again critical thinking and just a little research can eliminate a lot of wasted time and money and possibly keep us safer.

More Food For Thought

Almost three years ago I wrote about the widely advertised supplement, Prevagen. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) challenged the company’s claims about the product’s safety and effectiveness in improving memory. That FTC action followed a number of warning letters to the company from the FDA expressing similar concerns.

Supplements in general cause regulatory headaches for the FDA. “In 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) defined dietary supplements as a category of food, which put them under different regulations than drugs. They are considered safe until proven otherwise.” (I wonder how many lobbying dollars were spent on that law.) The government may stop a company from selling a supplement if they can prove it “poses a significant risk,” that is, usually “only after they cause harm” to customers. Even then they may face a fight.

Because they are not drugs, rigorously tested for safety and effectiveness, at the end of their advertising they are required by law to carry the disclaimer, “This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease." Many get around this by making weak promises such as the supplement reduces the risk of certain health problems or it promotes a healthy condition. 

As far as that one and others that claim to improve memory, the Alzheimer’s Association finds such products, not approved by the FDA to be particularly troubling. “One of the biggest problem areas for unsubstantiated claims are dietary supplements...that claim to be beneficial for Alzheimer’s or other dementia symptoms.” But the promotion of these products and introduction of new ones hasn’t slowed down. “In the past five years, the FDA has issued more than 40 warning letters to companies illegally marketing over 80 products claiming to prevent, treat or cure Alzheimer’s disease.” Furthermore, the FDA recently warned that cognitive enhancement supplements “may be ineffective, unsafe, and could prevent a person from seeking an appropriate diagnosis and treatment.”

Now the problems and dangers surrounding the sale of supplements to prevent memory loss or to improve memory has been raised again in the November issue of JAMA Internal Medicine. A research team tested for the presence of Piracetam, a supposed brain-enhancing substance that “is not approved as a drug and is prohibited as a dietary supplement ingredient in the United States.” They found inconsistent labeling with errors ranging from 85% to 188%. This substance has known adverse effects including: anxiety, insomnia, agitation, depression, drowsiness, and weight gain.

These marketing techniques are truly unconscionable. They make every attempt to prey on older Americans who are already scared at the prospect of contracting some form of dementia by the ads, news stories, shared experiences of friends and personal experience with elderly relatives. Some are concerned about the prospect of mentally fading away. Others worry about being a burden on their family. 

Feelings of anxiety every time a name or fact is not at one’s finger tips make it easy to fall into the trap of buying these unproven products with the hope that maybe it really works. Action of the placebo effect on friends and acquaintances whose minds have fooled them into believing in it compound the problem. But reading and understanding the fine print that follows the ads and knowing that now there's a possibility of some products being adulterated with unapproved drugs should act as sufficient deterrent to critical thinkers.

What’s All the Fuss about CBD?

As I was walking through the local mall, I had to steer around a large sign in front of the GNC store. It read: “CBD Products Available.” It did nothing to raise my opinion of GNC, which I consider to be the epitome of junk science, but I thought I should do some research to make sure my eye rolling was justified.

Cannabidiol (CBD) oil is an extract from industrial-grade hemp or the marijuana plant. It does not have the effect of getting the user “high” as the THC in marijuana does. It recently surged onto the market with a wide variety of health claims. What are the facts?

There is so much information, but it has to be sorted careful, as much of it is pure advertising, telling the stories of miracle cures. Many promises are unreliable to the point that in September the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered three companies to stop making claims that they: relieve pain better than opioid painkillers and that they treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), fibromyalgia, cigarette addiction, colitis, autism, anorexia, bipolar disorder, PTSD, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS), stroke, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, traumatic brain injuries, diabetes, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and AIDS – while using the words miracle and magic to describe the effects. The following month both the FTC and FDA warned a Florida company marketing CBD products about making similar unsubstantiated claims. (These were only the ones that were caught.)

Stepping aside from the hype, Science News published a story earlier this year that is a little more down to earth. “A gaping chasm separates the surging CBD market and the scientific evidence backing it. While there are reasons to be excited about CBD, the science just isn’t there yet.” Trials are underway, but “much of the existing research was done with cells in the lab or in lab animals, with results that don’t necessarily translate to people.”

The next stop was a WebMD article, “CBD Oil: All the Rage, But Is It Safe & Effective?” They remind readers, “experts say the evidence is scant for most of these touted benefits” and it is being sold as a supplement, “produced without any regulation, resulting in products that vary widely in quality.” So far “only one purported use for cannabidiol, to treat epilepsy, has significant scientific evidence supporting it.”

CBS recognized the quality problem in this piece from about three months ago with the warning that “without wide federal oversight, there is no way of really knowing what's inside CBD [products].” They commissioned lab tests of samples from all over the country and found no harmful chemicals but significant differences between the amount of CBD on the label and actual contents making proper dosage a big problem. In addition, “cannabinoids do interact with prescription drugs. But because we lack reliable controlled trials, we don't have enough detail to understand all the interactions.”

The same viewpoint comes from Harvard Medical School. “Without sufficient high-quality evidence in human studies we can’t pinpoint effective doses, and because CBD is currently mostly available as an unregulated supplement, it’s difficult to know exactly what you are getting.” The JAMA network notes that in studies to date "evidence of effectiveness was scarce," and that a California testing company found 85% of samples inaccurately labelled.

This Slate article makes the point clearly. As more and more products, from foods and beverages to creams and lotions, have CBD added “CBD is in everything, but it hasn’t been proven to do much of anything." Despite this, it is forecast to become a $22 billion industry by 2024.

In summary, with no scientific evidence of health benefits outside of the treatment of epilepsy, CBD oil has become all the rage with companies adding it to all sorts of products and selling it as a miracle cure. Some companies have crossed the legal line with their claims, but those that are more careful can easily imply that it’s curative powers are enormous without coming right out and saying it. Instead they rely on endorsements from beneficiaries of the placebo effect, as do many of the other supplements on the market. (In other words, my eye rolling was justified.)

The Latest Big Thing – CBD Oil

I began to wonder about CBD oil when I saw on the local television news a very non-critical report about a new store in town. It was like a press release from the store that the reporters used as an excuse to fill airtime with a very positive interview of the owner, but without questioning any of the exaggerated claims about the its curative powers. I knew that it had been until recently illegal, making good scientific research very difficult and sparce, and that researchers generally look at only one effect at a time when testing any treatment. How could this substance arise out of the blue with so many promises?

This webpage, for example, lists seven benefits including: relieving pain, reducing depression and anxiety, alleviating cancer related symptoms, reducing acne, having neuroprotective properties and benefiting heart health. Of course the last three are conditioned with “may," “might” and “could.” It warns: “Although CBD is generally considered safe, it can cause adverse reactions like diarrhea and fatigue in some people. It may also interfere with certain medications.”

Based on such reviews, it appears to fall into the familiar too-good-to-be-true category. So I was not surprised to find the headline: “FDA warns company marketing unapproved cannabidiol products with unsubstantiated claims to treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, opioid withdrawal, pain and pet anxiety.” And if you are going to advertise in the realm of too good to be true anyway, why not throw in that it counteracts the growth of [and/or] spread of cancer, kills breast cancer cells, treats Parkinson’s disease, reduces the severity of opioid-related withdrawal, addresses symptoms of chronic pain, anxiety and ADHD, and helps with PTSD, schizophrenia, fibromyalgia and eating disorders. The FDA objects to all these claims (and more) as “unsupported and unapproved.”

 WebMD calls it “all the rage” but warns that “experts say the evidence is scant for most of these touted benefits." Like many other over-the-counter products and supplements, it is “being produced without any regulation, resulting in products that vary widely in quality.” Dosages vary from one product to another, possibly from one production run to another and from one brand to another. “Only one purported use for cannabidiol, to treat epilepsy, has significant scientific evidence supporting it.”

Last April the USA Today piled on, asking: “Is this hemp plant derivative snake oil or a legit remedy?” In addition to all the powers listed above, they add that it’s also hyped as a cure for inflammation, stress, unsatisfying sex and PMS.  But it's sold at local pharmacies (including the one that stopped selling cigarettes because they care so much about our health) in the form of creams, lotions, oils, tinctures, pills, powder or liquid. But this story also comments that the marketers' therapeutic claims are "rarely supported by medical evidence that CBD is significantly better than a placebo.”

Again from USA Today in a different story: “The head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse said there’s no evidence that marijuana [or CBD] weans people from opioid addiction – and promoting such treatment might deny people a chance at recovery.”

The Mayo Clinic sums it up: “While CBD is being studied as a treatment for a wide range of conditions, …research supporting the drug's benefits is still limited." It can cause more serious side effects than those mentioned above and “can interact with other medications” such as blood thinners.

And remember that part about it being unregulated? “Another cause for concern is the unreliability of the purity and dosage of CBD in products. A recent study of 84 CBD products bought online showed that more than a quarter of the products contained less CBD than labeled. In addition, THC [the psychoactive ingredient found in marijuana] was found in 18 products.” But don’t sweat those pesky details – it’s all-natural and I heard on Facebook…!

Save Your Vitamin Money

At least once a month we see reference to one or another survey or report about people being unable to afford retirement. They haven’t saved enough money, but may not be able to keep working either. But now just when it’s needed, along comes a reliable tip on how to save a little more: Don’t waste your money on vitamins. 

This is not the first time I have written about the waste and potential dangers of dietary supplements. The last entry on the subject of supplements in general was about two years ago where I quoted from the New York Times saying that annual spending in America averages about $100 per person. I focused on vitamin and mineral supplements as recently as last September. I was hoping after many attempts to have wrapped it up, but it’s good advice, so I will give it another shot based on some fresh headlines.

About two weeks ago researchers from West Virginia University School of Medicine published a study in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine showing “that although reduced salt intake and certain supplements may lower the risk of cardiovascular diseases, most nutritional supplements do not improve the risk for heart disease or death.”

An article reviewing that study quotes the lead researcher: “The reason we conducted this study was that millions of people in the United States and across the world consume supplements or follow certain dietary patterns, but there was no good-quality evidence to suggest that these interventions have any effect on cardiovascular protection." 

The study itself was not a clinical trial but a review of 277 other studies with a total of nearly one million subjects. It looked at the effectiveness of many popular nutritional supplements and 8 diets. “Findings show that of the 16 dietary supplements, only two showed beneficial effects on heart health, namely omega-3 long-chain fatty acids and folic acid….[whereas] selenium, vitamin B6, vitamin E, vitamin C, iron, and vitamin A, among others, show no significant effect on heart health.” 

Other important findings were that some supplements by themselves, not just the tainted ones that appear in the news from time to time, are potentially harmful. Another surprising finding was that “most diets, like modified fat intake, the Mediterranean diet, and reduced saturated fat intake, had no effect on the heart at all.”

Some other sources reporting on the same study had more watered down headlines. This one says, “For Heart Health, Some Popular Supplements Aren't as Helpful as We Thought.” But the sub-headline is more direct: “Consumers should ‘stop wasting their money on these products.’ ”

Another one is even more careful in its wording: “Nutritional supplements and diets not always protective, research suggests.” But they did provide a link to another study from 14 months ago that also came to the conclusion that “most commonly consumed vitamin and mineral supplements provide no consistent health benefit.”

The final conclusion as always is “only eating a healthy balanced diet is the key to overall health.” That shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying any attention to and looking into health news over the years. Once again, it’s looking for the easy, magical answers that cause us to waste time and money on pills and fad diets. Avoiding that mindset is, though, an easy way to come up with some extra money for that problematic retirement savings plan. 

The Future is Here

Some people have expressed the idea that the world depicted in the book 1984 is very close to becoming a reality. With more and more surveillance cameras in public areas, security cameras in homes and businesses, and a camera in everyone’s purse or pocket, Big Brother is always watching.

But there is another way the sci-fi of the past is slowly becoming today's reality, meals in a pill. In many early science fiction novels, the hero never had to slow down to eat. Instead he would pop a pill with all the nutrients, and presumably calories, he needed to continue his mission of saving the universe without missing a beat.

This comes to mind whenever I see or hear an ad for one of those supplements specially formulated for people who don’t have the time or inclination to eat as many fruits and vegetables as they should. They simply go on line and buy a jar of powder or a bottle of pills and, for only about two dollars a day, they can continue their mission of saving their personal universe without missing a beet!

I have heard many customer reviews on the radio over the years and seen some on line as well. Some people seem fairly realistic in their expectations. They admit they are unable to eat enough fruits and vegetables daily, and they believe these products give them nutrition equivalent to what they are missing – although I can’t see much difference between these and an ordinary vitamin/mineral supplement. The only flaw in this thinking is that experts agree that the best way to get nutrition is by eating the actual food.

The companies explain that fruit and vegetables are mostly water. They remove the water and pack the “good stuff” into a bottle or jar. But there is more to a healthy diet than adding the water back and chugging it down. 

The problem is they don’t stop there. By posting the less realistic customer praise and endorsements, they imply that the imaginary benefits some of their customers report are real. This way they don’t run afoul of the FDA or FTC by making promises they can’t keep. But the endorsements imply some miracle power just the same, and they make no effort to deny it.

One company has customers claiming that by using the product, the family has not gotten any colds, aches and pains have gone away, conditions like arthritis and fibromyalgia are no longer a problem, wounds are healing faster, “my hair and nails are growing like crazy,” pregnancy went more smoothly, “my thyroid levels [are] normal again,” blood pressure medicine is no longer needed, everyone can see the difference and everyone feels more healthy and has more energy.

Another brand has customers praising the before and after difference with comments such as: it “cut down on some of my inflammation,” “the congestion in my lungs was clearing up,” “my joints felt better,” it “cleared up lower intestinal discomfort,” and I have “more energy and just feel better."

One customer writes: “Haven't used it long enough for physical effectiveness yet” while another says the change came “almost immediately,” yet another felt a difference in “a couple hours.” Regardless of the time lag, it’s said to be life changing and, of course, awesome.

I’m not a big fan of supplements in general because they are unregulated, and customers have been known to get more, less or different ingredients than what’s on the label; but these particular ones seem like safe products from reputable companies. I suppose these supplements are good for people who unfortunately just can’t figure out how to get enough good food and are willing to pay extra for the convenience. But the ads can easily lead to unrealistic expectations. As one customer review put it: “I was about to order from another company but when it began making claims using people claiming they been cured from cancer and other health problems I decided not and chose this one instead.” He apparently didn't read very closely the similar reviews of the one he chose.

Making Yourself Smarter Through Drugs

Here is another scam that strikes at the heart of two major worries: the fear of Alzheimer’s disease among older Americans and the competition to be the smartest person in the room among the younger. I wrote a couple of years ago about the troubles faced by the makers of the supplement Prevagen when the advertising overstated its effectiveness as a memory enhancer. Now another product with one name, but multiple formulations and sponsors, has been called out by the FTC for questionable business practices and lack of evidence of effectiveness.

The product is called Geniux and sells for about $50 per bottle. The information gathered from their various websites and infomercials on various networks presents a series of very persuasive claims: 

• Clinical Trials have shown that it “boosts brainpower by up to 89.2% and increases focus by up to 121%.” (Note how the false precision of two-tenths of a percent makes it look like real scientific data. But how do you even measure brainpower?)
• Among other things it is said to use “a scientifically engineered stack of maximum strength nootropics, known as ‘smart drugs,’ to help increase brain activity, mental performance, and vigilance.”
• Presumably because your brain “begins to lose sharpness of memory from as early as [age] 30” you must “take a daily enhancer” to prevent a decline in memory and focus.

There are many other examples of their advertising, shown as exhibits in the legal document, but the FTC concludes: “Defendants’ representations that the Geniux Products improve short and long term memory, increase focus, and increase concentration in users; prevent memory loss and increase short and long term memory in persons experiencing cognitive decline because of age; boost brain power, including by as much as 89.2 percent; increase users’ IQ; or improve users’ speed of information processing are false and/or Defendants did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis to substantiate those representations.” [Emphasis added.]

In addition, the FTC states that there were “no human clinical studies…demonstrating any efficacy in users, including increasing focus, increasing concentration, boosting brain power, enhancing memory recall, or increasing IQ.” In plain language, there is absolutely no evidence that it works.

Whoops! It looked too good to be true, and it turns out that they have exaggerated just a bit – actually it was enough to get them hauled into court by the Federal government for “deceptively marketed ‘cognitive improvement’ supplements using sham Web sites containing false and unsubstantiated efficacy claims, references to non-existent clinical studies, and fraudulent consumer and celebrity endorsements” and forcing them to agree to a settlement barring such brain boosting claims in the future.

But we all know that wild promises, celebrity endorsements and the use of pseudo-scientific language is all it takes to dupe many Americans. Isn’t it ironic that they spend good money on ineffective brain-boosting supplements when a little critical thinking, using the brain power they already have, would help them avoid the problem. 

Super Foods

Critical thinking leads me to believe that all the talk about super foods is crazy. People read about some newly christened super food, adopt it in the hope of improving their lives, convince themselves that they feel so much better, and spread the word. This is particularly dangerous in the case of celebrities. 

Here is a sample I pulled from a Gannett article over four years ago.

Alas, for 2015 we find out that quinoa is out and kaniwa, “sourced primarily from the Andes Mountain region of South America,” is this year’s super-food, “high in protein, fiber, iron and calcium” and gluten-free!  In the search for a better sweetener, “coconut sugar is making its way onto the scene.” Actually, all things coconut are in fashion as part of the Paleo food trend.  Almonds are out and pistachios are in along with Nduja and spreadable salami.

Just last year I commented on a TV ad for beet powder as a circulation super food, with the power to support increased energy without stimulants, promote heart health and support healthy blood pressure levels. (Notice how these products sold as supplements always support and promote without really promising to do anything definite.)

Finally, here is one from this year that sounds extremely confident and enthusiastic. It begins: “Move over kale, quinoa, and coconut water! …There are some new superfoods on the block, packed with powerful nutritional benefits and exotic tastes.” To reduce the shock of finding yet another new super food, they remind us how the super-food trends of today would seem “rather bizarre” just a few years ago – now that’s comforting!

It continues: “These are the superfood trends you should not only watch out for, but get excited about.” Included in the list are nut oil, chaga mushrooms, cassava flour, watermelon seeds and tiger nuts; and try maqui berries, instead of the so-passé goji and acai. Wash it all down with some probiotic water. When making your heart-healthy smoothy, try substituting moringa for your matcha, maca or spirulina. (Who does this stuff?)

That’s why I was so pleased to find this article. Although when I saw the headline, “The Definitive Superfood Ranking,” I expected more of the same, the picture showed apples and broccoli, so there was hope that some sanity would prevail. 

The piece begins: “It seems like everything in the grocery store is labeled ‘super’…[but] which foods are actually proven, by science, to be good for you and which ones are all hype.” They go on to say that many dietitians think the term super foods should be eliminated because it is so misleading, sometimes intentionally so by food marketers. Such labeling raises the price and promises to do what no single food can do alone, make you healthy.

The article begins by exposing the gluten-free myth. “Unless you have celiac disease or suffer from a true gluten intolerance (example: you are doubled over and running for the bathroom post-pizza), there are no proven physical benefits from going gluten-free.” Then it explains how orange juice is not the best source of Vitamin C and adds that the benefits of coconut oil, chia seed, kimchi, sweet potatoes, almonds, acai and beets are more hype than reality.

At this point in the story, the emphasis changes to address truly healthy foods: eggs, cherry juice, broccoli, coffee, apples, green tea, black beans, dark chocolate, red wine, salmon, turmeric and blueberries. Each are backed by some valid scientific research and their prices are not inflated by fads and hype. (I also noticed that not a single one of them caused problems with my spell-check, unlike about half of the so-called super foods in the lists above.)

Wow! Are real foods eaten in moderation the answer? Despite that, the odds are good that in 2020 someone will discover another new super food in some remote jungle, and the masses will jump on board. (Excluding those who were mauled to death trying to harvest tiger nuts!)

Scams and Near Scams

Prepaid cards: It seems like once a week network news comes along with the story of a person, usually elderly, who has lost money to a phone or Internet scam. 

They probably use the elderly as examples because they are closer to the age of the people who actually watch network news, but the fact is that they are not the most vulnerable. About a year ago a survey revealed that Millennials are more likely to become the victim of a scam artist than any other generation.

In any case, almost every time, their money disappeared by way of a prepaid card. They may have been informed of a relative in trouble or that they had won some money but had to pay a service charge to collect. The creativity of scammers is remarkable. The caller or e-mailer presented them with the problem and told them to buy and mail a prepaid card to handle the matter.

This should be a clear give-away, a red flag as big as their house, but scammers keep calling until they find a victim. Obvious defenses include not answering the phone unless you recognize the number. Valid callers can always leave a message; scammers rarely do. (This also works as a defense against telemarketers and robo-calls as I have mentioned previously.) Likewise the written return address on an email should correspond with the actual email address that shows up when the cursor moves over it. But the biggest warning sign is the request for a prepaid card. 

Toxins: In all my years of researching miracle drugs in the form of dietary supplements and other health products, I have yet to find one that lists detoxing or cleaning the body of toxins to be legitimate. They do not and cannot prove that there are toxins in the body that the body does not naturally and safely get rid of on its own. The science that debunks all these claims is consistent on that point.

Despite this easily available evidence, the products just keep on coming. They promise to detox your body and magically make you feel so much better. Their celebrity endorsers and satisfied customers back these claims. But always in the fine print at the bottom of the ad is the required paragraph about how none of these claims have been approved by the FDA and how the product is not meant to treat or cure any disease. I even commented a while ago on shoe inserts that somehow had detoxing qualities – by supposedly causing wearers to use the bathroom more often.

This is beyond crazy, but it remains a big business. Detox, like prepaid cards, should be a clear sign of a pending scam. In this case, however, customers can always convince themselves that they really do feel better, but they are still out the money for a product that relies on the power of suggestion rather than on the power of science or real medicine.

Science and the Game of Telephone: When youngsters play telephone, they sit on the floor in a line. The leader whispers a sentence in the ear of the first, who repeats what he’s heard to the second, and so on down the line. When the last person relates what she heard it often bears no resemblance to the initial message. It’s a common analogy for miscommunication, but I recently heard it to explain science reports.

A scientist writes a scholarly article about a real finding. Even if she includes all the possible flaws or conditions that still need to be investigated, by the time it becomes an article for a popular magazine may be downplayed. The next iteration, a short news or “health minute” segment, omits most details. Finally, it hits social media, where all subtlety is lost, but people like and repost without a second thought. 

For example, how many stories have we heard about whether or not breakfast is important? Is it OK to skip it? In 2012 it was declared optional. Around 2014 there were some studies saying skipping it leads to weight gain, and others saying it wouldn’t. One in August 2017 said how important breakfast was for kids. Last year, everyone in a particular study gained weight, but the breakfast eaters gained a little less. This year a study says skipping breakfast is bad for your heart. 

Which study are we to believe? – How about none of them until the scientists actually pin something down. Until then, the news media will continue to report each one that comes along as if it is the definitive answer and social media will keep us all “informed.”

This degradation of scientific findings as they pass down the “telephone line” is not really a scam, but it’s something to be very wary of. Unfortunately too few people research the validity of posts before passing them on.

Abandoning Critical Thinking

We are faced every day with friends and neighbors who seem to be able to stare logic straight in the face and still make the wrong decision. This can easily be misinterpreted as stupid behavior, except we know that many of these people did well in school. Some even have advanced degrees. How else can we explain this apparent abandonment of critical thinking?

My theory is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, opinion polls and the apparent direction of popular trends, America is still a very religious country and is getting more religious with each passing day. The difference is that I am not talking about standard, organized religions. The new religions involve pseudoscience and are promoted by personal interactions, especially on social media, and by celebrity endorsements, rather than by priests, ministers, rabbis and imams. 

Consider how a traditionally religious person reacts when his faith is challenged. Show someone an obvious contradiction in the Bible or the Koran – and there are many to choose from – and such a person will argue for a while, but eventually fall back on the argument that it's a mystery only God can explain or that it is a matter of faith not subject to logical analysis. End of conversation! No one has changed his mind. He may even feel vindicated because his faith was challenged but endured.

Now have a similar conversation with someone convinced that communication with the dead is not only possible, but that it happens frequently on daytime TV and in private homes where mediums hold séances. No matter how much logical information such a person receives, a change of mind is a rare occurrence. A more likely response is the same quasi-religious reaction, resistance to logic and reliance on a strong belief in the spiritual realm.

But this new-age religious experience is not limited to the customers of séances and tarot card readings. With the help not only of charlatans, but also of marketing departments, industry institutes, lobbyists, interest groups, fund-raising organizations and individual crusaders, it spreads through the entire country creeping into every corner of our lives. It is so much easier to sell to people on the basis of faith than on the basis of logic. So all these forces work in concert to gain converts to particular products, services and ideas. The emotional argument draws them in; then the feeling of embarrassment or of betrayal of one's beliefs, keeps them coming back.

Consider the religious fervor displayed by backers of ideas like: harm from vaccination, danger of GMOs, danger of fluoridated tap water, superiority of bottled water, benefits of a gluten-free diet (except for medical necessity), power of alternative medicines, danger of anything artificial or chemical, dietary supplements, radiation from power lines, food irradiation, sea salt, therapeutic touch or Reiki, refusal to consider nuclear power as a clean electricity source, super foods, unquestioned halo-effect of words like green, natural, sustainable and ancient wisdom, essential oils, and the list goes on and on.

Yes, we are truly a religious nation. The religions of junk science, fads, hype and misinformation are thriving, converting new believers every day!

Those Sore Muscles

Last time I discussed a book I hadn’t read, but based on a couple of reviews, I found some positive things to say about the advice it gave about taking responsibility. (I also threw in some snarky comment about the title.)

This time I want to discuss a book that I actually did read. Published quite recently, it’s called Good To Go, by Christie Ashwaunden. The subtitle is: What the athlete in all of us can learn from the strange science of recovery. It covers a variety of tools and techniques for physical recovery after participating in a sporting event or hard practice session. Examples are taken from professional athletes, Olympic-level competitors and serious sports enthusiasts. The book is an investigation of what works, what has real scientific backing vs. what is based on marketing, hype, and urban myth. It contains many surprises, but reinforces the need for critical thinking, the need to challenge our deeply held beliefs in everything we do.

The introduction states the problem clearly. “The explosion of recovery products and services can seem ridiculous.” Although “everyone intuitively knows what recovery is and how to achieve it,” the industry has found a way to make it much more complicated, expensive and time-consuming than it needs to be or ever has been.

Promoters of these new methods usually use stories rather than scientific facts, and stories told by celebrities or sports stars are most effective. The advertised science behind them is often based on poorly constructed studies with very small sample sizes. Only the ones with positive results see the light of day with the rest (often the majority) filed away. The book investigates many of these products and services to see what really works. I will cover just a few.

One such product with little scientific justification is the sports drink phenomenon, a huge industry with many devoted fans. One expert characterized some of their studies as verging on “comical.” The author takes on the whole idea of hydration, pre-hydration and electrolyte supplements and comes to the conclusion that the best defense against dehydration is to drink when you are thirsty. Any other approach can result in waste or even harm. 

She gives the example of running with her dog. When they get home, she gives her access to a water bowl. The dog decides whether or not to drink. The author has “never needed to inspect the color of the dog’s urine or give her an emergency IV for low fluid levels.” We make it overly complicated, yet hydrate is common advice from all sides every summer.

Similar advice goes for sports nutrition. She gives the example of Usain Bolt, the fastest man in the world, filling up on chicken nuggets during the Olympics. They may not have been the most nutritious meals, but “when your muscles are hungry for fuel, they don’t care where the energy comes from.... What should I eat after exercising? The easiest answer is: whatever your body is hungry for.” 

She also discusses the promotion of such ideas as infrared saunas, explaining that heat is heat, and any magical powers attributed to infrared, such as reducing inflammation, boosting growth hormones, clearing toxins or boosting the immune system are unsupported and have received negative attention from the FDA. Yet marketers and pro athletes push overpriced infrared saunas, cold lasers, massage beds and pajamas, based on the “sciency” sound of it all.

Subsequent chapters talk about sleep and supplements. Sleep is vital for recovery. Keep it uncomplicated; our body helps us figure out how much is enough. I have addressed the problems with supplements many times in the past. (See here and here). They are unregulated, can be dangerous and are poorly researched. They have a reverse approval process compared to prescription drugs. No one has to prove they are safe and effective. The FDA only gets involved when they prove to be harmful, as in the case of ephedra, where a hundred people died taking it to increase energy. “Yet it took the FDA ten years to ban it.”

There is much more to learn from this book. But I found it an excellent example of applied critical thinking with a host of interesting surprises.