Anti-Aging?

When I happened across this item from CBS news last week I had several thoughts about the points made.  The story, in brief, is about Americans spending $60 billion per year on cosmetics, creams and anti-aging products.

In the course of the article it covered a number of different, almost unrelated, subjects.  One was about ingredients.  “A Senate Committee is expected to consider new regulations on what goes into cosmetics.”  A second point was about the wide variation of prices.  Their expert dermatologist commented on two moisturizers – “one that costs about $10 and other that costs $170” saying “there was no difference that accounted for the price gap, so much so in fact, that she would go for the cheaper moisturizer.”  A final point was about the sales tactics.  “Anti-aging is a marketing term. Science has never yet found an ingredient that slows or reverses the aging process."  They wrapped up by reinforcing the importance of sunscreen, the closest thing to an anti-aging product you can buy.

The first point about ingredients took me back to June of last year when I wrote about the food police warning not to buy “products with more than five ingredients or any ingredients you can’t easily pronounce.”  How few people realize that substances can also be absorbed through the skin?  If they are foolish enough to take that simplistic advice about food, they should not even get near a jar of night cream!  Even the most generic creams have many ingredients, some difficult to pronounce.

I thought the second point about vast price discrepancies for little or no benefit was old news.  Consumer testing organizations have for years been telling us that the common brand is usually a much wiser buy than the luxury brand, whether it’s cosmetics or shampoo.  With so much of the population in debt, don’t we have better things to do with a large portion of that $60 billion than throw it away on supposed miracle remedies from exclusive brands?

On the marketing side, I happened to pick up a recently published book called My Adventures With Your Money.  It is about an accomplished conman who lived early in the last century and made most of his money selling worthless mining stock.  At one point it said:  “Anyone who lost money would have a hard time finding…any place where he actually misrepresented…He freely indulged in opinions, promises and exaggerations.  These are the tools with which he ensnares his victims.”  This sounds familiar not only in the get-rich-quick schemes of today, but also in a fair share of legitimate advertising, especially in the health and beauty market.  Much of it is about hype, opinions, celebrity endorsements, or reliance on a reputation or brand associated with exclusivity and luxury goods.

Finally, comes the importance of sunscreen.  It’s true.  But how many people continue to go to the beach (and tanning salons) unprotected?

It’s not like we don’t know most of this stuff already, yet they keep presenting it as “news,” and many continue to ignore it.  Americans want to make themselves beautiful.  But instead of staying in shape and sticking to a diet, getting enough sleep and avoiding the sun, we turn to the miracle in a jar and money is no object.

Freedom of Speech

Some will argue correctly that the First Amendment protection for freedom of speech applies only to the government regulations.  “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…”  Thus the government is banned from actions denying freedom of speech, but presumably everyone else has no such prohibition.

The typical exception is the example of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.  This is obviously not protected speech because it poses an immediate and unnecessary danger to the occupants as everyone rushes to the exits.  Whether other instances of such reckless speech are prohibited is decided by the courts.

There have been two recent incidents where those who have been silenced have protested that their rights were violated.  In one case the Trump campaign withdrew from an appearance in Chicago after protests broke out.  More recently a movie promoting the idea of a connection between vaccines and autism was removed from the Tribeca Film Festival.  Is there a problem?

According to the first amendment there is not.  The government did not do anything, except arrest some people in Chicago after the protests turned violent.

According to critical thinking no one’s rights were violated, but an unfortunate trend is appearing.  The stated goal of the University of Illinois-Chicago protesters was to “unite in solidarity AGAINST the Donald Trump campaign and its presence at Chicago and at UIC.”  They rejoiced when they shut it down.  It is unfortunate because it flies in the face of a stance adopted by a number of universities, ironically called the Chicago Principle.  It objects to the silencing of any legitimate organization or person on campus believing that “a culture of intense inquiry and informed argument generates lasting ideas, and that [students and faculty] have a responsibility both to challenge and to listen.”  If statements are legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, they must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.  (See here for further discussion and references.)  Hearing one side of an argument while blocking out the opposition is not consistent with education in college (or learning in life).

Does this reasoning apply to the film?  The administration of the Tribeca Film Festival has every right to jury movies and to select or reject any of them according to taste or any other criteria.  It’s their name on the festival, so to speak.  In this case, they may have been concerned about damage to their reputation and credibility by offering a documentary that was reviewed in the New York Times as “directed and co-written by Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced physician whose paper claiming a connection between autism and measles was retracted by The Lancet and whose license was revoked for ethics violations and his failure to disclose financial conflicts of interest.”  Others have found evidence that his data was fabricated.

The producers have the right to show it elsewhere without government interference.  But this one seems to be a little closer to the “Fire!” in a crowded theater scenario.  The film has drawn protests from the scientific community, not because it is offensive, but because it is wrong and dangerous.  People who accept this argument and who shun vaccination do not risk immediate injury, but they put themselves and/or their children at risk over the long term.  Recently this belief has led to a tripling of measles cases in the US, where the disease had been nearly wiped out.  (For more on the dangers of not vaccinating see here.)

Dangerous as it is, the only recourse the government has is the same as against all the other medical charlatans peddling their miracle cancer cures and their secrets your doctor won’t tell you and all the other conspiracy theories.  If they make illegal medical promises, they can be fined or shut down by the FTC.  Otherwise it’s once again up to us to be critical thinkers, to do the research and analysis.  We must be vigilant.

In general though, intelligent people welcome opposing points of view and either find counter-arguments and contrary evidence to support their opinion or they reconsider their own point of view.  Intelligent people don’t insult or silence the opposition just because they would rather not hear it (and want no one else to hear it).  They don’t consider such silencing as a victory because it really represents a loss, an admission that their arguments are inadequate.  They persuade rather than coerce others to agree by depriving them of exposure to other ideas.

“A Man’s Got to Defend His Honor”

The title is a quotation from Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory.  That part of the story goes on to tell how one man murdered another outside a bar for insulting his mother.

I’ve written before about the two different kinds of pride.  The first is pride of accomplishment and the second is just some feeling of superiority, based usually on circumstances beyond our control.

Some people are proud of what they have done.  There is pride of winning a medal in the Olympics or pride about improving school grades or pride about finishing a critical project on time or closing a key account.  This is the first kind of pride and fits a definition of “a feeling of satisfaction or pleasure from accomplishment or for displaying admirable personal qualities.”

On the other hand, some people are proud of the fact that their ancestors lived in Ireland (or some other specific country) or that they are a member by default of a particular group or race (Hispanic or left-handed).  They seem to have developed a high opinion of themselves based on some characteristic that is completely beyond their control.  On the surface this seems pretty silly.  It’s like saying, “I’m so proud of my sister; she won the lottery.”  It’s just luck, winning the lottery or being born to certain parents.  This kind of pride sometimes comes out when talking about your school or what kind of car or truck you drive, or sometimes other controllable but not very significant things.  It is almost a tribalism where we are able to define an in-group contrasted with all the out-groups of different tastes or loyalties.

The upside to this second pride may be a feeling of confidence, motivation to live up to the admirable qualities of the group one associates himself with.  But even this smacks of stereotyping and could lead to a deeper prejudice, a false feeling of superiority based on nothing but an accident of birth or some concept of team or school spirit.

The downside of this second pride is much deeper and much more troublesome.  It leads to a kind of sensitivity or touchiness where any perceived slight, intentional or not, is immediately interpreted as an insult, an act of disrespect that must be avenged.  It comes not from real achievement, but from an ego-driven, false sense of importance.  Make a remark about someone from Ireland or the Irish (or any other country or nationality) or some school, my brand of truck, my favorite team or any of a number of other sensitive subjects and be ready for a fight, often a physical confrontation.

This came to mind a few weeks ago when I saw the news of an incident in a local bar involving two old-enough-to-be-mature men.  “John Williams was asked to leave the Ben Hur Tavern on S. Fourth Street.  He returned a short time later with his brother Richard Williams.  They “entered the bar waving around knives and threatening other patrons” and were subsequently arrested.

Understanding how this second kind of pride leads to trouble makes it easy to spot in the national news.  One widely publicized example occurred in Texas a few months ago when rival motorcycle gangs got together and bullets began to fly.

It doesn’t have to be motorcycle gangs or local drunks, though.  This kind of reaction is common, leading not only to individual acts but to large scale demonstrations and protest.  Relying on this kind of pride is an easy way to get non-thinking people stirred up.  It happens more frequently than most people imagine.  Now that you are aware, I think you will see this more clearly.

Window Dressing

This point was not inspired by a particular news story.  It is more of an accumulation of observations over a long period – OK, I’ll admit that it’s a pet peeve.

I am getting pretty tired of hearing people presented in the news as a representative of some category, as if that were one of their most important qualities.  Take for example this website that lists firsts in America.  It covers about 70 categories and almost half of them are based on a person’s outward physical characteristics:  first woman, first African American, first Hispanic American.  It includes a reference at the bottom:  for more information see first Asian Americans.  Other lists of firsts are similar.

In some cases we have people who qualify in more than one category.  Where do these lists of firsts leave Loretta Lynch?  She is neither the first African American Attorney General nor the first woman Attorney General; but wait, she is the first African American woman to become Attorney General!  Will we just continue to add categories and combinations?  At some point will it begin to seem pretty silly, like we are stretching to create a way to celebrate a person’s appearance, ancestry or preferences.

Personally, I think this approach detracts from a discussion of the person’s great performance or outstanding job qualifications and leads to many questions.  Why are they bringing this up in the first place?

Is it a celebration of the cracking of another (real or imagined) glass ceiling?  If so does it really show competence on the part of the person or is it merely the voters or appointers attempt to advertise how open-minded they are?  Will the person selected always have a haunting feeling about the objectivity of his or her selection?  (When an African American is nominated for an Academy Award next year will he or she think it is for an outstanding performance or perhaps at least partially as a payback in light of the fuss this year?)

Does this type of publication promote a victim mentality among others in the category - the feeling that it’s about time someone like me got a break because I never have?  As such, does it promote the very limiting belief that my role model has to look like me?  Isn’t it difficult enough these days to find people of excellent character and courage for role models without adding hurdles of race, gender or predilection?

 Does this emphasis instead show progress toward some goal; and if so, what is that goal, and who decides when it has been achieved?  Is it when we have some kind of equal representation?  If so, the concentration on categories and outward characteristics persists, and it will become an exercise in accounting rather than objective judgment.

At some point will we as a nation get over this obsession with background and appearance and just be grateful to get an individual most capable of a competent performance?  Or will we continue to feel the need to celebrate and recognize individuals as icons of a certain category of formerly unaccomplished or unrecognized people?  Again, who has the authority to declare which categories are eligible for distinction (and which are not)?

In the end this is a lot like curb appeal for home sellers.  Make your house look good as people drive by so they will slow down and consider buying it.  Plant red flowers, have cookies baking when potential buyers come in the door.  These are all tricks that fly in the face of critical thinking and practical analysis.  Smart people are not distracted and make decisions based on overall qualities – just as they should with other people.

To me, presentations of this kind (e.g., first Native American lesbian?) bring to mind the idea of the old circus side shows, an arrangement of tents with performers whose primary claims to fame were based on unusual or extreme physical characteristics:  tiny or overly large people, bearded ladies, etc.  I think it will be a healthy thing when we can totally drop the labels.

One More Time: Dietary Supplements

About every two months the subject of dietary supplements comes up.  That is probably because I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter skeptical of false medical claims and promises, and this e-mail frequently cites cases of supplement vendors being prosecuted and fined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Supplements, including multivitamin and mineral pills are very popular in America.  Due to pressure from lobbyists, Congress passed a law that they be treated like food and not like drugs.  From this law they gain significant freedom, but it does prohibit them from claiming that their product cures any disease.  FDA guidelines on supplements explain that unlike drugs where they require extensive testing, with supplements the FDA gets involved in problems or safety issues only after they arise.  (That means someone has an adverse reaction and the doctor reports it.)  It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure safety.  There are no regulations regarding dosage, and if they advertise benefits that are not true, it becomes a case for the FTC to prove that they are making false promises.  Remember, any claim of a cure is automatically illegal.

The problem is that when it’s left to the manufacturer, a lot can go wrong.  Documented here are examples of how many supplements have significantly more or less of the listed ingredient, in some cases none at all.

That is not the only problem.  Many supplements have been shown to be completely ineffective for what they are reputed to do.  This includes fish oil, Omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins in general and glucosamine, to name just a few.

Glowing reports and endorsements, sometimes paid endorsements and sometimes endorsements from friends and neighbors, lure customers in, but the ads come with warnings that most people ignore, because the supplements are all natural.  This one is typical:  “These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA.  This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.  Results are atypical.  Results will vary.  Always consult your healthcare provider before taking any supplement.” 

Now CBS gives more bad news.  The ultimate problem is that supplements are dangerous.  There have been documented cases where the contents of the bottle did not match the label, but were in fact poison.  This report confirms what I have read elsewhere that even accurately formulated supplements from reputable companies can interact with each other or with prescription medications causing problems.

As Americans spend billions on supplements, the experts continue to advise getting your vitamins and minerals from the food you eat, and checking with your doctor before adding any supplements to your diet.  Unfortunately Americans rarely do that.  They believe in supplements to the point that food companies now increase sales by adding them to their product and proudly announcing it on the packaging.  Given all the watch outs with supplements, this is a scary progression.