We believe it was the great Charles Darwin who once declared that “good science is rather like one’s wife; treat her properly and you’ll be much happier for it.” Or at least he might have said something like that. Maybe once.
In fact, we have no idea whether Darwin ever expressed anything along these lines. We have no evidence of him uttering these words. But why should that stop us from suggesting that he did? Surely it hasn’t done any harm? Evidence is overrated anyway, right?
Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. When you start to make claims without proper evidence, particularly when it comes to matters of public health, the consequences can be anything but harmless. Yet we seem to be remarkably tolerant of such declarations. The mainstream media in Canada, the US, and elsewhere are saturated with pseudoscientific misinformation: miracle cures, health scares, anti-vaccine conspiracies and, well, bullshit.
The common trend that links all of these issues is the distortion of scientific evidence. Whether it involves simply ignoring evidence completely, or cherry-picking irregular results, the tried and tested methods of good, fair, trustworthy science are being disregarded.
To start with, let’s take a look at some of the problems with ignoring the need for scientific evidence completely, in the form of bogus health gadgets and other holistic enchantments. It may strike you that these are hardly pressing matters of concern for public health — and you’re absolutely right. But they do serve as perfect examples of the common tendency of industries to willingly ignore the importance and necessity of scientific evidence. Especially when profits are involved.
An excellent example is the rapidly growing trend of the Power Balance band, a fashion accessory that now graces the wrists of professional athletes around the world, available for a mere $30 in a store near you. David Beckham’s wearing one. Shaquille O’Neal’s wearing one. Even Robert De Niro’s wearing one. So what’s all the fuss about?
This “performance technology” essentially consists of a silicone bracelet with a hologram on it. But wait. It’s not just any old hologram. As stated on the official Power Balance website: “The hologram in Power Balance is designed to resonate with and respond to the natural energy field of the body.”
Perhaps it’s not surprising that these outlandish claims have attracted rather a lot of skepticism. But while it’s very tempting to dive headlong into a discussion about the plausibility of the body’s “natural energy field,” this craze serves to highlight a far more subtle disregard for scientific formality. In this respect, a recent statement by the company is highly revealing:
“From its inception, Power Balance has lived and thrived in the ultimate testing environment: the real world. We continue to see, hear, and learn about how people believe our products have positively affected their lives.”
So what’s the problem? If people say that it works, why not believe them?
The trouble lies in the suggestion that the “real world” is a suitable environment to test whether something works or not. Quite to the contrary, our prior expectations and beliefs about a product can have a profound influence on our reaction to it, whether this involves a medical intervention or a performance-enhancing sports gadget.
What’s more, this psychological boost, or placebo effect, could easily account for the perceived sporting prowess that comes with donning the mighty Power Balance.
And here is the crux of the matter. There are clear, logical, and scientific ways of testing whether a treatment effect is real or placebo-induced. You take a group of people you want to treat (preferably a pretty large group), you split them up at random, then you give half of them the product you want to examine and the other half a dummy product, without telling them which one they’ve received. Then it’s simply a case of measuring which group performs better for the response you’re interested in.
This, in brief, is a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial. No sleight of hand. No incoherent “sciencey” methodology. A simple idea, which remains the defining template of clinical research.
Yet the proponents of the Power Balance bracelet do not see fit to formally test its efficacy using these fair and logical procedures. Indeed, their entire marketing strategy tiptoes around making any direct claims regarding the exact effects of the product.
Such deliberate ambiguity seems to be a recurrent theme of pseudoscientific misdirection. There is no scientific evidence for any physical benefits of wearing a Power Balance band. Yet profits rise, and one senses that the company will happily ignore the necessity of conventional scientific practices while this continues to be true.
And this is only the start. Walk into any naturopathic clinic or “wellness centre” and you will find an astounding array of health products, nutraceuticals, and supplements — an Aladdin’s cave of remedies promising to improve your concentration, unblock your energy channels, and rid your body of toxins. Certainly these are amazing innovations. If only they had the rigorous evidence to back up their remarkable promises.
While seemingly harmless, these products knowingly hoodwink us into ignoring rational, evidence-based decision-making. There is no need to practice to improve your sporting abilities; just use an energy-channeling power bracelet. Don’t feel like ditching the chips and getting on a treadmill? Try our clever new detox milkshake!
If we do not hold all claims to the same standards of evidence, it won’t be long before we are all cleansing our colons with ground coffee and taking mutual fund advice from our horoscopes.
It’s a slippery slope when we become surrounded with such gimmicks: the real message of sound, practical health advice gets lost in all the noise.
In an ongoing series, Ed Parker and Kordan Harvey will be exploring the many facets of the current epidemic of misinformation surrounding public health. In part two, they will dissect homeopathy: a vast industry founded on the sale of sugar pills. Part three looks at the equally disturbing subversion of sensible health advice by anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists. Finally, part four will end by examining how the innovation of the controlled, randomized clinical trial was in itself a public health revolution that continues to save millions of lives: a gold standard of good scientific methodology. Be sure to check out the next installment of Headlines on Trial later this month!
