Pseudoscience Subservience

Pushing the limits of science.

ByAnthony L. Almada, B.Sc., M. Sc

Direct selling TV:
“If you act right now, we’ll send you two FREE bottles of VelcroLean™, the clinically tested revolutionary diet product shown to RIP the fat off your body. It’s so powerful you can almost hear it render your body slimmer, sexier and more shapely. VelcroLean—proven by science that sticks!” [questionable clinical trial methods and randomization, especially on an infomercial]

Full page 4 color ad in a 1 million+ circulation magazine with a male demographic of 28-42 years of age:
“Do you wrestle with confidence in the bedroom? The man’s choice for a manly product is MANifold™—using Nobel Prize winning research and clinically tested ingredients to magnify your manliness. Its secret blend of herbs, vasoactivators and vitamins raises the bar for men’s sexual health.”[lack of clinical validation on actual product being offered for sale—patch work science]

Website for women’s postmenopausal health:
(Background image of Joan of Arc being burned at the stake) “Ever feel like you can’t turn your body’s thermostat down? With FlashBack™ you can take control of your life again. A recent clinical trial showed 18 of 20 women using FlashBack™ experienced a significant reduction in their discomfort, sensation of heat and other vasomotor symptoms.” [open label clinical study with no controls and a self-fashioned, non-validated symptoms questionnaire]

What Does it all Mean?

Surveying marketing, sales and promotional materials over the last few years one sees a strong trend (hopefully not a fad). Many companies have abandoned animal studies to pursue clinical research—human studies—as definitive proof and a shield against regulatory sanctions. But what of the quality of this science? Is much of the science on natural products a pseudonym for pseudoscience and communication bias?

Consider the following scenario: A research article appears in a low tier (minimal impact factor as a publication cited by other researchers; relatively lax edi­torial/peer review) “peer reviewed” journal. One of the authors of the article happens to be on the editorial board of the journal. More importantly, half of the authors happen to have financial relationships related to the natural product that is the subject of the research investigation study (notably, no conflict of interest disclosure is made by any of the authors, nor is it a policy of this journal). None of the authors has ever had any publications in professional journals on a topic relevant to the current study: weight loss and changes in body composition. One of the authors happens to be the inventor of the patent that covers the natural product evaluated in the trial. Lastly, the methods used to measure changes in the parameters of interest (improvement in arthritis; body composition; inflammation) are archaic, insensitive and less than specific. Nevertheless the article is a “peer reviewed” publication that achieved “statistically significant” results (I won’t delve into stats and how spurious such conclusions can be). With the continued focus on that amorphous descriptor named quality, can such a study be considered “quality research?”

Weeding Through the ‘Junk’ Science

How can the consumer discern between junk science with figures and findings cooked up to make all pretty and potent? With the continued “outing” of pseudoscience sellers by media marauders is it possible that the consumer will develop a bitter distaste of “science-proven” products? If science is the missing link to achieving consumer confidence and injecting growth back into the industry why do we as an industry pussyfoot around, shaking our head in disgust but then wondering how we, too, can push the limits of science?

More studies on natural products are likely unpublished and unpresented than those that actually make it to the biomedical conference or journal. With more companies conducting clinical trials in an insulated state (using an attorney as the research liaison, thus imparting attorney-client privilege of confidence, nobody can tell the true story; drafting sponsored research agreements preventing the research to be communicated without the express consent of the company sponsor) who knows how many products DON’T “work.” Specious research, both its execution and dissemination, can lead to a dwindling of the species called Nutra ceuticus.NW