Clashing HeadOn with the Evidence
Since I'm not sending them in to the paper, I'm free to publish the sample articles I came up with publically. The material isn't quite up my normal niche, but there's no reason not to post it anyways. Here's the first article, and you can expect to see the next two over the next couple of days.
HeadOn. Apply directly to the forehead.
HeadOn. Apply directly to the forehead.
HeadOn. Apply directly to the forehead. (Repeat ad nauseum)
The ad may be annoying, but it does succeed in getting your attention. It’s also succeeded in convincing thousands of consumers to buy the product, leading the producers to create spin-off products with their own annoying commercials.
What the ad doesn’t do, however, is tell you what Head On actually does. It implies that it treats headaches, and it tells people to apply it to their foreheads. Later commercials have included people coming onto the screen claiming the product is “great” or “amazing.” The manufacturers, Miralus Healthcare, state that “It can be used by anyone and as often as needed. There are no dosage restrictions or health risks associated with its use.” But not a single claim that it actually does anything, and in fact, HeadOn turns out to do exactly what they claim it does: nothing.
HeadOn, as well as its spin-off products, are what are known as “homeopathic” remedies. Homeopathic medicine works by the very counter-intuitive principle that “Like cures like, and the smaller the dose, the better.” For instance, if a certain plant causes a headache when consumed, then a homeopath would argue that consuming very little of the plant would cause less of a headache. So, if you have a headache and consume very little of this plant, then your headache should go away, by their logic.
What homeopaths generally do to prepare a product is to repeatedly dilute the active ingredient (generally some harmful substance) by factors of ten or a hundred. Supposedly, the more dilutions, the better. A typical minimum dilution of homeopathic products is 6X, which means it’s been diluted by a factor of ten six times (to one millionth the original strength). Many products are sold with even greater dilutions than this, and “Extra Strength” means there’s even less of the active ingredient. With the strongest dilutions, such as the 30X of Golden Seal Hydrastis in one of Miralus’ other products, there isn’t likely to be even a single molecule of active ingredient.
Despite the illogical nature of homeopathy, there are thousands of people out there who will claim that homeopathy does indeed work. Doesn’t this mean there’s something to it? Well, no. This is just what’s known as the Placebo Effect. What happens here is that when people take what they think is a cure for their ailment, they’re likely to claim it actually helped them, even if all they took was a simple sugar pill. These perceptions stem partly from the general cyclic nature of most ailments. Left untreated, most ailments steadily get worse, and then get better on their own. It is when they are at their worst that people go out and look for cures, so it’s no surprise if it gets better soon afterwards. Additionally, positive thinking after taking medicine can lead people to overestimate their recovery, also contributing to this effect.
The problem with homeopathy is that it flies in the face of both common medical practice and logic itself. One of the most important criteria a treatment must demonstrate to be accepted by the medical community is dose-response correlation. This means that the more of the treatment is used, the more effective it is (within some reasonable range). Homeopathy, on the other hand, claims that less is better. As for the logical problems with it, first consider the fact that homeopathic products are sold with multiple applications. By their arguments, wouldn’t multiple applications decrease the overall effectiveness? Now, consider the logical extreme of the dilution process: taking none of the active ingredient at all. Hey, we’re already doing that! Why bother buying it at all? We’re already at maximum effectiveness
3 comments:
Contrary to what you said here, http://udoj.wordpress.com/2007/01/03/fundies-beware#comment-3577, this is my first post ever on your blog, and I'm not a "creationist." "Christian" is my name and my religion, but I have no beef with the idea that chimps may be my distant cousins. The bible doesn't say how God made things, and it doesn't say that God wrote Genesis either; that part's in third person.
I don't like to be taken for a Fundy, many of whom (like WOMI) question whether I'm even a Christian because I don't buy their reading of the Bible. Fundies call themselves bible literalists but their arguments seem more like Bible Illiteracy to me. For example, they say the whole bible is God speaking to us, when the Bible itself says that only parts of it were God's actual words.
My main beef with Dawkins is that he claims to have disproved God's existence, when he's only disproved some silly fundamentalist ideas about God, and those ideas contradict the bible anyway. Like the idea that God can do anything that we imagine. Kind of hard to explain why the crucifixion was necessary, if you believe God could just snap his fingers and save everyone with no pain or sacrifice.
Dawkins has some great arguments. Trouble is he doesn't seem to understand what he's proved.
I'm not trying to convert anyone, just make clear who I am, and who I am not.
Apologies for posting off-topic. Don't have much to say about homeopathy, except that when medical science doesn't give an answer, people try desparate and stupid things, and I'd not make fun of them. My son's lost the capacity to speak (long story) and right now my wife wants to run off to Florida for something called Dolfin therapy. Apparently someone on the internet says it's supposed to be a cure for autism. (Any idea how many times I've heard that one?) They charge nearly 300 dollars per person to get into the water with dolfins for half an hour.
Hell, swimming with dolfins has been my dream since I was a little boy. I'd love to believe that such a magical experience would let my son speak again. What a magical story. I want to believe, but I'm sick of being taken. And then there's the risk of playing the bad guy. We've got little money but I shelled out for the homeopathic stuff when my wife wanted to try that, after a short argument showed that she really thought it would work. More than 85% of couples with an autistic kid, end up divorcing. I'd rather waste precious money than put my marriage at risk by playing the guy that stomps my my wife's hope. And how am I to know that the placebo effect might not itself work some good, like the lies the father told his kid in "Life is Beautiful" helped him survive. From a scientific point of view, it's a bad thing when positive thinking contributes to the effect. But when you're on the suffering end, you don't really care whether it's the drug or the story that made things better.
Nothing I said disproves your article. Just another angle.
I'm sorry if you thought I was referring to you in that post, Christian, but I was talking specifically about WOMI (didn't make that clear, my bad). I also hadn't been completely convinced you were the same person, and with this post I'm not pretty sure you in fact aren't. So rest easy on that count.
Don't have much to say about homeopathy, except that when medical science doesn't give an answer, people try desparate and stupid things, and I'd not make fun of them.
Was I doing that here? I thought I kept this post focused on the actual science of the matter. I try not to make fun of people for trying ridiculous things when they're desperate, but that doesn't mean I don't still think it's a waste to do so.
My son's lost the capacity to speak (long story) and right now my wife wants to run off to Florida for something called Dolfin therapy. Apparently someone on the internet says it's supposed to be a cure for autism. (Any idea how many times I've heard that one?) They charge nearly 300 dollars per person to get into the water with dolfins for half an hour.
Hell, swimming with dolfins has been my dream since I was a little boy. I'd love to believe that such a magical experience would let my son speak again. What a magical story. I want to believe, but I'm sick of being taken.
Hmm, if it weren't for the last phrase there, this would be the perfect example of magical thinking - as if your wishes could influence reality. It's good to see that you've risen above it. That said, I can't completely rule out this therapy having some effect. A lot of autistics benefit simply from more attention, and this could provide it to them. (Of course, there are likely easier ways, such as a commercial "Swim with the dolphins" program).
We've got little money but I shelled out for the homeopathic stuff when my wife wanted to try that, after a short argument showed that she really thought it would work. More than 85% of couples with an autistic kid, end up divorcing. I'd rather waste precious money than put my marriage at risk by playing the guy that stomps my my wife's hope.
For every rule, there are a thousand exceptions. This would be one such exception to the rule that homeopathy isn't worth it. (Of course, if homeopathy didn't exist at all, this wouldn't be an issue.)
And how am I to know that the placebo effect might not itself work some good, like the lies the father told his kid in "Life is Beautiful" helped him survive. From a scientific point of view, it's a bad thing when positive thinking contributes to the effect. But when you're on the suffering end, you don't really care whether it's the drug or the story that made things better.
That is indeed an ambiguous area. Is it alright to lie if it provides a chance of making things better? In some cases, maybe. I don't think autism would be one of them, though, but that's just my personal opinion. Orac has addressed this issue a bit in the past, so you might want to go over and ask him his opinion or browse his archives if this question is bothering you.
Is it alright to lie if it provides a chance of making things better? In some cases, maybe. I don't think autism would be one of them, though, but that's just my personal opinion.
Oh, you're right. I'm too transparent to pull it off, anyway. On rereading, I think it was foolish of me to infer that you were making fun of those who buy into it. I have no idea how I got that. Thank you for a patient and sensitive reply.
Post a Comment