UPDATED: Boiron vs Blogzero...

UPDATE 24 AUG 11: Boiron has written a letter in which they state they will not pursue legal action. The wording is interesting in which they claim to be open to debate but leaving the classic argument that science has not reached the realms of the "infinitely small".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boiron is a multi-billion dollar manufacturer of homeopathic concoctions. They have subjected an Italian blogger for daring the criticize their product Oscillococcinum. This is promoted as a treatment cure for the flu and cold (although in the United States it bears the FDA required disclaimer that it is "not intended to treat or cure any disease"). ANY company which provides a product to the public is subject to critical review by the public and hence the markets.

If our Blogzero friend is saying something untrue, this site's most popular post is related to the efficacy of Sinupret, then by all means he should retract or correct it. If he is making fundamentally true statements, which I believe he is, then Boiron is engaging in cyber-bullying.

This is a free speech issue. Read for yourself and decide!

Boiron vs Blogzero (English page) :B-log(0)

The Doctors Sheds its Last Vestige of Credibility...

CBS, in a desperate bid for ratings, on its medical equivalent to The View, The Doctors, is planning to put vaccine denialist Jenny McCarthy on its show. It will be interesting to see if any of the paid medical performers are willing to counter any of her non-science rhetoric.

The press release on the event is here. The show has been roundly criticized in serious medical circles and the show itself is as staged as any “reality” TV production. Each of the medical pundits wears a variety of lab coast, scrubs or standard “doctor casual” clothing. They all look great and present a beautiful multi-cultural front which continues to support their presumed godlike powers.

I think I will tune in to XM’s ReachMD, a serious channel with real topics on medicine and science.

Sinupret, con or cure...

There is a wave of marketing on television, in print and over the internet of an “herbal remedy” called Sinupret.  Sinupret is a concoction of a German company named Bionorica.  Sinupret falls into the grey area of a supplement, largely unregulated by the FDA.  There is no guarantee of standardization of dosage and the rules for efficacy are non-existent as compared to OTC (over-the-counter) medications.  Ironically, a pan European court ruled Sinupret “superfluous” and “ineffective” as early as 1992.   

 

Some have spent some time pondering the possible negative effects of the  "herbal remedy".  The product itself is 8% alcohol and many are under the mistaken impression that this is a homeopathic medicine, which it is not.  I am always very wary of any company claiming to have a “proprietary” claim on their ingredients.  This product is clearly an herbal, akin to St. John’s Wort and other herbs which have proven to be problematic for individuals when combined with other medicines. 

 

Sinupret is marketed by Dr. Bob Sears, a paid physician spokesman on Bionorica’s staff.  He carefully excludes any claims of efficacy and dances around the edges as to exactly what the mechanism of action is behind the drug.  Much like the bally hooed Head-On product, it is likely that any review of the product’s capabilities will come up far short.

 

Parents who administer this product to their children do so with good intent.  However, the lack of oversight, trials and data supporting even the most benign claim puts their children at risk.  There is no scientific data supporting the claims of stronger immune systems.  A stronger immune system is best enhanced by a healthy diet, good hygiene and rest.  Children who are stressed from too little of the aforementioned and placed in close contact (i.e. school or preschool) with other similar germ factories are likely to get colds.

 

In a world where the Snugli can sell more than 40 million units in a few months, a slickly promoted bottle of snake oil, pushed by the fears of millions of parents, can gain equal, if unearned profits. 

 

At least the Snugli will keep you warm.

 

Caveat emptor.

 

 

The Great Supplement Swindle...

I work on a regulated industry.  My civilian career is governed by organizations like the FDA, EPA, OSHA and others too numerous to mention.  Routinely my facility is inspected, scrutinized and I have even had to submit information to congressional committees.  This, I believe, is a good thing.  Someone needs to watch over the firms providing public services.  It is reasonable to check on airlines, food producers and others who possibly could affect the health and welfare of the public at large.  There is a lot of pressure to take short cuts to preserve profits, maintain competitiveness and sustain one's business.  VLC's (Very Large Corporations) are under intense scrutiny to comply.  They represent deep pockets and consumers routinely target them with litigation, complaints and queries. 

 

The sheer size and scale of the modern corporation is such that it presents a monolithic appearance to the outside world.  It can appear impersonal and intimidating.  Past performance of some firms in the 1970s and earlier has been less than perfect in the stewardship of their constituency.  Even today, scandals rocking the financial world engender a deep distrust of corporate entities.  Without sounding too much like a spokesperson for the entire corporate culture, let me offer some observations from inside.

 

Earlier in my career I worked for a multi-national which got involved in a consumer safety issue.  Unlike Johnson and Johnson's handling of the Tylenol crisis, this firm took a far more hands off approach to a real threat to its integrity.  As such, the market punished this firm ruthlessly (more than half its market share evaporated overnight) and it was acquired by another firm which collected the remains of a once dominant company.  This occurred almost two decades ago, long before the instantaneous transmission of information via the internet and the twenty-four hour news cycle. 

 

In the 21st century, corporations are being held to increasingly strict standards of behavior.  Consumers are better equipped than ever and information is only a keystroke away.  And yet there exists a remaining realm of shadowy uncertainty.  Within the United States, nutritional supplements are a realm of para-regulated products which may (or may not) be helpful to the public.  Websites promising fantastic results tread the line between deception and marketing.  Each of these products is marketed with the standard disclaimer that the products' claims have not been evaluated by the FDA nor is their product designed to treat, cure or diagnose any disease.  As a consumer, I would stop and rethink my purchase based upon such a caveat.  And yet the supplement industry is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. 

 

Many supplements are manufactured by major pharmaceutical firms (Bayer, etc.).  Some are produced by large, standalone supplement companies such as Boiron.  These companies report expenditures to the financial markets in similar formats.  What is noted is the gap between R&D spending for the traditional pharmaceutical (also known as Big Pharma - oooh, can't you feel the evil!!) and supplement only companies.  In most cases, the sales and advertising dollars are disproportionately high among the supplement only companies.  Why is this?  Wouldn't you expect that these firms would be researching new products, providing benefits to their customers, on a regular basis?

 

The simple fact is often that there is no research because their is no good effect (typically there is no negative effect either).  The supplement only companies sell hope in a pill, elixir, tincture or powder.  Sometimes there is some basic research to support claims - the body needs vitamins, for example - but most often the claims are vague or even misstated.  These firms count on the public's ignorance of science and desire for self-improvement not involving traditional hard work (diet and exercise) or acknowledgement of a real medical issue (depression, etc.).  Whole industries have sprung up preying upon the public suspicions of traditional institutions.  In most cases these industries are loosely or un-regulated.  They are quick to fan the flames of doubt and dissatisfaction but even quicker to divert objective analysis of their own offerings.

 

Next time you go grocery shopping, walk down the supplement aisle.  Take some time and really peruse the labels of what is offered for sale.  Look at the manufacturer's claims and then apply a little of Occam's Razor to them. 

 

Remember, if it sounds too good to be true - it probably is.

Put your money where your mouth is...

the quackometer: 10,000 GBP if you can show homeopathy works



As we have just been debating in a prior post, not the lack of clothing on one Birtney Spears, but the general lack of clothing covering much of modern media.

The publishing of a challenge by Ernst and Singh in the United Kingdom seeks to draw out definitive proof of the efficacy of homeopathy. As detailed in this post - it is a challenge made by James Randi (albeit in a higher quantity). What is most interesting is the description of a major homeopathic manufacturer's allocation of funds. As a billion dollar company, Boiron has no appeciable R&D funding and yet spends more than 9 times the ratio in advertising and marketing than "traditional" pharmacological firms.

What is equally interesting is that with a little historical research, one will find many of the top pharmaceutical firms had (at one time) produced homeopathic remedies - until, one may infer - they realized that they didn't work.