[gardener]

This will be a long one, starting with some general comments, then eventually getting round to a highly personal explanation of some reasons I feel passionate about the use of faulty logic for commercial purposes, in matters having to do with health.

Okay, this has been an instructive thread, one worth keeping for some of its major themes, the use of science (or pseudo-science) for commercial purposes, the differences between valid argumentation and merely persuasive rhetoric, and others. I must admit something—I never suspected that our original poster actually worked for Pharmanex. I thought she might just be one of its true believers. I was dazzled when Tony made the crucial identification--and Russ was correct: all it took was typing a name into Google one time.

Now I want to try an experiment, imagine that I have a particular medical problem and that I go to the Pharmanex website for help. Let’s say that I have something funny going on with my prostate. I really don’t, but some guys my age do have such problems, and there’s always a chance that next month or next year I might join their number.

Pharmanex offers something called Prostate Formula. Here’s how it describes it.

“Prostate Formula combines the time-honored herb Saw Palmetto into a unique formula that not only helps maintain healthy prostate function, but also provides long-term protection against free radicals with the addition of antioxidants. Included in the formula's line-up of antioxidants are Pharmanex's potent green tea extract, Tegreen 97® (standardized to deliver 97% polyphenols) combined with lycopene and selenium —all effective in neutralizing free radicals known to target healthy prostate tissues.

“The constituents in Prostate Formula are standardized through scientific and analytical methods in a sterile environment to ensure that every capsule contains the prescribed level of constituents, every time. The extract of Saw Palmetto berries standardized to 85% to 95% free fatty acids and sterols. Other routine testing includes heavy metal content, full microbial testing and residual solvents.”

Now, I do take a fair number of tablets and capsules every day. I won’t bother to describe them all, but one of them is a baby aspirin and the other is enalapril, the generic form of Vasotec. I take the aspirin for general therapeutic purposes at my doctor’s suggestion, and I have a prescription for Vasotec and everything else, except vitamins and chondroitin/glucosamine.

I’m not influenced in what I choose to take by ads, by anecdotal “evidence” passed on by acquaintances, or by somebody touting something on the internet. I don’t wander around a Vitamin Shoppe or GNC store reading labels and picking pills on random whim. I trust my doctor, with excellent reason based on experience. The medications that I take are recommended by him, and furthermore they have been approved by the Federal Drug Administration. (Sometimes the approval may stand in need of later reconsideration, but that’s a subsidiary question.)

Supplements, by law, are considered not to be drugs. They are dietary supplements. I have no reason for certainty that their labels are accurate as regards either (a) contents or (b) effectiveness. All I have to go on is the assurance of the companies that make these supplements that they deserve my trust.

If I do develop prostate problems, I will make an appointment with my doctor, If he prescribes a medicine, I will take it, meanwhile remaining in contact with him as regards its effectiveness.

A digression. A couple of years ago, I did actually try a product made by Pharmanex. Cholesterol tests showed my HDL was too low at 30, my LDL too high at 150. Having read that that red yeast stuff might be effective, I consulted my doctor, who reluctantly agreed to let me try it. I began taking Pharmanex’s Cholestin. After two months, there was no change in the numbers. My doctor put me on one of the statin drugs. The numbers improved, but not enough, so he altered the dose. Right now my HDL is over 90, and my LDL is under 90.

Going back to the start of this thread, I was the second person to catch a whiff of something fishy in the juxtaposition of the words “science” and “marketing.” (Lenny, our newcomer, was first.) My hackles were out, thus the mention of taking the originating post “with a grain of salt.” Why?

Here’s an anecdote. My wife is part of a circle of friends and co-workers that have a lot in common. One thing she does not share with her friends is a firm belief in the efficacy of a supplement they take. It’s a green powder that looks like pond scum when her friends add water and chug the stuff down two or three times a day. A month's supply runs about $50. That’s $600 a year, and there are six friends, thus annual sales of $3600.

To begin with, only one person was taking the stuff, but she told everyone else how much it helped her. They believed her, partly because she had a degree from Berkeley. They all believe it helps them. Why? Perhaps it really does. Or perhaps it’s just the placebo effect, plus some group reinforcement. But there’s also, supposedly, scientific evidence. The Berkeley grad brought to her group someone who works for the pond scum company. She pricked people’s fingers, smeared the blood on slides, and sent them off to a supposed lab, which then reported that the shape of the blood cells showed robust health for all concerned.

So what? These folks are probably being deceived and wasting some money. But there’s no real harm, is there?

Not long ago, a guy sidles up to me in the gym and tells me about a wonderful berry. It prevents cancer. It also cures cancer.

What harm? Potentially a great deal of harm...

I am one of the truly fortunate ex-smokers walking the planet today. Six years ago, almost to the day, I got the news about a chest x-ray. There was a tumor in the upper lobe of my right lung. A lot of other tests followed, MRIs, bone scans, and so on. In January part of my lung was removed. The tumor was carcinoma, but I was lucky. There had been no metastasis. My surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania was confident that neither radiation nor chemotherapy were needed. And he was right. Last April, my pulmonary doctor said I no longer needed x-ray exams every six months to check for recurrence. I owe my life to proper diagnosis in the nick of time and to the skills of a surgeon.

What if I had merely suspected lung problems and started looking for that wonderful, cancer-preventing, cancer-curing berry? Like that aunt of mine, who went to Mexico for treatment with laetrile--something made from peach pits-- instead of following the advice of her doctor in Albuquerque? (Rest in peace...)

I started smoking when I was 14. I believed what my friends told me. Smoking was neat. It was a sign of being grown up, like getting out of short pants. There were slogans. LSMFT. (Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco.) Marlboro Men were rugged and sexy. There wasn’t a cough in a carload. I’d walk a mile for a Camel. In some ads, gorgeous women entreated guys to “blow a little smoke my way.” If anyone worried about health effects of smoking, we could always buy ones with filters.

My opinions about smoking were shaped by ads--and by what a bunch of other teenager friends thought back in the days of Eisenhower.

Cigarette packs, back in the early 1950s did not carry a warning from the Surgeon General.

For college students, cigarettes were often free. Most dormitory floors had a student rep who passed out complimentary packs.

I started smoking early, and I quit late (the night before surgery!) I was addicted very quickly, and when the warnings on packs appeared, I ignored them. I kept believing what I thought I learned at 14: there really wasn’t anything wrong with smoking.

False beliefs aren’t innocent and harmless. They can kill us. So can faulty arguments leading to those false beliefs.