Tweet

One company who likes to use “science” to sell their products is Power Balance. They love the big science words like mylar, hologram, frequency and hertz. But after today, I’m not sure Power Balance and science are gonna be such good friends. You see, some researchers busted their magic hologram silicon bracelet using well, science.

In fact it was a team of chiropractors – a profession not universally known for evidence based practice. Indeed, some* chiropractors believe some pretty weird things like in the existence of subluxations. Put simply, this term is commonly used by chiropractors to describe signs and symptoms of the spinal column, yet evidence that these even exists remains controversial.

In May 2010, the General Chiropractic Council, the statutory regulatory body for chiropractors in the United Kingdom, issued guidance for chiropractors stating that the chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex;

“is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease or health concerns.”

A similar stance is taken by the National Health Service:

“There is also no scientific evidence to support the idea that most illness is caused by misalignment of the spine.”

This emphasis on woo in the chiropractic profession always struck me as kinda odd, since in Australia, chiropractic is a 2 year post graduate course meaning students have 3 years of undergraduate science education under their belts before they even begin.

But it’s clear that evidence-based practice is not the general rule (again please see *), as evidenced by a cursory glance at any of their websites. Chiropractors claim to treat a wide range of conditions including colic, asthma, sleep disorders, ear infections and ADHD. I addition to this, many chiropractors are also anti-vaccination, and I have blogged about one such in particular in the past.

So I was somewhat surprised today when the results of the Power Balance trial being conducted by the Discipline of Chiropractic in RMIT’s School of Health Sciences in Melbourne were announced, and the results were negative.

When I first heard about this trial several months ago, I was not confident the results would come out the right way – and by that I mean that Power Balance is an expensive rubber band, and nothing more, as the company itself admits.

I had already been disappointed by the gushing testimony of another chiropractor on the Today Tonight story where Richard Saunders showed the magic bands could not be distinguished from placebo.

Melbourne chiropractor, Dr. Matt Bateman, said he had tried it on hundreds of his patients, and even staked his reputation on it.

“I felt it for myself. There is so much you can fake – I am not faking 500% strength and stability, which is what I felt – I can’t fake that,” Dr. Bateman said.

No word yet from Dr Bateman on whether he wishes to retract his statements.

But, in what is another nail in the coffin for the reputation of expensive rubber band, the study found there was no statistically significant change in balance performance brought about by the silicon wristbands.

The randomised, double-blind controlled trial tested 42 volunteers on a computerised dynamic posturography device that measures balance and stability. The test was performed three times: once with no wristband, once with a placebo wristband (where the holograms were replaced with two stainless steel discs of the same dimensions and weight) and once with a Power Balance wristband.

“We saw no difference in people’s balance whether they were using the wristband, wearing a placebo or wearing no wristband at all,” study showed Chief investigator, Dr Simon Brice.

“…given this study strongly refuted the primary balance benefit of holographic wristbands, the validity of other purported benefits seems highly unlikely.”

Another author on the study. Dr Jarosz explained:

“They think it will work, therefore they feel like it’s working.”

The study will be published in the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies , which is PubMed indexed and published by Elsevier. I say kudos to the team for publishing the first scientific study looking at the claims of Power Balance.

Just goes to show, if you abuse science for nefarious purposes, it might just come back to bite you. How ya liking science now Power Balance?

—–
* I say this based on my research, experience and the contact I have had with chiros. I wish to stress, I do not apply this statement the entire profession.

So this is what confronted me this arvo, in the prime real estate of the top left hand corner of the page:

Image: Picture Cronulla Sharks CEO Tony Zappia outside Cronulla Leagues Club. Link to story headline: “One club, so many problems: time to call ET?  Mathematicians foxed by the probability of the Sharks’ scandals but astrologer blames Pluto.”  Link to another story called “Star signs.”

(Note: The ET refered to is not the alien, but the nick name of Andrew Ettinghausen, a club legend.)

The headline is “Sharks’ Horror Streak Confounds Maths.”   Confounds maths??? CONFOUNDS MATHS????

The relevant part of the main article is at the start:

What are the chances of one organisation being battered by such a run of appalling scandals as has beset the Cronulla Sharks?

Threat of extinction, sex scandals, players failing drug tests, former players being convicted in court, financial turmoil, a female employee getting a black eye, sex toys being given to the players, and just one win all season.

Mathematicians today could not hazard a guess at the probability of a single club enduring so many scandals in such a short time.

“You might have expected in the life of clubs that each of these sort of things happen every 10 years or so, but the fact that so many things have happened simultaneously is highly unlikely,” said Professor Joe Gani, from Australian National University’s Mathematical Sciences Institute.

But astrologer Dadhichi Toth said the presence of Pluto, the “subversive” planet, explained why the club was in turmoil.

This is truly terrible “journalism” by Arjun Ramachandran.   Even if we ignore the flipping astrologer, it is still facepalmingly lazy.  I do not blame the poor maths prof. You get bailed up by some joker on the phone, you got to say something.  I’ll return to the unsights (as opposed to insights) of Mr Toth later, but let’s look at the “unlikely run of scandals.”

Threat of extinction, sex scandals, players failing drug tests, former players being convicted in court, financial turmoil, a female employee getting a black eye, sex toys being given to the players, and just one win all season.

These are not discrete events, like the tosses of a coin. There is a web of relations between the various facts, the fact one happened made others more likely.   To start with the “sex scandal”, which is really a “sexual assault scandal”, no need to go into the details here.  In short, a major current affairs programme Four Corners did an hour long story on various incidents in rugby league of violence towards women,  the culture which can feed that, and some education efforts to change it. The biggest story concerned allegations against Cronulla Sharks players from 2002.  It’s been THE biggest media story for the last week and a half, at least in league playing areas.  That’s what turned the spotlight on the club, and why these other not-illegal-but-unsavoury stories are in the papers today.

They did not take place this week, they made the papers this week. Big difference.

What are the chances that an organisation embroiled in scandal will attract journalists to dig up other scandals and people with stories to tell about that organisation will come forward knowing someone now wants to listen? I’m no mathematician but the answer is:  100%

What are the chances Reni Maitua (the player who failed the drug test) would get himself in trouble? Maybe not 100% but given the repeated misbehaviour which got him sacked from his last club, getting up there. Dreadful timing PR-wise, I admit.   Only one win all year? Well someone has to lose and their form is down to injuries, a hard working but toothless attack and a defence prone to brainsnaps.  And as famed coach Jack Gibson said years ago, “waiting for Cronulla to win a premiership is like leaving the porch light on for Harold Holt.” (Not really relevant, I just love the quote.)

Not content with this, the SMH give “face-reader” Toth his own article from which to Barnum to his heart’s content. Couched of course in “coulds” and “mays”, he does make a specific short-term prediction about “startling revelations between the May 30 and June 2 when Mercury moves into its forward motion.”  I anxiously await to see what they are.   The “hinting at a merger” at the end is just brazen, since this possibility has been a topic of conversation amongst league-fanciers all year. Head into any pub in Sydney at any time in the last three months and you’ll have heard the same thing.

So yes the Sharks have on their hands what celebrity PR flak Max Markson calls in the article “a category 5 PR disaster”, and I don’t know “what the chances are” in statistics but it is a cluster of mostly cause-and-effect that is hardly beyond the realms of science, or common sense.  But this is an unserious journalist in an increasingly unserious newspaper uninterested in shedding any light on a newsworthy situation.  He rang the maths guy not to get any answers, but to get him to say a few sentences from which he could mine a quote in order to justify the “confounds maths” heading. It’s working backwards, high-concept journalism which fails the most basic standards.   The astrologer is more willing to bullshit off the top of his head, indeed that’s his profession, and so gets his babblings uncritically repeated verbatim.

Please note: This is not a thread for rehashing of the 2002 Sharks allegations or anything to do with it.  Anything opining on motivations, rumours, characters etc will be deleted.  Sorry, but had enough of it elsewhere.

Claims in the ad that “pentapeptides” could reduce the appearance of visible lines and could be used as a substitute for cosmetic surgery were deemed misleading.

In the ad, a voice-over from UK beauty journalist Eve Cameron said: “Women who aren’t ready for cosmetic injections constantly ask me to recommend a skin cream that really works”.

Claims that regenerist cream could substitute for cosmetic surgery were rejected

“So I was excited when this study, revealed at the World Congress of Dermatology, showed that pentapeptides are effective in reducing the appearance of lines and wrinkles.”

The Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint challenging the evidence for the effectiveness of pentapeptides in skin care products.

However, this is not the first time expensive “cosmeceuticals” have been declared a rip-off.

In 2007, a consumer organisation in the UK known as Which? Magazine found skin care companies were “blinding consumers with science” using terms like nanoparticles, pentapeptides, lipopeptides and hyaluronic acid. These are all legitimate scientific words, and whilst some have been associated with skin repair, others are just there to sound sciencey.

For example, hyaluronic acid is a component of the extracellular matrix, the “scaffolding” which supports the cells, and has been used to assist in the repair of burns and wound healing.

Some studies also show injections of hyaluronic acid can relieve mild arthritis pain but the literature remains divided and further research is required.

Hyaluronic acid has replaced bovine or human collagen as an injectable soft-tissue filler, and there are several types currently licensed by the FDA in America.

Aarathi Prasad, a biologist from Sense About Science, said that the claims for commercially available creams were: insulting to people’s intelligence. “There may be evidence to justify using some of these chemicals — but not in products claiming to improve the signs of ageing or having an active effect on the skin. The companies are taking the real science out of context so it becomes bad science.”

But as for the use of nanoparticles? Well, not even customer service representatives could explain what the hell these were doing in the moisturising cream. Which? Magazine discovered that the use of scientific jargon by skin care products, had become so widespread and complex that these “cosmeceuticals” could no longer be explained by customer service.

They contacted customer service for Garnier, L’Oreal and Olay to ask for explanations of their sciencey sounding products. For example, when asked what was the hyaluronic acid contained in the L’Oréal moisturising cream, the company’s customer service representative incorrectly stated:

“It’s not an actual acid,” before adding, “The product replumps, tautens and illuminates to give a radiance to the skin.”

Gary Moss, a pharmacist from the University of Hertfordshire, dismissed this explanation as “utter waffle”.

Hyaluronic acid is indeed an acid, and there is no evidence that it plumps the skin when applied topically, only when it is injected ala botox.

“Nanoparticles” on the other hand, included in some products may actually be harmful, and should be avoided, dermatologists suggest.

Adding scientific jargon to a tiny bottle of cream, is just another way manufacturers can get away with charging you an arm and a leg for a tub of sorbolene and water with some nice perfume added.

Buyer beware.

—–

Thanks podblack for the tip-off to this story