RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Fake science in advertising., Does it bother anyone else?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,13:09   

I just saw a particularly good example of the utter nonsense companies claim in order to sell the products they produce. A cosmetic that spoke of "[letting] the skin breathe". Ugh, now I'm no scientist, but even I know this is crap.

Anyone else find stuff like this annoying? If not, how come, and if so, any particularly egregious examples?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
BopDiddy



Posts: 71
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,13:35   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 28 2008,13:09)
I just saw a particularly good example of the utter nonsense companies claim in order to sell the products they produce. A cosmetic that spoke of "[letting] the skin breathe". Ugh, now I'm no scientist, but even I know this is crap.

Anyone else find stuff like this annoying? If not, how come, and if so, any particularly egregious examples?

For me it's pretty much any ad that has people in lab coats, glasses and clipboards running around clean white rooms.  Arg.  

There used to be one for "The Ponds Institute" that had some bizarre line, with model-scientists as above running around in the background, that went something like "here at the Ponds Institute our scientists are finding new ways of revitalizing your appearance and making you feel your best" or equally ridiculous vagueness.

EDIT: typo

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,13:44   

In addition to that kind of fake science, I'm also really annoyed by implied woo in adverts. What I mean by this is the kind of advert, often for a beauty product, that says something like "contains real ginger extract and lime".
So? So what if it does? Does that do anything other than appease the hippiesque "all natural, organic" people who won't touch so called "non natural" products with a ten foot bargepole but will lap up any old nonsense that has the word 'organic' in it?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,13:57   

Quote (BopDiddy @ Mar. 28 2008,13:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 28 2008,13:09)
I just saw a particularly good example of the utter nonsense companies claim in order to sell the products they produce. A cosmetic that spoke of "[letting] the skin breathe". Ugh, now I'm no scientist, but even I know this is crap.

Anyone else find stuff like this annoying? If not, how come, and if so, any particularly egregious examples?

For me it's pretty much any ad that has people in lab coats, glasses and clipboards running around clean white rooms.  Arg.  

There used to one for "The Ponds Institute" that had some bizarre line, with model-scientists as above running around in the background, that went something like "here at the Ponds Institute our scientists are finding new ways of revitalizing your appearance and making you feel your best" or equally ridiculous vagueness.

A company (I believe it was Imperial Leather, but I can find no references to it) did a beautiful parody of this way back in the 90s. They start in a lab with scientists in labcoats, one of whom is talking about their new soap. He points to a molecular ball-and-rod model to illustrate, and at the exact moment he talks about the 'complex molecular structure', a scientist walking behind him slips up on some molecule balls and falls over.

At the end they show the effect of their soap thirty seconds after application, and if I recall, it causes a white lady to turn into a six foot tall black man with dreadlocks.

For some reason few people have tapped into the comedy gold of this kind of advert since. :)

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,14:13   

Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Mar. 28 2008,19:57)
Quote (BopDiddy @ Mar. 28 2008,13:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 28 2008,13:09)
I just saw a particularly good example of the utter nonsense companies claim in order to sell the products they produce. A cosmetic that spoke of "[letting] the skin breathe". Ugh, now I'm no scientist, but even I know this is crap.

Anyone else find stuff like this annoying? If not, how come, and if so, any particularly egregious examples?

For me it's pretty much any ad that has people in lab coats, glasses and clipboards running around clean white rooms.  Arg.  

There used to one for "The Ponds Institute" that had some bizarre line, with model-scientists as above running around in the background, that went something like "here at the Ponds Institute our scientists are finding new ways of revitalizing your appearance and making you feel your best" or equally ridiculous vagueness.

A company (I believe it was Imperial Leather, but I can find no references to it) did a beautiful parody of this way back in the 90s. They start in a lab with scientists in labcoats, one of whom is talking about their new soap. He points to a molecular ball-and-rod model to illustrate, and at the exact moment he talks about the 'complex molecular structure', a scientist walking behind him slips up on some molecule balls and falls over.

At the end they show the effect of their soap thirty seconds after application, and if I recall, it causes a white lady to turn into a six foot tall black man with dreadlocks.

For some reason few people have tapped into the comedy gold of this kind of advert since. :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zy8upzrXzMU

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,14:15   

What annoys me are the silly "surveys" and related data abuse: "8 out of 10 cats prefer our cat food".  Prefer it to what?  Celery?

93.2% of statisticians agree with me.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,14:53   

And 98 % of New Age Crazies believe OUR New Age Crazie more than all other New Age Crazie Stuff.

BUT while we are on the subject, at least that Grinin' Fool Moron "Bob " and his annoying grin are a thing of the past... The Gov'mt finally did something right and tagged the company for the total scam that they were.  

Although it's hard to feel too sorry for the victims that actually expected a "penis enhancer sold on TV " to work!

Not that I  would actually care about this, since I am not  from TX, and not named named DaveScot.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,15:00   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 28 2008,14:13)
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Mar. 28 2008,19:57)
Quote (BopDiddy @ Mar. 28 2008,13:35)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 28 2008,13:09)
I just saw a particularly good example of the utter nonsense companies claim in order to sell the products they produce. A cosmetic that spoke of "[letting] the skin breathe". Ugh, now I'm no scientist, but even I know this is crap.

Anyone else find stuff like this annoying? If not, how come, and if so, any particularly egregious examples?

For me it's pretty much any ad that has people in lab coats, glasses and clipboards running around clean white rooms.  Arg.  

There used to one for "The Ponds Institute" that had some bizarre line, with model-scientists as above running around in the background, that went something like "here at the Ponds Institute our scientists are finding new ways of revitalizing your appearance and making you feel your best" or equally ridiculous vagueness.

A company (I believe it was Imperial Leather, but I can find no references to it) did a beautiful parody of this way back in the 90s. They start in a lab with scientists in labcoats, one of whom is talking about their new soap. He points to a molecular ball-and-rod model to illustrate, and at the exact moment he talks about the 'complex molecular structure', a scientist walking behind him slips up on some molecule balls and falls over.

At the end they show the effect of their soap thirty seconds after application, and if I recall, it causes a white lady to turn into a six foot tall black man with dreadlocks.

For some reason few people have tapped into the comedy gold of this kind of advert since. :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zy8upzrXzMU

Thanks! I didn't know it was Paul Merton. The one I'm thinking of is a fan-done parody of this parody, as it happens. :)

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,15:10   

I think it was L'Oreal claiming to have the latest hype in face-créme land: amino-peptides, well woopydoo isn't that the most amazing stuff you ever heard from! Cilit Bang with it's "active oxygen" is also a great one. Or what about that "DNAge" stuff, claims to repair the DNA from your skin with some kind of simple acid, wich is in craploads of food. Worst is, when my mum watches it, she really thinks it's honest science, then I have to tell her what it really is. Hurray >.<

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,15:10   

Does it annoy me?

Does the Pope shit in the woods? Are bears Catholic?

OF COURSE it annoys me!

The long suffering and eminently wonderful Dr Mrs Louis is treated to regular tirades at the television. The saintly lady bears these outbursts with great fortitude and tolerance, and even sympathises to a sufficient degree that she will occasionally let fly herself.

Bad science, pseudoscience and antiscience is a pain in the arse wherever it arises. I know that FTK/Skeptic etc will be shocked to read this, because our anti-pseudoscience is of course anti-religion obviously (sheah, right!), but I get more annoyed about homeopathy than creationism. You biologists think that people have no clue about bioogy? Your average personage on the Clapham omnibus is a Nobel Laureate equivalent in their biology knowledge compared to their chemistry knowledge. If I hear, see or read the spurious claims made about "natural" things once more I might just have to go on a killing spree. Well, maybe not a killing spree, perhaps just a harsh language spree.

L'Oreal adverts can render me quite spectacularly annoyed, and don't even get me started on the topic of nutribollocks and "organic" agriculture.*

Frankly, science literacy is a rare thing, and science friendliness only slightly more common.

Louis

* There is a lot of good to come out of the "organic" farming movement, unfortunately there is also a lot of utter shite. It's a case by case kind of thing based on something called the "evidence". Our creationist chums won't know what that word means, but they'll have to trust me when I say it applies to more things than their inane beliefs.

--------------
Bye.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,15:41   

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 28 2008,15:53)
And 98 % of New Age Crazies believe OUR New Age Crazie more than all other New Age Crazie Stuff.

BUT while we are on the subject, at least that Grinin' Fool Moron "Bob " and his annoying grin are a thing of the past... The Gov'mt finally did something right and tagged the company for the total scam that they were.  

Although it's hard to feel too sorry for the victims that actually expected a "penis enhancer sold on TV " to work!

Not that I  would actually care about this, since I am not  from TX, and not named named DaveScot.

When did this happen? I looked at Wiki and it says they simply had to change their ads to avoid actually claiming anything. And I'm sure I've seen Smilin' Bob recently.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,15:48   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 28 2008,16:10)
Does it annoy me?

Does the Pope shit in the woods? Are bears Catholic?

OF COURSE it annoys me!

The long suffering and eminently wonderful Dr Mrs Louis is treated to regular tirades at the television. The saintly lady bears these outbursts with great fortitude and tolerance, and even sympathises to a sufficient degree that she will occasionally let fly herself.

Bad science, pseudoscience and antiscience is a pain in the arse wherever it arises. I know that FTK/Skeptic etc will be shocked to read this, because our anti-pseudoscience is of course anti-religion obviously (sheah, right!), but I get more annoyed about homeopathy than creationism. You biologists think that people have no clue about bioogy? Your average personage on the Clapham omnibus is a Nobel Laureate equivalent in their biology knowledge compared to their chemistry knowledge. If I hear, see or read the spurious claims made about "natural" things once more I might just have to go on a killing spree. Well, maybe not a killing spree, perhaps just a harsh language spree.

L'Oreal adverts can render me quite spectacularly annoyed, and don't even get me started on the topic of nutribollocks and "organic" agriculture.*

Frankly, science literacy is a rare thing, and science friendliness only slightly more common.

Louis

* There is a lot of good to come out of the "organic" farming movement, unfortunately there is also a lot of utter shite. It's a case by case kind of thing based on something called the "evidence". Our creationist chums won't know what that word means, but they'll have to trust me when I say it applies to more things than their inane beliefs.

How about some all natural Hydrogen Cyanide? Or that lovely castor bean extract, Ricin. Very natural. ;)

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,15:55   

Quote (Nerull @ Mar. 28 2008,15:41)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 28 2008,15:53)
And 98 % of New Age Crazies believe OUR New Age Crazie more than all other New Age Crazie Stuff.

BUT while we are on the subject, at least that Grinin' Fool Moron "Bob " and his annoying grin are a thing of the past... The Gov'mt finally did something right and tagged the company for the total scam that they were.  

Although it's hard to feel too sorry for the victims that actually expected a "penis enhancer sold on TV " to work!

Not that I  would actually care about this, since I am not  from TX, and not named named DaveScot.

When did this happen? I looked at Wiki and it says they simply had to change their ads to avoid actually claiming anything. And I'm sure I've seen Smilin' Bob recently.

Smilin'  Bob Ain't No More...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-22-enzyte-fraud_N.htm

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,16:08   

My personal pet-peeve is the ever annoying "It's all-natural, so it's good for you".

My standard response is, "Dog crap is all-natural, too".

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,16:25   

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 28 2008,14:15)
What annoys me are the silly "surveys" and related data abuse: "8 out of 10 cats prefer our cat food".  Prefer it to what?  Celery?

93.2% of statisticians agree with me.

There's a Mountain Dew ad that cites the 4:1 ratio of men to women who get struck by lightning, and shows women playing with ham radios and doing other risky stuff in a storm right next to a guy who gets zapped instead.

IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. Men get shocked four times as often because WE'RE the ones who do stupid shit outdoors during storms! It isn't because we attract electricity via some form of magic. But oh, no, the statistic sounds funny, let's make an ad showing guys being struck by lightning.

I think people are just inherently bad at statistics.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,16:29   

1. "Never tested on animals." -> Congratulations on buying our product and joining our test group.

2. "If they are giving away a free trial, it's got to be good!" -> That's what the crack dealer down the street wants you to think, too.

3. "Contains no chemicals." -> It's amazing what vacuum can do for you.

4. "Look who enjoys our product." -> Since when was idiocy supposed to be attractive?

5. "Pulls over 1G in the turn." -> I should hope so. My van does 1G parked in my driveway.

6. "Side effects can include nausea, vomiting, respiratory arrest, and death. Our drug isn't for everyone." -> Cornering the suicidal masochist market, are we?

7. "Works like magic!" -> Doesn't do anything at all.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,17:45   

WHAT ABOUT REALLY ANNOYING - AND WORTHLESS PRODUCTS?

APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD

APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD

APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeadOn

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,18:55   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 28 2008,22:29)
7. "Works like magic!" -> Doesn't do anything at all.

Yes, this one bugs the hell out of me as well.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,19:16   

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 28 2008,18:45)
WHAT ABOUT REALLY ANNOYING - AND WORTHLESS PRODUCTS?

APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD

APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD

APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeadOn

Yeah, but HeadOn gets a bye from me (but not a buy) because of its very clever name. So it doesn't matter what it does.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,21:07   

Sometimes I wonder if maybe writers of advertisements don't actually have to sell to the public - they only have to sell the script to the company that's trying to sell something to the public.

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,21:51   

How about those eye drops (I forget the brand name) that "get the red out" - do those really work? :p

Henry

  
nuytsia



Posts: 131
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,22:35   

The Aloe vera Andrex toilet paper advert always annoyed me as it had several potted Agave in it and was done with a very bad Mexican accent??
It's like sticking a picture of a catfish on a can of Tuna.

It didn't claim to be science, so I suppose I can't fault them for making no effort to get their facts straight
Idiots.

   
Falk Macara



Posts: 11
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2008,23:45   

The important thing to remember about stupid commercials for cosmetics is that, really, they don't actively harm anyone.

Homeopathy, on the other hand often discourages people from seeking assistance from medical professionals*; the sooner we start sending distributors off to the big house for GBH (or, for the lunatics claiming an extract of [herb X] cures cancer, murder) the better.

A question I always pose to people pushing the 'organic' angle, or rubbishing modern medicine is: "if natural remedies all work so well, how did what we know as modern medicine ever get a look in".

Falk.

*:  Meaning "People NOT in the business of selling leeches"

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,01:44   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 28 2008,15:10)
Does it annoy me?

Does the Pope shit in the woods? Are bears Catholic?

OF COURSE it annoys me!

The long suffering and eminently wonderful Dr Mrs Louis is treated to regular tirades at the television. The saintly lady bears these outbursts with great fortitude and tolerance, and even sympathises to a sufficient degree that she will occasionally let fly herself.

Bad science, pseudoscience and antiscience is a pain in the arse wherever it arises. I know that FTK/Skeptic etc will be shocked to read this, because our anti-pseudoscience is of course anti-religion obviously (sheah, right!), but I get more annoyed about homeopathy than creationism. You biologists think that people have no clue about bioogy? Your average personage on the Clapham omnibus is a Nobel Laureate equivalent in their biology knowledge compared to their chemistry knowledge. If I hear, see or read the spurious claims made about "natural" things once more I might just have to go on a killing spree. Well, maybe not a killing spree, perhaps just a harsh language spree.

L'Oreal adverts can render me quite spectacularly annoyed, and don't even get me started on the topic of nutribollocks and "organic" agriculture.*

Frankly, science literacy is a rare thing, and science friendliness only slightly more common.

Louis

* There is a lot of good to come out of the "organic" farming movement, unfortunately there is also a lot of utter shite. It's a case by case kind of thing based on something called the "evidence". Our creationist chums won't know what that word means, but they'll have to trust me when I say it applies to more things than their inane beliefs.

as much as it pains me to say, I'm with Louis on this one.  It's probably since we come from the same industry but I abhor nutraceuticals and I can't stand that they're not regulated by the FDA.  I'm not sure how it stands for you over there, Louis, but here any ingredient designated as a nutritional supplement has no obligation to prove any claims it makes.  It's just a hair more idiotic than tobacco not being regulated by the FDA.  Anyway, that's the umbrella all the homeopathic remedies hide under in this country and it has resulted in dead people but to no avail.  Louis, sounds like your wife and mine can repeat back the same tirade, lol.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,04:24   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 29 2008,07:44)
as much as it pains me to say, I'm with Louis on this one.  It's probably since we come from the same industry but I abhor nutraceuticals and I can't stand that they're not regulated by the FDA.  I'm not sure how it stands for you over there, Louis, but here any ingredient designated as a nutritional supplement has no obligation to prove any claims it makes.  It's just a hair more idiotic than tobacco not being regulated by the FDA.  Anyway, that's the umbrella all the homeopathic remedies hide under in this country and it has resulted in dead people but to no avail.  Louis, sounds like your wife and mine can repeat back the same tirade, lol.

It's okay Skeptic, if it helps I'm in utter agony. ;-)

I think the list Wes gives is a good starting point.  But lest we of a scientific bent keep pointing the finger outwards I think, especially in my industry, it's good to have a little perspective and point that finger inwards just as often.

Yes Skeptic, NICE (the UK FDA pseudoequivalent) does give a comparatively free pass to nutraceuticals and the like. The worst things is it also gives a large degree of freedom to "homeopathic" "medicines". The reason there are two sets of quotes is because of two different reasons. "Homeopathic" seems to shift meanings in the pseudoscience promoting community, sometimes it means plant extracts, sometimes it means the uber-diluted dirvel, sometimes both, sometime neither. Like talking about "god", talking about "natural" or talking about "homeopathy" it's a bloody good idea to find out what the other person means by those words when they use them. The reason "medicine" is in quotes is because this stuff rarely has any medicinal value over and above placebo.

BTW, one little bugbear of mine is that people sometimes think that "placebo" is an insult of some kind, that it means the medicine does nothing at all. This simply isn't the case, and I always have to explain this to people. Very simply put: If a medicine/treatment does no better than the background level at which people just simply get better from a disease then it has done no better than a placebo would do. That does not mean it does nothing, it just means it's ineffective as a treatment for that disease.

Trust me when I say you run up against worse pseudoscientific drivel and harsher antiscience attitudes in the "alternative medicine" group/mindset than we ever do in creationists. At least in the US you have the Establishment Clause to protect you from the more egregious instances of religious idiocy, and at least we in the rest of the world have that example to work on (even if we fail to manage it sometimes), but nowhere has got a "Dumb Clause" to protect a nation from the establishment of pseudoscientific quackery. The companies involved (and our dearly beloved and oh so above reproach pharma industry also cashes in on this btw) are peddling sophisticated snake oil at top prices to an ever eagre and extremely confused middle class. As a matter of perspective, national outrage can be caused by mentioning how an immigrant gets well treated or housed at the cost of a few hundred thousand pounds, but nobody bats an eyelid at the billions of pounds frittered away on sugar tablets and expensive consultations.

Lastly, I don't mean to say that the "traditional" medicine lot have nothing to learn from the "alternative" medicine lot. Simply put, there is no "traditional" and "alternative", there is only medicine. If it works, it's medicine, if it doesn't it's expensive wishful thinking. If standing on a moonlit night at a crossroads with your feet in sphagnum moss, a natterjack toad on your head, having a druid perform an intimate personal act upon you whilst washing you with water thawed from an arctic glacier, whilst a Sioux priestess chants healing energies and an aura specialist clears your aura according to the latest results of her trance causes pancreatic cancer to go into remission in a statistically significant manner above placebo (or better, above the current market treatments) then it is medicine. We might not know how it works yet, but that it works is now undeniable. More studies need to be done, can it be accomplished sans druid for example (they are expensive after all).

My serious point possibly clouded by that frivolity is that the claims of conspiracy and persecution (like those of our creationist chums) are false. They are the products of bog standard denialism. Antisemites, climate change deniers, creationists, advocates of alternative medicine, tobacco companies, pharmaceutical company advertising departments (oh yes, they are scum) all use the exact same denialist methodologies.

The second serious point there is that in the alternative medicine world long consultations, easy access to a practitioner, comforting treatments like massage and aromatherapy etc are all useful. They really do seem to help people. Granted, again they have never yet broken the minimum requirement that any valid medicine/treatment would have asked of it but they give us an important pointer and one we ignore at our peril. A GP in the UK has between 8 and 15 minutes on average with each patient (IIRC from a recent Lancet article). The average alternative therapist spends between 45 minutes and 2 hours with each patient. GPs estimate that a huge majority of their time is taken up with palliative care and simple reassurance of patients. We know that stress not only is a disease but that it causes disease. The wealth of anecdotal "data" we get from the alternative medicine court is telling us something very clear "You can improve how your patients feel about their treatments, and this will in turn improve their chances of recovery". Put the pieces together! There is merit in the "holistic approach" even if that merit is only the difference between state and private medicine being able to afford different amounts of time to deal with a patient.

This is why it is vital to separate out what the real issue is. Homeopathy doesn't work, it's obvious bullshit to anyone with a GCSE in chemistry. It's antiscience quackery and dishonest snakeoil salemanship of the first water (pun intended). BUT some people like it, it has some value to some patients and that value is less in the actual treatments and medicines themselves but more in the rituals and environments that those treatments and medicines are delivered. Think how powerful combining the two could be? It's an almost utopian ideal! Medicines/treatments that really work delivered in an environment that panders to the simple human nature of the patient. The private medical sector in the UK has been doing this for years. Lengthy consulations at the drop of a hat, instantaneous treatments, thorough investigations etc. I'm not knocking the NHS (which I think is an excellent system) but the private sector has managed to get rid of a lot of the bureacracy and invest a lot more of its money in the right places. That is sadly not a medical issue but a political and financial one.

This is incidentally, to return to the original topic at little more, why I think that "alternative" remedies of all sorts should be thoroughly investigated and subject to the exact same stringent conditions and testing that any "normal" remedy is. If the goal is to cure people, then our efforts must be aimed at finding the best way of doing that. The fact that these things get a free pass is abhorrent. It's as bad as a pharma company forging trials data, faking claims, using marketing tricks to bend rules etc. In a market worth billions of pounds a year in the UK alone, it's also a market with a surprisingly similar quantity of cash to the people doing REAL science and making REAL medicines that REALLY and uncontroversially work.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,05:15   

Monica has a cosmetic line out now.  She has a lipstick mixed
with Viagra.  Claims it works great but leaves her with a stiff upper lip.

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,06:05   

Well.. how about "mineral" makeup.  One company started this, and now it's become a classification that I've seen other companies using.

"The makeup that's actually good for your skin" was one of the original marketing taglines.  They talked about it being "pure".  Pure WHAT is never explained.  I guess what they're saying is that there isn't anything in the makeup, except what's in the makeup.  There's no "other stuff" in it, thus it's pure.  They never really explain what the minerals are though, or why supposedly using only minerals is such a good thing.

I'm getting REALLY tired of a commercial for a brand of shampoo touting the fact that they use soy in the shampoo, particularly the odd voice of the woman they chose to do the speaking in it.  Although I admit I just about bust a gut laughing every time they mention their "Natural Shiitake Complex".  They actually have a website where you can click on a link named "the science" to see a bunch of official looking graphs, including one that appears to show a nearly exponential curve in the "rate of cell renewal" versus amount of time that the product was used.  In other words, use it long enough and you've got nearly infinite cell renewal.  That must be fun, having brand new skin cells every couple of seconds.  I'd hate to imagine the trail of sloughed off skin cells you'd leave behind you though.


Recently I had the bad fortune of witnessing an Avon party.  I was trying not to pay attention to all the girly crap, but I kept hearing occasional bizarre claims, like that it's good to wear makeup because it keeps pollution off your face and out of your pores.


Or on a radio show a while back I heard someone call in and describe her job by saying that she sells "natural beauty products".  One of the people on the show commented that that was a bit of an odd term, since natural beauty should be what you already look like.  The caller described the products by saying that instead of using water for some particular thing they use some sort of fruit juice.

When did water become artificial?

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,06:22   

A while back, I sent an e-mail to Ulay (I'm not sure if it's purely a UK company, so hedging my bets, it's a company that selld "anti-aging" cream) asking how many scientific studies had been performed on their products, which journals they were published in, and which editions. I never got a reply.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,10:04   

Mineral makeup has been around for millenia.  Various minerals were used in the preparation of Kohl for example.  

I'd like to be able to stop the adverts altogether.  One way would be legislation.  Another would be a mass ridicule campaign.  Or else educate the majority of the populace so that they are resistant to the stupid adverts.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,10:20   

One byproduct of our Free Exercise clause that most often trumps the Establishment clause results in the what I call the right to be stupid, sorry if I'm offending anyone's beliefs.  In my part of the country we have the Seventh Day Adventists and the Amish and Quakers that routinely deny treatment of specific or modern nature.  I recall that it only really comes to a head when they're making these decisions for minors.  From my perspective it's a thorny issue because I know the science and the medicine but I'm reluctant to mess with the Free Exercise clause because of the unintended consequences of the slippery slope.  A dilemma that can only be resolved if you truly believe that everyone in this country has the absolute right to be just as dumb as they wish to be.  Of course issues like euthanasia and informed consent jump up real quick when you start walking down that road.

Ironically, for all the talk about health care systems these days, it sounds as if your public and our private systems are very similar in terms of time devoted towards patient-doctor interaction.  Maybe both countries need more qualified doctors to handle the load.  Actually, I know both the problems and the solutions are much more complex then this but wouldn't it be nice if medicine was devoted simply to the welfare of the patient primarily.  Ahh, what a dream.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,10:22   

I think one thing we have to accept is that the adverts are produced for the lowest common denominator, in many cases children, and it's also a reflection of the level of ignorance of the public just as much as the dishonesty of the advertiser.  Sorry if that sounds harsh but I'm afraid it's true.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,13:25   

Well, the most bullshit in commercial's are in beauty-product commercials. And those products aren't really for a 10-year old ;) I think the king (or rather queen) from this bullcrap is L'Oreal: the latest discovery in skin-healthcare, amino-peptides!!! Grrrrrrr...
But yea, it's true that advertisers exploit the ignorance of the average Joe/Jane. With such logical bullshit as the example above, I even wonder if it's légal to do it...

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,13:48   

And don't forget

Oxygen Dihydride! - an essential, natural substance used by NASA and found in abundance in healthy, youthful skin.


Special TardMart discount offer: just $19.99 per tube*!



* Sold in easy-to-handle dessicated form - Just Add Water!

Edit: I really don't know what Louis is on about. Imagine not knowing that!

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,13:58   

Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 29 2008,19:48)
And don't forget

Hydrogen Dioxide! - an essential, natural substance used by NASA and found in abundance in healthy, youthful skin.


Special TardMart discount offer: just $19.99 per tube*!



* Sold in easy-to-handle dessicated form - Just Add Water!

You mean dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO, google "the DHMO scandal" it's funny) or at least oxygen dihydride (debatable, hydrogen oxide is good enough).

Hydrogen dioxide (HOO) would either be a peroxide anion or a peroxy radical (under normal conditions, don't get me started on excited states, radical anions and the like) great for making your whites whiter and your surfaces sterile, but (esp. depending on the counter ion) I would not recommend adding water to it and then drinking it.*

Louis

*Chemistry pedants like me will at this point be thinking "But it's already present in pure water". It is, but in tiny proportions, so nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah, you know what I'm bloody saying.

--------------
Bye.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1431
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,14:13   

Louis, you're absolutely right about the appeal of how "alternative" treatments are administered vs. how effective they are.  My wife is a medical anthropologist and studied the reasons people use "alternative" remedies for her dissertation.  Many of the responses involved the practioner listening, caring about them, etc.  There were other reasons, including the belief that herbs, etc. were "safer" than traditional medicines.  This was often explained as being due to their lack of "chemicals". It was at this point that I would black out from the stupid.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,14:52   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 29 2008,20:13)
Louis, you're absolutely right about the appeal of how "alternative" treatments are administered vs. how effective they are.  My wife is a medical anthropologist and studied the reasons people use "alternative" remedies for her dissertation.  Many of the responses involved the practioner listening, caring about them, etc.  There were other reasons, including the belief that herbs, etc. were "safer" than traditional medicines.  This was often explained as being due to their lack of "chemicals". It was at this point that I would black out from the stupid.

LOL

I love the one about the "lack of chemicals" in natural/herbal remedies. I've heard it many times and it always makes me vomit just a little bit of bile into my mouth and black out for a second or so.

I maintain to this day that people are actually relatively well informed about biology and physics, the general public's lack of general scientific awareness is shocking (appalling too for a variety of ethical reasons), but compared to their specific ignorance of chemistry.... phew!

I've even got a shot of whiskey (cheap rubbish, fear not) and diluted it to homeopathic levels, shaken it the special homeopathic way RIGHT IN FRONT of homeopathy advocates and then had a drinking contest with them (me drinking the homeopathic alcohol, them drinking the whiskey, they paid for the whiskey ;-) ) to see who got drunk first. They were on the floor dribbling before I'd finished my first pint of water. How much more clearly can I demonstrate things to them? I had a big stick with me at the time but I was advised against my original plans for it....

As for herbs, the "alternative" medicine advocates think that scientists/"traditional" medicine advocates are anti herbal remedies. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And I quote from some bloke's thesis:

"Roughly 61% of the 877 new chemical entities produced in the pharmaceutical industry world wide from 1981 to 2002 can be traced to natural products.
Around 78% of antibacterials and 74% of anticancer compounds from this set of new chemical entities are either natural products themselves or inspired by a natural product."

There's even a reference:

M. S. Lesney. Nature's Pharmaceuticals. Today's Chemists at Work July, 26-32. 2004

;-)

Far from being opposed to or scared of the values of remdies from nature scientists for over a century* have been using biologically active molecules from nature as synthetic starting points for medicines. The history of their use as medicines themselves is on the order of several millenia old*, and not even restricted to our species!

Like creationists and other denialists, "alternative" medicine advocates simply don't understand it's the evidence that matters. No one is going to object to any medical treatment that actually works from some dogmatic adherence to some spurious (and in actuality non-existant) "medical tradition". If your "alternative" works better than the current "traditional" treatment (and fulfills all the usual metrics of cost, ease of use, toxicity etc etc etc etc ad very extreme nauseum), then it will be used. I say again, there is no such thing as "alternative" medicine, there is medicine that works and wishful thinking.

Louis

*These are both uncharacteristic understatements!

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,16:09   

Quote
but compared to their specific ignorance of chemistry


And that's dispite the fact that chemistry is an elementary subject, a point that should be put on the table periodically.

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,16:38   

Well I don't think we're going to find much disagreement here...other than that last comment, lol.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,16:43   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 29 2008,13:58)
*Chemistry pedants like me

HA HA. THIS IS YOU:



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,17:27   

Is someone slagging off chemistry pedants?



Hahaha, this is you.
(The stuff on the steel pipe)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,17:33   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 29 2008,22:09)
Quote
but compared to their specific ignorance of chemistry


And that's dispite the fact that chemistry is an elementary subject, a point that should be put on the table periodically.

Henry

But I'm unsure as to what the solution is, Henry. I'd hate to compound the problem by making some horrendous mixture of poor communication and jargon.

After all, chemistry is such an engaging subject it's hard not to bond with other enthusiasts. Some of whom can be base, I confess, but there is a strong streak of acid wit in the chemistry world. 'Tis a little known fact that the porn actor Mr R Jeremy is a chemistry afficionado, in fact at a recent ACS ballot I voted to elect Ron.

And with my credibility now in tatters...

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2008,14:22   

Well, I think we killed this thread...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,06:18   

Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 30 2008,20:22)
Well, I think we killed this thread...

Guthrie,

Well I'm not a dermatologist so I know comparatively little about the science behind skin moisturisation, other than the little I've gleaned from colleagues whose speciality that is (which is basically that cheap cold cream or vaseline works almost as well as anything!). I know sufficient to know the claims of the cosmetics companies are poorly evidenced dreck filled with sciency sounding buzzwords used to gull the scientifically ignorant and naive.

Beyond that what is there to say about the claims of cosmetics companies? It's not sufficiently profound to have a decent scientific discussion about. Oh they'll whip out fancy looking graphs and what not, but it's hardly like they have to pass the rigour of anything like a clinical trial. Their products have to meet a few safety criteria, and (if you're in Europe at least) some "green/animal testing" criteria, but beyond that these things are endless reformulations of similar materials. Novelty isn't the point. I'm probably doing a disservice to the people who make cosmetics, and the original science and scientists behind these products, which was/were undoubtedly good, but that industry isn't in that phase at this point in time. It's not an industry founded on research but an industry founded on marketing.

To take up a point you mention in another thread, pseudoscience is at least a little more interesting because it could be correct. It takes a little examination to uncover as obviously false. That examination is what makes it interesting. However, much of the pseudoscientific nonsense we encounter is like the reformulated cosmetic products: i.e. the same old crap repackaged, rebranded, and rehashed. That obviously robs it of its interest value.

I'm am far from the first (or last) to observe that what, for example, is interesting about creationism is NOT its pseudoscientific content, which is long ago and well refuted and exposed as the nonsense it is, but the endless political strategies its proponents weave. Granted these strategies are not themselves particularly novel, but they are new to new people. Each generation encounters these old strategies and a proportion of people are fooled by them all over again. The same applies to homeopathy and the like, to shamanistic "medicine" and much of "cargo cult" science, it's all very old hat. Our job is not to disprove it all over again but to lead people to those antique disproofs as best we can. At the risk of paraphrasing the bible, there is little new under the sky or on earth.

However that little scintilla of novelty DOES exist. Ideas we haven't as a group dreamt of before. Discoveries yet unmade by anyone. The concrete portion of that novelty comes from our efforts in scientific research. But like you point out in your other post, that takes a certain degree of training to handle and discuss meaningfully. It also takes effort and time, two commodities in short supply. I've often promised myself that I'd get back to that "abiogenesis" thread (for example) and put up a few papers and discussions of them. These are promises I've regularly broken! It's easier to make daft jokes and have a bit of banter whilst we're waiting for the latest unpardonable piece of dreck or dishonesty from the (Lack of)Discovery Institute or some creationist shill like FruiTcaKe.

Denialists of all stripes are just simply not very interesting or bright people. Sorry, but it's the truth! A decent pun cascade excercises the mind infinitely more (and infinitely more pleasurably) than arguing with some loon about a topic he or she is incapable of understanding and too dishonest to concede.

Sorry, I just felt like defending frivolity. It seemed like a harder job than beating up yet another clueless piece of abject kookery from L'Oreal or Prince Charles!

;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,06:55   

and that truly kills the thread, lol.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,07:09   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 31 2008,12:55)
and that truly kills the thread, lol.

No no! It heralds its rebirth as a series of chemical puns! Like the Belusov Zhabotinsky reaction it cycles through phases of seriousness and silliness.

But unless no one is willing to provide me with an appropriate reaction, I shall have to find the energy to activate a cascade myself. I have struck deals older than you can cook up to make this cycle work. All that can be said of me is "Core, he fucks these threads".

Points go to the first person to spot all the named reactions in the preceeding paragraph. There are three named reations and a total of six chemical puns.

Anybody....?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,07:56   

NOOOOOOOOO! not the puns again, lol.

...alright give us some good ones.

  
huwp



Posts: 172
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,08:09   

Never argue with a chemist; you'll just get a rude retort.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,10:22   

Or a reaction that may compound the problem, and we wouldn't wanna polarize the discussion.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,11:11   

Here's an example:

"Decleor Hydra Floral Anti-Pollution Moisturizing Cream is a new generation moisturizer.  It features the drip-feed hydration system, reinforced by the technology of aquaporins, true water channels, combined with an anti-pollution plant active ingredient.  Like a bouquet of moisture beneath a veil of anti-pollution care, this smooth textured nectar cream immediately relaxes the skin and quenches its thirst, intensely replenishes, provides continuous hydration and protects against pollution."

Peter Agre got the Nobel prize for discovering aquaporins, and he finally got a remark from his mother that he had finally done something useful.  Note:  this is just the jist of it, I can't remember all the details from when I heard him talk about aquaporins.  

Off-topic article about Agre trying to run for a Senate seat: http://jonathanturley.org/2007....te-race

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,15:32   

But what's that in English? :p

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,21:04   

Quote
3. "Contains no chemicals." -> It's amazing what vacuum can do for you.


Sounds like somebody thinks "chemicals" means only substance made by people in a laboratory.

Quote
1. "Never tested on animals." -> Congratulations on buying our product and joining our test group.


That was always my first thought on hearing that claim, too. If they don't test it first, then they're testing it on their customers!

How about an item 8 - this product will make you irresistable to the opposite gender.

And item 9 - this car is sexy. Uh - cars don't reproduce! (And if they did, would you really want one that attracted other cars while driving down the highway? :p )

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,03:42   

1) "No chemicals". This one really twists my nads to be honest. The nastiest chemicals your average person is likely to encounter are all of "natural" origin. Aflatoxins in your peanut butter, various nitrogen containing carbocycles as by-products of the Mailliard reactions initiated when cooking your meat (esp if blackens at any point), a whole swathe of exciting toxins exist in potatoes (for example) even after cooking them... I could go on and on and on.

Nature's molecules are fluffy and benign are they? Go lick some Nightshade my friend. Chow down a few Fly Agaric mushrooms and enjoy the experience. "Nature" equivocating clueless motherfuckers!

Sorry, rant over.

I did once work in a company in which the Safety Officer in charge of lab safety was not chemically trained. In a meeting this chap actually said "Do you have to use chemicals to do your work?". The room went very quiet. I very gently asked him to explain what he meant, and when he elaborated that natural extracts might be safer for everyone, I was very tactful. I stopped a couple of my colleagues laughing, and very gently expained to him that EVERYTHING around him was made of chemicals, and that what I think he meant to ask was "do you have to use so many dangerous chemicals to do your work?". To which he, as a genuinely smart chap, agreed. The meeting went on from there quiet sucessfully, and luckily he and I developed a good working rapport where there wasn't too much interference from the safety boys when we wanted to do something "dangerous", they learned to trust us because we knew what we were doing and followed the right protocols. Although, after the meeting I had to nip to a deserted part of the building and laugh myself hoarse.

2) "Never tested on animals" is, erm, a lie. All cosmetic products that go to market have been tested on animals. The only ones that can claim they do no testing on animals is those who use only ingredients in their endless reformulations that have already been tested on animals way back in the past. The good news is that in Europe cosmetic animal testing is banned, and has been for a while AFAIK. So cosmetics companies are forced to reformulate things and forced to use previously tested ingredients. The "loophole"* some of them use is to get their products licenced as medicines or medical treatments, then they have to do a whole batch of animal tests. But as you can imagine this is a) highly expensive, b) highly risky, medicines are vastly more tightly governed than cosmetics and c) involves actual time consuming, costly research. Not a lot of people want to go down that route.

Louis

* The only things that get through this and several other gaping wide loopholes that really, REALLY need shutting are, you guessed it, "herbal" and "homeopathic" and "alternaive" remedies. This is a legacy of very efective and powerful lobbying, not good science. These things have been demonstrated to work no better than placebos umpteen times in every properly controlled study done. Every study that pupports to show an effect above placebo for alternative medicines thus far has been found to be highly flawed. Guess what the most used excuse for this is: "Well, maybe alternative medicines aren't suited to double blind clinical trials". An excuse which displays their ignorance and dishonesty and wishful thinking in one short sentence. Delusional twats!

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,17:56   

Preach On, Louis! Preach on. Amen.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,17:58   

Quote (skeptic @ April 01 2008,23:56)
Preach On, Louis! Preach on. Amen.

Jesus Christ, this must be a record. A thread where the only thing Skep and Louis disagree on is whether the thread will be killed off by Louis or not.

Wow.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,19:27   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 01 2008,17:58)
Quote (skeptic @ April 01 2008,23:56)
Preach On, Louis! Preach on. Amen.

Jesus Christ, this must be a record. A thread where the only thing Skep and Louis disagree on is whether the thread will be killed off by Louis or not.

Wow.

Nah - Same old, same old.  

Louis is just luring him in by pretending to agree... then he'll go for the kill with the Limey Luger Of Death.  The ritual  drawing and quartering will follow, then the crowd will disperse to burn churches and spread "chemicals" throughout the calm Kentish coutryside.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,20:31   

Yes, this is an area that Louis and I are, for the most part, of like mind.

Oh, and that sound you just heard was Louis retching in the corner.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2008,01:38   

Quote (skeptic @ April 02 2008,02:31)
Yes, this is an area that Louis and I are, for the most part, of like mind.

Oh, and that sound you just heard was Louis retching in the corner.

Not so, not so. I have no problem agreeing with you or anyone about a topic on which our ideas are based on evidence. It's when one of us parts from that standard that I also demonstrate I have no problem disagreeing!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  56 replies since Mar. 28 2008,13:09 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]