Lot's Wife Edition 1 2017

The second parallel to the AMI saga is that the Australian
regulatory framework, screening processes and penalties for
misleading and deceptive health advertising are not stringent
enough to eradicate this kind of conduct. The many costs of this
reality end up falling upon consumers.
For example, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which
among other things currently regulates the registration and
advertising of complementary medicines, does not assess these
products for efficacy.
So, if I wanted to sell a sugar pill and market it for bone health, I
would first have to register the product in the Australian Register
of Therapeutic Goods. I must also state my claim that the sugar
pill ‘supports bone health’ in the Australian Register. In terms
of ‘evidence’ to support my claim, all I need do is declare that
I ‘hold’ the scientific evidence supporting those claims. Then I
can advertise my sugar pill for bone health on any garish yellow
billboard I choose. I might get into trouble because someone
will complain that my claim breaches the Therapeutic Goods
Advertising Code and is deceptive and misleading advertising, but
the complaint will likely take several months to be resolved. By this
I mean that with some luck on the complainant’s behalf, I might
merely have to remove my advertising, but I will still walk away
with a lovely net profit.
In summary, the current system here doesn’t focus on removing
the misleading adverts before they are published but ‘remedying’
the situation after the damage has been done to consumers’
wallets and perceptions. Despite reforms on the horizon for this
terrible system, there is still a long road ahead to ensure consumer
protection.
Healthy Skepticism And Evidence-Based Science: What You Can Do?
From the small vitamin collection in the kitchen pantry, to those
irregular physio visits, we are and will continue to be consumers of
many health-related goods and services. University students may
not be the target demographic of all Swisse commercials, but health
advertising can still subtly influence our perceptions of health and
what we end up buying on that chance visit to Chemist Warehouse.
It really comes down to consumers being educated and equipped
with the skills to protect themselves against the pitfalls of the
regulatory system and the greed of the industry. We deserve to
enter a Pharmacy and clearly see what is worth buying from the
labels, without a science degree or years of professional exposure
to evidence-based medicine. But until a consumer utopia arrives,
applying a bit of evidence-based knowledge to your encounters
with health advertising will leave you better off.
This might involve double checking the advice of a friend or shop
assistant who said a certain pill banished all her health problems
against the body of validated scientific research easily available
online. For example, a simple search in Pubmed, a free online
database of medically-related scientific studies, may reveal that
Vitamin C supplements are unlikely to shorten the length of your
cold.
For those from a non-science background, the studies on
this database generally compare a group of people on the same
intervention, whether it is a pill or a type of treatment, with
another group of people who are given a placebo pill. Theoretically,
this allows for the efficacy of the pill in question to be properly
examined. Although large trials with heavily controlled variables
are difficult to conduct, the results of these studies provide us with
a wealth of knowledge that is used to inform the practice of health
professionals. If it is used by our doctors and pharmacists, then it is
probably worth considering.
Admittedly, the average student wanting to get rid of their cold
faster is unlikely to spend their energy trawling through Pubmed. A
uni-friendly option is to search for the medicine on NPS Medwise
(http://www.nps.org.au/), a government-funded Australian website
providing evidence-based information about all medications from
grandma’s cholesterol-lowering meds to the Vitamin C you are
contemplating purchasing. It is the easiest way to get informed
by just reading the small summary of the evidence for that
medication. Otherwise it is just worth becoming very sceptical of
the following phrases on labels and in ads:
’Clinically/Scientifically Tested/Proven’:
Hmmm how intriguing. The implication here is that
the product has been the subject of a clinical trial,
however what you probably won’t find on the label is
that the trial was:
a) funded by the company themselves leaving
them to tamper or selectively alter results to appear
positive.
b) included bias that significantly altered the validity
of results. For example, if the participants knew
whether they were given the intervention or placebo.
c) conducted by another company that literally
guaranteed a positive trial result by rigging
everything.
d) not tested for the specific health issues it is
advertised as being able to treat.
A side note: this same kind of analysis applies to more
ambiguous such as ‘based on scientific evidence’ (courtesy
of Swisse.) This gives little indication of the quality of the
scientific evidence.
‘More Effective Than The Leading Treatment’:
An ambiguous statement that requires scepticism.
What was the leading treatment? Was it a fair trial
where both participant groups were given the same
dose in equivalent conditions? Hmmm?? Approach
with caution.
’Natural’:
Ummmm ok. What do you mean natural? Do you
mean plant-based? Or not synthetic? Are you implying
because it is ‘natural’ that it is less harsh on the body?
Or do you mean it hasn’t been refined and processed?
Natural unrefined arsenic can still kill you so the
fact that the product is ‘natural’ doesn’t really tell us
much. It is useful to remember that there is a definite
distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘harmless’, even when
it comes to vitamins.
‘Traditionally Used’:
The only validation needed to make this claim is....
oh wait, no validation needed! Picking an obscure
Peruvian root and selling it for back pain with the label
‘traditionally used’ (even though Peruvians have never
heard of it) occurs more than you would think. Yes,
there are traditionally used herbs that have actually
been traditionally used, so just make sure you google
the name of it to check before spending on some
useless placebo.
So next time you find yourself perusing the aisles at
Priceline, avoid taking the ads at face value and apply
your healthy scepticism and evidence-based know-how
instead: was that clinical trial actually transparent
and independently funded? Did 95% of users truly feel
they had more energy? And is that obscure Peruvian
root really ‘traditionally used?’ With a simple change
of thinking, you can avoid falling prey to the world of
health advertising.
article by sasha hall, artwork by julia thouas
science/engineering 30-31