The Oprah Effect

26 Apr, 2013 - 3:51 pm

Hi to all,

For those researching any advertising claims, studies, trials on products, including supplements, even the "best" of the literature is littered with bogus claims.

Half the battle in ascertaining fact around the latest supplements or treatments, is sifting not only through trial results, but the integrity of the journals who publish them, that of the manufacturers, finding out who funds the studies and where the bias lies.

Most of these companies spend far more $$$ on marketing the supplement, than clinically researching it. Marketing $$$ wins out over fact, more often than not.

I'm not saying I have got it right at all.
I'm sure in the thousands of links I have posted, that there are bogus clinical results...

Recently, when sourcing supplements for the Australian adaption of the Anti-inflammatory regimen, I linked people to Chemist Warehouse, specifically to Swisse products. I did it simply because they had a half-price sale, I am a broke pensioner and a CHer, trying to help fellow CHers locate what they need, at an affordable price. (If you are going to get untested supplements, at least you will only be half as ripped off, in a half-price sale.)

I encouraged regimen users to seek out their own brands, showing no particular brand preference.

I also did this knowing that Swisse had their own issues...
Remember the line "You'll feel better on Swisse"?
The TGA forced them to drop that line, the battle between the two camps remains unresolved. Yet the Swisse website as of today (26.4.13) does not display the tag-line anywhere... They have their own conflicts of interest to declare anyway...
Their chief of Swisse clinical studies is the Father of the Chief Executive and co-owner.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/swisse-secret-clinical-trial-
academic-is-chief-executives-father-avni-sali/story-e6freuy9-122630921
2330

In researching for evidence-based medicine, I ignore retail health sites, user driven (shills) input, sites offering medical evidence - complete with direct links to sales opportunities. Still, I sift a plethora of crap, just to find "the good stuff". Even then, clinical studies are not always as transparent as they should be. It's a big and ongoing problem for anyone seeking info on making a good cuppa, let alone researching the complexities of CH...

"Buzz words" like KUDZU or BOTOX attract attention.

Often, products get flogged and subsequently mentioned here before robust clinical trials have been done. Some of the "laymen" and "newbies" around here are quick to lob in and post their new supplement, often saying that it is "the answer" for all of us.

Often, whatever Oprah recommends, gets more market share than clinical scrutiny.

Check out "The Checkout".
This explains (in layman's terms) what we all must sift through, before posting anything here amounting to "evidence-based science" in medicine.

5 minutes of your time, will give you some insight into the reasons why you should be suspicious and apply scrutiny when seeking clinical trial results.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/thecheckout/episodes/ep06.htm

Cheers, Ben.This post was edited on 28/04/2013 at 6:26 am

1 person likes this

27 Apr, 2013 - 8:02 am

I think you'll find Ben, that most medicines get developed because of their commercial potential. CSIRO used to be independent guys, but not anymore.

I trawl endlessly when researching reported results, and realized how bogus they could be when I came across the oil smearing thing on alternative medicine sites- they were reporting it as fact. Their sites warn to do your own research, so hopefully people did.

There's shades of preying on the vulnerability of the patients too- most of us would do or try anything in the middle of a bout.

You're right about Oprah, Ben; if she supports something it generally takes off. But that's because she's perceived to be genuine.
It boils down to not believing everything you read, and do your own research bearing that in mind.
cheers peter.

0 people like this

27 Apr, 2013 - 10:19 am

Hi Peter,

Spot on Peter - "commercial potential".
Migraine is a huge problem in developed countries, with huge untapped commercial potential. In commercial terms it is measured not in sufferer's pain, but in days of lost productivity and in market potential. It's all about the $$$.
All of the Migraine literature is littered with references to "untapped revenues" and how manufacturers could get their share of the pie.
Some CH marketing papers refer to commercial targeting of the "deep niche" market that we represent.
This is not necessarily a bad thing for CHers, but I do remain cynical.
In a way, CHers and the companies seeking to profit share a similar goal.
Companies attract far more dollars in Migraine research than we can ever hope to get in CH research. (There are not enough Australian Headache sufferers to bother manufacture or marketing Cafergot anymore...and that research is done.)

There are far more (reported) Migraneurs' days lost in productivity to Migraines in a US week, than there is here by a nation of CHers in a year.

Imigran, our CH abortive mainstay was intended for use in Migraine.
Now look how many CHers use it.
If it's in the commercial interest for drug companies to seek answers or even profits from Migraine - then we too stand to benefit.
Although two very different conditions, treatment overlap means that drug companies seeking to profit from Migraine, may just end up with a CH solution on their hands.
That's how we got Sumatriptan for CH and Imigran injection - straight out of Migraine research $$$$. Whether or not any drug will reach it to market for CH remains unclear.
So many have failed in the last 5 years...
No matter how cynical we can all be about recognition for CH, profiting drug companies and CH sufferers, at times, do share a common interest....

(When the drug companies do find a Migraine "cure", they will probably have over-estimated patient drug uptake numbers. They will blow the lid off the world's oldest 'Sickie" excuse and will be shocked to realise how many hangovers and bogus "sickies" have been taken in the name of Migraine...the condition the employer "can't see"...)

However, we live in hope...

Cheers, Ben.This post was edited on 28/04/2013 at 6:29 am

0 people like this