Celebrity endorsements for everything from homeopathy to Power Balance wrist bands are a depressingly effective substitute for scientific evidence. So if you can’t beat them, why not join them?
The sad fact is, when it comes to science, you can have as much data to support your claim as you like, you can have it rigorously tested, repeated, peer-reviewed, published, referenced copiously and awarded a Nobel prize, you can do all this, but if a competing theory has any element of celebrity endorsement, that’s the one most people are going to hear about. Even if it’s scientifically ludicrous. Actually, especially if it’s scientifically ludicrous. Just look at Power Balance wrist bands.
Celebrities promoting dubious science and scientists getting annoyed about it are nothing new. I guess this is understandable to a certain extent when you consider the sort of lives celebrities must lead, which must distort your world view somewhat. This is probably doubly true for famous actors, as their job is basically pretending that fictional worlds are real. That’s got to rub off on you at some point.
But it’s a depressingly common tactic for those who benefit from promoting or selling things contradicted by science to cite the supportive famous person as a substitute for genuine evidence. The latest example of this is a gushing puff-piece in the Mirror about celebrities who use homeopathy.
For those not yet familiar with homeopathy, it’s essentially a form of alternative medicine that argues that if you are suffering from an illness, then you take a substance that is known to cause the same symptoms as the illness or malady (eg if you have insomnia, use caffeine), dilute this substance down to the point where there’s none of it left in the water, then shake that water or slap it with a leather book (depends on who you ask, it seems), then sprinkle drops of the shaken/slapped water onto sugar pills and sell it to the general public as medicine.
Thing is, I’m not even slightly exaggerating for comic effect, that’s how homeopathy supposedly works. This isn’t mentioned anywhere in the celebrity article mentioned above, which I think is very telling. It does claim that “more than 10 million people in the UK” swear by it though. That’s around 15% of the entire UK population. Can that be right? I’ve never met anyone who swears by it in my 30 years. I’ve known plenty who swear about it though, are they counting them as part of that number?
I’m not going to devote an article to criticising homeopathy, there are plenty of people who can do that better. There are plenty of people who argue in favour of homeopathy, for numerous reasons, but it seems to be running into a lot of adversity these days, and it would be easy to interpret this latest media outburst as an attempt to boost support.
This is almost as bad as celebrities, actors and movie directors pushing environmental issues. You know they’re getting paid for it.
Oh yes, celebrities shouldn’t waste their time endorsing holistic medicine when they can endorse real drugs, like Avandia and Vioxx. They would get paid so much more from companies like Glaxo and Pfizer, which are doing FINE. To see how FINE look below:
Drug companies fined for criminal violations of the law -concealing deadly side effects, bribery, false advertising, marketing lethal drugs to children.
Glaxo Smith-Kline fine = $3 billion
AstraZeneca fine = $520 million
Bristol-Myers Squibb fine = $515 million
Johnson & Johnson fine = $1.2 billion
Eli Lilly fine = $1.4 billion
Pfizer fine = $2.3 billion
So, Alan, are you a “practitioner” or purveyor of homeopathic “medicine”?
I am a practitioner with over 20 years experience. I felt this dialogue needed a little more balance. Most people base their view of homeopathy on a caricature view from soundbites. That is unfortunate because there is much more to it, and it can be life saving.
Recently the Swiss government releasesd a 300 page report on homeopathy basded on their exhaustive seven year study. It was the most in-depth review of homeopathy ever conducted by a government. The Swiss team evaluated all the research from double-blind and placebo controlled trials, actual clinical effectiveness, safety and finally, cost-effectiveness. The study authors concluded that homeopathy is effective, sometimes more so than conventional treatment, free of side effects and economical. They recommended that homeopathy be covered by Switzerland’s national health insurance program. (for Dana Ullman’s review of the Swiss study : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/homeopathic-medicine-_b_1258607.html )
I am fervently against deception in medicine whether it comes from conventional practitioners or alternative ones. It just happens that homeopathy is one of the truly effective modalities, which deserves support rather than ridicule.
You are definitely in the wrong place. I like to think the best of people until proven otherwise so I’ll assume you are simply horribly misguided. The alternative is that you are a liar and a fraud.
Alan, don’t bother lying. It’s beneath you. Well … considering that you defraud people and promise cures in yet provide magic potions that are useless, skip that last sentence.
Don’t bother. You will find no sympathy for your kind here.
@Alan Schmukler
Oh dear.
Relying on Dana Ullman’s flawed and downright wrong article on the Swiss HTA is not a very good idea at all, particularly if – as you claim – you’re against deception.
Perhaps you could answer a couple of simple questions about it?
1. What did the Swiss Government do as a result of the Swiss homeopathy HTA?
2. What is likely to happen to homeopathy in Switzerland in 2017?
Anything that can be monetized, will be monetized.
It ain’t celebrity if you can’t sell it.
Once you subtract the placebo effect and spontaneous recovery, not a lot of the “magic cures” left.
I think I’ll just go buy me a crystal or two. At least they’re pretty. B-list celebs? Not so much.
Rhetoric, considered one of the three Liberal Arts (along with logic and grammar), is essentially the art of making people believe something, regardless of its veracity, with enough fervor to act upon that belief. As such it is the core skill required of actors, politicians, salesmen, preachers, and liars.
It is NOT required of scientists.
An assessment of the work of climate scientists suggests that rhetorical skill may not be a requirement for some scientists but it is a highly popular accessory. Kind of like power seats.
The line between scientist and journalist blurs.