Products You Shouldnt Buy

[In My Memory]

Sometimes it is very difficult to spot the pseudoscience in household products, but there are a lot of them. Sometimes these products can cause physical injury to you or the people around you, but almost always they will injure your wallet.

 

I'll use this thread to post pseudoscientific products, feel free to add your own products as well (I also recommend including a link to said item, a picture, and information regarding why the product is pseudoscience).

 

 

That being said, here is the first product I can find:

 

 

Ionic Breeze by Sharper Image, a silent air purifier. It claims to remove allergens and make the air inside your home fresh and clean.

 

Consumer Research is unimpressed by the Ionic Breeze:

Ionic Breeze (*est. $350 to $500, depending on model) made by The Sharper Image. This electrostatic precipitator (meaning it electrically charges airborne particles) has a strong marketing campaign and now makes up 25% of the market share for air purifiers, according to Consumer Reports.

 

The Ionic Breeze is given a "poor" rating by Consumer Reports, who claims that the Ionic Breeze removed very few particles from the air in their tests. The Sharper Image complained about the testing method used by Consumer Reports, so the organization tested the Ionic Breeze a second time, after the testing method was reviewed and validated by an independent expert, and got the same result. The magazine also had two other independent experts examine the research studies provided by Sharper Image "proving" the Ionic Breeze was effective, and those experts found those documents to be unimpressive with flawed methodology or simply irrelevant as to whether the Ionic Breeze was an effective air cleaner.

 

...

 

At Air Purifiers America, editors also give the Ionic Breeze a rating of "poor," adding that the Breeze is "Not effective in cleaning and removing particles from the air." Editors add that the "electrostatic plates create harmful Ozone." Models like the Ionic Breeze produce Ozone as a byproduct. In sufficient quantities, and for certain individuals, Ozone can be toxic. Although most experts say that the Ozone produced by electrostatic air cleaners is safe for those in normal good health, both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and American Lung Association (ALA) advise against using these devices since there are many Ozone-free HEPA models on the market. Ozone production is part of the basis for two pending lawsuits against The Sharper Image, both of which are seeking class-action status. In one suit filed in April 2004, Alicia M. Bryant, a Florida mother of children with respiratory problems, claims that the Breeze does not perform as advertised and exceeds Federal Ozone-level regulations.

 

...

 

Electrostatic ionizers (which are a type of electronic precipitator) don't alleviate allergy symptoms, and they make a mess in your home by producing charged particles that cling to everything in sight. Far worse, experts say Ozone generators are dangerous to human health. Ozone is a toxic gas that damages lung tissue and can pose problems for those with allergies, asthma or other respiratory problems. The EPA states that Ozone in non-toxic ranges has no air cleaning ability, and that Ozone produced as a byproduct of electrostatic devices can exceed safety levels mandated by the FDA depending on room size, closed doors and high fan speeds. Experts agree: Ionizers and Ozone generators are bad. Also watch out for manufacturers who disguise Ozone by other titles, such as "pure air," "energized oxygen," "saturated oxygen," or "trivalent oxygen." See the EPA's document: "Ozone Generators that are Sold as Air Cleaners: An Assessment of Effectiveness and Health Consequences."

So, the Ionic Breeze does not clean air, and much worse it produces illegally high levels of ozone. The Ionic Breeze gets an "A" for being one of the quietest air cleaners on the market, but an "F" for the "works as advertised" department.

 

I suppose at a bargain of about US$200 to US$500, you really get what you paid for.

[Flareon]

I had strongly considered purchasing one a few years ago when my allergies were at their worst. I'm glad I didn't.

 

Another bogus product is the electronic frequency-emitting mosquito repellent. Here is an example of an advertisement for such a product.

 

Research indicates that, "Hand-held electronic devices that rely on high-frequency sound to repel mosquitoes have become surprisingly popular in recent years. Prices range from $9.95 to $29.95 for units advertised in magazines. Heavy-duty repellers that claim to keep away spiders, hornets, and rats, in addition to mosquitoes may sell for more than $100.00. The manufacturer's rationale for using sound as a repelling factor varies from one device to next. Some claim to mimic the wing beat frequency of a male mosquito. This, supposedly, repels females who have already mated and do not wish to be mated a second time. Others claim to mimic the sound of a hungry dragonfly, causing mosquitoes to flee the area to avoid becoming the predator's next meal. Most of the electronic repellers on the market hum on a single frequency. Top of the line devices allow for adjustment by the user to achieve the most effective frequency for the mosquito causing the problem. Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that electronic mosquito repellers do not prevent host seeking mosquitoes from biting. In most cases, the claims made by distributors border on fraud. Mated female mosquitoes do not flee from amorous males, and mosquitoes do not vacate an area hunted by dragonflies. Electronic mosquito repellers do little in the way of reducing mosquito annoyance." --http://www.ipmofalaska.com/files/mosquitoes.html

[Edisonian]

I almost purchased one of these a few days ago, I am glag that I decided against it. Thanks for the info.

[swansont]

Magnetic bracelets, homeopathic remedies.

[atinymonkey]

Magnetic bracelets, homeopathic remedies.

To be fair, neither of those are in any way harmful.

[swansont]

To be fair, neither of those are in any way harmful.

 

I didn't think that was a rerequisite, but what if the use of such items delays or precludes legitimate medical treatment? People are led to believe that e.g. magnetic therapies can cure cancer. Delaying real treatment can cause considerable harm.

[Sayonara]

There's an actually useful thread in the pseudoscience forum!

 

Good lord.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

homeopathic remedies.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Cap%27n_Refsmmat/ScienceNews#Homeopathy_might_actually_work--April_8th.2C_2005

Just pointing it out.

 

How about a Roomba? Those things aren't very good. They clean, but they can't do as good a job as any vacuum, and they're super-expensive.

[swansont]

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Cap%27n_Refsmmat/ScienceNews#Homeopathy_might_actually_work--April_8th.2C_2005

Just pointing it out.

 

I can't find any details of the experiment, like sample size, or any other protocols. But the hints are that there was no placebo-like part of the trial, to eliminate whether the procedure itself had something to do with the results.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I can't find any details of the experiment, like sample size, or any other protocols. But the hints are that there was no placebo-like part of the trial, to eliminate whether the procedure itself had something to do with the results.

Sorry. The article I read (I wrote that link myself) had no real details. Off to Google I go.

 

Of course, there are plenty of other comparisons of homeopathy vs. placebo, and those come up against homeopathy.

[Hellbender]

Good job, Memory, James Randi would be proud. I will see if I can scrounge up some articles about homeopathic remedies, red strings and other pseudoscientific trash.

[Dak]

I can't find any details of the experiment, like sample size, or any other protocols. But the hints are that there was no placebo-like part of the trial, to eliminate whether the procedure itself had something to do with the results.

 

Benveniste's paper is oftern sited as evidence for homeopathy, although more resent studies(like this one) failed to reproduce the effects observed by Benveniste.

 

a 1997 investigation by Lind et al seems to sujjest that the effectiveness of homeopatic remedies can neither be discounted or accepted with the current level of evidence.

 

in 2001, V.Brown and M.Eddis published a paper that was suposed to disprove homeopathy, but accidentally supported it. the experiment was published in the journal of immflamation resurch, who follow the evil practice of making people pay to read their research, but here are sum details of the experiment

 

source: new scientist19-03-05

 

Belfast homeopathy results

 

MADELEINE Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum.

 

In her most recent paper, Ennis describes how her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These "basophils" release histamine when the cells are under attack. Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions - so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule - worked just like histamine. Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths' claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out.

 

So how could it happen? Homeopaths prepare their remedies by dissolving things like charcoal, deadly nightshade or spider venom in ethanol, and then diluting this "mother tincture" in water again and again. No matter what the level of dilution, homeopaths claim, the original remedy leaves some kind of imprint on the water molecules. Thus, however dilute the solution becomes, it is still imbued with the properties of the remedy.

 

You can understand why Ennis remains sceptical. And it remains true that no homeopathic remedy has ever been shown to work in a large randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. But the Belfast study (Inflammation Research, vol 53, p 181) suggests that something is going on. "We are," Ennis says in her paper, "unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon." If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry.

 

the exeriment was repeated in 2002 for the bbc horizons program, and the findings were not the same (transcript of program here but many have critisised the programs experiment as having too small a sample size.

 

also, a paper published in 2003 by L.Rey seems to provide evidence that homeopathic dilutions could have different properties to, for example, water.

 

odd, neh? i think its one of those issues where scientific prosess gets thrown out of the window and most people chose to either believe in homeopathy, and find evidence that supports their stance, or chose to not believe in it, and again hunt down evidence to support their claim, which begs the question:

 

what is the official, un-biased scientific answre to the question "does homeopathy have any merit"?

[swansont]

in 2001, V.Brown and M.Eddis published a paper that was suposed to disprove homeopathy, but accidentally supported it. the experiment was published in the journal of immflamation resurch, who follow the evil practice of making people pay to read their research, but here are sum details of the experiment

 

This is the experiment referred to earlier and the one on which I commented. There were only two samples - antihistamine, and homeopathic. There was no control of a non-homeopathically prepared sample that did not contain the antihistamine. What if merely dousing the cells in water caused the effect?

 

 

what is the official, un-biased scientific answre to the question "does homeopathy have any merit"?

 

Since there are no molecules of the original chemical present in the diluted solution, there is no scientifically accepted mechanism. The homeopathic explanation seems to be that water has memory, but then just about everything has been dissolved in the ocean at some point, so it would seem that water has a selective memory, at best.

[coquina]

Chromium picolinate is a component of several weight loss products including "Metabolife"

 

http://pharma-help.com/metabolife-356

 

Aside from not working, studies show it is mutagenic and carcinogenic.

 

 

 

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/Com/chromium.htm

 

Chromium picolinate and other chromium compounds

 

6. Chromium picolinate contains trivalent chromium bonded to three molecules of picolinic acid. The formation of additional chromium co-ordination complexes with each molecule of picolinic acid through the lone pair of electrons present on the nitrogen aids the stability of the molecule. Picolinic acid is an isomer of niacin (vitamin B3) and a minor metabolite of tryptophan metabolism. Unlike other trivalent chromium compounds, chromium picolinate is soluble in water at neutral pH.

 

Absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion

 

7. The data on the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) of chromium picolinate are limited. The available data from human volunteer studies and from experimental studies in rats suggest that the gastrointestinal absorption of chromium picolinate is significantly greater than of other forms of trivalent chromium and is comparable to that of hexavalent chromium.

 

8. In a recent in-vivo ADME study, rats were given a daily intravenous dose of radiolabelled chromium picolinate (51chromium or 3H- picolinate) for 14 days.1 Retention of chromium was substantial, with daily urinary and faecal excretion of approximately 10% of the 51Cr at the beginning of the experiment, increasing to approximately 20% by the end. The majority of the radiolabel was found in the urine and when subject to column chromatography co-eluted with chromodulin. 3H-labelled material was largely excreted via the urine. At the end of the treatment period, both 51Cr and 3H labels were widely distributed in the tissues but were predominantly present in the liver, where the sub-cellular pattern of distribution differed to that in other tissues. Thus the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of chromium picolinate is complex and includes some degree of dissociation.

 

 

Oxidative damage

 

9. Hexavalent chromium is readily reduced to trivalent chromium both in vitro and in vivo, resulting in oxidative and cytotoxic damage to cells. The evidence for oxidative damage in vivo, after treatment with chromium picolinate includes increased urinary excretion of 8-hydroxy-2' deoxyguanosine and increased lipid peroxidation in liver and kidney cells of rats.2 Evidence of in vitro oxidative damage includes damage to mitochondria from CHO cells and lipid peroxidation in cultured macrophage J774A.1 cells.3,4 However the only other in-vivo study available does not report any oxidative damage associated with chromium picolinate or with other forms of trivalent chromium.5 Overall, it can be concluded that chromium picolinate induces oxidative damage in vivo to a lesser extent than hexavalent chromium compounds. However, in-vivo oxidative damage associated with chromium picolinate treatment has been reported by only one research group, where the test material was synthesised in the laboratory.

 

Interactions with DNA

 

10. Trivalent chromium compounds are able to bind DNA and RNA in cell free systems. While some studies with chromium picolinate suggest little direct interaction with DNA,2 Speetjens and colleagues,6 have shown a dose-dependent relaxation of supercoiled plasmid DNA to the circular nicked form by trivalent chromium picolinate in the presence of ascorbic acid and air. The authors noted that chromium picolinate was stable and thus could be incorporated into cells intact. They further speculated that ascorbate could reduce trivalent chromium to divalent chromium, which could then enter Fenton or Haber-Weiss reaction cycles to produce hydroxyl radicals leading to oxidative damage. Members considered that more direct evidence was required to confirm this suggestion.

 

11. Chromium picolinate induces DNA fragmentation in cultured J774A.1 murine macrophages.7

 

[Dak]

just about everything has been dissolved in the ocean at some point, so it would seem that water has a selective memory, at best.

 

good point. still, there are a few good papers that seem to support homeopathy. not actually supporting it myself, merely conseding that, whilst scant, there are a few pieces of evidence that suggests it may have a partial grounding in fact.

 

This is the experiment referred to earlier and the one on which I commented. There were only two samples - antihistamine, and homeopathic. There was no control of a non-homeopathically prepared sample that did not contain the antihistamine. What if merely dousing the cells in water caused the effect?

 

hmm... i skimmed over this, didnt notice the lack of a control.

 

when the continuity of the skin is broken, the innate immune system responds in a number of ways, for example swelling up the site to close the wound, and attracting macrophages and nutrophils to the site to kill any invading bacteria. the secretion of histamine by the cells of the immune system is an integral part of the regulation of this responce. so, its entirely likely that yes, injecting just water would have the same effect as injecting histamines.

[Dak]

product that you shouldnt buy: any electrolosis foot spars, like the aqua-detoxifyer (eg)

 

observable effects: upon placing feet in water and turning power on, the water becomes murky and discoloured.

 

pseudoscientifical explanation: the electric current re-enervates the bodys natural eletromagnetic field, and also draws toxins out via the feet and into the water, offering a complete-body detoxification and bioeletromagnetic reequillibration (or something) all for just $200 per shot

 

scientifical explination the eletric current drives the rapid oxidation of the metal eletrodes, leading to the murkification of the water by the addition of ferrouse oxide (rust) created from the eletrodes. due to the fact that the conductivity of water is greater than the conductivity of feet, it is unlightly that any current actually passes throught the feet, and instead flows around them.

[In My Memory]

product that you shouldnt buy: any electrolosis foot spars' date=' like the aqua-detoxifyer (eg)

 

observable effects: upon placing feet in water and turning power on, the water becomes murky and discoloured.

 

pseudoscientifical explanation: the electric current re-enervates the bodys natural eletromagnetic field, and also draws toxins out via the feet and into the water, offering a complete-body detoxification and bioeletromagnetic reequillibration (or something) all for just $200 per shot

 

scientifical explination the eletric current drives the rapid oxidation of the metal eletrodes, leading to the murkification of the water by the addition of ferrouse oxide (rust) created from the eletrodes. due to the fact that the conductivity of water is greater than the conductivity of feet, it is unlightly that any current actually passes throught the feet, and instead flows around them.

Validation: Turn "detoxifier" on without putting you feet in, watch water become murky.

 

Ad hoc explanation: Clearly, the machine works so well that it pulls toxins from the nearest person through the air and into the machine. Simply being around one of these things is enough to make you healthy! The One True™ scientific explanation is: [insert 10,000 word long technobabble littered with words "quantum", and if possible "vibrations" and "supervenience" to make ad hoc explanation sound believable. Paragraph breaks should be eliminated to add legitimacy to explanation whilst maximizing frustration for potential debunkers.]

 

[Dak]

Validation: Turn "detoxifier" on without putting you feet in' date=' watch water become murky.

 

 

[u']Ad hoc explanation[/u]: Clearly, the machine works so well that it pulls toxins from the nearest person through the air and into the machine. Simply being around one of these things is enough to make you healthy! The One True™ scientific explanation is: [insert 10,000 word long technobabble littered with words "quantum", and if possible "vibrations" and "supervenience" to make ad hoc explanation sound believable. Paragraph breaks should be eliminated to add legitimacy to explanation whilst maximizing frustration for potential debunkers.]

 

stop giving them ideas. if, at some point in the near future, we see a 'remote bioelectric detoxifyer' that 'emits a bio-positive eletromagnetic frequency which draws the toxins out of your body across the quantumn ether and stores them in a fung-shwei alighned isotonic solution of dihydric-oxided for safe disposal (please note; eletrodes may require frequent replacing due to the inherant stresses of interfasing with the ether through which the toxins are transported to the holding-chamber) all for just -- thats right just, i said just, that means that the next number i say must be small otherwize i wouldnt have used the word 'just', and if the number does seem large then its obviously a build-up of toxins affecting the number-recognising region of your cortical medulla (see our product "cortical-medulla realighnment hats") -- for just $4,999 (thats right, significantly less than $5,000)(plus $15.99 p&p)(replacement quantum-ether interface eletrodes cost $40 each, buying regular eletrodes may cause a quantum gravitational-ether inversion that will give your cat dioraehhah and invalidate your warrenty)' then i'll know your to blame!

[JohnB]

quantum gravitational-ether inversion

I stand in awe.

[tskaze]

hmm dak you should start selling some of these, could make quite a profit. I suppose itd be just targeting people stupid enough to buy it though.

 

Edit: about the ionic breeze, in the houses i've been in that owned it, the house smelled better. This is because people who clean they're house excessively would be likely to buy another product in the field, correct?

[Aardvark]

The One True™ scientific explanation is: [insert 10' date=000 word long technobabble littered with words "quantum", and if possible "vibrations" and "supervenience" to make ad hoc explanation sound believable. Paragraph breaks should be eliminated to add legitimacy to explanation whilst maximizing frustration for potential debunkers.]

 

Have you been reading Metatrons posts?

 

Maybe he should go in for marketing.

[Dak]

hmm dak you should start selling some of these, could make quite a profit. I suppose itd be just targeting people stupid enough to buy it though.

 

you mean like this:

 

NEWSFLASH!: the govournment today revealed plans for a new 'stupidity tax'. under the new scheme, aimed at encoraging school attendance, the IQ of the individual is measured and they are charged based on how far below average IQ they are, resulting in taxation measured in the hundereds of dollars for people with even slightly-below average IQ. but not to worry! we at [math]aeroencephela-inc.^{tm}[/math] have a limited number of stupidity tax exemption certificates, retailing at just $50. order now, stocks are limited.

 

that should reveal my target market

[In My Memory]

No surprise to find yet many more weight-loss scams:

 

From Consumer Health Digest - National Council Against Health Fraud:

FDA warns 16 companies to stop false weight-loss claims. The FDA has ordered 16 companies to stop making false and misleading claims for weight-loss products promoted online. Many of these products are falsely claimed to block starch, carbohydrates and fat calories while allowing consumers to lose weight without any lifestyle changes. The products included:

 

* Block It™

* Carb Intercept

* Carb Zapper

* Chito Block 2000 Plus C

* Chitosan 500mg

* Dream Shape

* Dreamshape

* Extreme Carb Blocker

* F Block Chitosan

* InShape, Lean Image Carb Blocker

* Liposin

* Metabo Fat Blocker

* Metabo FatBlocker™

* Starch Blocker 1000

* Super Chitosan

* Super Starch Blocker 1000

* TrimSpa Carb Blocker

* TrimSpa Fat Blocker

* Ultra Block 2000 plus C

* Ultra Carb Blocker

* Ultra Carbo Blocker 2000

* Ultra Carbo Blocker 3000

* Ultra Carbohydrate Blocker 2000

* Zone Fat Blocker.

 

[Formatted for clarity]

 

One of these products in particular, the TrimSpa, is one that really sets off my skeptical alarms. Those particular commercials use the slogan "Be envied", and make what I would consider vulgar use of sex appeal to sell their product.

 

The FDA warns to watch for false claims:

Many of these products claim to block starch, carbohydrates and fat calories, while allowing consumers to lose weight without any changes in lifestyle. For example, some of the product labels have claimed:

 

* "Eat All You Want! Block the Starch and Lose Weight!";

* "Neutralize up to 66 percent of the starch consumed in a meal";

* "This advanced dietary-fat inhibitor helps block the absorption of fat calories";

* "Take 3 capsules before bedtime. Watch the fat disappear!"; and

* "Guaranteed to block the breakdown of carbohydrates and simple sugars from being converted into fat."

 

"These products give unfounded hope to people who are attempting to lose weight. False and misleading claims have significant health consequences to individuals that may be overweight because these products do not produce the desired results," said Acting FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford, D.V.M., Ph.D. "FDA will continue to enforce the law and pursue products that lure consumers with unsubstantiated weight loss claims."

 

Although dietary supplement labeling may include claims about the supplement's effect on the structure or function of the human body, the law requires that "structure/function" claims must have substantiation and be truthful and not misleading. After reviewing the claims of the various products, FDA concluded that claims being made regarding these products are not supported by reliable scientific evidence.

[Mokele]

Dammit, I still need to market my new diet pill. Only mine really does work, and any scientist will agree that, yes, it will make you lose weight.

 

On a completely random aside, does anyone know where I can get a supply of tapeworm eggs and some empty medicine capsules? No connection at all....

 

::whistles innocently::

 

I mean, they do *work*, right? So why would anyone complain?

 

Mokele

[Dak]

hey mokele, wanna go into buisness together, as i also have developed a weight loss pill.

 

it has one active ingredient, HCN, which is absolutely 100% garanteed to significantly lower your body-weight, or your money back!