The Scam Scam (How The Supplement Industry Fights Back Against Science)

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-scam-scam/

"...

It has been fascinating to watch the evolution of supplement marketing claims and strategies. One new twist caught my eye – what I am calling the “scam scam.” Some companies realize that the internet is the primary battle ground for the marketing of their product. Many companies also probably know that their claims are largely scientifically baseless – if you’re in the meeting where the claims are crafted and the marketing strategy developed, it would be hard to be delusional about their scientific validity. I suspect most companies just don’t care about the science or understand it, and you can find some justification to cherry pick for most any supplement claim you wish with just a little Googleing.

It also appears that many companies are starting to realize that “those meddling skeptics” are starting to cramp their style, at least a little bit. If you search on the name of a supplement product, you are likely to get a link for a consumer protection or skeptical site revealing the claims to be a scam, or at least scientifically dubious. Invariably when I write about a specific product in a blog post a company marketing rep will show up in the comments to claim that I was unfair and that they do have evidence for their claims. Of course, when asked for the evidence it rapidly becomes clear that they don’t have any, outside a worthless in-house study or two.

...

So now some companies have hit upon a different strategy – if you cannot silence the skeptics, then bury them with fake skeptics of your own. That way at least their websites won’t appear on the first page of Google searches (at least that’s the hope). One product, Shakeology, seems to be marketed entirely as “Shakeology Scam” (trek2befit (dot) com/shakeology-scam). The website starts out saying – “Do Not buy Shakeology” with “Skakeology Scam” in big letters. Of course, when you read down even a little bit you find: "Ok, I couldn’t let this question linger any longer. I’ve got to tell you right now, that it’s not a scam. Why, and how do I know? Because I’ve had first hand experience with this product."

Then you get a standard sales pitch – but it’s more believable, because the person making the pitch started out as a skeptic – right? What do these magic shakes do? The claims are typical – lose weight without food cravings, have more energy, and they throw in that they will lower your cholesterol.

..."


--------------------------------------------------------------


If you ever wondered if these companies had anything but profit in mind as they sell their worthless products to gullible consumers, this should confirm that reality.

:crazy: :banghead: :shrug: :hi: :hurts: :wtf: :mad: :evilgrin:

[HuckleB]

1. What would justify giving this an unrec?

Seriously. Why would any DUer support this type of behavior by the supplement companies?

[laconicsax]

4. Religion is like that. n/t

[HuckleB]

5. Apparently.

Ethics seem lost for far too many of us.

[laconicsax]

6. It's selective and compartmentalized.

I'd say it's cognitive dissonance, but that only applies if there's stress or something similar that comes as a result of it.

Recall when the AT&T/NSA story came out. There was talk of boycotting AT&T, calls for criminal investigations, and continued anger about AT&T's eagerness to engage in domestic spying. A year later, the iPhone came out and the AT&T/NSA issue was ignored as people rushed to sign a 2-year service contract.

[FLAprogressive]

7. Remember: The supplement industry is seen as the "good cop" and "BIG PHARMA" is the "bad cop"....

Anyone who questions "David" (The Supplement Industry) in his fight against big bad "Goliath" ("BIG PHARMA") will be immediately criticized. After all, the "natural health" supplement industry are the "good guys". (The supplement industry plays this like a fiddle)

[laconicsax]

8. Hooray for the naturalistic fallacy!

Chemicals are bad! Especially ones like pyridoxal phosphate and phylloquinone. Yuck!

[FLAprogressive]

9. Exactly. "Big Supplements" plays a masterful con-game.

[HuckleB]

10. Indeed.

Though I think you're comparison is in regard to ethics, whereas this should be about evidence of actual benefit. Blah. Blah. Blah.

So far I've refrained from joining the "smarty phone" scene, because, well, I don't want one. I love it when my preferences make it easy to be ethical. Alas, that doesn't happen very often.

[Ian David]

2. You forgot the link...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-scam-scam/

[HuckleB]

3. Awww. Crap. Thanks. I'll add it to the OP.

[HuckleB]

11. Congressmen For Snake Oil: How The Supplement Industry Prevents The FDA From Protecting Consumers

http://getbetterhealth.com/congressmen-for-snake-oil-how-the-supplement-industry-is-preventing-the-fda-from-protecting-consumers/2011.07.05

[BuddhaGirl]

12. hmmm

the doctor who authored that is a anti-alternative medicine loon with his "opinions."

I wouldn't consider him credible.

[HuckleB]

13. In other words, evidence does not matter to you.

That's nothing new to anyone at DU.

If he's not credible, then prove it. Thus far, you've failed to prove anything but your willingness to ignore the actual evidence base when it comes to health care.

[BuddhaGirl]

15. he's an advisor to Quackwatch - no credibility

I don't ignore evidence base, I just understand that allopathic medicine doesn't have all the answers.

You like to put words in peoples' mouths and engage in projection. :eyes:

[HuckleB]

16. Ah, so you truly don't care about evidence.

Thank you for the clarification.

[BuddhaGirl]

18. nope, there's that projection again

thanks for clarifying :-)

[HuckleB]

19. How can one project what is already in evidence?

[MineralMan]

14. Thanks for letting us know. Really.

So, give us some evidence about why you don't consider him credible. I'd be especially interested in evidence that he's a "loon." I'll wait here...

From what I can see in a Google search, he's a highly-respected cancer surgeon, educator, medical school professor, and healthcare writer. Perhaps you have information that Google doesn't. If so, please enlighten us. Again, I'll wait...

[uppityperson]

17. Unlike naturalnews.com. they are alternative medicine loons, right? With no empirical evidence.

which of course you trust. Since they are so credible to write all sorts on non-proven "opinions".