Because you’re worth it

November 27th, 2003 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, cosmetics, homeopathy, ions, MMR, quantum physics | 8 Comments »

Because you’re worth it

Ben Goldacre
Thursday November 27, 2003
The Guardian

· Reader Helen Porter writes in to tell me about the Ion-Conditioning Hairdryer, which uses “Patented Trionic Action” to “micronize” water molecules and, impressively for a hairdryer, magically hydrate your hair. The Journal of Trionic Physics, for those of you who thought they made those long words up, was the name of a Jefferson Airplane fanzine. But I digress: the manufacturer, Bioionic, is also the inventor of Ionic Hair Retexturising (IHR). And it’s not just a new way to straighten your hair, it’s a whole new branch of physics.

· Colour Nation, hairdressers to the stars in Soho, London, offers Bioionic’s IHR. Its public relations material explains how it works: “Positive ions have lost an electron, and are considered unhealthy,” whereas negative ions “have gained an electron, and greatly assist in a body’s mood, energy level, and overall health”. When these benevolent negative ions encounter water, “the water molecules are broken down to a fraction of their previous size . . . diminutive enough to penetrate through the cuticle, and eventually into the core of each hair”.

· I might be wrong, but surely shrinking water molecules must cost more than the £230 Colour Nation charges for IHR? The only other groups who have managed to create that kind of superdense quark-gluon plasma used a relativistic heavy ion collider, and if Colour Nation has got one of those at the back of the salon then I’m glad I don’t live in the flat upstairs. Although a Mirror reporter who had the compressed molecule treatment did say her hair “itched and smelled of chemicals” afterwards. Maybe there is something more potent than negative ions in there after all.

· Meanwhile a tip from a friend who, may I just point out, doused for the sex of her baby. She was delighted, at her antenatal yoga class, after being told how immunisations would kill her baby, to be handed Homeopathy News. The pamphlet mentions a study from the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital in which 80% of 25 children reported an improvement in their asthma after homeopathy. Which sounds impressive. But there was no placebo control group, and it doesn’t seem to have actually been published anywhere (or not anywhere peer reviewed). Which doesn’t mean it’s not true. Just remember that in a recent review of all the evidence on homeopathy – I’ll say it again – it was shown, overall, to be no more effective than a placebo …

How to increase your staying power

November 20th, 2003 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, dna, penises, religion, times, very basic science | 8 Comments »

How to increase your staying power

Ben Goldacre
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

Talk bad science

· I’d always assumed that bad science in contraception was limited to delirious ramblings from the Catholic church about the HIV virus being small enough to fit through the gaps between the latex molecules. But perhaps not. As I lay in bed with Mrs Bad Science on a lazy Sunday morning, and our minds turned to thoughts of Barry White, and trains going into tunnels, and absolutely not having any babies at all, we reached hungrily for the reassuring certainty of barrier contraception. “I’ve got something very special for you,” she smiled.

· My treat, it emerged, was an optimistically large packet of Durex Performa: a new kind of condom with a special cream in the teat “to help control climax and prolong sexual excitement for longer lasting lovemaking”. Maybe you’ve seen the adverts. They feature, rather cleverly, a picture of “a very long screw”. And the magic ingredient? Five per cent benzocaine gel, a local anaesthetic related to cocaine: to make your willy go numb. In the spirit of the noblest of Victorian gentleman self-experimenters, I turned it inside out, licked the surface, and immediately lost all sensation in my tongue. It’s either very bad science or very good science – I can’t be sure – but either way, putting local anaesthetic in condoms is just adding insult to injury.

· While I was busy sulking, one of my spies, Tim Eyes, a molecular biologist, was reading about the “secrets of the body” in the Funday Times, the children’s section of the Sunday Times. Hold your breath. “Despite the fact that all humans have similar genes, we are not all the same,” the section revealed. “This is because of slight genetic differences in everyone’s genetic make-up. DNA is made up of four chemical bases – adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine – and each gene is made up of three of these.” Only three, huh? That’s enough to code for, like, one whole amino acid. We’d look a bit like those bodybuilders’ protein drinks, only without the tin. But there’s more. “This means that there are 64 different possible combinations, and when you multiply this by the number of cells in the body, it shows the chances of having the exact same makeup is virtually zero.” Only 64 different genes. And different ones in every cell, too. A planet of biologists stands corrected.

DNA magic

November 13th, 2003 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, cosmetics, dna, very basic science | 5 Comments »

DNA magic

Ben Goldacre
Thursday November 13, 2003
The Guardian

Talk bad science

· I was delighted to read in the journal Science that researchers from Stanford University in California have successfully created a form of “super DNA” that is larger than normal DNA and easier to study. Unfortunately for them, this isn’t the first time that DNA with amazing properties has been documented.

· Geneticist Dr Ed Hollox of Nottingham University draws my attention to the cosmetics company Valmont, who will sell you a concoction called Cellular DNA Complex, made from “specially treated salmon roe DNA”, at the bargain price of £236 for seven phials. According to the Sunday Times’ style supplement, it “enhances the cosmetic properties (moisturising, regenerating and protecting) of DNA”. “Sadly,” their correspondent continues, “smearing salmon on your face doesn’t have the same effect.” I guess we have to take their word for that, although Dr Hollox, who knows a bit about DNA, doubts whether the specially treated salmon roe DNA stuff would have much effect, either.

· And there was more unusual DNA in Die Another Day, when James Bond came up against a Korean baddy who turned himself into an English gentleman criminal using DNA. As his evil doctor explained: “First we kill off your bone marrow, wipe the DNA slate clean.” Not that we need to worry about the DNA in every other cell in your body. But what happens in phase two? “The introduction of new DNA harvested from healthy donors, orphans, runaways, people that won’t be missed.” Surely a Hollywood scriptwriter should know that one mouth swab from one child would give the doctor all the DNA he could possibly need to carry out his evil plans?

· But the real action is with Kryon, a “supreme being” spiritually and lucratively “channelled” into book form by a human being called Lee Carroll. Kyron informs us that DNA actually contains 12 strands – not two – thanks to which “every single human being has the potential for all knowledge”. Just to keep you worrying, he’s sold more than half a million books, and apparently all this wisdom “resides in the crystalline 12-segmented structure that wraps itself around the encoding [DNA]”, which, er, you can’t actually see. If you’re interested, a woman called Marlana at www.marlana.org will activate your 10 extra strands of DNA remotely, over email, for just $39.

Polystyrene and calm kids

November 6th, 2003 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, mail, nutritionists, PhDs, doctors, and qualifications, very basic science | 2 Comments »

Polystyrene and calm kids

Ben Goldacre
Thursday November 6, 2003
The Guardian

Talk bad science

· It’s been a great week for Bad Science. I was delighted to see designer Paul Cocksedge explaining in Elle magazine how he had made a lampshade out of polystyrene cups. “When I heat them, they bond together, all the air disappears from them, and they shrink to a quarter of their size, becoming hard like porcelain. I call the design ‘Styrene’, because all the ‘poly’ part, the air, has disappeared,” he confides.

· But the prize goes to nutritionist Jane Clarke of the Mail on Sunday. This week she was cooking up her “Recipe for Calm Kids”. After a diatribe against Ritalin (“more potent than cocaine”) she went on to claim that, in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), there is “research showing that dietary adjustments are equally effective alternatives without the side effects”, before recommending some expensive supplements.

· This is not true. It is also unkind. Nobody likes the idea of giving tablets to children, and there may be promising speculative research on omega-3 fatty acids and mental health, but if the data’s not there, the data’s not there …

· In fact, there seems to be precisely one study comparing Ritalin and dietary supplements, and it’s a study in how not to do research. It involved just 20 kids. The parents got to chose whether they wanted Ritalin or dietary supplements so, farcically, it wasn’t randomised; there was no placebo group, and both groups got better, though both got educated about dealing with ADHD so both would have got better anyway, and there was no attempt to compare outcomes between the groups, despite that being the whole point of the paper. It was published in the journal Alternative Medicine Review, and you may want to check out one of the authors.

· Let’s see what the New York state department of health’s office of professional medical conduct has to say about Dr Charles Gant MD, last author on the paper. Luckily, they have a searchable database of registered physicians. Oh look, he was caught ordering tests from an unlicensed laboratory that showed nutrient deficiencies in his patients, which he then claimed were causing their illnesses, which he would then treat with prescriptions of expensive dietary supplements. That is, expensive dietary supplements from his own company. Gant was suspended for six months for fraud. You can read the full judgment at tinyurl.