Pseudo Science

Common people are usually obsessed with sciency-sounding claims and stories published in media by “Media scientists”. These media scientist who are incapable of reading and interpreting scientific evidence are considered major source of our information. Media actually promotes public misunderstanding of science and statistics. Pointless stories are propagated. For layman it is arduous to separate fluff from the substance.

Hypothesis comes first in science, experiments are conducted to validate this hypothesis, results are analyzed and conclusions are made. These conclusions can both be positive or negative. To validate authenticity in science it is crucial that results are reproducible.

Science is not a method but monolith, mystery or probably authority for those who have never done any experiment by their own hands or never thought about scientific idea. To learn very basics of science it is preeminent to dismantle pseudo-scientific claims. Media scientists and marketers have rudimentary knowledge of science, they rely on authority figures and take their words of mouth as a sermon from a Rabbi, Priest or Imam. They like to discuss notions like Magnetism, oxygenation, toxins, detoxification etc .

Sometimes journalist don’t understand the difference between hypothesis and evidence. Media work around authority figures, like scientists say or scientists claim . This in fact is very antithesis to science. In science it is evidence which is to be followed not the authority figures. The beauty of science is in its appraisal of evidence, regardless of its conclusions.

Scientific jugglerry

Detoxification: Quacks talk about toxins, junk food, sedentary lifestyles, stress. They claim for their techniques to detoxify, but are unable to name a single chemical, poison or toxin. Burgers and pizzas for that matter  all junk food is not good for health but saying that eating junk food leaves some sort of residues or toxins in our body which can be detoxified by specific detox systems is utter non sense. In medical science this concept of detoxification doesn't exist.

Creams: There are tall claims about expensive moisturizing creams but a tube of Vaseline or hydro base does the same job exceptionally well at fractionally low cost. There are basically three main components in creams.

1. Alpha hydoxy acids.

2. High levels of vitamin C.

3. Molecular variation of vitamin A which make skin youthful.

This is only effective in high concentration or high levels of acidity. Which causes burning, irritation, stinging and redness. These are prescription medicines and have grave side effects.

Some Anti aging creams claim to have a protein called “Hydrolysed X- Microprotein Nutri-complexes” . These are soggy long chain amino acids which are not absorbed through skin and when the cream dries out on the face it tightens and contracts,temporarily shrinking fine wrinkles. This is short lived solution and not a miracle cure for looking young and sparkling.

Our skin is meant to be largely impermeable and we don’t absorb many things through our skin. We don’t get fat by just sitting in baked beans bath. Cream containing cellular DNA complex is made from specially treated Salmon Roe DNA, it is highly unlikely for a large molecule like DNA to get absorbed from skin pores.

Many creams claim to oxygenate skin as these contain hydrogen peroxide, which according to manufacturer’s claim contain water and extra oxygen. Water evaporates and extra oxygen oxygenates the skin. This is exactly saying like getting your skin oxygenated by rusted iron bridge near you as it is a pile of iron with some extra oxygen.

Central Nervous system depressants: Oxazepam similar to Valium( Diazepam) is more effective in treating anxiety in green tablets and more effective for depression when yellow. A survey suggests that stimulants usually come in red, orange or yellow tablets while antidepressants and tranquilizers are generally blue green or purple. A study from 2002 shows that response to placebo has increased significantly in recent years for anti depressant drugs. Perhaps as our expectations of those drugs have increased.

Nutritionists love to quote basic laboratory science research. One should be cautious while extrapolating results from some cells in Petri dish and lab bench to complex human living system. For example washing liquid can kill cells in Petri dish while we can’t drink washing liquid to kill cancer cells. Using “Holistic” phrases and rhetoric is reductionist proposition.

Antioxidants: A theory about free radicals says that free radicals can damage lining of arteries , Damaged DNA can lead to ageing or cancer. Antioxidants are meant to “Mop up” the free radicals by reacting with them.

Not all free radicals are bad. Some free radicals are used to kill pathogenic bacteria in infections. Extra antioxidants added to supplements or diets are simply excreted from body or turned into something else.

(HRT) hormone replacement therapy: had been a good idea for many decades until followup studies revealed flip side of the picture. Same is the case with Calcium supplements in osteoporosis which increase heart attacks in older women, Science is not static but ever changing phenomenon.

Turmeric as anticancer agent: Some nutritionists say that Turmeric is highly protective against some forms of cancer. Few speculative studies from rat cells are done under turmeric extract. Growth of cancer cells is observed. While animal model data (In vivo) is very limited. Can eating curry with lots of turmeric be curative for different cancers especially prostate cancer without taking in account other confounding variables?

One example for cherry picking is Turmeric which contains curcumin (believed to have anticancer properties). We have to eat more than 100 g of turmeric to get few g of curcumin. Very small portion of that is absorbed to show some pharmacological effects. To have sufficient level of anticancer curcumin we need to eat even bigger portion of turmeric. "Between research and recipe there’s a lot more to think about".

Giving unusually high doses of chemicals to animals can distort the outcomes because it can damage the metabolic pathways, just because something can up or down regulate in a model doesn’t mean it will have the effect within more complex human system.

When people don't learn tools of judgement and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown. (Stephen jay Gould). Journalist sometimes cherry pick the evidence, massage or poison the statistics to prove their point. Scientific evidence should be reviewed on its merit and then conclusions be drawn. Conclusion can not be drawn from one or few studies. Meta analysis should be done where possible to give unbiased conclusion so that recommendation guidelines can be made.