Thoraiya DyerNot All Statistics Are Born Equal: Pantene vs Juice Plus
May 2nd 2008 00:14
It’s possible I’ve found a kindred spirit in Dr Isadore Rosenfeld, MD.
In an online article posted at juiceplusreviewed.com , the good doctor goes on an entirely satisfactory rant about sorting out good medical advice from bad in the mass media.
I couldn’t agree more with this:
“Readers and viewers worry that some doctors are promoting rather than just informing. They also wonder whether the increasing commercialization of scientific research is interfering with fair and accurate dissemination of medical news: are the benefits of a particular breakthrough being overstated and its potential harm downplayed?”
Frustration with that very issue is the whole reason I started blogging. Dr Rosenfeld goes on.
“The truth is that shares in biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies rise and fall in response to positive and negative media stories. Some researchers may try to attract pharmaceutical investors by promoting stories about their products before they publish their work in scientific journals.
Enthusiastic reporting of medical research findings, however preliminary, can be big business for everyone concerned - the manufacturer, the TV station, and sometimes the reporter.”
“There's more medical "information" available than ever before - in periodicals; magazines; news reports; radio broadcasts; television shows; and, of course, the Internet. The problem, however, is that although some of this information is reliable, much of it is either questionable or inaccurate. Some of it is driven by hype and self-interest; much of the rest by ignorance and superstition.”
Knock me down with a feather if that doesn’t apply to half the articles I’ve posted here – the Snail Slime, the Wrinkle Creams, the Oxygen Products, Probiotic Yoghurt and Sudoku.
But how does Rosenfeld recommend that we sort out the mess?
Exactly the same way that I’ve been going about it here, I’m happy to say.
“If some medical "breakthrough" is especially important or relevant to you personally, try to Google the original paper to see whether its conclusions are preliminary or conclusive; whether there is any dissenting opinion about it from other qualified investigators in that particular field; whether the research was conducted on animals and is being extrapolated to humans; and whether the conclusions reflect an experimental research project.
Look for the risks of potential negative impact of whatever is recommended and whether there is proper disclosure of conflict of interests by the authors. Were the findings based on samples that are sufficiently large and representative, and do the results differ markedly from current concepts? If you know all this, you can discern whether this "advance" is hype or fact.”
Just for fun, let’s apply these stringent requirements to some “research” done by Pantene on their Deep Fortifying Collection ( Really Long Link ).
“body soul conducted an independent blind trial amongst 199 of its readers to find out what they thought about Pantene’s new Deep Fortifying collection. Each reader was given an unbranded shampoo, conditioner and treatment and used them over four weeks.”
“The results?
88% of body soul readers reported that using Pantene Treatment over a four week period had given them healthy looking hair.
88% of body soul readers noticed an improvement in the look and feel of their hair after using Pantene Treatment over a four week period.
87% of body soul readers would trust Pantene Treatment for their hair.
80% of body soul readers agreed that Pantene Treatment reduced hair fall due to breakage.”
Right. Obviously a very serious scientific investigation. Let’s pull it apart.
1. Try to Google the original paper
Sorry, no can do. Why not? Because there IS no scientific paper. It’s a reader survey in a magazine called “Body And Health”, which sells to women who are obsessed by their appearance and panic if some of their hair breaks off onto the floor.
Not exactly a good representation of the general population, is it? I dare Pantene to run the same “study” in conjunction with “PC Gamer” or “Rex Hunt’s Fishing Adventures” magazine.
Hahaha. *imagines Rex Hunt noticing an improvement in the look and feel of his beard*
2. Is there dissenting opinion on it from other qualified investigators in the field?
Well, there’s a lot of rumours circulating about the Evilness of Pantene, such as this post from Yahoo Answers:
“Supposedly it coats your hair with plastic or wax to make your hair seem silky and smooth. It also makes your scalp itchy and it makes your hair fall out. If you know anything about reading ingredients, you know that the first 5-10 are the main ingredients and have the most impact on your hair. Well, panthenol and panthenyl are in the first 5-10. Both of these ingredients are pure wax.”
There’s also this reply on the beautybrains.com :
“Lefty and Righty have answered questions about Pantene before and they say that the idea that it coats your hair with plastic is a myth started by stylists to keep you buying salon products. (BTW, Pantene contains silicone, not plastic.)”
I have to agree with them, I can’t find anything in the journals proving that Pantene damages or coats anything. Just a billion different blogs and messageboards scrawled in different versions of this:
“There r a few hair salons that will not colour ur hair if u have used panten recently coz there ws a rumer that it left a silicone cotting on the hair wch gave it its ''shiny'' look &colour couldnt penetrate... is this only a rumer?”
They whine about silicone being bad. Pantene says silicone is essential for lubrication.
PubMed lists a number of scientific journal articles supporting Pantene’s claim that silicones are “instrumental in achieving sleek looking hair and improved control/manageability of unruly or frizzy hair” ( - J Cosmet Sci. 2007 Jul-Aug;58(4):421-34, Drovetskaya et al.), but they also mention the residue left behind:
“In the absence of cationic polymer, the silicone oils deposit readily, but appear to show "build-up" phenomena upon repeated washings.” ( - J Cosmet Sci. 2001 Mar-Apr;52(2):131-6. Gruber at al.)
I guess you just have to deal with the (microscopic) build up if you don’t want your hair sticking out like a pile of old bed springs, right?
3. Was the research carried out on animals or humans?
Well, neither…just detached locks of hair.
4. Do the conclusions reflect an experimental research project?
I can’t remember which movie I’m quoting here, but the expletive goes like this: “Not a BLOODY chance in the PIT OF HADES!”
(Maybe someone who recognises it can help me? I’m really distracted and annoyed by it now that I can’t think of the film’s name.)
Anyway, a dodgy magazine survey with free samples is in no way a proper experiment. Pantene says that the trial was “independent”, meaning the magazine has no interest in the outcome (HA!) and “blind”, meaning the readers didn’t know which shampoo they were getting (that part seems to check out OK).
But in the reported “results,” where are the statistics for the other shampoo/s? Who says that 99% of the readers who used the other shampoo WEREN’T satisfied? And if they weren’t, what kind of crap did they bung in those mysterious, unmarked bags, anyway? There’s no way Pantene is going to put its Deep Fortifying treatment up against a serious competitor.
It could have been Pantene vs Soap, for all we know, or Pantene vs Coloured Water.
5. Is there proper disclosure of conflict by the authors?
Here’s a fun fact: The Pantene advertising campaign launched by News Limited in Body and Soul Magazine was voted Campaign of the Month in March, undoubtedly because it was so successful and sold loads of both magazines (free samples) and shampoo.
At least newsspace.com.au knows to call it an ad campaign and not a scientific study!
Now, says Dr Rosenfeld, I can discern whether the information is “hype” or “fact”.
Isn’t he polite?
I believe I have discerned that the information is “bollocks.”
For a contrasting example, take a look at the research done on “JuicePlus” ( Really Long Link ) which is a supplement for people who can’t get access to real fruit (EDIT: AND vegetables).
I’m not sure who those people might be, but anyway, 47% of Australians don’t eat their two serves of fruit every day, and if you really can’t bring yourself to swallow a piece of banana or kiwi fruit – or, even better, a pomegranate – then you need to swallow some pills, instead. So check it out.
And don’t forget, while surfing the web, to apply Rosenfeld’s rules to EVERYTHING!
In an online article posted at juiceplusreviewed.com , the good doctor goes on an entirely satisfactory rant about sorting out good medical advice from bad in the mass media.
I couldn’t agree more with this:
“Readers and viewers worry that some doctors are promoting rather than just informing. They also wonder whether the increasing commercialization of scientific research is interfering with fair and accurate dissemination of medical news: are the benefits of a particular breakthrough being overstated and its potential harm downplayed?”
Frustration with that very issue is the whole reason I started blogging. Dr Rosenfeld goes on.
“The truth is that shares in biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies rise and fall in response to positive and negative media stories. Some researchers may try to attract pharmaceutical investors by promoting stories about their products before they publish their work in scientific journals.
Enthusiastic reporting of medical research findings, however preliminary, can be big business for everyone concerned - the manufacturer, the TV station, and sometimes the reporter.”
“There's more medical "information" available than ever before - in periodicals; magazines; news reports; radio broadcasts; television shows; and, of course, the Internet. The problem, however, is that although some of this information is reliable, much of it is either questionable or inaccurate. Some of it is driven by hype and self-interest; much of the rest by ignorance and superstition.”
Knock me down with a feather if that doesn’t apply to half the articles I’ve posted here – the Snail Slime, the Wrinkle Creams, the Oxygen Products, Probiotic Yoghurt and Sudoku.
But how does Rosenfeld recommend that we sort out the mess?
Exactly the same way that I’ve been going about it here, I’m happy to say.
“If some medical "breakthrough" is especially important or relevant to you personally, try to Google the original paper to see whether its conclusions are preliminary or conclusive; whether there is any dissenting opinion about it from other qualified investigators in that particular field; whether the research was conducted on animals and is being extrapolated to humans; and whether the conclusions reflect an experimental research project.
Look for the risks of potential negative impact of whatever is recommended and whether there is proper disclosure of conflict of interests by the authors. Were the findings based on samples that are sufficiently large and representative, and do the results differ markedly from current concepts? If you know all this, you can discern whether this "advance" is hype or fact.”
Just for fun, let’s apply these stringent requirements to some “research” done by Pantene on their Deep Fortifying Collection ( Really Long Link ).
“body soul conducted an independent blind trial amongst 199 of its readers to find out what they thought about Pantene’s new Deep Fortifying collection. Each reader was given an unbranded shampoo, conditioner and treatment and used them over four weeks.”
“The results?
88% of body soul readers reported that using Pantene Treatment over a four week period had given them healthy looking hair.
88% of body soul readers noticed an improvement in the look and feel of their hair after using Pantene Treatment over a four week period.
87% of body soul readers would trust Pantene Treatment for their hair.
80% of body soul readers agreed that Pantene Treatment reduced hair fall due to breakage.”
Right. Obviously a very serious scientific investigation. Let’s pull it apart.
1. Try to Google the original paper
Sorry, no can do. Why not? Because there IS no scientific paper. It’s a reader survey in a magazine called “Body And Health”, which sells to women who are obsessed by their appearance and panic if some of their hair breaks off onto the floor.
Not exactly a good representation of the general population, is it? I dare Pantene to run the same “study” in conjunction with “PC Gamer” or “Rex Hunt’s Fishing Adventures” magazine.
Hahaha. *imagines Rex Hunt noticing an improvement in the look and feel of his beard*
2. Is there dissenting opinion on it from other qualified investigators in the field?
Well, there’s a lot of rumours circulating about the Evilness of Pantene, such as this post from Yahoo Answers:
“Supposedly it coats your hair with plastic or wax to make your hair seem silky and smooth. It also makes your scalp itchy and it makes your hair fall out. If you know anything about reading ingredients, you know that the first 5-10 are the main ingredients and have the most impact on your hair. Well, panthenol and panthenyl are in the first 5-10. Both of these ingredients are pure wax.”
There’s also this reply on the beautybrains.com :
“Lefty and Righty have answered questions about Pantene before and they say that the idea that it coats your hair with plastic is a myth started by stylists to keep you buying salon products. (BTW, Pantene contains silicone, not plastic.)”
I have to agree with them, I can’t find anything in the journals proving that Pantene damages or coats anything. Just a billion different blogs and messageboards scrawled in different versions of this:
“There r a few hair salons that will not colour ur hair if u have used panten recently coz there ws a rumer that it left a silicone cotting on the hair wch gave it its ''shiny'' look &colour couldnt penetrate... is this only a rumer?”
They whine about silicone being bad. Pantene says silicone is essential for lubrication.
PubMed lists a number of scientific journal articles supporting Pantene’s claim that silicones are “instrumental in achieving sleek looking hair and improved control/manageability of unruly or frizzy hair” ( - J Cosmet Sci. 2007 Jul-Aug;58(4):421-34, Drovetskaya et al.), but they also mention the residue left behind:
“In the absence of cationic polymer, the silicone oils deposit readily, but appear to show "build-up" phenomena upon repeated washings.” ( - J Cosmet Sci. 2001 Mar-Apr;52(2):131-6. Gruber at al.)
I guess you just have to deal with the (microscopic) build up if you don’t want your hair sticking out like a pile of old bed springs, right?
3. Was the research carried out on animals or humans?
Well, neither…just detached locks of hair.
4. Do the conclusions reflect an experimental research project?
I can’t remember which movie I’m quoting here, but the expletive goes like this: “Not a BLOODY chance in the PIT OF HADES!”
(Maybe someone who recognises it can help me? I’m really distracted and annoyed by it now that I can’t think of the film’s name.)
Anyway, a dodgy magazine survey with free samples is in no way a proper experiment. Pantene says that the trial was “independent”, meaning the magazine has no interest in the outcome (HA!) and “blind”, meaning the readers didn’t know which shampoo they were getting (that part seems to check out OK).
But in the reported “results,” where are the statistics for the other shampoo/s? Who says that 99% of the readers who used the other shampoo WEREN’T satisfied? And if they weren’t, what kind of crap did they bung in those mysterious, unmarked bags, anyway? There’s no way Pantene is going to put its Deep Fortifying treatment up against a serious competitor.
It could have been Pantene vs Soap, for all we know, or Pantene vs Coloured Water.
5. Is there proper disclosure of conflict by the authors?
Here’s a fun fact: The Pantene advertising campaign launched by News Limited in Body and Soul Magazine was voted Campaign of the Month in March, undoubtedly because it was so successful and sold loads of both magazines (free samples) and shampoo.
At least newsspace.com.au knows to call it an ad campaign and not a scientific study!
Now, says Dr Rosenfeld, I can discern whether the information is “hype” or “fact”.
Isn’t he polite?
I believe I have discerned that the information is “bollocks.”
For a contrasting example, take a look at the research done on “JuicePlus” ( Really Long Link ) which is a supplement for people who can’t get access to real fruit (EDIT: AND vegetables).
I’m not sure who those people might be, but anyway, 47% of Australians don’t eat their two serves of fruit every day, and if you really can’t bring yourself to swallow a piece of banana or kiwi fruit – or, even better, a pomegranate – then you need to swallow some pills, instead. So check it out.
And don’t forget, while surfing the web, to apply Rosenfeld’s rules to EVERYTHING!
| 60 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ganesh
Comment by Thoraiya Dyer
Demented World
So far, I haven't even come close to running out of ammunition. So I expect I will have to keep blogging for a while
Comment by Anonymous
From what I can gather, the research on Juice Plus was bought and influenced by the company that makes it, so how reliable can that be? Either Rosenfeld is getting paid to plug Juice Plus or he is the biggest sucker on earth. Either way, he lost my respect as soon as he became their pitchman.
Comment by Thoraiya Dyer
Demented World
Thanks for your reply. It brings up an important point.
Multivitamins, on the whole, are ONLY beneficial in cases of dietary deficiency.
Someone trying to tell me they are a miracle cure or that they prevent cancer would soon have me as pissed off as you seem to be.
The relevant parts of the Juice Plus research, as far as I’m concerned, are the studies showing that the vitamins are not denatured in the manufacturing process. So many “nutriceutical” products out there have not bothered to find out if their standard sterilization procedures destroy the vitamins, or whether iron can still be effectively absorbed in the presence of calcium (it can’t).
No multivitamin can replace a diet high in fruit and vegetables.
I would much prefer to see people change their eating habits than to see them popping pills. I love fruit and vegetables so much, I can’t understand how they can get by on sausage rolls full of sawdust and gloopy macaroni with fake cheese.
The only people with an excuse not to eat vegetables are people in third world countries, and they don’t seem to be JuicePlus’s target demographic.
But statistics do show that most people here at home (Australia) don’t eat enough fresh produce, and so it stands to reason that multivitamins can be of some use to them.