Pseudoscience fights back

The guys over at Medgaget are guys after my own heart. After commenting on a dubious-sounding device called the emWave Personal Stress Reliever, which, as its makers claim, is Scientifically Validated:

Stress creates incoherence in our heart rhythms. However, when we are in a state of high heart rhythm coherence the nervous system, heart, hormonal and immune systems are working efficiently and we feel good emotionally. emWave Personal Stress Reliever helps you reduce your emotional stress by displaying your level of heart rhythm coherence in real time. But emWave does more than just display coherence levels. It guides you toward stress relief by training you to shift into a coherent, high performance state.

All that for only $199!

Of course, as Josh pointed out, the manufacturer neglects to provide any--oh-- actual scientific papers in peer-reviewed literature to back up that claim). He also discovered that sometimes pseudoscience fights back, and his response to emWave's public relations flack, who somehow found out his phone number and called him at home, is priceless:

In retrospect, we think it was the "pseudoscience" label that really ruffled emWave's feathers. When a company stamps the term "scientifically validated" on their product, shouldn't we just blindly accept that? Who would betray the sacred realm of scientific principles just to hock wares? Don't ask questions. Don't inquire. Blind faith got us this far, so just close your mind and enjoy the now stress-free ride. Honestly, to expect a company to back that up with even one legitimate publication is preposterous.

Of course Josh should! After all, we should take all advertising claims on faith, shouldn't we? Indeed, I would suggest that alties should apply the same level of skepticism to advertisements by pharmaceutical companies that they do to ads for devices such as the emWave.

Josh's description of his conversation with the emWave P.R. flack reminds me very much of a similar encounter I had with a P.R. flack for Ameriscan after writing to a radio station carrying its ads to point out many inaccuracies in Ameriscan's claims. Funny how P.R. people for such dubious products fall back on the same sorts of strategies when challenged, regardless of what the specific product is.

More like this

Grant crunch time again yesterday. That means it's the perfect time once again to dig up something from the archives of old blog and repost it here. This particular piece originally appeared on January 12, 2005, just shy of one month after I started blogging. I'm guessing once again that, because…
I hate to admit it, but I've known about this story since Friday night, when I received a couple of e-mails about it. I had meant to mention it here either over the weekend or on Monday, but I'm a bit like Dug the Dog in the movie Up. Think of it this way: Squirrel! Yes, I'm easily distracted. I…
Lately, bloggers, including some of my fellow ScienceBloggers, have been expressing various concerns about the phenomenon that is Ron Paul, the Republican candidate who's ridden a wave of discontent to do surprisingly well in the polls leading up to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries.…
Tired of doing Google searches for evidence-based discussions of dubious-sounding medical treatments and finding that the first 100 sites (or, if you're unlucky, the first 1,000 sites) that pop up are nothing more than altie woo, shills selling alternative medicine and supplements, and CureZone or…

But, why would anyone lie about something like this? It must all be true. Really. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the LIBRA LITROU Balancing Bath ($US1600 and up) which I refuse to provide a link to (but you can read about it at http://barista.media2.org/?p=2618).