Originally published September 23 2005
Companies' definition of "clinical trials" is ambiguous, columnist says
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Consumers flock to products that are proven in "clinical trials," with the expectation that such scientific processes erase any doubt that the products do not deliver their professed benefit, and Nutraingredients.com editor Jess Halliday says companies that exaggerate these claims now face the wrath of the Federal Trade Commission.
Last month, L'Oreal was forced to withdraw two advertisements in the UK featuring Claudia Schiffer, after the Advertising Standards Agency ruled that the claims made for the skin care products went beyond what the company's tests had shown.
In the United States, PepsiCo-owned Tropicana Products reached a settlement with the US Federal Trade Commission earlier this year over claims that its Healthy Heart orange juice could reduce blood pressure, cholesterol and homocysteine levels.
After all, while scientists only really respect studies published in peer-reviewed journals, such journals would be busting out of their bindings if they were to publish the results of every single worthy study.
But companies should never take advantage of their target audience's respect for science by using slapdash methodology or over-egging unremarkable results.
Rather, they need to carry out the research as rigorously as if the consumer had all the know-how of the leading scientist in their field.
If companies do not do this of their own volition, there is a chance that legislators may wrest control away from them and prescribe a certain level of scientific enquiry before any marketing claims can be made.
At the very least, then, the results for the substance under trial should be compared with those produced by an inactive placebo.
Keeping both participants and administrators in the dark as to which is which ('double blind') can help prevent human expectations interfering with the findings.
If any bias or confounding factors could have come into play, declaring and discussing them will win greater respect than glossing them over and opening the entire study to criticism.
Budgetary constrains might limit the number of participants and time period, but in general, the larger and longer the trial, the more likely the findings are to be accurate.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml