Tony Robbins, With Estimated Net Worth of $500 Million, Not Rich Enough, Peddles Expensive Nutritional Bullshit

Thanks to my friend and colleague Brant Slomovic who alerted me to the fact that self-help guru Tony Robbins has apparently got himself into the nutritional nonsense business.

There's his $79/month BioEnergy Greens,

"packed with superfoods, this powder nourishes your body at a cellular level giving you more energy, quicker recovery from exercise, mental clarity and overall increased well-being."

Oh, and then there's $69/month Energy Now which

"will help boost your energy, focus and strength all vital elements of staying sharp and keeping your body at its peak."

Or how does strengthening and supporting your immune system to prevent illness sound? If good then maybe you need $39/month ImmunoBoost-C which apparently Tony takes,

"to prevent falling sick during his rigorous, nonstop travel and 16-hour workdays."

And how can you resist Vital Energy? At $189 per month it's a steal given Tony says it'll

"prevent illness, eliminate brain fog and experience lasting endurance all day, every day."

But if you're serious about your health, clearly you'll need to pony up another $219 to buy Tony's 10 day Pure Body Cleanse, because as Tony points out,

"Toxins. They are in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. And they are hurting every part of our body.

Toxic buildup in our body can contribute to chronic fatigue, body odor, insomnia, skin problems, bloating, headaches and our mood.

Your body is a machine, and when you fail to take care of it, it breaks down. Even when you make healthy choices, detoxing is a crucial step in maintaining lasting peak health."

And hey, if you're struggling to lose weight and keep it off, Ultimate Weight Loss has you covered, where you can,

"achieve and maintain successful, healthy weight loss in 14 days with Ultimate Weight Loss."

No really, just 14 days, I mean it even says, in big letters,

"Hit your weight loss goal in just 14 days – and keep it off for good."

And just $189 for lifetime weight loss, who could say no?

Of course, there is this disclaimer on each and every page. I wonder if it'd be worth paying attention to?

Oh, and Tony, if you're reading this, though of course I knew you were a salesman, somehow I didn't think you'd stoop this low. My mistake.

Watch Out For These 83 Weaselly, Quacktacular, Words

A few days ago I asked on Twitter for people's red flags of quackery words - words that if seen might suggest a less than evidence based approach.

I've compiled the ones I've received so far, and while of course there will be plenty of times where these words are used credibly, I'd venture that the more of these words you see on any particular website, the less likely that site's information is worthy of attention or action (unless of course the article is about quackery).

(the list is in no particular order, and if you think I've missed any, please share with me on Facebook or Twitter)

• Bulletproof
• Detox
• Cleanse
• Optimize
• Magnetic
• Toxin
• Easy
• Quick
• Instant
• Simple
• Trick
• Hack
• Biohack
• Secret
• Holistic
• Natural
• Organic
• Guaranteed
• Boost
• Supercharge
• Block
• Burn
• Alkaline
• Acidic
• IV
• Ozone
• Miracle
• Amazing
• Energy
• Aura
• Ionic
• Ionized
• Crystals
• Magic
• Cure
• Super
• Proven
• Purest
• Safest
• Breakthrough
• Ancient
• Ancestral
• Evolutionary
• Revolutionary
• Pioneering
• Chemicals
• Integrative
• Functional
• Quantum
• Candida
• Dysbiosis
• Leaky
• Lectin
• Chelation
• 100%
• Antioxidant
• Chronic Lyme
• Adrenal fatigue
• Anti-aging
• Nutraceutical
• Belly fat
• Cellulite
• Rejuvenating
• Rejuvenate
• Adaptogen
• Ph-balancing
• Buy
• Microbiome
• Personalized
• Precision
• Nutrigenomic
• Ancient
• Forgotten
• Undiscovered
• Permanent
• Eliminate
• Brain Fog
• Maximize
• Vitality
• Nourish
• Powerhouse
• Sharpen
• Vital
• Thrive
• Disclaimer

UC Davis Now Marketing HealBe Calorie Counting Indiegogo Scam

Do you remember HealBe?

They're the Russian company that raised over $1 million on Indiegogo in 2014 for a wearable that was supposed to track, just by your wearing it, how many calories you consumed.

They've been rightly pilloried for years by Pando Daily including a delicious quote from ZDogg on their technology who described it as

"some straight Ghostbusters, Peter Venkman bullshit"

Plainly put, the device hasn't delivered on its promises to magically measure the calories you consume, though it does deliver something - money into the pockets of its owners who don't seem to have any scruples about selling to a desperate population a device that hasn't been proven to work (review from Engadget here).

And if you don't believe me about the proof, the quote that HealBe's co-founder Stanislav Povolotsky gave Pando Daily's James Robinson succinctly sums it up,

"Proof, yeah… that is a tough piece for us."

And proof shouldn't be hard to come by. Controlled feeding for even just a few days while wearing the GoBe wearable and poof, if validated, a goldmine, not only for the investors, but for obesity researchers and the public the world over.

That 3 years after launch they're still nowhere, without a single peer reviewed publication, speaks volumes.

And with that all said, I just can't wrap my head around the fact that just a few months ago, researchers at the University of California Davis, entered into a 5 year agreement with HealBe to study their device.

Now I know what's in it for HealBe. Marketing.

As to what's in it for UC Davis?

There I'm at a loss.

Dear Reporters, The Cure For Obesity Is Unlikely To Be For Sale On Indiegogo

Last week a reporter contacted me looking for a quote.

She was doing a story on a $449 weight-loss product that is being sold on Indiegogo.

Briefly, the device reportedly works by stimulating the vestibular nerve, which, according to the people selling it, triggers the body to reduce fat storage, and all with just one hour of wear per day!

Of course there's this proviso (emphasis mine),

"Used in conjunction with a healthy diet and regular exercise the average user should notice a significant difference in body fat percentage."

Does the product have peer reviewed studies proving it works?

Of course not.

But it does have an unpublished preprint hosted freely online featuring a 6 person treatment group, only half of who completed the treatments.

The preprint also features a 3 person control group who somehow managed to post an 8.6% increase in truncal fat and a 6% increase in total body fat during the study's short 4 month period.

And it includes the authors' assertion that neither group changed their diet and exercise habits - this despite the fact that the authors didn't track their subjects' diet and exercise habits, and also despite the fact that the control group gained a significant amount of fat in a very short period of time.

After looking at all of this, I politely declined the reporter's request for an interview, as a story at this point on this product, even with a dissenting voice in it, is not simply premature, it's unethical. It's unethical not simply because it further perpetuates the narrative that magic, quick, and easy exists in regard to weight management, but because as is evidenced by the product's Indiegogo page, a story, any story, on this already for sale evidence-free product will be used by its manufacturers to market it to a desperate, constantly preyed upon population (who at the time of this post's writing, have already given this product's promoters $728,463 USD)

Now I realize that reporters are busy, and many don't have the background to pick apart studies, but I'd like to propose that the simple rule of,

"Don't cover medical devices being sold on Indiegogo or Kickstarter as a means to magically treat anything"

is probably a safe one, and one that I wish went without saying.

Supplement Maker Arbonne Thinks You're An Idiot

Well truthfully I don't know that for sure, but what other explanation is there for their trying to sell their product with this statement as their proof of its efficacy?

"Data based on consumer perception after a 60 day home-use trial of PhystoSport products by 25 Arbonne Independent Consultants, Arbonne employees, and friends."

As to what that means? Well basically Arbonne, referred to by many as a multi-level marketing scheme, asked its own salespeople, employees and friends about the very products they were trying to sell, and then compiled their answers into really awesome sounding statistics with a tiny disclaimer that they're hoping no one will read.

Scumbags might be too kind a descriptor.

Unless You're in an ER, if You Hear the Word "Detox", Run

Simple rule - if someone is trying to promote, defend, or encourage the use of a product they claim will remove toxins from your body, unless they're a physician in the emergency department or your kidney failure specialist, they're either dangerously ignorant, or unconscionably unethical.

And if you're trying to determine between ignorant and unethical, look to their education. If they haven't any, well then give them the benefit of the doubt and presume it's just well-intentioned, hopeful, ignorance. But if they are highly educated, like for instance Dr. Frank Lipman, who sells a $229 two-week cleanse he purports will,

"help to bind toxins, prevent their absorption and promote elimination"

Or Dr. Oz, who promotes a 3 day "Detox Cleanse" that he claims,

"Eliminates harmful toxins and resets your body"

I think it's probably safe to err on the side of unethical.

Recently the fabulous Australian consumer show The Checkout covered detoxing. If you've got a moment, take a peek.

A Genuinely and Amazingly Effective Dr. Oz Cleanse

"Dr. Asshat" - Courtesy of Peter Cook (@DoodlePeter)

It's called The Dr. Oz Cleanse, and if followed, it will protect you from spreading his wildly infectious asshat toxin, and best of all, it only has a few easy to follow steps.

1. If the Dr. Oz show is on your television set, immediately change the channel or turn your TV off.
2. Use your browser's web controls to specifically block all content emanating from the www.doctoroz.com URL (instructions for how to do so in Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer, Safari).
3. Unfollow @DrOz on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google+, and anywhere else his toxin oozes.
4. Never buy or read Dr. Oz' The Good Life magazine, and if you happen to see it in a friend's home, a waiting room, or elsewhere, consider disappearing it.
5. If a friend or relative starts talking to you about something they heard about on Dr. Oz, place your fingers in your ears and quack loudly until their lips stop moving. Repeat as necessary.

[This post was inspired by this recent toxic tweet]

In 3 days, you can cleanse your body of toxins and help reverse damage. Use this one-sheet to get started: http://t.co/u6lCgHXGkk

— Dr. Mehmet Oz (@DrOz) June 18, 2015

Flowerly Words, Horoscopes, and the Culture of Magical Belief

The other day I had a piece published in the Globe and Mail about the shortcomings of Canada's Food Guide.

Hearteningly, the piece was hugely popular, meaning the public seems to actually care about the Guide which to me at least, offers hope that when it's next revised, Canada will be watching rather carefully which in turn might influence both the process and the outcome.

During the day I received an email pointing out to me that my piece was the most popular piece in the paper. I asked how that person knew and they pointed me to a ranking posted on the paper's website sidebar.

I had a peek at that same sidebar yesterday morning.

Want to know what the most popular piece in the paper was?

The horoscope.

Papers still publish horoscopes?

No doubt horoscopes alone aren't to blame, but is it any wonder that Dr. Oz can have a show promising miracles with flowery words if magical belief and thinking is popular enough not only for the public to read about it, but for reputable newspapers to publish and enable it as if both normal and real?

Dr. Mark Hyman Writing About "Science for Sale" Is More Than a Bit Rich

Yesterday on my Twitter feed someone shared a link to an op-ed penned by Dr. Mark Hyman back in 2010 for HuffPo. They were using the piece as a means to prove their point, that Western medicine is corrupt.

In his piece, Hyman, a physician who practices something called Functional Medicine, decried the fact, and it's a true one, that peer reviewed publications are often biased and that their authors misrepresent their findings. Hyman cited a study in JAMA that he boiled down to,

"The "spin doctors" writing the papers found a way to show treatments worked, when in fact, they didn't."

The crux of his message in HuffPo seems to be that medicine is corrupted by pharmaceutical money and that "evidence-based" (his quotation marks, not mine) medicine can't be trusted because, "the underlying motive is profit".

Hyman seemed most upset about the fact that according to that study in JAMA, when analyzed, even among randomized trials, the researchers, in some instances,

"uncovered that in cases where studies had negative outcomes--in other words, the treatment studied DID NOT work--the scientists authoring the studies created a "spin" on the data that showed the treatments DID work."

And I agree, that's egregious, and clearly more effort needs to be made to control the spin of science and to question the conclusions of people whose "underlying motives" might be perceived as profit. Given the growing number of scientific retractions, and of increasing calls for clinical trial transparency and data sharing, and for peer review reform, I think we are, slowly, heading in the right direction. The system's definitely not perfect, but of course, neither is science - science is not a body of facts, but rather a living, breathing, changing, system of checks, balances, critique, and questions.

So in the spirit of transparency, and perhaps too for the sake of a better critical appraisal of Dr. Hyman's published piece, there's more you need to know about Dr. Hyman's medical practice.

Dr. Hyman charges large sums of money for the supplements and "detoxes" that he sells directly from his "Healthy Living Store". Doing some quick PubMed searches didn't have me finding any well designed, randomized trial studies - not even bad ones - that would support much of their use, and what's being sold in Dr. Hyman's Healthy Living Store is accompanied by Dr. Hyman's own created (or at least tacitly endorsed) "spin" to suggest that the detoxes and supplements he's selling DO work. Spin like,

"The 10-Day Detox Diet Advanced Kit Supplements includes all of the healthy foundational vitamins and nutrients needed for healthy blood sugar support in the basic plan kit as well as four special herbs that have been used to enhance insulin sensitivity and balance blood sugar for centuries."

And when you're done with your "detox", maybe you'll move on to Dr. Hyman's "AutoImmune Support Kit with Blood Sugar and Inflammation Support", which according to the "spin" on Hyman's store page,

"includes all of the supplementation needed to support healthy blood sugar balance and address autoimmune disease by focusing on reducing inflammation and calming down an overactive immune system. Anything that causes inflammation will, in turn, cause insulin resistance. And anything that causes insulin resistance will cause inflammation. This dangerous spiral is at the root of so many of our twenty-first-century chronic maladies. Use this kit to help balance your immune system and cool off inflammation."

Given that just 10 days worth of Hyman's "detox" supplements will run you near $300, and with many others' monthly costs running well into the hundreds (the Autoimmune one clocks in at $235.18/month), and with Hyman having incredible influence and large throngs of follower to who he clearly is comfortable directly selling non-rigorously studied supplements, I think his outrage about both "spin" and financial conflicts of interest in traditional medicine, are in more ways than one, a bit rich.

All this to say, I readily agree with Dr. Hyman. It's important for science, and for you, to question the underlying motives of anyone trying to sell advice and/or products, including advice and products from both the traditional realms of science and medicine, and perhaps especially the advice and/or products from those realms lacking actual evidence.

[Full disclosure: I don't sell supplements, I have no shares in any drug company, I almost never prescribe medication, I don't make any more money when I do prescribe medications, I receive no funding from drug companies, I don't see drug reps in my office, but I have been paid to speak by drug companies before with the last time being 3 years ago.]

Lasers, Smoking, and Why Hospitals Need to be More than Just Landlords

Last month I had a meeting at the Ottawa Hospital's Civic campus. On my way through the hospital I passed by something called the Omega Laser Stop Smoking Clinic. According to their literature,

"laser therapy treatment is a non-invasive method used to balance the energy flow between meridians",

and is reported by them to work in a manner comparable to acupuncture on smoking cessation.

Look to the medical literature on both acupuncture and laser therapy for smoking cessation and you'll likely find your way to a 2014 Cochrane review on both which among their findings note that,

"Acupuncture was less effective than nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and not shown to be better than counselling.",

and regarding the use of lasers,

"The evidence from two trials using laser stimulation was inconsistent. The seven trials of electrostimulation do not suggest evidence of benefit compared to sham electrostimulation"

That this clinic operates out of the Ottawa Hospital is especially odd given the adjacent Ottawa Heart Institute is home to Dr. Andrew Pipe, who is justifiably described as one of the world's foremost experts on smoking cessation (and he definitely doesn't advocate for the use of lasers).

But it gets stranger.

According to the literature I picked up in the clinic, for an extra $100 (on top of the $300 treatment cost) Omega Laser,

"will target an extra set of acupuncture points which will boost your metabolism as well as help to suppress your appetite."

and according to their voice message they also provide a bottle of "True Craving" described as

"supplements which will help you to reduce your sugar and carbs in your body".

Which of course is just nonsense.

This all leaves me scratching my head.

Should hospitals be providing a tacit health halo to practices and products that don't have an evidence base to support them? Don't hospitals have a responsibility to the public to be more than just landlords?

Dr. Oz - So Corrupted By Fame He Even Sells Himself Out

While I'll be taking a break from blogging for the next few weeks, I'll be posting some of my favourites from back in 2011.

The other day I received a note from the Dr. Oz PR team informing me of his upcoming show (aired two days ago) on the HCG diet.

For those of you who don't know, the HCG diet is one of those ridiculous injection diets. The kind where you see a physician who prescribes an insanely low number of daily calories (500) along with injections. Here in Canada those injections are usually B-vitamins , while in the States they're often Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG injections for weight loss aren't kosher here in Canada).

The scientific literature on HCG as a weight loss aid is extremely clear. Randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled trials have demonstrated that HCG shots don't work any better than shots of salt water at appetite suppression or weight loss.

In fact as Travis once pointed out on Obesity Panacea, the disclaimers on HCG providers' own websites speak for themselves as to HCG's utility,

"HCG has not been demonstrated to be effective adjunctive therapy in the treatment of obesity. There is no substantial evidence that it increases weight loss beyond that resulting from caloric restriction, that it causes a more attractive or "normal" distribution of fat, or that it decreases the hunger and discomfort associated with calorie-restricted diets"

The show was predictable. Dr. Oz spent the bulk of the show obtaining testimonials from HCG providers and dieters, mentioned how his wife has done the HCG diet, spent a scant amount of time with HCG detractors, mentioned that the complete and utter lack of medical evidence to support its use was counter-balanced by the 4 people he had in his audience who had succeeded in losing weight, called for further study, suggested it was worth a try, and wondered if future research into it may in fact lead to a cure for obesity.

And while that's shocking to anyone who cares about evidence based medicine, it's not so shocking for Dr. Oz as he's long since sold himself out to non-scientific, non-evidence based woo, even promoting a faith healer on his show.

What is perhaps news is a link sent to me by Weight Maven's Beth Mazur. It's a link to one of Dr. Oz' own webpages entitled, "The Shortcuts Dr. Oz Would Never Take" and it was posted just 3 short months ago.

The first shortcut "Dr. Oz would never take"?

The HCG Diet.

Here's what he said about it just 3 months ago,

"Initially, this diet may help you rapidly drop pounds. Ultimately, it destroys your metabolism, as you are essentially starving yourself. Another negative side effect is the loss of muscle mass, so much that you will no longer be able to effectively burn calories."

And now?

"If you find someone like Dr. Emma (the HCG provider he had on his show), I think it's worth trying"

And how much will it cost his viewers who take his advice to try the diet scientifically proven to be useless and the one he himself rightly reports is likely to dramatically impact on muscle mass, so much so that weight regain will be far more likely? Dr. Emma charges her patients $800 for 6 weeks of this sham treatment.

So thanks Dr. Oz for promoting the exploitation of your viewers, for embarrassing our shared profession, and for being such a stellar role model for how not to embrace fame and fortune.

Should Hospital Pharmacies Be Selling Homoeopathic Products?

I've struggled in the past with pharmacies selling nonsense. Invariably I always come back to the fact that pharmacies are businesses like any other and while I would have hoped that ethics would preclude pharmacies from preying on their customers by selling non-evidence based, or worse, proven to be useless bunk, I get that they're in it for the money.

But what about hospital pharmacies? After all, hospitals in Canada are publicly funded, and as such I struggle even more with the notion that the almighty dollar excuses their pharmacies' non-evidence based sale of hope.

That photo up above was taken in the Ottawa Hospital's General campus. The over the counter section in this pharmacy is extremely small (so's the whole pharmacy), and yet even among its very limited selection, there are multiple products that at best can be described as non-evidence based, and at worst as proven to be useless.

So I'm asking, should hospital pharmacies be held to a higher degree of accountability to evidence, and if not, why not?

Selling This Shouldn't be Legal (And It's Definitely Not Ethical)

Went to get my flu shot the other day at my local Rexall pharmacy.

While waiting I decided to browse and I came across the product I photographed up above.

It's made by a company called Endevr and it bills itself as,

"The Vitamin You Wear"

According to the manufacturer,

"Edge LTE Ion Bracelets feature Ion Technology. They are made from a comfortable, surgical grade silicone that has been infused with seven natural minerals that work together to produce essential negative ions."

Translation? They are made from pseudo-scientific sounding bafflegab and they have zero actual evidence to suggest they do anything other than drain your wallet of money and simultaneously tell anyone who recognizes what you're wearing on your arm that you are overly trusting of front-of-package promises.

The questions I've got:

• How is it legal in Canada to sell a bracelet full of nothing with a label that explicitly states it's a vitamin?
• Shouldn't the use of the word, "vitamin", be restricted to, I don't know, vitamins?
• Is there not an arm of Health Canada that would be able to shut down a product that falsely labels itself a vitamin?
• Why is Rexall comfortable selling this (and sooooo much other) nonsense?
• While I appreciate pharmacies are businesses, shouldn't there be at least the smallest modicum of ethics whereby total frickin' BS isn't allowed to be sold or marketed in a store that explicitly targets health?
• Or is it all just caveat emptor and the dollars are all that matter?

The New York Times, Ebola, and "Immune Boosters"

While we may tell ourselves we live in a time of enlightenment, when it comes to our health, one walk through a pharmacy or health food store's aisles of Dr. Oz-esque nonsense and nostrums, and it's easy to see we're certainly not all the way there yet.

And while I fully expect the likes of both tabloid television and tabloid journalism to ascribe super powers to supplements without the requirement of super proof of those same powers, for some reason (naiveté I'm guessing) I wouldn't have expected the same from the New York Times. And yet...

Yesterday I clicked on a link to a story in the Times that detailed a reporter's experiences travelling from Liberia to New York in this new context of Ebola. When I got to this sentence, had I been drinking coffee I might have spit it out,

"I carried a blue canvas handbag crammed with wallet, laptop, two cellphones, passport, change of clothing, bleach wipes, and two Ziploc bags full of the malaria pills and immune boosters I had been taking for the two weeks I had been covering the Ebola outbreak".

Immune boosters?

To date, there are no products that I'm aware of that have been found to have a direct connection between their ingestion and heightened immunity. Sure, there are some theoretical connections (probiotics for instance), but nothing that would make me not scratch my head about the New York Times' journalist (and her editor) who felt that including a casual mention of "immune boosters" as if they were, akin to malaria pills, real and obvious things to pack (and take), in an article about Ebola, during a time of knee jerk medical paranoia, was in the public's best interest.

Why? Well beyond the responsibility a credible newspaper has in providing the public with fact and not fiction, there may be risk to those pharmacy shelf/health food store products that purport to boost immunity, because if they actually did, they would likely cause harm. Mark Crislip of Science Based Medicine explains this succinctly,

"If you really, truly, could boost your immune system, you would almost certainly increase your risk for thrombotic events."

The reason there would be risk is that a genuinely boosted immune system is pro-inflammatory which in turn would increase your risk of thrombotic events (like strokes, heart attacks, blood clots, and embolisms).

That a New York Times reporter is not only comfortable purchasing and taking products purported to "boost" her immune system, let alone casually including a mention of them in her article (and having that casual inclusion get past her editor), is a true testament to us needing far more regulation when it comes to our aisles of nonsense.

Visionary Quotes from 1929 Obesity Textbook - On Dr. Oz (Sorta)

The FTC and Health Canada should take note of this next quote from way back in 1929. Bang on the money I'd say.

"An intensive study of medical frauds and fads made over a period of nearly twenty years has convinced me that in the whole realm of quackery there is no field that is more easily worked nor one that offers greater financial returns to the medical swindler than that devoted to the exploitation of "cures" for obesity".

Visionary Quotes from 1929 Obesity Textbook - On Quackery.

I Was Going to Write a Dr. Oz Post but then I Saw this John Oliver Video

No need to ever write about Dr. Oz again as every time I have an urge I can just post this spectacularly brilliant, hilarious, and troubling video from Last Week Tonight and John Oliver.

Thanks to all those who sent this my way.

Shouldn't Newspapers be Ethically (or Legally) Bound Not To Sell Ads Like These?

This advertisement (continued below) wasn't published in a tabloid. Nope, it appeared coast-to-coast in Canada's Postmedia newspapers late last week.

And I'm honestly curious, shouldn't there be a law, or at the very least a corporate policy, that would preclude the printing of this sort of predatory nonsense?

(For a review of the efficacy of Garcinia cambogia, here's a recent meta-analysis).

[Thanks to the lovely Ximena Ramos Salas for sending the pics my way)

The 11th Myth of Modern Day Dieting: There Are Bottles Full of Weight Loss

There are no shortage of products promising remarkable weight loss benefits. You can buy them from actual pharmacies and sometimes they're even promoted on television by actual doctors (or at least by one actual doctor). Yet the only thing remarkable about those bottles is that they're legally allowed to be sold.

If there were such a thing as bottles full of weight loss, the world would be very slim indeed.

Canadian Pharmacies Using Flu Shots To Sell Non-Evidence Based Supplements?

A few years ago the Province of Ontario granted pharmacists the right to administer flu shots. Personally I think that's a great move as it takes a load of our already overburdened doctors' offices and markedly increases the availability of the shots.

But it's not all sunshine.

Last Friday my family went to our local Rexall Pharma Plus to get ours shots. And while the shots went smoothly, and putting aside the fact my children were all offered chocolate bars for their bravery, it was the coupon that came actually attached to my "vaccination record" that gave me pause.

That's it up above. It's for Jamieson Flu Shield with "Polinacea".

What's Polinacea? It's an extract from the roots of the Echinacea angustifolia plant.

So does it work? To answer that question first check out this disclaimer that was printed on the Flu Shield coupon itself,

Do the words, "emerging", "preliminary", "suggests" and "may" instill you with confidence?

Looking to the medical literature the full text of this "preliminary research" is available online, and it turns out it was so preliminary that it didn't in fact study whether or not Polinacea helped to improve the immune system's response after taking the flu vaccine.

It was published in Alternative Medicine Review in 2012 and it involved two "pilot studies". The first followed 38 individuals divided into those receiving the flu shot and Polinacea, those receiving Polinacea and no flu shot, and those receiving both. They then tracked  influenza-type symptoms in the groups. They also looked at various blood based "immune parameter" biomarkers, but only did so in the group receiving Polinacea but no flu shot. Given they didn't actually compare those "immune parameter" biomarkers in the flu shot only group, no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn from the findings as to immune system response in those who also received the flu shot.

The second pilot study involved 34 children who did not in fact receive a flu shot, and so again, no conclusion as to the benefit of Flu Shield following a flu shot can be drawn.

Reflecting on this I need to ask, should publicly funded health care dollars be spent to help pharmacies sell non-evidence based nonsense to Ontarians?

My vote is no.