"Light Relief" Infomercial: Will cure wallet of too much money!
Monday, February 21, 2011 at 14:04 The part of these sort of infomercials that really grinds my grits, is the fact that the FTC allows such obviously mis-leading, and often demonstrably false nonsense to clutter up the airwaves. File this under both “money talks” (industry lobbying of government to back off) and a right-wing agenda to dismantle the regulatory agencies that would otherwise have shut scams like this down.
How much money is behind this? You don’t hire Hollywood leading men - even washed up ones, like Robert Wagner - for cheap. The production costs are considerable. In 2009, it was estimated that advertisers spent more than $150 billion on infomercials.
A Newsweek article from 2003 is highlighted as some sort of ‘proof’ as to the efficacy of the treatment, but for what disease or disorder? A look at that article is revealing. The article refers to a study of diabetes mellitus patients having peripheral neuropathy. I know something about that. My late father, and his mother, both died of complications of diabetes mellitus, and both suffered from peripheral neuropathy - or loss of the protective sensations, usually in the feet. Diabetes patients have to be particularly vigilant of foot health, since untreated ulcerations or wounds won’t heal and can lead to gangrene and amputation.
Unfortunately, the article goes on to talk about the use of the the MIRE (Monochromatic Near-Infrared Photo Energy) light not in treatment of peripheral neuropathy but lower back pain complaints. The low back pain complaint described in the article was not clinically diagnosed, but merely self-reported by a Marine. When he used the ‘light therapy’ purchased from one of the infomercial companies, he was ‘cured’.
A bit of research led me to a 2007 review of studies, including the diabetic peripheral neuropathy study, in Podiatry Today. The conclusions reached by the reviewers was less than stunning.
“In Conclusion
Monochromatic infrared light energy therapy is a multimillion-dollar industry. If this is a therapy that really works, we need to provide it aggressively for all of our patients with diabetes who are “at risk” for foot ulceration.
However, if the therapy does not work, we need to make sure healthcare resources are not wasted. We are the gatekeepers in many respects and prescribing expensive therapy that is ineffective or, at best, unproven is not a benefit to the patient or our profession.
At first glance, the literature appears to support the use of MIRE to improve peripheral neuropathy among patients with diabetes. However, there are a number of concerns about the existing science.
The quality of the clinical data is suspect and the ability of therapy to “reverse neuropathy” and prevent foot complications (such as ulceration, infection and amputation) related to sensory neuropathy is unproven. Further research needs to address design and analysis concerns.”
This is typical. Poorly designed studies, with ‘conclusions’ designed to support whatever device the author was trying to sell on an infomercial.
They also mention a 2003 study by NASA. That study was looking at treatment to aid the healing process of young bone marrow transplant patients. Nothing to do with the kind of pain depicted in the aching, belly aching, over-acting people in the infomercial.
Even earlier, in 2004, the FDA sent a ‘warning letter’ to Light Force Therapies, strongly suggesting that they clean up their act, and quit making unsubstantiated claims that had not been approved by the FDA. You’ll certainly notice that “FDA approved” appears in the infomercial. This is some very cleverly worded and phrased tippy-toe dancing to ride the fine line of legality while bamboozling the public.
This is a multi-billion dollar industry, so the stakes are high to hang in there and employ lots of sleazy attornies to parse every sentence that comes out of Robert Wagner’s mouth.
What is MIRE and all the hype about light therapy anyway?
It’s broadly true that people have, for centuries, been interested in the role that light - natural or artifcial - might play in healing. The devil is in the details, as usual, and infomercials rarely disclose the inconvenient fine print.
Low Level Laser Therapy, or Light Therapy, using low level lasers or light emitting diodes have long been used in both medical and veterinary fields to alter cellular function. In some cases, it has been shown useful in the short-term treatment of chronic pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis, osteo-arthritis, tendinopathy and chronic joint disorders. Note that is short-term treatment and not cure. It has also been used to treat Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), acne and other skin conditions, side effects of Parkinson’s disease, and wound healing.
Even now, the mechanism of how low level laser or light therapy is unclear, and so too, the dosemetry, duration of treatment, and other details that might hugely affect the efficacy of the treatment. When light/laser treatments are used, they seem to be effective, but only in a clinical setting using specificially designed equipment operated by highly trained professionals.
To hawk ‘home models’ of LED light ‘therapy’ devices is absolutely ludicrous at best. At worst it is the most cynical kind of quackery.
Even ‘pet chiropractors’ are using ‘light therapy’ also called Cold Laser Therapy. Sigh. It’s impressive to pull out a wild looking gizmo with flashing/pulsing lights and, like a magician, wave it over the uncomprehending pet and pronounce them healed. If you think nobody would fall for this, you’re wrong. A friend of mine did - she was paying monthly visits to a pet chiropractor, a two hour drive from her home, spending money she didn’t have.
The internet abounds in those who would use some sort of light based therapy to cure every disorder or disease imaginable in every species from horses to humans. However, from the Cochrane Library to independent evaluations by the insurance companies (the vaunted ‘free market’ ) like Cigna and Aetna, the conclusions as to the effectiveness of light therapies range from a qualified ‘maybe’ to ‘no’.
Cigna offered the following:
Summary
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been proposed for a wide variety of uses, including wound healing, tuberculosis, and musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia and carpal tunnel syndrome. There is insufficient evidence in the published, peer-reviewed scientific literature to demonstrate that LLLT is effective for these conditions or other medical conditions. Large, well-designed clinical trials are needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of LLLT for the proposed conditions.
Aetna said:
” Although the results from large, uncontrolled, open trials of low-energy lasers in inducing wound healing have shown benefit, controlled trials have shown little or no benefit. The analgesic effects of low-energy lasers have been most intensely studied in rheumatoid arthritis. Recent well-designed, controlled studies have found no benefit from low energy lasers in relieving pain in rheumatoid arthritis or other musculoskeletal conditions. Furthermore, although positive effects were found in some earlier studies, it was not clear that the pain relief achieved was large enough to have either clinical significance or to replace conventional therapies.”
Published reviews indicate a lack of evidence for effectiveness for the following conditions:
chronic wounds, arthritis, tuberculosis, tinnitus, pain, smoking cessation, epicondylitis, Achilles tendinitis, plantar heel pain, back pain, and carpal tunnel syndrome.Some evidence of benefit was found for the following conditions:
Raynaud’s phenomenon, pain following endodontic procedures, palpation sensitivity and passive extension in patients with shoulder pain (but not other measures), swelling following dental extraction when used in combination with steroids, tennis elbow pain in combination with plyometric exerciseMost of these studies were small and had methodological weaknesses, an most of their authors conclded that the treatment was promising but more research was needed to conclusively demonstrate a benefit.”
A look at a Cochrane review of a rheumatoid arthritis study using light theray concluded:
“There is ‘silver’ level evidence that low level laser therapy in people with rheumatoid arthritis for up to four weeks does decrease pain and morning stiffness. It does not appear, however, to have long-lasting effects.
Most of the studies tested laser therapy on the hand, so it is not clear whether laser therapy would affect other joints of the body the same way.”
The analysts reported that the pain relief lasted, on average, 28 minutes. Whoa! That’s not too promising, unless you’re seeking to bilk the intellectually unguarded out of their money.
The FTC occasionally ‘catches’ fraudulent advertisers on channels like QVC, and through negotiated settlements, re-pays bilked consumers. Advertisers consider this a cost of ‘doing business’, and will turn right around and file such settlements in addition to the legal fees associated with them as business deductions on their tax returns. Unless additional - substantial - civil penalties are imposed, this is hardly an effective way of controlling such bogus claims and activities.
There are numerous logical and reasoning fallacies at play in claims of ‘cures’ or ‘treatments’ using bogus medical devices.
First, the claims backers will begin by anticipating and defying criticism of their product or the ‘science’ behind it. If there is a lot of perceived opposition, then that must mean there’s something of value in the claim or product. File this under: “They laughed at the Wright Brothers”. So what? Everybody laughed at the Marx Brothers, too. If the Marx Brothers wanted to prove man could fly, they had to do the hard work and provide the evidence.
Confirmation bias is a huge driver in bogus claims. That is, the tendency to seek out information that supports your claims while rejecting information that seems to undermine your claims. Confirmation bias is almost hard-wired into people, and even reputable scientists and academics have to constantly check for it in their own work -which they do, if they are to be taken seriously by their intellectual peers.
Testimonials are stock in trade for infomercials. The fact that persons can be paid to offer scripted ‘testimonials’ seems to fly right over the heads of many.
Anecdotal Evidence is rampant in the hawking of bogus medical devices or treatments. John, the Marine, had a pain in his back and used our product. Now he is cured. Huh? This isn’t science. This is heresay. Was John’s condition medically, reliably, diagnosed? Or had he simply over-used muscles as a weekend warrior? Might the pain have gone away on it’s own over time? Could some other process be at work? We don’t know, since there was no protocol in place to control and measure John’s response.
Right on the heels - ha, ha ‘heals’ - of Anecdotal Evidence comes After-the-Fact Reasoning ( or ergo propter hoc - this, therefore that). John the Marine, who’s back hurt, used Brand X and whoa! His back pain went away. Therefore, it must have been due to Brand X! Nope. Not necessarily.
Fabulous claims for medical ‘treatments’ and ‘devices’ are always couched in loads of fancy technical or scientific jargon rather than plain language. Scientific language doesn’t always equal science.
Most of the claims for medical treatments and devices like the Light Relief devices is based on Hasty Generalizations - where a narrowly defined study on pain relief for bone marrow recipients, for example, is extended to conclude that it must work for a wide swath of other ailments or disorders, when in fact, so such connections are warranted.
An over-reliance on authorities - such as the Light Relief infomercial’s reference to NASA studies - is a classic technique of the snake oil pitch person. This is called Argument by Authority, or claiming a tenuous connection to a reliable authority to be far more significant than it is.
“Light Relief” isn’t the only bogus claim on tee-vee. It’s just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, making billions for the scam artists that create them. The techniques employed by “Light Relief”, however, are well-worn because they work - unless the viewer is forewarned and fore-armed with a toolkit of critical thinking skills and resources.
The internet provides ample means of researching a product or claim. Merely checking Snopes.com can weed out some of the most outrageous, as can Quackwatch.com. The Federal Trade Commission offers a lot of helpful consumer information to protect you, including scams related to work from home schemes. The FDA can also be a good source of information about medical devices, medicines and more.
So, in these times when we’re all trying to scrape by, and money is tight, do your homework. Exercise due diligence before your send for that sure-fire gizmo or bottle of pills. Buyer beware is the soundest advice I can give.
-maven
Physcians who reviewed the MIRE study for Podiatry Today:
Dr. Lavery (shown at the right) is a Professor in the Department of Surgery at Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine.
Dr. Steinberg (shown at the left) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Plastic Surgery at the Georgetown University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C.
Reader Comments (5)
-Hublot Big Bang King watches in uk Exercise due diligence before your send for that sure-fire gizmo or bottle of pills. Buyer beware is the soundest advice I can give.
I enjoyed reading your blog! Thanks for posting such awesome material.
Tinnitus miracle
In our fashionable life, beautiful and lovely appearance are the pursuit of many girls. How can we miss fendi replicaorversace replica handbags?
Thanks a lot for enjoying this beauty article with me. I am appreciating it very much! Looking forward to another great article.
Tinnitus miracle review
Your website have very interesting article. I got knowledge from here. Besides that, your blog is so popular among the searchers from search engines replica rolex daytona make you feel good .replica rolex daytona is good!