A Shampoo WTF



  • So on the bottle of the shampoo my wife just bought is a big attention-grabbing thing saying "get up to 50% more volume**"

    Turning the bottle over yields this explanation: "** Pantene shampoo, conditioner and mousse, vs. Pantene shampoo"

    That's an amazing marketing trick, really. Imagine if Cheerios advertised "50% more folic acid**" and qualified it with "** Cheerios, milk, and General Mills Folic Acid Supplement vs. Cheerios."



  • or a bar of chocolate that staes "Lose 50% more weight**"

    "** with four times more excersize"

     

    So yeah, that seem so wrong.  It's like they can put anything on the front in big bold letters as long as they footnote it.

    Cigarettes: "Live Longer**    by not smoking these" 

    Beer: "Won't raise Alchohol Content    **If you just lick the can"

    etc... 

     



  • @KattMan said:

    or a bar of chocolate that staes "Lose 50% more weight**"

    "** with four times more excersize"

     
    So yeah, that seem so wrong.  It's like they can put anything on the front in big bold letters as long as they footnote it.

    Cigarettes: "Live Longer**    by not smoking these" 

    Beer: "Won't raise Alchohol Content    If you just lick the can"

    etc...

    Hot Dogs: "Beef Franks  May contain pig, horse, sheep, shoe leather, rodent, concentrated bat guano, and/or monkey brains." 

    Cars: "Safer than every other car on the planet  Jupiter"

    Cell Phones: "May Cause Cancer   **Crap, we screwed that up, didn't we?"

    Actually, this reminds me of my favorite real disclaimer: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4qe7KI_Ps (Note: you don't need sound to enjoy this clip).



  • @KattMan said:

    or a bar of chocolate that staes "Lose 50% more weight**"

    "** with four times more excersize"

     

    "Half the calories**"

    ** when shared with someone else



  • I had to register and state the obvious here.

    It is hair volume, not product volume. Meaning use this and you will be 50% more fluffy and pretty. Elasticity is another test of well conditioned hair. I know too much about hair products.



  • Mmmm... Replace my top remark with I am a muppet.



  • @hboy said:

    I had to register and state the obvious here.

    It is hair volume, not product volume. Meaning use this and you will be 50% more fluffy and pretty. Elasticity is another test of well conditioned hair. I know too much about hair products.

    Okaaaaaaay, but what does that have to do with anything else in this thread?



  • @bstorer said:

    @KattMan said:

    or a bar of chocolate that staes "Lose 50% more weight**"

    "** with four times more excersize"

     
    So yeah, that seem so wrong.  It's like they can put anything on the front in big bold letters as long as they footnote it.

    Cigarettes: "Live Longer**    by not smoking these" 

    Beer: "Won't raise Alchohol Content    If you just lick the can"

    etc...

    Hot Dogs: "Beef Franks  May contain pig, horse, sheep, shoe leather, rodent, concentrated bat guano, and/or monkey brains." 

    Cars: "Safer than every other car on the planet  Jupiter"

    Cell Phones: "May Cause Cancer   **Crap, we screwed that up, didn't we?"

    Actually, this reminds me of my favorite real disclaimer: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4qe7KI_Ps (Note: you don't need sound to enjoy this clip).

     

    "The way Veramyst works is not entirely understood" Brilliant!



  • I love how they (mostly) state how they gathered that data. 99% of the cases it is the opinion on a handful of women. (As if a handful of women can have a single opinion. I live with 3, so I should know.)



  • @valerion said:

    @bstorer said:
    @KattMan said:

    or a bar of chocolate that staes "Lose 50% more weight**"

    "** with four times more excersize"

     
    So yeah, that seem so wrong.  It's like they can put anything on the front in big bold letters as long as they footnote it.

    Cigarettes: "Live Longer**    by not smoking these" 

    Beer: "Won't raise Alchohol Content    If you just lick the can"

    etc...

    Hot Dogs: "Beef Franks  May contain pig, horse, sheep, shoe leather, rodent, concentrated bat guano, and/or monkey brains." 

    Cars: "Safer than every other car on the planet  Jupiter"

    Cell Phones: "May Cause Cancer   **Crap, we screwed that up, didn't we?"

    Actually, this reminds me of my favorite real disclaimer: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4qe7KI_Ps (Note: you don't need sound to enjoy this clip).

     

    "The way Veramyst works is not entirely understood" Brilliant!

    Is this Veramyst stuff real? Seriously? Or is it a joke?.



  • @rbowes said:

    Is this Veramyst stuff real? Seriously? Or is it a joke?.

    Looks very real to me. 



  • @rbowes said:

    @valerion said:
    @bstorer said:
    @KattMan said:

    or a bar of chocolate that staes "Lose 50% more weight**"

    "** with four times more excersize"

     
    So yeah, that seem so wrong.  It's like they can put anything on the front in big bold letters as long as they footnote it.

    Cigarettes: "Live Longer**    by not smoking these" 

    Beer: "Won't raise Alchohol Content    If you just lick the can"

    etc...

    Hot Dogs: "Beef Franks  May contain pig, horse, sheep, shoe leather, rodent, concentrated bat guano, and/or monkey brains." 

    Cars: "Safer than every other car on the planet  Jupiter"

    Cell Phones: "May Cause Cancer   **Crap, we screwed that up, didn't we?"

    Actually, this reminds me of my favorite real disclaimer: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4qe7KI_Ps (Note: you don't need sound to enjoy this clip).

     
    "The way Veramyst works is not entirely understood" Brilliant!

    Is this Veramyst stuff real? Seriously? Or is it a joke?.

    Sadly, it's all too real.  From GlaxoSmithKline's own patient information for Veramyst (Fluticasone furoate is Veramyst's active component): "The precise mechanism through which fluticasone furoate affects rhinitis symptoms is not known."

    The "myst" part of the name clearly stands for "mystery". 



  • Best thread ever!*

     * For me to poop on.



  • @bstorer said:

    Sadly, it's all too real.  From GlaxoSmithKline's own patient information for Veramyst (Fluticasone furoate is Veramyst's active component): "The precise mechanism through which fluticasone furoate affects rhinitis symptoms is not known."

    The "myst" part of the name clearly stands for "mystery". 

     They don't know how it works, but really want you to give it to the kids!  Wonderful.



  • @bstorer said:

    @rbowes said:
    @valerion said:

     
    "The way Veramyst works is not entirely understood" Brilliant!

    Is this Veramyst stuff real? Seriously? Or is it a joke?.

    Sadly, it's all too real.  From GlaxoSmithKline's own patient information for Veramyst (Fluticasone furoate is Veramyst's active component): "The precise mechanism through which fluticasone furoate affects rhinitis symptoms is not known."

    The "myst" part of the name clearly stands for "mystery". 

    That's actually not uncommon among drugs -- both new and old.
     



  • @shadowman said:

    @bstorer said:
    @rbowes said:
    @valerion said:

     
    "The way Veramyst works is not entirely understood" Brilliant!

    Is this Veramyst stuff real? Seriously? Or is it a joke?.

    Sadly, it's all too real.  From GlaxoSmithKline's own patient information for Veramyst (Fluticasone furoate is Veramyst's active component): "The precise mechanism through which fluticasone furoate affects rhinitis symptoms is not known."

    The "myst" part of the name clearly stands for "mystery". 

    That's actually not uncommon among drugs -- both new and old.
     

     

    Agree.  They still don't know how Tylenol (acetaminophen) works. No joke.

     

    To that I say, "WHO CARES?? JUST GIMME THE STUFF!!"



  • @ammoQ said:

    "Half the calories**"

    ** when shared with someone else

     More like,

    "Half the calories**"

    "** Brand x chocolate, and laxative, vs. Brand x chocolate"

     



  • @Pap said:


    Agree. They still don't know how Tylenol (acetaminophen) works. No joke.


    To that I say, "WHO CARES?? JUST GIMME THE STUFF!!"

     

     To say, acetylsalicylic acid (a.k.a aspirin) was used since the late 1800's, and already was manufactured in the 1900's but was only really understood in the 70's.

     




  • @shadowman said:

    @bstorer said:

    Sadly, it's all too real.  From GlaxoSmithKline's own patient information for Veramyst (Fluticasone furoate is Veramyst's active component): "The precise mechanism through which fluticasone furoate affects rhinitis symptoms is not known."

    The "myst" part of the name clearly stands for "mystery". 

    That's actually not uncommon among drugs -- both new and old.

    Probably because the established method for finding new drugs is to mix up chemicals more or less at random, and apply them to various lab animals and see what happens. Useful effects are patented and sold. The rest is bureaucracy and testing.

    The number of drugs with a method of action we actually understand is very limited. It's pretty much only the supermarket stuff, the narcotics, and a handful of the most popular prescription items. If it's remotely obscure, we probably don't have a clue how it works. There's far too many drugs and almost no money being put into real research.



  • There is no such thing as "Medical Science".



  • @dhromed said:

    There is no such thing as "Medical Science".

    The scientific method is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

    Observing the effects of a drug in falsifiable experiments is science.

    Science does not concern the why - that is the subject of religion.



  • @Pap said:

    Agree. They still don't know how Tylenol (acetaminophen) works. No joke.

    To that I say, "WHO CARES?? JUST GIMME THE STUFF!!"

    Sure they do.  It works pretty well, thanks. 



  • @dhromed said:

    There is no such thing as "Medical Science".

    There is, we just don't bother doing it because there's no money in it. 



  • @JvdL said:

    @dhromed said:

    There is no such thing as "Medical Science".

    The scientific method is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

    Observing the effects of a drug in falsifiable experiments is science.

    Science does not concern the why - that is the subject of religion.

    Science does not concern the reason & the why, but it had damn well concern itself with the most exact and precise how that it can attain. In medicine, we seem to merely have a shadow of that how.

    I don't dispute the scientific method, naturally. But big-S Science only begins at the method, and medicine, for whatever reason, is largely guesswork and not knowing how things will turn out. Medicine is a big misty area in which nobody really knows for certain
    what would happen if you do X to person Y in situation Z.



  • @dhromed said:

    Big-S Science only begins at the method, and medicine, for whatever
    reason, is largely guesswork and not knowing how things will turn out.

    Big-$ science? How about four billion dollars worth of guesswork that nobody knows how it will turn out.

    As Richard Feynman put it: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand it at all.



  • @JvdL said:

    @dhromed said:

    Big-S Science only begins at the method, and medicine, for whatever
    reason, is largely guesswork and not knowing how things will turn out.

    Big-$ science? How about four billion dollars worth of guesswork that nobody knows how it will turn out.

    As Richard Feynman put it: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand it at all.

     

    If you know how it'll turn out, why bother doing it? 



  • @asuffield said:

    @dhromed said:

    There is no such thing as "Medical Science".

    There is, we just don't bother doing it because there's no money in it. 

    The United Citizens of America spend roughly per year:

    600 billion dollars on invading small countries,
    650 billion on information technology,
    1.4 trillion on energy...

    ...and a whopping 1.8 trillion dollars on health care.



  • @PeriSoft said:

    @JvdL said:
    @dhromed said:

    Big-S Science only begins at the method, and medicine, for whatever
    reason, is largely guesswork and not knowing how things will turn out.

    Big-$ science? How about four billion dollars worth of guesswork that nobody knows how it will turn out.

    As Richard Feynman put it: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand it at all.

    If you know how it'll turn out, why bother doing it? 

    Science is about finding out how things work, with a goal of making useful predictions about them.

    Engineering is about doing things and knowing how they will turn out. Nobody builds a bridge to find out if it'll stay up, they build it after having made damn sure that it's going to stay up. 



  • @JvdL said:

    @dhromed said:

    Big-S Science only begins at the method, and medicine, for whatever
    reason, is largely guesswork and not knowing how things will turn out.

    Big-$ science? How about four billion dollars worth of guesswork that nobody knows how it will turn out.

    My bad,

    Capital-S science.

    And that  LHC, yes, goddamnit that's one big wad of cash in a circle. I'm somewhat amazed, but not unhappy, it actually got funding.

    @JvdL said:

    @asuffield said:

    There is, we just don't bother doing it because there's no money in it. 

    The United Citizens of America spend roughly per year:

    600 billion dollars on invading small countries,
    650 billion on information technology,
    1.4 trillion on energy...

    ...and a whopping 1.8 trillion dollars on health care.

    Which means what?

     



  • @JvdL said:

    @asuffield said:

    @dhromed said:

    There is no such thing as "Medical Science".

    There is, we just don't bother doing it because there's no money in it. 

    The United Citizens of America spend roughly per year:

    600 billion dollars on invading small countries,
    650 billion on information technology,
    1.4 trillion on energy...

    ...and a whopping 1.8 trillion dollars on health care.

    Health care != medical science. 



  • @asuffield said:

    @JvdL said:
    @asuffield said:

    @dhromed said:

    There is no such thing as "Medical Science".

    There is, we just don't bother doing it because there's no money in it. 

    The United Citizens of America spend roughly per year:

    600 billion dollars on invading small countries,
    650 billion on information technology,
    1.4 trillion on energy...

    ...and a whopping 1.8 trillion dollars on health care.

    Health care != medical science. 

    Follow the money.

    Science in is funded by companies and government. Health care companies, the world's #1 industry, are more likely to fund medical research than, say, Gary the amazing frame IT professor. Government spends more or less what makes voters tick. Some people vote with their wallet, some with their heart (not many with their brains). Health usually pops up in polls as the #1 thing they care about. The above statistic shows it's also their #1 expenditure. So funding medical science appeals to both types of voters.

    More statistics: the total number of degrees (PhD) earned all science and engineering per year in US is below 25,000 and dropping. Medical degrees top 35,000 and are rising.
     


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.