
Defense of Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop offers case study on how to sell snake oil - Tomte
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/defense-of-gwyneth-paltrows-goop-offers-case-study-on-how-to-sell-snake-oil/
======
rdtsc
> peddles pricy products and overuses the word “empower” while dabbling in
> many forms of pseudoscience and quackery—everything from homeopathy to magic
> crystals and garden-variety dietary-supplement nonsense.

Just like there is an industry advantage of the poor segments of the
population - lottery, liquor stores, cash advance places, rent to own, etc.
There is a parallel industry geared for the wealthy. It is specifically
designed appeal to them, to stroke their ego. It can't sell something that's a
necessity so it was brilliant to focus on that just a little extra "feel a bit
better", "be empowered".

It really is an art.

> Similarly, Goop has also recommended vaginal steam cleaning, which is

And as if Hollywood and pop culture in general hasn't done enough damage, just
couldn't resist preying on the insecurity and tell women their bodies are
yucky. Someone evil there went through the use cases and the detailed analysis
and decided that no matter how wealthy or successful, that's one thing they
could tap into and monetize.

The scheme was probably supposed to includes its own insurance against a
lawsuit - embarrassment. Which powerful or wealthy woman is going to launch a
lawsuit against them saying they've been hurt by this product?

The homeopathy bit in there is also not random. It is designed to filter
through only clients who would think that stuff works. That's a bit like
scammers claiming they are all from Nigeria. It's a counter intuitive bit but
it's very important.

You gotta wonder how much are these celebrities involved in these scheme. It
is hands off just someone managing their wealth or are they all micromanaging.
I know someone who worked for one of the well known Hollywood celebrities and
you'd be surprised how different they are in private compared to their on
screen persona.

~~~
chrismcb
How does a liquor store take advantage of the poor? Because it sells an
addictive product cheaper than a bar does?

~~~
coldtea
Because it's major market is disenfranchised poor, alcoholics, etc, not casual
drinkers who appreciate the occasional taste of fine liquor.

Take advantage not in the sense that it doesn't provide them with the product,
or sells it more expensively to them, but in the sense that it feeds on their
problems.

~~~
Chris2048
But does it create those Alcoholics?

If they raised their prices, they'd be critisised; If they lowered their
prices, they'd be critisised.

Is the medical/insurance industry bad too? Don't all industries solve some
problem?

~~~
DarkKomunalec
The easy availability of liquor creates an environment where people are more
likely to fall to alcoholism.

That's how I view the selling of a lot of unhealthy products - corporations
creating a hostile environment, where you are more likely to succumb to your
vices, for their profit. E.g. candy and chocolate placed at the checkout line.

~~~
Chris2048
But any business that refuses to do this, will lose money and fail to compete
with those that do. Eventually, they'll get bought out by the company that
does.

It's up to government to regulate this stuff - a business is _supposed_ to
maximise profit.

~~~
coldtea
> _It 's up to government to regulate this stuff - a business is supposed to
> maximise profit._

In an amoralistic, profit driven dystopia, yes.

In actual human societies, businesses are also supposed (whether they are or
not is another story) to be ethical and improve society.

And most of them pay lip service to that all the time, in their ads,
promotional copy, motivational speeches to employees, etc.

~~~
Chris2048
> In an amoralistic, profit driven dystopia, yes.

Why? As stated, the government is supposed to regulate this stuff - that is
partly why government exists.

And this is by design. When regulation is proposed, it can them be publicly
debated - rather than leave those decisions to whoever runs a particular
business.

> In actual human societies, businesses are also supposed (whether they are or
> not is another story) to be ethical and improve society.

Says who?

> And most of them pay lip service to that all the time, in their ads,
> promotional copy, motivational speeches to employees, etc.

Which is apparently what the consumer wants..

Notice how politicians tell the public what they want to hear? Well, the
public too rarely take them to task. You get what you vote for..

------
skrebbel
Over the last decade I've been having increasingly bad hay fever. The doctor
said "eat these pills". They worked but they made me fall asleep right at my
desk.

This year my girlfriend put me on some decent snake oil indeed. Tens of euros
worth of food supplements per month. I also went to see an acupuncturist. My
problems aren't reduced, they're _gone_. I can be outside for an entire day
and not notice a thing. My problem is, 0% of what I did is evidence-based
medicine.

Now, this is the whole issue with snake oil. Anecotes like mine don't further
science. But the Ars article puts all of Goop's stuff on a single big pile of
"snake oil".

Isn't it possible that there are things that work, even though they have not
been scientifically proven yet? Why can't there ever be a middle ground? I
mean I also think homeopathy is a fraud. But I also know that either dried
extract from Indian moringa trees or needles put into appropriate places in my
body's "energy streams", or both combined, fixed all my problems. This is
pretty major to me. I can live again.

In fact, I think there's an upside to non-evidence-based things selling more:
maybe at some point the sellers will earn enough money to be able to finance
decent clinical trials.

Many forms of irritable bowel syndrome (a disease defined by a list of
symptoms, for which "there is no cure") can be fixed simply by changing your
diet. I know someone who had stomach aches every day for 10 years and went to
once a month _simply by eating oatmeal every morning_. Evidence based? No. I
have no idea how you could ever design an affordable clinical trial for that,
too many factors involed. The cost would be huge and the oatmeal industry
doesn't have deep enough pockets.

I think that to dismiss everything that's not evidence based medicine as snake
oil, like this article does, is just as bad as dismissing mainstream medicine
like Goop appears to do.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
I had interesting experiences with snake oil. I saw four acupuncturists. Two
were useless, two changed my life. I'm talking about lasting, unambiguous,
not-up-for-debate physical changes that are still present more than fifteen
years later.

I have no explanation, but I'm not going to deny my experience because of
that. ("Placebo" doesn't do it. Not for this level of change.)

It's not as if mainstream medicine lacks snake oil. I recently researched
anticoagulants after I was put on one and had an incredibly unpleasant,
potentially fatal, reaction.

I looked at the original papers and the statistics quantifying side effects
_didn 't make sense._ There was no way to estimate the risks accurately, and
when I talked to my doctor he said that they'd had quite a few problems -
certainly more than you'd expect from the official numbers.

One manufacturer was caught flat-out lying about dosage and efficacy. The BMJ
destroyed their claim that their product didn't need the same monitoring that
warfarin does.

But the medication is still recommended - which I find rather strange.

And so on.

The problem with these debates is they become very tribal. It's easy for not
very interesting people to assume an air of instant scientific authority and
credibility by calling out "obvious" nonsense.

Unfortunately it's a very selective form of criticism, and IMO it's selective
bullying directed exclusively at certain demographics.

The reality is that _everyone_ believes utter nonsense, and every area of
human experience is prone to it. We're not nearly as rational as we think we
are.

Goop is an easy target, but there's plenty of snake oil in finance, econ,
business, and politics. IMO it's far more dangerous and destructive there -
and challenged far less often.

~~~
everyone
'"Placebo" doesn't do it. Not for this level of change.'

Really, why do you say that?

The placebo effect has been confirmed and measured many times, and can be very
effective. Any clinical trials of new treatments must be designed account for
it. Normally about one third of the control group being given sugar pills for
instance will see improvements and some will be cured entirely. Theres even
quite a bit of evidence suggesting the placebo effect can cause death. Read a
bit about it, its very interesting.

How is actually works is not understood afaik, but sugar pills, acupuncture,
homeopathy, or just being told that something will happen by your local witch
doctor can all cause the placebo effect. I think that salient fact here is
that all the above fit into the same category.

~~~
everyone
ps.. Looks like me and others are really browbeating you over this. Sorry! I
guess stuff like this is frustrating for me because there has been loads of
good research done into things like the placebo effect and acupuncture, yet
people who are otherwise rational seem to completely ignore it. We have the
very useful tool that is the scientific method, and great medical researchers,
lets not simply cast them off.

------
Hasknewbie
If there's something like a List Of Depressing Things Reminding Us We Are A
Bunch Of Monkeys That Would Believe Anything, I'm pretty sure Gwyneth Paltrow
is somewhere in the top 10. Goop is really a 'Best-Of' of Western credulity.

------
JetSpiegel
Goop has this helpful footer in all its pages, to avoid lawsuits I imagine.

> The views expressed in this article intend to highlight alternative studies
> and induce conversation. They are the views of the author and do not
> necessarily represent the views of goop, and are for informational purposes
> only, even if and to the extent that this article features the advice of
> physicians and medical practitioners. This article is not, nor is it
> intended to be, a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or
> treatment, and should never be relied upon for specific medical advice.

------
Overtonwindow
I'm ashamed to admit I once worked for a nonprofit that pushes heavy doses of
pseudoscience, snake oil, and well, tax fraud. The final straw was when I
discovered that the entire organization was funded almost entirely by one
multimillionaire who was using it to support and prop up companies he invested
in.

~~~
PixelB
Is this organization still around? Have you blown the whistle on them?

If not, why not? You have information that could stop these thieves from
stealing people's livelihoods.

~~~
Overtonwindow
Yes the organization is very much still around. Blowing the whistle is not as
easy as it sounds. If I were to make a whistleblower claim, I would open
myself up to civil suit, and risk jeopardizing my ability to get a job. I
emailed a few reporters but the story isn't big enough, or interesting enough
I suppose, for anyone to take it on. There are hundreds of these
organizations. I just happened to work for the largest. By largest I mean
millions of dollars spent, there were only 5 people working there. It's all a
front.

~~~
literallycancer
At the very least the tax fraud should be interesting to IRS?

[https://www.irs.gov/individuals/how-do-you-report-
suspected-...](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/how-do-you-report-suspected-
tax-fraud-activity)

~~~
Overtonwindow
It absolutely should! A multimillionaire is using a nonprofit as a tax write
off but also for other, completely unrelated tasks. I wish I could report them
to the IRS, but I fear the nonprofit might sue me, or it may harm my ability
to get a job later. I would be grateful for any advice by someone who has been
down this path.

~~~
literallycancer
You could just contact the IRS and discuss your options with them (before
filing the report), or report it anonymously.

------
13of40
There's a strange kind of irony going on when you read three screenfuls of
snake oil denunciation, then get to a link that says "Incredible discovery
places humans in California 130,000 years ago!"... [1]

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/unknown-humans-
were-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/unknown-humans-were-in-
california-130000-years-ago-say-scientists/)

~~~
jsmthrowaway
What point are you making? That article cites a paper in _Nature_ , and there
are a number of response papers calling for more study. I'm not following the
irony.

~~~
13of40
Their headline makes it sound like it's a done deal, but it's so absolutely
unlikely to be true I'd sooner believe in the Baghdad Batteries or that the
Olmecs were Africans.

------
shoo
Dr Jen Gunter's blog is pretty entertaining:

[https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/dear-gwyneth-
pa...](https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/dear-gwyneth-paltrow-were-
not-fcking-with-you/)

[https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2017/07/14/goops-
misogynis...](https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2017/07/14/goops-misogynistic-
mansplaining-hit-job/)

> The editors at GOOP find me “strangely confident” in my “assertion that
> putting a crystal in your vagina for pelvic-floor strengthening exercises
> would put you in danger of getting Toxic Shock Syndrome—even though there is
> no study/case/report which links the two.” I am not strangely confident
> about vaginal health, I am appropriately confident because I am the expert.
> I did 4 years of medical school, a 5 year OB/GYN residency, a 1 year
> fellowship in infectious diseases, I am board certified in OB/GYN in 2
> countries, I am board certified by the American Board of Pain Medicine and
> the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in Pain Medicine
> and I am appropriately styled Dr. Jen Gunter MD, FRCS(C), FACOG, DABPM, ABPM
> (pain). A woman with no medical training who tells women to walk around with
> a jade egg in their vaginas all day, a jade egg that they can recharge with
> the energy of the moon no less, is the strangely confident one.

> What astounds me the most is that GOOP and Gundry have targeted me. After
> all Stephen Colbert has mocked GOOP mercilessly several times. Gizmodo
> blasted GOOP over the fake NASA band aids. Tim Caulfield wrote an entire
> book Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything. Jezebel has taken GOOP to
> task. The Atlantic put up a blistering piece about Dr. Gundry’s lectin
> hypothesis and supplement selling. Vox coined the phrase GOOPshit. Quartz
> said GOOP is simply bespoke Infowars. A study took Paltrow to task for
> recipes involving unsafe food preparation. Why do I get under GOOPs dry
> brushed skin? I am not anymore right than anyone else who has taken on GOOP
> and Paltrow, although a reporter from the New York Times once called me a
> gift from the quote Gods so it is possible that I have a unique way of
> quickly summing up what is wrong with GOOP in a relatable way. It is also
> possible that they think I am an easy target because I am just a chick with
> a blog as opposed to a man with a blog or a reporter with a national or even
> international reach or a talk show host who can leverage writers, a PR team
> and an audience of millions. In short, is it because they think they can
> bully me?

edit: i should give give her a bit more credit than that. Dr Gunter is
providing a valuable public service while exposing herself to online abuse +
possible legal action from the snake-oil-vendors.

~~~
Jedd
I read Dr Gunter's blog recently - initially the response to the attacks made
about her by various players on the goop site, and then back-tracking.

She's up there with Ben Goldacre in terms of profoundly informed, yet still
humorous, debunking capabilities.

------
jsmthrowaway
You're really missing out if you don't click through and read Steven Gundry's
response on the Goop post. Trust me. It's amazing how those supplement/TV
doctors all sound the same (and talk about each other!) when challenged.

~~~
JetSpiegel
A small taste:

> First, Dr. Gunter, I have been in academic medicine for forty years and up
> until your posting, have never seen a medical discussion start or end with
> the “F-bomb,” yet yours did. A very wise Professor of Surgery at the
> University of Michigan once instructed me to never write anything that my
> mother or child wouldn’t be proud to read.

Someone so prude that gets outraged by "F-bombs" is probably too squeamish to
look at vaginas all day.

But my favourite is an appeal to authority of Dr. Oz.

> Now, it’s fine to get into a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons
> of lectins without throwing F-bombs. Dr. Oz and I just had a friendly
> discussion on this topic

~~~
Jedd
Yeah, you need to read Dr Gunter's response.

Gwyneth used the F-bomb (are we not allowed to say fuck?) when challenging
anyone that may 'come at her' online, prior to this piece.

As to 'Dr Oz' \-- talking about grasping at debunked fraudsters.

------
Grustaf
Why lump vitamins together with vaginal jade eggs? Vitamins are most
definitely effective, for people that need them - something the author
concedes. What more could you ask from a remedy?

Question: so it's actually not illegal to make specific health claims like
this in the US?

~~~
hellofunk
I've seen quite a bit of publication in the last 2 years about vitamins and
their widespread overuse. Daily vitamins can actually make you less healthy
and in some cases are quite damaging, even if following the instructions on
the bottle. In cases of a medical need, such as a true vitamin deficiency,
they are important, but that is not the reason the vast majority of people buy
and use them.

~~~
literallycancer
If you do your homework and dose properly, you will most likely be closer to
the FDA recommended intakes than someone who just "follows a balanced diet"
(what the hell does that even mean).

~~~
hellofunk
Unfortunately most vitamins contain well over the recommended intakes. Here is
one article I remember:

[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/vitamin-
supp...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/vitamin-supplements-
increase-risk-cancer-heart-disease-research)

There were several others too.

~~~
literallycancer
Many vitamins have quite low absorption rates though, so it's quite hard to
overdose. But yeah, people who don't know what they are doing can screw it up.

------
morghus
Part I dislike most is that all this publicity just increases their exposure
and probably their profits too.

I don't see how you could stop people like this and can't help but wonder how
much good the backlash is actually doing.

------
dmh2000
all the negative publicity for Goop probably helps them by getting the name
out. 'Any publicity is good publicity'.

------
JoeAltmaier
Anybody that supports homeopathy is not only ignorant but actively hostile to
the people they pretend to support. This shill they have touting their goods
is either dangerously ignorant, or more likely in it for the money, no matter
how many people she hurts.

The relevant xkcd: [https://xkcd.com/765/](https://xkcd.com/765/)

and [https://www.xkcd.com/971/](https://www.xkcd.com/971/)

~~~
cronjobber
You are wrong, like most homeopathy critics.

Have you ever observed typical homeopathy users—middle to upper-middle class
mothers of young children—in their natural habitat?

I have. They're all "true believers" in that they really think homeopathic
remedies are useful, for themselves and their kids. And yet, despite that,
they also exhibit a well developed instinct on when _not_ to rely on
homeopathy and send themselves or the child off to a "real" medical
practitioner. Strange, isn't it?

It ceases to be inexplicably strange if you think about their shared belief in
homeopathy as a _socially evolved strategy_ about how to keep themselves and
(more crucially) their children _away from doctors_ in those plentiful cases
of minor sniffies where a doctor is overkill and actually more likely to do
harm than do any better than "doing nothing".

The sad thing is that society doesn't allow a mother to just "do nothing".
Where there's no accepted alternative, she "must" visit a doctor, lest she be
accused of neglecting her duty to care for her children.

That's why it seems that some parts of society—and not the stereotypically
"stupid" ones at all—have _evolved_ mechanisms that afford them social license
to avoid the doctor when the doctor is more likely to do harm than good.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
SO, as a placebo it's performing a useful function? Alternatively, develop a
backbone and do what you think is right regardless of criticism.

No, homeopathy is the art of selling water to people who need medicine, and
telling them its medicine. Its actually evil, in the sense that its lying to
make money, and hurting somebody who trusts you. As mentioned, at best there's
no harm because there was no need. But nowhere in the process is there any
reason to believe instinct will magically kick in when real medicine is
needed.

------
throwanem
> (Condé Nast also owns Ars, by the way.)

What purpose do you think the mobilization of your contempt at this time
serves?

~~~
pweissbrod
Probably attempting to prove ARS journalism isnt slanted nor impaired on
account of their new ownership

They were recently acquired by new management as a result of peter thiel and
hulk hogan successfully suing and shutting down gawker, their prior owners.
Any time a news sit changes ownership theres likely some skepticism in the air
over if journalistic integrity is preserved or not especially when it creates
conflict of interest with an owner.

~~~
jchw
Wait... what? When was Ars Technica owned by Gawker? I thought it was Conde
Nast for a long time.

If true, though, wow, it definitely never affected them before.

~~~
throwanem
Sounded odd to me, too, so I checked. Conde Nast since 2008, privately owned
until then, per Wikipedia.

I think it's optimistic to suggest that Ars Technica, a site with no qualms
publishing e.g. a great big steaming pile of baseless AI scaremongering under
a banner photo of a movie Terminator, is concerned that being under the same
umbrella as a snake oil peddler might damage its brand.

What other purpose might the mobilization of your contempt at this time serve?

~~~
everyone
I think ars technica writes bad articles, but on a very wide range of
subjects. Very few of the writers seem to be have specialized insight into a
particular area rather than a general engineer / nerd bent. For me as a game
developer, I find their game reviews to be the worst. Every now and again they
will have one and they are always massively unbalanced. Just a regular guys
unfiltered opinion, may as well go on any random message board and get
hundreds of equally or more valid 'reviews'. They'll often pan a good game
because they thought it was hard, you can hear their 'frustrated cus bad at
vidya games' coming through in the article. I think its obvious that one of
the writers was playing the game anyway and decided 'hey I can milk an article
out of this' .

