Introduction
Having a beautiful woman recommend a cosmetic, an
outfit, or a food product proves absolutely nothing. It’s not the product that
made her beautiful — it’s her beauty that made her the choice for the
commercial.
Exaggerated
Claims in Advertising
Misleading comparisons are common, especially in
beauty product ads. “I used to look like this… and now look at me after using
the amazing shampoo X,” says the model. But think about it: how much of the
transformation is due to the shampoo — and how much to the stylist, makeup
artist, wardrobe, lighting, and photographer?
Advertising, by nature, exaggerates — it highlights the virtues and hides the
flaws. And often it borrows the language of science to sound more convincing.
When
Science Is Distorted
The COVID-19 pandemic was a striking example of how
scientific evidence can be distorted. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine showed
some effect in vitro, but were ineffective in clinical trials. Still, they were
irresponsibly promoted — even by political figures.
The same happened with ivermectin. A meta-analysis of randomized trials showed
no benefit in mortality, hospital stay, or viral load. Yet, it was widely
publicized based on weak or misrepresented evidence.
The
Illusion of Context-Free Numbers
In 2007, a Colgate ad in the UK claimed: “More than
80% of dentists recommend Colgate.” The public understood: '80% prefer
Colgate'. Not true. Dentists were allowed to name multiple brands — and Colgate
was simply one of the many mentioned.
The
Case of Den-Den Chewing Gum
In the 1980s, Brazil saw the rise of a chewing gum
called Den-Den. Its packaging claimed: “Helps prevent cavities... prevents 80%
of cavities.” It contained chlorhexidine gluconate — a known antiseptic — but
in trace amounts (0.02 mg per piece), and around 70% of the product was sugar.
Studies showed Den-Den had no significant anti-cavity or anti-plaque effect
(Neder et al., 1981). By 1984, it was banned from sale. The dental
association's journal mocked the episode with the editorial titled: *The Smile
of the Chewing Gum*.
Skepticism
and Common Sense
These cases show we must cultivate healthy skepticism
— without falling into paranoia. We are not guardians of reason: we act today
with yesterday’s knowledge, trying to shape tomorrow.
The
4W-2H Rule
Apply the 4W-2H rule when evaluating information:
• Who? Is the source an expert?
• Where? Where was the data collected?
• When? When was the research conducted?
• What? What was actually proven?
• How? How was the study conducted?
• How many? How much data supports the conclusion?
Propaganda
vs. Publicity
Commercial propaganda aims to provoke an emotional —
not rational — response. It’s more accurate to call it publicity. But
propaganda isn’t inherently negative. Campaigns for vaccination, censuses, or
charitable causes are examples of positive propaganda.
Final
Thoughts
As Mark Twain once said: “Many small things have been
made large by the right kind of advertising.” We just need to know how to
distinguish good from bad — and not be misled by 'evidence' that proves
nothing.
Sources
and Further Reading
· World Health Organization. Therapeutics and COVID-19: Living guideline.
WHO, 2021.
· Roman, Y. et al. Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A
systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical
Infectious Diseases, 2021.
·
ASA
(Advertising Standards Authority). Colgate
advertisement ruling, UK, 2007.
·
Neder, A.C. et al. Anti-cavity
chewing gum (Preliminary note). Vida
Odontológica, Vila Franca de Xirpa, Portugal. 8: p. 404, 1981.
·
Editorial: The smile of the chewing
gum. Revista da Associação Brasileira de Odontologia
(ABO Nac.), n. 2, Feb./Mar. 1994.
·
Vieira, S.
Prevenção da cárie: a ética e
a metodologia. Blog
· Twain, M. The
Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson, 1894.
No comments:
Post a Comment