You constantly see these products on the market that are of questionable, even dubious effectiveness and legitimacy BUT have the impressive-sounding label of having been “clinically proven” to do whatever it is they are advertising it to do. What this means, in plain spoken English, is that no scientific studies could confirm or validate the claims being made in this ad, but some people somewhere said it worked. Basically. :dubious:
Depends a bit on the claim: “Clinically proven to reduce the outwards signs of aging”.
Doesn’t actually claim to reduce aging… and all you need to “prove” it is a survey with Likert responses more towards “Slighty reduced signs of aging”.
Yep… pretty much snake oil, but sneaking inside the legal restrictions on advertising claims. 
I hate the fact that we allow the use of “clinically proven” anything. At best, things are clinically demonstrated.
I saw a big ad for [del]snake oil[/del] herbal remedies on a pharmacy window today that said “CLINICALLY TESTED”.
No word on the results of the tests, though.
How about L’Oreal ‘Youth Code’? Lots of graphics on the ad implying genetic manipulation, etc. tag line “inspired by the science of genes”. It’s a moisturiser.
I always assumed it meant, It was proven in a clinic that we funded and told them what they had to find.
All depends, I am a medical guinea pig for Omega in RI, so when I test something, I know what I do towards documenting whatever it is I am testing. I can’t say what any other lab does, I can only know what my lab’s testing protocols are.
I’m not sure why this would be an issue. Do people buy that stuff in the hopes that it will actually make them younger?
Clinically proven means that actual clinical tests have proven that something happened. What happened is probably meaningless. It really doesn’t matter, if you buy something based on advertising claims, you deserve what you get.
Moving thread from IMHO to MPSIMS.
In many cases (especially with anti-aging creams and other cosmetics) this often just means that the majority of test subjects reported that they observed a difference. No double-blind, no placebo, and most tellingly often not a great comparison. For example, I’ve noticed that adverts for the effects of conditioner on hair often say in small print “vs shampoo alone”. Now it’s great that the conditioner is doing something, but since I haven’t used shampoo without conditioner since I was about 14, that’s not very informative for me. What I’d like to know is does it do more than my current conditioner/it’s nearest competitor/the majority of conditioners on the market.
No, not that – just that the wording is very careful to exlude… well pretty much everything, while sounding like it does something amazing.
It’s more likely worded something like: "Clinically proven to help reduce the outwards signs of aging*
(*When used in conjunction with a healthy diet and increased exercise). "
Which really could be equally applied to some fancy skin lotion, or hair dye… or some new clothes.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I briefly worked in a lab, where, among other things, we tested swatches of hair that had been washed with different shampoos and conditioners. We actually did measure tensile strength, reflectance (shininess), etc. So when the advertising said “Makes hair 60% glossier!” or whatever, that had been tested. By scientists wearing white coats, no less. 