Elmore Oil – the verdict: save your money

Posted on Updated on

When last we left this saga in December 2010, I was complaining about the marketing tactics used by Elmore Oil (basically – saturate the market and rub it in, or should I say lay it on thick). I suggested that if it really was the miracle cure that it claimed, a little bit of decent clinical testing wouldn’t go astray. Well, it turns out that there was some clinical testing, but which for reasons which will become clear, Elmore didn’t want you to see…

I subsequently did some more googling, and in one of the myriad sites around the world spruiking the stuff, I found the following:

In March this year (2006), Elmore Oil will be put to the test by Latrobe University, to determine the effectiveness of the product, both for joint pain and muscle aches and pains.

The most important part of the trials will also investigate the long held belief that Elmore Oil can rapidly reduce the rate of recovery from soft tissue injuries.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of Elmore Oil, in conjunction with the RICER regime, can rapidly improve the rate of recovery and this theory will be put to the test at Latrobe in Bundoora.

The clinical trials will be conducted in 2 parts – a 50 person trial on joint pain to be conducted in Bendigo under the supervision of Dr. Helen McBurney and a 50 person trial on soft tissue injury recovery to be conducted at the Bundoora campus, headed by Dr. Tania Pizzari.

Note that this was on a hong kong site www.elmoreoil.com.hk, but which now seems to be undergoing reconstruction, and has a banner which refers to training. Hmmm.

Anyhow, I felt that things were looking up for Elmore, given the reputation of Latrobe as a first class university, in stark contrast to the dubious Phillipines ‘study’ to which the Elmore site refers. Not only that, but the named researchers cite numerous relevant publications, which is also a change from those involved in the Phillipines study, who have nothing in their past work which lends credence to the study.

I subsequently contacted both named researchers to follow this up.

Firstly, Dr. Tania Pizzari, lecturer in the School of Physiotherapy, had this to say:

After a few days of thinking about potential methodology I decided that it would be impossible to run any type of robust clinical trial (particularly with no funding).  Quite aside from the fact that I could not see how an oil would make any difference to recovery time of a soft tissue injury that requires a particular inflammatory and healing response.

I have used the bottles of the samples they gave us over the past few years (only at home on family members requiring treatment) and have not seen any magical outcomes above those achieved using cooking oil… not surprisingly.

There are a lot of these products on the market in this field and the only thing I use clinically is sorbolene – simply to decrease the friction on the skin. I don’t even subscribe to anti-inflammatory creams such as Voltaren.

So already one half of the study never happened, and casts doubt on any claims made by Elmore about curing soft tissue injuries – which they also say was the ‘most important part of the trials’.

Incidentally, Dr. Pizzari’s second sentence addresses the issue of whether there was any prospect of a result – was there a prior probability that would lead us to believe that the treatment may have some efficacy? This sort of consideration is too often omitted in credulous or dubious research, but more on that in another blog.

So, on to Dr. McBurney, who has since retired from Latrobe University. Dr. McBurney did indeed conduct a trial, and was happy to discuss it with me in some detail. In summary:

  • The design was a double blind cross-over trial on participants with osteoarthritis.
  • The aim was to compare Elmore Oil to a similarly scented vegetable oil.
  • 25 participants completed the trial.
  • The trial was conducted over about three months, testing stiffness, pain and function.
  • Initial testing was done to ensure there was no skin reaction.
  • Patients nominated activities which they found difficult or painful, but which were in the middle of the range of difficulty or pain, so that a change in either direction could be detected.
  • The researcher was also blinded, with two oils in red and green boxes, which were only revealed at the end of the study.
  • Trial format was: 2 weeks of observation and measurement with no treatment, all subjects use first oil for 4 weeks and then assessed using a subjective scoring process, 2 weeks of rest, then 4 weeks of the second oil, followed by a second assessment.

The bottom line: there was very little mean difference between the two oils used in terms of effects on pain, joint mobility and self reported function on the patient-specific functional scale. There was overall improvement in mobility and less pain when using either oil and massaging it in to the joint area, but it is not possible to say if it was the oil or the effect of the massage. The only area where there were some differences is that there were some distinct individual preferences for one oil or the other and associated increase in mobility with the use of that oil, but again, there was little distinction between the two.

So, my conclusion is: SAVE YOUR MONEY, and rub sore joints with any old lubricant – it will have the same effect as Elmore Oil. The ball is now in Elmore’s court to replicate this testing and find otherwise.

The trial report was submitted for publication to relevant journals, but deemed by them to be not interesting enough – an unfortunate instance of publication bias. While there was no significant result in either direction, the lack of any nett benefit of Elmore over ordinary oil is of great interest to consumers, and should have been published for that reason alone. This is where a trials register would be invaluable, as I’ve argued before.

Unfortunately, the original trial report can’t be tracked down, but I’ve requested a copy from Elmore, who were given one when the trial completed. I wonder why they haven’t put it on their website? (he asked mischievously).

I’ll soon be putting up an online poll, requesting readers to say whether they think I should hold my breath waiting for Elmore to send me their copy of the report….

* My thanks go to Drs. Tania Pizzari and Helen McBurney for their enthusiastic assistance on this, and willingness to go on record. rb.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Elmore Oil – the verdict: save your money

    Tricks of the mind: Confirmation bias « rationalbrain said:
    February 28, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    […] with illness or injury, particularly chronic, desperately want to believe in miracle cures. See my earlier writings on Elmore. Although practically useless, except perhaps as a lubricant, many would report […]

    […] at last someone has challenged me on the whole elmore thing. See previous articles here, here, here and here. This correspondent seemed to think putting me down was the way to make his point. So as […]

    Elmore Oil feedback please… « rationalbrain said:
    June 30, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    […] fact, page views are picking up as time goes by, in particular for these articles here and here, and now number in the many hundreds. This traffic has, in recent weeks, resulted in just three […]

    Elmore Oil – Does it work? « rationalbrain said:
    February 6, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    […] For a follow-up to this article, in which I talk to some local researchers about Elmore, read this article. Share this:FacebookTwitterDiggEmailRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

    More Elmore Oil nonsense « rationalbrain said:
    April 3, 2012 at 9:48 am

    […] I spoke to Dr. McBurney back then, and reported the conversation here. At the time, I couldn’t get hold of the paper by Dr. McBurney, but having now read it, I […]

    Debbie Smith. said:
    July 16, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    I have Rheumatoid Arthritis as well as multiple sclerosis, which makes it very hard to get about, the arthritis makes it painfully hard to get about.I have tried all sort of medications over the years even had corticosteroid injections in my knees,They still are not good but Elmors oil rubbed 2 times a day does help.It is the best I have used so far and I have tried a lot .It isnt magic but it makes me feel better.

      rationalbrain said:
      July 16, 2012 at 2:32 pm

      Hi Debbie.
      Great to hear that it makes you feel better.
      Are you saying that other products don’t give that same feeling? In other words, if you suddenly started rubbing in say, baby oil, would you start to feel worse? And how long would that take?

    Zoe Cook Brodie said:
    August 13, 2012 at 7:53 am

    After working all day in the garden yesterday, I woke up this morning very stiff and sore, with my hands in particular simply ‘aching’. I had some Elmore oil from a year or two ago and was actually craving this stuff to rub into the skin on my hands. What can I say apart from this stuff gives me instant relief. I think you should perhaps be looking at the people who claim it works, rather than trying to ‘disprove’ the claims of the product and the company. I don’t know if you, or anyone in your family suffer from the pain of arthritis or bone or joint injuries, but myself, my mum and my husband all have either mild or chronic osteoarthritis and together with my husbands permanent back injury, I feel we fall into that category. And trust me, if you DO suffer from inflammatory pain, all you are looking for is something that is non-toxic and that WORKS. This product works for us and are very grateful for its existence and sale. I suggest you either try it yourself, or give it to some to people who are suffering with pain to see if it works. If it helps at all with anyone’s pain, I suggest you take that into account and perhaps just say thank you for a product which is natural, not sourced from high profit making billion dollar pharmaceutical companies, and thankfully, is not available only by prescription.
    Arthritis and joint pain is no joke and I don’t understand why you’re determined to tread on a product which obviously works for some people. Personally, I love this stuff and highly recommend it for anyone to try.

      Zoe Cook Brodie said:
      August 13, 2012 at 8:14 am

      And about all your blurb regarding being ‘published’ and ‘peer reviewed’ all so on and so forth – let me advise you that ANYTHING can be published or peer reviewed (and approved). It does take some credibility to be published in a well respected journal such as the Lancet, but you really are kidding yourself that being ‘published’ in a journal means that results are credible. As a government laboratory microbiologist, I think I am qualified to give the opinion that a whole bunch of balony can be published in a perhaps not-so-well-recognised journal if you know the right people. Data is ALWAYS manipulated and, well, we know what they say about statistics….. I really think you should think about the positive aspects that Elmore oil, and other types of alternative therapies (which I should probably add have been, are, and continue to be the basis of modern medicine). If it makes someone have a better quality of life, why do you try and ‘disprove’ what clearly works for some people? Panadol has no effect whatsoever for me, yet neurofen works a treat – would you try and disprove the ‘proven effectiveness’ of Panadol based on MY findings? I think not…
      What works for some, might not work for others and vice versa. If a particular drug, or natural product, or action such a yoga or meditation helps someone have a better quality of life, then that is a GOOD THING.

        rationalbrain said:
        August 13, 2012 at 9:41 am

        Zoe,
        I’m glad you find relief from elmore. Really.
        But, I reject your suggestion in this and the previous comment that I’m seeking to disprove its effectiveness. I have never sought to do that. Rather, I’m seeking evidence, any evidence, that it does what they say it does. And other than anecdotes like yours, there is NONE.
        Given that you are a ‘government microbiologist’, I’m surprised that you think data is always manipulated. So which government laboratory is that? Your superiors might be a bit bemused to hear that. But seriously, I don’t agree with your assessment. Sure, fraud happens, but the science usually catches up with it. The reality is that stuff like elmore won’t publish because they know the outcome – and don’t want others to know it’s no better than baby oil. The one or two attempts they had to get even ‘promising’ results were a bit embarrassing for them, so why try again?
        Since you are a microbiologist, perhaps you can describe the method of action of the 4 magical ingredients of Elmore oil – I’m sure you could set me straight on that for a start. No? I thought not.
        But Zoe, you’ve actually made a giant point in favour of adequate testing, rather than anecdotes. You say neurofen works a treat over panadol. So, would you then advise that others read your anecdote and do the same? Knowing what you should know about Non-Steroidal Anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs, of which neurofen is one), I would be surprised if you weren’t aware that such medication is complicit in complaints like stomach ulcers.
        The general point is that to really know what works and what doesn’t, and what hurts us, we need testing, not anecdotes.
        I concede that elmore will never hurt anyone physically, but in these days when the health budget is stretched, the thought of older people spending their diminishing retirement savings on phoney treatments really annoys me. Elmore are simply cynically exploiting their wishful thinking – selling people some transient ‘feel good’ at a premium.
        Do whatever makes you feel good, but don’t expect other people to take your word for it. A degree in microbiology is no substitute for critical thinking.

        shewhoflutesincaves said:
        October 14, 2016 at 12:34 am

        Well said 🙂

        I have an elderly friend who has been troubled by arthritis for many years. She actually suggested it to me once, out of the blue, when she saw me rubbing my wrist. She swears by it, and her daughter agreed that her mum is looking way more comfortable.

        rationalbrain responded:
        October 14, 2016 at 9:34 am

        Well, the available evidence, limited as it is (why is that, I wonder?), shows that baby oil would do just as good a job.
        But, hey, it’s her money. Why not just give it to Elmore?
        r.

    Zoe Cook Brodie said:
    August 13, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    I suggest you actually look at a sample of the product. It has written on it “use Elmore oil as directed, every day for at least 14 days, and if you find it does not work for you, simply return the unused portion to the address shown on the label for a full refund”.
    Where exactly is the exploitation? I’m a little puzzled as to why you think anyone is being ripped off by this product.
    How many testimonials exactly do you require before it is no longer dubbed “phoney” in your opinion. I find your lack of faith in the opinion of others disturbing and nothing other than pure cynicism.
    What exactly are you seeking in the order of evidence to prove that it does work? I’m curious to know why the opinions of the users of Elmore Oil aren’t stacking up for you…. Or are you simply waiting on that magical ‘published paper’ as evidence for it’s effectiveness?
    I think you may need to rethink your definition of ‘evidence’.
    You seem, my friend, to put a bit too much faith in the publishing aspect of science, which invloves the collation and manipulation of data (despite your belief otherwise) rather than looking at raw data (such as the testimonials of individuals) which is, in the case of Elmore Oil – all that you have.
    As a microbiologist I do not look at the physical or biochemical pathways of organic compounds, for that you may need to seek out an organic chemist. Why don’t you do that? But then again, the results from trials they may conduct will only be the opinions of people who are using it. Touché.

      rationalbrain said:
      August 13, 2012 at 9:31 pm

      I’ll explain why I think it’s a rip-off – because I don’t think anyone will return it. Either they believe it has worked for them, via a placebo effect or else the minor benefit that would come with any massage/rubbing, or, they would be too embarrassed – as is the well-known situation when people feel they’ve been duped. They will just write it off. But I think the latter are a minority. Most of it is that people think it helps, which is not a bad thing, just that they pay over the odds for the privilege. As I’ve said before, most people use it to treat the ‘symptoms of life’ – which come and go in natural cycles, just like hair loss to cite one example.

      I wouldn’t find any number of testimonials persuasive, sorry. To take your neurofen example, which you haven’t addressed by the way, if 10,000 people came to me and said that the stuff fixed their headache, would I be convinced? No, because I wouldn’t know of the other 1000 people who got stomach ulcers and didn’t rave about it. That’s why no number of glowing testimonials carries any weight – it’s called confirmation bias. If you only act on the positive evidence, it’s confirmation bias, or wishful thinking.

      And why is a published paper magical? Really? Or is it simple science at work? It’s not magic to me, just a nice process so that we actually learn something about what we put into our body, rather than taking Mrs. Bloggs word for it. Is that unreasonable – learning about something? Don’t you, as scientist of any sort, think that we should understand the action of a compound, and the consequences of using it and in what dose to use it for what ailment?

      Yes, I unashamedly put my faith in the only objective approach we have to these things. Testimonials as raw data are useless unless in a controlled trial. It’s even better if we can define objective benefits to measure, to take the subjective experience out of it. In an uncontrolled trial, you can get any answer you want. Again, I’m surprised that you feel a touche moment, by ignoring that opinions in trials can be valid so long as both researchers and subjects are blinded. Very simple science 101.

      I’m not going to seek out a chemist of any sort – the onus is on you to prove it works, not the other way around. I did my homework with Elmore, and quoted all the research I could find – and I call bollocks. Let’s summarise:
      1. The Phillipines study: Very generic unconvincing study with almost no substance to it. A bit suspicious if you ask me.
      2. The Latrobe study: At least they attempted to get reasonable numbers and to blind the participants. Both researchers I interviewed told me there was no demonstrable benefit.

      In fact, now that I’ve reviewed this, Elmore have updated their website to quote both studies. But they lied. Helen McBurney at Latrobe found no benefit, despite their claim. But of course, they bank on the fact that you’ll never check.
      And that you’ll never ask for your money back.

      But at least you’re supporting an Australian cottage industry, so kudos for that.

        Zoe Cook Brodie said:
        August 14, 2012 at 8:29 am

        This is getting a tad boring now.. But ill respond for the hell of it and because you seem to thrive on anyone’s opinion which is different from your own. I’ll humor both of us.
        Why should you assume people won’t return a faulty product? Most people I know will return something which doesn’t work if they can be bothered. If they can’t, well, sucks to be them. And every company they ever purchase from are in the market of selling bogus goods to lazy consumers – so what else is new.

        The product involves little more ‘rubbing or massage’ than one normally does if they wash their hands thoroughly, so I strongly doubt that your theory holds there.
        How on earth can you assume that those it works for will be a minority? Based on what evidence exactly do you conclude that? You are a fool if you blindly believe the results of a single study of any kind, especially one which is unpublished. It is just convenient for you that you find the results in your favour (?)

        And why would you not believe any number of testimonials? That is not very scientific. There are very clearly some who find no difference after using the product. These clearly do not form a part of the ‘confirmation bias’ you so warmly speak of.

        And as for your ‘cycles of life’ babble. I suggest you speak to a chronic pain sufferer. Yes, the pain may vary, but when you notice the onset of an attack, and you rub something into your skin, and you notice the pain is nowhere near as intense as every other time it’s happened, and you find that after intermittent use, the pain is lessened only when you rub that something into your skin, I think you could assume it is working.

        And as for your magical science papers, you seem to search these, and only these, out for your proof in this case. I wonder how humanity ever evolved… With no scientific paper to prove that strawberry was edible… Goodness me..

        And your uncontrolled trials??? What kind of scientific papers have you been reading? You should perhaps broaden your literature and realize that not all studies are controlled… Many of them rely on results which are collated only after individual cases are documented, most of which have an innumerable amount of personal, genetic, biochemical, emotional and environmental variables which are in no way ‘controllable’. You can never control everything in any scientific study. And you can never ‘measure’ pain relief.
        Yes, you could choose whatever data you’d like to put into your papers in this instance. But generally, that is what researchers do, if their only aim is to get ‘published’. They are never going to deliberately seek out information which DISAGREES with what they are trying to prove. Maybe you should consult a few of the references you find in scientific papers – they are usually only there for supporting evidence.

        You speak of learning? Yes, understanding the action of compounds is important. But there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to know EVERYTHING about ANY compound or it’s mode of action or possible side effects. If you rely on ‘evidence’ that in a study or ‘paper’ that 100% (which isn’t possible due to our lovely statistics) of people had no known side effects to a drug – you cannot honestly tell me that you assume you will have no side effects either. The odds may be in your favour, but you will be screwed if all of those people are purple monsters and you happen to be a green monster, and that pretty yellow pill actually kills everything but purple monsters (a crude example). If your interest is in drugs and the trials used to test them, you should be aware that pharmaceutical companies are actually out there to make a buck. Your beloved neurofen example should provide you evidence enough for the amount they cared to warn people of stomach ulcers when it was released. Or, oh dear, maybe their scientific research studies and ‘papers’ didn’t think to look for such things, or maybe they just didn’t care to report it, or maybe the people who trailed the drug were lucky enough not to suffer from that side effect, or maybe the trials only concluded after 20mins when the subjects felt pain relief (another crude example).
        You will NEVER know or be able to rely on ANY drug study or published paper that the information is wholly correct.
        There is no onus on any of us to prove that anything works. That, for you, is up to your beloved scientific researchers and the papers they churn out.
        For the rest of us, we will enjoy the non-existent benefits derived from a reduced stress lifestyle by incorporating our remedial massage, yoga and relaxation techniques and using our natural therapies whenever possible, and watch with pity as the rest of you think and moan ‘if only I had tried’ blah blah blah “when I could’ve”.
        I pity your lack of ability to consider that something might work despite said something’s lack of proof as scientific evidence.

        rationalbrain said:
        August 14, 2012 at 12:18 pm

        Zoe,
        You’re obviously very passionate about the subject, and I really don’t want to rehash things I’ve said in previous posts. Part of me wants to address every illogical thing you’ve written, but then again, it’s not likely to influence you other than encourage you to become more abusive. Suffice to point out that:
        – you deride my reliance the only real study, and at the same time pour scorn on me for being ‘not very scientific’.
        – you blast the symptoms of life phenomenon, which is well documented and appears in all walks of life. Clearly you have no idea.
        – You fall for the classic logical fallacy, confusing correlation with causation. If something gets better after you rub it, it is not proof that the stuff you rubbed in fixed it. Could it be the rubbing itself? Could it be that it got better naturally? Could it be something else you’ve eaten or done? If you can’t answer these, then your intuition is unreliable.

        I’ll summarise my position as follows:

        1. I appreciate you want to take things on faith. Fine – if you have evaluated the source and trust them, fine. That’s what I do with climate science. It’s just that the sources for this particular thing are flaky and mostly marketing trolls (whom I have traced to one particular location in Melbourne).

        2. The only reasonable testing done (Latrobe Uni) has come up with no beneficial effect – I spoke to the researchers.

        3. The stuff is basically a bunch of inert oils and vanilla essence, with some ‘sciencey’ words thrown in to make them act as a ‘circulatory stimulus’ to deliver ‘active ingredients’ to the pain affected area. What active ingredients? How do they help the blood circulate better? They don’t say. Thoroughly implausible.

        Very simple. Zoe, what would you then ask me to conclude? Would you ask me to ignore these basic facts, and instead say, ‘oh well’, despite all this, I reckon it works?

        I admire your faith against all reason, but don’t envy it.
        All the best.

    Zoe Cook Brodie said:
    August 14, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Okay, REALLY bored now. Your manner really is very condescending, has anyone ever told you that? I wonder…
    Yes, you are unscientific – despite being told by numerous people that this product has helped them, you think they are all either liars or fools. Preferring to believe a single unreliable study that has not even been replicated in any way. That is not very scientific.
    I’m afraid I know nothing of your ‘symptoms of life phenomenon’ – even google appears to have not heard of it, so I can’t help you there.
    And I believe I explained our situation and clearly have not confused causation with correlation, as you put it. if it were the application method, as you have insisted previously may be the cause false positive sensations felt after use, then why do I not feel the same relief if I wash my hands or apply hand cream? The motion is the same, yet a different effect.. Hmmm… Maybe it has to do with WHAT is being applied? Or maybe I ate an extra carrot that day and it somehow made my hands feel better the instant I rubbed the oil in. Ridiculous.
    And I don’t know who told you that Eucalyptus is an inert oil? It might interest you to know that the Eucalyptus tree is also known as the ‘fever’ tree and has been used for, what is thought to be, many generations of native Australians, for the reduction of fever and is also a proven analgesic and anti-inflammatory. Maybe do a little reading on the properties of this oil before you decide it’s ‘inertness’?
    Tea tree oil also has been shown to inhibit inflammatory responses when applied to the skin – again, do your research.
    But for now, I am sick of trying to elude to you that perhaps you should look outside your coveted world of published papers and consider that something without ‘proof’ might be an effective and cheap form of pain relief for various ailments.
    It is a product which offers a money back guarantee. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. But don’t try and discourage others from what might be a simple form of relief, not found with conventional treatments, simply because you think it can’t possibly work.

      rationalbrain said:
      August 14, 2012 at 7:43 pm

      Actually, you don’t sound bored. You sound pretty worked up!
      So then, why do you think that single study is unreliable? What evidence do you have for that? Or is it an inconvenient truth?
      And why hasn’t it ever been replicated?
      If I were Elmore, I’d be racking up the studies, and really making sales go through the roof. But they don’t. Think about it. Classic pseudo-science.

      I didn’t say ‘it can’t possibly work’ – I said it was implausible, and hasn’t been shown to work. Simple.

      If it works for you great. A lot of people also swear by homeopathy too. Do you think I should believe that as a result? Reiki? Ear candling? Feng Shui?
      Or, say, ghosts. Some even believe in ghosts (no! really?), and ufos and bigfoot and so on.

      THAT is why anecdotes are useless for uncovering the truth. Sorry, just the way the world is. If that sounds condescending, that’s unfortunate, but it’s just confronting you with the reality.

      In case you missed the flavour of this blog, it’s REALITY based, and magical thinking just doesn’t cut it. Except of course when we discuss things which are acknowledged as fantasy.
      I’m happy to debate the issues, but you simply bring assertions and abuse and demand that I believe you, providing no other evidence than your say so.

      As I’ve encouraged many a proponent of these bogus therapies to do, show me the evidence and I’ll happily change my mind.
      For some reason it has yet to happen.
      Go figure.

        Dan Rea said:
        August 15, 2012 at 10:37 am

        rb states he needs a scientific analysis with sound methods and statistical practices to change his opinion to the affirmative.
        I wonder what evidence would be required to change your mind Zoe.

        You call him condescending but I found him to be incredibly patient and yourself to be overly emotive in defending what is a commercial product.
        Asking for a proof that what is a (pseudo) medical product is not a crusade against a therapy. It’s just asking for evidence. If there were any active ingredients in it then government regulations would prevent it from being sold without stating what they are on the bottle; think of the potential litigation. rb is not being condescending here.
        Getting emotional when someone’s opinion differs from yours and upset at their refusal to agree with your perspective is condescending and childish.
        Stating that qualitative statements from unknown individuals that were not selected randomly are in any way scientific (in terms of medical or natural sciences) is monumentally ignorant and condescending. Maybe in social sciences and market research such qualitative responses are useful but nobody is asking the people at CERN how they feeeeel about the results.
        Attacking someone’s allusion to the only (admittedly crap) study into a topic (for which they’ve posted references to and explanations of) while also making random claims about the effectiveness of other (pseudo) therapies/treatments is monumentally hypocritical and condescending.
        Disregarding any scientific paper published in any scientific journal as potential bullshit is incredibly arrogant and condescending. It belittles the work done by all scientists and insinuates all publishers are unscrupulous.
        When you…
        …bugger it. What’s the point?

        Your mind is set. In a way I envy such certainty, but never at the price of practising such blind faith.

        Adam said:
        April 13, 2016 at 9:39 pm

        Just read through these comments… not really interested in this product but found my way here. You know how the internet is.

        Well Mr Rational, I think I have to say that Zoe has smashed you in this discussion and it was you not her who started the wise guy responses. I get the feeling you don’t like it when people make considered responses to your commentary

        rationalbrain responded:
        April 13, 2016 at 10:34 pm

        Thank-you for your commentary and assessment.
        3 minutes well spent.

    Elmore – the empire strikes back « rationalbrain said:
    August 14, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    […] For those interested in the never-ending saga that is Elmore, take a look at the exchanges in the comments here. […]

      shewhoflutesincaves said:
      October 14, 2016 at 2:31 pm

      rb says “As I’ve encouraged many a proponent of these bogus therapies to do, show me the evidence and I’ll happily change my mind. For some reason it has yet to happen.”

      I trust people when they say that they’ve tried many things, and had little relief until they tried this or that product. It may be a placebo effect, it may be because eucalyptus oil heats up a painful area when applied. It doesn’t really matter what causes the relief, but that people are finding it! Your seemingly high opinion of ‘scientific’ reviews leads to you overlooking the comments made by people, right here, right now. The evidence you seek could be found simply in listening to others’ stories.

      I know that, for whatever reason, it works for at least 3 people that I know personally!

      That’s me bowing out!

        rationalbrain responded:
        October 14, 2016 at 2:39 pm

        You said it yourself re eucalyptus oil.
        I don’t doubt that massaging with some oil can provide some pain relief.
        My argument is that you don’t need to pay Elmore heaps of money to get the same relief.
        For what they charge, their potion should be doing a lot more than baby oil or eucalyptus oil.
        Do you know if that’s the case? Of course not, because you are basing you belief on anecdotes, not controlled studies.
        To my knowledge the only controlled study done on Elmore is the one I referred to in the original article, and that concluded that Elmore was no better than baby oil.
        And of course that’s also the reason Elmore have never done any more studies!
        But by all means, spend your money on Elmore.

    R.R. said:
    February 15, 2017 at 6:25 pm

    Is your name rationalbrain or brainless

      rationalbrain responded:
      February 15, 2017 at 7:52 pm

      That is SO witty. Thanks for your contribution.
      Obviously another person sucked in by Elmore who can’t handle the truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s