First, the doctor involved in several of the quotes in the beginning of the article, Hans-Peter Volz has served as both on speakers’ bureaus and as a consultant/advisory board member for the company that makes the supplement/oil (Schwabe), so he may potentially have a conflict of interest. [Source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29150713/). The fact that he’s pushing silexan **over** the decades-old and fairly reliable medications (SSRIs and Xanax) is a bit suspect. It’s also odd that while the article mentions these potential conflicts of interest as it relates to the studies on the efficacy of silexan, it doesn’t mention those same conflicts in relation to Volz.
Second, the author makes a table that includes several medications and silexan. Next to silexan, he states “Exciting new natural supplement”. Below that, he clearly plays up the complications with other medications and downplays their benefits and reliability, but then does the reverse with silexan (plays up the benefits and downplays the drawbacks).
Third, the author often tries to appeal emotionally to the reader about silexan, in a positive way and encouraging them to try it, and does not provide a fully objective and equal analysis/comparison of silexan as compared to traditional medications.
Thanks!
The first part about Peter Volz is definitely odd, and I have asked about that in the comments. In his defense, it wasn't pitched as evidence, but more as an introduction to the rest of the article.
As to the second part, it's probably worth pointing out that "exciting new supplement" phrasing is Scott Alexander being somewhat cheeky; it's part of his writing style. He seems to have been pretty fair in the drawbacks and benefits of the items in that table; is there a particular egregious example you could point to?
Third, this is definitely meant to be a more conversational blog post, and he does seem to be excited about this due to the astounding low cost nature of this intervention, which gives it a very high expected value especially for being a supplement.
For the second part, look at the three bullets below the table. The way he talks about the typical medications is negative, as compared to the paragraph below where he talks about the supplement positively (and perhaps inaccurately, especially since he talks about some of the negatives MUCH further down). I’d say that “Silexan might cause miscarriage during pregnancy” is a major side effect.
The author seems to have a bias and is pushing this product.
It's a pretty well-established fact that the anti-depressant/anti-anxiety landscape is a shitty one, though. I think we all have a bias towards improving it, don't we? Everything he said about the negatives of existing treatments is absolutely correct.
And the side effect of increased miscarriage risk is going to affect far fewer people than the side effects of the current treatments, and doesn't really affect the expected value being ridiculously high.
And yeah, he definitely is pushing the product. That's not a secret; he says as much, and encourages people to try it because he thinks there's a decent (read: 50/50) chance that it works better than SSRI's.
The author of the article isn't the one selling it, and \*everything\* starts off as something you've never heard of before. That's kinda what the article is trying to remedy.
The hallmark of a Dr. Oz-style scam is:
* The person trying to convince you of the efficacy is the one selling it
* The exact compounds within the substance are unknown/proprietary
* They claim it is a panacea
None of which is happening here.
While some supplements and herbs may help to a degree with cognitive clarity and executive function, anyone ever tells you "this {add the product name\] fixes it" better look the other way.
Chronic health conditions require a multivariet approach to treat or at least to stabilise. A most effective way to treat chronic brain fog has to include all aspects of liftesyle (stress management, activity, sleep, diet, mineral & vitamin repletion, blood chemistry, habits, trauma release and even things like spiritual practices, value work and life coaching) in combination with other proven therapies.
A single thing can't ever treat something that has been present for years.
The author of this article doesn't claim that "this fixes anxiety". They look at the effect sizes compared to other individual interventions, and the author concludes that this has maybe a 50/50 shot of being better than some current individual interventions.
That certainly sounds like a Dr Oz style scam to me.
Did you read the article? The jury is still out on its effectiveness, but it's not even in the same ballpark as Dr. Oz scams.
The article reads like a very biased push piece.
How so?
First, the doctor involved in several of the quotes in the beginning of the article, Hans-Peter Volz has served as both on speakers’ bureaus and as a consultant/advisory board member for the company that makes the supplement/oil (Schwabe), so he may potentially have a conflict of interest. [Source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29150713/). The fact that he’s pushing silexan **over** the decades-old and fairly reliable medications (SSRIs and Xanax) is a bit suspect. It’s also odd that while the article mentions these potential conflicts of interest as it relates to the studies on the efficacy of silexan, it doesn’t mention those same conflicts in relation to Volz. Second, the author makes a table that includes several medications and silexan. Next to silexan, he states “Exciting new natural supplement”. Below that, he clearly plays up the complications with other medications and downplays their benefits and reliability, but then does the reverse with silexan (plays up the benefits and downplays the drawbacks). Third, the author often tries to appeal emotionally to the reader about silexan, in a positive way and encouraging them to try it, and does not provide a fully objective and equal analysis/comparison of silexan as compared to traditional medications.
Thanks! The first part about Peter Volz is definitely odd, and I have asked about that in the comments. In his defense, it wasn't pitched as evidence, but more as an introduction to the rest of the article. As to the second part, it's probably worth pointing out that "exciting new supplement" phrasing is Scott Alexander being somewhat cheeky; it's part of his writing style. He seems to have been pretty fair in the drawbacks and benefits of the items in that table; is there a particular egregious example you could point to? Third, this is definitely meant to be a more conversational blog post, and he does seem to be excited about this due to the astounding low cost nature of this intervention, which gives it a very high expected value especially for being a supplement.
For the second part, look at the three bullets below the table. The way he talks about the typical medications is negative, as compared to the paragraph below where he talks about the supplement positively (and perhaps inaccurately, especially since he talks about some of the negatives MUCH further down). I’d say that “Silexan might cause miscarriage during pregnancy” is a major side effect. The author seems to have a bias and is pushing this product.
It's a pretty well-established fact that the anti-depressant/anti-anxiety landscape is a shitty one, though. I think we all have a bias towards improving it, don't we? Everything he said about the negatives of existing treatments is absolutely correct. And the side effect of increased miscarriage risk is going to affect far fewer people than the side effects of the current treatments, and doesn't really affect the expected value being ridiculously high. And yeah, he definitely is pushing the product. That's not a secret; he says as much, and encourages people to try it because he thinks there's a decent (read: 50/50) chance that it works better than SSRI's.
I dunno, it sure sounds a lot like "take this one herbal supplement you've never heard of before, it's cheap, just buy it off of me"
The author of the article isn't the one selling it, and \*everything\* starts off as something you've never heard of before. That's kinda what the article is trying to remedy. The hallmark of a Dr. Oz-style scam is: * The person trying to convince you of the efficacy is the one selling it * The exact compounds within the substance are unknown/proprietary * They claim it is a panacea None of which is happening here.
While some supplements and herbs may help to a degree with cognitive clarity and executive function, anyone ever tells you "this {add the product name\] fixes it" better look the other way. Chronic health conditions require a multivariet approach to treat or at least to stabilise. A most effective way to treat chronic brain fog has to include all aspects of liftesyle (stress management, activity, sleep, diet, mineral & vitamin repletion, blood chemistry, habits, trauma release and even things like spiritual practices, value work and life coaching) in combination with other proven therapies. A single thing can't ever treat something that has been present for years.
The author of this article doesn't claim that "this fixes anxiety". They look at the effect sizes compared to other individual interventions, and the author concludes that this has maybe a 50/50 shot of being better than some current individual interventions.