Why individual results are not scientific

A reader writes:

(last post 6/03! wow, is this immortality or what?) One more little voice - I have been very pleased with results on a few very annoying dark coarse facial hairs. It really irks me that “there is no evidence that any non-prescription substance reduces facial or body hair”, etc. OK, maybe there isn’t anything that works for all or most people. But when something obviously has some effect for some people, that should be more widely known. I was about to break down and spring $90+ for a temporarily effective prescription product. But why? I sure hope someone is still selling “InhibiCell” or I might have to play chemist with my husband’s saw palmetto! For me, turning that ugly stubble into pale peach fuzz is worth whatever they’re charging. Best wishes to all, Mari C

Thanks for the note. Products like these need to be tested under controlled clinical conditions with a large sample size in order to determine efficacy. What looks like improvement can be caused by any umber of variables, which have to be controlled for in clinical conditions. For instance, under controlled conditions, one in three doctors thought they saw improvement in hair reduction in people using a cream with nothing in it. This is called the placebo effect and may be why you are attributing improvement to the product. Only under controlled conditions with hundreds of test subjects can these kind of observational errors be controlled for. That’s why your individual results are not scientifically reliable.

These kinds of products separate people from their money by exploiting the fact that most people don’t understand how the scientific method works. If you want to buy their products, go for it, but just know that there is no published scientific evidence that these products can work as claimed.