August 6, 2000

SHOE SHAM and NO, MA'M

In the shoe business, the name Florsheim is paramount. Started 108 years ago, the company has a long and proud history. Thus, when it recently embraced the world of quackery by producing a "new age" model for less cautious consumers, we at the JREF jumped at the opportunity to challenge the notion that magnets can be of any therapeutic value whatsoever. The Florsheim Web page (www.florsheim.com) advertises the "MagneForce" shoe as the "first shoe with its own power supply." Yes, the mind boggles at such language, and at such a concept.

Florsheim was prepared with a statement that touted their product, but only hinted at any real evidence that it worked. We don't for a moment doubt the integrity or the good intentions of Florsheim, but for them to say that the "flexible magnetic insole" will "generate a deep-penetrating magnetic field which increases circulation; [sic] reduces foot, leg and back fatigue; provides natural pain relief and improved energy level" is not only bad grammar, but bad thinking. And there is no evidence whatsoever that a piece of magnetized vinyl embedded in a sole does anything but increase the price of the product, and cater to the uninformed.

This is the formal response that was sent by Ms. Karen McKenzie, Vice President of Marketing for the Florsheim Group, to two of our readers who had complained directly to the company about the quackery involved:


Thank you for inquiring about our MagneForce footwear. The unipolar magnets permanently constructed into these shoes have been tested by Tectonic and verified to generate a magnetic field from their edge which encircles the foot and penetrates to a depth of two inches. As numerous clinical tests conducted at such institutions as Vanderbilt University, New York University and Baylor University have documented, the application of a magnetic field to the body stimulates blood circulation and has been shown to reduce pain and increase natural healing in many people.

While it is our understanding from these clinical tests that approximately 25% of the population is not sensitive to magnetic therapy, most people experience the above benefits. In fact, many physical therapists and sports medicine practitioners recommend magnetic therapy because they have witnessed the rapid healing and relief it seems to bring their patients.

Magnetic insoles in footwear were not invented by Florsheim; however we are the first shoemaker to permanently construct them into the shoe. Florsheim first introduced this technology in its golf shoes in 1999. Very shortly thereafter, the unsolicited response from golf customers was overwhelmingly positive. These gentlemen reported reduction in foot, leg and back fatigue; an increase in their range of motion; reduced leg, hip and back pain; and resulting greater energy levels. They expressed the thought that because they felt better physically, they played a better game. Because the golfers asked for this technology in a street shoe, we developed and introduced in February 2000 our MagneForce casual line. To expand our customers' street shoe options, we will introduce dress shoe patterns this fall and business casual patterns for Spring 2001.

Early customer reaction to the MagneForce casuals has been equally as positive as that from the golfers. Diabetics and others with circulation and other physical problems are reporting high satisfaction with these shoes. Individuals who are on their feet a great deal, such as retail and service workers, ticket agents, hair dressers, commuters and so forth are also communicating their very positive results.

We recognize that magnetic therapy is somewhat controversial within the scientific community; however, our role is not to debate this topic. Rather, our customers are encouraging us to provide MagneForce footwear based on their own experiences, and we are delighted to be able to offer fine quality footwear they feel has merit and delivers real benefits. Our marketing materials make no claims not already authorized by the FDA and have been reviewed by our legal counsel to ensure compliance.

If you will provide your mailing address, we will send you a brochure explaining MagneForce technology, along with a short summary of magnetic therapy and a bibliography. Again, we appreciate your interest in MagneForce footwear. Please feel free to contact us if you have additional questions.

Sincerely, Karen McKenzie.

Nineteen days ago, I wrote this official JREF letter to Ms. McKenzie:

 

I am writing you this letter - a copy of which was sent to you by e-mail earlier - to inquire about the possibility of conducting a formal, double-blind, scientific test of the product known as, "MagneForce Footwear," which you are presently offering for sale and advertising widely.

From what I have seen published by Florsheim, it appears that you are depending upon anecdotal material in place of real evidence. This foundation conducts tests and investigations of matters that are generally considered to be pseudoscientific in nature. I refer you to our Web page (www.randi.org) for further information on the nature of our work.

You will also notice that the foundation offers a one million dollar prize for proof of claims of this nature. I expect that Florsheim could benefit greatly from winning this prize and also earning the validation of this foundation and of the scientific community in general.

There are several prominent scientific organizations standing ready to work with us in designing and implementing proper tests of the "MagneForce Footwear," in the interests of representing to the public the truth - whatever that may turn out to be - concerning this claim. I urge you to consider putting your product to the test. In fact, we are currently negotiating with a major television network to present the results of tests arising from various claims that have come to our attention. The resultant publicity and validation of your product that could result from a successful set of tests, could not be purchased. It could only be earned.

We are available during regular business hours on weekdays, via telephone, fax, email, or in person, to discuss this matter and/or arrange the parameters of the testing procedure. I await your answer with great interest.

 

I will add here that there is no such thing as a "unipolar" magnet, that the magnetic field provided in these shoes certainly does NOT aid diabetics, and that yes, there is CONSIDERABLE "scientific controversy" about these claims. Please note that Ms. MacKenzie assures the reader that the data she is supplying to them has been "reviewed by . . . legal counsel." I'm sure it has. Not for the sake of the customer, but for the safety of Florsheim Group, Inc.

We at the JREF await with interest the response of Ms. MacKenzie - or her lawyers. However I assure you that we will not be holding our collective breath.

................................................................................

A couple of weeks back, I received a phone call from the producers of the enormously popular TV show, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" telling me that the JREF's million-dollar challenge would be the subject of one of the questions that would be asked a contestant. They just wanted to be sure that they had the facts straight, and that we wouldn't mind being represented on the show. I was quite flattered by the recognition that was implied, in distinct contrast to another "celebrity" who, upon finding that he was indirectly represented on a Pokemon card, promptly announced that he was suing the company.

Without any warning, this last week, the question popped up on the screen in the $16,000 category. The contestant was asked, "The James Randi Educational Foundation offers one million dollars for proof of what?: (a) alien abductions, (b) paranormal phenomena, (c) life on Mars, or (d) a cure for cancer." I'm really pretty glad that I didn't see the show. I'm told that the lady had to use one of her "lifelines" and telephoned a college professor she knew. He wasn't certain of the answer, but he opted for "cancer cure." Drat!

Well, of one thing we're pretty sure: this lady would not have won our prize . . .

On a happier note, National Public Radio (NPR) mentioned us a couple of times over this last weekend in connection with the "speaking with the dead" craze that we discussed briefly on this page last week.

................................................................................

We've had a very busy and exciting week here at the JREF. I must admit to you that it has taken a great proportion of our time just handling the weekly puzzle for this page, but it's time well spent. Without more ado, here's the very simple answer to the algebraic expression we gave you last week. The very simplest way to express the product of those 26 terms is - zero. I'm happy to report that we had 32 correct responses, though not all of them were as succinct as they might have been. To state it briefly, one of the terms would have been (x-x), which of course is zero; and zero multiplied by anything is simply zero.

(Without stating names, I'll tell you that two persons sent in very convoluted algebraic expressions to reduce that equation to simpler terms, not having seen the (x-x) in there. One of them sent in a second posting almost immediately that began with, "Duh!" and a few mea culpas, plus the correct answer.)

I warned you last week that you should start thinking about wine glasses in preparation for this week's puzzle. A few general statements here before we begin: these are not "special" wine glasses. The first two are different sizes of "claret" glasses, "claret" being the preferred English designation for a Bordeaux wine. The third is a simple - cheap - wine glass that I found in a back cupboard of my kitchen.

Though there are no "trick" photographs here, I did retouch #1, simply to make it clearer, since my photographs did some strange things with internal reflections and refractions that might have given wrong impressions. (In the other photographs you will see these misleading factors, and I ask you to ignore them.)

                    

Photograph #1 shows the three glasses involved. As you see, the capacity of "A" is 30 ml., really "full." Photograph #2 shows what I mean by a "full" glass. I mean, as full as it can possibly get. That will be the meaning of "full" all the way through this discussion. Photograph #3 is where the inquiry is centered: if I pour - VERY carefully! - from wine glass "B" into wine glass "C" until "C" is full, and then - if there's any left - pour as much as I can into wine glass "A," where will the levels be on both "A" and "B"? I assure you that wine glass "C" will be quite full, so you need not work on that answer.

(Note: Click on images to better view details, e.g.: graduate markings)

I was made aware of this interesting phenomenon at a Green Room party backstage at the BBC studios in London, many years ago, following a TV presentation. There were claret glasses available, and a stage hand with a penchant for puzzles showed me this quite non-intuitive demonstration. It is amazing how our perception of size, volume, and magnitude in general, can be so wrong. This present puzzle demonstrates that fact very nicely, I think. Have fun with it!

And, please direct all solutions to: 76702.3507@CompuServe.com. Because I expect the usual large number of answers, I'll not respond to each and every one, but I will make a record of how many answers and what variety of answers, arrived. I'll also notify the first person who supplies the correct answer. I believe that the answers should be in the form: A= and B=, to save us all a lot of work and reading. You may decide that the answer for one glass - or both - should be between, for example, x and y, and that should be expressed as, "A=x/y." All clear?

Of course, you might want to express yourself as well in milliliters (ml.) and that's quite all right too. How well I remember when we used to use the term "cubic centimeters" (cc.) to express volume. That was way back when we also called the scientific measurement of temperature, "Centigrade," rather than "Celsius," and frequencies were expressed as, "cycles per second" (cps) and not as "Hertz." But that was in ancient times, well before most of my readers were even notions in the heads of one or both of their parents.

I must also add, before leaving you, that it's just not fair for you to trot out your claret glasses and the cheap one from the very back of the cupboard. But I need hardly have said that, right? For those of you who need every bit of information available, the wine I used for the photographs was a 1997 Mondavi Merlot, which I found to have a moderate nose, somewhat of a presumption to superiority, but all-in-all a smooth though over-done presentation. So there!