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!
|