Separating sense from nonsense

The pseudoscience of peptides, chlorophyll water, and other wellness trends

There’s a special place in my heart for McGill University’s Office for Science and Society. Why? Their tagline: Separating Sense from Nonsense. They’re on a mission to debunk misinformation about health and science with critical thinking and persuasive communication.

I had the privilege of interviewing Jonathan Jarry from the OSS about the sure fire “cures” he’s got his eyes on now. Jarry is a science communicator for the McGill Office for Science & Society and a podcaster (The Body of Evidence).

Q. What "wellness" trends are raising your eyebrows now?

A. Peptides. In theory, wellness is not about treating a condition but about trying to be as healthy as possible. In practice, though, “wellness” also encompasses a sort of pre-illness worry as well as treatments outside of the medical realm for a variety of conditions. So “wellness” can mean whatever you want it to mean. With that in mind, the most eyebrow-raising trend I’ve seen in the last year was peptides. Fitness influencers endorse them in videos for a variety of things (improved recovery after a workout, better sleep, bigger muscles), but it is striking to me that these people are injecting themselves with experimental drugs they purchased on dubious websites.

What is referred to as “peptides” includes molecules like ipamorelin, MK-677, BPC 157, and TB-500. Not all of them are actual peptides (short chains of amino acids), but they are drugs that were often studied then abandoned for failing to show benefits. Now, people are grabbing them off of questionable websites and injecting themselves with them, which still makes me speechless.

But what’s really worrying overall is that interventions that have been thoroughly debunked are making a comeback. Chlorophyll water was big on TikTok not too long ago, but chlorophyll last made waves in the 1950s! It’s not new. And an all-in-one supplement like AG1 made by Athletic Greens is basically a one-a-day multivitamin (with other wellness-anointed ingredients added to it). Old trends disappear for a while, before being repackaged for a new generation.

Q. What are you learning about recent claims about optimizing the body for longevity? So many "magic bullets" are about lengthening life and slowing aging.

A. So many of these claims come from in vitro laboratory studies done on cells or from animal studies done in rats or mice. It would be very difficult to test an intervention for longevity in humans and have to wait a lifetime to figure out if it made a difference. Small animals live shorter lives, which expedites the process. But we are not giant rats, and these findings do not necessarily translate to humans. An important fact that most people may not know is that out of all the molecules that look really promising in animals and that begin to be tested as drugs in human studies, about one in 10 will end up getting approved. This means that nine out of 10 potential drugs that looked really good in animal models simply don’t cut it in humans: the benefit isn’t there and/or their safety profile is not good. That’s something I always keep in mind when I look at preliminary results done in the lab. Odds are, they won’t pan out. Science is hard.

Q. Let’s tackle one more. Given all the evidence cited against it, why does public interest in homeopathy persist?

A. Ignorance and personal experience. Homeopathy is one of the few health interventions where simply explaining to people its principles will lead them to understand it’s nonsense. When they understand that there is nothing in these sugar granules, they will probably stay away from them. But many people do not know what homeopathy is and they equate it with “natural products,” thinking they are getting potent herb extracts in pill form. The other reason has to do with personal experience. If you were ill and took homeopathic pellets and your condition improved, you will think you got better because of the homeopathy. Instead, it was probably because of the natural course of the illness (the flu doesn’t last forever) or because of the actual medication you were also taking. But it’s easy to think that the homeopathy caused the improvement, and once you have gone through a personal experience like this, it’s very hard to believe any other explanation. You start evangelizing for homeopathy and telling people, “don’t knock it ‘till you’ve tried it.”

Q. Tell me a little more about the Office for Science and Society at McGill. What are your goals and how do you pursue them?

The Office was founded 25 years ago by three chemistry professors and its goal is to separate sense from nonsense on scientific matters by promoting critical thinking, science communication, and the presentation of scientific information to the public, educators, and students in an accurate and responsible way. We also regularly write and publish articles on our website on matters of science and pseudoscience.

Thanks to Jonathan Jarry for this email interview. Learn more about him at JonathanJarry.com