Just how much should radio stations, newspapers and magazines pander to the ignorance of some of their audiences? There is surely some merit to the notion that if you have a platform, where it could well be the case that the opinions of listeners and readers are shaped by what you air or print, you have some responsibility to not mislead them?
There is a pestilence of woo sweeping the land. While some versions of pseudoscience, mysticism and general quackery are fairly constant insults to our sensibilities (Rhonda Byrne, Oprah, homeopathy, and chiropractic treatment are examples), others seem to go in and out of fashion like spinning tops and yo-yo’s used to do.
Alongside “power”, “focus” and “recovery”, they offer “burns”, “allergies” and “fatigue”. Oh, and don’t forget that “depression” you’ve been yearning for. Their website is a bit light on independent double-blind studies (i.e. there are none), so it’s unclear whether these bracelets are a good thing to wear on balance. But I suppose we have to assume that you get enough of the good stuff to outweigh those scarier-sounding “benefits”.
Or, alternately, what this shows is that they are simply too lazy, exploitative, incompetent or stupid to worry about details like having a poorly edited website. When you have fans defending the product saying things like “mabey [sic]you should look into something called science”, it seems that it doesn’t really matter what the website says. As P.T. Barnum reminded us, “there’s a sucker born every minute”, and those who sell these magic bracelets will keep on shamelessly exploiting those suckers for as long as they are able.