Critical thinking is defined by Google as “the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.” Note that the level of intelligence of the thinker is not one of the variables.

My observation of how that plays out is that it is entirely possible for smart people to not exercise critical thinking skills. I am of the opinion (based on my own non-statistical observations) that, in practice there is no correlation between the use of critical thinking skills and one’s intellect. My experience has been that most physicians are very sharp people and my purpose is not to denigrate anyone, but I also find that frequently physicians are willing to suspend their critical thinking skills when it comes to some of the claims that are made about supplements.

I remember an incident a number of years ago where I was having lunch with a well-regarded MD in the Midwest. We were talking about immune response and ways to support immune function, and he mentioned a product being sold by a competitor that was labeled as “human interferon.” As I said, this was several decades ago when interferon was just being isolated and before anyone was mass-producing it; I think the worldwide supply at the time could be measured in grams, and valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars. So when I saw on the bottle that they were claiming 10 mg per tablet and selling a month’s supply for around $15.00, I was, to say the least, a bit skeptical. And it surprised me that my doctor friend wasn’t. So I asked him where he understood the “human” interferon came from, given those facts (with which he was also familiar). He said that the rep for this company said that it was “extracted from the foreskins of circumcised babies in New York hospitals.”

Huh. Seriously??

I asked him if he thought that was reasonable. He said “Well, I do know that foreskins are high in interferon, so at first I didn’t question it, but now that you made me think a bit deeper, no, that doesn’t make sense to me. I guess I’ll have to ask my rep for more detail.”

Anyhow, I tell this story to encourage everyone to remember their critical thinking skills, and to apply them to what they hear about products. When I was involved in Metagenics’ training of our new reps, we regularly stressed the importance of accuracy to our newbies, but I must say my experience is that not all of my competitor colleagues are, shall we say, fully informed or completely candid.

Let me use a couple of examples. Metagenics produces both “medical foods” and “functional foods.” I’ll go into more detail about what constitutes each in a later posting (they are not the same), but in short, medical foods are a special category established by FDA and regulated differently than nutritional supplements (which include functional foods). Our medical food products meet the requirements to be labeled as such, one of which is that they have to be based on clinical evidence. This means that we conduct case studies and/or clinical trials to demonstrate that they accomplish what they’re developed to do.

So when a competitor tells one of our customers that their functional food works just as well as one of our medical foods, the practitioner’s first question should be “How do you know?” I find that, all too often, a doctor is willing to accept the assertions of a sales rep without any real proof. And when they are providing these products to their patients, it seems to me they should be asking for more evidence than a simple assertion by a sales person, however well-intentioned. If in fact they do work “just as well,” the rep should be able to demonstrate proof in the form of clinical trials, case studies or some other rigorous method. And telling anecdotal stories doesn’t suffice.

And by the way, our reps should be challenged to support what we say as well. No one should be able to make a simple assertion without evidence, particularly when a patient’s health is at stake.