Cold “cure” formula is just viral marketing

The Independent reported today on a formula promising a “cure” for the common cold. Although really it did no such thing. There’s so much wrong with the article I scarcely know where to begin debunking it. For a start, its written by “Dr Chris Idzikowski, the director of the Edinburgh Sleep Centre” (so I’m guessing he’s not a virologist), and actually deals with insomnia caused by having a cold. So not really a cure in any sense. Let’s have a look at the formula itself:

i4 + (x * t3) + (y * i1) - a1 - t4 + t2 - i3 + (2 * (p+p2)) + L1 = cold cure

Where t2 is having a hot bath (I wonder what the units of “hot bath” are), as this “opens capillaries in the skin, so that the body can shed heat after you get out of the tub”. As far as I can see it, this follows the logic: you need to cool down, so get in a hot bath, your body will divert blood to the skin to try and cool down, and then get out and hope your body doesn’t close the capillaries, thus allowing you to cool down. Why not just have a cold bath?

i1 is for having some alcohol before bed, although it’s hard to know whether Dr Idzikowski mentioned a hot toddy or the journalist did. Either way, you’re not allowed to have more than two units. This caveat isn’t actually described by the formula, so I guess you just have to know. In case you’re wondering what y is (which multiplies i1), it’s “opening a window”. Again, the units aren’t clear, is y the number of windows opened, or how far you open them? And in any case, what does it have to do with alcohol? Can you drink more than the allocated two units if you close some windows? In fact, opening zero windows will negate the effect of any alcohol, so drink away!

Throw in TV viewing (a1 - again no units (number of hours of TV? Minutes? Number of TVs??)), bedsocks (t4 and I’m not joking), and Beechams Flu Plus (i4). Then work them all out to see… er… what? I don’t know. A value? A percentage? Nowhere does the article tell us what the fuck this is even supposed to work out. Add to that i3, p, and p2 aren’t even described in the article. Who knows what they are? I don’t. Do you? Maybe journalist Paul Rodgers knows. I don’t think he does. I don’t think he even cares. All that matters is this: a Brainy Scientist has come up with a Formula that Looks Complicated and Solves A Problem. You, pleb reader, are not required to know the details, and are not invited to. By the way, did we mention he has a book out?

More tedious viral marketing disguised as science.

12 comments October 30th, 2007