Exposing PseudoAstronomy

November 7, 2010

Follow-Up 1: Major American University Advertising Pseudoscience


This post is a follow-up to my first post from two weeks ago, “Major American University Advertising Pseudoscience?” I strongly suggest reading it first.

If you don’t, a very brief summary is:

  • The University of Colorado at Boulder (CU-Boulder) is a Research I university with 4 Nobel Prize winners on staff, 3 in physics and 1 in chemistry.
  • CU-Boulder has licensed Power|Force to use CU’s logo on PowerForce’s products and CU-Boulder is actively advertising for the product.
  • The product is a bracelet that, in the company’s own words, was “developed to work with your body’s natural inner force … [because] within each Power Force powerband are ions that work with your body’s energy.”
  • This is a fundamentally meaningless statement and in the opinion of many, fraud.
  • This was pointed out to CU-Boulder administration, which replied in an e-mail claiming that magnetic therapy (no mention of ions) is a clinically verified science.
  • See my first post as to why that is not true.

Edited to Add: Rachael, the respondee, has posted her reply to the correspondence I copy below on her own blog. I recommend you read it. I found it humorous that in both of our follow-up posts, we switched around where originally I was the aloof, polite, rational one and she was snarky, and for this follow-up I was more flippant while she was more diplomatic.

Further Correspondence

I was one of three people whom the original person notified of the advertising of PowerForce by CU-Boulder during football games (that person prefers to remain anonymous, but I have verified the basic claims in my previous post). One of the other people was less lazy than I, and in addition to writing her own blog post about this, sent a letter onto CU-Boulder’s administration. Her reply (and I have received permission to include the reply on my blog as well as post her name), comes not from the Chancellor’s e-mail this time, but Bronson Hilliard, the “Director of Media Relations and Spokesperson” at CU-Boulder.

Dear Rachael:

Allow me to answer your query regarding the University’s athletic marketing of the “Power Force” Power Band.

First, let me explain that the previous response that went out to a few individuals who e-mailed Chancellor DiStefano was supposed to be a reply on behalf of the chancellor by a staff member in our Buffalo Sports Properties office, not areply from the chancellor himself. I apologize for the way the reply was worded – it was confusing as to who the author actually was.

Regarding your query: members of the senior administration staff have carefully reviewed your concerns, looked into the University’s contract with the company that markets the bands, examined our peer universities’ relationships with the company, and reached the following conclusions:

· As you suggest, the claims of the company regarding the efficacy of the band aren’t based on firm scientific ground. However, the band is being marketed by through the athletic department as a novelty with affinity-inspired athletic branding that is unique to CU Athletics. The symbol it uses – the charging Ralphie – represents CU sports teams, not the university as a whole, and certainly not its research entities.

· In the same spirit, our sports-labeled products include everything from sweat bands to golf tees tolawn gnomes. These are all designed to create affinity and build school spirit, not to be literal representations of the University and its academic work.

· Likewise, the company is offering the same Powerforce Power Bands for universities that include Cal, Penn State, Missouri, Pitt and a host of other peer schools. These are quality institutions that, like us, have elected to promote a novelty item with an athletic logo for affinity and commercial purposes.

I appreciate your concern and that of your fellow graduate students and otherskeptics. Your respect for science and the scientific method is manifest inyour concern, and your dedication to advancing our highest academic values is impressive.

We do not believe in the end, however, that novelty items like the “Power Force Power Band” are threats to these values.


Bronson R. Hilliard, director of media relations and spokesperson
University of Colorado at Boulder

An Analysis of Mr. Hilliard’s E-Mail

In this analysis, I am going to translate Mr. Hilliard’s message from that of a media relations person to what it actually says (implies) to those of us who have been pursuing this. My translations are in quotes, my comments are not in quotes. Note that I am not actually claiming that Mr. Hilliard actually said the things I put in quotes, these are just my translations from what I infer.

First Paragraph Translation: I’m not certain to what this is referring, perhaps Rachael in her original e-mail accidentally complained that the message about magnetic healing came from the Chancellor, which it actually did, though in the form of a forward from someone else. Regardless, this paragraph is unimportant as it is stated.

Second Paragraph Translation: “Here’s what we’ve decided:”

Third Paragraph / First Bullet Translation: “Agreed, PowerForce’s claims are meaningless, but I’m being as cagey as I can in stating that. But we’re not actually claiming it works, we’re just marketing it. Oh, and by the way, that CU logo? That doesn’t actually represent CU.” I would consider this an Inconsistency fallacy. Another person has suggested it’s simply an “absurdity” fallacy (not a formal logical fallacy, mind you, but one that works just as well). This claim might be, on paper, true, but anyone in the general public who sees any logo related to CU is not going to separate a sports logo from an academic logo or whatever Mr. Hilliard is claiming.

Fourth Paragraph / Second Bullet Translation: “I hope that what I’m saying is convincing you. ‘Cause, you know, we market other stuff like clothing with the CU logo but I’m saying that those don’t represent the University, either. I mean, a hoodie can really be risqué and we don’t want people to think CU administration really wants to present that image!” Alright, I may have gone slightly over the top with that translation, but in all seriousness, how naïve can a director of media relations be? Or how naïve does he seriously expect us to be? This is a False Equivalency fallacy. He’s attempting to shift the burden of proof to us, which I would claim that I (and others involved in this) have more than met (again, see my first post on this). What my/our point, though, is how can the bracelet and its extraordinary claims be considered a “novelty” that’s simply “designed to create an affinity and build school spirit” if they are being sold with the $29 price tag that claims it comes with magical ions … versus sweatpants that cost the same in the CU bookstore as they would at Target; this is not the same thing (the false equivalency fallacy). No one claims that the garden gnomes that CU sells are going to be like the garden gnomes in Harry Potter, but the claims that come with the bracelets are about as magical as that book/movie series.

Fifth Paragraph / Third Bullet Translation: “By the way, lots of other kewl skools also license this stuff, why don’t you go bug them? We’re just doin’ what everybody else is.” Follow-up: “Oh, everyone else is jumping off a cliff? Sure! I’d love to!” Yeah, that’s pretty much what it boils down to, a very very Skeptics 101 fallacy of Argument ad Populum (AKA Argument from Popularity). As a fellow skeptic pointed out in e-mail to me, this is actually an opportunity for CU-Boulder to take the high road and show these other schools that they are giving their name and logo to this company. As opposed to taking what many may consider a coward’s approach: hiding behind these other schools and jumping on the “everybody’s doin’ it!” bandwagon.

Sixth Paragraph Translation: “By the way, the space bar on my computer isn’t working. But isn’t it cute that there are some of you trying to pursue this? [Insert some trite compliments.]” I don’t think much more needs to be said about this paragraph but I in my infinite verbosity will, anyway. If what preceded it had been different – perhaps owning up and taking some responsibility – then this paragraph would not have come off quite as patronizing as it does. It also was interesting that a Director of Media Relations and Spokesperson for CU-Boulder with a student-staff-administration population of well over 40,000 wouldn’t check over his e-mail to look for mistakes as simple as missing spaces between words.

Seventh Paragraph Translation: “For all those reasons, we’re not doing anything about this.”

Final Thoughts

Mr. Hilliard’s e-mail, whether intended or not, and whether ignorantly or not, is naïve in the middle and patronizing at the end. He seems to not realize – or hopes that we don’t realize – that people aren’t going to think of these as “novelty items” in the same way they are going to buy a golf tee as a “novelty item” or a CU-Boulder logo-infused shot glass as a novelty item. Any normal person is going to (1) see a CU logo and (5) assume CU is endorsing it, skipping all those intermediate steps Mr. Hilliard seems to think will lead them to a different conclusion. No one is claiming that a CU-logo-branded mug is going to imbue your morning coffee with extra energetic forces to get you through the day, and because of that charge you an extra $20. But that’s the basic claim of PowerForce – a fairly meaningless jumble of words sewn together like magnetic poetry on your refrigerator.

Rather than actually stand up and admit that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed, this latest e-mail adds yet another layer of naïveté on CU-Boulder, this time in the office (via the Director) of Media Relations. It now seems that this issue has been studied (re: “members of the senior administration staff have carefully reviewed your concerns”) and they are happy with (a) actively promoting a pseudoscientific product, (b) being associated with a company that – to anyone who knows the basics of human physiology and/or chemistry and/or physics and/or critical thinking – is making things up, and (c) allowing that company to market products with the University’s logo and name.

We also have the Director of Media Relations and Spokesperson for CU committing at least three formal logical fallacies: Inconsistency, False Equivalency, and Argument ad populum.

Yet again, I would call on all of you to contact the administration and let them know what you think. Alternatively or in addition to, you might do so at some of the other schools that license PowerForce, especially if your own school is swept up in this.

I also encourage you to get the word out. WordPress in the last several weeks added the common “sharing” buttons that let you tweet/facebook/digg/reddit/stumbleupon/wordpress my posts to let others know about them. Even if you don’t want to get directly involved by contacting school administrations, I encourage you to pass this post along via any or any combination of those links that are pretty easy to use. Someone among your hundreds of Facebook friends or Twitter followers may decide to send a message along to the administration.

Edited to Add: Rachael, the respondee, has posted her reply to the correspondence I copied above on her own blog. I recommend you read it. I found it humorous that in both of our follow-up posts, we switched around where originally I was the aloof, polite, rational one and she was snarky, and for this follow-up I was more flippant while she was more diplomatic.



  1. That is exceedingly frustrating, however it did remind me to check to see if my Placebo Band from skepticbros.com has been shipped from Australia yet. It has not. 😦 I encourage everyone to go there and buy one ($2!) and then explain to every person on the planet what a joke the whole thing is. The ions make it funnier.

    Comment by Amber K — November 7, 2010 @ 2:08 pm | Reply

  2. From the gif image names found at the Power|Force site, a list of universities with which Power|Force presumably has an affiliate marketing agreement:

    /big 12/KU
    /big 12/baylor
    /big 12/colorado
    /big 12/huskers
    /big 12/iowa2
    /big 12/kstate
    /big 12/missouri
    /big 12/osu
    /big 12/texas-am
    /big 12/texas-tech
    /big east/Connecticut
    /big east/cincinnati
    /big east/pittsburgh
    /big east/southflorida
    /big east/syracuse
    /big ten/Iowa
    /big ten/Northwestern
    /big ten/Ohio
    /big ten/Penn_State
    /big ten/Wisconsin

    Curious to know if there are any notable omissions (other than due to my error).

    Comment by Reed Esau — November 7, 2010 @ 2:15 pm | Reply

  3. Reed, interestingly, the number of logos on PowerForce’s website has shrunk in the last two weeks. In addition, the press releases that were dead links before have been completely removed. Of interest, one of these was supposed to contain the list of “over 100” universities that had licensed their product. Now, they only have 37 schools listed despite the claim, “Power Force, LLC is licensed to distribute team merchandise for more than 100 college teams,” on this page.

    Comment by Stuart Robbins — November 7, 2010 @ 2:43 pm | Reply

  4. And parsing the site in another way, another list of universities for which the Power Force Bands are presently listed for sale:

    Boise St
    Boston College
    Brigham Young
    Calif Berkeley
    Central Fl
    East Carolina
    Oklahoma St
    Penn State
    Pink Breast Cancer
    South Carolina
    South FL
    Texas El Paso
    Texas Tech
    W Kentucky
    Washington St

    Comment by Reed Esau — November 7, 2010 @ 3:00 pm | Reply

  5. Not only has it shrunk, but Georgia has it’s logo there four times. CU’s logo is there twice. I guess they are acknowledging CU’s loyalty to their brand! For the Pac-10, even if you click on USC, a Washington bracelet comes up.

    Interesting that Stanford is gone. Gone!

    There are now a total of 39 logos left. Will more drop like flies.

    Comment by Rich Orman — November 7, 2010 @ 4:20 pm | Reply

    • I’ve done a screenshot of their main page. I’ve tried to use internet caches to find a version from 2 weeks ago, but I have been unable to. At least now I have a version from 11/07 that I can refer back to.

      I also clicked on a few of the logos at the bottom. Half don’t seem to work. Half of the rest link to the wrong team. If nothing else, it’s a shoddy website and one must wonder what the steps are to license the CU logo considering that the respondee from the Buffalo Sports Properties stated, “They applied for the CU license through CLC and based on the company’s information, goals and objectives, a license was granted.” Almost sounds like the oil companies submitting safety reports about how to protect walruses from an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I wonder if the Sports Properties folks filled out their form in pencil first and then handed it to PowerForce to copy over in pen.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — November 7, 2010 @ 4:34 pm | Reply

  6. How about contacting the likes of Phil Plait and Orac and asking them if they would make a post about this subject? That’d speed things along!

    Comment by Dave — November 7, 2010 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  7. If you click UW (my alma mater) they’re on backorder. Freakin’ Liberal Arts majors. I’ll be writing a letter.

    Comment by Amber K — November 7, 2010 @ 5:01 pm | Reply

    • Good luck, Amber!

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — November 7, 2010 @ 6:00 pm | Reply

    • Checking, CU is on backorder too, as are almost all of the universities that I checked. You can get Auburn and Alabama, but everything else I checked (to or so) are on backorder. Also, a number of the logos don’t even link to a wristband, and most of the others seem to link to the wrong ones.

      Virginia and Virginia Tech, Texas, Stanford, UTEP, and many others have disappeared.

      I wonder what is going on.

      Comment by Rich Orman — November 7, 2010 @ 8:59 pm | Reply

  8. I wrote a long letter to the Chancellor, Athletic Department, and Regents of my alma mater (Texas Tech University); unfortunately, I only received a short response from an AD lackey stating that they would make sure that the university logo is being used “legally.”

    I am also the secretary of the IIG-DC and I sent this info to the group (including links to this blog); I figured there might be a few people in the group who would be interested.

    Comment by Tana — November 8, 2010 @ 8:04 am | Reply

    • Great, Tana! Thanks for helping to spread the word. Maybe IIG_DC can help with PR on this given that it’s schools all over the country.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — November 8, 2010 @ 12:46 pm | Reply

  9. The space bar isn’t working?! And I was hoping for a beer in space this weekend… Guess I have to scrap those plans.

    On a more serious note though. No matter what the PR guy says the company itself use the university to give credit to its product as being real it seems. Why take part in that?

    Comment by Sparx — November 8, 2010 @ 9:45 am | Reply

    • That’s kinda the point.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — November 8, 2010 @ 12:47 pm | Reply

  10. […] This is going to be a quick post, and for background, you should take a look at the original post about this issue and the first follow-up. […]

    Pingback by Follow-Up 2: Major American University Advertising Pseudoscience « Exposing PseudoAstronomy — November 10, 2010 @ 11:10 am | Reply

  11. My local University’s logo is on the page, but the link takes you to a different University’s band, as others have noted above. I was debating whether to contact the University since their logo may not really be on a band, but then I realized that it’s entirely possible that the company does not have an agreement with them and is using the logo without permission. Even a University that doesn’t care if other people get ripped off does care if they get ripped off. If any of those logos is being used without permission this company has opened up a huge legal problem for themselves, so I’ll be shooting the University a letter and hoping for the best.

    Comment by gussnarp — November 11, 2010 @ 12:35 pm | Reply

  12. I think this entire power force is a scam. I bought three bands on their web site over a month ago and have not gotten them yet. I called and they said they were 3 to 4 weeks away. I checked their site and they removed their disclaimer. I think my money is gone and They are a scam. Whatever they are doing they are not honorable people.

    Comment by Jim Buckmore — December 2, 2010 @ 5:01 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: