Health

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Walgreens’ Screwy Vaccine Signup Process

In many states, signing up for a COVID-19 vaccine shot has been nothing short of a nightmare. The systems set up by some states like Massachusetts have been rightly criticized for creating a frustrating frenzy when new appointments are loaded into the system. It is like vying with thousands of others to get that hot concert ticket the minute Ticketmaster goes online with them.

Not to be outdone, Walgreens here has set up a vaccination appointment system that defies explanation. When you first log in with your account information and pass the screening questions, you may be lucky enough to get to the vaccinations available page after you enter your zip code.

Dose 1

So you pick a date for your first dose. Then, unlike any other non-pharmacy system we have seen, Walgreens wants you to pick a date for your second shot. And for days, at least in the Boston area, this is the next screen you saw.

*Mouse Print:

dose 2

What? They canceled your first-dose appointment because they cannot schedule a time for the second one? Because future deliveries of vaccines are so unpredictable, elsewhere it has become common practice to not schedule the second dose until the day you show up for the first dose.

We asked Walgreens if perhaps this was a glitch in their system not even letting people get the first dose on the date they reserved, and whether they are considering changing the system to fill requests for first dose only patients. A company spokesperson replied in part:

As of now, the vaccine scheduler is stable and working as intended… Eligible individuals can make appointments for both first and second doses at the same time…

We wrote back to Walgreens questioning the logic of their system.

The corporate spokesperson responded a couple of days later:

Earlier this week there were several first-dose appointments available in the scheduling system across Massachusetts locations, however, second dose appointments were not available. We resolved the issue by adding second dose appointments for future dates in order for eligible individuals to proceed in making appointments in the most effective manner. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Thank you, Walgreens.

Now it’s your turn. Feel free this week to use the comment section to tell everyone about your experience in making a vaccine appointment, good or bad, at Walgreens or at any other site.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Subway Tuna Tested by Independent Lab

Two weeks ago we told you that Subway was being sued by two California consumers whose lawyers claimed there was no tuna in the tuna sandwiches sold by the company. [See original story.] Subway denied the claims and even launched an advertising campaign saying it used 100% wild-caught tuna.

Now Inside Edition decided to have Subway’s tuna tested by an independent laboratory that specializes in analyzing fish, Applied Food Technologies.



*MOUSE PRINT:

The results of the tests on three samples showed that indeed they all contained real tuna fish.

Below is the 2021 carton containing the actual tuna pouches that Subway currently uses (at least at the Queens location where it was photographed). The description on it perfectly matches what was on the tuna package displayed by a Subway employee last summer before this became an issue.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Subway carton
Subway pouch

At the time the lawsuit was filed last month, the consumers’ lawyers refused to provide the specific ingredients that their own tests revealed that formed the basis of their case. We asked the lawyers last week to comment on Inside Edition‘s test results and whether they were still sticking by their own analysis. The lawyers did not respond… but you can add your comments below on these latest developments.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Subway Sued Over Alleged Tuna-less Tuna Sandwiches; It Fights Back With New Ads

Two California consumers sued Subway in January for selling tuna sandwiches and wraps that allegedly had no tuna in them.

Subway tuna

*MOUSE PRINT:

According to the complaint…

Defendants consistently advertise the Products as “tuna.” However, Defendants’ labeling and marketing scheme for the Products is blatantly false. As independent testing has repeatedly affirmed, the Products are made from anything but tuna. On the contrary, the Products are made from a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by Defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna. Defendants identified, labeled and advertised the Products as “tuna” to consumers, when in fact they were not tuna.

The lawsuit provided no other specifics as to the actual content of the sandwiches, but repeatedly asserts that “the Products entirely lack any trace of tuna as a component…”

A check of the ingredients statement on the Subway website, however, lists the ingredients of their tuna salad as having tuna as its primary ingredient.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Subway ingredients

To try to figure out what was really going on here, we asked one of the consumers’ two law firms for a copy of the full complaint twice, but they would not provide it. Then we asked the other law firm representing the consumers for more specifics including what the tests they conducted revealed, and whether the complaint is based on a technical violation of the federal definition of what constitutes tuna fish. They responded saying they were not answering media questions at this stage of the case.

However, we did get a response from Subway with their comments.

“Our restaurants receive pure tuna, mix it with mayonnaise and serve [it] on a freshly made sandwich to our guests.” –Subway spokesperson

Digging around a little more, we found a video shot last summer by a Subway employee who was mixing up a batch of tuna for their sandwiches which shows the actual source of the tuna.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Subway tuna package

The package is clearly labeled as “tuna” and the only other ingredients in that package are water and salt. And as noted by the Subway spokesperson, and confirmed by the video, mayonnaise is the only other thing added.

As it comes out of the package, the tuna somewhat resembles “pink slime” — the pink mash from beef bone scrapings that McDonald’s was accused of using in hamburgers years ago. The tuna version of this is called “tuna scrape” — back meat scraped off tuna bones. We asked Subway twice if they use “tuna scrape” but they did not respond.

However, over this past weekend, the company did start a national advertising campaign addressing the tuna issue head-on:

Subway 100%

Clearly, there is something fishy going on… but we just don’t know what. Stay tuned.

We invite you to offer your opinion in the comments section below about this case. Is Subway actually trying to pull a fast one on customers as the law firms allege, or could the lawyers be mistaken? And what is the actual proof underlying the claims that the lawyers won’t reveal?