Health

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Airborne’s Legal Remedy: Nothing to Sneeze At

airborne.jpgEveryone has probably seen the commercials for Airborne — the cold remedy “developed by a school teacher who was sick of catching colds in class and on airplanes.”

Clearly, this sounds like a product that one would take to prevent catching a cold.

Even their website back in 2001 gave that impression and more:

“Crowded environments like Airplanes, Offices, and Schools are spawning grounds for germs that cause colds and sickness! AIRBORNE’S unique natural formula of seven Herbal Extracts, Antioxidants, Electrolytes, and Amino Acids, offers maximum vitamin and herbal protection for hours! Plus its natural ginger component helps fight nausea caused by motion sickness. Take at the first sign of a cold symptom or before entering crowded, potentially germ-infested places!  [It then quotes a user as saying:] A miracle cold buster!”

And a few years later they touted the results of a clinical trial on their website.

*MOUSE PRINT: Though there is page after page of mumbo jumbo, it does suggest a reduction in symptoms by those who took Airborne. However, only 48 people actually took the product.

Fast forward to 2006. ABC reported that Airborne’s clinical trial was conducted neither by scientists nor doctors, but rather by two guys hired to conduct this particular test. The company then dropped references to it on its website.

Fast forward again to 2008. Airborne just settled a class action lawsuit claiming that the company misrepresented the product, and it agreed to pay over $23 million back to purchasers. [Get claim form here.]

The settlement agreement is lacking at least one key provision, however:

*MOUSE PRINT: There is no requirement that they refrain from making unsubstantiated claims in the future.

August 2008 Update: The FTC just entered into a settlement with the company to prevent them from making unsubstantiated health claims in the future, and to pay a total of $30 in settlement to aggrieved purchasers.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Act Fluoride: Twice the Size, Half the Strength

actsmall.jpgWhen MrConsumer’s dentist advised him that a new cavity might be in its earliest stages of development, he checked out fluoride rinses that claim to restore minerals to weak spots in tooth enamel and prevent cavities.

The granddaddy of brands is Act, formerly owned by Johnson & Johnson, and recently acquired by a company called Chattem.

Act comes in two sizes: 18 ounce and 33.8 ounce. Luckily for MrConsumer, Rite Aid had the large size on sale last week, and there was a rebate. It was a seeming no-brainer to buy the big size.

actmedium.jpg

Upon closer examination of the ingredients label, MrConsumer found a shocker:

*MOUSE PRINT: The larger bottle has less than half the strength of fluoride compared to the smaller one.

actstrength.jpg

Now who would ever expect that a different size bottle would have a different strength of the active ingredient? In fact, if you look at the larger bottle, there is a “2x” on it. Without reading carefully, one might assume that “2x” means twice the strength or twice the size, but certainly never half the potency. A closer examination reveals that is says “2x a day”. Okay, so you can use the product twice daily.

As it turns out, the company says the smaller bottle is a once a day product, and the larger one is a twice a day product. Apparently you get the equivalent amount of fluoride using the diluted version two times a day.

Nonetheless, with such an inconspicuous but important difference, countless customers in the habit of using the product once a day may buy the large size, rinse as usual, and unwittingly not get the protection they expect.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Lipitor: Reduces Bad Cholesterol, But…

We have all seen the Lipitor commercials with Dr. Robert Jarvik (he is not licensed to practice medicine in any state, but went to medical school) touting the cholesterol lowering benefits of that drug.

In fact, the company claims it will lower bad cholesterol by 39-60%:

lipitor3960.jpg

The average consumer reading this rightfully thinks this is a good thing for your health. The question, though, is what is the real significance of lowering bad cholesterol.

Another Lipitor ad helps explain this too:

lipitor2.jpg

So, for people at risk, taking Lipitor lowers your chances of having a heart attack by 36%. This certainly sounds like a big benefit for most people considering taking this drug, until you look at the fine print:

*MOUSE PRINT:

lipitordisclose.jpg

The company apparently conducted a test whereby high risk people were divided into two groups,  one of which got Lipitor, and the other got a placebo. Out of every 100 subjects tested, only three people who in essence took nothing to lower their cholesterol suffered heart attacks. On the other hand, two out of 100 Lipitor takers had a heart attack. The difference, according to the study, is that for every 100 people who take Lipitor, only one additional person will be spared a heart attack compared to those who do nothing.

So despite the big percentage claims made in advertising — 39% to 60% reduction in bad cholesterol, and 36% reduction in risk of heart attacks — if the risk the pill is reducing is very small to start with, very few people will actually be spared that heart attack by taking Lipitor (but the company will make a lot of money in the process).

Of course, for the one person in a hundred who is spared, the pill is priceless.

For more information on the math used in drug advertising, read this Business Week story.