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.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

CBS’ “Kid Nation” Contract: We’re Not Responsible If Your Kid Dies

Kid Nation logoThis fall, CBS is debuting a new reality series called Kid Nation. In it, 40 kids aged eight to 15 go off to a remote, deserted location to have a Survivor-like adventure for 40 days without adult supervision.

Controversy has sprung up about injuries some of the kids sustained, and the one-sided nature (in CBS’ favor) of a 22-page release that parents had to sign as a condition of their kids’ participation in the show should they be selected. (Here is the New York Times story.)

Mouse Print* has found and reviewed what is purported to be a copy of that release. The producers and CBS left nothing to chance in protecting themselves, while getting parents to give up their rights in protecting their children.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Kid Nation 1

Translation: I accept the risk if a wolf eats my kid, if he drowns during a competition, or any other terrible thing happens.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Kid Nation 2

Translation: If my kid dies, CBS and the producers are not responsible.

Some other provisions of the agreement include (1) that the producers can film the children 24 hours a day anywhere (but not in the bathroom if they are really doing their business in there); (2) that the kids will not have sex with the producers,  and if they have sex with other participants they will not hold the producers liable for STDs or pregnancy; (3) that neither the parents nor the kids will reveal anything about the show for three years, and if they do, they will pay CBS $5 million as liquidated damages; and (4) they will not sue CBS or the producers for anything but instead will take any disputes to arbitration.

It seems there must have been no shortage of stage mothers and fathers who were willing to bite the bullet and sign away their rights as the price for their kid to become a television star. This is no doubt the reason that CBS and the producers could get away with such a one-sided agreement.