Skip to content

Does Airborne Work? A Brief Analysis of Their Claim

 

Does Airborne Work?

Does Airborne Work?

A recent Ask Metafilter question succinctly (and accurately) answered by Gina has stirred me to write a quick entry regarding the product marketed by Airborne Health as a “cold cure”.

 

Well, I suppose I should clarify that. They are no longer legally allowed to claim the product cures anything.
I think a little bit of knowledge regarding the regulation and legality of marketing campaigns for so-called “alternative” health modalities is something that the public is in dire need of. When you have some information as to what sort of claims can be made without supporting evidence, you will notice a shocking correlation between these regulations and the claims of the products.
For instance you will notice that now, following the law suit, Airborne’s website has been stripped of anything resembling a direct claim of efficacy. You will instead see that all such claims have been replaced by pseudo-scientific generalities such as its ability to “support your immune system”. A direct quote from their “What’s in Airborne?” page:

Airborne is a dietary supplement that was created by a school teacher. Airborne is a proprietary combination of 17 vitamins, minerals and herbs. The key ingredients in Airborne have been shown to help support a healthy immune system as shown in scientific studies and medical journals.

Lets take this sentence by sentence.

Airborne is a dietary supplement that was created by a school teacher.

I have heard their claims before, so I know where they’re going with this. This is a vague reference to the back-story they’ve propagated over the years telling of schoolteacher Victoria Knight-McDowell. She, being a school teacher, was exposed to more germs and bacterial infections than a Thai masseuse. McDowell, seeing this, designed and developed this *proprietary* mix of vitamins minerals and herbs to combat these conditions.  

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but being a school teacher, even a really sick one, in no way qualifies you to develop pharmaceuticals.

Airborne is a proprietary combination of 17 vitamins, minerals and herbs.

I can’t even begin to explain how disturbing this vague statement is. You would never take a drug from a pharmacist that didn’t indicate its chemical composition. Herbs are drugs, folks. They contain chemicals that interact with the body in exactly the same way a synthesized (read: Big Pharma) version does. The only difference is they aren’t regulated by the FDA (reread this, they ARE NOT REGULATED by the FDA), so you have absolutely no idea what the chemical make up of the dosage you’re taking is.
So, just to recap, you’re taking a mix of 17 unknown substances, which are each themselves in no way regulated for dosage.
“But Andrew! It’s all natural!”
So is arsenic.

The key ingredients in Airborne have been shown to help support a healthy immune system as shown in scientific studies and medical journals

This statement is very interestingly worded. First, they aren’t saying Airborne helps support a healthy immune system. They’re saying the key ingredients have been show to help support a healthy immune system as shown in scientific studies and medical journals.So, at some dosage, the ingredients in Airborne may help support your immune system. But, that isn’t to say that you aren’t already getting those ingredients at healthy doses in your regular diet. You need Vitamin C to survive, but you don’t need a Vitamin C supplement to survive. 

Also, the statement repeats the term “shown” twice. It would be much easier to just say “the key ingredients in Airborne have been shown to help support a healthy immune system”, wouldn’t it? Don’t you find it suspicious that they chose to add that extra “shown” in there?
Do you see it yet?
They aren’t actually saying anything. They’re saying that healthy immune systems have been shown in scientific studies and medical journals.
Reread the sentence, take a minute to really comprehend whats being said.
Starting looking at the marketing literature for these so-called “alternative” health modalities, really look at the claims. What are they saying? Are they actually making any concrete claims, or are they using pseudo-esoteric wording and confusing phrasing to make you assume a causation where there is none?

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Viewing 2 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I don’t know or care about Airborne. I do find you narrow and simpleminded however. I work in the Pharma industry. Once again sentence by sentence. You took this in three parts:

    The school teacher issue:

    -Still I trust the school teacher as much, if not more than some big pharma, paying off the FDA and rushing a product to market that has to have disclaimers like, “discontinue use if anal bleeding becomes severe.”




    The vague ingredients list:

    - Your use of the FDA as a defense in your argument is laughable. This is the same FDA that is continually re-aligning its guidelines to help the pharma industry police itself. Big Pharma and the FDA are just as quick to sell you a pile of chemicals that they know squat about, because some rats seemed happier while taking them. I would bet my liver that there is no more risk in Airborne as there is in Paxil. I don’t think anyone has had any trouble getting off of Airborne. Or killing themselves while on Airborne…or bleeding from the rectum for that matter. Your argument here also assumes that the average person has a clue to what they are reading when they look at the ingredients of their big pharma, FDA regulated medications.


    …and the “key ingredients have been shown…as shown…etc.”

    -So, in case you didn’t know what a healthy immune system is…they (healthy immune systems) are shown (apparently) in scientific studies and medical journals. What I get from this is that if your immune system isn’t healthy, then Airborne might not be for you. Go figure. Before you get into grammar and semantics, I think you should re-read everything you wrote here.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for your comment, I always hearing the other side of the argument.

    I have to say though, stating that you don't know or care about the topic the article itself is written on, is not a particularly intellectual way to get started. Perhaps you should look in to Airborne, before you decide to argue in favor of it? If that's what you're doing?

    Perhaps not. You may just be attacking my method, fair enough.

    With regards to the school teacher issue: You personally trust a school teacher as much as you do the FDA. That's fine. The fact of the matter is, and if you truly do work "in the Pharma industry" you should know this, all FDA-regulated drugs go through clinical trials. They are tested, and tested again.

    The very fact that they know to put a warning such as the one you described COMES from the fact that there have been trials. They know the risks. They know how the drug is supposed to interact with the body, and they know what happens when there is a side-effect. In summary, they know what to look for.

    The same cannot be said about these "alternative" medicines. There is no testing whatsoever required of them. There is no oversight with blood tests, or any way of legitimately seeing what the drug (and they most certainly are drugs) is doing within the body.

    So, yes, there surely are dangerous drugs out there. But, thanks to clinical testing, and retesting, the risks are known and you are able to make an informed decision as to whether or not the benefits outweigh those risks.

    Your claims follow the same lines of a typical true-believer slash conspiracy theorist. You claim that the FDA has "re-aligned" its guidelines to help the pharmaceutical industry police itself. You then go on to say that big pharma sells you a pile of chemicals merely because they made rats "happier". This is completely skipping over the human trials, of which there are many. I invite you to look in to what is called the FDA "New drug application" which outlines the path that *all* new drugs must take to market.

    I would bet your liver there is no more risk in Airborne than Paxil too. Then again, I'm not a doctor, but I wouldn't prescribe an antidepressant for seasonal allergies.

    But, thats just me.

    You're taking a position of assumption of ignorance for the general public, and thats fine. However, that doesn't decrease the need for empirical measurements on our "medicines". Just because you aren't bright enough to look up whats in my soft drink, doesn't mean I want the ingredient label peeled off.

    Finally, the wording of the ad.

    You began your response by calling me simpleminded, and I will now return the favor. If you think that the claims of the product that has recently been sued for false advertising contain grammatical errors that are mere nuances, were simply overlooked by their marketing department: You sir are simpleminded.

    I find it interesting that you are quick to believe big pharma is out to get you, and is uncaring, but just as quick to defend this product, of which you admitted to knowing nothing about. This tells me that you have subscribed to a belief without knowing any facts. Big pharma bad, anything else good.

    Furthermore, I'm not sure where you're getting that they're claiming if you don't have a healthy immune system, Airborne might not be for you. Perhaps you are far more intelligent than I, good sir, but that is surely not how I read the line.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus