Leahey.org | Skepticism and Productivity - Latest Comments in Does Airborne Work? A Brief Analysis of Their Claim

Re: Does Airborne Work? A Brief Analysis of Their Claim

Andrew — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:07:10 -0000

I think the most likely reason they don't attempt to gain FDA approval is,
quite simply, because they know they do not have the clinical evidence
necessary to back up their claims. I don't believe for a moment the makers
of Airborne truly believe their product works; I believe there is, and has
been, intellectual dishonesty coming from their camp from the get-go.

Re: Does Airborne Work? A Brief Analysis of Their Claim

Susan — Tue, 26 May 2009 10:33:55 -0000

Good points from all, although now with new information that the company and its researchers were downright fraudulent in their "studies" I'm hands-down NOT in support of Airborne. And I agree that analyzing the statements in this breakdown is imperative. Very. A company automatically gives up the right to be seen as valid when they squander integrity on that massive of a scale and trick the public on such a scope. Shame on them. Surely they could have taken a moment and a few $$s to have their product tested before making such serious, unsupported claims. And yes, I fully agree - why would we take drugs with no real accountability measures!?!?! The FDA does some things wrong, but much of what they have accomplished has been groundbreaking (look into it). At least an attempt at accountability should be standard, if for no other reason than to keep control in the hands of the consumer. Herbs are potent drugs, but companies sometimes can use them to make money and distribute drugs without the same regulations as other drugs. Woa. Buyer beware.

Re: Does Airborne Work? A Brief Analysis of Their Claim

Andrew — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:50:58 -0000

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.

Re: Does Airborne Work? A Brief Analysis of Their Claim

The Duncan — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:12:37 -0000

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.