Snake-Oil Makes A Comeback
I’ve been wondering about this “created by a teacher” crap :
Packages of Airborne, found in the cough-and-cold aisle of major chains like CVS, Rite Aid and Wal-Mart, proudly proclaim that the product was “Created by a School Teacher!” This seems a little odd. Don’t we want to fight our seasonal ailments with things created by, for instance, doctors and scientists? Apparently not all of us do: Airborne is extremely successful, and its creation by someone without the slightest medical expertise or qualification is almost certainly a factor in its success.
. . .
People also must use Airborne because it works, or rather because they believe it works. Technically, Airborne is a dietary supplement (you’re supposed to take it “at the first sign of a cold symptom or before entering crowded environments”), meaning that it does not require Food and Drug Administration testing and approval. As the package disclaimer notes, it is “not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” As with many supplements, there is no independent scientific evidence of Airborne’s medicinal value. But many people continue to buy the herbal supplement echinacea, despite many studies (including one in The New England Journal of Medicine) saying it does nothing to ward off or treat colds.Apart from the power of the placebo effect, this consumer indifference to scientific proof brings up the critical issue of trust and, perhaps more important, distrust. The medical establishments of the 18th and 19th centuries sparred with folk remedies, too; of course, establishment methods of the time included bleeding and phrenology. Some consumers, then as now, clearly distrust official, orthodox methods. And let’s face it, the current reputation of the people who do have expertise in the concoction of remedies is not so great. The astonishing onslaught of consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals in recent years has more recently been followed by an onslaught of safety concerns and lawsuits. Merck, a heroic company just a few years ago, now calls to mind Vioxx lawsuits and trials. Consumer groups paint the pharma giants as shameless profiteers. “We’re losing the battle for consumer trust,” a top Bayer executive confessed to The Wall Street Journal last year.
Where are the courts in cases like this? It’s obvious that the words “”not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease” on the package are a lie used to avoid FDA approval. Check out this ad from AirborneHealth.com :
Since Airborne does such a great job boosting the immune system, would the second grade teacher recommend her product for AIDS patients on a three-drug cocktail? Obviously the FDA has a well-deserved credibility problem, but is it safe or fair for this remedy to avoid the government scrutiny we demand of other medicines? And for those of you who thinks it’s okay for “natural”, “herbal”, “folk”, or “alternative” medicines to skate through regulatory oversight, how long will it be before the big pharma companies (and their well-paid shills in Congress) demand a piece of the action? Would Merck be allowed to avoid government scrutiny the way Airborne has by re-releasing Vioxx as a “supplement” that isn’t “intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease”?
7 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Here’s the logic:
1)Big Pharma is motivated by greed.
2)Pharmaceuticals are tested scientifically
3)Therefore, non-scientifically tested remedies are made by companies NOT motivated by greed. The profits they make are purely incidental.
Interestingly, I saw a program a while ago (Frontline, maybe?) about all these alternative, herbal, dietary supplement products, and one of the main supporters of the legislation allowing these things to be sold without proof of efficacy was none other than that old hippie, Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch.
BTW, whose to say that Big Pharma doesn’t already have a piece of the “supplement” pie? It’d be pretty easy to either buy shares in or set up a shell company to sell herbal remedies etc.
Comment by dAVE — January 23, 2006 @ 8:55 am
It may all just be in my head but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve felt like a cold was coming on and I knocked it out by taking Echinacea…
Comment by jimmarquis — January 23, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
OK, so, I know a little about this…
The thing is, you can’t patent a naturally occuring substance. Therefore, there’s only so much money that any one producer can make off of it. So, there’s no real financial incentive to pour gobs of money into researching it’s effectiveness. Does that automatically mean it isn’t effective? No. But, does that mean it is? No. Are there some useless “supplements” on the market? Obviously.
BUT, if FDA approval was required for the over the counter sale of “supplements”, many of these products wouldn’t be on the market. Not because they couldn’t get approved, but because nobody’s gonna want to shell out the money for the studies, if once it’s approved, anybody else can start producing and selling it.
So, in the absence of large scale studies to prove it’s effectiveness, how do we know if the stuff works? Mostly based on anecdotal accounts. Your friend/sister/coworker uses it and swers that it lessens the severity/duration of their cold. So, you try it, and sure enough, your cold is gone in half the usual time. Well, then, heck, I guess it works. It’s not going to hurt you, so all you’ve really got to lose is a couple of bucks if it doesn’t work.
And, as far as people putting more trust into something that’s not been scientifically tested, I just don’t see it. Sure there are some new age-ey types out there who insist on only using “natural” cures, but they’re the exception, not the rule. If someone buys some supplement like Airborne, and it doesn’t do anything, most people aren’t gonna waste their money buying it again and again.
On the other hand, I can’t even begin to tell you how many people are taking pharmaceuticals that have been “proven effective”, but they come in the pharmacy whining about how they don’t even think it’s really doing anything for them, then they shell out for month after month, cause their doctor or their TV tells them it works. There’s definitely an element of buyer beware involved. If you don’t want to throw you’re money away on stuff that doesn’t work, you might have to do a little research, and then use your head. If you’ve been on Paxil for 6 months (for example), but you’re still depressed, maybe you should think about that.
“Not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any didsease” is not something that you can just slap on your package to avoid FDA oversight. It’s actually something that the FDA makes you put on there so that consumers know that this isn’t a drug. They make them put it on there to protect you, the consumer.
Actually, big pharma is notorious for planting these kind of stories, in an attempt to turn consumers off of products where they don’t stand to make any money. The line “Consumer groups paint the pharma giants as shameless profiteers. ‘We’re losing the battle for consumer trust,’ a top Bayer executive confessed” tells me all I need to know about which way this article is slanted.
Personally, I think the whole “created by a school teacher” thing is kind of cheesy, and not really a selling point. But I do buy and use Airborne, because it does seem to help keep me from getting sick. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t buy it, no matter who created it.
Plus, a Natural substance is not a Drug, and vice versa. Vioxx is a drug. It can olny be sold as a drug. And the FDA does step in when a “supplement” is found to contain something potentially dangerous. Remember Metabolife?
Anways, I would recommend consumers always try to err on the side of caution. Don’t put ANYTHING into your body that you don’t need to, or if you can’t be reasonably sure of what it’s effects and risks are.
Comment by mona — January 23, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
I took Echinacea once, and it knocked out my inhibitions, made me feel real good, made shitty music sounds good… oh wait, that was ecstacy.
Comment by dAnimal — January 23, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
I’m pretty sure this stuff ain’t Lorenzo’s Oil.
On a side note, re: the movie reference, does anyone else think Susan Sarandon’s still really hot?
Anyway…
Comment by SteveAudio — January 23, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
On a side note, re: the movie reference, does anyone else think Susan Sarandon’s still really hot?
yes. yes, I do.
(OTOH, the guy in those “Airborne” ads makes me physically ill. There’s someone who needs to be “specially rendered” to Gitmo, where I can’t see his bloated pseudo-hipster face.)
Comment by Pere Ubu — January 25, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
ok lets clear this up….the companys have to put “this is not meant to diagnose,treat or prevent disease” on things because its a law made by the fda that ONLY A DRUG can cure treat or prevent disease and unless the fda can patent it and control it they wont approve it not to mention they make company’s pay $800,000 for the research required so its almost impossible for a little nobody with a natural cure to get it fda approved. If company’s do not place that on their products the fda can shut them down and put them in jail for illegally selling drugs. If I go on tv and say oranges cure cancer they can arrest me.only a drug can cure a disease so by claiming an orange cures cancer I have turned that orange into a drug by their law! its absolutely nuts. personally I say “if man made it dont eat it and if you cant eat it dont put it on your body”.oh and the FDA is trying right now to make all natural remedies,vitamins etc illegal. if they have any luck we will lose the right to take things that grow on earth.might wanna fight for the right know all your options when it cxomes to your health. peace out Quotes from “natural cures “they” dont want you to know about……read it or any of the hundred other books talking about how we are being lied to!!
Comment by amber — February 19, 2006 @ 4:18 am