Get free money from the "Airborne" fraudsters

[AngryAmish]

Ever hear of "Airborne" brand anti-cold medicine? You know, the stuff "created by a school teacher" that claims to cure and prevent colds?

Well, as you can guess, their claims are complete crap. Airborne is snake oil of the first order. They made up phony clinical tests. The FTC sued them and they agreed to a settlement.

You can get reimbursed for up to six purchases without proof of purchase online here <www.airbornehealthsettlement.com/index.htm >

Please get some money from these frauds. They have literally stolen millions, now hit them back in their pocketbook.

on edit: story of the fruad and settlement here <http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/makers-of-a... >

cross post from Lounge

[Missy Vixen]

1. We use Airborne

We've found it very effective. I'm more than a bit surprised that it's now supposedly ineffective.

I might also mention that Synthroid, the #1 drug used to treat hypothyroidism and prescribed for many years as such, didn't have clinical trials till less than five years ago as well.

Julie

[AngryAmish]

2. By what standard do you find it effective?

The way humans brains work is we often confuse causation with correlation. It is known as confirmation bias. We took Airborne and did not have any colds. Therefore Airborne prevented colds. Based on what?

There is a way to test it. A good old double blind test. Airborne would not spring for a real test, instead they made up a phony test.

Since you have been taking Airborne have you been attacked by a tiger? If you have not, would you consider Airborne effective as a tiger repellent?

[Missy Vixen]

7. We either don't get a cold, or the symptoms are much reduced

when we do catch one.

I take Airborne at the first symptom of sinus infection/cold/just not feeling well. As I mentioned, the symptoms are much reduced as a result. We'll keep buying it if they keep making it. My husband spent several years flying three weeks out of four a month; we believe the stuff works when we've been exposed to germs we just don't want.

>Since you have been taking Airborne have you been attacked by a tiger? If you have not, would you consider Airborne effective as a tiger repellent?<

You know, it's fine to disagree with me. It's not fine to imply that I'm stupid because I disagree with you.

Julie

[AngryAmish]

8. If you think I insulted you, then I am in the wrong

But there is no evidence the stuff works. No one wants to think that they have been had. Nothing in Airborne will prevent or lessen a cold.

The cure for the common cold is as old as mankind. Vitamin C? Nope - however since a Nobel Prize winner recommended this stuff people think it works (another logical fallacy - appeal to authority. Fallacies are effective because we are hard wired to believe them, in this case we listen to authority because group cohesion was important to survive.)

We want to believe - we are born that way. However we have been given an intellect to perceive our weaknesses and through rational thought we can do out best. Cheers.

[distantearlywarning]

13. Thank you for your posts in this thread.

It's refreshing to see someone actively trying to think rationally about the world around them.

That's a rare behavior these days, even on DU (as evidenced by some of the posts in this thread - "I don't care what science says - I believe! So there! My opinion is just as good as yours, even if it isn't backed up by any facts or even a logical train of thought! How dare you insult my just-as-good-as-yours-opinion by pointing out its irrationality!"

[Flying Dream Blues]

17. Ok, I think I know what rational thinking is.

And while it may be purely coincidence, I have not had a single cold or sinus infection since I started using Airborne at the first sign of a cold or allergies. Prior to that time, I had at least 2 sinus infections per year, and a cold or two as well. I have not had ONE in about 4-5 years. NOT ONE. I choose to believe that Airborne has played a part in this dramatic shift in my overall well-being. How does this make me irrational? You might want to think about trying not to be so condescending and rude; there is enough of that here already. Of course, that that is just my unscientific, irrational opinion.

[distantearlywarning]

23. If clinical trials show that Airborne doesn't work

then in fact your positive experience IS nothing but coincidence.

If you choose to believe that your lack of sickness isn't coincidence and is instead due to Airborne, the flying Spaghetti Monster, wearing magnets in your shoes or global warming, that's certainly your right. And nobody will try to stop you from taking anything that you believe is making your life better.

However, should you choose to do that, you are not a rational thinker, and you aren't demonstrating that you know what rational thinking is. There's nothing else to say about it. Best of luck with the tigers too. :shrug:

[Missy Vixen]

24. Thank you

>You might want to think about trying not to be so condescending and rude; there is enough of that here already. Of course, that that is just my unscientific, irrational opinion.<

Condescending and rude is the coin of the realm around here.

Question: Has Vicks Vapo-Rub ever gone through clinical trials? I've been using it since I was a kid. It works well. There are many OTC things we all use on a daily basis that may have never had clinical trials, but work just fine anyway.

Julie

[distantearlywarning]

26. Look, you're just making yourself look more ignorant.

It's obvious you aren't comprehending what people are saying to you in this thread.

For the last time:

You can't claim that something "works well" if you haven't compared it to anything else, or nothing.

Maybe Vicks VapoRub does "work well" (for what, by the way? Fending off wild animals? Sexual dysfunction? Lowering cholesterol?) Maybe it doesn't. Have you ever tried to get through chest congestion without it? Or compared it to (for shits & giggles) Tiger Balm? Or someone rubbing Vaseline on your chest?

You may be happy with its effect, but that might be because you want to believe it works because you would feel stupid for using it all this time if it was ineffective (e.g., look up "cognitive dissonance" on the internets). Or you might just think it works because you've never tried anything else. Or it might work well for you because you have some kind of peculiar body chemistry and it wouldn't work for any other human being. Or maybe the act of someone massaging your chest makes you feel better when you're sick, and any kind of lotion-like substance would work. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHICH OF THESE CAUSES IS MAKING YOU FEEL BETTER UNLESS YOU DO A TEST WHERE YOU CONTROL FOR THESE ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES. And claiming that you do have an idea while simultaneously denigrating the scientific method makes you sound as foolish as the fundies who think that their house was spared the tornado because they were praying extra loud during the storm. Or as foolish as someone who thinks that TigerBalm keeps away tigers because they haven't been attacked while they were using it.

And if you continue to argue, you'll just sound even more foolish. And make the rest of us despair even more about DU and the fate of the rest of the world and the American educational system. I suggest you stop already and let it go. For everyone's sake. God knows I'm tired of trying to explain this concept.

[Missy Vixen]

27. Perhaps you need to take your own advice

>I suggest you stop already and let it go.<

Don't you have anything else to do besides writing long screeds to those who disagree with you, insulting them and their education (or as you deem it, lack of it,) and implying that anyone who doesn't use your extra-special methods of deduction is causing you to "despair even more about DU and the fate of the rest of the world and the American educational system"?

For God's sake, get over yourself.
Julie

[distantearlywarning]

28. It's not about "disagreement" or my opinion vs. your opinion.

It's not even about Airborne. And it's not even about insulting you, or about me feeling superior to you (although believe me, at this point I do).

Rather it's about a pervasive type of thinking that is a detriment to this site and to our culture in general.

By the way, my "extra-special method of deduction" is part of the scientific method, which is behind pretty much every bit of technological progress that our species has ever made (struggling against deliberately ignorant fundies of all stripes - Airborne and otherwise - the whole way, I might add). Although it is not a perfect truth-teller, it is the primary thing that, for instance, keeps us from still believing that swamp gas causes malaria and that the stars are holes that God poked in the floor of heaven.

But hey, what an elitist bitch I am, confounding nice people like you on the internets with my "extra special method of deduction"! After all, everybody knows that worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only way to ward off sickness and wild animal attacks.

[Warpy]

32. Ah, the eternal Health board arguments

1) The confusion between coincidence and causation. Clearly, since double blind trials were never done and were in fact faked, the company can't claim their product causes or cures anything. Whether or not it is working is moot. We don't know. No studies have been done. If they had been honest enough to do a few studies, even small ones, they'd have been able to make a claim unless those studies showed absolutely no effect.

Faking the data shows they had no intent to back up their claim and the FDA was right to issue this ruling.

2) The substitution of anecdotal stories for hard data. Anecdotes come from people who are subject to the placebo effect. You can find anecdotal data for the most remarkable cures, from putting a knife under the mattress during childbirth to cut the pain in two to the use of Airborne. However, without real clinical trials what you are lacking are hard facts and figures.

There is simply no proof it does what it says it does, no matter what individual people might believe.

If people reading this are having wonderful results from copper bracelets, magnets, Airborne, or any other folk cure, that's great. However, you can't extrapolate the placebo effect some people have to an effect in the general population. Not everyone will have it.

Should any of this stuff work as advertised, there would never be any dissatisfied customers. There are embarrassed customers who are loath to admit they spent money on this stuff and it doesn't work. That doesn't mean they're particularly satisfied.

(By the way, if you really want to prevent colds, wash your hands before you touch your face)

[wtmusic]

73. Your application of scientific method is poor

Airborne did not go through clinical trials. Just because they make unfounded claims that doesn't mean is doesn't alleviate effects for some people. It has ingredients found in many other over-the-counter remedies.

I don't use it, but WTF? Come down off your high horse. :eyes:

[distantearlywarning]

74. And by the same token,

without actual trials, you can't claim that it DOES work either. That's the whole point of this thread... :eyes:

BTW, do you know of any other tested and efficaceous OTC product that helps keep people from getting colds in the first place? I don't. So why would the addition of ingredients found in other OTC cold products help Airborne do what it claimed it did?

And frankly, it's also suspicious that they made up study data (which is the reason why they were sued). If their product worked as claimed, why not do the study and then proudly proclaim true results?

[Flying Dream Blues]

47. You make me despair over the fate of the world much more than people

who take Vitamin C or use Vicks VapoRub. A few words that come to mind are bitter, rude, arrogant, falsely superior, narrow-minded, inflexible, ignorant, and naive...and oh, yes, there are so many of you, that sometimes I do despair.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alittlelark]

139. We used those 'cures' for 15-20 years

If it is a placebo effect.... WHO CARES????



It works, and it works well.


I will not get on a plane w/o 48 or so hours of it.

[Outlier]

144. Vicks Vapo rub works well as a

libido suppressant and sleeping aid. My wife puts it on and it's liek she's not even lying in bed next to me, so I fall right to sleep.

[TZ]

29. Have you ever heard of placebo effect?

Its real. Sounds like this stuff has *that* effect for some. As for Vicks Vapo-Rub and other OTC's actually, yes most of them have had some kind of clinical testing. You cannot just sell meds and make claims about what they do without scientific evidence. That's what the FDA DOES for pete's sake. They are understaffed so some of this fake shit slips through from time to time.
How do I know this? I am a drug researcher and have probably the best knowledge of the FDA's regs and the way it works than just about anyone on this board.

[AngryAmish]

30. Airborne is a herbal remedy, not a drug

No testing needed. thankyouverymuch Sen. Hatch.

[distantearlywarning]

31. Of course.

In fact, perhaps the perception of "it works" for this poster is due to the placebo effect. And that's fine. If it helps her because she personally believes in it, great. And it might be that Vicks VapoRub does have clinical trials proving its effectiveness for easing congestion - I'm no expert on that product either. If it does, great! It's not about Airborne, or Vicks, or Tiger Balm or whatever.

My problem here is the idea that one can insist that a medication *works*, like across a population *works*, based solely on personal experience (which may, after all, be simply the placebo effect or the product of personal bias). After all, there's a reason why you have a job as a drug researcher, and that reason is that nobody knows for sure that something *works* until you conduct a clinical trial which controls for alternative explanations. It's irrational and dangerous to just put medications on the market based on the experience of one person and their family members. Wouldn't you agree?

I wasn't harrassing her about Airborne or Vicks VapoRub specifically, and I'm sincerely sorry if it came across that way because that would mean that the more important point was lost in the details - the point that it IS irrational to discard the scientific method in favor of anecdotal experience when you are talking about something like the efficacy of medication.

On Edit: I just realized that you were replying to the other poster - I thought you were trying to tell me about the placebo effect...so my apologies for any argumentative tone contained within this message. :)

[Canuckistanian]

119. I've often wondered that myself

Could it be that your mood is influencing whether you FEEL the symptoms?

If you have SO much confidence in the medicine you're taking that you tend to ignore actual mild symptoms and believe that you never had a cold in the first place, is the medicine really effective?

I never did take any of these cold "preventative remedies" except for the few times I took Echinacea (remember Echinacea?) when I felt a cold coming on.

It didn't work.

[BadgerLaw2010]

57. This is the same "logic" as clapping hands to keep elephants away and psychic powers.

Placebo effect + confirmation bias does not equal working medicine.

[SidDithers]

89. I clap my hands before bed every night...

and not once have I been awakened by elephants.

Sid

[conscious evolution]

101. It contains ginger.

That is a working drug that has been studied extensively all over the world.

[distantearlywarning]

103. But does ginger prevent virus transmission?

Because that's what was claimed by Airborne manufacturers. And that is what some of the "anecdotal evidence is just as good as science" people in this thread believe Airborne does.

[varkam]

33. But...

We either don't get a cold, or the symptoms are much reduced when we do catch one.

How would you know? It's not as though there's an alternative universe out there where you didn't take Airborne and then compared the severity of symptoms. Indeed, it may have had no effect at all and you simply reasoned that it would've been much worse if you had not taken it in the first place. It's basic placebo.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. I ate a salad for lunch yesterday, and do not have a cold today

Perhaps a salad is just as effective.

[wtmusic]

68. I broke my watch yesterday, no cold for me either.

Man, this could be expensive. :scared:

[SidDithers]

90. I took vitamins yesterday...

and today woke up with the sniffles.

Uh-oh :)

Sid

[distantearlywarning]

94. See! A clear demonstration of the evil power of vitamins!

Nobody should ever take vitamins again. They cause colds! Sid says so, and his opinion is 100% totally representative of The Truth (tm).

[librechik]

15. For that I use Tiger Balm--It's a miracle preventive, i must say!

never once!

Really!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

37. Wow! Another use for Tiger Balm! Thanks, librechik!

:rofl:

[Dorian Gray]

42. I take it when I fly

I just think of it as a big dose of vitamins which can't possibly hurt. They may be pointless, but I used to get colds often after flying, and I haven't in the last few years. (I fly about 8 times a year.)

So... it ain't hurting!

I wonder how many people will claim they used the product to get their $65.

Or if anybody has saved all their airborne receipts!

[JackRiddler]

99. You know, your condescension is unnecessary.

I always thought Airborne was a fraud ("invented by a schoolteacher"?!) but the placebo effect is real enough.

[sir pball]

104. AngryAmish, I want to buy your Airborne. nt

[distantearlywarning]

25. I hope you aren't making a recommendation in favor of discarding drug trials

Because that's what it sounds like you are saying with this argument.

If Synthroid wasn't tested until 5 years ago, that only reflects badly on the Synthroid pushers and takers. It doesn't imply that any other drug which hasn't been tested is effective also.

(BTW, I take Synthroid myself, and have mixed feelings about it. You might want to take a look at what other hypothyroid patients have to say about its effectiveness before you start holding that particular drug up as a paragon of non-trial virtue.)

[sendero]

59. I've never used airborne..

... and I wouldn't bother, but you might want to google around and find out how COMPLETELY UNRARE it is for a prescription drug to pass clinical trials and later be found dangerous or ineffective.

Clinical trials involve the subjective judgments of people, just like the judgments of people who think it works. They are not "science" any more than astrology is "science".

[distantearlywarning]

62. Clinical trials do not ALWAYS involve simply subjective judgments..

For instance, the effectiveness of a blood pressure drug could be rated via the measurement of blood pressure (i.e., by a machine, not a subjective rater who looks at a patient and says, "gee, I think he seems like he has lower blood pressure now"). Or if a drug like Airborne claims to prevent people from catching colds, a study could randomly assign people to Airborne vs. no-Airborne conditions (or alternatively match participants on characteristics that are likely to confound, such as age or physical health), and then give each participant a dose of cold virus. You don't tell participants or experimenters which pill each group is taking 3 times a day, so you control for the placebo effect and experimenter bias. Then 5 days later you count how many in each group get sick, determined by non-subjective measures such as measurement of mucus production, elevated temperature, or whatever. Not subjective, not biased, not "astrology". :shrug:

However, even studies that involve some subjective judgment on the part of a participant can be informative (certainly more so than the experience of one person who would feel really stupid if she had to admit to herself that Airborne didn't work). Let's just say for an example that a trial for a cold drug uses the participant's judgment regarding severity of symptoms, as many studies involving zinc do. It's true that individual participants may not be completely accurate in their judgments of exactly how much mucus they are producing, or how bad they feel compared to other viruses they've had or whatever. However, if neither participants nor experimenters know what condition they are in, and participants were randomly assigned to conditions, it would be very difficult to explain away statistically significant differences between groups as the result of subjective bias on the part of the participants *as a whole* (which is in the end what you are really concerned with anyway when you are talking about providing a drug to a large population). Because you can't assume logically that participant bias was any different in the experimental condition than the other condition. If people were randomly assigned to both, and the placebo effect is controlled for, then the subjective judgment was spread equally across both conditions and therefore accounted for statistically. Again, hardly akin to "astrology".

[frylock]

3. i use it and will continue to do so..

and if the idiots who thought that it would "cure" their cold manage to get it taken off the shelves, i'm going to be one pissed-off mofo!

[mahina]

4. Same here. Exept for the mofo part.

[AngryAmish]

5. Why do you use it if you don't think it works?

Is it a tasty way to get vitamins?

[Squatch]

10. I like the bubbles.

Wheee!!! Bubbles!

[frylock]

35. but i do think it works..

I like to keep some in my desk at work in case I start to feel a little oogy. Maybe it's just a placebo effect, but they seem to work in that I have noticed a reduction in the severity of my colds if I dose up as soon as I feel the symptoms.

[AngryAmish]

38. Yesterday I felt like I had a cold coming on

I took nothing other than snuck a smoke that I told my wife I was quitting. (And I am trying to quit, really.)

Today I don't feel a cold coming on.

If I used the same standard of evidence then I could recommend cigarettes as a something that reduces colds.

The common cold is a virus. No viral disease has ever been cured by man. None. If it worked against the common cold, why would Airborne not be effective against HIV?

It does not work. Full stop.

[rosetta627]

41. It works for me

Peddle your establishment medical mainstream propaganda elsewhere.
Full stop.

[The Minus World]

56. No it doesn't.

How could basic high school Biology possibly be considered "medical mainstream propaganda"? There are no refutable claims here.

Colds are caused by viruses
Airborne is essentially a vitamin supplement.
Vitamin supplements have no bearing on whether you are infected with a virus or not.
Ergo Airborne cannot prevent colds.

We are democrats just like you. The only difference is that we care enough about our fellow human beings to point out their ignorance in these matters.

Full stop.

[rosetta627]

61. As I said it works for me

Don't speak for other people.

[The Minus World]

106. That is fine.

What I'm asserting here is that Airborne does not, and cannot possibly exhibit the health benefits that its users are imagining. No offense, but that is why this lawsuit exists to begin with.

If you prefer taking Airborne for the sheer benefit of the placebo effect, so be it. However, there is still the underlying moral issue of these hucksters falsely advertising their product as though it is some miracle preventative/cure.

[conscious evolution]

66. Could you link us to the

cliniical trial saying it does not work?

[distantearlywarning]

76. Logical fallacy.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/argumentfromignorance.html

The burden of proof is on the party who claims a phenomenon exists, not on the party who claims it doesn't.

[conscious evolution]

79. The FDA is the one making the claim

that something does not exist.
I would like to see their studies that prove the supposed benefits do not actually exist.
That is what clinical studies are for after all-To prove or disprove whether a drug works.Since they are saying it does not work then they should provide evidence that disproves Airbornes claims.

Granted,it probably is the placebo effect at work here but imo relief from suffering via placebo effect is as good thing also.That is the desired result of medicines after all.

[distantearlywarning]

81. Again, you're still engaging in a logical fallacy.

It is not the FDA's job to prove that a phenomenon doesn't exist (and in fact, it is not even logically possible to do that). It is the manufacturer's job to prove that it does. Please re-read the link I provided above.

The desired effect of medication is that it does what it purports to do. The desired effect of medication is NOT that the manufacturer effectively played on biases in human thinking such that people BELIEVE it does what it purports to do (and frankly, I'm shocked to hear a liberal espouse such a philosophy...). The placebo effect can sometimes be helpful for individuals, but it is certainly not "just as good" as the real thing.

[Kajsa]

148. The FDA isn't involved at all.

Check it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2963108&mesg_id=2973804

[rosetta627]

83. I don't have to prove shit junior

Anecdotal evidence is that it works for me.
You can feel free to ignore it, get all the colds you want, and die of double pneumonia.

[distantearlywarning]

85. Well, alrighty then. You sure told me!

Best of luck to you too!

:rofl:

[rosetta627]

88. And good luck in your mission as a PR hack for the drug companies

You'll need luck given how obvious you are.

[rosetta627]

91. And now you're on Ignore junior

Ah, the beloved ignore feature.
It's like electronic Airborn...
Irritant is detected; irritant is dispatched; and it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[conscious evolution]

100. Don't waste your time on him.

He probably thinks willow bark can't relieve aches and pains,lower blood pressure,breakup blood clots either.

[distantearlywarning]

102. Willow bark has the same ingredient as aspirin.

There are many studies showing the efficacy of aspirin for pain relief, blood thinning, and so forth. So why wouldn't I believe that willow bark would achieve the same effect? :shrug:

The entire reason Airborne has been sued is because they claimed that their product did something that they couldn't back up with research - they claimed that Airborne would prevent virus transmission. Then they made up some results to show that.

ONCE AGAIN, this entire thread has nothing to do with Airborne, or the evil FDA, or the efficacy of herbs vs. chemicals.

Rather, the point has to do with believing that something works because of personal anecedotal experience vs. empirical testing.

[The Minus World]

105. Natural vs. Organic

You mean willow bark that contains salicylic acid?

The very same salicylic acid that we've managed to isolate and extract through modern methods of organic chemistry over 150 years ago?

Salycilic acid can be converted relatively easily to acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) through esterification, causing it to become less bitter and more digestible.

You probably didn't realize that you were just talking about an essentially inferior form of aspirin, but this highlights the fact that modern drug synthesis techniques have the capability of making "natural" compounds more useful for us.

[Kajsa]

'Airborne' doesn't claim to prevent colds.

There is no such claim made anywhere.

[distantearlywarning]

131. Give it up.

You've already had this explained to you in post #132. You're wasting everyone's time by posting this message over and over again.

Further, what Airborne said or didn't say isn't relevant to the point that you can't make a claim about product effectiveness based on your own personal anecdotal experience. If Airborne claimed that its product warded against sexual dysfunction and getting hit in the crosswalk by a Wonder Bread truck tomorrow, you still wouldn't be able to rationally claim that the fact that you personally believe that it keeps you from getting sick is evidence generalizable to a larger population.

[Kajsa]

133. I'm not replying to you here.

So give it up, yourself.

Weren't you going to bed?

Sweet dreams!

[distantearlywarning]

64. Establishment Medical Mainstream Propaganda.

Known by another name as "critical thinking".

:rofl:

[frylock]

84. then don't buy it..

it's as simple as that.

[catgirl]

6. Does it really say it can cure the common cold on the package?

I find that hard to believe. And what are the ingredients of Airborne? I thought
a teacher did create it after getting sick so many times when traveling. Some
herbs are effective in boosting the immune system. I guess I'd like to know
who is behind this lawsuit. Is it a drug company? If so, it should be thrown
out.

[walldude]

9. According to the lawsuit it does:

From the link:

"A Settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit that alleges that Airborne Health, Inc. (and other defendants) (“Airborne”) falsely advertised certain therapeutic properties, including the ability to cure or prevent the common cold, when marketing products under the Airborne brand name, as listed below. Defendants deny any wrongdoing or illegal conduct but have agreed to settle the litigation. This website provides information on the lawsuit and proposed Settlement. Click here to download the complete Settlement Agreement."


I have never used Airborne, matter of fact with the exception of Advil I don't take any over the counter "cold remedy's". None of them work, unless you count NyQuil and if you are going to use that you might as well just do a shooter of tequila, it's cheaper and has about the same effect.

[conscious evolution]

69. No it does not

Their website says this:. Is Airborne a cure for the common cold?

There still is no cure for the common cold. Airborne helps to boost your immune system to help fight germs and viruses that abound in offices, classrooms, airplanes and other public places.

[AngryAmish]

78. They changed that claim in response to the suit

<http://web.archive.org/web/20010401200614/http://www.airbornehealth.com/>

"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!"

anti-motion sickness claim, anti-cold claims

[conscious evolution]

86. Actually,gingers anti motion sickness properties

are very well documented.
Here is a link to a study in the British Journal of Anesthesia.From what I am seeing ginger is found to have good therepuetic benefits for some ailments and is contraindicative for others.It also found that for some things it has about the same affect as placebos.
Motion sickness is one of the ailments it provides relief for.Studies also indicate that it has antihistamine properties.
Here are links to more studies on ginger: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

[RandiFan1290]

97. Holy cow! It's got electrolytes!

I bet I could water my plants with that stuff!!

;)

[AngryAmish]

98. It's what plants crave!

[rosetta627]

96. No, I have a tube on my desk, taking it today to ward off a cold

It doesn't make any cure claim.
Although, it's cured every cold I've started to get for years.
Boffo stuff.

[Flying Dream Blues]

11. Sorry, but I'm also a believer in Airborne...it WORKS for

everyone in my family, and lots of friends, too.

[distantearlywarning]

12. See post #2.

I'm guessing you don't get attacked by tigers much either.

[librechik]

16. I NEVER get attacked by tigers. But that's cuz I use Tiger Balm

AND AirBorne. At the Same Time!!!

[distantearlywarning]

19. LOL!

:rofl:

[Flying Dream Blues]

18. See post number 17, you rude person. nt

[distantearlywarning]

20. The truth hurts, huh?

[Hawkeye-X]

21. Same here. My wife uses it..

Although she has switched to ColdMD - I'm waiting for a settlement from that too - those things tastes disgusting.

[rosetta627]

40. It totally works for me and every family member

And many colleagues.

Don't believe the hype against it folks. Try it for yourself.

[distantearlywarning]

77. How do you know it works?

What is your basis for this statement? Please, explain it to the rest of us...

:shrug:

[rosetta627]

87. When I start to get cold symptoms (sore throat or runny nose)

I take one every three hours for two days and I don't get sick.
In fact it makes me feel so much better after the first dose that it's easy to forget to take the rest. But it's important to take it for a sustained amount of time.

Consequently I haven't had a cold since I discovered airborn a couple of years ago.

[distantearlywarning]

93. Ok...where to start?

If you already have cold symptoms, you are already sick.

If Airborne contains zinc, then perhaps the zinc (which HAS been shown in clinical trials to reduce symptomology) is reducing the severity of your cold. But it doesn't mean you don't have a cold at all. You've had plenty of colds since you discovered Airborne, but perhaps the zinc is keeping them mild.

The reason Airborne is being sued is because they claimed to prevent cold transmission. That is not the same thing as getting a cold but having reduced symptoms.

Or maybe you just believe so strongly in the power of Airborne that you convince yourself you feel better.

Nobody can KNOW for sure until you test controlling for confounds like a placebo effect.

[2hip]

14. "Please get some money from these frauds."

Requesting a reimbursement for which you are not entitled would make you a "fraudster", wouldn't it? Your recommendation is dishonest and unethical.

[varkam]

34. I've you've purchased Airborne, then you are entitled to it.

What's dishonest and unethical is what the makers of Airborne did, and now they're having to pony up the cash.

[2hip]

48. And if you HAVEN'T purchased it, you're NOT entitled to it

And that's my point. The OP noted that proof of purchase was not required and encouraged people to get "free money" from the company. A reimbursement for previously purchased product is one thing but getting "free money" just because it's there for the taking is just wrong.

[varkam]

49. Oh, I misread the OP.

:hi:

[Dukkha]

22. I thought this was about Airborne Express

I'd like to get back at them for knocking me off my bike with a van door 16 years ago.

This airborne sounds like something Oprah would recommend. You can use it while reading The Secret.

[varkam]

36. PEOPLE!

A couple of points:

(1) Anecdotal evidence is crap. As a general rule of thumb, we're all gullible. That's the strength of science is that it doesn't rely on anecdotal evidence. If you've taken Airborne and thought it worked, there are many many many reasons why you may think that aside from it actually doing anything.

(2) The placebo effect is strong. If you believe something is going to work, and take it, then it will have some effect on you even if it's just a lump of sugar. That doesn't mean that there's actually anything special in it.

[Lex]

44. Did it contain the vitamins and herbs in it as claimed?

nt

[varkam]

50. I believe it made claims that it couldn't support

(i.e. reduces the severity of cold symptoms).

[rosetta627]

39. It's not complete crap; I use it and it's extremely effective

It is for real.

[Lex]

43. I took it for the vitamins. Does it have those in it?

I never believed it could "cure" or "prevent" anything. I do believe a good dose of Vit. C is good for you in cold season.

I would take it for the vitamins and minerals it contained.

[varkam]

51. Apparently it can be harmful for you...

Two tabs contain the daily max value for vitamin A, whereas the product recommends three doses daily.

[wtmusic]

45. Trials weren't done, but maybe it really works

Just something else to toss into the mix. Personally I think it's 100% placebo effect.

[XOKCowboy]

53. With the rampant patronage in federal agencies the last 7 yrs..

I'd be more likely to believe that the makers of "Airborne" didn't make enough campaign contributions to get their tests "certified".

[BadgerLaw2010]

58. Anything that claims to cure colds has a rather strong burden of proof on it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[wtmusic]

67. I didn't know the claim was a cure

Thought it was "alleviate symptoms", that kind of thing.

[distantearlywarning]

75. Actually, I believe the claim was

that it would prevent the consumer from getting a cold at all, not simply alleviate symptoms.

[wtmusic]

80. It contained zinc

and zinc has been proven to shorten the duration of colds. Maybe there is a symbiotic effect with other ingredients:

"Human rhinoviruses, by attaching to the nasal epithelium via the intracellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) receptor, cause most colds. Ionic zinc, based on its electrical charge, also has an affinity for ICAM-1 receptor sites and may exert an antiviral effect by attaching to the ICAM-1 receptors in the rhinovirus structure and nasal epithelial cells. Clinical tests of zinc for treatment of common colds have been inconsistent, primarily because of study design, blinding, and lozenge contents. Early formulations of lozenges also were unpalatable. In three trials with similar study designs, methodologies, and efficacy assessments, zinc effectively and significantly shortened the duration of the common cold when it was administered within 24 hours of the onset of symptoms."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15496046

Is that "preventing" a cold, if taken at onset of symptoms? Apparently the FDA doesn't think so.

[distantearlywarning]

82. I don't think so either.

Zinc has only been shown to reduce duration and symptomology of viral infection, not prevent virus transmission at all. If you have any symptoms of viral illness, no matter how slight or severe, you still can be said to have the virus. That's an important distinction. One of the claims Airborne made on its packaging before being sued was that taking it would help prevent the transmission of disease to the consumer in crowded areas (granted, in addition to claiming that it would help shorten symptom duration).

However, there are still two other issues here:

1) As in your cite above, zinc's effectiveness seems to depend on formulation and administration. The zinc I take when I begin to feel sick has a clearly worded paragraph on the back of the package that discusses the study methodology that was used to test the effectiveness of *that particular formulation and administration recommendations for the consumer*. We don't know whether the concentration or administration of zinc in Airborne matches that which has been shown in some studies to be effective at decreasing symptomology. Given that they had to make up study results, I would guess it probably wasn't (because if it was, why wouldn't they print those positive results?)

2) As you said, there could very well be an interaction effect of zinc in Airborne with the other ingredients listed that would in fact prevent virus transmission. In fact, that's not even an unreasonable hypothesis, IMO. But again, if so, why not test for it and then report those positive results? We can't know anything about the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of that interaction until someone tests that hypothesis, and it's irrational to claim that we *can* know based on an anecdotal belief that it works because we took it last month and didn't get sick. Which again, is my entire point in this thread.

It's not about Airborne. It's about critical thinking.

[Hissyspit]

141. I took zinc for awhile until I broke out all over in horrible hives.

Now I just suffer through the cold. As bad as it can get, it's not anything like the hives.

[LeftyMom]

46. Too bad the money isn't going to teach basic science concepts to the gullible.

If I ran the world, that's where all the settlement money for fizzy vitamin pills, copper bracelets, books of "natural cures" etc would go. It seems to me that the only way to stop scam artists is to eliminate the pool of victims.

[XOKCowboy]

52. I don't believe in lawsuit abuse..

I have used it and even if the effect was psychosomatic it worked for me. I was not harmed by the "Airborne" people and I don't plan to "get some money from these frauds".

I frankly find your attitude offensive. They didn't "steal" anything from me and I think that for you to encourage people to "get some money" from them even if you've never even taken the product worse than anything "Airborne" ever did.

[conflictgirl]

54. I have a package of it here and it doesn't make any health claims at all

"Airborne was developed by a school teacher to boost her immune system, so that it could help her body fight against germs that abound in the classroom. Airborne's unique natural formula contains 17 herbs and nutrients including ginger for nausea.*"

Then after the asterisk, it says "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

It's a supplement and advertised as such, which means that they CAN'T make claims that they'll cure or prevent a disease. If people really thought that taking Airborne would absolutely prevent them from getting sick they had no reading comprehension skills. I think this is a bullshit lawsuit personally...

[SoCalDem]

55. The dumbing down of 'Merkins has led to them

believe that anything bought in a drug store has curative powers, and if it proves to be not so..they can sue for brazillions of dollars..:eyes:

[AngryAmish]

65. They used to make those claims

They took them out after the FEC suit.

Get an old package from before the lawsuit.

[Hamlette]

70. Zinc works just as well, if Airborne contains zinc it will work

we all take zinc at the first sign of a cold and it goes away immediately. I'm the world's worst (or best?) cynic and it has happened to me enough times I'm a crusader.

Seems it could work if you took it in advance of exposure.

[wtmusic]

71. Agree -- stay away from my Cold-Eeze! nt

[distantearlywarning]

72. I actually take zinc too.

But zinc has been shown in trials to be effective in reducing cold severity and duration.

Another difference is that I believe that Airborne claimed to help people not get sick in the first place (and clearly some of the posters in this thread take it for that purpose), which I don't believe zinc can do, or has ever been shown to do.

[SidDithers]

92. Teh stupid is strong in this thread...nt

Sid

[high density]

107. A former coworker of mine, a Rush Limbaugh listener, swore by the stuff

Hilarious.

[Kajsa]

108. It works for me.

If taken at the first signs of cold symptoms
it works for me.

I have no "clinical trials" to prove or disprove anything.
It just stops the cold.

btw, I have a very high tolerance to any medication.

A placebo wouldn't work for me.

i.e. it's not in " my head"

Wait a minute- the cold is,
when it starts.

[distantearlywarning]

109. "A placebo wouldn't work for me."

Well, that's certainly a new one. Haven't seen that explanation yet in this thread. I'm assuming that what you meant to say was that you are immune to the placebo effect. In that case, see post #92 for more information about your situation.

Look, for the ten-thousandth time already, Airborne claimed that its product kept consumers from getting colds. If you have cold symptoms, you already have a cold. If it reduces your symptoms during the cold, perhaps that effect is due to the zinc contained in the product. Or perhaps it is in fact all in your head. Or perhaps you are just a special, special human being for whom Airborne works great but unfortunately you and all of the other Anecdotal-Annies in this thread are the only ones on the planet who can say that.

You can't tell unless you compare people who take the product to those who don't using random assignment in an empirical study.

[Kajsa]

113. Yes, we are special.

Airborne works for us.

:D

[distantearlywarning]

115. Actually, it's quite the other way around, honey.

You're not that special, because you THINK Airborne works for you. Just like millions of other easily duped consumers subject to the placebo effect. Who all think they are special too. You can all be special special dupes together.

:yourock:

[Kajsa]

116. Whatever ---

:eyes:

[distantearlywarning]

117. Nice rejoinder!

Don't tell me you were a debate star in high school as well as a science wiz! :yourock:

[Kajsa]

118. You've already made up your mind that it doesn't work.

So, what's the point in trying to convince you?

It won't work, no matter what I say.

I'm suppose to DEBATE YOU on your two bit sarcasm, insults and put downs?!?
I don't think so--

Did I make any claims to be a science or debate wiz?

NO, but

nice snarky, unwarranted sarcasm- oh yeah, we've got a real open mind here.

(And yeah, I'm throwing a little sarcasm back,)

[Name removed]

123. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Minus World]

112. Trying to figure this out, here.

A placebo "wouldn't work" for you because you have a "high tolerance to any medication".

I'm trying to understand that statement. A placebo by definition has no active ingredients. It is not a medication, so your tolerance to medications would have no bearing on the placebo effect. The effectiveness of a placebo is only due to the power of suggestion.

[Kajsa]

114. Right!

No medication-low dose medication= nothing, nada, zip.

Power of suggestion won't override the fact stated above.

Power of suggestion- Placebo effect and all,( how did we get sidetracked on this?)

it comes down to one simple statement,

It works for me.

That's what is questioned here.

[The Blue Flower]

110. BRAWNDO--It has electrolytes!!!!

n/t

[The Blue Flower]

111. I'm not going to be filing

Even though I have purchased Airborne in the past. The fact that this is who they go after when there's so much fraud, theft, and corruption draining the US Treasury on a daily basis just steams me. If this is the most accountability we're left with, I want no part of it.

[clixtox]

121. I just filed for the max...

Send me the cash!

I earned whatever pittance they are offering simply by reading this entire thread.

Really!

I have bought and consumed quite a few Airborne and will continue to utilize the product when needed.

I fly a lot, mostly to SE Asia and back in economy class.

I would pray if I thought it would help avoid succumbing to a bug acquired in steerage.

[Kajsa]

120. Fact-Claims to "boost immune system" only.

Looking at the 'Airborne' box right now,
purchased way before this lawsuit.

There are NO claims ANYWHERE on the box that it prevents
or cures colds. Big Pharma made that one up.

It does state that it "boosts the immune system".

Nothing more, nothing less.

[distantearlywarning]

124. FACT - As reported in another post up-thread.

From before the lawsuit:

"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!"

In any case, regardless of what Airborne said or did, YOU are still claiming that it works based on your individual experience. Which is still an irrational reason for taking medication.

[Kajsa]

125. Where's the claim that it prevents colds?

As stated in the OP?

[distantearlywarning]

129. Read the statement again.

The claim is implied: "Take at the first sign of a cold symptom or before entering crowded, potentially germ-infested places."

The assumption by the consumer who doesn't think carefully about what they are reading is that taking Airborne before "entering crowded, potentially germ-infested places" is that Airborne will help them avoid virus transmission in those "crowded, potentially germ-infested places.

It's obvious from some of the responses in this thread that some Airborne consumers believe that in fact that it is what the drug is for, so clearly the packaging works to induce that assumption in at least some consumers. Take post #2, for example: JulieRB says, "We...don't get a cold...we believe the stuff works when exposed to germs we just don't want".

Now, regarding the other implication in this statement - that Airborne could reduce cold severity (or "cure" a cold, if you like) - there are ingredients in Airborne that have been shown to be efficaceous for that outcome in other studies, such as zinc. However, Airborne still failed to provide study results of their own showing that their product (which contains those ingredients along with a host of others, which may or may not interact in a positive way with the zinc or whatever else) was effective for that hypothesized outcome either.

In any case, regardless of what Airborne claimed or didn't claim, or what they are being sued for or not being sued for, the point still remains that *you personally* cannot claim that it or any other product works for a population based on your own experience. Neither can you know for sure that your perception of it working is due to the effect of the medication or simply a placebo effect.

[Kajsa]

135. Big Pharma has some friends here.

n/t

[Canuckistanian]

122. I remember that Rush Limbaugh once did an endorsment for Airborne

But in a sneaky way.

He was blathering on one day about how he was feeling a cold coming on and there were some workmen in his house (probably some gold leaf had to be replaced on the Royal Throne in the bathroom).

When he told one of the "workmen" about this cold coming on, the workman tells hims about "Airborne", this new modern wonder drug which cures colds before they start.

And lo and behold, it works wonders. The Pigboy never missed a SECOND of work, thanks to this as of yet undiscovered miracle called "Airborne" (apparently invented by a teacher who was tired of always catching colds from her students).

[AngryAmish]

126. The movie "Idiocracy" has been referred to a few times in this thread

I have to say after reading many of the replies that movie is closer to the truth than I wish it to be.

[Dukkha]

127. and something PT Barnum once said comes to mind too

about one being born every minute

or Confucius' proverb about someone and his money are soon parted

[Kajsa]

128. Where does 'Airborne' claim

to prevent colds?

[distantearlywarning]

130. See post #132

It's already been explained to you.

[Kajsa]

132. "Explain" all you want.

The claim has never been made.

You can't provide ANY evidence that it has.

"Boosting immunity" will help prevent catching colds.


That is NOT the same as claiming to prevent colds.

Your example of inference is not the same as making the claim.

[distantearlywarning]

142. Ok, let's say I give you that one.

Airborne never made any claims about preventing or curing colds, nor were those claims even implied by the wording on their packaging. They are being sued over nothing. I admit it, and so does everyone else on this thread, and anyone who tries to get money from them is defrauding them.

Ok, now we've gotten that red herring out of the way.

Now...explain to all of us again how you know for a fact that your personal anecdotal experience about the effects of a particular medication is proof that the medication works in the population at large and is not simply indicative of the placebo effect.

[Kajsa]

134. AGAIN, I wasn't replying to you.

:eyes:

A desperate need to control things here?

[distantearlywarning]

140. Ah...but this is a reply to me.

And that other place where you wrote a post specifically just to tell me you weren't replying to me, that was a reply too.

And I suppose your reply to this post will be a non-reply, just to tell me that you aren't replying to me anymore, ever ever ever because I'm a mean, mean person *stomp* *pout*?

It's hard to make sure that someone is affected by your ignoring when they don't realize you're ignoring them - the only solution is to tell them that you're ignoring them so they know, right?

I admit, all those non-replies to my posts would really sting emotionally, except for the fact that you keep replying. It really dilutes the negative impact that they would otherwise have.

[Kajsa]

143. Let's try this, OK?

If the reply is not posted to one of your comments,
don't reply.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[Danger Mouse]

136. I've heard of it, and had it recommended to me by a lot of people...

since i work with runny-nosed kids.
I was unaware of any lawsuit or anything.
This is interesting...

[Danger Mouse]

137. So let me get this straight...

it seems to work for some people, this stuff. Yet it hasn't been clinically proven to actually do anything...and in fact, the people who make the stuff even fudged some statistics to make themselves look good. Am I right so far?
If all of this is true, I won't be going out of my way to purchase Airborne anytime soon. Hey, Cold-eeze...they're clinically tested, right? I'll stick with those.
Without clinical trials , we can't know if something TRULY works. Anecdotal evidence is good for speculation ONLY.
That's how I feel, at least.

[alittlelark]

138. Uh....yeah.....

Hubby swears by it and has had fewer colds/flu over the last 3-4 years.


Whatever.


It works for us.

[distantearlywarning]

145. Reply to Post #159 - For Katja

Yes, there are likely some clinical trials out there showing that certain sorts of vitamins boost the immune system, and some of these vitamins are likely contained in Airborne. This doesn't automatically mean, of course that eating these vitamins will prevent anyone from catching a cold, nor does it mean that taking Airborne will reduce cold symptoms if you have one. Airborne has a lot of stuff in it, and without testing it's hard to say how all those drugs will interact with one another. It could be that all of that stuff together has a negative effect on immunity, or a more positive effect than taking one vitamin at a time, or no effect at all. This is why Airborne needs to run trials rather than just make up results (which is all I've been saying this whole time). And it is why the consumer needs to know about scientific investigations conducted on medications, vitamins, herbs, and whatever else might be in any supplement before they simply pop pills.

By the same token, neither is it reasonable to look askance at the results of clinical trials of vitamins or medication just because they were conducted by "Big Pharma", OR for anyone to assume that the outcomes are the truth and nothing but the truth because they were. Rather, the proof of scientific pudding is in the methodology, not the funding source (although that's another whole can of worms that we shouldn't even bring up here, and which probably deserves it's own flame-fest). But at least the fact that you brought this whole thing up about vitamins and testing at all means that you are at least beginning to think about *rational* reasons why someone should believe a product might or might not work for them. That's a good thing (and that's not sarcasm).

However, the very small (and relatively stupid) topic of Airborne itself or it's relative efficacy for anything or what it says on its package has never been the real issue here. The real issue is why you think that anecdotal experience is an adequate substitute for scientific testing, and why you would rely on it to tell you whether the medication you are taking is working the way you think it should (a irrational decision at best, a dangerous one at worst, in my opinion).

Here is a direct quote from your very first post in this thread. You said:

If taken at the first signs of cold symptoms
it works for me.

I have no "clinical trials" to prove or disprove anything.
It just stops the cold.

So...how do you know a medication "works" for you or anybody else if you don't have a basis for comparison? How do you know it "stops your cold"? How do you KNOW the better feeling you are experiencing wouldn't have just happened otherwise, or isn't due to something else in the medication that makes you feel briefly better but isn't technically "stopping" your cold*, or isn't simply due to getting out of bed to go buy it at the store or ten thousand other confounding reasons that you might mistakenly attribute to the medication? How do you KNOW that your perceptions of the effect of the medication is not simply the placebo effect (other than super-spiffy anti-placebo-effect powers) or a strong subconscious desire not to feel stupid for having bought and taken it without knowing anything about it? Are you sure enough about your answers to think it's a good thing for you to put your public stamp of approval on the product for others to see? And why do we test the efficacy of medications in this country if everyone is good enough at medication-effect-detecting to know if stuff they take is working the way they think it does? These are simple questions. You should be able to answer them given how much time and energy you've put into thinking about how to argue with me about this topic in the last 24 hours.

Now, I can answer why I think your original post was irrational, and have in multiple posts in this thread. So it's time for you to step up also, without any using any red herrings like accusing me of working for Big Pharma, discussing the material content or labeling of Airborne to death, or being angry about my sarcasm. If you don't want to discuss this anymore, you can of course decline to answer and just find something else on DU to go be mad about. As you said above, you get to post when and where you want. But you've spent all this time and energy so far. So why not take the extra time to think carefully about what you believe about the actual topic and write it down?

*Don't tell Big Pharma this, but I take zinc myself when I have a cold, because I have read a number of studies which indicate that in the correct doses and with the right sort of administration, it can reduce significantly reduce cold severity. One of the things that I have learned about zinc in my studies is that zinc can dry up mucus production for 1/2-1 hour after administration, which makes the user feel better for a short time after taking it. Even if zinc didn't interfere with virus replication, the brief drying side effect would likely be enough to convince some users that it was "working for them". This is but one example of why one must be careful when relying on anecdotal experience or one's feelings about the effects of medication.

Edited for bad punctuation...

[Kajsa]

146. Answer.

"So...how do you know a medication "works" for you or anybody else if you don't have a basis for comparison?".

If the comparison is between taking it or not taking it, I have an answer.

Not taking the herbal supplement at the first signs of a cold will develop into a cold for me.

Taking Airborne reduces/stops/ the progression of the cold.

Again, I speak for myself.

Whether someone wants to try this product and see if it helps them is up to the individual.
You make it sound as if my " stamp of approval" will doom many to take this and suffer dire consequences.
Prove it.

You should not be lecturing ANYONE on the amount of time and energy they have spent on this thread.
Pot calling kettle black.

Also, stop giving me instructions on how to reply.


btw, the FTC filing the lawsuit is BS. I spoke with them this morning- I'm going to post that in a bit.
I thought it was BS and it is.

[Kajsa]

147. THE FTC DID NOT SUE THEM. But the FTD would like to know

the source of this misinformation.
Also, the link in the OP never worked for me.
Maybe because it was pulled?

I spoke to several supervisors at the FTC this morning.
Reference # 13186189. I had a feeling it was BS.

No one at the FTC had any information nor any press releases
pertaining to the above mentioned lawsuit.
I spoke with supervisors at Customer Relations and the Press Room.
The gentleman from the Press Room said NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY
WAS INVOLVED. No FTC, no FDA.

They do want to know where that misinformation came from.

Now about the case,

http://www.airbornehealthsettlement.com

Here's the settlement,

http://www.airbornehealthsettlement.com/docs/Settlement%20Agreement.pdf

The complaint is listed at the top of page 3.

( unable to copy and paste from the pdf format)

Those claims were never made by Airborne.
They deny any wrongdoing.