Airborne PWNED by FTC!
Posted on: August 14, 2008 - 5:56pm
Offline
Airborne PWNED by FTC!
See article here.
They agreed to pay 30 million to settle a suit by the FTC that they made false claims by saying it can prevent colds. They also can no longer make such claims. This is another one of those products based on pseudoscience that don't work beyond the placebo effect. Unfortunately, the people in the class action only get free products - why would anyone want a free product that doesn't work?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Until it's been researched and tested with double blind studies the rational thing to do is not consider it effective.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
You've already admitted tacitly to not doing any research when you missed the major ingredient in question. Data isn't what's important to you, it's feebly attacking along party lines.
I'm talking about actual medical studies. Being skeptical is better than just mindlessly accepting something because it feels good. Congratulations captain pseudoscience. You fail. You should get acquainted with Luminon and Paisley - the 3 of you think alike.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Except that you're not skeptical, as I've illustrated with your lack of diligence regarding both data and experience. No one has to follow James Randi unquestioningly, and I don't think he encourages this. But someone could: you do. Your position isn't arrived at through data, or even experience; it's just another side in tribal warfare, interchangeable with Coke v. Pepsi, Less Filling v. Tastes Great, et al. Referring to science in the abstract, without any application of it on your part, or even an exploration of available data, or even subjective experience for that matter, shows that yours is an entirely vacuous position. Not skeptical, but unthinking and ignorant.
BTW, it's OK to fucking feel good once in a while. The human experience isn't about shunning subjectivity; subjectivity is the core of the fucking human experience. Just because it's not reliable for some processing some data doesn't mean it's wholly inapplicable to life it-fucking-self. The only criticism anyone but a clueless wonk or a sadist could level against the placebo effect is that it's limited.
BTW, if you don't post something interesting Matt, I'm not going to bother repeating myself. Talking to you has been a waste of time so far.
I'm not the one being ignorant. The fact that Randi denounces it shows there's a problem, then the fact no scientific data supports it and DOCTORS say it is ineffective. So you admit it is just the placebo effect? So far you sound just like the Christian who says "you can't prove there is no god." Rational people refuse to believe positive claims without evidence.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
You admitted to not knowing a key point about the product, so yeah you really are.
That's an appeal to authority; only the data Randi can reveal would be meaningful, not simply his word. Which isn't to say he doesn't show data, just that you don't care about data; just authority.
If you mean homeopathy, sure. Menthol being another story: one you're comfortable being totally in the dark about, further revealing the superficiality of your complaints.
Appeal to authority, again.
No, just that only sadists and wonks with tunnel vision hate the placebo effect on principle, rather than just regretting its limitations. If I had an empty box that cured cancer in half the people who touched it, purely through the placebo effect, my first concern wouldn't be explaining to people how they shouldn't be cured by it.
Don't you have anything to say aside from appealing to authority and comparing me to theists? Is that really the breadth of your thoughts, Matt? I could understand someone consumed with scientific data, and absolutely ravenous for facts, losing perspective a bit and being a wonk. But you're not even a wonk, because you don't value data. You're just a fanboy.
I can't find anything scientific on menthol helping with migraines. Assuming it does, why waste the money on Head On:
On Amazon.com vicks vap-o-rub sold for about $19 for 2 6 oz jars - head on was $7.87 for a 0.2 oz stick. I would guess vicks is stronger anyway - I am familiar with it and it has a very strong scent.
So it costs about 2 and a half times as much for 60 times as much of a stronger product without pseudoscientific nonsense.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
1. You're only affirming the point I've made about menthol.
2. No one was defending homeopathy in this thread at any point.
So get the fuck off it.
ok... so yeah, i say this not trying to increase the argument here:
i think it's interesting how magilum's point relates to the OP here... Matt wonders who would want free packets of airborne - since it doesn't actually prevent the common cold it must be worthless - however it does still have some benefit containing vitamins and anti-oxidants even if that effect isn't as marketed.
Quit being a fucking asshat. I said IF menthol is effective and you've been defending the Head On stuff from the beginning of the thread, dillhole. You really should change your name to Captain Pseudoscience as you use the same arguments pro-pseudoscience people do.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Oh my fucking god. I don't know how I could have been any more specific or clear about the circumstances under which I was arguing in its favor, but apparently specifying it in ALMOST EVERY FUCKING POST was not enough to influence someone determined to go "LOL pseudoscience" whatever the facts specific to the case. Fucking lap dog. Ech.