Now, it says she created Airborne because she "needed help supporting her immune system."
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
it was probably sarcasm)
Posted on 03/01/2006 8:43:28 AM PST by Born Conservative
A while back, I wrote about Airborne, the "herbal" concoction designed by a schoolteacher that is touted as preventing colds and the flu if taken preemptively or lessening their severity if taken early on in the course of a cold. I concluded that there was no evidence that it did what Victoria Knight-McDowell, a schoolteacher and the creator of Airborne, claims. Now the company itself seems to be admitting as much. It turns out that the company commissioned a study to "prove" Airborne's efficacy, and its results did seem to show a mild positive effect on colds. Unfortunately, the study was shoddily designed, mainly because the people doing the clinical trial appeared to have no clue how to design such a placebo-controlled double-blind study:
"Simply washing your hands during cold and flu season is a much more effective way of preventing colds," said David Kroll, a pharmacologist at Duke University Medical School. Yet the Airborne box tells users to take the product at the first sign of a cold. An Airborne ad testimonial called it a miracle cold buster. And the company said in a news release Airborne would get rid of most colds in one hour.
"I'm not commenting on that particular press release," Donahue said. "I wasn't with the company then."
Airborne said that a double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted with "care and professionalism" by a company specializing in clinical trial management, GNG Pharmaceutical Services.
GNG is actually a two-man operation started up just to do the Airborne study. There was no clinic, no scientists and no doctors. The man who ran things said he had lots of clinical trial experience. He added that he had a degree from Indiana University, but the school says he never graduated.
"I would not define that then as a clinical trial," Kroll said.
Never let it be said that that a lack of evidence of efficacy ever stops the alties, though. They're just going to change the packaging to say something else:
Now, Airborne is phasing in new packaging. Before, the box said that Knight-McDowell had created it because she was "sick of catching colds." Now, it says she created Airborne because she "needed help supporting her immune system." The word "cold" no longer appears on the new package or in the advertising. Interesting. If Knight-McDowell is so confident in the scientific soundness of study the company commissioned, then why is the packaging being changed? I wonder if they'll add the usual copout found on supplements that says something along the lines of "This product is not intended to diagnose or treat any illness...contact your doctor...blah...blah..."
Instead, the company is inserting the the usual vague altie claim of "boosting" or "supporting" the immune system, a completely meaningless statement, scientifically and medically speaking, at least the way it's used by alties. (Oddly enough, I was in Walgreen's the other night when I noted an Airborne knockoff called Wal-borne and noticed that Walgreen's at least is ahead of the curve on this. There were no claims on the Wal-borne package that it could prevent colds.) In any case, I'm betting these guys don't know an antibody from a T-lymphocyte, but now they're pushing a "boost the immune system" claim. What specific aspect of the immune system are they boosting? Cell-mediated immunity? What cell type? Neutrophils, T-lymphocytes, B-lymphocytes, natural killer cells?
Inquiring minds want to know. Show us the evidence.
Now, it says she created Airborne because she "needed help supporting her immune system."
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
I think Zycam is baloney as well.
Pardon my "Respectful Insolence", but I have been watching the entrenched medical establishment laugh off, ridicule and kill almost every 'natural' remedy for the last 40 years.
I watched "respected" medical doctors ridicule, poo-poo and viciously attack proponents of "proper diet" as helping prevent cancer back in the 60's. Now, what exactly does the "respected" medical profession say- that good nutrition through proper diet can help fight cancer. Oh, and by the way, the "doctor" who was representing the medical establishment was fat/overweight, smoked and from the red nose, probably drank excessively and had high blood pressure. [Like a "doctor" would be the kind of role model for health. They mostly all die early, around 50-some years of age.]
If this guy is a "surgeon", you can be assured that his knowledge of the efficacy of nutrition and supplements is exponentially lower than yours. But in his god-complex, he feels he has the right to determine exactly what you should be allowed to take, and for what reasons.
Sorry, I haven't even heard of this Airborne, but seeing a "surgeon/scientist" pontificating against it only makes me want to go out and buy some. It must have something to it if the medical establishment is out to discredit it.
Like some funny Englishman wrote, "Methinks he dost protest too much!".
Call me old fasioned, but a tot of scotch and bleeding with leeches works too.
I had a Russian friend who swore by copious amounts hot tea with vodka in it. My own findings were that the tea part wasn't that necessary.
Owl_Eagle
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
" "I'm not commenting on that particular press release," Donahue said."
Who's Donahue?
What a poorly written article.
Indeed, Mr. Author -- show us the evidence. The headline says Airborne "doesn't work," but you produced no studies to back your assertion.
Sauce for the goose, and all that.....
The creator of Airborne lives in my town, and he isn't a teacher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.