Talk:Airborne (dietary supplement)

The paragraph on Vitamin A

It describes the effects of Vitamin A deficiency (cited!!) and it also says that Airborne recommends 3x the daily recommended dosage of Vitamin A.

Come on - that's nearly as disingenuous of an argument against Airborne as the Airborne claims themselves. Unless it's shown somewhere that 300% DV of Vitamin A is dangerous, this is a completely irresponsible inference being made on this page. Unless I'm wrong, only very high levels of vitamins results in such toxicity. You only need to look at your daily multivitamin, which often has several Vitamins listed as 200% DV or more. I could be wrong on this - but if I am, show me. Cite it and prove it. Without that kind of citation, it's a completely unsubstantiated half-claim. Airborne's faults need to be brought to light in a more responsible and comprehensive way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.169.129 (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You'll never see this reply, but the vitamins you see as having over 100% are almost always water soluble. Fat soluble vitamins(A, D, E, and K) can easily lead to toxicity because your body doesn't just flush out the excess you take in. It continues to store it in fat. This is information taught in any basic nutrition course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.222.238 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Title

This should be moved to Airborne (dietary supplement). Gilliamjf 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Done User:Bungeebot 11:09 ET, 14 February 2006

GNG Pharmaceutical Services

Is "GNG Pharmaceutical Services Inc." a "doing business as" (DBA) name for GNG Pharmaceutical Search Inc.? I'm having some trouble with the credibility of the alleged trial because all Google hits for "GNG Pharmaceutical Services" refer to Airborne. The Rod 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add this important link to the Airbone page: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=1664514&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Apparently there is a HUGE issue with Airborne since this GNG company is a farce and is actually part of Airborne! Airborne is trying to cover up the study by saying that it isn't a clinical and that its consumers would be confused by it - They sure don't have faith in the intelligence of their consumers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.107.8.57 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-05 00:05:58 (UTC)

Their website http://www.airbornehealth.com/cnav_faqs.php#company04 says (as of 11/21/2006),

"...we conducted a study in 2003 that showed Airborne had a marked effect on reducing the duration of symptoms. Our Medical Advisory Board members are currently formulating a study that in addition to the studies in the literature, will further support Airborne's immune boosting properties."

They're calling it "a study," not a clinical study. Also, it's interesting that they're "formulating" a study that "will" support the product's allegedly beneficial properties. You're not supposed to know the results before the study takes place. But even so, I'm confident they'll simply repeat what other studies have shown; vitamins A and C "contribute" to a healthy immune system (just like they contribute to a "healthy" renal system, cardiovascular system, etc.) and since a healthy immune system helps you fight off colds, and since Airborne definitely includes vitamins A and C, bingo bango, there you go. Petershank 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin C and Kidney Stones

New research has little correlation between vitamin C and kidney stones. See http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/f-w99/kidneystones.html --Liface 05:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Attempt by Airborne Inc. to Indicate Factual Errors in Article

Airborne Inc. believes that a number of the facts in this article are not verified, and a number of assertions in the article are of dubious accuracy. In compliance with Wikipedia's conflict of interest principles [[1]], and Wikipedia's guidelines for businesses [[2]], Airborne did not change the substantive content of the article, and, instead, on November 19, 2008, Airborne placed requests for citations, references to dubious material, and a "dispute" indication in the main article. In addition, Airborne posted a detailed description (broken into 8 topical sections) of the unverified facts and dubious statements in the discussion page. Shortly after posting the dispute, and adding its position to the discussion page, Beeblebrox removed all of Airborne's discussion items, and the requests for verification in the article page. Although Airborne attempted to contact BeebleBrox directly through his discussion page, his user page indicated that any discussion with BeebleBrox should occur in the talk forum of the article page in dispute.

Airborne requests that its discussion points be re-added to the talk page, and that the dispute be re-inserted in the article page so that other editors can have the opportunity to evaluate each of the issues raised by Airborne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirborneInc (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This role account has been dealt with. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I reverted most of their additions to this page and reported them to WP:UAA, there were some valid concerns about the overall tone of the article and the addition of unsourced information. I have dealt with the worst of that as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the content deleted from this talk page and don't see any violation of policies. In fact, Wikipedia encourages COI-affected individuals and companies to do exactly what they did. I suggest that the material be restored. If there is any blatent advertising in that material that is unrelated to article improvement or attempted correction of what the company considers erroneous information, then that can be deleted. The truth has nothing to fear from examination. The truth will out, and this dubious product will indeed be debunked using V & RS. I have already used the existing references to make it clear what we are dealing with. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

After being informed by other editors that the userID "AirborneInc" did not comport with Wikipedia's recommendation that corporate names not be included within a userID, I requested that this account be renamed "Commenter1234."
As indicated on my user page (and as I hope I have indicated here) my intent is to fully abide by Wikipedia:COI and Wikipedia:BFAQ by announcing that I have a connection to Airborne, and limiting my conduct to pointing out inaccuracies, unverified statements, NPOV, etc. on this discussion page. I have not, and will not, edit the main article. I ask only that you evaluate the merit of my comments, and decide for yourself if a change is needed in the main article based on Wikipedia's editorial standards. As I am attempting to abide by the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:BFAQ, if you believe that I inadvertently violate any Wikipedia policy or guide I would appreciate it if you would bring that to my attention immediately so that I can respond, solicit guidance from other editors, or reverse my action. As a note, in order to allow a full discussion, I will raise seperate issues/questions/concerns under "new sections" so that other editors can discuss without clutter. Commenter1234 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with tense

The first line says it uses false advertising and unproven claims, however this is only half true. It is no longer marketed as a cure for the cold because of the lawsuits, but simply relies on the belief that it does. Its website just says it "supports your immune system" dozens of times because that's all they can get away with.207.216.77.201 (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I have fixed the tense, which also makes it clear why the lawsuits have been filed. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need to attack them in the very first sentence. There is a whole section on the lawsuit, why does it have to be in the lead too? An IP has just reverted it, and I like it the way it is now. Fyslee, you seem to have a bit of a grudge against this company. I don't blame you, they clearly did engage in false statements and the court has agreed, but the article is about Airborne, not just the lawsuit and scandal, which is thoroughly covered in it's own section. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason you are seeing something in the body of the article AND in the lead is because of the rules we have for how the WP:LEAD is created. It is always a duplication of significant points in the article. Therefore such things should be restored. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy / Verification that GNG Study is "Referenced in Favor of Airborne"

The article refers to a study "often referenced in favor of airborne" and footnotes (at the time this comment was posted) "Rachel Konrad (Associated Press). LA Daily News. Out with the cold, Teacher serves up possible remedy. Retrieved on October 31, 2005 as evidence that this study is cited in favor of Airborne. The link to this article is broken. As this statement was challenged two months ago, and still lacks verification, Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests that the sentence and footnote should be removed. Commenter1234 (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have just searched all through the LA Daily News articles and archives, and I can't find this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• The authority cited for this statement has changed. The article now appears to cite The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics, Issue 1199" (PDF) or Stephen Lawson. "What About Vitamin C and Kidney Stones?". The Linus Pauling Institute. Retrieved on September 21, 2006. On the effects of Airborne. The Medical Letter. Retrieved on January 23, 2006 (hard to tell which due to the footnoting scheme). Neither of these authorities support the statement. The first link is password protected, and despite a challenge to this authority in November 2008 (when it was cited for a different proposition), and a request that a verifiable source be provided, the link has not been revised and no other source has been added. The second authority does not discuss (or even mention) Airborne. In light of the repeated requests that a verifiable source be provided, please consider whether it is time to remove the underlying statement. Commenter1234 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy / Verification of information relating to GNG study

The article alleges details about a "GNG Pharmaceutical" study including that the study (1) was conducted with "120 people," (2) concluded that "47% of Airborne recipients showed little or no cold or flu symptoms," and (3) concluded that "23% of the recipients of a placebo pill showed equal results." The only source that was cited for these statements at the time of posting was Ben Leach. "Unbound 2005: Going Airborne". The College of New Jersey. Retrieved on January 23, 2006. There are at least two serious problems with this citation. First, and most importantly, the citation does not support all of the information asserted about the study. For instance the citation does not state that 120 people were involved in the study, and does not state that 23% of the recipients received a placebo and showed equal results. I believe that Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:RS suggest removing the unverified material. Second, the cited-article was written by a college student for an on-line college newspaper "Unbound" which appears to have stopped publishing in 2004; the article also does not include any primary citations so that the information that is contained within the article can be verified. As a result, please consider whether the citation is a "questionable source" as discussed in Wikipedia:Verifiability nad Wikipedia:RS. As the statement was challenged at least two months ago (Nov. '08), please consider removing it, or at least removing those parts which remain unverified.Commenter1234 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• You are right about that ref, reporting in a college paper by a journalism student with no clear reference for it's information is no good, and some of the assertions were not backed by that source anyway. I have removed that ref and the portion of the article "based" on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy / Verification concerning changes to Airborne packaging

The article claims that "Knight-McDowell labs has removed all references to the study from their packaging and web site" because of "bad publicity." The only source cited for this statement at the time of posting was(fn 3) "The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics, Issue 1199" (PDF). On the effects of Airborne. The Medical Letter. Retrieved on January 23, 2006. This link is password protected, and despite a challenge to this statement two months ago (Nov '08) and a request that some form of verifiable source be provided, the link has not been revised, and no other sources have been addded. Please consider whether this statement satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability, and, if it does not, removing the sentence. Commenter1234 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The authority cited for this statement has changed. The authority currently cited is Ben Leach. "Unbound 2005: Going Airborne". The College of New Jersey. Retrieved on January 23, 2006 (Its not clear to me whether this change was intentional, or a result automatic numbering caused by another editor's change to other material). The Leach article does not discuss Airborne packaging, or changes to the packaging. Furthermore, as discussed in other comments on this page, please consider whether this article is a "questionable source" as discussed in Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:RS.Commenter1234 (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The weird/inconsistent referencing style of this article is really muddying the waters. I've removed several more refs that were either not reliable or not related, and now it's somewhat unclear what is what. I'll try to sort it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy / Verifiability of block quote concerning vitamin C

The article blockquotes 7-lines from a purported "medical report on Airborne." The source provided for the blockquote at the time of posting was (Fn 4) "Does Airborne Really Stave off Colds?". Retrieved on April 4, 2006. Two very serious problems exist with this statement and citation. First, this source is not a medical report, it is an ABCNews article from 2006. Second, the source does not contain the blockquoted text. As a request for verification of this blockquote, and a request for a correct citation, was made two months ago (Nov '08) I believe that Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests that the text should be removed. Commenter1234 (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The authority cited for this quote has changed (not clear if this was done by another editor or a result of footnote renumbering). The authority currently cited is "The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics, Issue 1199" (PDF). On the effects of Airborne. The Medical Letter. Retrieved on January 23, 2006. As I have indicated concerning other statements this authority has been offered for, the link provided is unaccessible (password protected) and unverifiable. Please consider whether this authority satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability, and, if it does not, removing the quote. Commenter1234 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A new authority has been cited for this blockquote -- "What are the health risks of too much vitamin A?". Office of Dietary Supplements. Retrieved on October 3, 2006. Like the former authority, very serious problems exist with regard to this citation. First, this new authority is not "a medical report on Airborne" (indeed the article doesn't use the word "Airborne" once!). It is a generial information fact sheet put out by the National Institute of Health. Second, the authority not only does not contain the quoted material, it is an article about Vitamin A. I'm assuming that citation to this authority was not intentional and, as other editors have noted, may be a result of the weird referencing style in this article. Although I think that there are a lot of unsupported, and unverified, statements in this article that should be removed as no verification or support has been found (see my other postings), I would suggest that other editors give priority to either verifying this quote or removing this quote (the original author can always verify and re-add if authority exists) as it has been challanged for months, is unsupported and unverified, and, most importantly, contains medical information. Commenter1234 (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that an editor (71.62.5.54) attempted to remove this blockquote on January 29th; the edit was reversed with the short explanation that it was "vandalism" and that the blockquote was "relevant and sourced." As indicated in this string, the blockquote has never been verified (despite repeated requests) and violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. It might make sense to indicate on this discussion page the supporting authority for a disputed quote before re-adding material that has been removed. I would also note that Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses the "burden of evidence" and advises that editors should "not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of ... organizations in articles" and its the "editor who adds or restores material[s]" job to provide a verifiable cite. Commenter1234 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Comment

As currently written the article spends a significant amount of time discussing allegations concerning Airborne's past marketing, and does not state the claims that Airborne currently makes concerning its product, and the substantiation that Airborne provides concerning those claims. Although I have no interest in re-writing the article, or in dictating its content, I suggest that it might make sense to include a simple, neutral, and factual statement concerning the actual claims and substantiation that are currently being made by the company so that people know what the company says about its own product, and can evaluate for themselves whether the company has provided supporting evidence for those statements. If anyone believes that this would be an addition to the article, you can find the company's claims on its website (e.g. "The key ingredients in Airborne have been shown to help support your immune system as shown in scientific studies and medical journals") See http://airbornehealth.com/about_whatsinside.php. The studies referred to can be found at http://airbornehealth.com/about_medicalreference.php. Although I realize that citing to a company's website is unusual, Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests that "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of material about themselves, including in articles about themselves..." Another useful source on the subject is Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples Commenter1234 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly we should include the present situation, as well as the history. The company seems to have made some changes as a result of being sued. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hear of any changes in practice as a result of this case. Has the owner stopped making false claims? -- Fyslee (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Since the settlement, the claim that Airborne has made about its product's performance is that the key ingredients in Airborne have been shown to help support your immune system (take a look at the wording on the website...) This claim is fully supported by reliable scientific studies and medical journals and citations are provided on the website to over 25 studies (most from medical journals) that support the claim (http://airbornehealth.com/about_medicalreference.php). Since the settlement, the company has not made any of the claims that were the subject of the agreement.
In terms of whether this new claim was made "as a result of being sued," or just happened at the same time of the suit, its difficult to say as the company started changing its old product claims before the litigation settlements became final. What can be said, is that the current claim abides by the settlement agreement which requires that any claim must be true, and that Airborne "possess and rely upon competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representation." (See page 6 of http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723183/080814airborneorder.pdf). In addition nobody has challenged the current claim in any lawsuit.
On a slightly related note (related because it deals with NPOV), as I've indicated in my other comments I'm particularly disturbed that the article continues to imply that Airborne causes medical problems and blockquotes a "medical report on Airborne" that has never been verified (despite repeated requests). If the article is going to continue to have the blockquote as "evidence," in the interest of neutrality should the article also refer to the fact that Airborne has an external medical advisory board to advise on safety and product formulation? I think that the bio's of the medical advisory board speak for themselves (http://airbornehealth.com/about_medicalteam.php) and might be provided to balance out the negative implication from the unverified blockquote.Commenter1234 (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at that block quote and the reference and am confused by the problems created by the two different types of reference style we are using. We should only be using one style, preferably the one that works with the {{reflist}} code. Who can take the time to straighten that out? Then we might be able to figure this out. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One referencing style would definitely help. If I could help in that regard I would, but I can't edit the main article (even just formatting) per Wikipedia:COI. What I can do is thank anyone willing to take on the project.Commenter1234 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

New Accuracy / Verification Request Concerning Statement that FDA has filed charges against Airborne

Resolved

 – -- Fyslee (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A new paragrpah concerning lawsuits appears to have been added today to the top of the article. The new paragraph states that the FDA has filed charges against Airborne. This statement lacks any citation or authority. I believe that Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests that this new statement should be removed completely, or at least removed from the article and brought to the discussion page for comment. On a somewhat related note, although I am happy to see that additional editors are helping to edit this article, in addition to my concerns regarding accuracy and verification (see my postings above) other editors have raised a neutrality dispute, and indicated that this article has had past issues concerning reliability, need for citation, and verifiability. If you are going to add new material I would request that you confirm the accuracy of the material and provide a verifiable citation for each statement made. As an FYI, I did a google search for "FDA lawsuit airborne" and looked at the first five hits. The only substantive hit was this Wikipedia article (the rest were blog cites). New uncited statements on Wikipedia can have the negative effect of creating rumors, instead of reporting facts, and "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Wikipedia:Verifiability. Commenter1234 (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, and thank you Fyslee for removing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Our sourcing rules do need to be followed. If a source can be found, the material can be returned. I did a very quick search and didn't find it. Maybe someone else can. I had restored most of that section because it had been totally removed in an attempt to whitewash the article, using the nonsense edit summary "removed blatant POV." If it's properly sourced, even blatent POV can be included, something that eludes that particular editor.

Thanks to Commenter1234 for bringing this to our attention. You are conducting yourself admirably, especially in contrast to many other attempts by individuals or corporations to turn "their" articles into sales brochures. You are demonstrating the proper way for a COI editor to use the talk page. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment; and appreciate your willingness to correct the reference. As an FYI, I am fairly new to Wikipedia so if you ever think that I overstep my bounds as a COI editor (something I try very hard not to do) please let me know and I'll most likely reverse or ask for guidance.Commenter1234 (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the issue of whether blatant POV should be included, or removed, as a new editor who has recently tried to read all of the Wiki guides and policies I would point out that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view states that all Wikipedia content "must be written from a neutral point of view" and that this requirement is "non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." The policy seems to be independent of the obligation to cite. As a new editor, however, I really have no experience concerning how this plays out in reality, and defer entirely to group discussion as to whether the re-added section should be re-reversed. Personally I think that it needlessly repeats in the intro only one *negative* portion of the substance of the article.Commenter1234 (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV means that editors are neutral about the POV presented and sourced to V & RS. Those sources often are definite and clear POV, often in disagreement, and thus far from neutral. That's what makes up the real world, and Wikipedia's avowed purpose is to document the sum total of human knowledge, IOW we document what happens in the real world. As editors we just present those sources without taking sides with them (in article space). On talk pages we can and should make known our personal POV and why we think one or another source is good or bad, but when editing we need to lay aside our personal POV and ensure that all sides of the story are told, including those sides that we don't like. That is called Writing for the enemy. -- Fyslee (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have marked this section as resolved. If this isn't the case, then feel free to remove the tag and continue the discussion. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead-in seems weak.

The first sentence seems very weak, summarized as: Airborne, dietary supplement, contains stuff, you can buy it, and it comes in three formulas. There is nothing on purported use. It sounds like a sentence lacking a verb. Anyone have thoughts on how to change it? Rmosler | ● 10:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Broken & Restricted Links

The following two links should be reviewed:

2. "Media:The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics, Issue 1199" (PDF). On the effects of Airborne. The Medical Letter. Retrieved January 23, 2006.

5. ^ a b Airborne paid an additional $7 million settlement

The first item seems to require authorization for access and the second presently returns an HTTP "404" page... Sorry to not include the self-referential anchors in the second reference but I'm not feeling up to it at the moment.

idfubar (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits of December 2014

@Af579: You have repeated removed the statement " There are no studies supporting Airborne's effectiveness that meet scientific standards. A study by GNG Pharmaceutical Services referenced in the debate over Airborne's effectiveness was sponsored by the Knight-McDowell Labs, manufacturers of Airborne.^[3] In February 2006, ABC News discovered that GNG Pharmaceutical Services has no official clinic, scientists, or even doctors. Knight-McDowell Labs later removed all references to the study from their packaging and web site." from the text. Your most recent explanation was that "this is redundant with other material in the text" You previously called it "an insignficant detail".

The fact that medical evidence for this product was fraudulently generated is neither "an insignificant detail" nor is it repeated elsewhere in the text. I've restored the paragraph. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this paragraph, unless discussion leading to consensus results in even better wording here on this talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It is reasonable to include the text that is not repetitive. We can also summarise it in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98:I see your points. I painted with too wide a brush. Re insignificant, I was referring to the Center for Science in the Public Interest joining the case. Re repetitive, I was referring more to the multiple citations here about Airborne's efficacy. The product has not been marketed as preventing or stopping colds since 1998 (and it never should have been, as no product can claim that). There are 450+ words about the subject in this article, so I'd maintain that some elements are repetitive.

Yeah, I know, we dont want to flog the horse until in liqufies. But on the other hand, it is sold for something for which there is no evidence that it works, and there is this history of falsification. I'm not really into using Wikipedia as a forum for "punishing" corporate evildoers, but the falsification seems important. Are we in agreement on the current text or is there something else you feel should be changed? Formerly 98 (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)