Well-known radio advertiser settles in false advertising lawsuit

[TheBigA]

just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...in the most delightful way.

---Mary Poppins

 

[Martin Gilbert]

I just read the ingredients... i take fiber powder every day.. get it from walmart, target, etc.

This looks to be nothing more then regular fiber with exotic flavoring with some "health add ons" that are only slightly more than a placebo

Dr. Michael Greger, an eminent physician specializing in nutrition, a NY Times best-selling author, has characterized Balance Of Nature as a “scam” He says the obvious: 31 fruits and vegetables, as claimed, simply cannot fit into a pill, not even close. He says to the extent that the pills even contain powdered fruits and vegetables with nutritional value, there would be the amount of nutrition that could fit into a pill, meaning virtually no meaningful nutritional content.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Dr. Michael Greger, an eminent physician specializing in nutrition, a NY Times best-selling author, has characterized Balance Of Nature as a “scam” He says the obvious: 31 fruits and vegetables, as claimed, simply cannot fit into a pill, not even close. He says to the extent that the pills even contain powdered fruits and vegetables with nutritional value, there would be the amount of nutrition that could fit into a pill, meaning virtually no meaningful nutritional content.

Thanks for sharing, @Martin Gilbert .. like politics, people will often believe whatever fits their narrative because an expert theyve never heard of tells them what they wanna hear.

wnhen it comes to medical stuff, i have providers i trust and have never led me wrong.

 

[MVB13]

I've taken their supplements before. Oh no.

 

[radiofan2023]

I've taken their supplements before. Oh no.

You wasted your money, oh no

 

[TheBigA]

The FDA issues more rules about advertising:

FDA Adopts New Rules On Radio And TV Ads.

The Food and Drug Administration has adopted new rules designed to ensure that prescription drug ads clearly state the name of the drug and list its side effects in a

www.insideradio.com

They won't take effect until May. One thing mentioned was the speed of the voices reading the disclaimers.

When it comes to radio ads, the FDA says the audio information in the major statement – the part of the ad related to the side effects of the drug – must be at least as understandable as the audio information presented in the rest of the ad, with the information delivered volume, articulation, and pacing used in the rest of the commercial. That means rapid-fire disclosures will no longer be allowed.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

The FDA issues more rules about advertising:

FDA Adopts New Rules On Radio And TV Ads.

The Food and Drug Administration has adopted new rules designed to ensure that prescription drug ads clearly state the name of the drug and list its side effects in a

www.insideradio.com

They won't take effect until May. One thing mentioned was the speed of the voices reading the disclaimers.

I'm one who normally hates the techniques used to bury the disclaimers in radio ads, but I don't know how I feel about this. The list of side effects for prescription drugs is usually so long that they'll probably have to use up the entire length of the spot to just to get through them all at normal speed.

I always zone out when they start reading the list on TV because it's so long, boring and stupid. "Don't use Drug Name if you're allergic to it." Well, duh. How would you know if you've never taken it before, which is the whole point of advertising it?

It would probably be way more effective to make them list the most problematic few side effects with a disclaimer reminding people to discuss it with their doctor. That's the whole point of requiring a doctor's prescription in the first place.

 

[Mikey Radio]

The FDA issues more rules about advertising: When it comes to radio ads, the FDA says the audio information in the major statement – the part of the ad related to the side effects of the drug – must be at least as understandable as the audio information presented in the rest of the ad, with the information delivered volume, articulation, and pacing used in the rest of the commercial. That means rapid-fire disclosures will no longer be allowed.

I know my example here has nothing to do with the FDA, but it'd also be great if this type of guidance about "rapid-fire disclosures" would also apply to car dealerships and some other types of businesses as well. There's one dealership here in particular that advertises some pretty spectacular deals fairly often, and they mention really attractive lease terms...Then at the end of the commercial they throw out several seconds of sped up gibberish which is the disclaimer. Go to that dealership ready to make a deal and lease a car based on what you heard in the main part commercial, and you actually get offered something quite different by the sales staff. Mention the terms and the deals you heard in their radio ads and they actually reference all the "lawyer speak" at the end, which basically null and voids any deals offered in the actual ad, except under very specific conditions and only when leasing certain very high-end models.

 

[Mikey Radio]

I'm one who normally hates the techniques used to bury the disclaimers in radio ads, but I don't know how I feel about this. The list of side effects for prescription drugs is usually so long that they'll probably have to use up the entire length of the spot to just to get through them all at normal speed.
I always zone out when they start reading the list on TV because it's so long, boring and stupid. "Don't use Drug Name if you're allergic to it." Well, duh. How would you know if you've never taken it before, which is the whole point of advertising it?
It would probably be way more effective to make them list the most problematic few side effects with a disclaimer reminding people to discuss it with their doctor. That's the whole point of requiring a doctor's prescription in the first place.

Chalk this one up to all the lawyers trying to make a buck, and our litigious society in general. The long, drawn-out list of side effects is meant to counter that. That said, I have seen them do things in the past like say "See all the known side effects and more details in our ad in this month's edition of Golf Digest Magazine" or something similar.

 

[DavidEduardo]

I'm one who normally hates the techniques used to bury the disclaimers in radio ads, but I don't know how I feel about this. The list of side effects for prescription drugs is usually so long that they'll probably have to use up the entire length of the spot to just to get through them all at normal speed.

And the data is totally ignored by average consumers who don't even know the medical names of many possible conditions.

I always zone out when they start reading the list on TV because it's so long, boring and stupid. "Don't use Drug Name if you're allergic to it." Well, duh. How would you know if you've never taken it before, which is the whole point of advertising it?

All these drugs require a prescription. It should be the prescribing doctor's job to evaluate the patient, their health and the other meds they take. I see no reason to put all that in advertising.

It would probably be way more effective to make them list the most problematic few side effects with a disclaimer reminding people to discuss it with their doctor. That's the whole point of requiring a doctor's prescription in the first place.

Yep.

I am totally annoyed angry with those inside the Beltway who have caused access to certain pain medications to be limited or unavailable. First, they acted against the drug companies who did not over-prescribe the drugs and then they put vastly higher than needed limits on strength and quantity. Neither solves the issue of some doctors over-prescribing narcotics to people who do not need it.

I have developed back pain that is very severe; for a while I could not get any meds even with prescriptions as the controls the government had put on them made supplies run out in the first days of each month. Then, the amount and strength was so controlled it was useless. At one pharmacy, a friend said an employee had told him to buy cannabis gummies for emergencies!

This rolls into my feeling about adding more regulations to radio and broadcasting. The new Chair of the FCC wants to bring back loads of internal reporting on employment... at a moment when 75% of radio's Average Persons has evaporated in the last 20 years and revenue is off by 70% (inflation adjusted) and half of all stations can barely afford to be on the air! Yet streamers, unlicensed and minimally regulated, can program better and cheaper as they don't have all that red tape and paperwork.

 

[boombox4]

And the data is totally ignored by average consumers who don't even know the medical names of many possible conditions.

All these drugs require a prescription. It should be the prescribing doctor's job to evaluate the patient, their health and the other meds they take. I see no reason to put all that in advertising.

During a lawsuit one of the factors will be whether the consumer themselves were adequately warned of the potential dangers, and whether they knew, or should have known of the potential side effects and pitfalls.

People blame litigious lawyers for this sort of thing, but in an actual lawsuit over a pharmaceutical product the 'adequate warning' issue is used to defend the pharmaceutical companies when they are sued.

There are extensive warnings on many prescription products and devices for the same reason. And hospitals and pharmacies often give the patient an information packet with the same, exhaustive list when they give them the medications.

Lawsuits do happen over this kind of stuff. It's why the information packets exist, and why some warnings need to be placed in the radio advertisements.

The companies are trying to guarantee that any potential consumer was adequately warned.

I am totally annoyed angry with those inside the Beltway who have caused access to certain pain medications to be limited or unavailable. First, they acted against the drug companies who did not over-prescribe the drugs and then they put vastly higher than needed limits on strength and quantity. Neither solves the issue of some doctors over-prescribing narcotics to people who do not need it.

Agreed. There's nothing like getting a three inch incision cut deep into your abdomen and then being given maybe 5-6 pain pills afterwards, and then told to "just take some Tylenol."

 

[boombox4]

So the spice helps loosen and unblock it, and the fiber helps push it through and "pass" it?

Maybe it makes it taste better. Fiber is a fairly big seller in box stores.

 

[Martin Gilbert]

Maybe it makes it taste better. Fiber is a fairly big seller in box stores.

Maybe it makes it taste better. Fiber is a fairly big seller in box stores.

Certain spices have particularly powerful benefits. Turmeric, for example, contains the active ingredient curcumin which can reduce inflammation and relief pain from arthritis, and other types of pain. Turmeric is probably the primary ingredient in Relief Factor that helps to alleviate pain,

 

[boombox4]

Certain spices have particularly powerful benefits. Turmeric, for example, contains the active ingredient curcumin which can reduce inflammation and relief pain from arthritis, and other types of pain. Turmeric is probably the primary ingredient in Relief Factor that helps to alleviate pain,

Yeah, even doctors want to know which pills you take, i.e. vitamins and/or supplements, because they know that some have benefits, and they also know that some have bad side effects, especially if combined with some prescription meds. And some of the spices, and other herbal substances have some scientific evidence behind a few of the claims, although with some its inconclusive. PubMed/NIH has a lot of info on various herbs and supplements, concerning effectiveness, or lack thereof.