Talk:Airborne (dietary supplement)

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

POV?

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 it's simply a multivitamin that really doesn't do sh!t.

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)