Take water, add sodium chloride, zap it with an electric charge. And then sell it for ten bucks a bottle as an anti-germ spray. That’s the story the LA Times tells with this column.
Good as this column was, though, it could have been much stronger if it had scrutinized the quality of the studies it cited and told us more about how/why the FDA approved this as a medical device.
With all of the anti-microbial marketing bombarding us like an attack on our immune system these days, it’s good to have a newspaper evaluate the claims and the evidence for us.
Explicit. $9-10 for a fifth-of-an-ounce spray bottle.
The column cited only the manufacturer’s TV ad, saying that the product "kills 99% of germs." Studies were cited but no data were given.
if questionable effectiveness is a harm, this story raised those questions. What harms were reported to the FDA in order to get marketing approval?
The column may have been a bit too generous, stating that:
And the column never commented on what happens when water "gets zapped with an electrical charge" – the so-called "super oxidized" power of the product.
The realities of how germs are spread – and how this might be prevented – are the focus of the story.
Several independent and skeptical perspectives were included.
How a story ends is often the punchline. This story ended quoting an expert:
The advertising for, and availability of, the "anti-germ spray" is obvious.
We wished the story had explained more about how the product was approved by the FDA as a device, not as a drug. Was there a novel claim made? Or was the device approved under the "substantially equivalent" 510K clearance? Regardless, a comment on what FDA approval means – or doesn’t mean – was warranted in this case.
Ths kind of column is the anti-news-release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.