Advertising WTF



  • So I was watching TV (yea its a bit unusual) and there was a commercial for some nasal spray, nasonex i think, and they claim their formula is "scientifically developed"...



    Until now I've been taking nasal sprays developed by a 12-year-old in his basement by mixing laundry detergent and chemical X to make the ultimate nasal spray that cures runny noses like no tomorrow! He knows it works because his mom told him "I'm sure it'll cure world hunger one day", so he went on selling it. FDA? Who needs those guys with their studies, safety tests, all the things that make nasal sprays uncool!



  • The Scientific Method is based on experimentation and observation.

    In other words, the only thing they're saying is they developed that nasal spray by mixing stuff up and seeing what happened.

    Also: "Funny Stuff" forum



  • @Zecc said:

    In other words, the only thing they're saying is they developed that nasal spray by mixing stuff up and seeing what happened.

     

    As a scientist, I'd like to remind everyone that those last four words are important.  There are plenty of remedies advertised on TV that are developed by mixing stuff up and selling it.  They are recognizable by the small print that says something along the lines of "This product is not intended to diagnose or treat any medical condition."

    The Nonscientific Method is based on experimentation without observation. 



  • @AlpineR said:

    The Nonscientific Method is based on experimentation without observation. 
    Observation itself is not enough to be 'scientific'.  At least, not in a meaningful or useful way.  There are lots of observational studies that are complete bunk.  Hmm....non-random, non-blind sample.  Data dredging.  Measuring surrogate results instead of actual outcomes.  Cherry picking.  The list goes on and on.



  • A while back, there was this ad on TV for a laundry detergent. In it they said (roughly translating to English) " now with 30% more flower power! ".

    This was not the 60s kind of Flower Power - not with the sort of modern sterile home they presented, it wasn't -, but an implied "flower essence" which, supposedly, made the detergent somehow better.

    To me it always sounded like "heck, we couldn't figure out how to make this thing more effective, so we just added more perfume". Nothing wrong with saying that, but why use a percentage, and the word "power"?



  • @boomzilla said:

    Observation itself is not enough to be 'scientific'. 
     

    there are products that are "clinically tested" = 4 patients used it in a clinic.

    or they have 90 % success rate = 3 out of 4 patients show no sideeffects ... on the first day of using the product ....



  • @Nelle said:

    or they have 90 % success rate = 3 out of 4 patients show no sideeffects
    9/10 = 3/4...

    That's an interesting base you're using there (or was that the joke?)



  • @NeoMojo said:

    @Nelle said:

    or they have 90 % success rate = 3 out of 4 patients show no sideeffects
    9/10 = 3/4...

    That's an interesting base you're using there (or was that the joke?)

    The fourth patient only showed 2/5 of a side effect.



  • @NeoMojo said:

    @Nelle said:

    or they have 90 % success rate = 3 out of 4 patients show no sideeffects
    9/10 = 3/4...

    That's an interesting base you're using there (or was that the joke?)

    Nobody writes jokes in base 12. Nelle may be a pretty sad person, but doesn't make jokes in base 12.



  • @AlpineR said:

    @Zecc said:

    In other words, the only thing they're saying is they developed that nasal spray by mixing stuff up and seeing what happened.

     

    As a scientist, I'd like to remind everyone that those last four words are important.  There are plenty of remedies advertised on TV that are developed by mixing stuff up and selling it.  They are recognizable by the small print that says something along the lines of "This product is not intended to diagnose or treat any medical condition."

    The Nonscientific Method is based on experimentation without observation. 


    That just means that FDA did not approve them. As vitamins are not approved by the FDA to claim to solve any problems. Thats also a funny thing since they claim to help with problems...

    Usually it indicates that statistically there is not enough evidence to suggest that lets say vitamin X prevents heart attacks. However it might suggest that there might be a link between vitamin X and having a lower chance for having a heart attack.

    Its not very reassuring but I doubt they mixed up some chems and send it to the general public there needs to be some approval before that can happen, for all people know vitamin x is rat poison.

    Also:

    Google Chrome's spell checker licks donkey balls. Good thing they in beta or I might actually complain... I can wait 10 years for the GA release.



  •  Eoin Colfer on the other hand, we shall see.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.