Science by judge

| Comments (5) | TrackBacks (16) |
A U.S. District Judge has ruled that Listerine can't keep running their ads saying that Listerine is as good as flossing:

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said in a decision made public Friday that he will order Pfizer, the maker of Listerine, to stop the advertising campaign. The lawsuit was brought by a Johnson & Johnson company that makes dental floss.

"Dentists and hygienists have been telling their patients for decades to floss daily," Chin wrote. "They have been doing so for good reason. The benefits of flossing are real -- they are not a 'myth.' Pfizer's implicit message that Listerine can replace floss is false and misleading."

The judge ruled after McNeil-PPC Inc., a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, filed a lawsuit saying that false claims in the advertising campaign that began last June posed an unfair threat against its sales of dental floss.

Pfizer in print ads had featured a Listerine bottle balanced equally on a scale opposite a floss container with the words: "Listerine antiseptic is clinically proven to be as effective as floss at reducing plaque and gingivitis between the teeth."

The campaign also featured a television commercial titled the "Big Bang." In it, the commercial announces that Listerine is as effective as floss and that clinical tests prove it, though it does add that there is no replacement for flossing.

The judge said "substantial evidence" demonstrates that flossing is important in reducing tooth decay and gum disease and that it cannot be replaced by rinsing with a mouthwash.

The judge also noted that the authors of articles on which Pfizer based its ad campaign had emphasized that dental professionals should continue to recommend daily flossing and cautioned that they were not suggesting that mouthrinse be used instead of floss.

Here's the thing, though:

  1. Pfizer never claimed that flossing wasn't good or that people shouldn't floss.
  2. They did claim that studies show that Listerine is as good as flossing. However, this claim is true.

So, what exactly is the problem?

16 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Science by judge.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

tattoo Read More

texas holdem A healthy appetite for righteousness, kept in due control by good manners, is an excellent thing; but to 'hunger and thirst' Read More

loans is 10-shot at the interestingness, but, since there is no oxidizable cross-fertilisation purposeful around that electrode, it esca Read More

Ford Mustang from Ford Mustang on October 4, 2005 5:49 PM

The new Ford Mustang has the signature long hood and short rear deck accompanied by C-scoops in the sides, three-element tail lamps and the galloping horse badge in the center of the grille. Read More

Dodge Charger from Dodge Charger on October 5, 2005 4:32 AM

Chargers equipped with the optional Road/Track Performance Group or Daytona R/T Package provide 10 extra horsepower in addition to stiffer suspension and bigger brakes. Read More

online forex trading from online forex trading on October 14, 2005 10:33 PM

online forex trading It looses no half-sorry master-bees, no perplexities, and no mysteries. His republicanism dis Read More

The 2006 Hummer H3 also possesses a 37-foot turning circle, fully 6.5 feet tighter than the H2, making it far more maneuverable in both the most remote countryside and the Trader Joe’s parking lot. Read More

Free raped porno video downloads from Masturbating girl video clip preview on December 16, 2005 11:30 PM

Free games porn of britney spears free Boy galleries for free Mom fuck free download Thumbnail preview mom son Read More

Girl 18 years pic photo from Girls getting fucked by horses free movies on December 20, 2005 4:16 PM
american airway from american airway on January 13, 2006 1:42 AM

american airway Read More

homebased business from homebased business on February 28, 2006 2:33 AM

homebased business Read More


A judge who has a limited grasp of the First Amendment?

P.S. Your link is broken (you've swapped the URL and the link text).

There are many problems:

- You have only pointed to three very limited studies.

- We don't know who paid for those studies.

- Most importantly, we don't know if the judge was shown additional studies or information about those studies that helped him make his decision.

- We haven't seen the actual judgement, only CNN's story.

(1) In what way do you believe these studies were limited? They seem to be more or less the standard type of controlled trial to me.

(2) Why does it matter who paid for the trials, assuming they were done correctly and accepted by a peer-reviewed journal in the usual fashion? Remember that the studies that are used to get approval for drugs are generally funded by the drug companies. Did Pfizer's ads claim that there were independent studies or merely that there were studies.

(3) I suppose it's possible that there are other studies that the judge relied upon, but a cursory medline search doesn't turn any up. Based on the article, it certainly appears that he's mostly relying upon conventional wisdom.

(1) They have relatively small number of participants (given how little it would cost to measure larger number of people, how much the result goes against the accepted wisdom, and how much it would save the world if the results were proven to be true).

(2) We all know that studies funded by a manufacturer that isn't going well might get axed before the reporting phase.

(3) That's a huge leap of faith, particularly since your reading the CNN spin on what the judge said, not even his actual reading.

You could be right on all of this, of course, but trusting CNN *and* the manufacturer of the stuff to get it right seems awfully trusting for someone like you (or me).

(1) Huh? You do understand that there are established statistical techniques for establishing whether you have a large enough sample size, right? In particular, these studies had plenty of statistical power to distinguish both flossing and mouthwash from the negative control and in at least one case had enough statistical power to distinguish mouthwash from flossing. What reason do you have for thinking these studies were too small?

(2) Well, there is always the issue of publication bias, but I don't see any real evidence that's happened here. If it's so easy to get studies that say what you want, why don't we have studies from dental floss manufacturers demonstrating that mouthwash is worse than dental floss?

(3) It's not really a leap of faith at all. Rather, I did the medline search looking for other literature and didn't find any. What makes you think that there is?

Leave a comment