It took me three years of obsessively battling, but I finally secured a victory over bad medical messaging by people who should know better. Most of my efforts have been directed at people casually sprouting unsubstantiated claims about Covid jabs. This time I took on a major corporation for their advertising of the humble flu vaccine. And I won.
A few months ago, I spotted a poster outside my local Dis-Chem (later The Respondent/The Advertiser). “Stop the flu” it read. “Flu vaccine available”.
I don’t know much about the flu vaccine. However, I was confident that nobody claims that the flu vaccine reliably stops the flu. My understanding has always been that it may limit your chances of getting seasonal flu and reduce the severity of symptoms.
A little bit of reading confirmed this suspicion. I submit that the following foundational statements are well established and hardly in dispute:
- Flu vaccines offer moderate help at preventing infection. This study in the Medical Journal of Australia found “the pooled estimate of influenza vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed infection for the 3 years was 50% (95% CI, 26%–66%) for general practice patients and 39% (95% CI, 28%–47%) for patients admitted to hospital.”
- Flu vaccines have some ability to limit severity of symptoms if you get the jab and nonetheless get flu. This study in the journal Vaccine found that the flu vaccine is “associated with a reduction in the risk of hospitalisation with influenza of 51.5% (95% CI: 41.6%, 59.7%).”
- Not all shots are aimed at all flu strains in circulation. “Occasionally, the vaccine strains aren’t well matched to circulating strains. This risk of mismatch has been reduced by the quadrivalent vaccine that contains four strains”, according to Allen Cheng and Kristine Macartney in The Conversation.
- To the extent it is effective, the flu vaccine only lasts a few months.
- Like any medication, the flu vaccine has very different relevance depending on one’s age and health status.
- As with any drug, the flu vaccine comes at a cost. It costs some money and has side effects. Nothing much in this world has exclusively ‘up’ sides.
Of course, I don’t need to demonstrate all of that in order to win this argument. I submit that Dis-Chem’s advert will justifiably be read by many people as a claim that flu vaccines stop the spread of flu with certainty or as near to certainty as doesn’t matter. So, I simply need to show that the flu vaccine does not reliably stop the spread of flu with the effectiveness that adds up to “certainty or near certainty”. I submit that I did that rather easily and with far fewer resources than a major pharmacy chain.
Complaint
I made the following complaint to the Advertising Regulatory Board: “This advert claims that flu vaccines reliably stop the flu. That is not a claim they can defend. It may induce people to get the vaccine on a false pretence. It may also cause people to get the vaccine and then behave as if they cannot get or transfer the flu.”
The debate
Dis-Chem responded to the ARB. I find their arguments poor.
Disingenuously, they claimed the “stop” is only meant to be read as a device to catch the eye and attract one to read the advert.
As the ARB puts it:
“The Respondent disagrees with the Complainant’s statement that ‘The advert claims that flu vaccines reliably stop flu’. It goes on to state the advertising does not make a claim that the vaccine will reliably stop flu. The poster includes an image of a stop sign, to draw attention to the poster and to advertise the fact that the flu vaccine is available in store… the advertising makes no claim that the vaccine will stop the flu.”
In my view, this damages their credibility. In the poster, “The flu” follows directly after “stop”. The obvious interpretation is “stop the flu”; not “stop and read this advert about the flu vaccine”.
Dis-Chem also argued that the behaviour of consumers once they have had the flu vaccine “has no bearing on the poster”.
I disagree. If a misleading advert induces people to act as if the advert is accurate, that most certainly has a bearing on the ethics of displaying the advert. Consider a grandson who trusts a misleading advert that his flu vaccine means he cannot get or give the flu, and therefore visits his ancient granny, attributing his flu symptoms to something other than a communicable illness. He may compete in an endurance sport event, assuming his aches are from a training session, and cannot possibly be flu. These outcomes may be rare (they may not) but they pose risks.
Dis-Chem’s most worrying claim comes last. “The Respondent submits that the complaint is frivolous”.
This major pharmacy chain – whose employees provide advice and dispense drugs at 312 stores across the nation and which hauled in R32.7 billion in revenue last year – thinks the straightforward complaint I made about the accuracy of their claim on the effectiveness of a drug they are selling is “frivolous”.
The finding
The ARB agreed with me in what I find to be a very cogent ruling. You can read it here.
They concurred that “the advertisement contains a visual statement that is likely to mislead consumers”. Their conclusion: “The Advertiser is required to withdraw the advertisement and take reasonable steps to effect the withdrawal as soon as possible.”
A few days after the ruling was published, the posters came down at my local Dis-Chem. I assume that is the case nationwide.
It may be a small win. But it matters. Especially in the wake of Covid. Making claims about the efficacy of drugs is a deadly serious matter. It is of heightened importance when done by people or institutions that lay claim to expertise. We should treat it that way. We should hold them to account. I just proved it can be done.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend