At first, I was finding it hard to fathom why LloydsPharmacy...

At first, I was finding it hard to fathom why LloydsPharmacy grouped Viraleze under Nasal Sprays whereby the most of the products are considered to be decongestants (including a competitor - Proctor & Gamble's (P&Gs) VICKS First Defence - helps stop a cold in its tracks).

I then researched this competitor product as it is also found under the Coughs, Cold and flu grouped products. I then dug a little deepr in to what trials VICKS had done, and here is what I found:

In 2019, complaints were made to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about P&G's nasal spray and its advertising promotional claims. Three complainants, who believed that the ad implied that the nasal spray could prevent or treat a cold, challenged whether it was misleading and could be substantiated.

The complaints centred around the following -

A poster ad for Vicks First Defence nasal spray, seen in a London Underground train in October 2019, featured an illustration of a large handkerchief, on which the headline stated “EPITAPH FOR A COLD #2”. Text underneath stated “HERE LIES YOUR COLD, IT NEVER GREW OLD, BECAUSE IT WAS STOPPED, BEFORE IT TOOK HOLD”. The right-hand side featured an image of the nasal spray and its packaging, which featured the claims “HELPS STOP A COLD IN ITS TRACKS” and in smaller text “USE AT THE 1ST SIGNS”. Underneath the nasal spray and box were the claims “BLOCK THE VIRUS” and “HELP STOP THE COLD”. Smaller text underneath stated “TRAPS, NEUTRALISES AND REMOVES THE COLD VIRUS WHEN USED AT THE FIRST SIGNS OF A COLD”.

Interestingly - As part of P&G's defence they indicated:
The evidence they provided contained analyses of five in-vivo human studies, two in-vitro studies and an in-vivo study using animals.

The ASA decided:
The advert must not appear again in its current form. We told Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd that any future claims in their advertising for Vicks First Defence Nasal spray should not state or imply that it could be used for the complete elimination of cold symptoms, unless they held sufficient evidence to support that claim.

The full story can be found HERE

As you can see below from the descriptions on the LloydsP website, I know I would like to see Viraleze ALSO under the cough, cold and flu section, just like our competitor.

Reading ASA's decision in full, I cannot see why Viraleze should not also be allowed to be advertised under the same categories as P&G's VICKS - First Defence product, which includes the Coughs, cold and flu section. This is something that needs to be brought to the attention of Starpharma and LloydsP.

One can see the difference in descriptions (so why is Viraleze only found under a decongestant description that is to treat allergies????) :





Viraleze is ONLY found under Nasal Sprays or if you know the product name just search under the Search products and services function. Interestingly also, is the fact if you search under Allergy & hay fever nothing comes up on Viraleze.

Presently, other than Lloyds themselves really pushing the product, I think it really is word-of-mouth and social media that could really effectively spread the word - better still another internet influencer