Background

This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on advertising claims about the health benefits of intravenous nutritional therapy (IVNT), identified for investigation following complaints received and intelligence gathered by the ASA. See also related rulings published on 20 December 2023.

Ad description

The Get A Drip website www.getadrip.co.uk, seen 7 February 2019, listed the intravenous (IV) drip services it offered on a page headed “Our Menu”: “Bolt-Ons”; “Basic Hydration”; “MultiVit Drip”; “Energy Drip”; “Immunity Drip”; Detox Drip”; “High Dose Vitamin C Drips”; “The Beauty Drip”; “Fitness Drip”; “The Anti-Ageing Drip”; “Hair Enhancement Drip”; “Slim Drip”; “Limitless Drip”; and “Skin Brightening Drips”. The names of the drips linked to individual pages which included claims about the benefits of each of the IV drips.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the claimed health benefits of the IV drips were misleading and could be substantiated.

Response

Get A Drip Ltd said the IV drips they used were manufactured by the company IntraVita. They had attended training provided by IntraVita and they provided a copy of IntraVita’s training manual. They also provided an article with general information about intravenous nutritional therapy (IVNT), published in Aesthetics Journal in May 2016, and copies of four advertorials by IntraVita, published in the same journal.Following an internal review, they had changed the names of the “Hair Enhancement Drip” and “Skin Brightening Drip” to “Hair Health Drip” and “Skin Health Drip” and had removed the “Beauty Drip” and “Slim Drip” from their service offering. They had also added information to their website about the doses of the ingredients in each of the drips they continued to offer.

They said the body needed a constant resource of essential nutrients but it had never been more difficult to obtain all the nutrients needed from diet alone. Studies had shown that modern intensive agricultural methods had stripped increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil, and in attempts to grow climate adaptable, pest resistant crops which were bigger and grew more rapidly, nutrient uptake could not keep pace. Additionally, some dietary practices meant people could be susceptible to low nutrient levels; vegans were known to be at risk of vitamin B12 deficiency and vegetarian diets could cause vitamin B12 depletion.

There were also numerous conditions and circumstances in which additional nutrients were required above and beyond the recommended daily allowance, such as poor digestion, nutrient malabsorption, food sensitivities, chronic inflammation, stress, exercise, alcohol consumption or the ageing process. When cells were not healthy or not functioning to their maximum capacity they were not as effective in transporting vitamins and minerals to where they were needed. That was because many cells required energy, obtained from those nutrients, in order to transport nutrients. Supplementation had therefore become more important. Oral supplementation could provide a regular source of nutrients, but consumers using oral supplementation did not always supplement at the correct schedule or dose, and it could also be expensive.

Get A Drip emphasised IVNT was not to be used as an alternative to a healthy balanced diet. Instead, they aimed to provide an alternative, more efficient and cost-effective way for people to supplement and enhance the delivery of micronutrients to the body for health and wellbeing. They provided information about the specific biological processes relating to bioavailability of nutrients when administered intravenously and orally. There were multifarious barriers that could substantially impact the effectiveness of orally administered nutrients, such as molecular weight, lipophilicity, and the presence of ‘transporters’. They explained that, unlike oral supplementation, IV administration of nutrients bypassed the gastrointestinal tract’s sometimes inefficient absorption mechanisms and gastrointestinal absorption saturation and increased renal clearance, resulting in higher and more predictable serum concentrations that were not obtainable with oral or even intramuscular administration. That was important not only to allow cells to rapidly repair, regain strength and function normally again, but also because various nutrients only exerted their pharmacological effects depending on the concentration of the nutrient. The considerations of steady-state drug concentration (the time during which the concentration of a drug in the body remained consistent), and the time it took to reach steady-state, were crucial. IV administration provided a more precise approach in achieving desired plasma concentrations.

As an example, they referred to a study which related to the antiviral effects of vitamin C at a serum concentration level that was achievable if administered via IV drip, but not via oral supplementation. They said that plasma concentrations of vitamin C were little affected by oral administration, due to poor bioavailability. They also said that some nutrients would be present in the system for a long time when administered via non-oral means, and therefore could be administered less regularly than oral supplementation. For example, when administered via intramuscular injection, vitamins D and B12 could last in the system for up to three months. They provided a study in which 40 apparently healthy adults who were identified as having vitamin D deficiency were administered vitamin D either orally or via intramuscular injection.

Get A Drip believed that, because IVNT administered nutrients directly into the body via intravenous infusion, any claims about the health benefits or effects of those nutrients would fall within the scope of health claims as defined by the CAP Code, which was “any claim that states, suggests or implies that a relationship exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health”. They said that meant that any advertising claims that suggested or implied that nutrients included in IVNT could have health-related benefits must comply with the CAP Code’s rules regarding health claims. They ensured that claims about the health benefits of the substances in their IV drips were in line with the regulatory requirements for claims about the health benefits of those substances in foods and supplements (which included that the health claim must be authorised on a list following assessment of relevant evidence by the Food Standards Agency or, previously, the European Food Standards Agency).

They said the health benefits of a nutrient would be the same irrespective of the route of administration and as such believed that evidence relating to the health benefits of nutrients, when administered via oral supplementation, would be relevant to support advertising claims about the health benefits of IV drips. The nutrient would be used by the body in the same way, but IV administration resulted in a higher concentration of the nutrient in a person’s blood plasma, with a high degree of specificity and control compared to oral administration. They therefore believed that nutrients delivered via IV administration could be as effective, if not more so, than those delivered by oral administration. They provided three studies in support: one in which vitamin C was administered to healthy individuals and two in which magnesium was administered to asthmatics suffering from mild or severe asthma attacks.

They provided two expert reports. The first was from the Director of Research and Development at a compounding pharmacy which provided a range of pharmaceuticals, including components for IV drips such as vitamins, minerals and amino acids. The expert referenced the complexity and relative inefficiency of oral administration of nutrients compared to IV administration. This included highlighting that vitamins could vary as to their level of solubility and permeability, which affected their bioavailability, meaning that better bioavailability could be attained through IV administration.

The second expert report was from Get A Drip’s nutritional therapist. They said that randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the health effects of IVNT versus no intervention/placebo (or comparing the health effects of IVNT with oral supplementation to support claims of IVNT’s superiority to oral supplementation) would be preferable to support advertising claims. However, if no such studies were available, they considered it would be acceptable to substantiate the claims through a combination of established science and studies involving the same nutrient(s) from oral supplementation versus placebo, as well as studies that identified and proved the body’s need for and method of utilisation of those nutrient(s), from which blood levels needed for normal function had been identified as the key factor.

They also provided more detail on bioavailability, including highlighting various complicating factors for bioavailability when administering a nutrient orally compared to via IV. However, the medium within which the nutrient was delivered via IVNT would need to be assessed, since it might not release the nutrients to tissues immediately, despite 100% being delivered to the circulation. It should also be investigated as to whether one high dose of a nutrient via IV every two to four weeks would have the same effects as a low dose orally every day.

Get A Drip said the ASA should not limit its acceptance of evidence only to evidence relating to the health benefits of nutrients in normally healthy people. They said under that definition “normally healthy” people would not include those with inadequate vitamin status, because they would not be in a complete physical state of wellbeing. They said that ‘normally healthy’ people could still become unwell or rundown, and there were a number of reasons why someone who may be considered to be healthy would still have poor vitamin status, for example low dietary intake and malabsorption. They said many studies often contained positive and negative controls to determine statistical significance, so results would still often apply to individuals who were ‘normally healthy’. They said the results of studies on ‘healthy’ people would be applicable to ‘healthy’ and ‘non-healthy’ people, but because in scientific study it was logical to use those more in need of vitamins in order to identify a positive correlation, many studies related to ‘non-healthy’ people.

Get A Drip’s second expert additionally argued that evidence relating to people with medical conditions should be considered relevant to claims about the health benefits of IVNT. A nutrient’s mode of action and purpose in states of dysfunction and disease were guides as to how those mechanisms might go wrong with inadequate levels of the nutrient, as well as how the nutrient corrected or prevented the problem being studied if levels were replenished or exceeded. They said evidence would be particularly relevant if the nutrient was delivered via IVNT in the study.

Turning to the specific health benefits referenced in their advertising, Get A Drip provided information about the roles of various vitamins and minerals in cellular energy production and energy-yielding metabolism; in particular the B vitamins (except folate), vitamin C, iron and magnesium. They said adequate supply of B vitamins was required for the appropriate functioning of the energy-production system, and a shortfall of any one of them would be rate-limiting for energy production, with potentially severe metabolic and health consequences. Similarly, vitamin C and magnesium played an important role in the production of energy.In support of their advertising claims linking vitamin C to improvements in fatigue and energy levels, they said that symptoms of moderate vitamin C deficiency included fatigue, irritability and muscle pain. They provided a clinical trial on healthy people which evaluated the efficacy of IV vitamin C compared to placebo drip, a study in which oral supplementation was administered to healthy people for two weeks, and a longitudinal study of 15,000 healthy people.

In relation to the advertising claims relating to immune function and antioxidant action, they said it was well-established that nutritional deficiency could impair the immune system. They referred to a literature review and article, which described that the body may be deprived of essential nutrients when fighting infection due to the additional needs of the immune system. Nutrient status could be affected by stressful lifestyles, diabetes, or obesity. They said nutritional supplementation, delivered in high doses, might be beneficial in potentially reducing viral load and hospitalisation for Covid-19 patients.

They said that vitamins C and E acted as powerful antioxidants in combatting free radicals. Vitamin B1 had been reported to have potential anti-inflammatory and suppression of oxidative stress effects. Referring to a source that they did not provide, they stated that Vitamin B1 deficiency affected the immune system through increased inflammation, oxidative stress and metabolic disturbances, which further led to the production of aberrant antibodies. They provided a literature review which described that vitamin B6 influenced innate/adaptive immunity, function and proliferation of immune cells, and that the intake and supplementation of vitamin B6 improved some immune functions in humans with a B6 deficiency.

They provided a review article, and two studies relating to oral glutathione supplements, to support advertising claims that glutathione also had an important role in the maintenance of numerous immune functions, as well as other critical functions such as detoxifying drugs and protecting from oxidative damage. They noted that unlike oral administration, IV administered glutathione had 100% bioavailability.

They referred to review articles and a study to support their advertising claims that selenium had a range of effects, but particularly that it was essential to the function of the immune system and played a major role in the regulation of redox and antioxidant functions and helped protect against DNA damage. They said low selenium levels were linked to raised risk of mortality and poor immune function, with supplementation increasing immune function and antiviral influences.

They also referred to a RCT which examined the effects of oral l-carnitine supplementation in centenarians, in support of claims that this substance supported the immune system, reduced stress and increased vitality.

Supported by a literature review examining the relationship between glutamine supplementation and fatigue in the context of physical exercise, they said glutamine was an essential amino acid widely used in sports nutrition, especially because of its immunomodulatory role. It also played several other biological functions, such as cell proliferation, energy production, glycogenesis, ammonia buffering and maintenance of the acid-based balance. Supplementation, especially when administered for more than five consecutive days, seemed to increase muscle glycogen synthesis and reduce ammonia accumulation induced by exercise, although more research was needed to establish greater effect of glutamine in comparison to supplements containing carbohydrate or creatine monohydrate. They said glutamine supplementation seemed to attenuate markers of muscle damage.

In support of claims relating to fat burning, they referred to a small study in which the rate of fatty acid oxidation was measured in healthy subjects who took oral l-carnitine supplements. They also provided a study which examined the effects of l-carnitine and l-acetylcarnitine on male infertility to support claims that l-carnitine boosted male fertility.

In support of their advertising claims linking folic acid with cognitive function, they provided a study that compared serum levels of folate and cognitive function in participants who had received oral supplementation with those who received a placebo over a three-year period. Another large study found that high plasma folate levels were associated with improved cognitive performance. In relation to claims about improved sleep, they said magnesium supplementation appeared to improve subjective and objective measures of insomnia in elderly people in an RCT.

For advertising claims relating to skin health and anti-ageing, they referenced two studies that showed that daily oral glutathione supplementation had various beneficial effects on skin properties and demonstrated properties as an anti-ageing agent. In relation to the High Dose Vitamin C drip, they highlighted that the ad stated “Vitamin C […] contributes to collagen formation”, which they said was an authorised health claim for foods. They believed the advertising claim would be understood by consumers to mean only that IV vitamin C would contribute to collagen formation, rather than that it would increase collagen formation. They said vitamin C had a role in the synthesis of collagen in connective tissues, referring to a study on the use of vitamin C in the treatment of cancer, which described that vitamin C acted as an electron-donor, keeping iron in the ferrous state and thereby maintaining the full activity of collagen hydroxylases.

With regard to claims about hydration, they did not recommend a hydration drip over drinking water and in their experience, customers did not interpret their ads in that way. Their basic Hydration drip was designed to have an additional “Bolt-On” so individuals could tailor the drip to their needs following a consultation with a medical professional; this was also provided to clients who might be unwell but not so unwell that they would require NHS treatment. They said IV drips still provided basic hydration. That was demonstrated by numerous studies, including one they provided, which was conducted on healthy men who were underwent a daily intravenous hydration regimen following the effects of a diuretic.

Assessment

Upheld

The ad described 16 IV drips offered by Get A Drip, including a range of claims about the health benefits provided by each drip. In the descriptions of the drips, the ad also included some claims about the role that some of the specific substances in the drips played in the body, and the health benefits they provided. The ASA considered that consumers would therefore understand that the health benefits associated with those specific substances would be provided by the described drip.

Claims about the health benefits of intravenously-administered nutrients must comply with CAP Code rules relating to misleading advertising and to health-related (non-food) products. Rules relating to health claims made about foods (i.e. products and their constituents that were ingested), referenced by Get A Drip, applied only to foods, and therefore were not relevant.

We considered that the average consumer who viewed the web pages relating to the advertiser’s IV drips, and to whom the claims were clearly addressed, would be generally healthy but interested in products which might support or enhance specific aspects of their health and wellbeing, or support their preparation for or recovery from specific events, including intensive exercise. We considered those consumers would have some understanding that the body required certain levels of vitamins, minerals and other substances to support its normal functioning.

The homepage of the website referenced that at an appointment, “after a quick assessment with one of our healthcare professionals we can help you select the IV Drip […] that is right for you”, followed by a scrolling list featuring the drips and icons, such as “Energy Drip” and “Detox Drip”.

IV drips were delivered via an invasive method which we considered consumers would generally associate with medical uses, and single drips were offered by IV clinics in the UK at prices generally ranging from around £100 to around £400; at the time the ads were viewed, the price of most of Get A Drip’s drips ranged between £75 to £250 for a single drip, with the Limitless Drip priced between £450 and £850. The Skin Brightening drip was priced at £3,000 for their recommended 14-week course of weekly drips. In that context, and the context referenced above, we considered consumers were likely to expect that an IV drip was an instantaneous, and therefore more effective, or superior way, of delivering essential nutrients to normally healthy people than other methods (such as through diet or regular oral supplementation) and therefore would also provide superior health benefits more quickly than the same nutrients administered through such other methods.

We considered consumers would understand that the nutrients delivered via a single IV drip would result in a one-off increase in the availability of those nutrients to be utilised by the body, whereas diet and oral supplementation provided a daily regular, ongoing source of those nutrients. However, consumers would be unlikely to have knowledge of how long the various nutrients, administered via a single IV drip, would be available for utilisation by the body or how long the claimed health benefit might therefore last. As a result they were likely to base their understanding of how long the health benefit might last on information in the ad, where relevant information was included. This could include, for example, references to a ‘course’ of drips or recommended frequency of administration, the overall impression created by the claims, the name of the drip or other elements of the ad.

We understood that human nutritional needs were complex, requiring different amounts of different nutrients at differing frequencies to ensure normal functioning of the body, and these needs varied from person to person depending on a range of factors such as biological sex, age, levels of physical activity and so on. Human nutritional needs were answered through diet and, in the case of vitamin D, exposure to the sun.

We took expert advice on the advertiser’s arguments about the superior bioavailability provided by IV drips compared to oral administration of substances, and on what type and standard of evidence would be relevant to claims about the health benefits of IVNT drips.

The expert agreed with Get A Drip and its experts that IV administration would achieve peak plasma concentrations of a substance more quickly than oral administration (although the speed at which this was achieved would vary between nutrients). This was not, however, the same as bioavailability. While IV administration achieved 100% bioavailability under the pharmacological definition (the fraction of the administered drug that reached the systemic circulation), there was a lack of consensus as to the definition of bioavailability in relation to nutrients. Consequently, the ASA’s expert considered there was not sufficient evidence to support assertions that IVNT offered superior bioavailability compared to oral administration for all nutrients.

Regarding the type and standard of evidence that would be relevant, the expert firstly referenced evidence for advertising claims about the health benefits of IVNT drips which did not include that IVNT would provide superior health benefits compared to diet or oral supplementation. For such claims, they advised that evidence relating to the health benefits of oral supplementation could be relevant to support claims relating to IVNT. Such evidence would, however, have to provide robust evidence of the correlation between a particular dose of a nutrient (i.e. the quantity provided, frequency of provision, and duration of provision) and a particular health benefit. The IVNT drip would have to be of the same or greater dose than the oral supplement. The advertiser would have to demonstrate that the particular formulation of the drip did not include other nutrients or components which could adversely affect the effectiveness of the key nutrient (e.g. amino acids that bound to zinc or copper). They would also have to demonstrate that interaction with the gut microbiome was not necessary to achieve the health benefit, which may be the case for some nutrients such as polyphenols and glucosinolates.

The expert secondly referenced evidence for advertising claims that IVNT would provide superior health benefits compared to other methods of administration of the same nutrients such as through diet or oral supplementation. For such claims they advised that evidence would need to relate to the immediate and superior efficacy of the specific drips the advertiser sold, or substances contained in them. Such evidence would ideally consist of appropriately designed RCTs comparing the health benefit effects of IVNT with a placebo drip and with oral supplementation with the same formulation and at the same dose. Alternatively, such evidence could consist of appropriately designed observational studies comparing reported or measured health end-points of users of IVNT with individuals who routinely took the same nutrients in a different form, at similar doses. Those studies would also have to be adequately controlled in terms of inclusion criteria and other likely mitigating variables. Such evidence should have clinically significant outcomes that were directly relevant to the health benefits claimed in the advertising. Evidence relating to the health benefits of regular oral supplementation would not be sufficient, but evidence relating to intramuscular injection could be, as its mode of delivery was similar to IV drip.

The expert further advised that evidence relating to the effects of nutrients on individuals suffering from a deficiency of that nutrient would not be relevant to claims about the health benefits of IVNT in normally healthy individuals, regardless of the method by which the nutrient was administered. Evidence relating to the effects of nutrients on individuals suffering from a medical condition that was not a nutrient deficiency could be adequate to support claims about the health effects of IVNT, whichever method of administration was used. However, such evidence would have to show that the provision of the nutrient led to improvements in a measure that was not related to the medical condition or to symptoms caused by side effects of any ongoing medical treatment. The expert understood that such evidence was likely to be scant.

The ASA understood that IV administration delivered 100% of a nutrient to the systemic circulation and achieved peak plasma concentrations more swiftly than via oral supplementation. However, we understood that the speed at which peak plasma concentration would be achieved varied between nutrients, and that a range of other factors, including the composition of the particular IV drip formulation, could affect the body’s use of those nutrients and the delivery of any health benefits.

We considered the type and standard of evidence we would expect to see, taking into account the context of how consumers would interpret the advertising claims as outlined above: that IVNT would provide a superior way of delivering essential nutrients to normally healthy people than other methods and therefore would also provide superior health benefits more quickly than the same nutrients administered through such other methods.

We therefore expected to see evidence which related to the immediate and superior efficacy of the specific drips sold by the advertiser, or drips with the same formulation and dosage as referenced in the ad (including regularity of administration), preferably in humans who were normally healthy. Evidence relating to people with a clinical nutrient deficiency or which examined the effects of a nutrient as a treatment for a medical condition would not be relevant to advertising claims directed at generally healthy consumers. Evidence relating to people with a medical condition would only be relevant if it clearly established that the measures by which health benefits were assessed were unrelated to either the medical condition or to symptoms caused by associated medical treatments. We expected all evidence, whether consisting of RCTs or observational studies, to be methodologically robust with clinically significant outcomes that were directly relevant to the health benefits claimed in the advertising.

Get A Drip provided a number of documents to support the range of health claims made for their drips. The article and four advertorials published in Aesthetics Journal provided general information about IVNT and its uses, the evolution of the IVNT sector in the UK, information about the sector membership body - the Association of Intravenous Micronutrient Supplementation (AIMS) - and guidance on advertising IVNT from AIMS. Those documents did not constitute adequate evidence to support claims about the health benefits of the drips.

The IntraVitra training manual included references to evidence which related to the health benefits of substances included in their drips. However, a section of the manual titled “Efficacy” stated, “Evidence of intravenous nutrient therapy (IVNT) efficacy is based mainly on anecdotal clinical experience with limited clinical trial publications on combination intravenous micronutrient therapy in peer review [sic] journals”. It then briefly summarised evidence which related to the use of IVNT in treating the medical conditions fibromyalgia, asthma and cardio-vascular disease, and of oral supplementation in aiding wound healing. As referenced above, we considered that evidence which related to use of a nutrient as a treatment for a medical condition, including by oral supplementation, was not relevant to the claims in Get A Drip’s advertising, which related to the efficacy of IVNT in normally healthy individuals. We further considered that anecdotal accounts of clinical experience were not adequate to support claims that IVNT had immediate and discernible health benefits for normally healthy individuals.

We reviewed whether the remaining documents they had provided, alongside other documents we had seen, supported the claims made in Get A Drip’s advertising.

Basic Hydration dripThe ad stated “This is our basic IV drip hydration package, designed for pure and simple rehydration. As we know, everyone is different, so you can add any of our Bolt-On options to this depending on your needs”. It featured an icon of a water droplet. Given the context referenced above, we considered consumers would understand from the ad that hydrating via the Basic Hydration drip provided benefits over and above those provided through oral fluid intake (i.e. drinking water or electrolyte drinks) in ensuring adequate hydration in generally healthy people. We considered consumers were likely to expect that these benefits would include achieving greater and more effective levels of hydration, more quickly, than could be achieved through oral fluid intake.

We reviewed documents which related to the claims as consumers would understand them and which related to the substances in the drip, which were sodium chloride (saline solution), bicarbonate, potassium and calcium.

A chapter from a medical manual about volume depletion provided an overview of that condition and recommended that IV saline be given to patients with severe dehydration or when oral fluid replacement was impractical. A journal article provided an overview of the conditions hypernatremia and hyponatremia (abnormally high and low sodium levels) and recommended IV infusion as a treatment. Two articles described the conditions lactic acidosis and rhabdomyolysis and recommended IV saline as a treatment. A clinical review of febrile illnesses in athletes highlighted that fever could affect physical performance, was correlated with dehydration, and that participating in strenuous exercise with a fever could exacerbate dehydration. Those documents focused on the use of saline as a treatment for medical conditions and therefore were not relevant to advertising claims aimed at generally healthy people experiencing normal levels of water and sodium loss.

Get A Drip provided a study that examined the impact of food intake on the gastrointestinal absorption and effectiveness of an anti-diuretic medicine. Saline IV drips were used to hydrate the healthy participants in a study design which, for the purpose of accurate measurement, required that participants did not drink anything (or eat anything other than specific meals) during the trial. We considered the study demonstrated the use of saline IV drips as a method of hydration by researchers but noted that IV administration was used rather than oral rehydration in order to make precise measurements relevant to the outcome measures of the study.

A series of four articles described levels of dehydration in professional football players in Chile, how dehydration was thought to affect performance in training and matches, and strategies for recovery, although we had not seen full copies, in English, of two of those documents. A further article provided a general overview of research on hydration and health. The articles did not relate to hydration via IV drip and did not comment on whether there was greater value in IV drips over drinking water or electrolyte drinks for ensuring adequate hydration, including in the context of strenuous physical exercise or busy lifestyles.

We considered the evidence demonstrated that maintaining adequate levels of hydration was important to the normal functioning of the body, and that saline IV drips were used as an effective method of rehydration. However, we considered that it did not demonstrate that IVNT provided benefits over and above oral fluid intake in maintaining (or restoring) adequate levels of hydration in generally healthy people, and the advertising claim was therefore misleading.

Immunity drip

The ad featured an icon showing a shield with a cross inside it and stated “Feeling under the weather and need a boost? The Immunity Drip is packed with nutrients and antioxidants including a high dose of Vitamin C to help boost the immune system to help speed up recovery”. We considered consumers would understand from the name of the drip, the description and the icon, that it would provide a ‘boost’ or improvement in the functioning of their immune system, including through improving the body’s ability to combat oxidative stress, resulting in greater protection against infection and disease as well as helping them recover more quickly after illness. In the context of the references to a “boost” when a person was “under the weather” and “speed[ing] up recovery” we considered consumers were likely to expect those benefits to last a few days to a short number of weeks.

We reviewed documents which related to the claims as consumers would understand them and which related to the substances in the drip, which as stated in the ad were: saline, bicarbonate, vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6 and C, potassium and calcium.In relation to vitamin C, Get A Drip had provided a literature review that described the chemical and biochemical processes by which high dose IV vitamin C might have an impact as a cancer treatment, and a study that examined the action of ascorbate on cells infected with HIV. We had also seen a small, prospective observational study on the effects on quality of life in cancer patients of IV vitamin C, and two literature reviews which focused on vitamin C and the possible role of oxidative stress in the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Those documents examined the role of vitamin C in the treatment or prevention of medical conditions rather than to health benefits in generally healthy people and so were not relevant to support the claims in the ad. A further cross-over study, involving seven participants, examined the effect of high-dose vitamin C oral supplementation on the steady-state concentration of a drug which was used to treat HIV. It concluded that such supplementation could reduce the effectiveness of the drug by impacting its steady-state concentration. We considered the study did not demonstrate any health effects of vitamin C and therefore was not relevant to support claims in the ad.

We had also seen five literature reviews (including one provided by Get A Drip) and the abstract of a journal article in relation to vitamin C’s role in the functioning of the immune system. We considered the literature reviews together confirmed that research had established that vitamin C was important to the normal functioning of the immune system due to its role in protecting cells against oxidative stress, and noted that one review stated that epidemiological studies had shown that eating fruit and vegetables could help to protect against some diseases although that could not be directly attributed to vitamin C. However, those documents were not sufficient evidence that vitamin C IV infusions could help normally healthy people protect themselves against illness or that it improved the functioning of the immune system. The abstract did not provide sufficient information for us to assess its relevance.

In relation to other nutrients in the Immunity drip, Get A Drip provided a textbook chapter about vitamin B2 deficiency, an article which provided general information about the functions of various B vitamins in the immune system, two articles which provided information about the immune-related functions of vitamin B6 (one of which also related to vitamin B12 which was not included in the Immunity drip), and referred to a further document about the role of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5 (which was not included in the Immunity Drip) and B6 in the immune system. We considered the documents demonstrated that adequate intake of the B vitamins included in the Immunity drip were necessary for the normal functioning of the immune system. However, they were not sufficient evidence that an IV drip containing those vitamins could help normally healthy people protect themselves against illness or that it improved the functioning of the immune system.

Get A Drip had also provided a literature review relating to the role of various micronutrients, including vitamins B6 and C (which were in the Immunity Drip), in immune function and an article relating to the role of various vitamins and minerals, including vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6 and C, and the minerals potassium and calcium (which were in the Immunity Drip), in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. The documents confirmed that those vitamins and minerals played a role in immune function, but they were not sufficient or relevant evidence that an IV drip containing those nutrients could help normally healthy people protect themselves against illness or that it improved the functioning of the immune system.

We concluded we had not seen adequate evidence to demonstrate that the Immunity drip could improve immune function or provide greater protection against and quicker recovery after illness, over any time period, and the claims were therefore misleading.

Energy drip

The ad stated “Also known as the Myers’ Cocktail, the Energy Drip will help to give a natural energy boost and help regulate sleep patterns to get you feeling back on top form. To boost immune system and energy levels”. It featured an icon of a lightening bolt surrounded by two circular arrows. We considered consumers would understand from the ad that the Energy drip would provide an increase in energy levels, improvement in immune function and help to regulate sleep. We considered there was nothing in the ad that indicated how long these benefits may last, and consumer expectations of the longevity of the benefits would therefore likely range from days to weeks.

We reviewed documents which related to the claims as consumers would understand them and which related to the Myers’ Cocktail (an IV infusion developed by a US physician) or to substances in the drip, which as stated in the ad were: saline, bicarbonate, vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, B12 and C, potassium, calcium and glucose.

We had reviewed documents relating to the role of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6 and C and the minerals potassium and calcium in immune function in relation to the Immunity drip and concluded they were also not sufficient to support the claim that the Energy drip could improve immune function. The literature review and article provided by Get A Drip which related to the role of various nutrients in immune function, referenced above, also referred to vitamin B12, which was additionally in the Energy Drip. As above, while we considered the documents confirmed that vitamin B12 played a role in immune function, they were not sufficient or relevant evidence that an IV drip containing vitamin B12 could help normally healthy people protect themselves against illness or that it improved the functioning of the immune system.

We had seen four review articles (two of which were provided by Get A Drip) relating to vitamin B12 which summarised the causes and health implications of vitamin B12 deficiency and confirmed its importance for the normal functioning of the body, particularly the nervous system and blood cell formation. They also highlighted the need to maintain adequate levels in the body, particularly for vegans and vegetarians who were more likely to have inadequate levels of vitamin B12 in the body as it was primarily found in animal products. A further article provided by Get A Drip gave information about the immune-related functions of vitamins B12 (and B6; referenced above). However, the articles did not provide evidence which supported claims of increases in energy levels, improvement of immune function or sleep regulation, with regard to IV drips containing vitamin B12, in normally healthy people.

Get A Drip had provided three additional documents relating to the effects of vitamin C on energy/fatigue levels. An article examined data from a large-scale observational study (20,000 participants) in the UK to identify risk factors for vitamin C deficiency and found a correlation between low vitamin C levels and self-reported poorer physical health. Risk factors were: being older, male, of lower socioeconomic status and educational attainment, no alcohol intake, being a smoker, and having low levels of physical activity. The authors reported that the findings suggested that vitamin C supplementation was likely to only have an impact on those with the lowest levels of vitamin C and we considered that many of the risk factors they identified for low vitamin C levels were less likely to be present in the audience for the ad. A study assessed the effects of 6g of oral vitamin C on fatigue in normally healthy office workers over two weeks, but because it was not controlled or blinded and did not relate to IV administered vitamin C it was not adequate evidence for advertising claims relating to IV vitamin C.

Finally, an RCT examined the effects of an IV drip containing 10mg of vitamin C on fatigue and oxidative stress in normally healthy office workers in the Republic of Korea. The RCT was randomised, placebo-controlled and double-blinded: 73 were in the treatment group and 74 in the control group, who were administered IV saline only. Participants were aged between 20 and 49 years and had had no vitamin supplement intake in the two days before enrolment in the study. Each participant was administered one drip. The primary outcome measures were the differences in self-reported fatigue score at two hours and at one day after the intervention, comparing between the groups. Secondary outcome measures were between-group comparisons of oxidative stress levels at two hours and at one day after the intervention, and a between-group comparison of plasma vitamin C concentration at two hours after intervention. The authors reported that fatigue score was significantly decreased in the vitamin C group compared to the placebo group at both two hours and one day after intervention, although this was evident in subjects with a lower vitamin C level at baseline, but not for those with a higher level. However, the fatigue score was reported on a zero to ten scale and the difference between the mean score for the groups was, even specifically for those with lower vitamin C levels at baseline, only 0.43 at two hours after intervention and 1.14 one day after intervention. We considered the study did not demonstrate that such differences on a ten-point scale constituted a clinically significant difference. The authors also reported that oxidative stress was lower in the treatment group at two hours compared to the placebo group, but not at one day. They concluded that there was no significant relationship between fatigue and oxidative stress. While the RCT was well-designed, we considered its findings did not constitute adequate evidence that a vitamin C IV drip of any dose improved energy levels or decreased fatigue.

A journal article relating to the Myers’ Cocktail included a reference to the IV infusion providing an “energy boost” for an athlete, but this was in the context of the drip being administered as treatment for a flu-like illness. In any case the article provided only anecdotal accounts of a doctor’s experience of using the Myers’ Cocktail and as such was not adequate evidence to support advertising claims. We had also seen an RCT which examined the safety, feasibility and efficacy of the Myers’ Cocktail in treating fibromyalgia. Neither document was relevant to claims that the Energy drip could increase energy levels, improve immune function or regulate sleep in normally healthy people.

Some of the documentation we had reviewed in relation to the Hydration drip explored links between levels of hydration and energy: the clinical review of febrile illnesses in athletes and the series of four articles describing levels of dehydration in professional football players in Chile. The first of those documents, however, related to the use of saline as a treatment for a medical condition, and all of those documents related to high performance athletes. We considered they were therefore not adequate to support the claims in the ad.

We concluded we had not seen adequate evidence to demonstrate that the Energy drip could increase energy levels, improve immune function and help to regulate sleep, over any time period, and those claims were therefore misleading.

Limitless drip

The ad stated “You’ve seen the film, now it’s your turn to feel limitless. A powerful drip containing high strength doses of antioxidants, amino acids and nutrients to boost the immune system, increase energy levels […] boost metabolism, support fertility levels and contribute to healthy hair, skin and nails.” It featured an icon of an infinity symbol and stated that there were two options for the drip. We considered consumers would understand from the claims that both versions of the Limitless drip would provide a ‘boost’ or improvement in the functioning of their immune system including through improving the body’s ability to combat oxidative stress, increase energy levels, speed up their metabolism, help to keep their hair, skin and nails healthy, and help to maintain optimal fertility. We considered there was nothing in the ad that indicated how long those benefits may last, and consumer expectations of the longevity of the benefits would therefore likely range from days to weeks.

The ad stated that option 2 of the drip contained: bicarbonate, vitamins B12 and D, the minerals potassium, magnesium, zinc and calcium, the amino acids l-lysine, l-proline, l-arginine, leucine, isoleucine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, alanine, histidine, serine, glycine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, tyrosine and glutamine, and glutathione and coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). Option 1 was the same but included the additional substances: vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5 and B6, the mineral selenium, the amino acid taurine, and l-carnitine. We reviewed documents which related to the claims as consumers would understand them and which related to the substances in the two versions of the Limitless drip.

With regard to immune function, we referred back to documents we had already reviewed in relation to the Immunity and Energy drips, which for the reasons stated above we considered were not adequate evidence for the claim as it related to the substances contained in those drips. Three of those documents also provided information about the immune-related functions of other substances that were contained in the Limitless drips: vitamin D, selenium, magnesium and zinc. However, they were not adequate to support the advertising claim that the Limitless drip improved the functioning of the immune system. In addition we had seen a small RCT which looked at the effects of zinc or zinc and lysine oral supplementation on infection rates in elderly people. It did not appear to find significant effects for either supplement over placebo, and in any case we considered it was not relevant to claims relating to immune function in the general population. We further understood, from an article relating to the levels of zinc and copper needed in total parenteral nutrition (complete replacement of oral food intake) that metabolism of those minerals could be negatively affected by the presence of the amino acids cysteine, cystine and histidine in the same formulation; we noted histidine was present, along with zinc, in the Limitless drips.We had also seen an article and three evidence reviews (two of which were provided by Get A Drip), relating to the role of selenium in immune function. We considered they established that adequate levels of selenium were needed for the normal functioning of the immune system and that selenium deficiency could contribute to greater susceptibility to viral infectious diseases. Its role, however, was complex and interdependent on other substances, and high levels of selenium in the body did not necessarily correlate to better health. A small study, which was provided by Get A Drip and referenced in one of those reviews, suggested that dietary intake of selenium may help improve immune function in people with lower selenium plasma levels. However, the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that selenium, when delivered via IV drip, could improve immune function in normally healthy people.

Get a Drip had provided the study which compared vitamin D levels in those with vitamin D deficiency who received the same total dose of vitamin D either divided into five weekly oral doses or in a single intramuscular injection. We noted that when vitamin D levels were measured six weeks after baseline, both methods of administration had resulted in a significant increase, with no significant difference in levels between the groups. While at week 12 the levels in the oral group had started to decline and those in the intramuscular injection group had continued to rise, neither the decline nor the rise was significant compared to their respective levels at week six. We considered the study therefore demonstrated that, in people with a deficiency, daily oral supplementation of vitamin D for five weeks was as effective as one intramuscular injection at increasing levels at six weeks, with those levels sustained at 12 weeks. The authors posited that the intramuscular route caused a slow and sustained release because the preparation was deposited at the injection site; it was not clear though that this would also apply to IV administration. The study did not investigate any health benefits that might be derived from increasing vitamin D levels in normally healthy people.

Seven papers related to glutathione, three of which were provided by Get A Drip. A review article which looked at the role of glutathione on exercise-induced oxidative stress described the role of glutathione in combating oxidative stress in the body, but the evidence it described related primarily to glutathione produced by the body. The article noted that oral supplementation was an ineffective way of providing glutathione and that there was no relevant evidence relating to its administration by IV drip. An article provided by Get A Drip gave an overview of the antioxidative protective roles, measurement and biosynthesis of glutathione. It noted some of its therapeutic uses, but did not provide evidence relating to the effects of IV-administered glutathione. A further article summarised the role of glutathione in the body, and stated that glutathione deficiency contributed to oxidative stress, which played a key role in ageing and the pathogenesis of many diseases. It stated that new knowledge of nutritional regulation of glutathione metabolism was critical for the development of effective strategies to improve health and treat such diseases. We considered it established the importance of glutathione in the normal functioning of the body, including that it had a role in protecting cells from oxidative stress. It noted that the rate at which glutathione was produced and used by the body meant that in healthy adults, glutathione was used less than two days after it was produced. The article, however, did not provide information about the usefulness of direct glutathione supplementation (either orally or by IV infusion) or whether, if increased levels were delivered by such methods, it would have any additional benefits to health, such as improving immune function.

Get A Drip provided two subsequent studies. A one-month trial in which 12 participants aged between 50 and 80 years old were given oral glutathione measured whether it increased levels of glutathione in the body and its effects on oxidative stress and immune function markers. The other study made in vitro assessments of the stability and bioavailability of different formulations of oral glutathione supplements, with an assessment of the glutathione levels achieved in rats following oral administration of those supplements. Those studies were not relevant to the health effects of IV-administered glutathione. An abstract stated that glutathione played a crucial role in the detoxification of xenobiotics, but provided no further detail; this was not adequate evidence to support advertising claims. Another document related to the use of glutathione in treating ovarian cancer and therefore was not relevant to claims about improving immune function in normally healthy people. We considered the evidence therefore also did not support the advertising claims that the two versions of the Limitless drip improved immune function, including through improving the body’s ability to combat oxidative stress.

With regard to the claim to increase energy levels, Get A Drip had provided a literature review examining the relationship between oral glutamine supplementation and fatigue in the context of physical exercise. It concluded that glutamine could be seen to improve some fatigue parameters but that it seemed to have limited effects on physical performance. We concluded it was not sufficiently relevant to the advertising claim, which related to a general increase in energy levels rather being specific to the context of physical exercise, and to IV-administered glutamine. Get A Drip also provided an RCT which found that l-carnitine oral supplementation taken for six months increased the capacity in centenarians for physical and cognitive activity by reducing fatigue, compared to taking a placebo. As it related to oral supplementation and involved very elderly participants, we considered it was not relevant to the advertising claims. We otherwise had not seen any additional relevant evidence to that already referred to above in relation to the Energy drip. We concluded the claim to increase energy levels therefore also was not supported in relation to the Limitless drips.

We had seen a range of evidence relating to the effects of amino acids and vitamin B3 on metabolism. A review of research into amino acid supplementation and metabolic health hypothesised that dietary amino acids could affect the gut microbiota and therefore have an impact on metabolic health and weight control. However, it was not clear how that hypothesis extended to amino acids delivered via IV drip. A further literature review looked at the role of the amino acid arginine in the body. It stated that oral administration of arginine was not optimal because 40% of dietary arginine was degraded by the small intestine, and suggested that arginine could be a novel therapy in treating obesity and metabolic syndrome. However, it did not cite robust evidence which supported claims that IV arginine would have the health benefits stated in the ad. We had also seen a small study of obese women that investigated which measurements, other than basic BMI measurements, might be indicators for a propensity to develop metabolic disorders. The study suggested that isoleucine may be found in higher concentrations in obese women, but it also was not relevant to support claims that IV drips had the health benefits stated in the ad. Two conference papers which summarised evidence relating to the metabolic roles of the amino acid leucine, which was present in dietary protein, and its potential role in aiding weight loss in those on high protein/low carbohydrate reduced-calorie diets were also not relevant because they did not relate to leucine as provided by IV drips. A trial provided by Get A Drip in which ten people were given 1g of oral l-carnitine with every meal for ten days found that it increased fatty acid oxidation. However, the trial was of a small size, was not randomised, controlled or blinded and did not relate to IV administration. Finally, a review of evidence relating to niacin (vitamin B3) was not relevant because it examined its role as a treatment or combination treatment for lipoprotein abnormalities. We therefore had not seen adequate evidence to support the advertising claim that the Limitless drips could speed up metabolism.

While Get A Drip had not provided any evidence relating to the effects of CoQ10, we noted an article about the content and stability of CoQ10 in oral supplements found that it was quite unstable and liable to break down, meaning that its presence in an IV drip could be affected by the overall formulation. In relation to other claims, we had not seen any evidence about the effects of the substances in the drip with regard to the health of hair, skin and nails. Get A Drip provided an RCT which examined the effects of l-carnitine and l-acetylcarnitine (which was not in the Limitless drips) on the fertility of men with low sperm concentration and motility. It was not relevant to the advertising claim about fertility because it related to the use of those substances as a treatment for a medical condition.

We concluded we had not seen adequate evidence to substantiate the advertising claims that the Limitless Drips could improve the functioning of the immune system including through improving the body’s ability to combat oxidative stress, increase energy levels, speed up the metabolism, help to keep hair, skin and nails healthy, or help to maintain optimal fertility, over any time period.

Slim drip

The ad stated “Help to boost your metabolism, increase energy and help to support your natural weight loss. L-Carnitine helps to transfer fat to the mitochondria”, and featured an icon of a flame. We considered consumers would understand those claims to mean that the Slim drip would help them to lose weight, speed up their metabolism and increase their energy levels. We considered there was nothing in the ad that indicated how long those benefits may last, and consumer expectations of the longevity of the benefits would therefore likely range from days to weeks.

We reviewed documents which related to the claims as consumers would understand them and which related to the substances in the drip, which as stated in the ad were: bicarbonate, vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5 and B6, potassium, calcium and magnesium, the amino acids l-lysine, l-proline, l-arginine, leucine, isoleucine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, alanine, histidine, serine, glycine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid and tyrosine, and l-carnitine.

With regard to the claims to aid weight loss and speed up metabolism, we had not seen any relevant evidence additional to that which we had reviewed in relation to the claim that the Limitless drips could speed up metabolism.

With regard to the claim to increase energy, we had reviewed evidence relating to some of the same substances (and the Myers’ Cocktail) in relation to the Energy and Limitless drips. An additional RCT examined whether dietary zinc magnesium aspartate (ZMA) supplementation in resistance-trained men, which was administered during training, had an effect on training adaptations (as well as other outcome measures less relevant to claims to increase energy levels). While we understood that ZMA contained magnesium, vitamin B3 and zinc, and the latter substance was not included in the Slim drip, we nonetheless reviewed its relevance. However, the RCT involved only a small number of participants, showed no significant differences in the results of the outcome measures and related to a dietary supplement. We concluded it was therefore not adequate evidence to support the advertising claims for the drip.

We concluded we had not seen adequate evidence to substantiate the advertising claims that the Slim drip could aid weight loss, speed up metabolism or increase energy levels, over any time period, and the claims were therefore misleading.

Fitness drip

The ad stated “The Fitness Drip contributes to healthy muscles, helps to increase endurance and energy levels, as well as helping to boost the metabolism. This drip is for you if you’re training or have specific fitness goals that you want to achieve”. It featured an icon of a person on a cross-trainer. We considered consumers would understand the claims to mean that the Fitness drip would have the effects of helping to keep muscles healthy, increase endurance and energy levels and speed up metabolism, particularly in those seeking to improve their fitness levels and ability to engage in strenuous physical activity. We considered there was nothing in the ad that indicated how long those benefits may last, and consumer expectations of the longevity of the benefits would therefore likely range from days to weeks.

We reviewed documents that related to the claims as consumers would understand them and which related to the substances in the drip; these were listed as: saline, bicarbonate, vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6 and C, potassium, calcium, glutamine and l-carnitine.

With regard to the claim to speed up the metabolism, we had seen two documents relating to substances in the Fitness drip. The review of evidence relating to niacin (vitamin B3) and the trial provided by Get A Drip in which oral l-carnitine was given to ten participants, both assessed in relation to the Limitless drip, were not adequate evidence.

We had not seen any relevant evidence in relation to the claim that the Fitness drip would help to keep muscles healthy. With regard to the claims to increase endurance and energy levels, we referred back to a range of documents we had reviewed in relation to the Basic Hydration, Energy and Limitless drips. However, for the same reasons noted above, none of those documents comprised adequate evidence to support advertising claims that the Fitness drip could increase endurance or energy levels.

We concluded that we had not seen adequate evidence to demonstrate that the Fitness drip could help to keep muscles healthy, increase endurance or energy levels or speed up metabolism, over any time period, and that those claims were therefore misleading.

Detox drip

The ad stated “The Detox Drip contains high doses of antioxidants and essential nutrients to boost the immune system, and help to detoxify the body, leaving you looking and feeling healthier”. It featured an icon of a water droplet surrounded by two circular arrows. We considered consumers would understand those claims to mean that the drip would provide an improvement in the functioning of their immune system and in the body’s ability to remove toxins, including through improving the body’s ability to combat oxidative stress, and that this would result in general improvements in overall health and a healthier appearance. We considered there was nothing in the ad that indicated how long those benefits may last, and consumer expectations of the longevity of the benefits would therefore likely range from days to weeks.

We reviewed documents that related to the claims as consumers would understand them and which related to the substances in the drip; these were listed as: saline, bicarbonate, vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6 and C, potassium, calcium and glutathione.

We had reviewed several documents relevant to the effects of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6 and C and the minerals potassium and calcium on immune function, including through its effects on oxidative stress, in relation to the Immunity drip, and similarly to the documents relevant to the effects of glutathione on immune function and oxidative stress in relation to the Limitless drip. The two articles describing the conditions lactic acidosis and rhabdomyolysis, which recommended IV saline as a treatment, reviewed in relation to the Basic Hydration drip, were relevant to claims to remove toxins from the body, but related to saline’s use as a treatment for medical conditions. A further article about the medical management of constipation did not make any reference to IV drips and therefore was not relevant to the detox claims in the ad.

Other than the journal article containing anecdotal accounts of a doctor’s experience using the Myers’ Cocktail, we had not seen any additional documentation relevant to general improvements in overall health. With regard to appearance, we had seen a review of literature surrounding the role of vitamin C in skin health, which summarised that there was some evidence that general good nutrition led to better skin condition. However, the review compared the efficacy of oral supplementation to that of topical application and did not refer to any research into the effects of vitamin C delivered by IV drip on appearance.

We concluded that we had not seen adequate evidence to substantiate the advertising claims that the Detox drip would improve immune system function and the body’s ability to remove toxins, including through improving the body’s ability to combat oxidative stress, resulting in general improvements in overall health and a healthier appearance, over any time period.

Anti-Ageing drip

The ad stated “A potent combination of essential nutrients and powerful antioxidants combine to help prevent premature ageing, increase energy and boost the immune system” and featured an icon with the word “AGE” surrounded by a circular arrow. We considered that in context consumers would understand those claims to mean that the drip would have a general anti-ageing effect on younger people, including through combatting oxidative stress, and that it would also provide an increase in energy levels and improvement in the functioning of the immune system. We considered there was nothing in the ad that indicated how long those benefits may last, and consumer expectations of the longevity of the benefits would therefore likely range from days to weeks.

We reviewed documents which related to the claims as consumers would understand them and which related to the substances in the drip; these were listed as: bicarbonate, the vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5 and B6, the minerals calcium, potassium and magnesium, the amino acids l-lysine, l-arginine, leucine, isoleucine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, alanine, histidine, serine, glycine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid and tyrosine, and glutathione.

With regard to the claim that the drip would have a general anti-ageing effect on the body, including through combatting oxidative stress, we had seen: one literature review relating to amino acid metabolism in the elderly; a medical journal article and RCT relating to the role of magnesium in the body and particularly in the elderly; a literature review and study relating to the role of calcium in ageing; a literature review relating to the role of B vitamins in cognition and ageing; an RCT provided by Get A Drip on the antimelanogenic effect of oral glutathione supplementation; and the articles reviewed in relation to the Limitless drip which summarised the role of glutathione in the body, including one that stated that glutathione deficiency contributed to oxidative stress, which played a key role in ageing. None of that evidence related to the efficacy of the substances as delivered by IV drip in preventing ageing.

Instead, much of it concerned the ways in which older people’s bodies processed and used nutrients rather than how those substances could prevent ageing in younger people. The evidence therefore did not support claims that the Anti-Ageing drip could have a general anti-ageing effect on younger people.

With regard to the claims that the Anti-Ageing drip could increase energy levels and improve immune function, we had not seen any relevant evidence additional to that reviewed in relation to the same claims made about the Immunity, Energy, Limitless and Slim drips.

We concluded that we had not seen adequate evidence to substantiate the advertising claims that the Anti-Ageing drip would have a general anti-ageing effect on younger people, including through combatting oxidative stress, or that it would increase energy levels or improve the functioning of the immune system, over any period of time.

Beauty drip

The ad stated “Help to prevent premature ageing and improve the health of your hair, skin and nails with The Beauty Drip”. It featured an icon of a lotus leaf. We considered that in context, consumers would understand the claims to mean that the Beauty drip would have an anti-ageing effect on younger people’s appearance and that it would improve the overall health of hair, skin and nails, which might include effects such as preventing wrinkles, and strengthening hair and nails. We considered there was nothing in the ad that indicated how long those benefits may last, and consumer expectations of the longevity of the benefits would therefore likely range from days to weeks.

We reviewed documents which related to the claims as consumers would understand them and which related to the substances in the drip; these were listed as: saline, bicarbonate, vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6 and C, potassium, calcium, glucose and glutathione.

We had reviewed documents relating to the effects of calcium, B vitamins and glutathione on ageing in regards to the general anti-ageing claim made for the Anti-Ageing drip. Those documents also did not provide adequate evidence in relation to the more specific claim made about anti-ageing and appearance made for the Beauty drip or for the claim to improve hair, skin and nail health. The review of literature surrounding the roles of vitamin C in skin health, reviewed in relation to the Detox drip, was relevant to the claims, but as referenced above it did not refer to any research into the effects of vitamin C delivered by IV drip. We had not seen any other relevant evidence.

We concluded that we had not seen adequate evidence to demonstrate that the Beauty drip would have an anti-ageing effect on younger people’s appearance or that it would improve the overall health of hair, skin or nails, over any time period.

Skin Brightening drip

The ad stated “Help to brighten and even out skin tone to give a flawless look from your first drip! (Results vary by individual. Weekly course is recommended for 14 weeks (3 stages of drips) then monthly maintenance of either Detox or Beauty Drips to keep up the effects.)”, and featured an icon of a light bulb. The three ‘stages’ of drips were priced separately: Stage 1, comprising four drips, was £850; Stage 2, comprising eight drips, was £1,700; and Stage 3, comprising two drips, was £650. Alternatively, all three stages could be purchased together for £3,000.

Because the ad recommended a weekly drip, we considered consumers would understand the claims to mean that a single drip would have the effect of generally improving the appearance of skin and evening out areas of different pigmentation for approximately one week. Additionally, we considered they would understand that a full three-stage course of the Skin Brightening drip would build and enhance those effects over 14 weeks, and that subsequent regular monthly administration of either the Detox or Beauty drips would permanently maintain those effects.

We understood that many consumers who were interested in IV drips advertised for skin health would be aware that glutathione, which was listed in the drip contents, was purported to have skin lightening properties, and in that context would interpret the references to “brighter” skin and “evened out” skin tone to mean that a full course of the drip could gradually lighten skin pigmentation over the 14 weeks, and that subsequent regular monthly administration of either the Detox or Beauty drips would permanently maintain those effects.

We reviewed documents which related to the claims as consumers would understand them and which related to the substances in the drip. The ad stated that the drip contained the Basic Hydration drip (which comprised sodium chloride (saline solution), bicarbonate, potassium and calcium), plus vitamin C and glutathione.

We had reviewed evidence relevant to the effects on the appearance of skin of calcium and vitamin C in relation to the Anti-Ageing and Detox drips.

With regard to the advertising claims being understood as claims to even out or lighten pigmentation, we had seen a literature review which stated that there were no RCTs that looked at the use of IV glutathione for skin lightening despite its common use for that purpose, and that there were only two RCTs relating to its use for skin lightening via oral supplementation (one of which we had seen in abstract form) and one relating to its topical application (of which we had seen a full copy). Get A Drip provided two RCTs published after the literature review. The first RCT, which we had reviewed in relation to the Anti-Ageing drip, related to the antimelanogenic effect of oral glutathione supplementation. The second also related to the effects of oral glutathione supplementation. We considered that evidence relating to oral supplementation and topical application of glutathione was not relevant to claims made about the effects of an IV drip.

We concluded that we had not seen adequate evidence to substantiate the ways in which consumers would interpret the claims made in relation to the Skin Brightening drip - that it would generally improve skin appearance and that it could have an effect on skin pigmentation, over any period of time.

Hair Enhancement drip

The ad stated “The Hair Enhancement Drip contains a unique combination of nutrients to promote strong and healthy hair and help to prevent hair loss”. It featured an icon of a comb and scissors. We considered consumers would understand those claims to mean that the drip would generally improve the health of hair, including strengthening it and reducing the amount of hair loss a person was experiencing. We considered there was nothing in the ad that indicated how long those benefits may last, and consumer expectations of the longevity of the benefits would therefore likely range from days to weeks.

The ad listed the ingredients of the drip as: bicarbonate, vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6 and B12, the minerals potassium, magnesium, calcium and zinc, the amino acids l-lysine, l-proline, l-arginine, leucine, isoleucine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, alanine, histidine, serine, glycine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid and tyrosine.

We had not seen any evidence which concerned hair health or reduction of hair loss, over any time period, in relation to the substances in the Hair Enhancement drip. We therefore concluded that the claims in the ad had not been substantiated.

High Dose Vitamin C drip

The ad stated “Vitamin C is a potent antioxidant that helps to boost the immune system, contributes to collagen formation, and helps to prevent premature ageing. Our high strength drip contains large doses for maximum health benefits”. It featured an icon of an orange. We considered consumers would understand those claims to mean that the drip, in particular due to its vitamin C content, would provide an improvement in the functioning of the immune system, and have a general anti-ageing effect on younger people, including through improving the body’s ability to combat oxidative stress. The ad referred to three different ‘strengths’ of the drip: 6.25g, 12.5g and 25g. We considered consumers were likely to understand that the higher the vitamin C content, the more superior and/or longer-lasting the health benefit. However, there was nothing in the ad that indicated how long those benefits may last, and consumer expectations of the longevity of the benefits would therefore likely range from days to weeks.

Get A Drip believed consumers would understand the claim “Vitamin C […] contributes to collagen formation” to mean only that it would contribute to collagen formation, and that similar claims were allowed to be made about the vitamin C content of foods and supplements. However, we considered that in the context of an ad for an IV drip, consumers would interpret the claim as relating to immediate and superior efficacy, and therefore as meaning that the drip would stimulate increased collagen formation.

We reviewed documents which related to the claims as consumers would understand them and which related to the substances in the drip: saline, bicarbonate, vitamin C, calcium, potassium and glucose.

We had not seen any evidence relating to the effects of any of the substances on ageing or stimulating increased collagen formation. We had seen evidence about the antioxidant or immune functions of vitamin C, calcium and potassium which we had assessed in relation to the Immunity drip and found they were not adequate to support such advertising claims.

We concluded we had not seen adequate evidence to support the advertising claims that the High Dose Vitamin C drip could improve the functioning of the immune system, help with collagen formation or have a general anti-ageing effect on younger people, including through improving the body’s ability to combat oxidative stress, over any time period.

MultiVit drip

The ad stated “Help to boost your immune system and energy levels with the MultiVit Drip. A great all-rounder drip containing essential nutrients for optimal health” and featured an icon of three pills. We considered consumers would understand those claims to mean that the MultiVit drip would provide an improvement in the functioning of the immune system and increase in energy levels, as well as improving overall health. We considered there was nothing in the ad that indicated how long those benefits may last, and consumer expectations of the longevity of the benefits would therefore likely range from days to weeks.

The ad listed the ingredients of the drip as: bicarbonate, sodium chloride, vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6 and C, potassium and calcium. We had previously reviewed all the relevant evidence we had seen with regard to the effects those substances had in relation to immune function and energy levels when considering the same claims made about the Immunity and Energy drips. As referenced above, we considered the evidence was not adequate to support such advertising claims.

With regard to the improvement of overall health, the report of anecdotal evidence relating to the use of the Myers’ Cocktail was not adequate to support health claims in advertising. We had reviewed evidence relating to the role of calcium in ageing, and the role of B vitamins in the body generally as well as more specifically in cognition and ageing and in brain health. While we considered the evidence showed that B vitamins and calcium were important in the functioning of the body, we had not seen evidence that when delivered by IV drip they improved overall health in normally healthy people. Similarly the evidence relating to the role of vitamin C, including its role in the normal functioning of the immune system, did not substantiate that delivering vitamin C via IV drip would improve overall health.

We concluded we had not seen adequate evidence to substantiate that the MultiVit drip, or its individual constituent ingredients delivered via IV drip, improved overall health in normally healthy people, improved the functioning of the immune system or increased energy levels, over any time period.

Because we had not seen evidence that was adequate to support the advertised health benefits of the IV drips, or the substances in them when delivered by IV infusion, we concluded that the claims were misleading and breached the Code.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products) and 12.23 (Hair and Scalp).

Action

The ad must not appear again in the form complained of.

We told Get A Drip Ltd not to make any claims, explicit or implied, that their IV drips or the substances in them could provide health benefits, over any period of time, until such time as they held evidence relating to the use of IV drips in normally healthy humans that was adequate to support such claims. This included, for example, stated and implied claims that the drips or the substances in them could: improve overall health; increase energy levels, keep muscles healthy and increase endurance; provide better hydration than other methods in generally healthy people; improve the body’s ability to combat oxidative stress and to remove toxins; improve the functioning of the immune system; improve the appearance and health of skin, hair and nails; reduce hair loss; change skin pigmentation; stimulate increased levels of collagen formation; have an anti-ageing effect; help to speed up metabolism and lose weight; and help to regulate sleep.

BCAP Code

3.1     12.1     3.7     12.23    

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     12.1     3.7     12.23    

---

More on

• Health conditions

---