8

I just got sent this Anti-Snoring ring which, when worn on the little finger, purportedly:

  • Works Using the Ancient Chinese Medicine of Acupuncture and Acupressure
  • Prevents or Significantly Reduces Snoring

The reviews say things like

When my husband wears the ring, the sonorous thunder of his snores are reduced to a perceptible yet tolerable purr.

and

He's gone from awful bear-like-snoring to tolerable dog-like-snoring.

There seem to be many of these rings around, but little scientific basis for them. This sponsored article claims

The snore preventing ring puts pressure onto a certain area of the finger that helps open up your airway.

It does not seem very reliable.

Is there scientific basis for these claims about anti-snoring rings?

  • 1
  • 1
    I take this to mean "no FDA approval in the US." " Important information Legal Disclaimer : Statements regarding dietary supplements have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or health condition." That's from the Amazon page selling the silly thing. – JRE Jul 23 at 17:45
  • 2
    @JRE That could probably be made into an answer. I think it's going to be impossible to otherwise show that it does nothing at all because it doesn't seem like it's even been studied scientifically. The Australian government telling them their claims are BS and their response being oh yeah you're right is pretty clear. – Bryan Krause Jul 23 at 19:47
  • "tolerable dog-like-snoring" that had to be written by someone who never had snoring dog. – SZCZERZO KŁY Jul 25 at 13:59
9

Since no one else seems interested, I'll go ahead and transform my comments into an answer. Not sure things will meet the site standards, but I'll let y'all decide.


First of all, the Australian government doesn't seem to think much of the rings.

Quote (bolding is mine:)

Additionally, the company's website, www.nosnor.com, claimed the ring had a 'proven history of successful drug free treatment of snoring' and was 'Tested and recommended by a Physician'.

The ACCC raised concerns that these claims were likely to mislead consumers to believe that the product had proven medical outcomes in treating snoring, sinus, restless sleep and insomnia when this was not so.

"When a product is heavily marketed and sold at major retail chains, consumers tend to give a certain legitimacy to the product and the representations being made," ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said today.

"Suppliers of alternative health services and products must ensure that they are not overstating their supposed benefits while skirting around the fact that there is little or no supportive medical or scientific evidence."

ATQOL has acknowledged that its conduct may have contravened the misleading representations sections of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

It has provided the ACCC with court-enforceable undertakings that it will:

  • not make absolute representations that the Anti-Snor Ring will stop snoring or relieve sinus problems, restless sleep or insomnia
  • not represent that the ring has a 'proven history of successful drug free treatment of snoring' unless it has caused clinical trials to be undertaken to prove such a history
  • not make any representation that the ring has been tested, approved or recommended by a health professional unless that health professional has undertaken testing in accordance with accepted standards for the design, conduct, records and reporting of clinical trials
  • amend the ATQOL website and any current and/or future advertisements or publications to remove the incorrect representations
  • ensure that all future representations made in the promotion and/or sale of the ring comply with the Act, and
  • implement a trade practices law compliance program.

By implication, there are no acceptable studies showing that the rings are effective.

Note in particular the bolded section above:

ATQOL has acknowledged that its conduct may have contravened the misleading representations sections of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The manufacturer admits to not having (or not having provided) adequate proof of effectiveness.

Second, similar rings include a disclaimer that indicates they have no proof of effectiveness and therefore are "are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or health condition."

That comes from the Amazon sales page originally linked in the question.

Full quote from the Amazon page (bolding original:)

Legal Disclaimer : Statements regarding dietary supplements have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or health condition.

Which says they haven't gotten FDA approval - even though if their claims about effectiveness were true they could have done.


Summary:

  1. No verifiable proof it works
  2. Not bothering to officially prove it works by getting it registered with the American Food and Drugs Administration.
  3. Accepted sanctions from the Australian goverment rather than try to prove it works
  • it's not an absolute answer, but it's certainly pertinent and credible. +1. – Ben Barden Jul 25 at 13:15
  • Regarding the FDA disclaimer. It is required by law "when a manufacturer makes a structure/function claim on a dietary supplement label." – Barry Harrison Jul 25 at 18:50
  • I found the disclaimer odd, because this product is very clearly not a dietary supplement. It makes me wonder, does the FDA's requirement for this disclaimer extend to include passive devices? Or does Amazon just automatically include it anywhere there's a health claim that isn't widely recognized by science? – plasticinsect Jul 25 at 19:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .