HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Allergen Block: invisible shield or invisible results?
May 04, 2009
Another entry in the solid "Healthy Skeptic" series in the LA Times. Good job exploring the claims about an allergy product called Allergen Block - stating that there is no evidence it works.
Our Review Summary
Another entry in the solid "Healthy Skeptic" series in the LA Times. The reporter does a good job of exploring the claims about an allergy product called Allergen Block. The story says that there is no evidence it works, that it did not have to be proven effective to come to market and that the mechanism by which it is said to work may be flawed.
The reporter also uses language in a way that reveals skepticism: "premise," "supposedly," "so-called" and "presumably." The writer also has some sport with the company's refusal to identify the "cationic" molecules it uses. The tone is generally light, even playful.
The quotes from the product's inventor and medical adviser come off as plainly self-interested. Of the two independent skeptics, one delivers a vivid negative quote, the other gets the last word.
The big question is whether a story like this should be written. The piece will inevitably bring the product to the attention of people who would otherwise remain blissfully ignorant of it. Some will buy it.
But the counter-argument is persuasive too. Products like this--with no proven efficacy or safety, based on a sketchy scientific premise and sold via a compelling promise--are heavily advertised and promoted. [See this TV commercial for Allergen Block.]
There's a lot to be said for the media playing fact-checker on health and medical product promotions. It's tempting to argue that if you ignore them they'll go away. They won't. The press should keep an eye on stuff like this.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story correctly states that Allergen Block is widely available at drug stores.
The story reports that a 0.1 oz tube costs $14.
It would have been useful to compare Allergan Block to other over-the-counter allergy products. This would take only a sentence or a phrase and would have been valuable.
The story doesn't exaggerate the severity or prevalence of allergies.
The story states plainly that there is no evidence the product works as promised.
It also explains that the product did not have to be approved as a drug, and that the bar that needs to be crossed in order for the product to be approved for marketing as a "device" is very low.
The reporter references an English study that suggests one of the assumptions behind Allergen Block--that allergens are negative charged--may not be true.
The reporter quotes both the physician who helped develop the product and an independent skeptic saying the product is safe.
Based on a description of the ingredients and information on the product's website, this appears to be correct.
The final source in the story raises the most relevant potential harm--spending money for something that doesn't work.
The story states that this product is the only one based on the assumption that a gel with positively charged ions can intercept allergens with negative ions before they enter the nose. This principle has apparently never been verified by scientific study.
So the story notes the potential novelty but is also appropriately skeptical.
There is no data showing the products works, and the reporter makes this clear.
Lacking data to report, the author clearly lays out the company's claims and then includes rebuttals from experienced allergists.
The story does not appear to have drawn heavily from the product's press release.
Sources include:
- The product inventor
- An allergy expert who helped develop the product
- Two independent allergists, both of whom have negative things to say about the product
This is adequate sourcing and balance. The reporter also properly discloses that Ratner owns stock in the company owned by the product's inventor.
A longer story might have mentioned that engineer Ashok Wahi, inventor of the product, is the author of 10 books, including Yoga to Help You Quit Smoking and a novel, “The Vital Breath,” described as a "110,000 words love story of reincarnation spanning over two life times promoting non-violence through yoga."
The story should have mentioned the most common medications and treatments for seasonal allergies, so readers would understand the range of options available.
Total Score: 9 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.