HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Trying Out Detox Diets
October 22, 2008
A waste of air time. More like free advertising than anything you could describe as journalism. Anecdote, not evidence. No independent expert interviewed. No harms or costs discussed. Awful.
Our Review Summary
This segment provided viewers with personal testimony about three peoples' experience with a cleansing product to counteract "as many as 140 unwanted chemicals in our bodies."
We think it was a waste of air time, for the following reasons:
- It reported anecdote not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data.
- It let the company get away with claiming that one who did not "succeed" on the approach was the outlier and that 100,000 people had succeeded. But, again, it provided no data to back that up.
- It didn't discuss harms or costs.
- It didn't interview any independent source.
- It felt like a free commercial - no evidence, no harms, no costs, just imbalanced positive product information.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The 'treatments' mentioned ranged from concoctions you could prepare yourself with ingredients in your kitchen to products you could purchase on-line or at a local drug store.
There was no discussion of costs.
This segment opened with a statement that 'Doctor say that there are as a many as 140 unwanted chemicals in our bodies'. Perfect TV lead. Also a perfect example of unsubstantiated fear-mongering.
The segment delivered anecdotes not evidence. There was no discussion about typical results from the use of these 'treatments'.
The piece began with an opening that mentioned having a 'flood of emails' and then went on to say that they had 'heard some success stories'. The clear inherent potential bias is overwhelming. That's not journalism; that's holding a finger up in the wind to gauge direction.
There was no discussion of harms associated with these 'treatments' other than to mention that if you stay on a homemade diet long term (how long is long term?), it can carry health risks (such as? and how commonly?). However this cautionary note is not sufficient for a consumer to have any concrete idea about what the risks are or how commonly they occur.
There was actually no discussion about the history of the products highlighted in this broadcast other than to indicate that they are all the rage. Are they new? One could not discern this from the segment.
It is unacceptable to perpetuate the idea that the experience of one individual provides a knowledge base from which to discern really anything about a treatment. If the company says that "more than 100,000 people have tried and succeeded on the plan" then why didn't we hear any data about that? And the story painted the one woman who didn't "succeed" as the outlier. Terribly unbalanced biased approach.
We can't be sure if the story relied largely on a news release. We don't know why they did the story now. We do judge that the story had a clear favorable bias for a company's products.
There did not appear to be anyone knowledgeable about weight, weight loss, or anything medical consulted for this segment.
The segment provided commentary about three difference cleanses. But there was no discussion of alternative options for people who are overweight and fatigued, such as making healthy lifestyle changes like weight loss or physical activity.
Total Score: 1 of 9 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.