Relying on just one source, the story doesn’t tackle any of the weaknesses of the research, including its failure to reach its goal. Only when a smaller sub-group of volunteers was analyzed did the device show a statistical improvement in symptoms.
Relying on just one expert source invites trouble, particularly when the source has multiple ties to the intervention and stands to gain financially from its approval.
Although the headline admirably opted for the term “linked,” the story lede translates that into a causal statement.
One weak point for the story was the lack of independent sources.
More sourcing would have better answered: Is the evidence for the drug as solid as the company is saying it is?
It’s also difficult to understand the “market” for this startup if most patients in the U.S. have access to genetic testing, which is needed for an actual diagnosis
The story could have dug a little deeper–heart surgery is not without risks, nor costs–but those points weren’t included.
In particular, the story does a great job quantifying the potential risks of running and of comparing the likelihood of injury from running to those for walking.