The cover of the July Reader’s Digest refers to back pain “cures”? The inside headline refers to seven “breakthroughs”?
C’mon Reader’s Digest: stop the hype. Here are the seven:
1. A neurostimulator for which RD provides not one shred of evidence – only anecdote.
2. An infrared belt which the inventor “is trying to get approved”? Cost: $2,335!
3. A “magic” spine wand. (I’m not into the Harry Potter School of Health Care Devices.)
4. A flexible spine support system as an alternative to fusion. Again, no evidence provided, only anecdotes.
5. Stem cells to regenerate damaged disks. The story admits that human trials are two years away. Kinda early to be talking “cures” and “breakthroughs”?
6. A “grow a new backbone” idea that’s only been tested in rats and mice. Good news for rodents with back pain.
7. Get a new bed. Even the article admits “it sounds like cheerleading from bedding companies” and discloses the study was partly sponsored by a sleep products trade group.
Final score:
Headline hype: 7
Cures & breakthroughs: 0
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Bill Gleason
June 18, 2007 at 6:31 pmReader’s Disgust?
It has always been this way and will never change.
Congrats on the Mirror Award!
Mr. Bonzo
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like