Got an email from a PR company the other day – same PR company I’d asked to take me off their mailing list last year. This important note proclaimed that:
“2010 is the year of the Pomegranate. On January 5,
Reuters posted an article stating that Pomegranate helps reduce the risk of breast cancers. It is increasingly important for women to do all they can to continue fighting this ugly disease. Incorporating pomegranate into your foods and recipes is an easy way to get the appropriate doses to fight off many diseases and illness – including breast cancer.”
What the news release didn’t tell you was what else was in the Reuters story:
This quote: “It’s not clear that these levels could be achieved in animals or in humans because the (compounds) are not well absorbed into blood when provided in the diet,” said Gary Stoner of Ohio State University.
Wait. What’s that? The research WASN’T in humans? Not even in animals? Only in a lab dish? Hmmm. The news release didn’t say that either.
But it DID tell women that adding a teaspoon of the product it was promoting – handsomely captured in the photos provided – would “aid in the fight of breast cancer.”
The PR person offered to send me samples of the product. I won’t ask for those.
She also said she looked forward to my feedback. i’ve just delivered it.
As long as they keep me on their mailing list, I’ll continue to point out the completely unfounded claims they make. The leap between what’s seen in the lab and what may happen in mice or in women should not be minimized in the attempt to pitch products.
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
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Ken Leebow
January 14, 2010 at 9:49 amI bought a bought a 16oz bottle of POM (not to drink, for a diet and health presentation). Here are the stats: 300 calories and 15 teaspoons of sugar.
I think I’ll pass on this “health” drink and use it as an example of how we consume 170 pounds of sugar per year.
Gary … Keep up the good work. It’s a battleground out here.
BruceW
January 18, 2010 at 8:41 amYes, it is a battle out there, but don’t you get tired at times? It’s like swimming up Niagara Falls. Despite efforts like yours, Gary, and those of others, such as Daniel Carlat, Howard Brody, PRWatch, Healthy Skepticism, etc. we are treated to a never-ending flood of bullshit (excuse my English; I guess the more polite term is “paltering”). I guess all you can do is all you can do, even if it is like pissing in a forest fire. So, along with Ken Leebow, I say…keep it up.
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