On the FoxNews.com/health web page today is a piece (I won’t call it a story; it’s more like an ad) by Dr. Jennifer Landa, “Ending the multivitamin debate: Why taking one may actually save your life.”
Oh, my, there’s a lot we could say about this piece. And we will, since I’m going to blog here about only one aspect of the piece. But, separately, 3 independent reviewers from our review team will analyze the claims therein.
(Addendum on Feb. 3: that review is now published, after the analysis by veteran science writer Joann Rodgers, Kathleen Fairfield, MD, DrPH, and managing editor Kevin Lomangino.)
From the headline, you can see what the piece is about. But read this paragraph in the middle of the piece:
“In some of the higher-quality supplements, you’ll see things like Vitamin B-6 at 2,500 percent of your daily value. That may sound wacky, but keep in mind that 100 percent is just the level for basic survival— and that 2,500 percent is going to give you more of what you actually need to feel good. Look for high-quality brands with these higher doses. Because I know there can be a lot of guesswork when it comes to finding a good multivitamin, I created my own formula specifically designed to provide key nutrients that boost your energy, which is available on my website.”
That’s Dr. Landa’s own “webstore” which sells products online such as “Calm Energy” for $42 or “Endless Energy Adrenal Boost” for $24.
The bottom of the piece has this disclosure:
Dr. Jennifer Landa is Chief Medical Officer of BodyLogicMD, the nation’s largest franchise of physicians specializing in bioidentical hormone therapy. Dr. Jen spent 10 years as a traditional OB-GYN, and then became board-certified in regenerative medicine, with an emphasis on bio-identical hormones, preventative medicine and nutrition. She is the author of “The Sex Drive Solution for Women.” Learn more about her programs at www.jenlandamd.com.
Fox News continues to defy credibility and journalism ethics by allowing conflicted physicians to hawk their ideas and their wares under the guise of NEWS. Dr. Landa’s piece appears on a FoxNews.com/health page. Not as an ad, but as news.
We have written in the past about Fox News allowing robotic surgery proponent Dr. David Samadi to render opinions and promote his own ideas – unchallenged – in a news format. Past posts:
By any relevant standard of journalism ethics – the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, the Radio-Television Digital News Association, the Association of Health Care Journalists Statement of Principles – these Fox practices are out of bounds.
We call on them to stop, and we will continue to do so as long as we these practices continue.
————————
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
Comments are closed.
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