Jill U. Adams is a health journalist and an associate editor at HealthNewsReview.org. She tweets as @juadams.
I read a lot of health news, as part of my daily search of eligible news stories for our team to review. So much so that I notice health claims in all kinds of unusual places. Even in fiction.
My book club recently read “The Little Prince,” the classic story written by French pilot Antoine de Saint-Exupery in 1943.
Here’s the key excerpt (Chapter XXIII):
“Good morning,” said the little prince.
“Good morning,” said the salesclerk. This was a salesclerk who sold pills invented to quench thirst. Swallow one a week and you no longer feel any need to drink.
“Why do you sell these pills?”
“They save so much time,” the salesclerk said. “Experts have calculated that you can save fifty-three minutes a week.”
“And what do you do with those fifty-three minutes?”
“Whatever you like.”
“If I had fifty-three minutes to spend as I liked,” the little prince said to himself, “I’d walk very slowly toward a water fountain….”
You see? There’s an intervention — pills — and a claim of benefit — quenching thirst. If such a claim appeared in a news story, I would forward the article to the HealthNewsReview.org team. It’s precisely the kind of thing we would put through our systematic review process, in which journalists and independent experts evaluate how well the story meets each of our 10 criteria.
In the excerpt above, the little prince serves as the consumer or patient to whom the intervention is marketed. However, our prince is unmoved by the purported benefit. He recognizes that even if the pill works as it is marketed, it offers him no personal advantage. He’d rather drink from a water fountain. Also, he has no need to save fifty-three minutes from his week.
I can’t help but to be charmed by his skepticism.
Let’s imagine another interplanetary traveler, a little princess, who is tempted to try the thirst-quenching pill. I sincerely hope she asks a few questions of the sales clerk so that she can make an informed decision.
How much do the pills cost? What’s the evidence that they work? Are there any side effects? And is the only source the very sales clerk who likely has a vested interest? Why is the ‘need to drink’ framed as a condition that needs fixing? Is this disease-mongering?
The little prince discerned an existing alternative — a slow walk to a water fountain. He knew his preference.
Perhaps our little princess will decide to try the pill. Or perhaps she will come to the same conclusion as the little prince — that a water fountain is preferable.
Either way, we believe she needs the full suite of information in order to make a good choice.
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