NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -

The Little Prince makes an informed health decision

Posted By

Jill U. Adams is a health journalist and an associate editor at 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 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.

Now imagine a little princess…

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. 

You might also like


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.