This story highlighted a book written by the actress Suzanne Somers which appears to make claims about products derived from yams and soy for use in helping manage the symptoms of menopause. There was no information that a reader could use to evaluate any of the claims made other than the use of celebrity as marketing strategy.
The story was devoid of data, evidence, cost information, and in-depth clinical perspectives.
The article provides no cost estimate for bioidentical hormone replacement therapy; it does, however provide us with the price of Suzanne Somers book, "Ageless."
The possible benefits of the treatment are not quantified.
One clinician quote mentioned that these products are without FDA approval and he went on to say that they are ‘potentially quite dangerous’. However – this quote did not differentiate between the possibility that products failed to obtain FDA approval or whether they are exempt from seeking FDA approval (the latter is often the case). It would have been helpful to inform readers what sort of danger potential was being alluded and to provide some way to guage the actual type and size of the risk posed.
There is actress testimony about the benefits to be obtained through the use of bioidentical hormones.
One clinician is quoted as stating that these products ‘deliver renewed energy and reduced menopausal symptoms’. However – we are not given any sort of metric for gauging these benefits (is the effect seen in all women, some women, or a few women; how large is the effect observed – how was it measured, how long was treatment needed for the effect(s) to be realized). Furthermore – we are not given any sort of assurance that there is actual data supporting these claims.
Discussing menopause in terms of a battle "fighting off nasty symptoms" and describing life after menopause as "constant and progressive deterioration" are examples of disease-mongering language.
The line "…without hormones there is no quality of life" is another.
The major source of information for this article is an interview with the actress Suzanne Somers. Two physicians’ opinions are mentioned – in 84 words – but the actress’ opinions warranted 472 words.
The story opened with a statement about ‘the spigot to the hormone fountain of youth’ being ‘practically turned off’. This may have lead readers to conclude that hormone replacement therapy is unavailable or at best difficult to obtain; this is not an accurate representation.
The ails listed for menopause included symptoms that are not necessarily linked with menopause; further – there are treatments available for problems such as depression or weakening bones. The story made no mention of treatments other than those hyped in the book.
The headline and introduction to the story suggested that the focus would be bioidentical hormones. But they actually received little space in this article.
The story should have mentioned the controvery and confusion about the terminology "bioidenticals"; some are FDA-approved, but those most generally refer to the unregulated, individually compounded mixtures which are not FDA approved.
The treatment of symptoms of menopause with bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is not new but the story never clearly established that. Even the claims made by the actress profiled in the story are not new; she published a 2004 book, "The Sexy Years: discover the hormone connection."
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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.
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