This story gives a simplistic, glowing overview of the boom in probiotic – or "good bacteria" as they call it – products to aid in "everything from digestion to overall health."
No scientific evidence is discussed in the story.
Yet the story engages in classic disease-mongering, stating that "for most of us" so-called good bacteria are "in short supply."
And the story allows one consumer to advise the viewing audience that "the rest of us could use more in our diets,too."
The one skeptical comment from an interviewee – "Some marketing is probably a bit ahead of the science at this point." – isn’t given the amount of emphasis or airtime as those promoting probiotics.
Overall, the story was imbalanced, incomplete, and unhelpful.
Although the story ends with a "buyer beware" caution, there is no discussion of how much these products cost.
The closest thing to any quantification of benefit in the story is a single consumer anecdote: "Health digestion, vitality, good immune resistance helps me do my job day in, day out." And single consumer anecdotes fall far short of a standard for health stories. What do studies show?
The story says that the risk of using probiotics "is low." But there is no discussion or quantification of what those risks may be.
The story refers to " a growing number of researchers who believe that adding probiotics to the body can help everything from digestion to overall health." But not one shred of evidence is given to support those claims.
The story says that "for most of us" so-called good bacteria are "in short supply." Huh? Where’s the evidence for that comment? This is classic disease-mongering. Now we all should be worried about not having enough "good bacteria"???
The story turnes to one researcher and says that he is "among a growing number of researchers who believe that adding probiotics to the body can help everything from digestion to overall health" – in line with the predominant glowing tone of the story. The one somewhat skeptical viewpoint from the consumer website spokesman – "Some marketing is probably a bit ahead of the science at this point." – isn’t given the amount of emphasis or airtime as those promoting probiotics and for that reason we rule this unsatisfactory.
There is no discussion of other dietary factors that can help "healthy digestion, vitality, good immune response" etc.
The story explains that probiotic products are popping up everywhere.
The story refers to a "growing trend" and a "dizzying array of new products."
The story turns to one researcher and one spokesman for a consumer website, so we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. However, the story would have been stronger if it had even included the headline from one story on that consumer website: "Many probiotics lack expected bacteria."
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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.
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.