This is not a good piece of health journalism. It is not balanced. It fails to discuss any evidence. The report demonstrates little curiosity and no rigor.
With the exception of the brief (and rather understated) quote from a sleep specialist, the story reads like it should say "advertising" at the top of the page.
The Daily News editors should be embarrassed for allowing this story into print.
The story states a price of $29.95 for 40 pills, but fails to indicate what the recommended dosage is. The author took two in the evening but the other user quoted took additional pills during the day. What are the true costs per person per week of this "magical new pill"?
The reporter makes no attempt to quantify the benefits. What is the evidence? How many are helped? How many are not helped?
The article fails to mention any potential harms.
The evidence of benefit consists of the author’s experience, one other user’s experience, and the maker’s claims. Have there been clinical trials? What have they shown? What is the quality of the evidence?
The story exaggerates the author’s waking difficulties in a way that makes this "condition" seem more widespread and harmful than it is.
Sources used are the product’s maker, the reporter’s observations and quotes from a satisfied user. One physician is quoted briefly at the end questioning the ingredients’ capacity to improve sleep. There is improper balance in the story with the weight of terms like "magical…ingenious…unique…even more dramatic results" overwhelming the short comment from one physician.
There are many options for treating sleep difficulties or morning fatigue. None is mentioned here.
The story predicts the product will be available at "all major retail outlets" by August. There is no evidence to support this prediction.
The article claims the coating used to delay release of the ingredients inside is unique. Time-release coatings have been used in pills for decades.
The story echoes both the press release and the maker’s web site in its description of the episode that led the pill’s creator to develop the product, the contents of the pill, and the claims about the pill’s "unique" coating. However, because our criterion demands that we find the exact same language in the story as we found in a news release, we can’t be sure that the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Maybe this an example of where our criteria are too lax.
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.
You might also like