Our Review Summary
This snarky, smarmy [smarky?] essay in Time magazine is just a goof, an apropos-of-nothing first-person indulgence in the topic of male use of Botox. It’s not a serious piece of health journalism. It’s pure infotainment, with more "tainment" than info.
Still, it’s an instructive exercise to see how something like this holds up to HealthNewsReview.org criteria. The answer, as illustrated by the grades below: Not so much.
To belabor the obvious only briefly: There’s nothing here to prove that Botox works, that it’s safe or even that the statistics cited about use by males are accurate. It doesn’t mention that there are some legitimate medical uses for Botox, including excessive sweating and migraine headaches.
All sources in the story are friendly to the practice, ludicrously so. The story explores the Botox phenomenon in a context where it makes the juiciest, easiest comic target, Los Angeles.
And speaking of juicy targets, it has annoying sport with the "fact" that many male users of Botox are gay. But it’s a benign enough reference that it’s unlikely to do much harm beyond making the author look like a jerk.
The question is this: At a time when space in print publications is so precious–and Time Inc. is struggling to sustain its flagship magazine–whether this is a good use of time and talent. The story is kind of amusing, some [strained] comic relief in a newsmagazine otherwise full of stress and gloom. Maybe that’s a good, or at least understandable, editorial decision.
The story probably won’t lead any reader to do anything stupid or dangerous.
That’s a pretty low bar to pass over, but there it is.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The story states that Botox treatment costs $500 to $600 per "session" when provided by one Palm Springs-based, housecall-making doctor.
The cost of Botox varies geographically, and the terms "injection," "treatment" and "session" mean different thing to different practitioners. Actual price paid to get a certain result can vary widely. The article should at least have implied this.
Not Satisfactory
The article assumes Botox reduces the appearances of wrinkles. But it provides no data to verify this.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not mention the potential harms of Botox treatment, which include a droopy eyelid, muscle weakness, headache, headache, respiratory infection, flu-like symtoms and redness and pain at the injection sites.
The risk of these side effects may be reduced if the treatment is provided by a licensed dermatologist. This should have been stated.
Not Satisfactory
The article does not cite any evidence about the safety or effectiveness of Botox treatments.
Satisfactory
The story does not imply that Botox treatments for wrinkles treats any disease, and it doesn’t make the procedure appear necessary.
Not Satisfactory
The story cites statistics showing increased use among males, but cites no source.
The reporter interviewed one enthusiastic practitioner who services Hollywood stars, an enthusiastic paid celebrity spokesman, one enthusiastic patient and his even more enthusiastic wife.
No dissenting voice, even a comic one, is included.
Satisfactory
Well, the story does mention that an alternative to Botox, a product called Reloxin, may be approved by the FDA soon.
The story implies that getting no treatment for wrinkles is a reasonable alternative.
It would have been useful, however, to hear about other cosmetic treatments–fillers, laser treatments, creams, and so on–that are used on wrinkles, whether they are shown to "work" or not.
Satisfactory
The story implies, correctly, that Botox injections are widely available.
Satisfactory
The story makes no false claims for the novelty of Botox treatments for wrinkles.
Not Applicable
There does not appear to be a press release related to this story.
Total Score: 4 of 9 Satisfactory
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