Another entry in the solid "Healthy Skeptic" series in the LA Times. The reporter does a good job of exploring the claims about an allergy product called Allergen Block. The story says that there is no evidence it works, that it did not have to be proven effective to come to market and that the mechanism by which it is said to work may be flawed.
The reporter also uses language in a way that reveals skepticism: "premise," "supposedly," "so-called" and "presumably." The writer also has some sport with the company’s refusal to identify the "cationic" molecules it uses. The tone is generally light, even playful.
The quotes from the product’s inventor and medical adviser come off as plainly self-interested. Of the two independent skeptics, one delivers a vivid negative quote, the other gets the last word.
The big question is whether a story like this should be written. The piece will inevitably bring the product to the attention of people who would otherwise remain blissfully ignorant of it. Some will buy it.
But the counter-argument is persuasive too. Products like this–with no proven efficacy or safety, based on a sketchy scientific premise and sold via a compelling promise–are heavily advertised and promoted. [See this TV commercial for Allergen Block.]
There’s a lot to be said for the media playing fact-checker on health and medical product promotions. It’s tempting to argue that if you ignore them they’ll go away. They won’t. The press should keep an eye on stuff like this.
The story reports that a 0.1 oz tube costs $14.
It would have been useful to compare Allergan Block to other over-the-counter allergy products. This would take only a sentence or a phrase and would have been valuable.
There is no data showing the products works, and the reporter makes this clear.
Lacking data to report, the author clearly lays out the company’s claims and then includes rebuttals from experienced allergists.
The reporter quotes both the physician who helped develop the product and an independent skeptic saying the product is safe.
Based on a description of the ingredients and information on the product’s website, this appears to be correct.
The final source in the story raises the most relevant potential harm–spending money for something that doesn’t work.
The story states plainly that there is no evidence the product works as promised.
It also explains that the product did not have to be approved as a drug, and that the bar that needs to be crossed in order for the product to be approved for marketing as a "device" is very low.
The reporter references an English study that suggests one of the assumptions behind Allergen Block–that allergens are negative charged–may not be true.
The story doesn’t exaggerate the severity or prevalence of allergies.
Sources include:
This is adequate sourcing and balance. The reporter also properly discloses that Ratner owns stock in the company owned by the product’s inventor.
A longer story might have mentioned that engineer Ashok Wahi, inventor of the product, is the author of 10 books, including Yoga to Help You Quit Smoking and a novel, “The Vital Breath,” described as a "110,000 words love story of reincarnation spanning over two life times promoting non-violence through yoga."
The story should have mentioned the most common medications and treatments for seasonal allergies, so readers would understand the range of options available.
The story correctly states that Allergen Block is widely available at drug stores.
The story states that this product is the only one based on the assumption that a gel with positively charged ions can intercept allergens with negative ions before they enter the nose. This principle has apparently never been verified by scientific study.
So the story notes the potential novelty but is also appropriately skeptical.
The story does not appear to have drawn heavily from the product’s press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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.