This is a very interesting piece that explores the hype around a compound, resveratrol, a media and advertising darling backed up by little scientific evidence. The story clearly addressed some of the issues consumers should think about when assessing the validity of claims made, even when they appear to come from credentialed individuals.
Kudos!
The story provided the wide range of costs for this compound.
While providing a fairly comprehensive list of the various benefits attributed to the use of resveratrol, the story was careful to indicate the very limited evidence substantiating these claims. It indicated that there are currently or recently completed only about a dozen studies involving this molecule and that of these, only 2 were the type of trial (phase 3) from which one would derive information documenting benefit.
The story allowed a spokesperson from a company marketing this compound to say that there were no known harms. However, this was countered by a comment from a scientist at the National Institute on Aging who stated that everything has a toxicity and that safe levels for resveratrol remain to be established.
The story indicated that there are currently two phase III clinical trials underway and described what is known about resveratrol as intriguing but very incomplete. It mentioned work done with mice, round worms and yeast. It mentioned results from two studies which point to the possibility that this compound might be of some benefit to diabetics. But as the story also mentions – these studies weren’t actually published in scientific journals.
While mentioning the various health claims made for this compound, the story was appropriately circumspect about them. A parting comment from a scientist from the National Institute of Aging indicated that until we know how this compound works and what the benefit might be – offering on the open market was akin to pedaling snake oil.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story included quotes from a variety of individuals with different expertise and perspectives.
This criterion doesn’t apply in the example of this story. Claims for reservatrol are so broad that it would be difficult to discuss other treatment options for everything under the sun for which resveratrol is promoted.
In its introduction, the story was clear that it was describing a flurry of activity and interest around a compound found in red wine. It also mentioned that only 2 of the current trials on uses for resveratrol were phase 3 investigations.
The story mentioned that the earliest hype around resveratrol for its impact on longevity was 2003.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.