NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -
Read Original Story

Super shot? Can it cut weight by 25%?


2 Star

Super shot? Can it cut weight by 25%?

Our Review Summary

This segment barely scratched the surface of reporting on animal research on an injectable drug approach to weight loss. 

It failed to:

  • explain the limitations of animal research
  • put the stage of research into clear context, confusing viewers by once saying "science is about to help you out" but at another point it said it was "years away from human trials" and "10 years out." 
  • put the research into the context of other weight loss therapies
  • acknowledge that all drugs have side effects

To make the leap that this is a "promising new drug that could ultimately impact how to control obesity and diabetes" is simply unfounded.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

No estimate of costs – which may be understandable given the early phase of research.  But if the drug contains the active ingredients of two drugs already in use – and if it would be a weekly injection – couldn’t some projection of these costs have been made based on what’s known about the two existing drugs’ prices and the cost of a weekly visit to the doctor?

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

All we were told was that "A single injection of this drug decreased the rodents’ body weight by a quarter and fat mass by 42 percent after just one week."  But a quarter of what?  42% of what?  What were the longer term results? Anyone can deliver anecdotes about weight loss results in a week.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Potential harms were waved away with this exchange:

(Robin Roberts:) "there’s been no adverse effects, right?

(David Muir:) Not yet.

None?  What’s the track record of Byetta and Glucagon?  Drawing conclusions about side effects in rodent models as if they are applicable to humans is absurd. All drugs have side effects.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The limitations of animal research- and the enormity of the leap from mice to men – were important factors that received no attention.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


No overt disease mongering.  But hype for the drug, framing it as if it is for the "millions who want to lose weight." A hesitant satisfactory score on this criterion.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

Two people were interviewed but we weren’t told what their connection was to the research, what their expertise was, etc.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story simply stated, "Despite the introduction of the weight loss pill Alli in 2007, surgical interventions like gastric bypass remain the closest thing to an obesity cure. Experts say this new drug mimics the action of that surgery and that this drug shows we’ve made enormous progress in understanding obesity."  That’s totally insufficienct context for all of the treatment options for obesity.  And equating the drug to a surgical approach is puzzling.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


Confusing terms used – at one time saying "science is about to help you out" but at another point it said it was "years away from human trials" and "10 years out."  Nonetheless, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The segment made no attempt to put this research into the context of other weight loss research.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


Two different sources were interviewed, so the segment did not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release.

Total Score: 3 of 10 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.