Another in a series of stories that the NY Daily News simply picks up from an overseas paper and treats as its own – even putting its own reporter’s byline on the story!
And another "fountain of youth" anti-aging story.
The only one of our criteria that the story addressed was cost – which is high.
Sensational, non-evidence-based – not much else to say about this one.
We’re told that "each visit runs a little over $800, and Dr. Sister recommends follow-up visits every four to six months."
None provided. Just the lone doctor’s claims that it "stimulates DNA repair, heals scars and revitalizes wizened skin."
No discussion of potential harms.
If you even cared about this idea, the story didn’t provide you with one bit of evidence on how well it works.
And not one bit of evidence that the doctor’s concoction of blood, vitaminins and amino acids really is an "enriched serum" as the story states.
Not even one comment about how "dull and wrinkled skin" is not a disease that must be treated.
No independent sources; no evidence of any independent reporting.
The story simply states that the blood and "enriched serum" approach works "without turning to synthetic fillers or invasive laser treatments or peels." But no evidence of any comparison was given.
We learn about one French doctor using this approach in London. We are given no sense of whether anyone else is doing this or where.
Readers aren’t given any sense of the novelty of this approach, nor how it compares with other wrinkle treatments.
We don’t know if the story relied on a news release, but we do know the story was lifted from the UK Daily Mail. There is no evidence of any independent reporting.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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