Do diet patch claims stick?
Reviewed By
Rating
Do diet patch claims stick?
Our Review Summary
If every news organization in the country had a regular "Healthy Skeptic" column like the Los Angeles Times does, we’d undoubtedly have a lot smarter health care consumer population.
They’ve done it again with this story on slap-’em-on diet patches, and one expert’s quote that the product claims are "beyond ridiculous."
Criteria
Satisfactory
Costs of each product are described.
Satisfactory
The story explained the lack of evidence of benefit. It cited evidence claimed for one product on one website but quoted an expert saying the results were suspiciious and not at all convincing.
Satisfactory
We’ll give the column a barely passing grade on this because it nailed lack of evidence of efficacy – which can be viewed as a harm. And it stated that "every known appetite suppressant has significant side effects" – although it didn’t give details.
Satisfactory
The story succinctly quotes one expert saying "There’s no evidence" on one product claim. And another expert says "No diet patch has passed muster n a published, peer-reviewed study."
Not Applicable
The column focuses on the products – not on the problem of overweight – so this criterion is not applicable with this story.
Satisfactory
Multiple sources were interviewed.
Not Satisfactory
The story could have at least briefly mentioned other weight loss methods that had evidence to back them up.
Satisfactory
We’re told how the products are available online or at health food stores.
Satisfactory
The fact that there are several competing patches gave an appropriate context.
Satisfactory
No evidence the story relied on a news release.
Total Score: 8 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