In a story that describes another study raising doubts about this product’s value, there was as much attention given to the remaining true believers as there was to the skeptical evidence.
Many people (estimates of ~$100 million in annual US sales) buy this stuff. Evaluating the evidence about it is not only a health issue but a consumer protection issue.
There was no mention of how much ginkgo biloba products cost. Even an NBC story, with limited broadcast time, mentioned that Americans spend more than $100 million on a year on these products. A USA Today story said US sales were $99 million in 2008. But what does it cost the individual?
The story stated that the researchers found no evidence that ginkgo delayed or prevented cognitive declines.
The story stated that the study found that ginkgo was safe and no serious side effects were noted. But it could have noted that the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine states that "Side effects of ginkgo may include headache, nausea, gastrointestinal upset, diarrhea, dizziness, or allergic skin reactions. More severe allergic reactions have occasionally been reported."
The story did an adequate job explaining the study. But it allowed the American Botanical Council exec to complain about limitations in the study without having the authors or anyone else specifically address those claims point by point. This introduced an imbalance that readers may have found very confusing.
There was no exaggeration of the problem of cognitive decline.
Yes, the story sought out different perspectives. But oddly, despite the mounting negative evidence, it afforded more space (265 words) to those defending ginkgo biloba than it did to those discussing the evidence raising huge questions about its value (249 words). He said/she said science journalism doesn’t serve anyone well.
In a story based on a study that pokes holes in some peoples’ beliefs about a product to prevent cognitive decline, there could have been at least one line about other research into cognitive decline.
It’s clear from the story that ginkgo biloba is used widely.
The novelty of these products is not in question.
Quotes from two of the sources – both defending ginkgo bliloba – were apparently taken from news releases. With the evidence stacking up against this product, why depend on canned responses to continue to breathe life into these product claims?
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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