The newspaper says this column was part of an ongoing series looking at the reality behind health claims. We love such efforts. Of course, it’s what we do every day on this site!
Efforts like Jeremy Singer-Vine’s Research Report column in the Wall Street Journal, the LA Times’ Healthy Skeptic column, the Consumer Reports AdWatch series, and this Chicago Tribune series could be a model for other news organizations for devoting more space to questioning the myriad claims made about health care interventions.
Costs weren’t mentioned and we wish they had been to help drive home the point of questionable cost effectiveness.
Again, the FDA says it’s "not aware" of clinical studies showing lipodissolve is effective or safe.
Again cites the FDA: "Unexpected side effects include permanent scarring, skin deformation, and deep, painful knots under the skin in areas where the lipodissolve treatments were injected."
States that "the FDA says it’s ‘not aware’ of clinical studies showing lipodissolve is effective or safe."
The story only quoted an FDA official. This is really a minor quibble in this case, but we wish we had heard from at least one clinician.
The story’s sole focus was on the FDA warnings about lipodissolve, so in this case it wasn’t entirely necessary to look at other options. Not applicable.
Although the story didn’t explictly discuss how widespread was the use of these shots, it’s clear from the story that they’re widely available.
The story wasn’t make any claims of novelty. Not applicable.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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