The leap from rats drinking green tea to possible benefits in humans is never mentioned. Enough said.
This is the kind of story that contributes to journalism losing impact and credibility. And HealthDay subscribers like HealthFinder.gov and Drugs.com pick up and republish a story like this – spreading it even further. Readers are flooded with info like this in a tsunami of information overload. Meantime, no one is any smarter from this story about how to evaluate evidence.
Not applicable. The cost of green tea is not in question.
None. If you’re going to play the rat research game, you should at least tell us the scope of the "benefit" seen in rats. How many tested? How many successes?
It feels almost ridiculous to have to comment on whether the story discussed harms seen in the rats drinking green tea, but, no, it didn’t. But we weren’t the ones who chose to publicize this rat research. However, if you’re going to play this rat research game and trumpet benefits, you better be prepared to at least theoretically discuss potential harms – or lack thereof.
No evaluation of the limitation of rat studies. No explanation of what "reducing harmful oxidative stress" means.
Not applicable. in only a 169-word story, there wasn’t space given to describe glaucoma or other eye conditions.
No independent expert was quoted – only a study author from a news release.
No such comparison given.
Not applicable. The availability of green tea is not in question.
No context about other green tea research or other glaucoma prevention research.
The story admits its source is an American Chemical Society news release. No other perspective is included.