A five-star review for this "buyer beware" on an allegedly "clinically proven" product.
There may be an inclination for some to look the other way when it comes to claims for personal care products. After all, come on, what’s the harm? Well, we can think of many. Especially with all the hype for products that supposedly protect the skin from the sun’s harmful rays, scrutiny is essential. And this story burns this issue deeply, exposing "shaky science…no data…conflict of interest" and a huge question of how and why a journal ever published a study about this stuff.
Costs not discussed and it could have been frosting on this story.
The story makes clear the expert opinions that "there are no data there."
No discussion of harms found in the trials so far, but then the evidence in the trials so far is being called into question. We’ll give the story credit for exposing the potential harm of consumers (and dermatologists) being misled by unsubstantiated claims.
This is the core of the story, executed with excellence.
The opposite of disease mongering, pointing out how "branding personal care products with clinical claims is a very common strategy."
The story identified conflicts of interest that even a publishing journal did not – and it showed how this happened. And it quoted several skeptical expert sources.
No need to compare this with other alternatives. This story was all about unsubstantiated claims made for one product.
There’s no question about the availability of the beauty product in question. The story states the company is preparing to "present this product to dermatologists" and that it "has already been launched in Europe and South America."
The story allows no inappropriate claims of novelty to be made. In fact, it wraps this product into the broader context of personal care products with questionable health claims.
It’s clear this story didn’t rely on a news release but was a fine piece of enterprise journalism.