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.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.