The story offers good context – starting with a recollection of over-the-counter melatonin claims that were “the rage” among frequent fliers back in the ’90s. And reminding readers that “promoters of these are appealing to people who think it’s better to do things outside of the medical establishment.”
It can be a public service to do this kind of reporting when new fad products are promoted without evidence of safety or effectiveness.
The story includes some pricing estimates for these products.
The story is clear that – despite the claims made by some who stand to profit – there is no quantifiable information about benefits documented about these products. And there’s this closing skepticism from Dr. Lewy: “he was not sure that their other purportedly sleep-inducing ingredients like valerian root work and partly because food delays rather than hastens the absorption of melatonin.”
The story explains that dessert makers “are marketing their products as a harmless way to promote relaxation.”
While harms are not quantified, it’s clear from the story’s discussions about regulatory questions why that’s impossible to do right now. The harms mentioned are largely hypothetical in that there isn’t good evidence documenting these problems.
But the story does a good job in painting, with broad strokes, what might go wrong if one uses these products.
The story shows how evidence is elusive, partially due to the lack of regulatory clarity about the products in question.
Several independent experts – independent of the product manufacturers – were quoted.
Not applicable. It isn’t possible to compare existing alternatives to these products because there is no information documenting efficacy of the products.
The widening availability of these products is eminently clear from the story. And the fact that melatonin has not approved by the FDA as a food additive is explained.
The relative novelty of these products – and their spread – is clear from the story.
It’s clear that the story did NOT rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Media coverage of a recent study is generating unwarranted hype about supplemental screening for cancer for women with dense breasts. https://lowninstitute.org/news/blog/media-misleads-on-mri-screening-for-breast-cancer/
Happy to see that my @HealthNewsRevu blog about progression-free survival confusion has been reposted by @kevinmd. https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2019/12/most-new-cancer-treatments-havent-been-proven-to-help-patients-live-longer-or-feel-better.html via @kevinmd
We are all worse off for not having @garyschwitzer's excellent, daily health care reporting, but his story today should sound the alarms and be a warning to anyone who gets health care information from local TV health news (read: much of America) (1/2) https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2019/11/why-hire-a-full-time-health-reporter-when-you-can-buy-news-off-the-shelf/#.Xeank0LWjyA.twitter
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