If you’ve been following this site long enough, you can do this review yourself. We only need to show you the lead paragraph:
How do you think it did?
If you need help, keep reading.
We know this column is supposed to be cute, oddball stuff.
But often it’s not.
It’s often briefs that make claims about ideas without doing a bit of work to analyze the evidence. This is the kind of daily drumbeat of meaningless health news that turns people numb to the stuff that really matters.
Each piece ends with the tease: “Want more weird health news?” Our answer is “No.”
Costs weren’t mentioned. That’s the least of our issues with this story. We’ll rule it Not Applicable.
We’re not told the degree of protection, the success rate of the experiment – nothing about the scope of perceived “benefit” or success. Yet the story boldly proclaims: “Important health tip for the summer: Drink more wine!”
Not applicable.
Absolutely no evaluation of the evidence. The story spouts the following line from the scientists:
But was the work done in the test tube? On human cells? On mouse cells? We’re not given a clue.
No independent expert on skin protection was interviewed.
There was no comparison with other research about skin protection.
The story playfully mentions SPF Sauvignon Blanc. But it doesn’t answer if the effect is seen from all grapes and all grape derivatives. Of course, since the story links to a news release it appears that no one interviewed the researcher or read the study.
The story states that “this finding may lead to better sun-shielding drugs and cosmetics” without giving any sense of how much research has been done down this path or how far away such a projection might be from any glimmer of reality.
MSNBC’s attempt to tell the broader story about beneficial effects of wine is to link to 3 unrelated stories that have appeared on their site in the past, on wine being found “to fight Alzheimer’s, ward off prostate cancer and even prevent cavities.”
But nothing about whether this grape flavonoid work is novel – or about any other research in the field of skin protection that may be further along than this
The story links to a news release, which we can safely assume was the sole motivation for the story.
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.