The disease-mongering of Low T (low testosterone) could have been an important subtheme of this column, yet it was barely mentioned. As our medical editor on this review wrote, “Low T syndrome reflects a cure in search of a disease.”
The column was solid for what it did – teasing for what more it could have done.
What does “feeling manly” mean? What does “virility” mean? Does a 1% per year decline in testosterone levels for most men mean they have a condition that requires treatment? There are conditions attributable to low testosterone that warrant treatment. This story – although it rated well – could have done a better job addressing such questions.
As it usually does, the Healthy Skeptic column itemized costs of the products in question.
See “evidence” criterion above
The story explained:
“Over-the-counter testosterone products may carry hidden dangers. A 2008 study in Clinical Cancer Research found that two men taking a supplement called Teston-6 developed unusually aggressive, fast-growing prostate cancer. Lab tests showed that the product contained hormones (including testosterone) that weren’t on the label, a common issue with noNPRescription products. The manufacturer quickly pulled it from the market.
“The problem with these sorts of supplements is that they don’t have to meet the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration,” says Dolores Lamb, a coauthor of the Teston-6 study and professor of urology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.”
There are also harms associated with appropriate testosterone replacement, including potentially dangerous increases in the red blood cell count (stroke risk), worsening sleep apnea, and increasing the growth of the prostate gland (possible cancer risk).
Repeated questions about evidence are raised:
• Dr. John Morley, a testosterone expert and director of geriatrics at St. Louis University, says that there’s not a lot of scientific evidence for any supplement that claims to boost or “promote” testosterone. And for him, that’s a real problem. “These sorts of products have been around forever,” he says. “As far as I know, none of them have been proven to work in a carefully controlled trial.”
• “Some of the individual ingredients in these products have been tested, with less-than-impressive results. In a 2007 study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Australian researchers found that giving rugby players daily doses of Tribulus terrestris for five weeks had no effect on their testosterone levels.
Chlorophytum, one of the ingredients in HGH Up, has long been used as a supposed aphrodisiac for men. A search of the medical literature uncovers a single study suggesting that it may have “testosterone-like” effects, including enhanced sex drive and stronger erections, but the study was conducted on rats, not humans.”
We wish the column had more directly addressed the disease-mongering of low testosterone that takes place. It mixed in the needs of “men diagnosed with unusually low levels of testosterone” with men wanting help with “virility” without ever nailing the disease-mongering discussion. It came close when it quoted one physician who “often prescribes testosterone for men who have a significant deficit of the hormone, a condition called hypogonadism. The prevalence of this condition is controversial — it depends on how one measures testosterone and defines normal levels — but (he) estimates that 30% to 40% of middle-aged men don’t have enough testosterone to feel their best, sexually and otherwise. Even among these men, about one-third don’t respond to testosterone treatment. In other words, testosterone is hardly a sure-fire remedy against the ravages of aging.”
Yet the story never commented on the widespread marketing of “Low T syndrome” and product marketing estimates that it could affect millions.
Two independent experts were quoted.
The story briefly set up the story by explaining: “Men diagnosed with unusually low levels of testosterone are sometimes treated with prescription testosterone injections, patches or creams. Men who want to regain the levels of their younger days without a prescription may be interested in a different route: over-the-counter products that promise to boost testosterone naturally.”
The easy and widespread availability of products making testosterone claims was clear in the story.
The story explains “”These sorts of products have been around forever.”
It’s clear the story didn’t rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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