We only wish the column had added a brief note about concerns about harms from antioxidants and a bit more about why the evidence cited by manufacturers is so inconclusive.
“Fountain of youth…anti-aging…youthful skin” product claims demand scrutiny. They got it in this column. We wish this same approach would be applied more often to the broad range of health care products and claims.
The Healthy Skeptic column – as it usually does – included cost information.
The story states that “there’s still some hope that antioxidants can help the skin, but the resuits likely aren’t as dramatic as the companies suggest.”
It also raises some questions about the benefits suggested in a couple of studies.
The column implies the harm of consumers being misled by products without evidence to back them up.
But it could have also at least briefly addressed some of the published concerns about harms of antioxidants, such as:
The column goes half way to where we wish it would go – but we wish it would just add a line or two.
When it discusses one study of 36 adults, we wish it would emphasize how little conclusion can be drawn from such a tiny study.
When it discusses an unpublished, company-funded study, we wish it would more explicity delineate the red flags that should arise in readers’ minds.
No disease mongering of “youthful skin.” In fact, it shoots down many claims.
Two independent expert sources were cited.
The story could have discussed other research into approaches to protect healthy skin – even the basics of sun protection.
The availability of the skin supplements is made clear in the story.
No inappropriate claims of novelty are made. In fact, one source says “these products are over-hyped.”
It’s clear that the story involved independent reporting and vetting of claims.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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