This broadcast piece does a reasonable job of framing the use of custom-mixed 'bioidentical' hormones as an alternative to commercially available hormone therapies for relieving menopausal symptoms.
However, it relies exclusively on interviews, and does not tell the whole story about the available evidence on these products. While it's true that botanical products are not regulated or approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), many have been tested in clinical trials both in the United States and in Europe–and the evidence that they relieve menopausal symptoms is somewhat less positive than the story suggests. An interview with a woman who found they did not relieve her symptoms, or more information about the evidence, would have provided some important balance.
Similarly, concerns about their risks are primarily theoretical, because to date there have not been large-scale studies of their harms. Dr. Schwartz's statement that profit motives explain the lack of these studies goes unchallenged. What's more, it's a bit disingenuous, given that 'Dr. Erika' herself runs a website marketing both her books and her 'exclusive' supplements (www.DrErika.com).
No mention of cost.
The story doesn't provide any information about how many women are helped, or how much.
Story quotes an expert who asserts that bioidentical hormones have same possible harms as other forms, as well as other possible downsides related to 'custom mixing' of these unregulated products.
It's not possible to tell from the story whether bioidentical hormones have been studied in the same way as synthetic hormones or whether there is evidence that they can relieve menopause symptoms.
No overt disease-mongering, though the story was somewhat skewed toward a view that menopause is a time of universal and persistent suffering.
The story relies on interviews with experts without noting whether any attempt was made to verify their statements about the benefits and harms of bioidentical hormones. The story relied heavily on input from Dr. Erika Schwartz, book author, who runs a website marketing both her books and her 'exclusive' supplements (www.DrErika.com).
The story makes a reasonable attempt to put bioidentical hormone products in context with commercial or synthetic hormones.
Story notes that bioidentical hormones, as defined in this piece (those derived from soy and yam extracts) are not FDA-approved.
It's clear that the story is discussing an alternative approach to an existing treatment.
We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release, although it did lean heavily on the input from one book author.
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