This is an entry in the "Healthy Skeptic" column in the Los Angeles Times about a nutritional supplement that makes extraordinary health claims but delivers little. The column did a nice job of debunking the claims made for an enzyme-containing product by explaining that the proteolytic and lipases contained are broken down in the digestive system. The story could have been a little more clear about the nature of information debunking the claims of this product. It might have also offered a more complete discussion about the lack of regulatory oversight for nutritional supplements. However, overall it did a nice job.
The cost ($160 for a five month supply) was mentioned in the story.
Reading the story, one learns that there isn't any benefit to be gained from the use of this product.
There was no direct mention of potential harms from the use of this product. While the story ended with the fact that the standard for nutritional supplements differs from that of prescription drugs, it should have described what that standard is.
The story included information obtain from and credited to the web site of the products producer. It also mentioned that there were no medical trials with this product; and it mentioned that there were some studies of some of the product's components that did not find evidence supporting the claims of the company.
We wish, though, that the story had mentioned whether the studies were clinical trials, case reports, or work done in animals.
This story does not engage in disease mongering.
An expert on alternative treatments was interviewed for this story as was a rheumatologist. Neither had any connection with the product discussed.
Options for feeling better? Somehow this criterion doesn't work with this story.
The story discussed the manufacturer's website, where the enzyme product can be purchased. At that website, several companies were named that carry the product.
This was a discussion about a commericially available product and was appropriately described as such.
It's clear that this column did not rely on a news release. It involved independent journalistic digging.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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.