This story discusses a new over-the-counter drug for weight loss, Alli, with little evidence about whether it works, and how much weight loss is expected. The story focuses on a side-effect of the drug, anal leakage. The story provides some explanation for the mode of action for this drug, interfering with fat absorption, as opposed to appetite suppression. It should have included some information about efficacy of Xenical, the prescription strength version of this drug, as a frame of reference. While the information provided in the story is important and useful to consumers considering the use of this product, it could have done a better job providing context in terms of prevalence of the risks and a little more detail on the benefits that might be gained from the use of this product.
The story failed to provide information about the cost of this product. It did mention the $50 starter kit price, but did not include information about the cost of continual use of this product.
The enhanced weight loss that an individual may achieve with the use of Alli was reported to be 50% greater than if they followed a comparable weight loss diet without taking Alli. While the story did mention that this estimate of weight loss enhancement came from the manufacturer, information from an independent source would be of greater value to readers.
And while the story included testimony from an individual who commented that they found the product helpful for staying on track and losing 20 pounds, the story did not include any estimate for the percentage of people who did, indeed, find this product sufficiently beneficial in terms of weight loss that they continue using it to attain their goal.
Anal leakage, one side effect, was emphasized in the story. In addition, the story mentioned that the drug decreased absoprtion of fat soluble vitamins.
Although the story did include an estimate for enhanced weight loss with this product and did mention that the estimate came from the drug company (GlaxoSmithKline) that makes the drug, it did not include any discussion of clinical studies that have been conducted with the drug.
The focus of the story is one particular side effect, anal leakage, of the weight loss drug Alli. The story did not provide any estimate for the proportion of individuals who experience this side effect.
The story does not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story did turn to several sources, although one was from the drug company and another was promoting her book.
The story discussed that this drug offers a dieter a slight edge; it alludes to other weight loss drugs, and, although mentioning low fat recipes supplied with the drug, the story did not adequately address the requirement of reduced caloric intake and/or increased caloric expenditure for weight loss.
The story leads off with a statement that includes the information that Alli is an over-the counter weight loss drug.
The story accurately reported that the over-the-counter drug Alli is a lower-dose version of the prescription drug Xenical.
Does not appear to rely solely or largely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
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/
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