This story is part profile of an entrepreneur and part promotion for the schisandra berry, a component of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) botanical supplements that’s being cultivated in Massachusetts.
The reporting is from ethnobotanist and self-proclaimed “Medicine Hunter” Chris Kilham. And like another Kilham segment on Fox News highlighted previously on HealthNewsReview.org — that one on the psychoactive ayahuasca — this new story is strong on astonishing claims and absent one lick of evidence.
The nutritional supplement market is one of the fastest growing sectors, with Americans spending $25 billion on supplements in 2014 and the global market reaching $90 billion, according to The Economist and Euromonitor, a market-research firm. The health effects, safety and expense of questionable supplements gained significant media attention earlier this year following a New York attorney general’s office investigation that found many dietary supplements sold in some of our largest drug store and supplement chains were mislabeled, lacked active ingredients, and were made under inferior manufacturing processes. The FDA does not evaluate supplement-related claims before these products go on sale, so it has fallen to the media (and their watchdogs) to alert the public about the potential risks and other downsides of dietary supplements. Sadly, neither Fox’s Dr. Manny nor “the Medicine Hunter” served the public good with their one-sided promotion of this dietary supplement component. The story is little more than a string of wild claims accompanied by little if any context.
No costs are mentioned. The story positions the Massachusetts producer of schisandra profiled in the story as a pioneer. One gets the impression the company is a sole provider. However, a quick web search yielded dozens of U.S. schisandra berry vendors. The costs range from $3.69 for 100 – 580 mg capsules to $38 for 2 ounces of freeze-dried schisandra berries.
According to the many claims in the story and the accompanying video, the berry can help you live longer, sharpen your mind, give you energy and improve your sex life. Some examples of claimed benefits:
Not one piece of data is provided or source named. The story alludes to “cases” and studies but without references such allusions should be considered suspect at best.
No mention is made of the harms documented with the schisandra berry. According to the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database (consumer version via WebMD), schisandra can cause heartburn, upset stomach, decreased appetite, stomach pain, skin rash, and itching. It’s not recommended for people who are pregnant or breast-feeding, people with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcers, epilepsy, or high intracranial (brain) pressure. Because the FDA has not studied its safety, it is unknown whether it conflicts with other medications. Some natural supplements, such as St. John’s Wort, are known to be dangerous for people on certain types of anti-depressants.
Again, not one iota of evidence was provided to let a potential consumer judge whether schisandra berry would be an effective treatment for them. There have been some published studies, primarily in Chinese medical journals involving a small number of volunteers. In addition, there have been several schisandra berry studies published in Western medical journals but these have predominantly been animal studies.
There are no independent sources. The only source is Chris Kilham, who teaches ethnobotany at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and whose field work is funded by Naturex of Avignon, France, a dietary supplement manufacturer. In light of its other weaknesses, the story should have included an interview with the expert grower profiled. An independent health expert should also have been brought in to discuss the evidence on schisandra.
The article doesn’t compare the berry with any other supplements or pharmaceuticals that might confer the benefits described in this story.
The story notes that the cultivator profiled has been selling the berries since the 1990s. We can assume that the berry is available at stores that sell dietary supplements.
There’s no novelty hook to the story. It’s a profile of a grower and a list of proposed benefits of the schisandra berry. Why is this news?
We found no related news release. And since the embedded news segment shows Kilham on location at what appears to be a berry farm, we can assume that some independent reporting was done.
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 (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Chris Kilham
September 29, 2015 at 7:57 amHi
This is surprising to me, in that the studies to which I refer are published and available. You have to ignore a lot of good clinical evidence to ignore it all! If you ever wish to get into the actual facts, please let me know. Happy trails- Chris Kilham, author of the article and on camera.
Kevin Lomangino
September 29, 2015 at 9:58 amChris,
What we’re looking for in stories like yours is for you to actually discuss the evidence that supposedly supports the claims you make. It’s not enough to make the claims and say that the product has been “extensively studied.” That’s not good enough. We want some discussion and analysis of that evidence because that’s what we think readers want and need in stories like yours. Don’t send the studies to us — put them in the story itself so that everyone can be informed.
Kevin Lomangino
Managing Editor
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.