NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -
Read Original Story

How That Glass of Red Wine Might Help You Live Longer


3 Star


How That Glass of Red Wine Might Help You Live Longer

Our Review Summary

But when you turn over 90% of a story to a researcher who is a co-founder of and consultant for a company working on a drug and then quote the CEO of that company as well, it’s no surprise that you get a rosy projection.

If you care about this stuff, a far better piece of reporting was done by Nature News, “Row over resveratrol rumbles on.


Why This Matters

Just a little more than a year ago, when the company halted its resveratrol trial, the NY Times quoted a researcher at the National Institute on Aging:

“Resveratrol is a complex molecule in that it has many targets, and it behaves differently depending on the tissue and the metabolic status of the organism,” Dr. de Cabo said. That may make it too complex for a pharmaceutical company, which must prove to the Food and Drug Administration that a new drug works by a defined mechanism on a specific target. But resveratrol remains of great interest to researchers. “What is the actual use for humans still needs to be discovered,” he said.

We’re still a long way and many glasses of red wine away from answering these questions.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  It’s understandable that costs were not discussed at this early animal-model stage of research.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

If an entire consumer-targeted story is going to be based on research into mitochondrial function in mice, it could at least discuss how much such function improved. A little?  A lot?  In a few mice?  All mice?  How many mice?  This story whiffed on giving any sense of the scope of the finding.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no discussion of potential harms, nor of the concern for potential harms in the leap from mice to humans, nor of how long and widely a substance would need to be tested in people before its safety could be projected.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?


We’ll give this a qualified satisfactory score, largely because of the ending quote from an independent expert, who said:

“A mouse model is not a human being, especially when you are genetically manipulating this animal model, you want to be very careful,” Marambaud said. “This field has been extremely controversial. We should be very careful about claiming the importance of resveratrol for medical purposes.”

But the headline – as often happens – belies any caveat in the body of the story, blaring how this finding “might help you live longer.”

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  Unless we’re talking about aging in mice.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

Yes, the story turned to an independent expert at the end.

And, yes, it noted the conflicts of interest for the senior study author.

But it seemed to go out of its way to include a quote from the CEO of the drug company developing reseveratrol-like molecules – quoting him from an email he sent the journal that published the work.  And it never explained WHY the company halted clinical trials of resveratrol in 2010.  Before letting the CEO make new claims (“first definitive evidence”) about a new approach, it might have been helpful to review for readers why another approach was abandoned.

We think that’s only half a loaf, and give it an unsatisfactory score for that reason.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story could have included even a line about other research in the prevention of cell aging.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


The preliminary nature of these findings was clear in the body of the story (although not in the headline).

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


The story did mention some previous research on the issue:

  “While previous studies have also suggested that resveratrol may have anti-aging properties, the precise mechanism of resveratrol has been controversial. Several studies, including work with yeast, worms and flies, have found that resveratrol acts on a class of seven genes known as sirtuins and, in human cells, SIRT1 in particular.”

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


There’s no evidence that the story relied solely on a news release.

Total Score: 4 of 8 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.