Newsweek stokes false hope with ‘cure for baldness’ based on preliminary evidence

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

Not Satisfactory

Since WAY-316606 hasn’t apparently been tested on actual human heads, there are no benefits to quantify, but that didn’t stop the story from suggesting benefits, stating the drug “could hold the key to the cure for baldness.”

The story stated that CsA “changed how the follicles expressed a protein called SFRP1, which stunts the development and growth of hair follicles and other tissue in the body,” and that WAY-316606 “has a similar effect” and “could therefore be used to treat baldness.”

The story had no data on the size of the effect this drug had on hair follicles in the lab.

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

Not Satisfactory

The need to study the safety of WAY-316606 was mentioned, but should have been higher in the story. The story would have been stronger if it had mentioned whether the drug’s safety has been studied previously, and what the results if any showed. It was a missed opportunity to highlight known harms of a drug already on market.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story doesn’t say anything about the quality of the study and misleads readers about the implications and timeline (even “still some way to go” seems like an understatement).

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

We take issue with the use of the word “cure” because it implies that hair loss is a lethal or seriously disabling medical disease that needs to be remedied. While hair loss can be distressing, it is not a disease.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story had an independent source — a “statement” from the British Association of Dermatologists. However, the story didn’t explain that the study was sponsored by Giuliani SpA, an Italian pharmaceutical company that makes dermatology products.

An independent source knowledgeable about research and drug development–rather than a professional association’s spokesperson statement–would have helped here.