NY Times touts ‘compelling’ results for unproven hair loss product

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

Not Satisfactory

The company doesn’t give detailed data on how much hair growth their customers experience and what types of people benefit, and there’s no independent analysis of its product. That’s a problem, and the story should have pointed out this lack of reliable data. Instead, the story says its “results are certainly compelling.”

The story does attempt to give readers an idea of the scope of the claimed benefits, modest as they may be. It states:

After four months of daily application — that is, working the tea-colored tonic into the hair section by section, then letting it sit on the scalp for six hours — most users regain at least 30 percent of lost density, and some as much as 60 percent, according to company figures.

But the story relies heavily on two anecdotes: a 42-year-old woman who replied that after three months of use, “You can’t see holes in my hair anymore.” Another user, a 35-year-old man, said he “started seeing peach fuzz after four months.” There’s no interview with someone who didn’t achieve a benefit.

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

Not Satisfactory

Potential harms of this mystery substance aren’t addressed. The story quotes a dermatologist who says “the best she can tell patients who ask — and a lot of them do — is that Harklinikken won’t do any harm.” But how does a dermatologist — or anyone — really know since the company won’t say exactly what’s in its product?

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

Not Satisfactory

This unproven treatment calls for a more skeptical take. The story use two anecdotes that bolster the company’s claim that this stuff works, calls the results “compelling,” and doesn’t caution readers about a lack of objective evidence until halfway through, when it states:

Panos Vasiloudes, a Tampa dermatologist and Harklinikken’s medical director, said the company has double-blind, placebo-controlled studies it hopes to publish next year in peer-reviewed journals. Such studies are the one thing some dermatologists say they need to recommend the product to patients.

“Hopes to publish” is a red flag. If a company — which according to the story has been in business for 25 years — is forging ahead with a multinational marketing push, it ought to be able to share its research and allow others to try to replicate it.

There’s also no mention that products like this don’t require an FDA review, so there’s no government check on safety or efficacy.

To its credit, the story mentions the possibility that many users could be women whose hair would have grown back “even if they’d done nothing.” This point deserved more emphasis.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story doesn’t directly compare this product with other hair loss treatments such as minoxidil, laser treatments, and finasteride, a prescription-only medication marketed as Propecia. It mentions Rogaine (minoxidil) and a hair thickening shampoo as things one woman tried without success before turning to Harklinikken. The story does mention that for many women the hair will regrow on its own, which is a strength of the piece.