The marketing message of “improving overall immune health” deserves to be scrutinized whenever and wherever it appears.
We’ve reviewed more than a half dozen stories on probiotics in recent years. Hype lives on. So there’s room for healthy skepticism, as in this LA Times column.
The story includes the cost of several of the products mentioned.
The story reported: “A September 2011 Cochrane Review of 14 studies found “weak” evidence that probiotics could help prevent the common cold and other upper respiratory infections in infants, children and younger adults. And an April 2011 study in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition found a Lactobacillus probiotic seemed to improve the immune system’s response following a flu vaccination.”
We would have preferred to read some of the actual data about “how weak” (in the Cochrane Review) and how much improvement in the other study. But we liked that the story quantified, via an independent expert, how many people might expect to avoid a cold by taking probiotics, if these “weak” studies are correct: “perhaps as few as 1 in 30.”
The “generally safe” line is too vague for us. There are side effects and risks associated with probiotic use.
The article quotes Paul Forsythe, a respiratory specialist and assistant professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
“… as Forsythe noted in an April 2011 issue of the journal Chest, most of the research on probiotics has been conducted in mice, and the real-world immunity benefits for humans are uncertain. Companies “are taking evidence from animal studies and stretching their claims,” he says”
Independent sources contributed perspectives to this story.
The story’s second paragraph briefly mentions some options:
“Avoiding germs entirely would require something like solitary confinement or a head-to-toe application of Purell. As an alternative, many people try to do what they can to strengthen their immune systems. Vitamin C is old news, and echinacea and other herbs haven’t really panned out. “
The availability of these products is clear from the story.
Not applicable; no overt claims of novelty were made.
It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Check out @HealthNewsRevu's newly revised, one-of-a-kind list of health care industry-independent experts. https://t.co/3P99HeCCGZ
@jfdwolff @HealthNewsRevu The operative word being "may" bud could also be "may not"......
Blood tests are never "simple", despite the love affair that science journalists have with them. Pointless without a validated intervention. https://t.co/ix29yMYjvq
Comments
We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.
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.