The story failed to make clear that this work was not done on people – but on cells in a lab dish.
It also relied too heavily on a news release coming out of a conference. Perhaps after some peer review and some actual human testing, this thyme treatment could be ready for store shelves. For now, there’s too much hype here and not enough evidence.
This is the kind of editorial ping-pong game that gives readers headaches.
The entire first half of the story builds up the promise of a petri-dish-only test of an acne remedy that “may be coming soon.”
The entire second half of the article is devoted to cursory comments from independent experts about why this isn’t ready for prime time.
Why, then, is this newsworthy?
The cost of thyme – or the proposed tincture – is not in question for the moment.
There was no quantification of the purported benefits of thyme. The story said that “thyme was the most potent” against the bacteria that commonly cause acne and that “the thyme tincture was more powerful than standard concentrations of benzoyl peroxide, which is the active ingredient in many acne products.” Yet no where did the story explain how “most potent” and “more powerful” were measured.
No human testing was apparently done. In point of fact, it’s far too early for the story to talk about either benefits or harms.
“In the lab not in people” should have been in bold all over this story – but it wasn’t.
In fact, the story never makes clear that the tincture was apparently only tested on cells in a lab – in a highly controlled setting far different than any human application.
The leap from this to the headline of “acne remedy may be coming soon” is ridiculous.
The story did note the “findings were presented at the Society for General Microbiology’s Spring Conference in Dublin.” It would have been good context to note that the findings have not been rigorously peer-reviewed or published in a journal.
There wasn’t any meaningful discussion of acne – so this is not applicable.
This is an example of how simply seeking independent experts’ quotes isn’t sufficient. Yes, there were four independent physicians quoted. But none was quoted directly addressing the evidence with any substance. Instead, they were quoted giving only vague reactions such as:
The closest thing to a helpful independent perspective was this quote: “How it works in the lab setting is very different than how it works on your skin.”
We will give the story a BARELY satisfactory score on this one, and that’s being generous.
Again, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt with this one. The story did note that the tincture performed better than alcohol or benzoyl peroxide.
Again, barely satisfactory.
The bold headline promising that thyme as an “acne remedy may be coming soon” promises an imminent availability that is beyond the evidence.
There was no discussion of any other current or past attempts to find herbal remedies – or any other remedies – for acne.
The only quotes from the researchers themselves came from a news release, but there were four independent experts quoted. So the story didn’t technically rely solely or largely on a news release – which is our criterion.
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/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
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.
You might also like