This short story shines a bright light on a health fad in which nutritional vitamin supplements are delivered directly to people via an intravenous drip.
The story was well-sourced and took a critical look at a health fad that’s trending. We appreciated the story’s probing and use of the word “evidence” in the headline. The story glossed over the potential harms a bit, but was otherwise a solid piece.
Claims about supplements fuel a a big industry in the United States, and this story helps squelch some of the hype around vitamin IV infusions by taking a look at the evidence for its use.
The story provides the retail price for the supplements described in the story. (Between $325 and $875 for an infusion.) That’s great, but it would have been even better to know the mark-up. How much the ingredients cost vs. how much is charged to the patient? And does insurance cover this, ever?
The story hinges on the lack of benefits, and we think it chose credible sources for questions about that. Besides quoting nutrition researchers Goodstein and Miller, we liked how the story explained the history behind the “Myers” cocktail and links to a review published in an alternative medicine journal. Readers are given their own way to check the credibility of claims of “evidence.”
The statement from the clinic that these IV infusions are safe was unchallenged. There is always a potential harm in an IV administration (infection, vein damage) and yes, receiving worthless treatments for what could be a serious condition is a potential. Also, there was no mention about what kind of testing is done before these treatments are administered, but it appeared to be minimal.
The story gave readers multiple chances to read studies on intravenous nutritional supplements. The quality of evidence of course was low, but that was the point of the story.
The story chose sources who were outside the retail industry selling supplements, and we didn’t detect any potential conflicts of interest.
The story was looking at the trendy use of Vitamin IV infusions for a host of conditions (and things like hangovers), so we’ll rate this N/A.
That said, the story still could have mentioned that there are tests and treatments for many of the conditions mentioned in the story, and many of these do have evidence for their use.
The story explained that several different companies are selling nutritional supplements delivered by intravenous drip. But it was not clear how easy these are to obtain and the potential for insurance coverage was not mentioned, so this is a marginal satisfactory rating.
The story did a good job establishing the lack of novelty.
“Vitamin IV infusions aren’t anything new. Celebrities from Simon Cowell and Rihanna to the Real Housewives have proclaimed their love for vitamin drips. They’re part of a huge — and wildly popular — supplement industry which goes largely unregulated. Supplement makers aren’t allowed to claim that their products can cure or treat a particular condition, but they are allowed to make sweeping claims that the products promote health.
The infusion treatments can be traced back to an intravenous supplement known as the Myers’ cocktail, a slurry of magnesium, calcium, B vitamins, and other products developed decades ago by a Baltimore physician. There is a published review on the use of Myers’ cocktail — but it’s just a collection of anecdotal evidence. The author, Dr. Alan Gaby, has long promoted the use of intravenous vitamins for a wide range of clinical conditions.”
The story did not appear to rely on a news release, and quoted independent sources.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
NO! NO! NO! @TheHeartOrg - This study was on rabbits, and is at least 2 yrs away from human trials. THAT should be the headline, not "breakthrough". Journalists, pls check this @HealthNewsRevu toolkit when writing about animal studies. https://t.co/QFznfsn4ag https://t.co/L1WIStfV8G
2
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